ParanoiA

Nice posts on this subject. My only two cents at this point is to note that to deny someone's right to kill themselves, either immediately in one act, or slowly over time, is to presuppose that your end goals are the same as theirs and obligate them to fulfill them; that everyone should try to live as long as possible, always choosing quantity of life, as in time, over quality of life, as perceived by the individual. This includes smoking, drugs, youth in asia, and etc. Some of us don't want to live very long, but rather live very rich.

Pitbulls are the best dog for killing intruders. 66 deaths in 20 years is not a bad record to that end. Sounds pretty useful to me. My choice to allow pitbulls will maintain a basic principle of liberty that dwarfs your cause like the size of the sun to a pebble. There is no freedom principle that allows your property to hurt others. Punish the idiots, not the masses. I'm not. Some human life should be discarded. Like murderers, rapists, molesters, and etc. But, to counter your point, those are 66 deaths that a human is responsible for. Just as I'm responsible for my car not running over your kids in the street, so am I responsible for my dog not eating them. When you're ready to quit putting a price on humans and get rid of automobiles, then we'll talk about how every life is worth saving. If you want to save "every life", then Pit Bull murders at 66 per 20 years is a really low-bar starting point don't you think? Just because you interpret a danger or have a phobia doesn't make your cortisol levels my fault. If I get stressed about little poodles do I get to outlaw them too? Does that owner need to get rid of his poodle? You don't have a right to not be afraid of things. Sorry, but that's elementary. But none of them kill people. I want a dog that is notorious for killing people so no one will break in my house. You don't have an alternative for that. Faulty logic anyway since you don't get to decide what particulars I should be attracted to. This is a dismissal of basic individual rights - good intentions with bad consequences.

I appreciate your argument, but the onus is on those who want to restrict freedoms to prove why they should be able to, not on everyone else to prove why they shouldn't. I could walk in your house and keep you busy for hours scrambling to justify why you should be allowed to have frying pans, cooking oil, fire, aspirin, gas...etc. All of which cause more deaths PER YEAR than Pit Bulls. Our justice system is nice compliment to this as well, you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accusee to prove they are innocent.

Lucaspa, that's one huge strawman. I never suggested Obama believed his minister - ever! I said he has to answer for it - and he did already. I'm satisfied. My post was not about Obama. It was about the members here who jump all over religious stupidity when it comes from the right, but suddenly become tolerant when it comes from the left. Nothing to do about Obama. This is bull. Externalizing problems and empowering indignitiy. This is a false, horrible message that should be beat down to a pulp and then burned to ashes and buried in radioactive waste. Yes there are reasons for why people believe what they believe, but that doesn't turn crap into gold. I could make a valid point why our founding fathers and framers didn't abolish slavery and continued to exploit these poor people, but that doesn't make slavery a good position. It's an abomination - an institution of pure shame and immorality. There are reasons for why people did what they did, reasons why they believed it was ok, or was just - and it doesn't make it right. If you're going to take issue with me, pay attention to what I post.

My post was aimed at all of those previously engaged in bashing religion and its followers when it came from the right. You are the "loudest" vocal opponent of religion in here, save for maybe mooeypoo, so I'm sure you're feeling targeted. I'm actually happy that it's not happening here, in Obama's case, I just expect the same level of calm, calculative analysis when it comes from any direction. I stand against unsubstantiated belief systems, albeit an arguably minor issue in the scheme of things. And, there doesn't seem to be a single leader capable of this position on either side. This is why I've had a hard time making it an issue. Dr. Paul at least strictly separated law from personal opinion.

Well there's that little claim about the government inventing aids to kill black people. Honestly, there is a huge double standard here. Namely because Obama is a democrat. Personally, I find it interesting and simultaneously hilarious how suddenly religion and unsubstantiated belief is perfectly ok when associated with Obama. That's not consistent with the religious bashing I've been seeing on this board aimed at republicans, even Dr Paul, a man who's integrity makes every candidate currently in the race look like a convicted felon. He still got bashed for "not believing in evolution". If a single republican had this kind of relationship with a reverend that proposed black people were trying to kill white people with some disease - just that, NOTHING else - this board would be lit up with charges of racism, hate, stupidity, "delusional" religious beliefs, and etc. But Barack, no, no, it's just fine if he believes in fairty tales, I guess because he also believes in evolution. A few lines marginalizing Wright, and voila! - no problem. Yes, partisanship is a great filter for the eyes so they don't see the hypocrisy of their owner. Interesting critical thinking going on there; some real stand up intellect being exercised.

Of course not. And I didn't say that anyone who fails to do anything about radical Islam is guilty either. I said they're not doing anything about it when they simply say "I don't support radical Islam". You said "What?", and that's simply 'what'.

Or when you purchase it for 70% of the market value to begin with. We always buy houses that need work since we enjoy remodeling, but we won't make much due to the slump. These low interest rate ARM's from enthusiastic lenders also allowed us to get away from hard money lenders on investment property. Want to talk about predatory loans? This was a good thing used for the wrong reasons. Yes, I also blame the reserve, but if the free market weren't so regulated to begin with, then these lessons would have been learned years ago. These ARM's wouldn't have been so prolific if the notes weren't being purchased. The people we're angry at are relatively untouchable - they made their money and they're out of it. So, we want to save everyone rather than let them learn a lesson from it. In this case, we're saving the institutions and ignoring the individuals, and that's inconsistent.

I think he would make a great advisor, but not the leader, at this point.

Tell me about it. My blonde wife just got fired from the m&m factory for throwing away all the w's. After this post of yours, I'm convinced it's not only women... But it's nice to see you try to put together some arguments rather than the spam banners we were getting earlier. Your generalizations are more than mere overgeneralizations, they're misguided prejudices that I doubt you've audited in any honest critical method. A propensity to oversimplify suggests a mind that cannot process complex ideas. Surely you can do better.

I think Physia brings up some great points though. If you were getting mugged on the street with people walking by, doing nothing to help, then how innocent are they? Is complacency not indictable? I've never liked the notion that one group should be obligated to prove themselves to another based on the behavior of some in their group. But, perception is reality and you ignore at your peril. As long as they continue to exercise their right to silence, they will continue to be misunderstood. What? Hehe' date=' I think it's a symbolism over substance derivative. To say "I don't support radical Islam", and do nothing actively to help radical Islam, that doesn't mean you've [i']done anything.[/i] I, equally, do not support murder in my country, and I do nothing to help murder, so what have I really done here? Not a single murder has been prevented by lack of support for it in all my life. Instead, I have to be against murder. I actually have to participate in decision making that tries to actively stop murder, even indirectly like through voting. If that's true, then it's an interesting idea if you could do it without killing anyone, just breaking stuff. But we have thorny issues of morality to consider and that kind of action is despicable. If we were at a state of war with those people, then I could see it, but we know we're fighting radicals, not a nation. More recruitment propaganda for radical murderers doesn't sound like a terrific plan clinically, and quite an inhumane one morally.

You'd have me a grandpa in my 30's I see.

Oh no, I think you're right on. He does that alot. Cracks me up too. Yeah I agree - I hope my post didn't seem like I'm still waiting for him to answer for Wright as I'm pretty happy with his answer.

I really don't recall jumping on you about Physia, but I'll concede that Phsyia is not a first time poster and that you were railing against him/her within the context of their posting history. However, the posts you cite include the ridiculous creationsim vs evolution joke of a post that almost made me puke - however, not racist. It included the "obsession" flick, which I'm not entirely sure isn't just propaganda - not racist. Only the first post did I see a racist comment and you're right, it was a bad one. Physia has gone out of his/her way to make provocative statements and then follow them up with yet more propaganda laced eruptions, not a single bit of supporting logic, which I pretty much expected. I was hoping to get a full scale contribution from Physia getting down to the nuts and bolts of his/her position. It's unique to get that level of pro-war intransigence in here and I really wanted to see Phsyia's extremism fully fleshed out. Not necessarily. There's a logical case to be made - not one that I would likely agree with, but it's possible to have a position against a black or female president that isn't bigotry, or advocation of such. For instance, some might think a black president won't be taken seriously by other nations, thereby implying a risk to national security and international strength. I don't agree with that at all, but it isn't racism if you do. I think we have to be careful throwing the racist charge around. There's too much of that nowadays. However, if they deserve it, then fire away.

Thanks for this. I've been trying to convince my 15 year old to quit sneaking phone conversations with his girlfriend in the middle of the night and get some sleep! Teenagers are already emotionally charged, I think this would help and since it's not coming from me, maybe he'll believe it this time.

I don't know that they do. They are certainly racist in the technical sense of the word, but not necessarily by its definition. In other words, the policies on citizenship are based on race, however, I don't think they believe they are "superior". More of a matter of survival - sheer numbers. That's my take anyway. And I can't blame someone for a different take either. On the surface, it really looks bad. Exactly. Pangloss made a point a long time ago that the best way to deal with an extremist is to give them all the rope they want. I thought that was a good observation and have since seen it work rather well. That's why I dangled rope in Phsyia's face by asking for the meat and potatoes of his/her statments about "dark" presidents. Also, to be fair, I had to give Physia a chance to be purely analytical as well. For instance, just for argument's sake, let's pretend every country in the world hated black people and historically they always nuke countries that elect black presidents. In that case, Phsyia wouldn't be racist in saying a black president would be bad for the country - that would be purely objective survival. Obviously, we don't live in that kind of world, but surely you get my point. I think you have to sure about people's intentions, before you start showing off and playing the self righteous indignation charge. Gee, call me crazy. I'm playing the anti-PC-stop-discussions-that-are-uncomfortable-before-they-can-get-started crusader. Discussion hasn't happened because the locals here jumped on their ass before it could get started and before their intentions were clear. Tell me what is ignorant about candid discussions on race.

Issue all the warnings you want, I'm not amputating discussion because you can't tell the difference between objective analysis and racism. Are you denying the perfectly valid perception that Israel's government policies on citizenship are racist? I'm not asking if you agree, and I'm not saying I agree, I'm asking are denying that it's at least a "valid observation"? (Hint: this is a feature of tolerance - where you recognize that while you don't agree with someone else, you also don't dismiss their opinion with false appeals to bigotry). The relevance of the statement was to reply to iNow's question about what the point was in agentchange's statement that many jews are racist. If you want the relevance of that statement, you might ask agentchange. I just enjoy the wiggling and squirming of those uncomfortable with candid discussions that involve race and ism, after reading other posts by them about how we all need to "understand" each other, and practice "tolerance" and so forth.

I would make everyone practice real tolerance. From there, freedom and liberty will naturally compell them and perhaps they wouldn't overburden me with appeals for legislation. Oh, and I would take some women for my harem. Yeah I know, hypocritical, but hey, I'm the freaking ruler so get over it.

And why is that? I really don't get the positive vibe from disarmament. Disarmament is cool for maintenance reasons (deterioration?), and funding. But no country is really going to completely disarm itself, they can't take the chance of being deceived, so the nuclear threat isn't going anywhere. So, I don't get the international security warm-and-fuzzy thing. Not contesting your point, just puzzled why this works. Anyway, I think Phil's right, this is symbolism over substance.

I refuse to participate in the DRM rip off. If I buy something, it's done, I own it. Any business that rejects that model, rejects my business. That in mind, I would prefer a fee per download. The only problem there being that artists want too much for their art. I don't think they're worth that much. I give mine away for free, as many amateurs do and many of us think the commercial side of it is basically fast-food music. Radiohead's new album 'In Rainbows' is a fee to download, but you get to decide the price. I gave them 5 euros. They're worth about that much. And that's about as much as anyone should pay for an album.

Obama has to answer for wright. Just like if he was a member of the black panthers or the kkk. When you have a 20 year relationship with a nutcase, (a religious relationship no less, that most on this board have harshly criticized in the past, some even equating to "dillusional") that spreads bullshit and lies and feeds the self destructive bitterness prevalent in the black culture - then yeah, I want to know how the dude thinks. McCain has no such relationship with Hagee, by any stretch of the imagination. But, he should still make a statement condemning Hagee's remarks. If he's being endorsed by him, then why shouldn't he do that? Hagee's words are reprehensible, bullshit lies, just like Wright's.

I smell white guilt overcompensation condition. I guess it's agentchange's turn to get kicked around to neutralize our guilty conscience. Hey, they were good after school specials, but we're grown ups now, so let's drop the indignation pretense huh? I think his point is that many Jews are racist, in fact, rolled right into government policy. Well, they're useful for profiling, for one. If a chick robs a liquor store, it's good for everyone to know that, rather than looking for chicks and dudes. Pretty simple really. Same goes for color and other distinguishing features.

Now, give us the meat and potatoes on why that is. You said yourself "it's an analysis you must think about", so surely you've thought about it and can discuss it right?

No, the figure "alone" does not do that. What if every dog owner owned a pit bull, and only one guy owned a poodle? Those numbers would be misleading in that case wouldn't they?

What makes you think it's prejudice? I'm not saying I agree, but I think you're mistaking analysis for advocacy.