user1991

Probably what Jesus was thinking..

I introduce you to research recent GDP statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) The EU as an entity has long surpassed all other countries in terms of nominal GDP. EU membership requires fulfilling certain criteria such as free medical care to each citizen of the member nation regardless of wealth, race, gender, sexuality or ideology. There are extremely harsh sanctions and penalties for member countries that don't comply with the directives the commission has set, up to hundreds of millions of euros even for issues such as failing to cut overly long surgery waiting lists. Socialized medical care thus not being "economically viable" is a completely ridiculous assumption, given the largest economic entity in the world uses the system. If the US had a better system of healthcare, they wouldn't be able to afford all their wars. Oh and God doesn't want to help the poor.

No.. stupid people should be allowed to vote. As should prisoners..

American health care is a joke. It would actually be funny if it wasn't so tragic. @Saruman "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." Of course, what this actually means is that Jesus supported free market capitalism as well as preventive war and interventionist foreign policy. Clearly.

If someone wants to take crack, it is their choice. Freedom > safety Hold on. So you think their "right" to take my money to fuel their habits...Supersedes my right to not be robbed? I really think that we're just mixing signals, because that's a really stupid thing to say. :/ I'd have to plead the Third Amendment. Wow. STOP USING THIS SAME STRAWMAN! I never once said someone should have the right to rob you. I said they should have the right to take crack/any other drug. Until you can prove that crack causes every single person to go out on mugging sprees, this will remain a strawman.

If someone wants to take crack, it is their choice. Freedom > safety

No, they should not be illegal. But neither should any drug. If the government actually classified drugs on how dangerous they are instead of what the 1940 consensus was, it probably would be another "evil" like weed or acid.

Nor ever will it be. Not even with transhumanism..?

Cause there's nothing positive to say?

Are you honestly comparing stabbing people to putting a couch on your front lawn?

Some laws are stupid and the people should let the authorities know what they think of them. People shouldn't be scared of their governments - the governments should be afraid of the people. So you'd spend 100 days in jail over a couch in your front yard? If it meant that people would start paying attention to the government's tyranny - then yes.

Some laws are stupid and the people should let the authorities know what they think of them. People shouldn't be scared of their governments - the governments should be afraid of the people.

So Sly.. you're discriminating against lots of people, of which gays have the biggest voice.. This is an argument for...? If marriage isn't a right, then not letting gays marry (and other groups too) is basically the same as a store not selling to black people..?

Obama is left. Not socialist left or very left, but he is left. God =\= Government We can control our government, we cannot control our God. At the college I go to, we call people like you pit preachers. I only say this because that was a very preachy way to say your point. Obama isn't left..he's centre right. The abundance of right wing douche bags makes it seem as if he is left, admittedly he is more left than them.. but they're far right. He isn't left though, that's for sure.

What..? First time I did it I was ridiculously high man... within like 1 toke I was tweakin..

Normally, I wouldn't answer a question with a question but this time I am. Why should anything be illegal? The answer is that nothing should be illegal, but things are illegal because society deems that they be that way. Yes, it's that simple. ...And it worries me how people misuse the word "right". Worst answer ever. Quit trying to hide the fact that you're discriminating against people with certain genetic differences to you. This includes gays, people who want more than one wife/husband etc and people who want to marry objects and stuff (don't know why they would but to each his own I guess). Of course, gays are in a much larger percentage and therefore have the bigger voice than the others.. But even so.. you denying that this is caused by religion is just.. well plain misleading yourself. Are you telling me the whole "to lie with another man is an abomination" line didn't play a part in this? What's even more surprising is that you're black. You would think that after the whole segregation/anti-miscegenation thing you'd be more understanding when a minority is being oppressed. And no, it isn't what "society" wants, it is what the government wants in terms of what is illegal or not. This may represent the majority most of the time but such is the nature of Burkean representation.

Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage I don't see why any of those should be illegal...? That's great for you that you don't think any of those should be illegal, but the point was that by allowing gays not to marry we're not singling them out any more than we're singling out a person belonging to any other group which is not "one man and one woman". Gays make up a bigger percentage of them though, so they're bound to have a bigger voice... Okay, now that we've got that sorted Why should any of those be illegal?

He's black.. and what? He's only just better than Bush/Cheney. Biden is an imbecile. Obama is a smart guy yes, but he is still centre-right. All these people who automatically think it's all good cause a black guy got in, and therefore America must be tolerant. Don't get me wrong, I mean McCain and Palin were even worse, they are some of the worst people in the world I could think of to put into power of a superpower.. but you need to quit pretending that Obama will solve all your problems. And no, I am not insane. I see light in the people. You've just been conditioned to think the way you do. You live in a world and you don't want change cause you're happy how it is - and I get it. But you have to understand, this is more than you or me. This is more than America, Europe.. this is about ideas. This is about our species as a whole.. Any atheist who isn't an anarchist is a hypocrite because the burden of proof works exactly the same when you apply it to the state. The burden of proof is on them to show that their authority, to which I did not consent, is legitimate, and if they do not, it must be TORE DOWN. And sorry, when I say nutjobs, they aren't what you would classify as nutjobs - they are what society would consider "normal" people. And I know that I'm in the minority, and thus I am crazy, but never forget - long live the people..

Nice way to evade the question. I'll help you out, by restricting marriage to one man and one woman we're "discriminating" against: 1.) A man who wants to marry more than one woman. 2.) A woman who wants to marry more than one man. 3.) A man who wants to marry more than one man. 4.) A woman who wants to marry more than one woman. 5.) A man who wants to marry his car. 6.) A woman who wants to marry her car. 7.) A man who wants to marry his dog. 8.) A woman who wants to marry her dog. Etc. The list goes on and on and on. In other words, no, gay people are not being singled out by the law. They just happen to be one group of people restricted under it. Stop acting as if people are out to get the gays. /winnage I don't see why any of those should be illegal...?

"By restricting marriage to one man and one woman, what groups are we "discriminating" against?" Those who love someone of their own gender. EDIT: I'm out for the night its like 6am

Humans are social animals. We naturally form states and communities. 1. You're thinking in quite the ideal manner. Money is not inherently evil, it is neutral. It is a medium used to ease trade between individuals. So even if money becomes philosophically devalued, objects still have value and always will. It is natural to think that a product that takes 100 hours to make is more valuable than one that takes 1 hour to make (assuming more time spent on the product increases its quality). Also, people are selfish. Even the most religious are selfish. However, many religions have cleverly used people's selfishness to help others. (think: good deeds get you into heaven, unless of course you believe John Calvin) Transhumanism will play an integral part. And it isn't far away. I'm thinking about the future of mankind rather than my time here on Earth. The transition between type 0 and type 1 civilisation is the most dangerous. We need to settle these stupid differences otherwise sooner or later they're going to come crashing down. 2. Violence is never good. Since I don't see any fascist nations popping up (in developped countries), I see no reason to worry. Don't worry about the "rich elites." The only one that has enough power to do anything is the goverment. The others don't have anywhere near enough money. Violence should only ever be used as a last resort. If you're in a situation where it's a choice between the progression of our species or submitting to a fascist regime, you should overthrow that regime by any means necessary. The elites + government constantly worry me, in fact it worries me that it has become this bad. And fascism, fascism is on the breakfast table of every single person in a position of coercive authority. Fascism is not something you can let happen before you fight against it. You need to cut it down from the root. [/hide] Well, I can't argue with paranoia and idealism. All I can say is that, fascism will not occur in any power-holding country without outside interference. The world has already learned that lesson from World War 2. If the elites try to influence government towards fascism, the first signs of such influence will be met with protest from the people. You underestimate the power that the people hold. No, we haven't learnt our lessons. Listen to these religious neo-con nutjobs. People are all too willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of safety until it is too late. People are the same. We haven't changed. You underestimate the power of fear. I do not underestimate the power of the people. We just look at things differently. You think I'm paranoid, I think you're naive. No army can stop an idea whose time has come. I'm just trying to make it easier, when the time is right, for that idea to come.

Bull****. You're discriminating against gays and the reasons are religious at the core of it. Basically, you're discriminating against people who did not choose to be the way they are (I'm not saying it is negative, but it is true, they did not choose). You attempting to avoid hypocrisy here is hilarious. I mean the whole "oh no, we aren't discriminating against gays, we're just discriminating based on who they are trying to marry," - now that my friend, sounds like pure, unadultered bull****. Your argument can be used against black people marrying white people. "We aren't discriminating based on what they are, but rather on who they are trying to marry." You don't want people of certain genetic differences to be able to marry people of other genetic differences. Stop giving me this bs about "oh, well, ugh, it's who they're trying to marry!" because we both know you're full of it. Quit misleading people and just tell the [bleep]ing truth.

Humans are social animals. We naturally form states and communities. 1. You're thinking in quite the ideal manner. Money is not inherently evil, it is neutral. It is a medium used to ease trade between individuals. So even if money becomes philosophically devalued, objects still have value and always will. It is natural to think that a product that takes 100 hours to make is more valuable than one that takes 1 hour to make (assuming more time spent on the product increases its quality). Also, people are selfish. Even the most religious are selfish. However, many religions have cleverly used people's selfishness to help others. (think: good deeds get you into heaven, unless of course you believe John Calvin) Transhumanism will play an integral part. And it isn't far away. I'm thinking about the future of mankind rather than my time here on Earth. The transition between type 0 and type 1 civilisation is the most dangerous. We need to settle these stupid differences otherwise sooner or later they're going to come crashing down. 2. Violence is never good. Since I don't see any fascist nations popping up (in developped countries), I see no reason to worry. Don't worry about the "rich elites." The only one that has enough power to do anything is the goverment. The others don't have anywhere near enough money. Violence should only ever be used as a last resort. If you're in a situation where it's a choice between the progression of our species or submitting to a fascist regime, you should overthrow that regime by any means necessary. The elites + government constantly worry me, in fact it worries me that it has become this bad. And fascism, fascism is on the breakfast table of every single person in a position of coercive authority. Fascism is not something you can let happen before you fight against it. You need to cut it down from the root.

The burden of proof for what? "Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic." Noam Chomsky is more eloquent than me. Okay. We're not "discriminating" on the basis of genetic differences, as that would mean that only one sex would be allowed to marry. We're "discriminating" on the basis of who you are marrying-- Nothing else. I perfectly well understand the concept of freedom. You don't understand that freedom does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want", as that is an anarchy and has never worked nor will ever work. Certain people are gay. It is not a choice. For you to say that they cannot marry is to say "people of certain genetic differences cannot marry." As for the last part, anarchism is not without order, but without rule. ??? I can't offer up a response, 'cuz I have no idea what you're saying/what you're trying to get at. You won't be in the majority forever, is all I'm saying. Yes. See first response. See my reply. There really isn't any difference between the two actions. You just need to rationalise your religious bs by claiming all these petty differences, but when it comes down to it, it's all the same.

No it should be changed to "When will religion and the state stop conspiring against the people?"