Off Topic Productions

DaveW wrote:

VectorM wrote:

Because without regulating marriage, marriage (as we know it) wouldn't exist.

So?

So if marriage as we know it didn't exist, then a lot of people wouldn't want to get married. So in the pursuit of your 'freedom' from government power, society would destroying something it wants.

Soo, people won't be able to to live with the people they love, unless government regulates marriage? Priests won't do their little rituals, people wont sign contracts with each other for legal reason, seriously? You actually belie that?

Yes, "legal" marriage, as we know it today, would be gone, doesn't mean that people would stop doing more or less the same shit. Completely pointless intervention in people's personal affairs.

Feel free to start your own country, don't throw a tantrum because most people in society think your ideas are stupid.

Gee, I am sorry that I am agasint the democratic majority using the force of the state to initiate violence against others. SIlly me.

Your idea of democracy seems to be everyone agreeing with your ideas

I don't belive in democracy, I do however believe in the non initiation of force, which democracies seem to love.

I guess I can't really provide any examples on why foreign policy is important, at all. Nope - completely unimportant to me as a human being.

You just provided examples of government meddling and U.S.'s foreign policy turning things in to compete shit. Thank you, I am glad we agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNKpVK1woHw

"
Imagine a scenario where you approach a 'random', you wear your mask, use your material (negging, sarging - etc.) and it works. Would you be at all comfortable - at that very moment - to admit to what you've just done; that you've approached her with the intent of either 'bettering yourself' or having sex with her, using techniques you learned from a book? And do you think she would want to continue, at that point?
"
At the risk of getting a bit personal here, let me answer that. I have an ileostomy. If I lead with that when I approach a person I don't know, they're going to be less attracted to me. Sickness and being damaged - which an ileostomy has written all over - is universally abhored.

I have never read 'the game', but I have put thought into this; my 'material' consists of not talking about anything that relates to how I got the ileostomy, the fact that I have one, or any other such nonsense. Suppose it works, and I've succeeded in deluding another person into liking me more than she would if she knew the truth. Would I be comfortable to admit that I made such an assumption? Would I be comfortable telling her something that might make her like me less? No. That's the whole point. She doesn't know - but that's fine - because she knows that she doesn't know everything about me, and that I do likely hold secrets that would put her off.

This is what it all comes down to. My deception is incredibly benign - I am in fact not sick, and while I'll never be able to take up martial arts, and I have to change a large, peculiar looking hygienic bandaid every day, I am every bit as viable a mate as anybody without my particular health issue - but it is a deception that, if I didn't stick to it, I would be looked at as if I was typhoid mary, because people are stereotype using dicks.

It is ok for the same reason all these social deceptions are largely ok: People meet as equals, they know they can't trust one another, and they take whatever precautions they think are pertinent. They know surprises may arise, and they steel themselves against it.

VectorM wrote: Soo, people won't be able to to live with the people they love, unless government regulates marriage? Priests won't do their little rituals, people wont sign contracts with each other for legal reason, seriously? You actually belie that?

Yes, "legal" marriage, as we know it today, would be gone, doesn't mean that people would stop doing more or less the same shit. Completely pointless intervention in people's personal affairs.

It's not a case of 'regulating' it as much as 'defining what it means legally', which is the same as people producing individual contracts for eachother, but less stupid. Pretty much no one has a problem with the concept of government 'regulating' marriage - deal with it.

VectorM wrote:

I guess I can't really provide any examples on why foreign policy is important, at all. Nope - completely unimportant to me as a human being.

You just provided examples of government meddling and U.S.'s foreign policy turning things in to compete shit. Thank you, I am glad we agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNKpVK1woHw

Totally:

Norhtern Ireland - the UK and Ireland are generally working together now (including UK giving aid to Ireland), and the US is assisting. Everyone's trying to find a peaceful solution. Awful meddling.
Israeli conflict - Most countries even on Israel's side are trying to stop Israel start a ground war. Meddling bastards.
Iran's nuclear program - Lets's let them get on with it, we don't need our pesky government trying to protect us from Nuclear weapons.
Etc. etc.

Also I somehow knew you'd throw a Ron Paul video in somewhere - it's like a new form of Goodwin's law. Why you think linking to an asshole with no grasp of economic principles strengthens your point is beyond me.

DaveW wrote: asshole

Youtube comment! wrote: "The editing here makes me think this is not fair. Paul didn't say let him die, and he was probably about to explain."

Full clip. No, Paul does not say "Let him die" because he realises how that would sound - but that is exactly what he's advocating. Note how he neither explains why that would not happen in a fully private healthcare system, or even acknowledge - let along condemn - that the crowd just cheered someone fucking dying.

"This whole idea that you have to care and take care of everybody" - he says that as if compassion to your fellow man is some kind of problem. Just like he thinks the Civil Rights Act is a problem. Just like he thinks ridiculous spending cuts would boost the US economy, seemingly showing no comprehension of how that absolutely doesn't work (See: UK, Greece, Spain).

In summary; he's an asshat who's wrong about near-enough everything. Linking to him just makes you look stupid.

Paul does not believe he should necessarily die - but he believes it is this persons right to do away with his own medical safety net. The concequence would be, the patient is going to get whatever he's going to get; either death, or living on other peoples charity.

The example is extreme; 6 months on your neighbors charity isn't going to happen, so it would have to be some kind of national charity given to by people voluntarily - and that might not happen. Ultimately, the plug may be pulled because the hospital couldn't afford to be charitable either.

Regardless: Paul is guilty of being hopelessly naive, not of being callous.

AEmer wrote:Paul does not believe he should necessarily die - but he believes it is this persons right to do away with his own medical safety net. The concequence would be, the patient is going to get whatever he's going to get; either death, or living on other peoples charity.

So the end result is that, what, a person who simply can't afford medical insurance should also be allowed to die, because nobody is obligated to pay for his needs?

DaveW wrote:"This whole idea that you have to care and take care of everybody" - he says that as if compassion to your fellow man is some kind of problem. Just like he thinks the Civil Rights Act is a problem. Just like he thinks ridiculous spending cuts would boost the US economy, seemingly showing no comprehension of how that absolutely doesn't work (See: UK, Greece, Spain).

He also thinks the Bill of Rights is a problem, or at least holding the states to it. Read up on the "We the People Act". For someone who supposedly cares so much about the constitution, I'm not sure he does.

I believe his belief is that people will step in with charity in most cases - and that there will be very, very few, because only a very small percentage of people will be willing to take the risk of running with no insurance in the first place.

As I say, it's naive, but it's fundamentally not anymore callous than, say, denying a mexican in a mexican hospital in the same exact situation that life-giving 6 months worth of intensive care, because there's nobody to help that guy out either. It's the same amount of money for the same amount of not-death, only difference is, we don't care about one because he's a foreigner so he can just go die for all we care.

I'm not a paul supporter btw. - I think he's wrong about a lot of things, and I won't be taken to task for defending him. I'm not. I'm explaining that there's a distinction between being a callous asshole, and a naive idealist.

AEmer wrote:I believe his belief is that people will step in with charity in most cases - and that there will be very, very few, because only a very small percentage of people will be willing to take the risk of running with no insurance in the first place.

If no one is going to run without insurance anyway, why not just make it mandatory and government controlled. Save everybody some time and effort.

G-Flex wrote: So the end result is that, what, a person who simply can't afford medical insurance should also be allowed to die, because nobody is obligated to pay for his needs?

It's the American Dream.

AEmer wrote:I'm not a paul supporter btw. - I think he's wrong about a lot of things, and I won't be taken to task for defending him. I'm not. I'm explaining that there's a distinction between being a callous asshole, and a naive idealist.

I would say that he's an asshole because he's naive and has no excuse to be; moreover he wishes to force that naivety onto the general population. I will give him credit for being consistent and honest about his intentions though, which is a trait missing in major right-wing parties (e.g Republicans and UK Conservatives). It's just a shame what his intentions are.

AEmer wrote:As I say, it's naive, but it's fundamentally not anymore callous than, say, denying a mexican in a mexican hospital in the same exact situation that life-giving 6 months worth of intensive care, because there's nobody to help that guy out either. It's the same amount of money for the same amount of not-death, only difference is, we don't care about one because he's a foreigner so he can just go die for all we care.

Depends what kind of situation you're describing; I think all countries should have government run, free at point-of-use healthcare so that doesn't happen. We have the technology and ability to do that as a species, but we don't; because we get petty assholes like this wanting to deny people healthcare for the crime of being a 'foreigner'. Screw that - we're all humans, and we have the ability to help eachother.

AEmer wrote:I believe his belief is that people will step in with charity in most cases - and that there will be very, very few, because only a very small percentage of people will be willing to take the risk of running with no insurance in the first place.

Except it's trivial to see that charity doesn't provide for people that often, and that a lot of people can't afford health insurance even when it is (sorta) well-regulated.

DaveW wrote:I would say that he's an asshole because he's naive and has no excuse to be; moreover he wishes to force that naivety onto the general population. I will give him credit for being consistent and honest about his intentions though, which is a trait missing in major right-wing parties (e.g Republicans and UK Conservatives). It's just a shame what his intentions are.

I used to think he was consistent like that, then I read that legislation I mentioned that he wrote (the We the People Act). In part, it has a laundry list of conservative christian hot-button issues, like gay marriage and abortion, and says the US Supreme Court isn't allowed to rule regarding state laws on those issues. He pretends to be all for liberty, all-inclusiveness, freedom, and the Constitution, whereas his actual policies seem to imply that he'd prefer a situation where America is controlled by regionalistic robber barons who get to impose their own will and prejudices, and Ron Paul sure as hell has his own he'd love to do something about.

Interesting..aside from the odd racist newsletter, I figured he was reasonably consistent - at least using most politicians as a reference point. I wasn't aware of the We the People Act, but having just read the Same-Sex Marriage section on his Wikipedia page...I see what you mean. I stand corrected.

I am pretty much done arguing on this thread, since I am finding it harder and harder not to be toxic with the things said in the last posts, but here are some hopefully useful links for you guys to read/watch.

http://mises.org/daily/3586
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txbARh-9mTo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01laJjZ4zjs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4luwuLdGwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0qiuDSZo4I

Not that I excpect anyone to get anything out of it, besides the usual "heprp derp THINKTANK herp derp THIS GUY IS NOT AN AUTHORITY FIGURE AND LOOKS GHEY derp", but oh well.

whereas his actual policies seem to imply that he'd prefer a situation where America is controlled by regionalistic robber barons who get to impose their own will and prejudices, and Ron Paul sure as hell has his own he'd love to do something about.

I don't understand how people still say stuff like this, when anyone with basic Google skills can go and see who donated to his champaign. And you can see a severe lack of big corporations, fuck, his biggest donors are SOLDIERS.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contr ... =N00005906

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/cont ... =N00009638

Yeah, he wants the country to be run by corporations, right? That's why corporations love him and donate so much to him...oh wait THEY DON'T.

............Double post again. Have some Alien Trilogy music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOV7a806R4

How can we ever run the world in an ideal manner when we cannot even agree wether one old dude is a douche or not
Humans fail. Only cure is all be robbed of individualism, but then we'd probably still find something to argue about.
Devine intervention only. Dont think even science could possibly fix this. Possibly "the many"?



But that shit is basically mind control. not unified conciousness as it claims. Sounds horrible either way.

In other words, the government/political parties/system we currently have will have to do. There is nothing you can do about it anyway unless you are in a position of power.
Perhaps using "game" on the politicians will work as a last resort.

This is the only possible solution imo:



As long as JC done a non-lethal playthrough anyway. If it was my JC he would get rejected for all the psychotic mass murder.

Should only be given option for helios ending in DX if non-lethal the whole game imo. Fan patch? AlvinD knows Jay Franke apparrently (voice work for getting rejected).