Quoi_Tu

Who said that those ads were aimed at teenagers? They're aimed at pre-teens and younger. The commercials are meant to show that it is not cool to do those things before they are socially exposed to them. Beer commercials operate on the same idea. They advertise to people under 21 so that when they turn 21 they will have the idea of Bud light in their head and buy that. Cigarette companies used to do that too, but they've practically been banned from advertising.

That really bugs me when people use the "I'm ADHD (ADD)" excuse. Well, I could go off on a whole rant about ADHD and how children are diagnosed with it for acting like children. Children behaving childishly!? It must be a disorder!

If cigarette smoking was made illegal, people would just start smoking cigars. There are already cigars made for the pure purpose to avoid the heavy cigarette tax (Black and Milds). And don't forget about pipe smoking and hookahs.

Congratulations. You just killed a major industry. Goodbye what's left of our economy. As long as it's still legal to manufacture, we'll be fine. We export a lot of cigarettes and tobacco. Fun Tobacco Statistics Edit: Cigarette imports per capita by country

In theory, if minimum wage increases, businesses who pay minimum wage have to decrease their supply and the number of workers they employ. So, yes it does, at least temporarily, increase unemployment. As time progresses, the minimum wage workers who kept their jobs will have more money to spend (and they will spend almost all of it), which will increase demand and increase prices. Companies can then increase their supply, which will require more minimum wage workers to be hired and decreasing unemployment. At least, that's an over simplified example of what would happen, obviously keeping everything else static.

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. [/hide] 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. Who made this graph? Because it seems horribly biased. I wouldn't suggest using it to classify politicians. Oh yeah, republicans in general are more libertarian than they are authoritarian. You might not know that because of Bush, who is an ultra conservative extremist, but not all republicans are like Bush.

How is that a response to anything? Seriously, what?

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.

"Neo-con nutjobs" are small in number similar to how Muslim terrorists are. Fear is a strong motivator, but fear tactics haven't been used by the current US administration since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and look how those tactics have created a strong disliking of Bush. As well as a disliking, politicians are wary of passing things they don't know enough about these days. For example, one of the reasons cited by congress members as to why they voted against the first bailout plan? They knew little about it and equated this ignorance to invading Iraq. People change and learn. That bolded line sounds quite a lot like a militant revolutionary who overthrows an oppresive regime to become oppresive himself. Politcal instability can have horrible consequences on a country. It's why a lot of people are starving and killed.

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood. You're right, I didn't word that very well at all. By reason I meant factual reasoning. God cannot be proven to exist using factual evidence. That would be my point. God only exists through faith, which cannot be justified with fact. God cannot be proven to exist, but he also cannot be proven to not exist. Even given that, people still pretend they can prove/disprove God's existence, which is just ridiculous.

[hide=] 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.

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) 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.

Wait, you're an anarchist who believes in socialism? That's kind of opposite philosphy right there. No... It's pointless to argue for what I actually believe because people will just dismiss me as an "anarchist" (when they don't even know what it means) and will call me a terrorist or something. I want to try reform before revolution. With reform, you can't just change people from one end of the spectrum to the other overnight. It has to be gradual, and whilst I may not agree with a lot of what socialism is about, it is one of the political ideas out there that would actually be possible to achieve within the next 10 years that I also, in a lot of circumstances, agree with. So whilst I'm against government and despise authority to the core of my being, if there are going to be changes, I have to be pragmatic about things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism What you're saying is true to an extent, but corporate agribusiness does not serve the starving ONE BIT. It isn't as if they're trying to, but then they "need" money etc so they have to cut back on it - they have made no attempt to serve anything other than themselves, they exist for one purpose and one purpose only, which is PROFIT. Oh and why do you think that socialism exclusively means that the means production have to be owned by the state? I think I understand what you believe. I was confused for a bit (with the word anarchism being thrown around) because Anarchist socialism is communism (essentially). Well, I like to think of it that way, anyways. Unfortunately, profit, or more simply money, motivates people; it drives people. The job of the government, regarding starving people, is to take care of them and to prefably create an incentive for companies and even citizens to help those in need. In the US, those incentives are in the form of tax deductions. Summed up, greed is an unfortunate aspect of human nature, but it exists and it does best not to ignore it. Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Who plans it, if not the state? Assuming the state plans and controls the economy, they control the means of production and, therefore, control who receives what.

You have ones of those too? :shock: Mine's blue.

You're probably too nice. I've been told so, but I can't be a mean person unless I have a genuine reason to. Get a couple seasons of House and watch that for a couple of days straight. And poof! No more niceness.

Besides the fact there are no free markert countries, you're assuming that ethics change depending on the economic model a country adheres to. So a question to ask, what ethics do we lose moving from capitalism to socialism? What ethics do we gain? As for the bold, capitalism brought jobs from around the world to China and many parts of underdeveloped Asia. Those jobs helped the countries improve their living standards and feed people who had little to eat. Wait, you're an anarchist who believes in socialism? That's kind of opposite philosphy right there. Agriculture business can only focus on the starving so much. They still have to make money and be able to sustain themselves and their workers before they worry about others. A way to get them to help the starving is to make an incentive to do so. This incentive would be no more greater than one socialism can offer and in fact would be a socialist method of feeding the starving. Welfare, food stamps, social security, national healthcare. Socialist systems exist in capitalist nations. Many nations take care of their poor, more than you think. Where we see a lack of social programs are places that are politically unstable. We need to help stabilize third world countries before we can do anything about how they run themselves.

Our government (US) doesn't tell us that we will get addicted, they just tell us we'll neglect our little sisters, be bad role models, and forget to pick up our brother from soccer practice. Oh, and that we will wear excessive amounts of clothing. (Since non-US people won't get any of that, they are all anti-drug commercials usually aimed at marijuana)

Er, no? I've been through caffeine withdrawl. It's not pleasant. Consequently, I drink less coffee now.

Assuming religion is based on faith, what proof using reason could counter that which is outside the realm of reason? People have faith in God, but they have no evidence of God. They have no method of proving God's existence.

The answers seem obvious: Yes and No. Until we reach a higher level of understanding and intelligence, that will not change. Buuzzzz kkiillll

Hi, my name is Charlie and I've been coffeeholic for 5 years now; I can't go a day without it. Everyone has their addiction, some are just frowned upon more than others.

No birth certificate!? I'll call the press! He shouldn't have been elected without a birth certificate! He could be an illegal immigrant! I'm sure you're not racist, but you are misinformed.

Coffee and sometimes Irish coffee ice cream, which is pretty weird tasting, but quite good.

I think I am, but I can never be sure. I have always thoroughly enjoyed making up stories of people I pass. And since I pass a lot of the same people on a regular basis, I've taken to trying to make a character out of how they act and their general body language. Hmm, that sounds a little creepy... Anywho, I also play a game with friends where we see who can make the most eye contact with random strangers during a meal. Always good fun.

I do too! I love seeing how people react to different situations.