AWells

ROTFL... you're too much! Anyways, it's getting near time for me to pass out for the morning. Need to go and dream of the perfect utopian society. It's too bad there' so many "moral" christian people keeping the progress of humankind in the dark ages with such outdated concepts such as sin.

Actually, I had this great idea for criminals. Use them to promote the economy by sending them off to war... it doesn't matter where really... Iraq, Afganistan, Russia, Canada... what's the difference, right? Hell, we good probably negotiate with other countries and mutually agree to send wage war to cut down the prison population in our countries concerned. War means money, after all. Defense contractors need conflict to justify building new weapon systems and spending money into research and development of new technologies. Many of these technologies will have applications in non-military fields and will improve the standard of living for the rest of us. Best of all it will have the potential to bring reality TV to a whole new level. Instead of watching football on sundays Americans will turn to the war and watch there favorite criminals blowing each other away with automatic weapons. People will be able to bet on how many seconds any criminal will last under fire by buying tickets with there favorite picks name, much in the way people buy lottery tickets today. We can have annual war championships were all countries square off with thier best criminals on the field battle. It'll probably have better ratings than the superbowl and the olympics combined. Of course, some people might think that watching real people get shot, beyoneted, gassed, fragged, maimed, tortured and killed on live television is inappropriate for children, but remember most children will be found in your local grocer's freezer case. And as for rights activitist that might object to recycling people into more useful forms... well, we can always use more ground meat. [ 10-02-2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Voluntary my @$$! I don't think there would be a problem with making a mandatory retirement and recycling age. I would think that the elderly would happy just knowing they were still useful at that age. I mean, honesty, lack of a sense of usefulness is quite common among the older generations. Don't forget that the toughest parts, such as the soles of the feet, can be made into chew toys for teething puppies and children alike. Honestly, what better way to remember Grandma than to have her made into a stylish pair of boots, a durable wallet, a sturdy leather jacket for when you take your hog out cruising, and the left overs becoming sausages, dog food and chew toys. It's much more pleasent than burying somebody in the ground to rot, or having thier ashes kicking around not doing anything useful.

Hmmm... I think my writer's block for next college comp essay is effectively gone, now

quote: No darling, the real future for children is in the womenÔÇÖs fashion industry. Well, this brings up another possibility... besides children we have the elderly. Probably much too tough for woman's fashion, but just about right for good motorcycle jackets. Thousands of lives could be saved each year by the recycling of the elderly into protective clothing, while at the same time drastically cutting medicare costs. Think of it, there would be a higher purpose for living out a long life, in order to become a good jacket. I think it's a much more substantial meaning of life than anything that religion offers.

Children can be useful for much more than food though. You can dry them out and burn them as a good alternitive source of energy. Unlike fossil fuels, children are a replenishable resource. We can eliminate dependence on the Middle East by converting to child powered cars and power plants. So many solutions to the world's problems that organized religions won't let people see. They use morality to try and keep us from using our most precious natural resource, our children, to their fullest potential. [ 10-02-2002, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

ROTFLMAO! I don't know if there would be any shortage in supply, though. Look at how many kids some people can pump out for welfare checks, if McDonalds was paying for them instead they have to pump out even more... at one a year on average from age 13 to 60 that's 47 kids a piece. And it's potentially possible to pump out even more than 1 a year on average since a woman can get pregnant every 10-11 months. I do like the idea of baby bones in happy meals. I wonder how many I'd have to buy to collect a few skulls to decorate the christmas tree.

quote:And as for children who are up for adoption, well, sell them to McDonaldsÔǪ they put so much filler in there burgers I doubt anyone would notice a differenceÔǪ and if they did, wellÔǪ call ÔÇÿem kiddy burgers.And McDonalds food would probably taste better and the value of human of human life might be worth as much as cattle, then

quote: quote: Have you ever tried to stick one of those electro-shock training collars on somebody? It's no small feat, let me tell you. You just havenÔÇÖt found the right kind of partner darling Duh... if I found the right kind of partner, training wouldn't be required (though it might be fun, anyways) quote: Yep, and one of the best ways for a religion to spread is for it to breed followers. Homosexuals donÔÇÖt do a whole lot of breeding (that happens to be the problem with abortion and birth control as well). From my point of view that's why homosexuality and sodomy are important even though I don't find either one too tasteful. The last the planet needs is more breeding. As it is, on abortion, I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, but rather pro-death. Mandatory abortion is the way to go, especially considering how many people shouldn't reproduce (and remarkably... these people that shouldn't reproduce are the ones that seem to do it the most).

quote: My arguments were centered on the effect of that on women and society, so it'd still be bad on that level Are you saying that it would be bad if a woman had been with 3 people in an 8 year time period, but it's alright for me, since I'm a guy? quote: quote:Unfortunately it's absolutely true that human life isn't as valuable as cattle. Nobody wants to pay for a side of human these days. There's always hope that cannibalism will come into style and the price of human life will go up, though.I hope that was sarcasm. Who's being sarcastic? There's really not much of a market for human these days outside of prostitution and white slaverly which don't even come close to the market for cattle. The Germans tried the whole wallet and lamp shade thing but thier operation got shut down almost 60 years ago. The demand for human meat is relatively small and those few who have a taste for it prefer to hunt thier own. So, cattle is without a doubt more valuable than humans. quote: quote: Yeah, given that most marriages are likely to end in divorce, which is certainly not a pleasent experiance. Not to mention, who wants to marry somebody who doesn't know what they're doing at all? 1. People can be trained, well in fact. 2. Look at some statistics about marriages where there was no pre-marital sex at all and see how the statistics change. Also add in factors concerning religion and faith, and you'll be surprised at how low the divorce rate drops. 1. Have you ever tried to stick one of those electro-shock training collars on somebody? It's no small feat, let me tell you. 2. There's marriages with no premartital sex at all? I guess it's possible there's some floating around somewhere... I do people who have been married well over 60 years... my grand parents for instance. They live miserable lives hating each other and hardly even talk, but their misguided belief in catholism keeps them trapped in marriage. quote: quote: quote: Just because it may be pleasurable for some to have sodomy, doesn't make it the "correct" thing to do, just like it may be pleasurable to "have sex with a hole in the wall", doesn't make it correct. There are two distinct biological genders for a reason. Birth control and recreational sex accept the fact that there are TWO GENDERS that have sex and it is pleasurable to each other. Sodomy does not recognize the inherent truth of male/female. So, where does masturbation fit in that scheme, or is that same as sex with a hole in the wall? Again, i'm using it to point out the inherent problem with sodomy, you can apply to masturbation if you want too, I really don't care. After all, I apply each of your arguements to everything else you say and to unmentioned possibilities, your welcome to do the same. Sodomy isn't my thing, but it apparantly serves a purpose for some people. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. So, I don't see a problem inherit in sodomy. It's much like masturbation, it's not something that everybody does, but many people get enjoyment out of it, so it serves it a purpose. And no, it doesn't really make you go blind (well, alright... I went from 20/10 to 20/30 at my last eye exam but I blaim the computer screen and welding torches for that). Does either sodomy or masturbation hurt society? Is it immoral to get pleasure from something that doesn't hurt anyone else? Really I think religious objections of such acts stem from the desire to force one set of morality on everyone in an effort to control them. After all, organized religion is mostly about control. quote: Where/when/how did the AIDS virus develop, then? I know that it was first popular with homosexuals, but i'm wondering where it came from prior to that. The first reported cases were from Haiti, beyond that there's not much known. However, since HIV isn't found in other species, it's a safe bet it didn't species jump. Another species would have to carry the virus in order for it to jump.

quote: -Non-promiscuuous pre-marital sex is fine in my eyes as long as it stays that way, except that it almost never does and it leads to promiscuous sex. Umm... lets see... I had sex for the first time when I was 16, I'm 24 now and I've been with three people in that span of 8 years and I've never been married. Is a new girl every 2-3 years on average considered promiscuous sex or are you just saying that some day I'm going to wake up and have the sudden impulse to jump anything with a pulse? quote: Actually, the way I phrased it, at the time, was probably because I can't accept the possibility that we should be living in ANARCHY where human life is as valuable as CATTLE. It's probably because of my intelligence and arrogance, i'm not sure. I do know intrinsically, however, that my life, and the lives of people I care about, are more valuable than that. Unfortunately it's absolutely true that human life isn't as valuable as cattle. Nobody wants to pay for a side of human these days. There's always hope that cannibalism will come into style and the price of human life will go up, though. quote: I help some old lady cross the street, it's not going to be bad for me, even though it's good for society.Until a car hits you. quote:Just like if I turn in a theif to the police, it's good for society but it's not bad for me.Until his friends decide to look for revenge. quote:Waiting till marriage to have sex (not really good/bad argument), may be moral (under Christianity), but it's not BAD for you to do it. It doesn't directly HARM you in any way. Yeah, given that most marriages are likely to end in divorce, which is certainly not a pleasent experiance. Not to mention, who wants to marry somebody who doesn't know what they're doing at all? quote:It's my experience that if you don't have some sort of moral compass, your never really close to friends and are extremely detached from them. People are going to like you more if they have no fear of you stabbing them in the back, harming them, etc, and if you care about them they are much more likely to feel comfortable around you and like you. From what you've said, it doesn't seem like you care about your friends enough that they'd like you beyond the level of how useful you are.Based on your definitions of morality I have no moral compass what so ever. Honestly, there's more than a few people who alive today based solely on the fact I don't want to go to jail for life for murder. I have no qualms with killing and have never had remorse for people I know who have died. Any appearance of morality I might have when it comes to murder stems solely from my own desire to look out for my own interests, which means not going to prison. Despite this fact, I have close friends, though they may not be numorous (I can count them on one hand and still have two fingers left over). I have many more who are not quite as close, but they still aren't about being my friend to get something from me. Then of course there's people that I just use and throw away... they don't stick around long, where as the rest of my friends I've known for as long as 9 or 10 years. Really, I'm anti-social and hate people in general. The people I consider friends are generally the few exceptions to that rule that I've met over the years. quote: Just because it may be pleasurable for some to have sodomy, doesn't make it the "correct" thing to do, just like it may be pleasurable to "have sex with a hole in the wall", doesn't make it correct. There are two distinct biological genders for a reason. Birth control and recreational sex accept the fact that there are TWO GENDERS that have sex and it is pleasurable to each other. Sodomy does not recognize the inherent truth of male/female. So, where does masturbation fit in that scheme, or is that same as sex with a hole in the wall? quote: Well, I doubt you know for a FACT that it did not jump species (since there are obviously opposing opinions on it), but I also admit that my only source is just some article I read awhile ago in a Sociology class. Having been through drug and alcohol rehabitation (probably not surprising ), I say that I've sat through three different courses on sexually transmitted diseases. To my knowledge there's no evidence it jumped species, unless homosexuals are considered another species in your book. The only other species affected with similiar virus is cats, and it's known that though similiar the viruses aren't the same and didn't jump species. Not saying it didn't jump species, but the mainstream opinion is against such a notion. [ 10-01-2002, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

quote: What's the Supreme's Court justification for allowing concealed carry permits? I'd apply for a permit, not go on without one, but i'm wondering if you ever got arrested for it, you'd have grounds to appeal it to the Supreme Court. Not sure if the US Supreme Court has ruled either way on the issue. Since it falls under the 2nd Amendment it would be possible to appeal it that far, assuming you had good legal counsel. In practice, however, any one of the lower courts could torpedo your case before it made it that far. Since most people who are arrested would rather clear themselves, they'd probably take the more likely to succceed approach of supressing the gun from evidence at trial (it becomes impossible to prove the crime of carrying without a permit if they can't even mention that you were carrying anything).

quote: quote:I don't know much about Canadian government, but I'm assuming it's based roughly on the British model. Unlike, the US, the British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens. Though they enjoy many of the same freedoms as the US, their rights are not protected and can be taken away by the government at any time. I doubt the US government wouldn't do that to American citizens if deemed necessary, so I don't see the difference. In the United States the rights of the individual are protected by the amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. If for instance, Congress was to pass a law stating that police have the right to stop and strip search anybody at thier leisure, the Supreme Court would declare the law unconstitutional and it would no longer be law since it violates 4th Amendment rights protecting the people from unlawful search. quote: quote: British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens Now that bothers me. How's that possible? I don't understand. In the British system individual rights are protected by nothing more than common law in most cases. In contrast to the US system, there's no check to say "Hey... you can't pass that law authorizing random strip searches." A few things being proposed by Prime Minister Blair in the UK that would never fly in the US... Eliminating the right to trial by jury Eliminating the right to remain silent Eliminating the right against self-incrimination Eliminating the right to confront your accuser Eliminating the protection from double jeopardy (being tried for the same crime more than once) So, the British government doesn't acknowledge the rights of it's citizens, it only grants or takes away privilages from it's subjects.

I can't see gun confiscation happening on a national level in the US. Given the length of time it takes to train a BATF agent, they'd never be able to keep up with the casualties.

quote: new Hampshire's concealed carry look to be a shall issue from the way it is stated. Technically it is, but since there's no hard definitions of what constitutes a reason for denial, it leaves a major loop hole for anti-gun types to not issue carry permits in thier town. For instance, I'm considered too dangerous to have one because I bounced 4 checks when I was a teenager (Well, at least that's my assumption since the only thing they say for reasons is "Unsuitable Person" and that's the only thing I have on my record). And yes, I could appeal it and probably win, but it's not worth the expense (especially since I'm a poor broke college student... lol). Anyways, there was a movement to push a bill for Vermont style carry (since Vermont is our neighbor), but I don't know what's happening with that. As it stands our current governor is anti-gun and pro-tax and I'll be glad when she's out of office. Anybody who wants state income and sales tax and hates guns just doesn't deserve to even be a NH resident, let alone the Governor. quote: quote:In Canada, you are a subject, not a citizen I don't get it. What do you mean by subject? I don't know much about Canadian government, but I'm assuming it's based roughly on the British model. Unlike, the US, the British government doesn't officially acknowledge individual rights of the citizens. Though they enjoy many of the same freedoms as the US, their rights are not protected and can be taken away by the government at any time. [ 09-29-2002, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

quote:Most of those states, except for Vermont, had a disclaimer as far as concealed carry was concerned. Without permission of the state, you could NOT carry concealed. Vermont of course is do whatever you want with your firearm, as long as you do not commit a crime with it. If there's a disclaimer in NH, it's not in the constitution. 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire quote: All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obt aining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. All regulations imposing restrictions of carrying arms takes place in statutes outside the constitution, namely Chapter 159:6.

quote:Besides, it is unconstitutional (after all, the second amendment specifies the right to bear arms, not just own them, and most states consider walking around with a visible gun illegal).Actually, I luck out living in a state that permits open carry without a permit. So, I don't see the logic in applying for a concealed carry permit... if somebody saw me carrying a gun I can always argue that it wasn't concealed and thus perfectly legal (after all, if it was concealed they wouldn't have seen it, now would they? )

quote: I am just glad we no longer have to cross the border for tattoos. And all my friends up here in the tattooing industry aren't so glad [ 09-28-2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Litvyak ]

Oh well, about time to pose another question... Concealed carry permits... good or evil? Many otherwise legal gun owners carry illegally because there's either no provision for legal concealed carry in thier state or concealed carry is regulated, allowing government officials to pick and choose who gets to carry at a whim. Many more carry without a permit because they simply feel the permit is unconstitutional since it makes the right to carry into a priviledge and actually charges people for it. Could you picture being charged money for a permit to speak freely, or a annual fee to ensure that the police wouldn't search your home on a whim without just cause?

quote: I am 5 ft. I live a bit outside of Boston. I can get me a gun and go on a spree, and because I am a short chick I could probobly pull it off because I felt threatened. Or are you saying I can't do that because I am in Massachusetts? You'd be hard pressed trying to prove a killing spree is self defense no matter where you live. Living near Boston you'd be hard pressed to even get a gun in the first place. You need a permit to purchase one from the Commonwealth of Massachusettes before you even have to worry about going to a gun shop. Are there even gun shops in that area anyways? I've seen package stores everywhere I've looked but I've never seen a gun shop... of course it makes sense, since not only is Ted Kennedy against guns but he doesn't have a problem with killing people drinking and driving.

quote: Very sexist not that youll hear me complain What can I say... the world is a very sexist place. Though there is some truth to that one since on average a male has greater upper body strength than a female of the comparative size. Then again I knew a girl not even 5'6" that fractured a woman's skull in three seperate places (granted she used a pair of steel toed Doc Martens to do it).

quote: Oh dear, let me see if I understand you correctly. If IÔÇÖm attacked by an unarmed man who is smaller then me (and being that IÔÇÖm a tad of 6ft tall, most men are smaller then me) then it would be illegal to shoot him? ThatÔÇÖs kind of scary when you think about it. It can become an issue... really it depends alot on the prosecutor, since they make the determination on whether to pursue criminal charges. Generally, though, where gender differences are involved there's a good chance it will biased in the female's favor regardless of differences in physical size. Basically even if somebody does everything perfectly by the book they can still end up having charges pressed against them, a case more likely in a place like California, NYC, or Taxachusettes (especially Boston). Which brings up another good point, if you do have to shoot somebody don't say anything beyond "I thought he/she was going to kill me... I was so scared" to the police until you have an attorney present. Since even if you were perfectly justified a simple mistake in the choice of words you use could lead to criminal charges and those words being used against you in court.

quote: A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined. Yes, I imagine it's rare to see a teenager die from heart disease, cancer, or any other of the "natural" causes of death. The question is, how do gunshot wounds stack up against other unnatural causes of death, such as drowning, car accidents, drug overdose, etc... quote: Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries. In 1997 an FBI van was stolen and along with a variety of weapons intended for crisis response, including M-16 rifles and grenade launchers. Does this mean we should take the guns away from the military and law enforcement since criminals seem to steal from them, too? I mean, after all, I doubt many criminals were able to score grenade launchers from robbing the average American home.

Well, got Earth and Beyond as a present, and turned it in unopened for Mafia. I have to say this blows GTA III away in fun factor. Of course it does seems bit on the linear side for me.

quote: JAg is right. Just kill him. Provided you have met all the rules for inescapable danger. Dunno if I read that or just heard it. I believe one of the rules of self defense is no other means of escape. I will gladly be educated on this. The guidelines covering the legal use of deadly force varies from to state. Generally, though, it requires an immediate threat with the capability to inflict severe bodily harm or death and the motivation to inflict that harm. In most cases when the threat is unarmed it usually requires showing that attacker was considerably more powerful, either through greater physical size or through superior numbers. It's also worth noting that justifiable lethal force is heavily based on the what the person had knowledge of at the time they pulled the trigger. It's perfectly possible to shoot an armed attacked and still get charged with murder if there was no way you could've known the attacker was armed at the time. quote: DonÔÇÖt worry darling, at the rate things are going in a few generations we will be advanced enough. Advanced enough to use genetic engineering and mind control to turn the masses into cattle that is. Genetic engineering and mind control? Who needs that when they already have TV?