Soback

Give what to mods, there is nothing, it is simply not finished, and never will be. "After delivery of the code and assets JoWooD will review the possibility of seeking out developers IF it is economically viable to finish the titleÔÇØ which it is not.

ROFL, why is your avator looking so sad Marvin. It should have a huge grinn. Like this

If you work 40 hours a week, lets say earning $10 an hour, to make things simple. That makes it $400 a week. If you reduce the hours to mandatory 35, that means you start making $350. Now that artificially creates more jobs, but due to my paycheck just having been cut from $1600 to $1400, or by 13%, that's a lot. Doesn't that push some people into poverty, or basically by emposing that restriction on how much they can work, you are imposing a restriction on how much they can make. Making them poor not by choice but forcing that upon them. Also how do you handle the fact that one employee is really good at his job, but because his hours a mandatorily cut, you as a businessman HAVE to hire another employee that might even cost you money because his performance is sub-par. Is that the problems that this 35 hour week has created? I am not being sarcastic Nomad, I am asking because I do not know, maybe you get around the issue of workers making less in 35 hours by forcing the employee to pay them more per hour, but then that would just force the price of whatever they are producing UP, so that makes little sence too. The only real way to go is capitalism. You let the market dectate the employment the wages, the costs. Only then do you get the REAL value for your work, the hours, and by the way, prices of goods. Those who don't offer anything of value, get nothing of value in return and therefore it's a huge burden lifted off of the shoulders of those that have had it been unfairly foced in the first place. Didn't anyone learn anything from the fall of Rome, or at least the Soviet Union should still be fresh in peoples minds.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: Darnit! There has GOT to be way to make money on properties like this... it's got an established fan base. Not when your business tax is through the roof, while work week is 35 hours long, 4 weeks vacation for your employees, and you can't lay off your workers if the company is doing badly financially. No matter how you do the math, even at $70 a pop it doesn't add up. Reality is the ultimate arbiter. LOL

quote:Originally posted by paranide: Furthermore,the topics title is quite innapropiate.The facts are missing. The topics title is the title of an article, and since this topic is about that article, therefore the title is VERY appropriate for this thread, anything else would be missguiding. As far as you claiming that the facts are missing, quote me where the author makes at least one lie. Even that muslim holiday that was proposed, the fact is, IT WAS PROPOSED. So even where the facts are not present, there's nothing to back up with those facts, what the author is claiming is simple and well known truths. Do you need facts that WWII happened and that Europe didn't stop Hitler when he started violating treaties and conditions imposed on him? Here's what I will do, if you really need the facts, quote me something from that article and I will FIND the facts for you, to back up the author on whatever you quote. However, think first Paranide and don't dig yourself a hole.

"NTT researchers also point, rather improbably, to GVS's potential for collision avoidance. A demonstration video shows a young man walking down the street nearly run over by a passing motorcycle, steered to safety at the last minute by a guardian angel wielding a remote control. But wouldnÔÇÖt that require that people wear electric nodes behind their ears 24 hours a day? Well, yes. And according to Maeda, the long-term effects of GVS are unknown. But he plans to continue investigating ways to bring the phenomenon to the public. " Oh man, does that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Guess what, in 50 years, it will be mandatory for everyone to wear one, because the government knows what's best for you, they will be your guardian angel 24 hours a day.

quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: Just saying that a far worse problem could possibly be created through your best intentions to stop it. Yet by doing nothing, doesn't solve the problem. That's what the Europe was debating, to stop the Germans, might cost a lot of lives, not to stop them, they might just expand a little and stop the war. You know where that got them right. When a problem exists, you work on it, you don't sit idly waiting, that never solves anything, as a matter of fact that only creates problems.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,363663,00.html SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa... Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop. SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty. Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor. SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox? Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid. SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them. Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ... SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ... AFP Ruandan President Kagame has over a million deaths on his conscience, says Shikwati. Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle. SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve. Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy. ---AND SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ... Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ... SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception. Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide. ----AND YET MORE These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out. SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ... Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. [ 08-06-2005, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ncleric315.xml "All must learn the Koran by heart and the very best will master all 6,666 verses within six months, a feat that Mullah Rahim says is plainly a miracle, a gift from God." Tripple six, 4 sixes, 5 if you count the sixths month, which god likes so many sixes? 666 hmmm... "Pakistan's president, Gen Pervaiz Musharraf, himself a victim of assassination attempts by Islamic militants, has advocated a course of "enlightened moderation" with the madrassas. However, very few have taken up the offer to modernise a curriculum introduced in a Baghdad school in 1057. And this month fresh attempts at reform - introducing maths, science and computing - were rejected at a major conference attended by Pakistan's minister for religious affairs." Interesting, instead of learning math, science, and computing, they are learning a curriculim introduced in 1057. So who is educating whom, and who is dragging whom back to the dark ages.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...5E28737,00.html "THE writer Henryk Broder recently issued a withering indictment: Europe, your family name is appeasement. That phrase resonates because it is so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements. Later, appeasement legitimised and stabilised communism in the Soviet Union, then in East Germany, then throughout the rest of Eastern Europe, where for several decades inhuman, repressive and murderous governments were glorified. Appeasement similarly crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Bosnia and Kosovo. Indeed, even though we had absolute proof of continuing mass murder there, we Europeans debated and debated, and then debated still more. We were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, to do our work for us." "Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger. This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions - indeed, tens of billions - of dollars in the corrupt UN oil-for-food program. Today we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in The Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere in Europe? By suggesting - wait for it - that the proper response to such barbarism is to initiate a Muslim holiday in Germany. I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of Germany's Government - and, if polls are to be believed, the German people -- actually believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich, waving that laughable treaty signed by Hitler, and declaring the advent of peace in our time. " "What atrocity must occur before the European public and its political leadership understands what is really happening in the world? There is a sort of crusade under way; an especially perfidious campaign consisting of systematic attacks by Islamists, focused on civilians, that is directed against our free, open Western societies, and that is intent on their utter destruction. " "Only two recent US presidents have had the courage needed to shun appeasement: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The US's critics may quibble over the details, but in our hearts we Europeans know the truth, because we saw it first hand. Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of Europe from almost 50 years of terror and slavery. And Bush, acting out of moral conviction and supported only by the social democrat Tony Blair, recognised the danger in today's Islamist war against democracy. In the meantime, Europe sits back in the multicultural corner with its usual blithe self-confidence. Instead of defending liberal values and acting as an attractive centre of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, the US and China, it does nothing. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the supposedly arrogant Americans, as world champions of tolerance, which even Germany Interior Minister Otto Schily justifiably criticises." "For his policy of confronting Islamic terrorism head-on, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the US economy. But he does this because, unlike most of Europe, he realises that what is at stake is literally everything that really matters to free people. While we criticise the capitalistic robber barons of the US because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our welfare states. "Stay out of it. It could get expensive," we cry. AND THIS ONE, LOL So, instead of acting to defend our civilisation, we prefer to discuss reducing our 35-hour work week or improving our dental coverage, or extending our four weeks of annual paid holiday. Or perhaps we listen to television pastors preach about the need to reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive. These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour's house. Appeasement? That is just the start of it. Europe, thy name is Cowardice. "

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8261 "┬À Ignore and Pretend. No surviving culture succeeded with this strategy. Liberals and moderates would like to try to ignore the problem beginning by not naming it truthfully (sounds familiar of anyone here?). Pretend that more security measures will make life safe enough. Like itÔÇÖs a police problem. Like itÔÇÖs a hatred of our ÔÇÿfreedomsÔÇÖ and our way of life. Indian raids, integral to the Indian way of life ÔÇô their culture, were savage assaults on the frontier. From 1608 to 1890, those folks living under the threat of Indian attacks, didnÔÇÖt suffer the folly and well-wishing pretense of people who lived in safety. If Islamists personalize the war with many more July 7ths and 9-11s, the pretending will end. " "┬À Convince and Convert. If the U.S. or U.K. can define what it means to be an American or British, then either nation could assimilate a minority. Once, Indian children were shipped to the Carlisle School and Hampton Institute and Westernized. A confident and ascending culture gains converts voluntarily. Barbarians crossed the Rhine in the 4th Century to join the rising Legions, call themselves by Latin names, wear Roman dress and become citizens - inheritors to Roman Civilization. One hundred years later as Rome declined, Romans adapted Barbarian names and dress and swore allegiance to local tribal leaders. "

quote:Originally posted by Soback: I am the thinker that wont meet a fool half way. And before anyone tries to call this a personal insult. It is not. It is a statement. It means that I will not compromise and meet anyone half way by calling terrorists rebels, I am not going to meet anyone half way and say that those terrorist killing civilians is ok because they are a part of Russia, by the same token I am not going to meet anyone half way when they say that terrorists kill civilians because Russian soldiers are killing them, Russian soldiers are killing them TO STOP the violence against CIVILIANS, terrorists are killing CIVILIANS to CREATE violence, to MURDER another person, that's why anyone who says otherwise and tries to justify it, is justly making a foolish statement. That's why Nomad, I take your views as illegitimate. Simply because in a statement like that, when you say that one side is not right, that both sides are wrong, that Russians killing the terrorists is just as wrong as those terrorists killing civilians, that's an illegitimate view. That's why Russia banned ABC by the way, they don't have the corruption that is the idea of "anything goes". Their people can still distinguish RIGHT from WRONG, and they are not afraid to stand up and say "HEY, you are WRONG, GET OUT" You think it was a political decission, let me clue you IN, NO Russian person wants to hear a sniveling terrorist tell them that they are killing Russian children because THEY ARE RUSSIAN, and to hear those same terrorists make demands on them, to watch that in their own homes. You want to know why? Because when your family member dies, will you listen to the killer that tells you that he killed your whole family because your uncle thrise removed killed his? As a rational person your thoughts would be "what did my family had to do with it, it was that uncle that killed his" and then you would make sure the killer dies, not because you stoop to his level and become a killer like him, but to stop him from killing others. Rationalize that Nomad. Go ahead, try to split that and create a middle for yourself, without taking a side.

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Soback, I am a little bit tired of your plagiarism. There is no harm in referring to third party works. The problem is that you don't mention it. Half of what you post lately in these threads are exact paragraphs of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand... So, it's a point of view among many others. The difference is that I consider that your point of view is legitime, when in the inverse you don't. But don't worry. The world is full of people who can't make any decent move when playing chess alone against themselves. It requires a bit of abstraction... Pligiarizm Nomad? Oh no, those are my views, and they are my words. If you have read Atlash Shrugged you would see that I change it to fit the situation. All those facts have already been made a long time ago. You can't argue with reason Nomad. Just like Cruis.In. has been reduced to a single sentence in another thread, so are you reduced to calling my words plagiarizm, while I am telling you exactly what my thoughts are. Go ahead Nomad, argue reason, everytime you evade reality, evertime you cheat the facts, everytime you try to fool yourself that an absolute is a non-absolute, an A is an A Nomad, you can't make it a B, or substitue it with a C. Everytime you do so, reality will catch up, and you will pay tenfold on every absolute you have dismissed, on every fact cheated, on every truth you turned your head on, and every A you substituted with a B (calling terrorist Rebels). When people evade reality, they die, just because you choose not to notice an animal that is there to kill you, it doesn't mean that that animal doesn't exist, just because you choose to call a lion a cat, it doesn't mean that it actually is. You see Nomad, am I plagiarizing? You know why you are tired of my posts, because you can't argue with reality. You know why I don't consider your answers legitimate, because I don't consider Non-reality true. I am the thinker that wont meet a fool half way. One of us is wrong, one is right, reality will be the final arbiter. Oh, and by the way, just to show you something Nomad, within the next week I will be posting a link in this thread, it will be an audio clip of an interview with the "rebel", not Chechen, but it will still give you an insight into a "different point of view". Once you listen to it, we will see if a "different point of view" is just that, and if a "different point of view" is ok no matter what it is. To give you a heads up, the guy talks about killing jews, and everyone else who does not believe in Islam, he goes on to say that his religion does not tollerate other religions, that wherever it's not Islam, they need to be Islam or die. Wrong or Right Nomad, or you still taking the middle? You want me to insert the second paragraph of my post in here too? Or would that be plagiarizm? How about this, I will summarize, with a question. Are you waiting who's point of view ends up Right, while in this truggle you will be sitting out, who will be proffiting on peoples blood, one side or the other? Or those who sit aside, taking no side, bidding their time, losing nothing, to crawl to the winner who is proven to be right, and say that while they did't fully support him, they didn't opose him either. "Go read my second paragraph from last post Nomad" Becaue that's exactly, in those exact words, is what I would insert here. No need to reinvent the wheel, if it's there, you use it.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: But what are you going to do with the millions of people involved in drug trafficking when there bread and butter is gone? They could turn to worse things. Arms dealing for one, but whatever it is, they will have to replace there lost income... Here's an idea: They could become legitimate business men selling their products as producers to any U.S. distributor. Duh. What's with this poor house thing. But that's too much to ask. You see, a person operating a business needs to make decissions, he needs to actually know how to run it. They do not believe a person is qualified to run his life, how could he run his own business? You see, you can not control an independent person, however you can make him a victim (the poor house thing), and once you label him as such, you can do anything you want to him, you can make a slave out of him, all the while claiming that it's for HIS OWN GOOD, he just doesn't know it yet. That's why they claim the society knows better what is in indivuduals best interest, if the individual disagrees, he is no longer part of that society, then they claim he is an outcast, unprogressive, backwards thinking brute, all the while they are the brutes seeking to gain control over him. All the beurocratic laws, the speed limit, the drug use, the smoking etc...etc..etc...it gives them control, because once you are labeled as a lawbreaker, you are such in everyones eyes, no matter what, all JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.

His whole argument is in the same area as liberals against banning gas operated leaf blowers which account for 5% of air pollution by the way. Liberals claim they are against pollution and will run down any person driving an SUV or a Hummer, yet they are against having gardeners convert to electric blowers because overwhelming majority of gardeners are "poor hispanics" and it would place un-necessary harships to have them convert, jepordazing their livelyhood. Makes as much sence as an argument that they make for clean power sources, but yet they want to ban the wind power generators by Livermore because the blades kill birds when they fly into them. Or them raving how cars polute more when they are stuck in rush traffic, yet are against widening the freeways to ease the congestion. Just like they are for personal freedom, yet deny you that freedom at every turn. Cruis.In......I don't know if I should cry or laugh, either way....

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Soback: Would you have read accurately my post, you would have seen that I contempled beforehand changing the dogs with humans and what this implied. To resume: 4) Being convinced that both sides are wrong, russian army and chechen terrorists, I don't take sides. Furthermore, I don't focus in the way people was killed, but in the final numbers and result. In this perspective, chechen losses are magnitudes higher that russian losses (both civilian and military included). Poison is poison, it doesen't matter if you were the victim of a sweet or an arrow. What counts is wich population numerically and factually suffered the most, and in this sense, it's the chechens. 5) There are situations were logic doesen't apply, and only non-intervention is reasonable. Now there is always people who interpret non-intervention as tacite agreement, but this is due either to their lack of intellect, or to tentative manipulation of someone's else stance to fit their agenda. If I say "Did you forget to lie to me ?" What can you answer ? The question in itself denies any response if you did'n lie or did not have the intention to lie. Therefore you can only remain silent. Can I do anything about my interlocutor interpreting this silence as a tacite agreement ? No. The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes, and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is HUMAN LIFE. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Wheter you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looters stomach is an absolute. There are two sides to every issue; one side is right the other is wrong, but middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of CHOICE. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.

quote:Originally posted by Matchoo: quote:Originally posted by Soback: If an individual makes an error in his decission, it doesn't mean that that error was not made in his own best interest. When a child burns his hand touching the stove, you as an adult know that the decission to touch that stove is wrong one, the child doesn't, once he touches the stove and learns that it's not good for him, he learns, and therefore that first decission to touch the stove was in his best interest. He made it!!! That's what makes you an individual, you can learn from experience, personal, physical, by reading, looking, hearing etc...If however someone just makes the decission for you, and says it is so, and you have no choice about it because THEY KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU, then your mind has just been raped, that person is making you a zombie, a mindless drone, taking away your freedom of free will.I can't remember how the quote goes, but basically is says something to the effect of 'a smart man learns from his mistakes. A smarter man learns from the mistakes of others.' At some point in history someone burned their hand on the stove and realized that it hurt. That knowledge got passed down through the generations and we now know that if you touch a hot stove, it's going to hurt. Now if you don't believe this or think that your mind will be 'raped' if you don't listen, then by all means touch the stove and prove it to yourself. (I'm guessing afterwards you will say 'wow, what a dumb thing to do. I should have known better' rather than 'I am glad I did that. I am a better person even though my hand hurts like he||.') Sometimes making a decision for someone IS in their best interest, even if they don't know it then. I think many laws exist for the reason of protecting the many from the actions of the few rather than protecting the few from the actions of themselves, even though some laws may go overboard. That's is why I said that people learn by many ways. Read my post again, and THINK about the meaning of what I am saying. The decission to learn is a personal will. You have to learn, yourself, when someone else makes a decission for you, you are therefore giving away your free will. It doesn't mean you can't hire a stock broker to manage your funds, it was your DECISSION to hire a stock broker based on your own free will, just like you can fire him at any time. If you want to take advice of a friend, it is under your own free will that you can take it and do as he says. When you have no choice about something that you do, when you are doing something just BECAUSE THEY TELL YOU TO, you have given away your mind, willfully, and became a zombie. When you do somthing just BECAUSE THEY TELL YOU TO, and have no choice about it, you are a slave. Like I said, one decission, even a wrong one, made by you, is better than ten taken on faith. That's why people who make money, and get to keep it, are the ones who research things, and hire other people to HELP them, based on their research, and knowledge about those others. Would you hire a bum off the street to manage your stock account? Would you deposit your paycheck into the first bank that is closest to your house, or because someone told you to do it? Or would you take the time to see what that bank offers you, and the history of how they manage their customers money? By your standard, you might as well relinquish all RESPONSIBILITY for your own life, and become a slave of society, work, drink eat and sleep. You might as well let them decide what you eat, when you sleep, and what you do for a living. You can't relinquish only part of responsibility for your life, you either have FREE WILL, or you DON'T, you can't have it PARITALLY. Even if you are free to decide all but one thing, you are by defenition NOT FREE. That's why today, you have children killing others at schools, and the game company is responsible instead of the kids and their parents. They have given up their lives the moment they were born, by giving up their own free will, by giving up their responsibility for their actions. That's why you have kids jumping from one roof of the parking building to another, fall and get hurt, and the parking buildings owner is found responsible. Those kids apparently didn't have free will of NOT JUMPING, nor their parents of TEACHING THEM, they have released that RESPONSIBILITY to the SOCIETY, SCHOOLS, and parking garage owners. That's why you sue the stores for selling R rated games to kids, even when a parent buys one for his child himself. They have released that RESPONSIBILITY. That's why you see all this non-sence, illogical, and NON-ABSOLUTES. However, in this WORLD, by it's very nature, non-sence, non-absolutes, and anything illogical DO NOT EXIST, and therefore reality of things will ALWAYS catch up with you, and you will either LEARN, or get HURT, or KILLED. So go ahead, let others who are not qualified to run their lives, run yours. LOL, reality WILL catch up. The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes, and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is HUMAN LIFE. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Wheter you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looters stomach is an absolute. There are two sides to every issue; one side is right the other is wrong, but middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of CHOICE. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. So go head, let others run your life. [ 08-05-2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

If an individual makes an error in his decission, it doesn't mean that that error was not made in his own best interest. When a child burns his hand touching the stove, you as an adult know that the decission to touch that stove is wrong one, the child doesn't, once he touches the stove and learns that it's not good for him, he learns, and therefore that first decission to touch the stove was in his best interest. He made it!!! That's what makes you an individual, you can learn from experience, personal, physical, by reading, looking, hearing etc...If however someone just makes the decission for you, and says it is so, and you have no choice about it because THEY KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU, then your mind has just been raped, that person is making you a zombie, a mindless drone, taking away your freedom of free will. Do not be afraid to trust your mind because you think you might know so little. Are you safer surrendering your mind to someone else, and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience - that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible - that an error made on your own is safer then ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroyes your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automation, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that THAT is his distinction in the universe, THAT is his nature, his morality. The things you say Joel, is how social orders get established. Social orders based on the following tenets: that you're incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others - that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler, - that you're unable to earn your living by the use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and to vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of your capacity, would be unable succesfully to fill the job of assistant greaser. Think for YOURSELF Joel. Do not force your mind onto others, and do not allow others to FORCE their mind upon YOURS.

Telling the lawmakers? Telling them that the ones responsible for crimes are actually the ones who have commited them? They need to be told that? If they need to be told that, then they have ceased to be of any use to me a long time ago. Which as you can see they have. As far as sale of drugs being illegal, that's exactly the discussion here. Illegal by who, who told you that, who is forcing that assumption down your throat. They did, the same lawmakers who hold you responsible for crimes that someone elses comits. The only reason drugs are illegal is because THEY SAID SO. No other reason than that. Ever asked yourself why alcohol is not? Ever asked yourself why tobaco is not? Because they SAID IT'S NOT. No other reason than that. Some people here argue that drugs are illegal because the lawmakers know better than you do what's best for you. They refuse to accept the irrevocable. The fact that your life depends upon YOUR MIND. By you discarding that responsibility you will live in two states of chronic emotions, fear and guilt. And you will deserve them. Those emotions will come from the real and basic threat to your existence: Fear because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, your mind, you gave that away, having others make decissions for you. And guilt, guilt because you know you have done it volitionally.

By the same token Cruis.In. You can say that you, when you buy a diamond, is responsible for thousands of murders in Africa. By the same token, when you buy your clothes, you are responsible for chineese child labor. By the same token you are responsible for most any evil in this world. How about you hold the REAL criminals responsible. Not the person who buys the diamond, but a person who killed the miner for it. Not the person who buys jeans, but the person who works children 16 hours a day. Not the person who buys drugs, but the person who uses that money to kill. Who is responsible Cruis.In? That's why Nomad is arguing that Chechens killing innocent civilians are not responsible and are partially wrong, because those civilians are a part of Russia. So you as a consumer, commiting no crime against anyone, is responsible for the crime that someone else commits? How about this, the guy takes out a loan from the bank, buys an Uzi, and proceeds to mow dow dozens of people at the movie theater before killing himself, is the bank responsible? Was he a victim or a criminal? By your arguments, all those people were victims, including that guy, and only the bank is responsible. How about, the people were victims, and the guy a criminal. Name things by what they really are, don't avoid, or delute their meanings.

You are confused Cruis.In. The bullies in school FORCE their will on other children. They HUMBLE, other children to them. Did you notice that, HUMBLE. You told me to look up the definition, I did, now match the definition with that sentence, see if that makes sence. Bullies HUMBLE others, and you tried shaming Jag for not being HUMBLE? Who is the bully, you or I and people like me? Who tried to make the other submit by using their own guilt upon them? Surprised that there's people there who know their own worth? People like me do not FORCE anyone. We deal with other people, deals where both agree, one in exchange for another, when we don't then there's no exchange, no interaction. We know our worth, and we do not give out the products of our mind nor our labor for free. Your post Cruis.In. Your answer, a single sentence, a failed insult. That's what your argument can be reduced to by logic, reason, and reality being the final arbiter.

Joel, either assumption is not justifiable. Only one of them is. There is no NON - ABSOLUTES, and individual makes decissions in their own best interests or dies, THAT'S AN ABsOLUTE. AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM/HERSELF. That's also an absolute. You can't have it both ways Joel, this; A GROUP IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR INDIVIDUALS, that is slavery, destruction of ones mind. Children, they do know what is best for them, you as a parent, are there to GUIDE them, not FORCE them or make their choices for them. If they want to wear shorts in freezing cold, they will realize their mistake and they will rationalize that shorts and freezing cold don't match. If they want to touch the stove, they will realize that it's hot, and burning their hand is NOT in their best interest. A perfect example is no matter how many times you tell them not to touch a stove, they ALL DO and learn on their own. Mentally disabled on the other hand, do you think a mentally disabled will stick himself in an oven and burn up? Even mentally disabled realize self preservation, if they are at the point that they do not, then their mind is not there, and then you tell me, that society you speak of, are they really a member of it then? If they are so disabled that their mind is non-existent, how do they fit into that society? "An individual chooses to be an alcoholic. They suffer mental impairment, radical mood swings, and consequently can not hold down a job. Their spouse and children suffer financial hardship due to this individual's choice." --Your flaw in this argument is that the spouse and her children are tied to her husband. That they cling to him in self preservation. They (the spouse and the children) have free will, they are free to decide and do with their life as they please. When the husband gets drunk and takes a knife to his wife and kids, do you think they will not fight for their existence? or do you think they will stick with the father and let him kill them? Free will, self preservation, therefore an individuals decision in their own best, is what decides the outcome. If the wife sticks through with the husband inspite of his mood swings, and being dead broke, then she is making that choice because at that moment it's in her own best interest. If it was in her own best interest to leave, she would. "An individual decides for himself they can handle a car at 100MPH on a highway -- and they can. A less-capable motorist is startled (no contact between vehicles) as they pass, and in their startlement loses control and dies in a wreck. That one would likely be alive if they had not been startled by the first individual." ---So what, maybe that same less capable individual is startled by a loud motorcycle going by, by a deer running out, by anything else. He is just that, like you said, less capable. He then has made the choice of getting behind the wheel, fully knowing the risks. Again, the choice was HIS. "A person commits suicide, believing it best for themselves -- and they are correct. Yet family and friends are left emotionally devastated (emotional harm done). Since this person was a breadwinner their surviving family suffers financial hardship." --What do you propose, for that person to torture himself at the need of him friends and family? You are making a slave out of him, a slave to a group of people who decide that all of a sudden they own his life. Since he was the breadwinner, and they couldn't survive without him, he therefore had his own will taken away from himself, and became a slave to feed and provide for them. I LIVE FOR NO MAN, NOR DO I ASK ANY MAN TO LIVE FOR ME. When Egyptians owned slaves, how many people do you think those slaves supported with their production? How many people died because the production dissapeared when the slaves revolted. Do you propose then that just because one person depends on another, then he owns the life of that other? "A group decides that all persons without exception within the group must pay $X per year for membership wihtin the group. A person is too poor to afford it and yet can not leave the group due to costs imposed by the group on leaving it. This one lives in poverty and starves to death." ---I guess that if he starved to death, then staying with the group was not in his best interset was it now? And if he could not leave the group because of costs imposed, then didn't that group took away his own free will, and by imposing those costs forced him to stay, LIKE A SLAVE? "A group decides that a particular individuals have traits making them undesirable. Such individuals are imprisoned or executed." ---If an individual stays with that group, and a group executes him, what point are you trying to make? That the group is evil, and forced their will upon that individual? Are you debating yourself, because you just made the whole argument for me, that an individual WILL decide whats in his own best interest, or he will perish. "An individual refuses to consent to a group's command to assist in providing relief for other individuals who are starving to death, because the individual deems it not in their own best interest. Several of these starving ones die." ---If it wasn't in his own best interest, then why are you blaming him? What if he gave away his food as relief and then he himself wouldn't have enough to get him through. ONE DOES NOT LIVE AT THE PRICE OF ANOTHER. You can't have something you don't own. Or rather you can, in socialism, by taking it away by force, like in this example, from someone who does own it. "Another individual consents to the same command despite it not being in their best interest, and consequently *they* die, yet many starving ones are saved." ---If they did it of their own free will that's fine, if they were forced to, that's slavery, murder, and canibalism, exactly in that order. First they enslaved him by submitting him to their will, then they murdered him, and then they took everything he had to feed themselfs. DO YOU SEE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, IT'S STILL THE INDIVIDUALS SELF WILL THAT'S THE CONTROLLING FACTOR, ANYTHING LESS IS WRONG. "Deal with it." Deal with what? Enslavement, subjugation, raping of my mind, looting of my property? Because a group is forcing me to, for the better of a society? and when it's not best for me, then I am not a member of that society right? And the society is free to enslave me, subjugate me, loot me? The looters moto is: From each according to their ability, to each according to his need...here's the face of your GROUP.

Originally posted by $ilk "there is no logic meltdown. Speeding is a crime. Driving really fast down the road next to others, would be committing a crime against them. When you drive really fast, you are the victim of a more vicious circle than the simplicity you are looking at, you are a victim. And if you the individual is a victim, speeding cannot be victimless, it has a victim: You." --Who told you that speeding is a crime $ilk? The goverment? The ones who seem to know how to run your life better than you can? How exactly speeding is a crime? You do know that on some freeways in Europe THERE IS NO SPEED LIMIT. AAAAAA, back up now, the only reason speeding is a crime, THE ONLY ONE, is because THEY SAID SO. NO other reasons, JUST THAT. In some states they also said that spitting on the sidewalk is a CRIME. They are also trying to make it a CRIME to smoke in the privacy of your own CAR, and in FLORIDA, in YOUR OWN HOME. What is a crime $ilk, I will tell you towards the end. Driving down the road really fast to someone is NOT a crime against them. Crashing INTO them would be an accident against them, crashing INTO THEM on PURPOSE would be a CRIME against them. When I drive fast, I don't make myself a victim. I know the risks I am taking. I know that the possiblity of me dying, if a crash were to happen, increases with speed. It's an INFORMED decission to drive fast, VICTIMLESS. You are a VICTIM, when there's a CRIME happened, and you HAD NO CONTROL OVER IT. I race my motorcycle, am I a VICTIM? I crashed once because I was doing a wheelie, was I a victim of doing illegal wheelies? Or did I have a choice to NOT do the wheelies because of higher possibility of crashing? Re-examine your beliefs $ilk. You can not fight yourself, You can NOT be a victim of YOURSELF. Because then your own free will, your own mind, whole existence is nullified, when someone tells you they know best what is good for you, and you are not qualified to make a choice on how to live, YOURSELF. You do know what a slave, a work horse is don't you $ilk?

Here, lets try your comparison again, this time changing dogs with humans. "Let's put it that way. I walk with my children near a fenced area "with people on the other side". One day, I stop by, want this area for me, and start to throw stones at "those people". At other times, I jump in the area, throw a few more stones, and manage to kill a few "of them", and so on day by day. Then, one day, a few "people" jump out, see my children with my wife, and kill them all. Were "those people" wrong ? Yes, they killed people who did not harm them. Was I wrong (what you are missing, is those "people" have killed the ones nearby, the ones who had NOTHING to do with it, the only reason they killed them was because there were next to THEIR FENCE. You were wrong, they killed you too, justly, to stop your violence of killing them, and THEN they went on to kill indiscriminatly, everyone else in sight) to start the struggle ? Yes, I could have lived perfectly well without attempting to seize that area. And don't come with the silly arguments that those inside the fence aren't dogs but humans, unless you also define the indecency and ultimate responsability of the guy who instigated the conflict." Still works for you Nomad? Still say that those people going over and just killing whoever was on the other side is not plain out WRONG. Still say it's a GRAY AREA, somewhere in BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.

ROFL< Dogs Nomad, you had to run a comparison based on DOGS> You know why you had to do a comparison with DOGS? BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T WORK WITH HUMANS. Here's how a comparison with humans would go. I have 10 acres of land, there's 20 people living on my land. My neighbor has 10 acres of land, there's 20 people living on his land. 5 of the guys from my land start going over to my neighbors land and start killing some of his people living there, and move in in their houses. Next thing you know, 15 people from his land, start harrasing those 5 people who moved into their land, then they go over to my land and start killing the other 15 living there, who had NOTHING to do with it, indiscriminatively. That's when they cease to be humans, and become dogs, just like in YOUR comparison. ROFL. Double talk doesn't work with me Nomad, I will be making it my business to expose you every single time, whenever I can. Here's to EVERYONE reading his posts, HE has to run a comparison with DOGS, because dogs are animals, unable to reason, unable to separate right from wrong, humans have the ability to reason, to know what is right and wrong. If he would use humans in his comparison, everyone would see how wrong it was.He had to separate reason from the actions that's why he had to name them DOGS. Read my signature again Nomad. Humans have the ability to think, to define their actions, to REASON. Terrorists REASON, they reason that their killings are justified, that's it's ok because of the reasons you named in your own post, three up. "Because Russian civilians support the military with their taxes" Well, their reasoning is WRONG. Like I said, I know where you stand, I KNOW YOU AGREE WITH TERRORISTS, Everyone who has read this thread knows it by now. That's why you work so had on double answers and NON ABSOLUTS. I told you that you can't be both at the same time, just like you can't be stuffed and hungry, just like a glass can't be full and empty, just like you can't be wet and dry. Your double talk is useless, you should have listened. ROFL - DOGS [ 08-04-2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]