DUI Legislation I CAN Support.

[Athena]

WA bill requires yellow license plate for DUI drivers
12:24 PM PST on Monday, February 11, 2008
By TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING5.com
AP

Drivers convicted of DUI in Ohio are forced to drive with one of these flourescent yellow plates. A bill in the Washington state Senate proposes a similar law.

SEATTLE – Drunk drivers in Washington state could soon have their own Scarlet Letter in the form of a fluorescent yellow license plate.

In Olympia today, the Senate Transportation Committee is meeting to discuss a bill that would require some drivers convicted of DUI to drive only a vehicle that has front and rear yellow license plates for a year once their driving privileges are restored.

The cost could be $10 per plate for most vehicles and $2 for motorcycles or mopeds. Failing to drive with a fluorescent plate would be a misdemeanor and trying to disguise the plate's color would be a gross misdemeanor.

The fluorescent plates would not be required on a car owned by the driver's employer.

If passed, the new law would take effect January 1, 2009.

Currently, only Ohio has a similar law in effect.

------------

Is humiliation a deterrent? I sure hope so. Perhaps this could help alleviate the need for ridiculous incarceration. A jail-free sentence for a victim-free crime.

[swivel]

Great idea. It will help cops pick out swerving drivers. Like having a bullseye on your car! :D

[TXChris]

Personally, it sounds like a great idea. We're saving money on incarceration of people whose only reason for being in jail is the potential that they might, at some point after having a few drinks or more, hurt someone else. There are more people who have drank, at least one drink, and driven then there are those who have drank and not driven. Everyone has a different tolerance level. It all depends on the person's physical size, length of time they have been drinking (both in total life years and on the current day), medication they may be taking at the time, etc. So it seems pretty crazy to lump everyone into a generalization, set down a law, and charge them for a "crime" which did not hurt anyone.

I much rather prefer this law than doing what has been done in a nearby city more than once. In Midland-Odessa there is a particularly busy club which has seen police "tag" the taillights of cars in the parking lot, while the patrons were inside. When the person drives their car, the paint on the taillight shows flourecent so it is easy to tell who was at the club. Mind you, this does not mean that the person was drinking. Rather, it means simply that the person was at the club. I don't know about everyone else, but I have been known to go out and have a good time without drinking. Yet, because of the markings, these same police then start pulling over random drivers, after the club closes in the early morning, and giving the drivers field sobriety tests in the hopes that they will catch someone drinking and driving. THAT is crazy.

[swivel]

TXChris, if you are sober, why worry if you are tagged or pulled over?

Those of us that don't break the law actually enjoy our interactions with cops. I daresay that we are paying them to protect us from everyone else.

[Athena]

TXChris, if you are sober, why worry if you are tagged or pulled over?


Nooooooooooo!

THE single biggest threat to civil liberties in this country. "Well, why worry if you've got nothing to hide?" It's been said about wire-tapping, illegal police raids, etc.

You really do have a fascist streak. @_@

[swivel]

Nooooooooooo!

THE single biggest threat to civil liberties in this country. "Well, why worry if you've got nothing to hide?" It's been said about wire-tapping, illegal police raids, etc.

You really do have a fascist streak. @_@

Nope. Fascists want immoral laws to be forced on an unwilling populace. I want moral laws to be enforced by whatever means necessary.

[Athena]

Nope. Fascists want immoral laws to be forced on an unwilling populace. I want moral laws to be enforced by whatever means necessary.

As we saw with Germany, fascism is not necessarily marked by the willingness (or lack thereof) of the population. As we've seen with fascist leaders and their hoards of followers, morality is surprisingly relative. You're simply interested in imposing your will.

[swivel]

As we saw with Germany, fascism is not necessarily marked by the willingness (or lack thereof) of the population. As we've seen with fascist leaders and their hoards of followers, morality is surprisingly relative. You're simply interested in imposing your will.

Do you just read the first sentence of my posts, or something? You better hope that is what everyone else does, or else they are going to see the same fool that I spy.

Germany was forcing people to kill Jews. Not something I would label as "moral".

If you do not think there are standards of right and wrong that all citizens must be held to, you are an anarchist and should begin embracing that fact. The rest of us would like some rules around here, and want someone responsible for enforcing them.

Personal question, slightly off-topic: Do you smoke pot?

[Athena]

Do you just read the first sentence of my posts, or something? You better hope that is what everyone else does, or else they are going to see the same fool that I spy.

Germany was forcing people to kill Jews. Not something I would label as "moral".

If you do not think there are standards of right and wrong that all citizens must be held to, you are an anarchist and should begin embracing that fact. The rest of us would like some rules around here, and want someone responsible for enforcing them.

Personal question, slightly off-topic: Do you smoke pot?

That's my point. While you would not label it as moral, many Germans did. That's why morality should never be THE determining factor. Morality gets really relative when you're talking about anything less than the systematic genocide of millions of innocent people. When you make it about right and wrong, we have to decide who is right and wrong. Not everything can be so clear as murder.

Personal answer: Nope.

[TXChris]

TXChris, if you are sober, why worry if you are tagged or pulled over?

Those of us that don't break the law actually enjoy our interactions with cops. I daresay that we are paying them to protect us from everyone else.

Actually, Swivel, we pay them to protect us from those who would do us harm.

And, it's funny, I used to think the same way you do about not worrying about being pulled over if I've done nothing. But then, I came to the realization that if I have not done anything to cause me to be pulled over why should I be forced to go through the motions of being suspected of doing wrong?

[swivel]

Actually, Swivel, we pay them to protect us from those who would do us harm.

And, it's funny, I used to think the same way you do about not worrying about being pulled over if I've done nothing. But then, I came to the realization that if I have not done anything to cause me to be pulled over why should I be forced to go through the motions of being suspected of doing wrong?

Oh, you "came to the realization". Wow. Excellent logic there. Masterful debating skills. I am convinced.

Seriously dude, you've used this passive-aggressive nonsense on me before, and I called you out on it then as well. The argument that "I used to think the same way too" has been an obvious slam (and fallacy) employed by losing debaters for years. The readers of this forum are too smart to fall for that. (Well. Maybe a love-struck groupie would, but everyone else will see it for the childish stab that you meant it to be).

Besides, wouldn't this make born-again Christians inherently correct?

Look, don't pull this again, it robs you of your credibility. If your CURRENT position has any merit, try pointing that out to me. Don't just state your opinion and then say that you "came to this realization". I am forever creating apt analogies for you two that demonstrate the incorrectness of your positions, and the best you can do is spit back a perverted re-stating of my analogy, with your twisted logic making a mess of things.

Try coming up with some reasons for what you think. Use some examples. Tell me how our already-overly-bureaucratic monstrosity of a government could regulate leaving your children in your car based on a temperature/time/humidity formula. How this is more logical than just saying "Don't fucking do it", as I advocate. Tell me how we can play with the lives of children by saying, "Only 300,000 kids will suffer from intestinal infections due to secondhand smoke, so the right of a parent to smoke in a car should take precedence".

Give it your best shot.

[TXChris]

You know, you really never cease to amaze me. Yes, it was my opinion, which is what you asked for when infering your opinion. I was just letting you know, in a friendly way, that I, used to have the same opinion as you regarding not having anything to worry about so why be upset for being pulled over for nothing. So, ummm, okay...moving on...

Oh, I see, you posted this in the wrong thread...try the smoking thread. Thanks. :)

[swivel]

You know, you really never cease to amaze me. Yes, it was my opinion, which is what you asked for when infering your opinion. I was just letting you know, in a friendly way, that I, used to have the same opinion as you regarding not having anything to worry about so why be upset for being pulled over for nothing. So, ummm, okay...moving on...

Oh, I see, you posted this in the wrong thread...try the smoking thread. Thanks. :)

Nope. Correct thread. That's kinda how the "quote" feature works in this forum.

I can keep the two conversations separate. I just pretend that one of you is Athena. ;)

Oh, and an apology would go further than your lame attempt to excuse your juvenile behavior. I really want to be able to debate you without having to worry about these passive-aggressive games. As you can probably deduce, I prefer outright aggressiveness, so long as you have something interesting to say.

[TXChris]

At this point you are making less and less sense. This thread happens to be about DUI legislation, yet you refer in most of your latest post to the thread about Smoking Bans which included the sweltering car.

[Dark Star]

I personally do not like my car searched for no reason other than some smart cop profiling my ass.
Example. My old car had Grateful Dead stickers on it. Yeah, whatever. I guess idiots assume because I listen to the Grateful Dead and I wear tie-dyes that I haul a shit load of dope in my car. Ha Ha. My new used car has no stickers on it. I still wear tie-dye (I'm such a rebel that way).:p
Another Example. My husband was pulled over and a cop said he smelled pot. Hubbie wasn't smoking pot, but the cop searched our van because he had probable cause. My husband was handcuffed for "both" their safety. Of course the copper found no pot. :D What a ridiculous waste of time.
If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't want to be searched.

[TXChris]

I personally do not like my car searched for no reason other than some smart cop profiling my ass.
Example. My old car had Grateful Dead stickers on it. Yeah, whatever. I guess idiots assume because I listen to the Grateful Dead and I wear tie-dyes that I haul a shit load of dope in my car. Ha Ha. My new used car has no stickers on it. I still wear tie-dye (I'm such a rebel that way).:p
Another Example. My husband was pulled over and a cop said he smelled pot. Hubbie wasn't smoking pot, but the cop searched our van because he had probable cause. My husband was handcuffed for "both" their safety. Of course the copper found no pot. :D What a ridiculous waste of time.
If I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't want to be searched.

My sister was profiled the same way. She is very unique. Tons of tattoos, some piercings, doorag, etc. So, she was pulled over for a supposed faulty taillight. It was working fine, come to find out. The officer was extremely rude and subjected her and her vehicle to a search. My sister is the most straight-laced person anyone would ever like to meet. She does not do drugs. Does not cause problems. And, she happens to be graduating this May with just shy of a 4.0 in Fine Arts. She has perfect credit and works her ass off. Why was she pulled over? Simply because the officer thought she looked like trouble. THAT is why people should be worried about being harassed if they have nothing to hide.

[swivel]

I personally do not like my car searched for no reason other than some smart cop profiling my ass.
Example. My old car had Grateful Dead stickers on it. Yeah, whatever. I guess idiots assume because I listen to the Grateful Dead and I wear tie-dyes that I haul a shit load of dope in my car. Ha Ha. My new used car has no stickers on it. I still wear tie-dye (I'm such a rebel that way).:p
Another Example. My husband was pulled over and a cop said he smelled pot. Hubbie wasn't smoking pot, but the cop searched our van because he had probable cause. My husband was handcuffed for "both" their safety. Of course the copper found no pot. :D What a ridiculous waste of time.

You don't smoke pot?

When I was 19, I was driving home from school and was pulled over for not having an inspection sticker on my car. I had long hair (halfway to my waist), a tattoo on my shoulder, playing rock and roll, etc... I looked like a pot-smoking hippie. Well, I showed the cop my inspection receipt and the receipt for the purchase of my new windshield, which was why there were no stickers.

The cop saw the J and B papers in my glovebox and asked me about them. I showed him my Drum cigarette tobacco. He asked why I had empty Camel packs if I rolled my smokes. I told him that I was too lazy to always roll them, that they were a treat. He said that he had probable cause to search my car. I said, go ahead.

When he found a pocketknife (that I was happy to see, I thought that I had lost it!) under my seat, he called it a "concealed weapon" and put me in cuffs in the back of his squad car. He was playing the bad cop, while his partner sat in the car and kept asking me where the drugs were, that they didn't want to take me downtown, but they needed to know where the drugs were.

I kept telling him (what, admittedly a guilty person would also say), I don't do drugs officer. I don't even drink alcohol. I smoke cigarettes and that is it. I don't even speed. I break no laws. Do whatever you have to do.

They threatened to bring in dogs to sniff the car. I told them that it was fine by me. At no point did I feel threatened or upset. I knew what I looked like, and that they were doing their jobs. I kept telling them this, which I think really threw them off. The bad cop was so angry because he was convinced that I was hiding something. I gave him the combo to my briefcase, let him go through my trunk, answered all of his questions with respect, and in the end, he cited me for the concealed weapon, gave me a court date, and the name of a parole officer.

I went to court on the assigned date with no representation and explained the entire situation to the judge. The judge gave me my knife back and verbally accosted the officer for "wasting everyone's time". It cost me a bit of my time, and nothing more. I never had to sacrafice my moral authority, or fear any repercussions.

I have been in several situations similar to this, and every time I have never had an ounce of fear. I don't get much from Socrates, but I do often tell myself that "A just man can not be harmed". I really believe that. When you know that you have done nothing wrong, even if you are mistakenly thrown in jail, you can not be harmed. If you think that you can, then you value the wrong part of you.

I long for a more open, honest society. The more anonymity we have, the worse we are to one another. We are genetically programed to co-exist in small tribes, not global communities. We are better off when we know everyone's name, and feel connected somehow. The pretend Libertarians, who value secrecy and shame, disgust me. They revel in the vile and celebrate the wicked. They pretend that morality is not written in our DNA, but is something to written by each individual, and each entry given equal merit.

It is no wonder they live in constant fear. They know themselves all too well.

[Dark Star]

Quote Swivel..."I have been in several situations similar to this, and every time I have never had an ounce of fear. I don't get much from Socrates, but I do often tell myself that "A just man can not be harmed". I really believe that. When you know that you have done nothing wrong, even if you are mistakenly thrown in jail, you can not be harmed. If you think that you can, then you value the wrong part of you"

Swivel, I can dig what your saying. I sit smugly (usually when getting searched) because no, I do not smoke pot in my car. I rarely even fucking drive. I hate riding in cars. I'm weird like that.(was in a bad car wreck about 7 yrs ago and ummm I don't like being in cars too much since then) But, as a woman, I have had the shit scared out of me by cops who think they're all that. Example, once I was stopped (this has been 20 yrs ago), and when I asked the officer what the problem was, he told me I was "going a little over the speed limit". I replied with, "I don't believe I was sir." (at this time I drove a car without a back seat...it was an old 1970 Charger my ex-husband and I were fixing up...I had a lot of trash in the back, cause I don't litter and didn't give a shit about cleaning out the back) Anywho...He shines his flashlight in the back and asks me about "not having a backseat and all the trash". I said to him, "It is not illegal to drive without a back seat or trash in the car". Then he asks me, "Are you getting smart with me?". Shit fire. It was around 12am. I had just gotten off work and had my nursing uniform on. Which he also asked me about. He was a smart ass prick, who tried to intimidate me. He threatened to cuff me and search the car. I replied with "I believe cuffing me is unnecessary, but feel free to dig through the trash and search the car". He then proceeded to tell me, to stay in the car and he'd be right back. I swear to god, I had thoughts of taking off in that Charger, damn thing had a 440 with a 4barrel carb...it could get it...;) I was thinking to myself as well, what is this asshat going to do with my ass? I was uncomfortable, extremely. I knew I had done nothing wrong. I knew I had nothing in my car. Didn't matter, I was still frightened and annoyed that this asshole was hassling me. After all was said and done, he returned to my car and told me, that I was lucky he was in a good mood, he gave me a verbal warning about the trash in the car being a hazard if it blew out. (wtf ever) and told me to slow down. :rolleyes: Hmmm I should also add, that I lived in a rural community (still do)....sometimes I think they have nothing better to do than to be assholes.
I have so many more stories, believe me.
You know, in the the 26 years, I've driven, I've had one speeding ticket...in that damn Charger, go figure :D and had one accident whilst driving. Heh.

[swivel]

I feel a lot of empathy for cops. They are regular people who have to fight the natural corruption that comes from their profession.

A famous psychological study had college volunteers pose as prisoners or guards for a week. Immediately, the nicest kids who were the "guards" started to abuse the prisoners. They took advantage of their situation of power, and the prisoners became cowed.

After some time, they switched positions, and the new guards became just as cruel, even though they knew what it felt like to be on the other end. I can think of dozens of real-world situations that mimic this behavior, (treatment of freshmen in highschool, hazing rituals, boss/employee dynamics)

It is important to keep in mind that the individual cop is probably no different than we would be in the same situation. And they deal with the scum of the Earth every day, and still go back to work. At a dangerous job, for shit pay, and getting respect from only the few of us that live a guilt-free life.

It is almost impossible to attain perfect self-control. When a cop is chasing a criminal for hours, they are in a biological state of "hunt" that evolved for millions of years. They are primed to KILL their prey. The fact that they almost never do seems to me a miracle of self-control and enlightened human kindness. When anarchists scream about the rare cases of abuse at the end of a primal struggle, they reveal their own staggering ignorance by pointing to the exception amongst an almost incomprehensible rule of compassion.

[Dark Star]

I feel a lot of empathy for cops. They are regular people who have to fight the natural corruption that comes from their profession.

Trust me, man, I would not want to be in their shoes, honestly. I cannot imagine the things these men and women deal with. I realize that most cops are good, helpful and protective of the people. There are exceptions. I don't appreciate the profiling, myself.
I've been to loads of musical festivals in my day, and met many a kind police officer. My ex brother in law was a cop, damn fine one. On the other side, I've had male cops scare the piss out of me for no reason other than the way I dress.
My thing with this is. I don't like my privacy invaded. It's my car, my house, my purse, my person. Now if I am acting like a fucking idiot, driving down the road like a Michael Gagnon, then by all means, my ass should be stopped and my car searched for booze or drugs, because it's obvious I am fucked up. If I am minding my damn business and not causing trouble. I would prefer to be left alone. The smell of patchouli. Tie-dye clothes. Grateful Dead stickers, does not deem a search.:)

[Athena]

I long for a more open, honest society. The more anonymity we have, the worse we are to one another. We are genetically programed to co-exist in small tribes, not global communities. We are better off when we know everyone's name, and feel connected somehow. The pretend Libertarians, who value secrecy and shame, disgust me. They revel in the vile and celebrate the wicked. They pretend that morality is not written in our DNA, but is something to written by each individual, and each entry given equal merit.



Do you honestly think that such honesty should be imposed by the law enforcement arm of government? As though history hasn't illustrated what such measures can eventually lead to.

Can I not value the protection the Constitution affords me against unreasonable search and seizure without being presumed guilty by you?

I value this protection, like I value ALL Constitutional protections, whether it applies to me or not. I value freedom of the press even though I'm no journalist. I value freedom of religion although I subscribe to none at all. I value these things because I understand the role they serve in maintaining a just, free society.

I am a generally law-abiding citizen. I do not fear the police. I've invited them into my home to search, despite their lack of a warrant, specifically because I knew I had nothing to hide. But that was my choice. Therein lies the difference.

Having nothing to hide does not impact my support of protection. It's not like I support these protections for the sake of all those who do have something to hide. I support these protections, much like I oppose warrantless wire-tapping or other arbitrary measures of government surveillance, because history has given us clear examples of what arbitrary enforcement can do to a populace.

Hey...I thought you were a fan of The Road to Serfdom? Hayek covers this issue pretty clearly toward the beginning of the book. :confused:

[Athena]

I just pretend that one of you is Athena. ;)


Hot.

[swivel]

The smell of patchouli. Tie-dye clothes. Grateful Dead stickers, does not deem a search.:)

Are you suggesting that we should not use our knowledge of prior experiences to generalize for future ones?

I've had dogs run at me to play with me, and run at me to bite me. When a future dog runs at me, which one should I assume? Shouldn't society make the same tough decisions, even if it hurts some people's feelings, or inconveniences them for half an hour?

When I see a rebel flag, I assume the owner is racist, but pretends that the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. I have yet to find myself regretting this assumption.

When I see a black youth with his pants around his knees (literally), I assume he does not listen to classical music. I've tested this hypothesis (to the delight of my friends), and continue to bat 1.000

I can see a homeless man coming at me to beg a quarter from a block away, so reliable that I am, every time, able to ask them for a quarter first, defusing the situation.

When I see a Grateful Dead sticker, I assume the owner smokes pot. I am almost always correct. I've been to several Dead concerts and a few Lallapallozas (sp?) and would get funny looks for declining pot.

Generalizations are good, as long as you aren't using them to harm anyone. And a slight delay in your day is no harm, considering the benefits. I would be fine if the official policy was to pull aside all young, male, Middle-Easterners at every checkpoint. Until some other demography starts blowing themselves up, this seems like a fine way to conserve resources and promote efficiency. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't widen that circle if retarded women started threatening us.

[swivel]

Athena, I'm also a huge fan of "The Omnivore's Dillema", but I continue to eat the same way I did before reading it.

I'm not into blind worship or following people just because I admire them. I think for myself and rely on people challenging my position, not ad verecundiam nonsense.

Oh, but judging by post #22, I can see that this probably falls on deaf ears.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

WA bill requires yellow license plate for DUI drivers
12:24 PM PST on Monday, February 11, 2008
By TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING5.com
AP

Drivers convicted of DUI in Ohio are forced to drive with one of these flourescent yellow plates. A bill in the Washington state Senate proposes a similar law.

SEATTLE – Drunk drivers in Washington state could soon have their own Scarlet Letter in the form of a fluorescent yellow license plate.

In Olympia today, the Senate Transportation Committee is meeting to discuss a bill that would require some drivers convicted of DUI to drive only a vehicle that has front and rear yellow license plates for a year once their driving privileges are restored.

The cost could be $10 per plate for most vehicles and $2 for motorcycles or mopeds. Failing to drive with a fluorescent plate would be a misdemeanor and trying to disguise the plate's color would be a gross misdemeanor.

The fluorescent plates would not be required on a car owned by the driver's employer.

If passed, the new law would take effect January 1, 2009.

Currently, only Ohio has a similar law in effect.

------------

Is humiliation a deterrent? I sure hope so. Perhaps this could help alleviate the need for ridiculous incarceration. A jail-free sentence for a victim-free crime.


WAIT! You're ok with humiliation in this case, but how is this "oppression" different than sex registries!????

[swivel]

WAIT! You're ok with humiliation in this case, but how is this "oppression" different than sex registries!????

It's kind of a knee-jerk thing. It takes some getting used to.

[CPL CHUD]

I think this is a good idea. If the benefit is that it is easier for police to identify potentially drunk drivers and the cost is a few minutes of time or some ostracization, then so be it. I'm all for reducing the number of drunk drivers killing innocent people.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

It's kind of a knee-jerk thing. It takes some getting used to.


Yep. :lol:

[Athena]

I obviously mistook the nature of your appreciation for the book. When I picked up the book a couple of months ago, I was pleased to see that a Nobel prize winning economist and revered political philosopher like Hayek espoused views so similar to my own.

Now, regarding post #22 - Your fixation strokes my ego, regardless of my opinion of you.

[Athena]

WAIT! You're ok with humiliation in this case, but how is this "oppression" different than sex registries!????

It's QUITE simple, really - The DUI offender has a choice in whether or not his offense is advertised. If he doesn't like it, he can simply fail to renew his driving privileges.

Also, the cost of maintaining such a system is not the burden of tax payers. The offenders pay the extra cost. Sex offenders, on the other hand, do not pay for the maintenance of the registries, fliers and other advertisements.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

It's QUITE simple, really - The DUI offender has a choice in whether or not his offense is advertised. If he doesn't like it, he can simply fail to renew his driving privileges.


Lol, ok, ok.


Only- if their driving privileges are dependant on whether said driver wants to be oppressed and persecuted, it's not really freedom, is it? They arent sharing the same freedoms as we do, right? I mean...RIGHT? :D

[Athena]

Lol, ok, ok.


Only- if their driving privileges are dependant on whether said driver wants to be oppressed and persecuted, it's not really freedom, is it? They arent sharing the same freedoms as we do, right? I mean...RIGHT? :D

Jerk. :p


The issue with me is not an issue of freedom, per se. I have no issue with parole stipulations for ex-cons, for example. Registries are different, however. You're registered for life and it's not a deal, like parole is. If a prisoner doesn't like the conditions of his parole, he's free to turn it down. Sex offenders get forced out of jail. They don't have the ability to opt-out.

[gprime]

Lol, ok, ok.


Only- if their driving privileges are dependant on whether said driver wants to be oppressed and persecuted, it's not really freedom, is it? They arent sharing the same freedoms as we do, right? I mean...RIGHT? :D

While I happen to disagree with Athena, I can understand her logic. It is far different to give a person the choice between not driving, or driving with specially colored plates than it is to force somebody on to a registry that carries with numerous special restrictions, including automatic prevention against living in certain areas.

[swivel]

While I happen to disagree with Athena, I can understand her logic. It is far different to give a person the choice between not driving, or driving with specially colored plates than it is to force somebody on to a registry that carries with numerous special restrictions, including automatic prevention against living in certain areas.

The person made the choice to get on the sex registry when they fucked the little girl next door.

Society makes the choice to warn about people who have the highest rate of repeat offense.

The perverts do not have the freedom to molest people and have a say in the consequences, that is up to the judicial system.

[Athena]

The person made the choice to get on the sex registry when they fucked the little girl next door.


...or when they got caught peeing in a parking lot. Or when they had consentual sex with their minor girlfriend who is only three years behind in age. And, so long at it's *mostly* bad guys being executed, it's worth the lives of the few innocents we send to the chair. But whatever, right? Collateral damage.

Also, would you mind posting stats regarding the highest rate of repeat offense? Because I posted government stats earlier in the thread that illustrated a comparatively low recidivism rate. I'd just like to be clear, is all.

[Athena]

Wait...gprime...You disagree with me? There's something not right about that. You should take a moment to explain why, if you'd be so kind. Obviously, I'm pretty confident in my ability to reason, but I think highly enough of your perspective to use it to check my logic.

[Rotten Apple]

...or when they got caught peeing in a parking lot. Or when they had consentual sex with their minor girlfriend who is only three years behind in age. And, so long at it's *mostly* bad guys being executed, it's worth the lives of the few innocents we send to the chair. But whatever, right? Collateral damage.


I check the sex offender registries in my area quite often because I am paranoid like that.

The registry shows the level offender they are, the crimes they are guilty of, the age of their victim(s), the date of their crime and their birth date. You can pretty much figure out if it was consensual sex with an underage girlfriend/boyfriend or not.

[swivel]

I take it you are citing the study that followed about 200 member and lasted 5 years? My wife and her colleagues talk about that same study all the time. I would like to see a longitudinal study, not a follow-up study.


Studies that have tracked sex offenders over longer follow-up periods have found that pedophiles who molest boys, and rapists of adult women, were the types of offenders most likely to recidivate at rates of 52% and 39% respectively. Repeat offenders are more likely to reoffend than first-time offenders. Those who comply with probation and treatment have lower reoffense rates that those who violate the conditions of their release. Sex offenders who target strangers are more dangerous than those with victims inside their own family

Source (http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html)

Also from this source (and a better tactic for you than recidivism rates, since so few sexual assaults lead to convictions in the first place, the actual rate is almost impossible to determine):


There is no evidence that community notification reduces sex offense recidivism or increases community safety. The only study to date found no statistically significant difference in recidivism rates between offenders who were subjected to notification in Washington (19% recidivism) and those who were not (22% recidivism). Sex offenders who were subjected to community notification were, however, arrested more quickly for new sex crimes than those not publicly identified. It was found that 63% of the new sex offenses occurred in the jurisdiction where notification took place, suggesting that notification did not deter offenders or motivate them to venture outside their jurisdictions (where they would be less likely identified) to commit crimes. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that community notification appeared to have little effect on sex offense recidivism (Schram & Milloy, 1995).

Interestingly, most results have indicated that citizens report increased anxiety due to notification because of the lack of strategies offered for protecting themselves from sex offenders (Caputo, 2001; Zevitz, Crim, & Farkas, 2000).

Research suggests that about one-third to one-half of sex offenders subjected to community notification experience dire events such as the loss of a job or home, threats or harassment, or property damage (Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Tewksbury, 2005). Physical assault seems to occur in 5-16% of cases. About 19% of sex offenders report that these negative consequences have affected other members their households.

It has been suggested that notification may, ironically, interfere with its stated goal of enhancing public safety by exacerbating the stressors (e.g., isolation, disempowerment, shame, depression, anxiety, lack of social supports) that may trigger some sex offenders to relapse. Such dynamic factors have been associated with increased recidivism (Hanson & Harris, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004), and although sex offenders inspire little sympathy from the public, ostracizing them may inadvertently increase their risk.

But this would alter the debate. It go from, "Are we trampling on the rights of these guys" to "Should we be doing this regardless". Which is probably a more sane, and more constructive debate anyway.

[Athena]

I check the sex offender registries in my area quite often because I am paranoid like that.

The registry shows the level offender they are, the crimes they are guilty of, the age of their victim(s), the date of their crime and their birth date. You can pretty much figure out if it was consensual sex with an underage girlfriend/boyfriend or not.

That's not the point. Especially considering that not all registries operate with that level of detail.

I'm not saying that registries aren't beneficial to some. I just think that the costs outweigh the benefits. Not only is the way we treat sex offenders post-release questionable in regard to civil liberties, but my biggest issue is actually the effect registries have on sentencing. We feel more comfortable letting these people out much sooner than we ought to because we can track them. Worse yet, we think that the ability to track them protects us from them. This is just horrible.

[swivel]

That's not the point. Especially considering that not all registries operate with that level of detail.

I'm not saying that registries aren't beneficial to some. I just think that the costs outweigh the benefits. Not only is the way we treat sex offenders post-release questionable in regard to civil liberties, but my biggest issue is actually the effect registries have on sentencing. We feel more comfortable letting these people out much sooner than we ought to because we can track them. Worse yet, we think that the ability to track them protects us from them. This is just horrible.

We'll have to see what future studies say about changes in recidivism post-registry.

Ever since they registered me, I know that I have been much more careful about my spooky leers. Maybe the system DOES work, it will probably take another 10 years before we could say.

[gprime]

Wait...gprime...You disagree with me? There's something not right about that. You should take a moment to explain why, if you'd be so kind. Obviously, I'm pretty confident in my ability to reason, but I think highly enough of your perspective to use it to check my logic.

I take issue with this bill for a few reasons:

* I don't think that driving drunk, on its own, should be illegal. Yes, it is recklass and a danger to others, but is shaving while driving, talking on the phone well driving, or doing any number of other things which people do. The first time an issue arises is once the accident happens, as that it was renders a victim, making it criminal.

* If a person has commited a criminal offense, they should receive a fair legal penalty, which would be some number of years in jail, or potentially the death penalty (for which obvious debate questions arise). Once they are out, they have paid their dues. Presumably, a harsh prison sentence will greatly reduce the odds of a second such incident. If it does not, then subsequent convictions can be made stricter.

* If we assume that the person has paid their dues, and can be trusted to operate a motor vehicle, the added public indication of their past is not needed. And, it impacts anybody other than the convicted driver who might use their car (like a child or spouse).

It is really that last point that matters most. Sure, they can choose to stop driving. But that requires, among other things, a reliance upon public transportation. That, aside from being outside the legitimate scope of government, is something that is not adequately developed in most areas of the country. As such, you then impose undue burden upon those who wish to keep their past private. And, should they choose to continue driving, which would require the special plates, it then harms other drivers of the car who have done nothing wrong.

[swivel]

I take issue with this bill for a few reasons:

* If a person has commited a criminal offense, they should receive a fair legal penalty, which would be some number of years in jail, or potentially the death penalty (for which obvious debate questions arise). Once they are out, they have paid their dues. Presumably, a harsh prison sentence will greatly reduce the odds of a second such incident. If it does not, then subsequent convictions can be made stricter.

* If we assume that the person has paid their dues, and can be trusted to operate a motor vehicle, the added public indication of their past is not needed. And, it impacts anybody other than the convicted driver who might use their car (like a child or spouse).



Is this punishment being tacked onto existing sentences? Or is this part of a new sentencing policy? Or is this a new parole policy?

I could see complaining if a guy was supposed to get out tomorrow, free and clear, and then they slap this on him. But, if this becomes part of the new sentencing policy, or the new parole policy, I don't see how these two arguments of yours have merit. Parole policy changes all the time, and people are caught in the transition phase. And if it is sentencing policy, this isn't tacked on, it is part of the sentence.

[CPL CHUD]

...or when they got caught peeing in a parking lot. Or when they had consentual sex with their minor girlfriend who is only three years behind in age.I thought they divided these different crimes into different categories under the label of sexual offenders. Right now I think that most sexual offenders that are listed as class 3 (child pederasses) are the ones that get the harshest treatment; forced registration, longer prison terms, etc., so there is division there.

Wait a second, what thread is this?

[swivel]

Wait a second, what thread is this?

You're drunk, aren't you?

[gprime]

Is this punishment being tacked onto existing sentences? Or is this part of a new sentencing policy? Or is this a new parole policy?

I could see complaining if a guy was supposed to get out tomorrow, free and clear, and then they slap this on him. But, if this becomes part of the new sentencing policy, or the new parole policy, I don't see how these two arguments of yours have merit. Parole policy changes all the time, and people are caught in the transition phase. And if it is sentencing policy, this isn't tacked on, it is part of the sentence.

In that case, it would certainly solve a number of the issues with it, so my objections would be greatly reduced. But my final point, the one about how it impacts other whom might have to drive said car, remains in those circumstances. The direct imposition and its implications function in a different, and far less just way, on the family members than does a stint in prison.

[swivel]

In that case, it would certainly solve a number of the issues with it, so my objections would be greatly reduced. But my final point, the one about how it impacts other whom might have to drive said car, remains in those circumstances. The direct imposition and its implications function in a different, and far less just way, on the family members than does a stint in prison.

Yeah, I don't know what the hell they would do about that. I guess there is some shame to be had if the only guy you can borrow some wheels from is your alcoholic friend?

I wouldn't mind, personally. If I had a friend with one of those tags, I would go out of my way to borrow the car. Then I would drive around town about 5mph under the speed limit, tapping my brakes a little too often, and swerving juuuuuust slightly. Not enough to get out of the lines, but just back and forth a tad.

I would do this while running my errands. And turning my headlights on only after it got completely dark. Then I would just keep having fun with all the cops that pull me over. "Nope, officer, I don't drink at all" "I would LOVE to try a breathalizer" "It's a loaner" "I don't know, it feels like the CV joints are a tad loose" "Oh, is it officially dusk now, I didn't realize"...

[gprime]

Yeah, I don't know what the hell they would do about that. I guess there is some shame to be had if the only guy you can borrow some wheels from is your alcoholic friend?

I wouldn't mind, personally. If I had a friend with one of those tags, I would go out of my way to borrow the car. Then I would drive around town about 5mph under the speed limit, tapping my brakes a little too often, and swerving juuuuuust slightly. Not enough to get out of the lines, but just back and forth a tad.

I would do this while running my errands. And turning my headlights on only after it got completely dark. Then I would just keep having fun with all the cops that pull me over. "Nope, officer, I don't drink at all" "I would LOVE to try a breathalizer" "It's a loaner" "I don't know, it feels like the CV joints are a tad loose" "Oh, is it officially dusk now, I didn't realize"...


It isn't merely shame though. It could cause a legitimate problem for some. Assume that the DUI driver has a daughter who is a high school senior. She needs to drive to her interviews, so she takes his car. The interviewer could easily see it, assume the girl had a DUI, and then cause a problem that prevents her from getting into the college of her choice based on factors outside of her control.

[swivel]

It isn't merely shame though. It could cause a legitimate problem for some. Assume that the DUI driver has a daughter who is a high school senior. She needs to drive to her interviews, so she takes his car. The interviewer could easily see it, assume the girl had a DUI, and then cause a problem that prevents her from getting into the college of her choice based on factors outside of her control.

I can think of a valid inconvenience for every one of our laws. The idea of a perfect system, with no untoward consequences, is a lofty goal. One we could use to cast any argument into doubt.

That is why each law must be weighed. Positive results vs. negative consequences.

Your argument reminds me of the people who say that seatbelts should be discarded because they know someone whose life was saved when they were thrown from their car.

[gprime]

Your argument reminds me of the people who say that seatbelts should be discarded because they know someone whose life was saved when they were thrown from their car.

Well, I would like to get rid of those pointless seatbelt laws. Forcing car companies to include them, and even worse for riders to wear them, oversteps the bounds of law enforcement. I see the same sort of overstepping potential here.

I will say that this is a fairly minor potential infraction, but remains one nonetheless. As such, I'm inclined to seek out a still better solution, rather than assume this is the best available option.

[swivel]

Well, I would like to get rid of those pointless seatbelt laws. Forcing car companies to include them, and even worse for riders to wear them, oversteps the bounds of law enforcement. I see the same sort of overstepping potential here.

Should we have speed limits?

[gprime]

Should we have speed limits?

No. I do not believe that it is legitimate that government set those. However, in the case of private roads, I fully support the rights of the owner to set whatever terms they so choose.

[swivel]

No. I do not believe that it is legitimate that government set those. However, in the case of private roads, I fully support the rights of the owner to set whatever terms they so choose.

But the government owns the roads. And they pay for the services which supervise the operation of motor vehicles. And they incur costs when accidents take place.

Are you saying that the rules of ownership and responsibility do not apply to the government?

Are you also saying that people, who want safe transportation, do not have the right to appeal to the government for regulation and protection? I suppose you would also like to see the FAA disbanded, and just have each airline responsible for their own safety, air control, anti-terrorist measures, etc...

[Dark Star]

Well, I would like to get rid of those pointless seatbelt laws. Forcing car companies to include them, and even worse for riders to wear them, oversteps the bounds of law enforcement. I see the same sort of overstepping potential here.



I personally wear a seat belt, I've been in two car accidents in my life. Seat belt saved me both times. But, I also think, if you are an ADULT and you drive a car, it should your choice whether or not to wear it. Just like if you drive a motorcycle. Again, I wouldn't ride with out a friggen helmet, but that's me. If an ADULT wants to, that should be their choice. Missouri has helmet laws, and I know some states do not. Should you drink and drive. Damn, you know I have many times. I wouldn't now, but yes I have. Being drunk as a skunk driving and being a hazard, yeah, you should be ticketed. Having one drink and driving without any problems, no ticket. I just think in this country we as adults are not able to make our own decisions about our own bodies. Just like drugs. I do not give a rat's ass what the fuck my neighbor is ingesting, as long as they are adults, and no children are involved to be hurt. So, if mom and dad, want to get drunk on their asses, high as a fucking kite, then hire a babysitter and let them do it in their own homes. Why should anyone care if Neighbor B is drinking, Neighbor C is smoking pot, Neighbor D is snorting some cocaine, if they are in their own house, not bothering anyone, then what should it matter to me or anyone else? I want to stress ADULTS, should have this right in their homes.

[CPL CHUD]

I personally wear a seat belt, I've been in two car accidents in my life. Seat belt saved me both times. But, I also think, if you are an ADULT and you drive a car, it should your choice whether or not to wear it. Just like if you drive a motorcycle. Again, I wouldn't ride with out a friggen helmet, but that's me. If an ADULT wants to, that should be their choice. Missouri has helmet laws, and I know some states do not. Should you drink and drive. Damn, you know I have many times. I wouldn't now, but yes I have. Being drunk as a skunk driving and being a hazard, yeah, you should be ticketed. Having one drink and driving without any problems, no ticket. I just think in this country we as adults are not able to make our own decisions about our own bodies. Just like drugs. I do not give a rat's ass what the fuck my neighbor is ingesting, as long as they are adults, and no children are involved to be hurt. So, if mom and dad, want to get drunk on their asses, high as a fucking kite, then hire a babysitter and let them do it in their own homes. Why should anyone care if Neighbor B is drinking, Neighbor C is smoking pot, Neighbor D is snorting some cocaine, if they are in their own house, not bothering anyone, then what should it matter to me or anyone else? I want to stress ADULTS, should have this right in their homes.

I think the problem is that the actions of the minority can effect the majority in negative ways. That's why we have laws against drunk driving, drug use, and driving without a seatbelt. Statistically they have the potential to have adverse negative effects on a larger group. "Freedom" in the United States is not the right to do anything you please, no matter how calculating you are in assessing the risks done to others. The majority shouldn't have to be burdened negatively by the immoral choices of the minority.

[swivel]

I personally wear a seat belt, I've been in two car accidents in my life. Seat belt saved me both times. But, I also think, if you are an ADULT and you drive a car, it should your choice whether or not to wear it. Just like if you drive a motorcycle. Again, I wouldn't ride with out a friggen helmet, but that's me. If an ADULT wants to, that should be their choice. Missouri has helmet laws, and I know some states do not. Should you drink and drive. Damn, you know I have many times. I wouldn't now, but yes I have. Being drunk as a skunk driving and being a hazard, yeah, you should be ticketed. Having one drink and driving without any problems, no ticket. I just think in this country we as adults are not able to make our own decisions about our own bodies. Just like drugs. I do not give a rat's ass what the fuck my neighbor is ingesting, as long as they are adults, and no children are involved to be hurt. So, if mom and dad, want to get drunk on their asses, high as a fucking kite, then hire a babysitter and let them do it in their own homes. Why should anyone care if Neighbor B is drinking, Neighbor C is smoking pot, Neighbor D is snorting some cocaine, if they are in their own house, not bothering anyone, then what should it matter to me or anyone else? I want to stress ADULTS, should have this right in their homes.

Too bad we don't live in our own little bubbles.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects those around you. Including the drivers of other vehicles. Many accidents are no-fault situations, especially when road conditions are poor. The trauma of contributing to the death of another, because THEY didn't want to buy a car with a seatbelt, or wear one, or have their kids in one, or allow their passenger to choose to protect themselves, is not a fair burden to place on the rest of the populace.

Just as allowing people to drink and drive, or drive while using their cell-phones, does not grant the right to the rest of the public the use of public roads with all unnecessary risks removed.

[Dark Star]

Too bad we don't live in our own little bubbles.

:p Yeppers, too bad, cause if you did, you might not be so bitchy, and so quick to be a darn know it all. ;) :D

Geez, Swivel you are one interesting fellow, and I think that's what I like about you. I don't believe I've ever met an individual such as yourself. Well, of course I haven't, because there is only one you. *hugs*:)

[swivel]

:p Yeppers, too bad, cause if you did, you might not be so bitchy, and so quick to be a darn know it all. ;) :D

Geez, Swivel you are one interesting fellow, and I think that's what I like about you. I don't believe I've ever met an individual such as yourself. Well, of course I haven't, because there is only one you. *hugs*:)

We can't all be conformists, I suppose.

Thanks for the hug.

[gprime]

But the government owns the roads. And they pay for the services which supervise the operation of motor vehicles. And they incur costs when accidents take place.

Are you saying that the rules of ownership and responsibility do not apply to the government?

Are you also saying that people, who want safe transportation, do not have the right to appeal to the government for regulation and protection? I suppose you would also like to see the FAA disbanded, and just have each airline responsible for their own safety, air control, anti-terrorist measures, etc...

I take issue with the government owning the roads though. I want to see them privatize all components of our transportation system. And, as it stands, if you want to call something a government piece of property, then I would point out it is publically owned, and therefore not something the government is entitled to control in a significant way.

As per airlines, the security is by the TSA, not the FAA. I take MAJOR issue with the TSA. It should be up to the individual airlines to establish their own security policies. The FAA has another function, and an important one to be certain. But I would also get government out of that.

[swivel]

So, once the roads are privately-owned, you would THEN support speed limits?

[Athena]

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects those around you. Including the drivers of other vehicles. Many accidents are no-fault situations, especially when road conditions are poor. The trauma of contributing to the death of another, because THEY didn't want to buy a car with a seatbelt, or wear one, or have their kids in one, or allow their passenger to choose to protect themselves, is not a fair burden to place on the rest of the populace.


Wow. That's the weakest case for seat-belt mandates I've ever seen. "The trauma of contributing to the death of another..." Seriously? Driving is a voluntary activity, a privilege. Add to that the fact that your odds of killing a driver not wearing his seatbelt is insanely low. Add to that the fact that the difference in trauma between an accident where an individual not wearing is killed and that same accident when the individual is wearing a seatbelt cannot be measured...and you've got yourself an incredibly irrational justification.

[swivel]

Wow. That's the weakest case for seat-belt mandates I've ever seen. "The trauma of contributing to the death of another..." Seriously? Driving is a voluntary activity, a privilege. Add to that the fact that your odds of killing a driver not wearing his seatbelt is insanely low. Add to that the fact that the difference in trauma between an accident where an individual not wearing is killed and that same accident when the individual is wearing a seatbelt cannot be measured...and you've got yourself an incredibly irrational justification.

Oh, it is very weak. I'm not claiming to wrap up the thread with this (like I did the other thread), just demonstrating the lack of a "bubble" on the roads.

[Athena]

I'm not claiming to wrap up the thread with this (like I did the other thread)...

You know, I've never been the type to accuse liberals of being delusional, but you sure do make a case for such stereotypes...

[swivel]

You know, I've never been the type to accuse liberals of being delusional, but you sure do make a case for such stereotypes...

You are a necrophiliac if you still think that other thread looks good from where you are sitting.

As for this one, I finally have enough from gprime to reveal the corner he has painted himself into, so let me give everyone else a peek through a window at his predicament.

gprime thinks that risky behaviors should not be punished, that such actions should be allowed, and only punished after they lead to harm.

This is his reason for not having speed limits. We need to wait until someone causes an actual wreck before we ticket or prosecute them. Everyone else gets a free pass. The same goes for seatbelts and drinking while driving. We need to wait for the negative outcome before we take action.

So. Kids that are into drifting are allowed to use the roads however they like, doing donuts and skidding all over the place, as long as they are careful to stay out of the way of other cars. RC hobbyists can take their model cars out and zip all over the place, as long as they are careful. The end result of such permissive nonsense would be a real-life imitation of a Mad Magazine illustration. It would be the Wild West on the roads. The people who just want to drive from one place to another would see the risk rise to such a degree, that they would be forced to stay home. Cops would be handing out tickets left and right at all the accidents that would ensue, increasing the bureaucracy and overhead of our government. All in the spirit of being rigidly anti-government and anti-anti-liberty.

What am I missing?

[CPL CHUD]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/images/misc/road_warrior.jpg

"On the roads it was a white line nighmare!"

[gprime]

So, once the roads are privately-owned, you would THEN support speed limits?

As long as it was the road owners setting the speed limits, then yes.

[TXChris]

You will have to forgive me as I have been out of town and the hotel I was at blocked anything I tried to post on this site...


Too bad we don't live in our own little bubbles.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you, it affects those around you. Including the drivers of other vehicles. Many accidents are no-fault situations, especially when road conditions are poor. The trauma of contributing to the death of another, because THEY didn't want to buy a car with a seatbelt, or wear one, or have their kids in one, or allow their passenger to choose to protect themselves, is not a fair burden to place on the rest of the populace.

Just as allowing people to drink and drive, or drive while using their cell-phones, does not grant the right to the rest of the public the use of public roads with all unnecessary risks removed.

You're fucking kidding me, right? Do you REALLY believe this manure you are constantly shoveling into these threads? Your "need" to "save us from ourselves" is just another way to justify imposing your self-righteous, liberty-stealing bullshit (as any other religious zealot) upon the rest of the populous. Seriously, what a fucking load of shit! If one chooses not to wear a seat belt then one should be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. To use the excuse that someone else might cause an accident, which might cause more damage to the individual who chose not to wear a seat belt, is fucking ludicrous. Whatever happened to individual responsibility? Oh yeah, that's right, it went to the wayside with the introduction of FDR's New Deal Socialism. Sure, they didn't choose to get into the accident, but they did choose not to wear the seatbelt. Damn, you sound more and more like a facsist, as Athena has already graciously pointed out.

You seem not to be aware that Fascism contains many elements, Swivel. I have noticed these, time and time again, throughout your ridiculously emotional posts in various threads. The elements I have noticed include: Nationalism, Statism, Collectivism, definite Militarism (to aggresively promote national interests), Totalitarianism, AND opposition to Political and Economical Liberalism. Dude, seriously, if you think that is not Fascism you really need to take some time and study up on it.

[swivel]

You seem not to be aware that Fascism contains many elements, Swivel. I have noticed these, time and time again, throughout your ridiculously emotional posts in various threads. The elements I have noticed include: Nationalism, Statism, Collectivism, definite Militarism (to aggresively promote national interests), Totalitarianism, AND opposition to Political and Economical Liberalism. Dude, seriously, if you think that is not Fascism you really need to take some time and study up on it.

Nationalism? Yeah, right. I'm not even for national borders. You are the evil dude that thinks we shouldn't be overseas helping other people. You are probably against immigration too, am I right? I personally want open borders (if we have to have borders), and the immediate legalization of every person in our country right now. How does this make me nationalistic? I am the exact opposite of nationalistic.

And the person shoveling the most shit around here is you. The idea that we could all co-exist without rules, just personal culpability is asinine. You are a proponent of anarchy, or the extreme bureaucracy that would come from cleaning up the mess that a lawless society would create.

Roads without speed limits would not allow equal access and fair use for all citizens. Not everyone has the physical reactions to drive at the speeds that a significant numbers would want to cruise while doing. Meaning the blue-hairs who barely feel comfortable doing 55 in the right lane would be prohibited access to roads where the average speed would be over 90. In the bizarre attempt to grant everyone complete liberty, you trample on the liberties your tiny imagination can't envision.

Also, this is the third post in a row in which I've responded to you, and in all three posts you seem quite angry. Do my views and opinions make you feel threatened? Are you having a bad day? Why so miffed? You almost sound insecure in your beliefs.

[TXChris]

Actually, I am very much against ILLEGAL immigration. And Nationalism you have shown through your continued insistence of states rights needing to subcumb to federal power, effectively erasing state borders. So, yes, Nationalism is one of your many faults.

Yet again, you continue to misunderstand everything anyone says. Nobody has ever said no rules. As a matter of fact, I have stated, quite continually, that law should be based upon protection of the three most basic rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm sure you probably just skimmed over that to take some childish jab at me, so I forgive you, yet again.

You have some serious problems understanding what liberty means. Liberty is NOT the right to drive down the road. In a nutshell, it is the right to be free from government oppression. You fail again.

I'm not really upset at all. I just figured you would appreciate my "aggressiveness." LOL The only thing I found frustrating was having to read your emotionally-laden crap for the past week and not being able to post anything in reponse. :)

[swivel]

So, the only reason you are against millions of people coming here is because it is currently illegal?

That means you would be OK with an influx of 5 million a year, as long as we opened the borders and made mass immigration legal?

Not only do I doubt this is the case, I think you are hiding behind the law to conceal your racism. What is funny about this is that in other cases you moan about things which are currently illegal, that you would rather be legal. (barring blacks from businesses, driving without speed limits, smoking pot at home, etc...)

So, in some cases, you have an idea of what is right and wrong despite the law. But, when it comes to immigration, the only reason you can say you are against it, is because that just happens to be the law, and we should respect all current laws.

I have to repeat: You are a racist, and you are hiding behind our current laws, rather than being honest about your hatred of people with different ethnicities.


Edit: Damn right I'm against state borders. What do they mean? Nationalism has nothing to do with nations, it has to do with valuing a shared identity. Most Nationalists see state borders as being the same as national borders. Nationalism can also form around religious and cultural identities, such as the "Nation of Islam", or the world community of Jews.

It's no wonder you make no sense, you keep using words without even knowing what they mean. By valuing STATES so much it is YOU that is nationalistic! I'm for the abolishment of borders, the freedom for people to migrate anywhere they want, the end of nations. YOU HAVE US COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. <-- Read that over and over, dude. You are not for liberty, I am. I want people to be able to live wherever they want, you want to keep the dirty races away from you. I don't see value in grouping people, you practically worship the idea of a state. You are Nationalistic and anti-Liberty, but you don't even realize it.

And that is what has been killing me about you from the beginning. You use words to describe yourself, and they aren't true. Because you keep arriving at the wrong conclusion from those tenets.

[TXChris]

It must suck being so short-sighted and unable to logically reason, Swivel.

Obviously, I'd be a fool for agreeing to such nonsense as unlimited immigration as there is only a finite amount of land and services available in this country. And, once again, I'll draw you a map here to my belief system...

It is not that I believe in barring blacks from businesses, I believe in allowing the private business owner the ability to decide who he or she is comfortable serving. After all, it is their business. They have to pay the taxes on it. They should have all say in who they choose to serve. See, in your narrowmindedness, Swivel, there are only two ways to look at this, either one believes in forcing a business to serve everyone or one believes in barring certain groups. The truth is, my view is niether. My view is about the personal rights of EVERY person. God, your dense, Swivel. Claiming racism does not make it so. Rather, your failure to grasp such basic concepts as I have presented just shows your lack of real knowledge.

[swivel]

It must suck being so short-sighted and unable to logically reason, Swivel.

Obviously, I'd be a fool for agreeing to such nonsense as unlimited immigration as there is only a finite amount of land and services available in this country. And, once again, I'll draw you a map here to my belief system...

It is not that I believe in barring blacks from businesses, I believe in allowing the private business owner the ability to decide who he or she is comfortable serving. After all, it is their business. They have to pay the taxes on it. They should have all say in who they choose to serve. See, in your narrowmindedness, Swivel, there are only two ways to look at this, either one believes in forcing a business to serve everyone or one believes in barring certain groups. The truth is, my view is niether. My view is about the personal rights of EVERY person. God, your dense, Swivel. Claiming racism does not make it so. Rather, your failure to grasp such basic concepts as I have presented just shows your lack of real knowledge.

I'm dense? You just said that you argue for the rights of EVERY person. I keep showing you examples of times when the rights of two people collide. In these examples, you keep choosing the wrong person to defend.

I urge you to cancel your ACLU membership. Please help starve them of their dues.

[TXChris]

You continue to mistake "rights" for "privileges." There are only three basic rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to drive a car. There is no right to shop in a specific store. There is no right own a house. These are privileges. Get a clue.

[swivel]

You continue to mistake "rights" for "privileges." There are only three basic rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to drive a car. There is no right to shop in a specific store. There is no right own a house. These are privileges. Get a clue.

And you keep ignoring the fact that your third right causes conflict. Look at our front page, dude. Some people pursue their happiness by raping babies. Some people pursue their happiness by smoking two packs a day in a household full of kids.

You think your philosophy is so simple, but try applying it to reality. It leads to every conflict that we see around us, and some of them are not easy to pin as right or wrong.

Let's say that a man is happy when he sucks the dick of a 5-year-old. Let's also say (and this is often true), that the kid is very happy when the man sucks his dick (whether this is Stockholm syndrome, pure sexual pleasure, or happiness due to the absence of something worse, like a beating). Here are two people that fit your moral philosophy. So, obviously, your moral philosophy is fucking evil. Time to start thinking on it some more.

How about if Morbid wants his appendix taken out, and I want to make some money, by taking it out for him. He knows I'm not fully trained, but what-the-hey, he isn't above taking a risk! Should I be allowed to perform surgery on Morbid, as long as we both consent and are happy?

You too readily expose the fact that you are morally defunct, and politically anarchic. I'm not sure if you have ever heard of the political/economic philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism, but I really suspect that you and Athena would admit that this is what you are. And sadly, it is hate and fear that is driving you there, not a love for your fellow man.

[Dark Star]

How about if Morbid wants his appendix taken out, and I want to make some money, by taking it out for him. He knows I'm not fully trained, but what-the-hey, he isn't above taking a risk! Should I be allowed to perform surgery on Morbid, as long as we both consent and are happy?



Ooooo Can I help? You know Swiv, a few of us Demon girls are nurses, we could so do this, man, and save Morbid lots of money!:D

[swivel]

Ooooo Can I help? You know Swiv, a few of us Demon girls are nurses, we could so do this, man, and save Morbid lots of money!:D

You have to ask Morbid.

[TXChris]

And you keep ignoring the fact that your third right causes conflict. Look at our front page, dude. Some people pursue their happiness by raping babies. Some people pursue their happiness by smoking two packs a day in a household full of kids.

You think your philosophy is so simple, but try applying it to reality. It leads to every conflict that we see around us, and some of them are not easy to pin as right or wrong.

Let's say that a man is happy when he sucks the dick of a 5-year-old. Let's also say (and this is often true), that the kid is very happy when the man sucks his dick (whether this is Stockholm syndrome, pure sexual pleasure, or happiness due to the absence of something worse, like a beating). Here are two people that fit your moral philosophy. So, obviously, your moral philosophy is fucking evil. Time to start thinking on it some more.

How about if Morbid wants his appendix taken out, and I want to make some money, by taking it out for him. He knows I'm not fully trained, but what-the-hey, he isn't above taking a risk! Should I be allowed to perform surgery on Morbid, as long as we both consent and are happy?

You too readily expose the fact that you are morally defunct, and politically anarchic. I'm not sure if you have ever heard of the political/economic philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism, but I really suspect that you and Athena would admit that this is what you are. And sadly, it is hate and fear that is driving you there, not a love for your fellow man.

The extent to which you are dense never ceases to amaze me. If you want to claim that the pursuit of happiness to some is the raping of others, which is not what is meant by the concept, but I will go with your ridiculousness here anyway, then just take into consideration all that was said. Those three rights should be guaranteed as long as they do not (I made it bold so you might actually read it this time) infringe upon the rights of the next person. How that is so hard for you to understand is really beyond me. In other words, if someone is raping someone else then OBVIOUSLY they are infringing upon the other person's rights.

God, you're really an idiot. If Morbid is stupid enough to allow you to do it, then I say all the more power to him. It's time we, as human beings, took back personal responsibility. It's time we stopped letting the government "protect" us from our own decisions. Dealing with one's bad decisions only helps to make one a better person. As long as the government continues to shoulder the responsibility for our actions we will never learn from our mistakes. But, based on your belief system, I guess you allow your kids to run roughshod over everyone else, don't you? After all, why should you make them take personal responsibility for their actions when the government will do it. Un-fucking-believable.

As far as racism goes, you can continue to claim it all you want, but it does not make it so. You seem to have a big problem distinguishing between racism and liberty. Just like you have a tough time distinguishing between rights and privileges. But, honestly, it really doesn't bother me. I find it quite amusing really. It just continues to show more of your true personality. You live your life under the pretense that either people are with you or they are against you. But, what you cannot seem to wrap your mind around is that just because you see an issue only two ways does not make it so. You are too blind...too emotionally driven...too devoid of any logic at all to be able to understand the most basic of concepts. So what do you do? You turn it into a personal attack. Everyone else can see exactly what you do...and I'm not even entirely sure that you cannot see it.

I've started using the phrase keyboard warrior to describe you, and I think it fits quite well. The intelligence seems to be there, but your emotion completely overrides it. You sit behind your little computer screen, safe from society which would hurt your feelings in the real world, and lash out at anyone who views life in a better light than you do. You live a sad existence and feel that your only way to be important in this life is to attempt to demean and bully others. Who is really evil here? The guy who believes in everyone's rights and personal responsibility or the guy who bullies others and lashes out with name calling every chance he gets?

I've tried your form of "debate" (notice I use the term lightly here) for the past day but, honestly, just cannot get into it. My heart is just not there. It goes against my nature to be mean-spirited, as you seem to enjoy being. So, continue on as you may, attacking individuals on a personal level, and I will continue showing you for what you are...but I have chosen to do it in a more comfortable way, from this point on, once again only debating the actual issues while leaving your personal life out of it.

[swivel]

Cool, I'm adding "No qualifications needed to practice medicine" to my TXChris is a moron list.

Some others:

Secondhand smoke is not proven dangerous
The Civil War was not about slavery
Intelligence is the same as Morality
"Quantify" has nothing to do with putting a statement into numbers
People only buy what they are told to buy
Crowds are dumb
All questions of morality and ethics can be found in the Declaration of Independence
Nationalism deals with nations, and not states
Proof is not required when debating, just repetition
People should be allowed to harm each other, as long as both consent, even if they are unaware of every danger involved


Damn, dude. That is a pretty large list of dumbassery for just a few weeks.

[TXChris]

And that last post proved everything I said.

But, I will spell it out here, as I said I would:

False: Secondhand smoke is not proven dangerous
Truth: Argument was about your inability to take emotion out of your reasoning, therefore failing to properly quantify the numbers you quoted against the overall risk.

False: The Civil War was not about slavery
Truth: That statement is used as an emotional ploy to those who would rather not think for themselves and instead live off sound bytes and emotion. Yes, the War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery. It was about state's rights and individual rights. Slavery was used to label the reason for the event in order to drum up emotion-based support, the same way as you are trying to use it here.

False: Intelligence is the same as Morality
Truth: My point had nothing to do with intelligence, rather it was that morality is subjective and based upon a person's environment. You tried saying that I believe the majority should determine morality when in fact I was arguing that the majority (society) does determine morality.

False: "Quantify" has nothing to do with putting a statement into numbers
Truth: Proved your inability to properly quantify numbers you threw out there to support your case versus the risk involved.

False: People only buy what they are told to buy
Truth: Corporations and groups significantly affect what the general populace does and thinks. Not everyone, but a significant portion of them...the majority.

False: Crowds are dumb
Truth: The general populace in the United States is too "busy" to do any research on their own. Therefore they live off sound bytes and emotion-based ploys to make decisions.

False: All questions of morality and ethics can be found in the Declaration of Independence
Truth: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution build the framework for the greatest country that has ever been. They were created with three basic rights in mind: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Those involved knew that as long as the federal government focused its efforts on protecting these three basic rights peace and prosperity would abound. Unfortunately, that has not been the case as, basically from day one, each branch of power has succeeded in usurping power from the other branches.

False: Nationalism deals with nations, and not states
Truth: Nationalism is, at its core, about national power and not state soveriegnty. Nationalists forgo state's rights for federal rights, thereby effectively erasing state borders.

False: Proof is not required when debating, just repetition
Truth: Showed everyone that you do not understand debate and continue to use emotion to drum up support for your positions. The "logic" you attempt to employ is flawed because it skewed by the emotion you cannot seem to disengage from the subject.

False: People should be allowed to harm each other, as long as both consent, even if they are unaware of every danger involved
Truth: Personal responsibility is missing from our lives these days. The government has all but taken it out of the equation. Bankruptcy laws that protect the individual. Mortgage bailouts. Heating bill supplements during the winter. Welfare. Workfare. Food stamps.

False: No qualifications needed to practice medicine
Truth: No GOVERNMENT qualifications needed to practice medicine. You have espoused the greatness of the free market yet you cannot see how it would be a much better qualifier and protector for all things than the government. As the free market determined that certain qualifications were required to practice certain forms of medicine, those practicing would gravitate toward the qualifications. Those that didn't would fail and go out of business. Costs would be much lower thereby completely eliminating the perceived, yet misguided, need for "universal health care" or any other kind of Socialist medicine.

[impqueen]

False: No qualifications needed to practice medicine
Truth: No GOVERNMENT qualifications needed to practice medicine. You have espoused the greatness of the free market yet you cannot see how it would be a much better qualifier and protector for all things than the government. As the free market determined that certain qualifications were required to practice certain forms of medicine, those practicing would gravitate toward the qualifications. Those that didn't would fail and go out of business. Costs would be much lower thereby completely eliminating the perceived, yet misguided, need for "universal health care" or any other kind of Socialist medicine.

That is awesome. I'm a degreed nurse with a bachelor's in pysch; what i know about pharmacology and the abnormal constructs of the human mind would fill more than your average teaspoon. I am totally gonna hang out my Lucy shingle and get practicin'.

For my first surgical case, i'm gonna supervise Morbid's appendectomy. I can probably do it laparoscopically if i have a straw and a magnifying glass. Not to worry; the anesthesia will be provided by Hendrick's gin because i only use the best.

For my first counseling session, i'm gonna suggest that you and Athena just go on ahead and start makin' with the love if you haven't already, because you two are compatible on a number of levels. And in no way is that a slam - Athena is smart and lovely, and you'd be lucky to get her. But the way you espouse every single thing she says indicates to me either total horny infatuation or a deeper compatibility, and either way, you two oughta be hittin' it if you haven't gotten that worked out yet.

See? Feckin' brilliant. I should be raking in the dough by the end of the week. I'm kinda cute for a thirtyhmph chick; i could be telegenic enough to convince people to give me their money if there were no governmental restrictions on my practice. For that matter, i could offer happy endings with each purchase of general anesthesia. It'd be great.

[Morbid]

For that matter, i could offer happy endings with each purchase of general anesthesia. It'd be great.

I have a toothache.

[swivel]

Man, I apologize for using this posting style. It hurts my heart to sink to this.



But, I will spell it out here, as I said I would:

False: Secondhand smoke is not proven dangerous
Truth: Argument was about your inability to take emotion out of your reasoning, therefore failing to properly quantify the numbers you quoted against the overall risk.


Emotion was never in my reasoning. I see needless deaths and sickness as evidence of a poor choice, nothing more. To quantify is to put into numbers, which I did on more than one occasion. My guess is you still haven't read any of the studies I linked to. You fail here (but at least you learned a new word)



False: The Civil War was not about slavery
Truth: That statement is used as an emotional ploy to those who would rather not think for themselves and instead live off sound bytes and emotion. Yes, the War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery. It was about state's rights and individual rights. Slavery was used to label the reason for the event in order to drum up emotion-based support, the same way as you are trying to use it here.


Bullshit, and every sane historian is against you here. This is your racism and emotions speaking. You are a member of the "Lost Cause" school, which began re-writing history before the smoke even cleared from the battlefields. I just went through Georgia's Declaration of Succession, and the word "Slave" or "Slavery" appears 35 times. The words "right" or "rights" appears seven times. But you have probably never read about your racist heritage as a white southerner, have you? Too much emotion and too little reason. You will never win this argument and it calls into question your intellectual honesty in general.



False: Intelligence is the same as Morality
Truth: My point had nothing to do with intelligence, rather it was that morality is subjective and based upon a person's environment. You tried saying that I believe the majority should determine morality when in fact I was arguing that the majority (society) does determine morality.


I never said anything about the majority and morality. I mentioned a good book which proves that a crowd is more intelligent that the smartest member of it. I have stated over and over that morality is objective and not bendable. Everyone that reads my posts knows I feel this, and it is too much a core of my philosophy to ever say otherwise, even as a mistake. Failure number 3, on your part (so far)



False: "Quantify" has nothing to do with putting a statement into numbers
Truth: Proved your inability to properly quantify numbers you threw out there to support your case versus the risk involved.


Wrong. You meant to ask me to "rationalize" my case. Or to "put those numbers into perspective". A non-quantitative statement would be, "Secondhand smoke causes intestinal infections". Quantified, it would read, "Secondhand smoke causes 300,000 intestinal infections annually. It is okay that you didn't know what the word meant. I do that in Scrabble all the time.



False: People only buy what they are told to buy
Truth: Corporations and groups significantly affect what the general populace does and thinks. Not everyone, but a significant portion of them...the majority.


False, and I gave examples in the old thread that proves this. MS spends almost no money on Windows, Apple has Mac ads which are popular enough to launch a movie-acting career. Apple still has less than 5% of the market. I won't repeat all of my examples again, but you have already lost this argument. It is the consumers who drive demand with their peculiar fickleness.



False: Crowds are dumb
Truth: The general populace in the United States is too "busy" to do any research on their own. Therefore they live off sound bytes and emotion-based ploys to make decisions.


No research is needed by the crowd. A crowd of average people are still smarter than the smartest person in them. Fun fact: A compilation of the success of the "lifelines" from the show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" found that the contestants "expert" (the absolute smartest person that each contestant knew) was right 75% of the time. The crowd was right 91% of the time. Go read a book on this phenomenon. This is not debatable. It is a known fact of psychology, and known for 100 years. You keep failing, what the hell is wrong with you?


And that last post proved everything I said.
False: All questions of morality and ethics can be found in the Declaration of Independence
Truth: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution build the framework for the greatest country that has ever been. They were created with three basic rights in mind: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Those involved knew that as long as the federal government focused its efforts on protecting these three basic rights peace and prosperity would abound. Unfortunately, that has not been the case as, basically from day one, each branch of power has succeeded in usurping power from the other branches.


You are taking moral advice from slave-owners and misogynists. And I have shown again and again that you can not allow everyone the right to pursue happiness. Too often, the rights of two people are at odds, and must be resolved by something more complex than your simple moral philosophy.



False: Nationalism deals with nations, and not states
Truth: Nationalism is, at its core, about national power and not state soveriegnty. Nationalists forgo state's rights for federal rights, thereby effectively erasing state borders.


No big deal here, you just don't understand the definition of another word that you like to use often. Nationalism is about loyalty to a shared identity above all else. It has nothing to do with Nations per se. Extreme loyalty to a state (or the South) is still Nationalism. Damn, you haven't won any of these yet. This is a pretty ugly beat-down so far.



False: Proof is not required when debating, just repetition
Truth: Showed everyone that you do not understand debate and continue to use emotion to drum up support for your positions. The "logic" you attempt to employ is flawed because it skewed by the emotion you cannot seem to disengage from the subject.


Please show me where I use emotion over reason. You keep saying this, but have never provided any examples. Oops, you just proved the very issue you were trying to combat. That isn't good. Just because I am smacking you around doesn't mean that I have emotions involved. It is just entertaining. And when I speak of death as a reason to stop secondhand smoke, that is an appeal to reason, not emotion. You, sir, are the one stalking me around the forum and getting all worked up.



False: People should be allowed to harm each other, as long as both consent, even if they are unaware of every danger involved
Truth: Personal responsibility is missing from our lives these days. The government has all but taken it out of the equation. Bankruptcy laws that protect the individual. Mortgage bailouts. Heating bill supplements during the winter. Welfare. Workfare. Food stamps.


I agree that we should increase the burden of responsibility for individuals. But not rely on it, the way you want to. Nor do I think that it is "missing from our lives these days". More emotional extremism from you. There is plenty of personal culpability these days, look at our civil courts for evidence. The problem with the level to which you take this idea is that you leave too many people out. There are orphans who need someone to care for them. There are the mentally handicapped, who might not have any family left anymore. There are the old and infirmed, with no family left. We need more than personal responsibility, we need a sense of belonging to something greater than any of us. We need to protect people that don't have all the facts about their actions. It is immoral for us to allow people to smoke around their loved ones when we know the damage it causes. Which is cheaper and less bureaucratic: Mass awareness programs, or the cessation of harmful activities? And at what age do we transfer personal responsibility from the parent to the child? And how do we decide what rights a parent has over their child? You can't possibly be correct on these issues because you don't even address them, probably haven't thought very long on them.




False: No qualifications needed to practice medicine
Truth: No GOVERNMENT qualifications needed to practice medicine. You have espoused the greatness of the free market yet you cannot see how it would be a much better qualifier and protector for all things than the government. As the free market determined that certain qualifications were required to practice certain forms of medicine, those practicing would gravitate toward the qualifications. Those that didn't would fail and go out of business. Costs would be much lower thereby completely eliminating the perceived, yet misguided, need for "universal health care" or any other kind of Socialist medicine.

This works for businesses, because when they fail, there is just a slight dip in productivity, before a net gain. With medicine, the only way to gauge failure would be injury and death. And market delay would mean that we have to allow a system to keep killing, as it searched for efficiency. Morally defunct, to say the least.

And even if your system wasn't evil, it still wouldn't address the question of Morbid (let's pretend that he is a dumb yahoo that doesn't know better) having his appendix taken out by me. Your system would allow individuals to be duped on medical procedures the same way they are with used cars. It is a horrible idea, one of the most massive failures in this list of nothing-but-failures.

Speaking of which, I was thinking you might hold your own with one of these. Guess I was wrong about something after-all.

[TXChris]

That is awesome. I'm a degreed nurse with a bachelor's in pysch; what i know about pharmacology and the abnormal constructs of the human mind would fill more than your average teaspoon. I am totally gonna hang out my Lucy shingle and get practicin'.

For my first surgical case, i'm gonna supervise Morbid's appendectomy. I can probably do it laparoscopically if i have a straw and a magnifying glass. Not to worry; the anesthesia will be provided by Hendrick's gin because i only use the best.

For my first counseling session, i'm gonna suggest that you and Athena just go on ahead and start makin' with the love if you haven't already, because you two are compatible on a number of levels. And in no way is that a slam - Athena is smart and lovely, and you'd be lucky to get her. But the way you espouse every single thing she says indicates to me either total horny infatuation or a deeper compatibility, and either way, you two oughta be hittin' it if you haven't gotten that worked out yet.

See? Feckin' brilliant. I should be raking in the dough by the end of the week. I'm kinda cute for a thirtyhmph chick; i could be telegenic enough to convince people to give me their money if there were no governmental restrictions on my practice. For that matter, i could offer happy endings with each purchase of general anesthesia. It'd be great.

If Morbid is willing to allow you to do it, then more power to him. Personal responsibility and all. Of course, as I stated, the free market would end up deciding on licensing for specific aspects. The key here is that government would not be deciding for us. We would be deciding for ourselves. :)

As for the second part of your message...ummm wow. :confused:

[TXChris]

You know, Swivel, I cannot get past your self-righteousness. I just keep reflecting back to your first posts against me and how you labeled organized religion as evil, but time and time again you constantly push the same thing they do...emotionally-driven belief and self-righteousness. You truly are no better than those who you say "scare the shit" out of you.

As far as your "rebuttal" of what I have said goes, I have shown you on many occassions where you fail. Just because you come at this point and say that I fail does not make it truth. The funny thing is that you STILL take the same position against what I have said that you did in the posts in which they appeared. You have yet to comprehend anything I have said. I have shown you where you have misunderstood what I have said. I have explained things out, even taking you by the hand and leading you through them, but you cannot get your emotions out of it so you have been consistently unable to comprehend. So, it is a no-win situation. It really does make me sit here and shake my head at your ineptitude.

For instance, your inability to grasp the concept of advertising and its effects shows your lack of intelligence. You talk about "experts" until they disagree with you. When you talk about "sane" people you are talking about those who agree with you. But, once again, that's okay. If it weren't for those of us who believe in the individual rights of EVERY PERSON over the subjective morality of a self-righteous person then you wouldn't even have the ability to spread your untruths to the rest of the world. You attempt to use government regulation in medicine as a panacea yet you fail to let any ot the lemings humping your left leg know just how many FDA approved drugs have killed people. You espouse that death, in this case, by second-hand smoke is not acceptable yet continue to tout the greatness of government regulation. Come on, at least I'm consistent. As I have shown, you continue to bounce around, tweaking positions as they are proven wrong. You may be able to get those less-inclined to think for themselves to follow you, but pure numbers of followers does not make you right, it only makes you David Koresh.

As I have asked before, who is truly the evil person here, the one who fights for the rights of everyone, no excuses, 10 out of 10 people, or the one who thinks he's better than everyone else, his morals superior, and fights for the rights of only 6 out of 10 people? The truth is clear.

[swivel]

You know, Swivel, I cannot get past your self-righteousness. I just keep reflecting back to your first posts against me and how you labeled organized religion as evil, but time and time again you constantly push the same thing they do...emotionally-driven belief and self-righteousness. You truly are no better than those who you say "scare the shit" out of you.

As I have asked before, who is truly the evil person here, the one who fights for the rights of everyone, no excuses, 10 out of 10 people, or the one who thinks he's better than everyone else, his morals superior, and fights for the rights of only 6 out of 10 people? The truth is clear.

The person who fights for the rights of those who deserve it is the correct person. The idiot that fights for the right for people to drive drunk is morally bankrupt. There is no way you can win these arguments. Ever.

I love that you keep comparing my beliefs to organized religion. You really aren't very smart or honest, are you? My moral philosophy is based on an objective truth, not on the subjective moral evils that old men in the past have used to subjugate women, minorities, and non-believers. You have far more in common with the evils of organized religion. When you argue for the right to let parents smoke around their kids, you are a proponent of tyranny and torture.

I only come across as self-righteous to the morally bankrupt. To someone who thinks that an absence of speed limits, drinking and driving, and secondhand smoke are "Good", I am certainly going to come across as if I know better. I obviously do.

[TXChris]

And you continue to prove my point...

You are so emotionally-connected to your self-righteousness that you fail to comprehend the extent to which you are wrong. Post after post you argue points that I do not even take up. If you were to state that white is better than black, I would argue your reasoning for that. Yet, you would equate that to your belief that I think black is better than white. I am not fighting for people to drive drunk, I am fighting for the protection of individual rights. I am fighting for the absense of government in our daily lives. But you just cannot see that. According to you, if I do not agree with exactly what you say, then I MUST be disagreeing with you. Again, your mistake.

Then you go on to say that I am comparing your beliefs to organized religion. Unbelievable. I have never once said that you believe the same thing as organized religion. What I have stated, more times than I care to count, is that your belief that you are right, and everyone else that disagrees with you is wrong, is what is comparable to organized religion. Your push to have people take your subjective moral truth and use it in their lives is what makes you no better than organized religion. Please tell me you finally understand, though I won't hold my breath.

And, finally, I have never once stated that the "absence of speed limits, drinking and driving, and secondhand smoke are 'Good'." You have argued that the absense of those things are bad, and since I did not agree with EXACTLY what you said, you assumed that I feel it is good. The truth is, what I HAVE argued is that government intervention in our daily lives is wrong. What I HAVE argued is that the more power government is given to regulate the more power it will take and the less we will have in terms of civil liberties. What I HAVE argued is that the free market is the best to decide what should or should not happen. What I HAVE argued is that your "reasoning" is based on emotion which means it is immediately flawed because if you say it is okay to do that then you must be willing to accept that from everyone else also. This means that government, when implementing laws, should be allowed to base them on emotion which leaves the very real possibility those laws will, at some point, biasedly attack you, and THAT is what I am against. The ONLY way to protect your beliefs and rights is to protect everyone else's. Therefore, the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the ONLY way that can be achieved. Anything else is taking emotion and personal beliefs into consideration and creating laws altered by those things.

[impqueen]

If Morbid is willing to allow you to do it, then more power to him. Personal responsibility and all. Of course, as I stated, the free market would end up deciding on licensing for specific aspects. The key here is that government would not be deciding for us. We would be deciding for ourselves. :)

As for the second part of your message...ummm wow. :confused:

Heh. So I gather you won't be signing up for Imp's Relationship Seminars at $150 per hour, then? But lots of people might take advice like mine as a personal cue to get busy, if I decided to hang out my shingle as per my however-many-days-ago reply.

There might be some risks to the innocent in letting unqualified people pose as professionals in the name of free enterprise. But by your reasoning, if I think I'm qualified and the market will bear it, then hell, I'm qualified, so maybe it *was* pretty sound advice. And anyone who might be harmed by it, well, you win some, you lose some. Oh look, a circle!

;)

[swivel]

your belief that you are right, and everyone else that disagrees with you is wrong, is what is comparable to organized religion. Your push to have people take your subjective moral truth and use it in their lives is what makes you no better than organized religion. Please tell me you finally understand, though I won't hold my breath.

But I am right. Why don't you argue with my points, if you think I am wrong. Is the best you can do is to argue that my assumption that I am correct is wrong?

I never fault religion for assuming that they are correct. I fault religion because they are wrong, and I continuously detail just how and why they are wrong.

By your reasoning, you are guilty of the same shit by assuming that you are right. You are like one of those subjectivists who, after losing an argument, just throw up their hands and say, "Truth is relative".

The funny thing about this tactic, is that the relativity of truth is always stated as an objective truth. The only difference between me saying that I am right, and you saying that you are right, is that I am giving reasons for my belief. You used to try to do the same thing, but after I made you look like an idiot, now you are backpeddling and saying, "I don't really believe any of those things, I was just arguing with you because I don't like your style". Nobody is going to fall for that shit.


And look, everyone here knows that the only reason you came to this forum is at the urging of Athena. Your entire reason for being here is to argue with me. So please try to do a better job. I'm sure all the "MySpace" kiddies think you are really smart, but this isn't MySpace. Nobody here is going to fall for your pathetic tactics, and inability to debate me on the issues. The only person who seems to be blind to this, and swoons for your nonsense, is Athena. A condition which is steadily whittling away my respect for her intellectual worth.

[TXChris]

Heh. So I gather you won't be signing up for Imp's Relationship Seminars at $150 per hour, then? But lots of people might take advice like mine as a personal cue to get busy, if I decided to hang out my shingle as per my however-many-days-ago reply.

There might be some risks to the innocent in letting unqualified people pose as professionals in the name of free enterprise. But by your reasoning, if I think I'm qualified and the market will bear it, then hell, I'm qualified, so maybe it *was* pretty sound advice. And anyone who might be harmed by it, well, you win some, you lose some. Oh look, a circle!

;)

What gets me is this belief that people cannot think for themselves; that somehow government can regulate better than a free market. Personal responsibility is becoming a farce. THAT will lead to the degradation and downfall of society, not the free market.

[swivel]

What gets me is this belief that people cannot think for themselves; that somehow government can regulate better than a free market. Personal responsibility is becoming a farce. THAT will lead to the degradation and downfall of society, not the free market.

I agree. You and I have mostly the same base philosophies, you just take them to an extreme that doesn't work in the real world. It is the polar opposite of Communism, and just as untenable.

The mistakes that Marx and Engels made all stemmed from their ignorance of evolutionary psychology, not their ignorance of economics. The reason Joseph Smith got everything right wasn't because he knew more about markets, it was because he knew the most about people. Economies and governments are made up of people, and people are not products of their environment. They are mostly motivated by innate reactions to stimuli.

The conclusions that you reach, from some of the same starting points that I leave from, are not tempered by a full understanding of human nature. It seems that you read a lot of history and economics, but if you aren't reading Judith Harris, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins, you won't know what to do with that knowledge.

The government needs to be minimized, not eliminated. We can't replace one extreme with another. There are too many cases where people, left to the pursuit of their own happiness, will cause harm to others, whether out of ignorance or delay.

You should not be allowed to pollute your own land, even if you contain the spread of that pollution so it never reaches another's land. Because that land will eventually be owned by someone else, and you do them harm. You should not be allowed to kill yourself without first seeking psychological or medical guidance. Because there is a "future you" that we have some responsibility for. If, after careful analysis, it is determined that your present suffering is too great to push through, or assist with medication, I think we should allow suicide in these cases. But we should not pretend that even self-inflicted wounds like these are "victim-less". Or that nobody has a say in what is right or wrong, because it is all subjective.

[TXChris]

But I am right. Why don't you argue with my points, if you think I am wrong. Is the best you can do is to argue that my assumption that I am correct is wrong?

I never fault religion for assuming that they are correct. I fault religion because they are wrong, and I continuously detail just how and why they are wrong.

By your reasoning, you are guilty of the same shit by assuming that you are right. You are like one of those subjectivists who, after losing an argument, just throw up their hands and say, "Truth is relative".

The funny thing about this tactic, is that the relativity of truth is always stated as an objective truth. The only difference between me saying that I am right, and you saying that you are right, is that I am giving reasons for my belief. You used to try to do the same thing, but after I made you look like an idiot, now you are backpeddling and saying, "I don't really believe any of those things, I was just arguing with you because I don't like your style". Nobody is going to fall for that shit.


And look, everyone here knows that the only reason you came to this forum is at the urging of Athena. Your entire reason for being here is to argue with me. So please try to do a better job. I'm sure all the "MySpace" kiddies think you are really smart, but this isn't MySpace. Nobody here is going to fall for your pathetic tactics, and inability to debate me on the issues. The only person who seems to be blind to this, and swoons for your nonsense, is Athena. A condition which is steadily whittling away my respect for her intellectual worth.

This will continue to be circular because you cannot comprehend that you are only right based on your reality. There is no way to prove that you are right beyond everyone else. My position protects a person's ability to believe they are right. Your position protects only those who agree with you.

For you to ask if the best I can do is argue your assumption you are correct just continues to prove that you are not as well read or thought as you seem to think. You really do come off as intelligent at times, but then, usually within the same post, your emotion and self-righteousness come out and it overrides anything you might have said. You use "facts" to support your claims, yet I show you facts completely opposing what you say. Understand, your assumption that you are correct is the base of it all for it determines your positions in arguments. So, to speak of that as being the "best" I can do, as if it were nothing important, is ridiculous.

I am right to the extent that what I believe allows you to believe as you do, and what I believe PROTECTS your right to believe what you do. Your belief, on the other hand, only allows those who agree with you any kind of relevance.

Listen, Swivel, you can try to turn things around and make those who have proven you wrong look like they are wrong, but in the end your base positional support is wrong. There is no more simple a way to state it. You speak of truth being subjective as if it were a bad thing, but only because your belief of an objective moral truth is superior in your mind. I have stopped baiting you into positions in order to prove your arrogance and lack of real philosophical reasoning because, at this point, it has been shown on multiple occasions. I no longer have to do it. Even when taking hours out of my day to lay down facts you simply state that you have lost respect for the thread, blah blah blah, without even answering them. So, why would I continue to expend that kind of effort on a daily basis? Even at this point you, unbelievably, STILL insist on arguing that I disagree with you because I take into consideration your "logic." Your whole belief system is based upon the immediate result being right or wrong, and THAT is where you are flawed. All the personal attacks and ridiculousness you espouse do nothing to change this.

And, yes, I did come here because I was invited by Athena. Geez, get over it already. I cannot understand why you obsess so much over her. I mean, really. She thinks different than you and she happens to think amazingly similarly to me. Heaven forbid people disagree. LOL This forum would be dead if it were not for her, me, and GPrime. So, stop crying about people disagreeing with you and try your best to stick to the topic. Oh, and just so you are aware, true debate has nothing to do with childishness name-calling. Until you can accept that you have no future "debating." ;)

[TXChris]

I agree. You and I have mostly the same base philosophies, you just take them to an extreme that doesn't work in the real world. It is the polar opposite of Communism, and just as untenable.

The mistakes that Marx and Engels made all stemmed from their ignorance of evolutionary psychology, not their ignorance of economics. The reason Joseph Smith got everything right wasn't because he knew more about markets, it was because he knew the most about people. Economies and governments are made up of people, and people are not products of their environment. They are mostly motivated by innate reactions to stimuli.

The conclusions that you reach, from some of the same starting points that I leave from, are not tempered by a full understanding of human nature. It seems that you read a lot of history and economics, but if you aren't reading Judith Harris, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins, you won't know what to do with that knowledge.

The government needs to be minimized, not eliminated. We can't replace one extreme with another. There are too many cases where people, left to the pursuit of their own happiness, will cause harm to others, whether out of ignorance or delay.

You should not be allowed to pollute your own land, even if you contain the spread of that pollution so it never reaches another's land. Because that land will eventually be owned by someone else, and you do them harm. You should not be allowed to kill yourself without first seeking psychological or medical guidance. Because there is a "future you" that we have some responsibility for. If, after careful analysis, it is determined that your present suffering is too great to push through, or assist with medication, I think we should allow suicide in these cases. But we should not pretend that even self-inflicted wounds like these are "victim-less". Or that nobody has a say in what is right or wrong, because it is all subjective.

Once again, that is your opinion, and that is where we disagree. You and I both have a different view of the ability of people to do for themselves. I have mentioned that no government would be a great thing except that we all know that is not feasible. So, as I said, limited government is the ideal. The problem you have with taking the side of limited government is your continued belief that government should be involved in so many activities of daily life. The only logical result from that is bigger government.

Government cannot regulate all this which you expect them to without growing in size, but that then negates what you say you believe, which is smaller government. Do you see why we have trouble agreeing with you on the things you say? Your belief is that government can regulate better than the free market. This, too, is in complete disagreement with our belief that the free market is much more efficient and able to react to the demands of society. The problem with government is that policy is decided by emotion, and that ALWAYS hurts more than it helps. One cannot simply move the inequality from one group to another and say that they have removed it, yet that is precisely what government does. Unless government purposely protects an individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness there will always be more groups of people that are hurt by government policy than those who are helped.

The problem with your view of "victim-less" is that you must concede that government has the right to determine just where the lines are. And, once again, that is going to be subjective, based upon the people involved in the police creation.

Maybe the problem here is that while we are arguing for the best way possible to guarantee every individual's rights you, instead, are arguing some "pie in the sky" dream of what life should be?

[swivel]

This will continue to be circular because you cannot comprehend that you are only right based on your reality. There is no way to prove that you are right beyond everyone else. My position protects a person's ability to believe they are right. Your position protects only those who agree with you.

And, yes, I did come here because I was invited by Athena. Geez, get over it already. I cannot understand why you obsess so much over her. I mean, really. She thinks different than you and she happens to think amazingly similarly to me. Heaven forbid people disagree. LOL This forum would be dead if it were not for her, me, and GPrime. So, stop crying about people disagreeing with you and try your best to stick to the topic. Oh, and just so you are aware, true debate has nothing to do with childishness name-calling. Until you can accept that you have no future "debating." ;)

That is why I have thanked you in the past for coming and sticking around. I love people disagreeing with me. But I prefer if they do it well, or add something to the argument. You are just here with a vendetta against me. It is obvious enough that others keep pointing it out to me. Until you learn to be honest about your motives and intentions, it will be up to me to point them out to you.

And you are wrong that my position only protects those who agree with me. My position protects everyone who is RIGHT. It does nothing for those who are immoral. I do not agree with smoking, but I support the right for others to smoke, as long as they do not do it around people who don't want to smoke. See? I protect everyone's rights. You only fight for the right of the immoral, and ignore the victim.

I do not drink, but I support the right for others to drink. I just don't think they should drink and drive. See? Once again, I am arguing for the objective moral truth in every situation. You just charge ahead, unthinking, looking for any liberty being violated, not caring about the harm being caused for others.

I think people should be religious if they want. But I do not think they should teach their religions to children. We need to protect the future adults that reside in each child by making sure that they are old enough to understand what is being done to them. If they decide, as an adult, to join a faith, then I support their decision.

I just don't think you ponder these scenarios enough to see who is right and wrong in each situation. I have always been open to having my every position argued and analyzed. Why don't you try to do this, rather than pretend to be superior than me, by not acting as superior as I do?

[impqueen]

What gets me is this belief that people cannot think for themselves; that somehow government can regulate better than a free market. Personal responsibility is becoming a farce. THAT will lead to the degradation and downfall of society, not the free market.

I never said that people couldn't think for themselves. That's an incredibly broad generalization you're making. Personally, I'm all for letting people make their own decisions when they are adults and capable of doing so. But healthcare licensure is there to make sure that people who are providing care for children, ill and the elderly adhere to a specific standard of education and care. If you're not okay with that, why not?

The idea of my hanging out a shingle and setting up practice with only a dual bachelor's degree and no graduate school or state licensure to practice medicine or provide counseling is crazy. Without any governmental restriction, I could not only tell you to ask Athena out on a real date vs. a cyber one (which I still think is a great idea, despite your baffled emoticon), I could espouse anything I wanted to as long as people would pay me for it. There would be no board of nursing, no board of ethics, no governmental penalty for doing deliberate or not-so-deliberate harm.

I should not be able to tell a person who needs medical or surgical care that I can take care of that without supervision or licensure from any governmental agency. And without actual jail time penalties, there would be medical professionals doing just that. Malpractice is a big enough problem without removing what guidelines there are to sensible, educated, board-certified medical practice. Innocent people would be harmed because some yahoo thought the free market would support non-sterile surgery. Now, when that happens, there's jail time involved because there are penalties for practicing without a license. Rebirth therapy, for example, has killed children. Without any governmental oversight into psychological care, there would be therapists practicing it and killing kids. Where is the right of the patient to competent medical care?

Not all governmental oversight is bad. Professions where innocent people could be hurt need some kind of governing body. Remove the state licensing boards, and "self-governed" professional organizations would then lobby the existing government for more power and would eventually become a governmental agency, pretty much like what's in place now. Barring that, they would issue proclamations about accepted practical standards that would be worth jack-shit without penalties for noncompliance. Neither is a great idea to me.

Seriously, dude, when you argue for free-market-regulated medical care without a system of licensure or enforceable standard of practice, you move from Libertarianism to anarchy. And anarchy has its pluses, but it's never good at protecting those in our society who need protection.

[swivel]

Seriously, dude, when you argue for free-market-regulated medical care without a system of licensure or enforceable standard of practice, you move from Libertarianism to anarchy. And anarchy has its pluses, but it's never good at protecting those in our society who need protection.

Well-said. My wife is a practicing psychologist. The harm that these people could do, if not under constant review, would be horrifying. And to expect the market forces to put out of work the psychologists who are immoral is just crazy. The opposite would be the case. The market would reward the psychologists who did not help anyone get better, and punish those who helped people get out of therapy.

Chiropractors are a wonderful example. These are quacks that create more problems than they solve. They should have to be qualified doctors, and have government oversight. Because right now they keep hurting people enough to force their patients to keep needing them. They are basically cracking knuckles, which makes you feel like you need to crack your knuckles.

I'm the biggest supporter of reduced government, but when you get so wed to that idea, that you pretend that it is the solution to all problems, you have bought into a cult, and stopped thinking for yourself.

[impqueen]

This forum would be dead if it were not for her, me, and GPrime. So, stop crying about people disagreeing with you and try your best to stick to the topic.

Well damn, I guess Morbid and Swivel and the rest of the staff can just take the rest of the week off and let you handle the administrative bullshit from here on out, then.

Actually, this entire forum would be dead without Morbid and Swivel. I don't have jack to do with the forum part of this site beyond shooting my mouth off, so whatever, but geez, way to piss on the people that own the site you're posting on.

Oh, and just so you're aware, true debate has nothing to do with childishness and emotional posturing about your own importance. Until you can accept that, you have no future "debating" ;)

[swivel]

Actually, Imp, I'm really not that important around here. I appreciate the ego boost, though. And I'm thanking your post for giving Morbid props, and for no other reason. He deserves a blowjob from each of us.

[impqueen]

Actually, Imp, I'm really not that important around here. I appreciate the ego boost, though. And I'm thanking your post for giving Morbid props, and for no other reason. He deserves a blowjob from each of us.

Whatever. But while you're giving Morbid a blowjob, can you blow him once for me? I could do it myself, but I'll just enjoy it more if you do it. :D

[TXChris]

That is why I have thanked you in the past for coming and sticking around. I love people disagreeing with me. But I prefer if they do it well, or add something to the argument. You are just here with a vendetta against me. It is obvious enough that others keep pointing it out to me. Until you learn to be honest about your motives and intentions, it will be up to me to point them out to you.

And you are wrong that my position only protects those who agree with me. My position protects everyone who is RIGHT. It does nothing for those who are immoral. I do not agree with smoking, but I support the right for others to smoke, as long as they do not do it around people who don't want to smoke. See? I protect everyone's rights. You only fight for the right of the immoral, and ignore the victim.

I do not drink, but I support the right for others to drink. I just don't think they should drink and drive. See? Once again, I am arguing for the objective moral truth in every situation. You just charge ahead, unthinking, looking for any liberty being violated, not caring about the harm being caused for others.

I think people should be religious if they want. But I do not think they should teach their religions to children. We need to protect the future adults that reside in each child by making sure that they are old enough to understand what is being done to them. If they decide, as an adult, to join a faith, then I support their decision.

I just don't think you ponder these scenarios enough to see who is right and wrong in each situation. I have always been open to having my every position argued and analyzed. Why don't you try to do this, rather than pretend to be superior than me, by not acting as superior as I do?

And just as you continue to "think" you are right, the same as every organized religion does, this argument will be circular. I've already mentioned it is a no-win. I have no "vendetta" against you. Maybe it strokes your ego to think so? I don't know. You seem to continue to bring up "people" agreeing with you, so maybe you feel righteousness is immediately afforded those who convince others to follow their beliefs? I have agreed with you when possible, but by the same token refuse to agree with you simply because you want me to. The failure of your arguments stem most basically from your belief that you are correct. THAT is where the problem lies. Because you "think" you are correct you see all your solutions as only hurting those who disagree with you, which in your mind are evil. Once again, my position on the protection of one's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is what is truly moral. Not forcing my personal beliefs and hatred of others on people is what makes my position the more acceptable.

[swivel]

And just as you continue to "think" you are right, the same as every organized religion does, this argument will be circular. I've already mentioned it is a no-win. I have no "vendetta" against you. Maybe it strokes your ego to think so? I don't know. You seem to continue to bring up "people" agreeing with you, so maybe you feel righteousness is immediately afforded those who convince others to follow their beliefs?

Where do I pretend to care that others agree with me? The only time I brought this up is to say that your vendetta against me can not be my ego or paranoia, not when I am getting PM's asking me if you are for real. Stop distorting and lying to prove your point.

Yes, I think I am right. And so do you. The difference is that I keep offering analogies and facts, while you keep saying that I must be wrong to think that I am right.

Can't you see the obvious hypocrisy and futility here? I have shown that you are wrong on your granting of rights to everyone. You just keep saying that by saying I am "right", I must be "wrong".

Do wha?

[TXChris]

I never said that people couldn't think for themselves. That's an incredibly broad generalization you're making. Personally, I'm all for letting people make their own decisions when they are adults and capable of doing so. But healthcare licensure is there to make sure that people who are providing care for children, ill and the elderly adhere to a specific standard of education and care. If you're not okay with that, why not?

The idea of my hanging out a shingle and setting up practice with only a dual bachelor's degree and no graduate school or state licensure to practice medicine or provide counseling is crazy. Without any governmental restriction, I could not only tell you to ask Athena out on a real date vs. a cyber one (which I still think is a great idea, despite your baffled emoticon), I could espouse anything I wanted to as long as people would pay me for it. There would be no board of nursing, no board of ethics, no governmental penalty for doing deliberate or not-so-deliberate harm.

I should not be able to tell a person who needs medical or surgical care that I can take care of that without supervision or licensure from any governmental agency. And without actual jail time penalties, there would be medical professionals doing just that. Malpractice is a big enough problem without removing what guidelines there are to sensible, educated, board-certified medical practice. Innocent people would be harmed because some yahoo thought the free market would support non-sterile surgery. Now, when that happens, there's jail time involved because there are penalties for practicing without a license. Rebirth therapy, for example, has killed children. Without any governmental oversight into psychological care, there would be therapists practicing it and killing kids. Where is the right of the patient to competent medical care?

Not all governmental oversight is bad. Professions where innocent people could be hurt need some kind of governing body. Remove the state licensing boards, and "self-governed" professional organizations would then lobby the existing government for more power and would eventually become a governmental agency, pretty much like what's in place now. Barring that, they would issue proclamations about accepted practical standards that would be worth jack-shit without penalties for noncompliance. Neither is a great idea to me.

Seriously, dude, when you argue for free-market-regulated medical care without a system of licensure or enforceable standard of practice, you move from Libertarianism to anarchy. And anarchy has its pluses, but it's never good at protecting those in our society who need protection.

You are falling for the same misguided thinking most do. Just because there is no government regulation does not mean that there will not be any regulation. In a true free market, if an organization, which sets itself up for the sole purpose of regulating an industry, fails in their ability to do the job, they will go out of business. Companies, better at doing what the previous company attempted would come to be. On the contrary, when a government organization fails all we do is funnel more money their way, and they continue failing us. That's unacceptable.

[swivel]

You are falling for the same misguided thinking most do. Just because there is no government regulation does not mean that there will not be any regulation. In a true free market, if an organization, which sets itself up for the sole purpose of regulating an industry, fails in their ability to do the job, they will go out of business. Companies, better at doing what the previous company attempted would come to be. On the contrary, when a government organization fails all we do is funnel more money their way, and they continue failing us. That's unacceptable.

What about my example of psychologists and chiropractors? Your system would make sure that the absolute worst of these would be the only ones to thrive.

The same is true of religions. Only those that fail to help people do well.

Since your ideas fail in such amazingly simple situations, it can not possibly be correct. You are 100% wrong, no arguing will rescue you, only the modification of your position.

[TXChris]

Well damn, I guess Morbid and Swivel and the rest of the staff can just take the rest of the week off and let you handle the administrative bullshit from here on out, then.

Actually, this entire forum would be dead without Morbid and Swivel. I don't have jack to do with the forum part of this site beyond shooting my mouth off, so whatever, but geez, way to piss on the people that own the site you're posting on.

Oh, and just so you're aware, true debate has nothing to do with childishness and emotional posturing about your own importance. Until you can accept that, you have no future "debating" ;)

Well, call me silly then, but I'd hate to see this forum if everyone agreed on everything. There wouldn't be much to talk about. I, personally, do not see how I have pissed Morbid and Swivel off. Maybe they can enlighten me?

That being said, be sure to let me know how I have shown emotional posturing within my posts. Obviously, I have taken the higher road on a pretty continual basis, less last Friday when I attempted to lower myself to the level of Swivel. But, anyway, any help you could have in showing me this would be great. Thanks! :)

[impqueen]

You are falling for the same misguided thinking most do. Just because there is no government regulation does not mean that there will not be any regulation. In a true free market, if an organization, which sets itself up for the sole purpose of regulating an industry, fails in their ability to do the job, they will go out of business. Companies, better at doing what the previous company attempted would come to be. On the contrary, when a government organization fails all we do is funnel more money their way, and they continue failing us. That's unacceptable.

And in the meatime, while you're waiting around for this inevitable failure, how many children and ill people get hurt because of a lack of a sound regulatory system? Just because you don't like government doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. The years it would take for an alternative system to either be functional or fail would create a gigantic window into which human lives - innocent lives - would fall. Is that okay with you in the name of getting rid of government oversight? Are those children and sick people just collateral damage to you?

And a governing organization run by the people sounds a whole lot like government to me. Who do you think's on staff of the current licensing boards?

[swivel]

Well, call me silly then, but I'd hate to see this forum if everyone agreed on everything. There wouldn't be much to talk about. I, personally, do not see how I have pissed Morbid and Swivel off. Maybe they can enlighten me?

That being said, be sure to let me know how I have shown emotional posturing within my posts. Obviously, I have taken the higher road on a pretty continual basis, less last Friday when I attempted to lower myself to the level of Swivel. But, anyway, any help you could have in showing me this would be great. Thanks! :)

I'm not pissed. Morbid, he is always pissed, so that doesn't tell you anything either.

I'm just arguing with you because you are wrong, and I don't like people spreading "wrongness" all over the place. I do what I can to correct people when they say shit like, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

I hope you will notice that I only do this in the "Three Things" area. It also happens to be my favorite place, so it probably looks like this is all I do.

Once more, I am not in the least bit upset with you. I just keep correcting you. Try not to take offense.

[swivel]

And in the meatime, while you're waiting around for this inevitable failure, how many children and ill people get hurt because of a lack of a sound regulatory system? Just because you don't like government doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. The years it would take for an alternative system to either be functional or fail would create a gigantic window into which human lives - innocent lives - would fall. Is that okay with you in the name of getting rid of government oversight? Are those children and sick people just collateral damage to you?

You want to know something REAL FUNNY, impqueen? TXChris uses this argument to support the abolition of government, but uses the OPPOSITE ARGUMENT for closed borders.

His argument for anarchy is that, once millions of people die out, we will find the system that kills the least amount of people.

His argument for closed borders (racism) is that it will take too long for the benefits we impart to Mexico to make it back to us!

How about THEM apples?!

[Morbid]

LOL This forum would be dead if it were not for her, me, and GPrime.

Actually, this forum would be dead without the other members posting. Without you, Athena and Gprime, we would just lose three threads of you guys getting your asses handed to you by swivel. No matter if he is right or wrong.

[TXChris]

Where do I pretend to care that others agree with me? The only time I brought this up is to say that your vendetta against me can not be my ego or paranoia, not when I am getting PM's asking me if you are for real. Stop distorting and lying to prove your point.

Yes, I think I am right. And so do you. The difference is that I keep offering analogies and facts, while you keep saying that I must be wrong to think that I am right.

Can't you see the obvious hypocrisy and futility here? I have shown that you are wrong on your granting of rights to everyone. You just keep saying that by saying I am "right", I must be "wrong".

Do wha?

The tactics you use are the kinds of things kids do in elementary school. That's all. It's easily seen. Your refusal to admit it does not make it any less true.

I have taken a difference stance than you, mine protecting the rights of all. As I said, I have spent hours offering you evidence. Given you quote and verse, and what did you do? You said that you lost all respect for the thread and refused to debate it. After the first couple of threads I posted in, and had to deal with that exact thing from you, I decided not to put forth so much effort. So, don't go giving me this all mighty righteousness you continue to throw out there.

What you showed me was your failure which is that because you believe you are right everyone else is evil and they should have no rights for as long as they disagree with you. You have never proven your eternal righteousness except to base it on the belief of some objective moral truth that YOU subscribe to. Of course, if someone else also believe in an objective moral truth, but it was different than your's, you would decry them as evil. It's ridiculousness, I tell you.

The fact is, an entire populace will never agree on YOUR objective moral truth. The best thing that can be hoped for, by ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, is the basic guarantee of human rights. THAT is my stance, and has been from day one, as it is the basis of everything I believe.

[TXChris]

What about my example of psychologists and chiropractors? Your system would make sure that the absolute worst of these would be the only ones to thrive.

The same is true of religions. Only those that fail to help people do well.

Since your ideas fail in such amazingly simple situations, it can not possibly be correct. You are 100% wrong, no arguing will rescue you, only the modification of your position.

What about your examples? Perfectly regulated by the free market. The only difference being that the regulation would be by the whole of the populace and not be a few. You have already stated how the majority is better than the individual in forming thought.

[TXChris]

Actually, this forum would be dead without the other members posting. Without you, Athena and Gprime, we would just lose three threads of you guys getting your asses handed to you by swivel. No matter if he is right or wrong.

Believe as you may, but one cannot negate the importance of our position OR us arguing it. The strength of which we believe is the only thing that rivals the strength with which Swivel believes in his position.

[impqueen]

Well, call me silly then, but I'd hate to see this forum if everyone agreed on everything. There wouldn't be much to talk about. I, personally, do not see how I have pissed Morbid and Swivel off. Maybe they can enlighten me?

That being said, be sure to let me know how I have shown emotional posturing within my posts. Obviously, I have taken the higher road on a pretty continual basis, less last Friday when I attempted to lower myself to the level of Swivel. But, anyway, any help you could have in showing me this would be great. Thanks! :)

I said pissed ON, not pissed off. Read, dude. I doubt very much you've pissed anyone off despite your best efforts. And never will you catch me saying that people need to always agree. But you stated that "this forum would be dead" without you, Athena, and gprime. I like you and gprime just fine, and I like and have a great deal of respect for Athena. But this forum would not die without you.

And you really may have all the time in the world and no life, but as it happens, I have shit to do. If you're unable to see that you get overemotional, self-important and resort to baiting to attempt to make your points, then I'm probably not going to be overly helpful on your personal journey of self-discovery. And even if I did go line by line through your myriad posts to give you specific examples of the overall sense I get when reading them, you'd just want to wind it up and argue it for hours, and I have stuff to write, kids to raise, and blowjobs to give.

No, Morbid, not to you.

[TXChris]

And in the meatime, while you're waiting around for this inevitable failure, how many children and ill people get hurt because of a lack of a sound regulatory system? Just because you don't like government doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. The years it would take for an alternative system to either be functional or fail would create a gigantic window into which human lives - innocent lives - would fall. Is that okay with you in the name of getting rid of government oversight? Are those children and sick people just collateral damage to you?

And a governing organization run by the people sounds a whole lot like government to me. Who do you think's on staff of the current licensing boards?

Your kidding me right? The continual failure of the FDA is not enough evidence for you? People are hurt CONTINUALLY by the FDA and other government programs, yet you use that as your basis for your belief? Come now, let's be serious. If the FDA actually kept people from being hurt then I might be able to agree with you, but the fact remains the FDA has killed tons of people themselves, under the guise of public safety.

[swivel]

Believe as you may, but one cannot negate the importance of our position OR us arguing it. The strength of which we believe is the only thing that rivals the strength with which Swivel believes in his position.

No, my examples are what rival your faith.

Please explain away my chiropractic example of the failure of a free-market to protect people. You can't.

Look back through these threads, dude. I keep proving you wrong and you keep saying the same shit with every post. You say "that last post just proves what I'm saying. You think you are so right. You are just like the religious people you hate. I protect everyone. Government sucks."

The only good bits of your posts are the parts where you quote me.

[TXChris]

I'm not pissed. Morbid, he is always pissed, so that doesn't tell you anything either.

I'm just arguing with you because you are wrong, and I don't like people spreading "wrongness" all over the place. I do what I can to correct people when they say shit like, "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

I hope you will notice that I only do this in the "Three Things" area. It also happens to be my favorite place, so it probably looks like this is all I do.

Once more, I am not in the least bit upset with you. I just keep correcting you. Try not to take offense.

I don't take offense in anything other than your belief that your self-righteousness is superior to everyone else. Once again, you speak of your hatred in organized religion yet use the same concept in your base of belief. Telling people they are wrong does not mean that they are. Yelling louder does not make it so. I have shown you where you are wrong. If one does not want to believe, then that is okay. I fully believe in the fact that we are a country of sheep and THAT is a problem. Removing government-sponsored public education would be a great first step in people understanding what true education and learning is.

[swivel]

Your kidding me right? The continual failure of the FDA is not enough evidence for you? People are hurt CONTINUALLY by the FDA and other government programs, yet you use that as your basis for your belief? Come now, let's be serious. If the FDA actually kept people from being hurt then I might be able to agree with you, but the fact remains the FDA has killed tons of people themselves, under the guise of public safety.

And you accuse me of not quantifying MY arguments? You are such a hypocrite.

Has the FDA ever done anything wrong? Yes.
Has the FDA led to harm and death? Yes.
Has the FDA caused more harm than the absence of the FDA would cause? You still haven't made this argument, much less a case for it.

This would be the same as saying that we should get rid of airbags, because three people have been killed by them. It is much easier to see where the FDA fails, than where it succeeds. Is there room for improvement? Of course. But that doesn't mean scrapping the organization.

The drug companies could not be trusted to scrap a product after billions invested, just for the health benefits of a minority of users. The FDA can.

[TXChris]

You want to know something REAL FUNNY, impqueen? TXChris uses this argument to support the abolition of government, but uses the OPPOSITE ARGUMENT for closed borders.

His argument for anarchy is that, once millions of people die out, we will find the system that kills the least amount of people.

His argument for closed borders (racism) is that it will take too long for the benefits we impart to Mexico to make it back to us!

How about THEM apples?!

Wow. You really are unbelievable in your lack of ability to grasp what I am saying. The only reason for government should be the protection of the three most basic human rights. So, to that extent, government is needed. That is not anarchy.

[TXChris]

No, my examples are what rival your faith.

Please explain away my chiropractic example of the failure of a free-market to protect people. You can't.

Look back through these threads, dude. I keep proving you wrong and you keep saying the same shit with every post. You say "that last post just proves what I'm saying. You think you are so right. You are just like the religious people you hate. I protect everyone. Government sucks."

The only good bits of your posts are the parts where you quote me.

You come from the belief that chiropractors hurt people...that what they do is not a valid help. Having dealt with many in my years as a business consultant, I have to say that you are completely 100% wrong. But, then again, I don't pretend you would believe me as this is not something someone else has told me, this is actually what I have witnessed. That being said, you have yet to prove that chiropractors would be a leech on a free market society. I would argue psychiatrists, with their regulation boards, etc., hurt people.

[TXChris]

And you accuse me of not quantifying MY arguments? You are such a hypocrite.

Has the FDA ever done anything wrong? Yes.
Has the FDA led to harm and death? Yes.
Has the FDA caused more harm than the absence of the FDA would cause? You still haven't made this argument, much less a case for it.

This would be the same as saying that we should get rid of airbags, because three people have been killed by them. It is much easier to see where the FDA fails, than where it succeeds. Is there room for improvement? Of course. But that doesn't mean scrapping the organization.

The drug companies could not be trusted to scrap a product after billions invested, just for the health benefits of a minority of users. The FDA can.

My argument is not the number of deaths caused by the FDA, rather it is the misguided belief that without them there would be deaths. Y'all are trying to say that without government regulation there would be death. I'm showing you that with government regulation there is death. So simply using "government regulation saves lives" as an argument is ridiculous and has no merit.

And don't even get me started on government-mandated airbags which have been shown to hurt more people than they help in crashes under speeds of 45 mph.

[swivel]

I would argue psychiatrists, with their regulation boards, etc., hurt people.

So, we should have a government organization to provide oversight of licensed psychiatrists? Or should we let the free market decide?

It would be lambs to the slaughter, with your idea. Quacks profiteering on people during their weakest moments. This might even put the churches out of business!


As for Chiropractors, you need to do some honest reading. Try here. (http://www.chirobase.org/)


Chiropractic is the most significant nonscientific health-care delivery system in the United States. As a result of their high level of organization and aggressiveness, chiropractors are licensed to practice in all 50 states and several foreign countries. Although a minority of chiropractors offer rational treatment, chiropractic's cultism is so well entrenched that the profession should be viewed as a societal problem, not simply as a competitor of regular health-care.

[swivel]

My argument is not the number of deaths caused by the FDA, rather it is the misguided belief that without them there would be deaths. Y'all are trying to say that without government regulation there would be death. I'm showing you that with government regulation there is death. So simply using "government regulation saves lives" as an argument is ridiculous and has no merit.

And don't even get me started on government-mandated airbags which have been shown to hurt more people than they help in crashes under speeds of 45 mph.

First, you are doing something funny here. You are refusing to quantify your argument after accusing me of the same thing AFTER I had already quantified mine. This is at least the third example of outright hypocrisy I've seen TODAY. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Second, you are an evil dude if you are arguing against airbags. From the "Straight Dope":


First some numbers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that, as of September 1, 1998, air bags have saved 3,448 lives (2,954 drivers, 494 passengers) since they were first installed in quantity in the late 1980s. During the same period 115 people (66 of them children) have been killed by air bags, with another 40 unconfirmed deaths, for a total of 155. So we're talking 22 lives saved for every one lost. It's estimated that air bags reduce the risk of dying in a direct frontal collision by 30 percent.

I don't know how old you are, but in case you are as young as you seem, I'll put this in the words of your generation: PWNED.

[TXChris]

So, we should have a government organization to provide oversight of licensed psychiatrists? Or should we let the free market decide?

It would be lambs to the slaughter, with your idea. Quacks profiteering on people during their weakest moments. This might even put the churches out of business!


As for Chiropractors, you need to do some honest reading. Try here. (http://www.chirobase.org/)

Once again, using your example in a previous thread that the majority is better able to make decisions than the individual, I would have to say that the free market would be a much better alternative. If a group of people is better than an individual then wouldn't an even larger group be better than a smaller group (i.e. the free market determining the actual needs rather than a few in power)?

[swivel]

Once again, using your example in a previous thread that the majority is better able to make decisions than the individual, I would have to say that the free market would be a much better alternative. If a group of people is better than an individual then wouldn't an even larger group be better than a smaller group (i.e. the free market determining the actual needs rather than a few in power)?

There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. The masses are more intelligent than the individual, but they are not better at determining moral worth of a decision. Ever notice that fiction likes to have the evil, mad-scientist? The perception is that often, the least moral are the most intelligent. They are different kinds of intelligence, just as spatial and emotional intelligence are not positively correlated.

As you know, I understand that there is an Objective Moral Truth, and no majority is large enough to deviate from this. It takes rules to enforce morality, because people will become self-serving to the point that they hurt others.

[TXChris]

First, you are doing something funny here. You are refusing to quantify your argument after accusing me of the same thing AFTER I had already quantified mine. This is at least the third example of outright hypocrisy I've seen TODAY. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Second, you are an evil dude if you are arguing against airbags. From the "Straight Dope":



I don't know how old you are, but in case you are as young as you seem, I'll put this in the words of your generation: PWNED.

The argument was never about quantification. That's the whole thing. It was simply about one person trying to state that the reason for government regulation is that it keeps people from dying. Not that less people die because the FDA is in charge. My point was that the FDA, which is the government, has been the cause of deaths. No quantification needed.

LOL I'm evil. That's funny when you are the one suggesting that people are not allowed to be responsible for themselves and should, instead, give that responsibility to the government. It's "1984" whether you see it or not, man. If a person decides that airbags are not for him, then so be it. It in, no way, affects anyone else. Just himself.

As far as your numbers go, I don't have to even look for evidence to prove you a hypocrite, but I will provide it regardless. You stated in the smoking thread that the deaths of children were cause enough for law creation. Here you say that because more people were saved than were hurt, it is okay to require airbags. Which is it? Here, let me help you even more. Studies show that weight and height affect the usefulness of airbags (i.e. children are far more likely to be hurt by airbags). So, now you can compare children with airbags and children with second-hand smoke. Apples to apples.


The second study, at Harvard, analyzed the difference in air bag risk to children under 13 based on the child's age, and found that their experience differed, too.

For the whole group of 16,200 children, a child seated in the front seat who was wearing a belt was 31 percent more likely to be killed if the car had an air bag. If the child was not wearing a belt, the risk of death was 84 percent higher if the car had an air bag.

[impqueen]

Your kidding me right? The continual failure of the FDA is not enough evidence for you? People are hurt CONTINUALLY by the FDA and other government programs, yet you use that as your basis for your belief? Come now, let's be serious. If the FDA actually kept people from being hurt then I might be able to agree with you, but the fact remains the FDA has killed tons of people themselves, under the guise of public safety.

I think we're talking about different things here. I've been discussing state licensure and regulatory agencies for nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. You're suddenly switching over to talking FDA, which is pretty much bought and paid for by big pharma and which doesn't actually regulate nursing, psych, or medical standards of practice.

The medical system we have now is broken and needs to be fixed. But going straight to a fair market system with no regulation or licensure is going to hurt a lot of people - I asked you once if you felt that loss of innocent life was acceptable collateral damage in the name of smaller government, and you didn't answer.

For example, if your argument is that the free market would still result in regulation of doctors, then I understand what you're saying. But the result of that would be that without a licensing system to verify physican practice, there would be a hell of a lot of fake "endorsement" certificates hanging in offices, and more likely than not, more dead people with little or no legal recourse. And some of those dead people would be children and those too ill to make their own decisions - do they not have rights to competent health care? If you are critically ill or are accidentally injured, do you really have the time to research a doctor's CV? What if you're out of your own state and are hurt or become ill in an emergent situation?

I totally appreciate the free market when it comes to, say, car mechanics. You want your neighbor to work on your car, fine. That's a free market system. Your neighbor jacks your car all to hell, it's on you. Ditto, lawyers. You want to get your neighbor to defend you in court and your neighbor is a fucktard, fine. That's on you.

You want to take your child to a doctor who may or may not have a license and who may or may not treat your child within prescribed standards of practice? You're playing roulette with more than your car and your ass, you're playing with your child's life. At least under the current system, if a fake doctor kills your kid you have some legal recourse. Under what you propose, it's collateral damage until the free market puts that fake doctor out of business, and you're out a kid. Meantime, a child's rights haven't counted for crap.

What's your reasoning for wanting a free market and deregulation of state licensure for medical professionals? Is it because you want smaller government, or perhaps because you feel that it will lower medical costs and insurance? If not those reasons, what? Or are you arguing for the sake of keeping our forum alive?

[TXChris]

There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. The masses are more intelligent than the individual, but they are not better at determining moral worth of a decision. Ever notice that fiction likes to have the evil, mad-scientist? The perception is that often, the least moral are the most intelligent. They are different kinds of intelligence, just as spatial and emotional intelligence are not positively correlated.

As you know, I understand that there is an Objective Moral Truth, and no majority is large enough to deviate from this. It takes rules to enforce morality, because people will become self-serving to the point that they hurt others.

And yet you continue to argue that your objective moral truth is more relevant than the next guy's. I simply cannot accept that. I would much rather allow others to do as they will, as long as they do not trample upon the rights of their neighbor, than force them to follow your objective moral truth and hope that you are correct. It's all about personal responsibility. See? That's MY whole issue with your belief. You have no way of proving that you are 100% correct therefore I have no faith in your belief. I do, however, fully believe in allowing you to live your life according to that belief so long as you do not ignore the basic rights of the next person.

[swivel]

Here, let me help you even more. Studies show that weight and height affect the usefulness of airbags (i.e. children are far more likely to be hurt by airbags). So, now you can compare children with airbags and children with second-hand smoke. Apples to apples.

That's why they have warnings, and why the government suggests that children ride in the back, or you disengage your airbag. Are you suggesting we pass a LAW to ensure this, or should we rely on people reading the warning and using common sense?

Hypocrisy example number 5 TODAY!

Your bullshit still doesn't counter the fact that airbags save more lives than they take. TWENTY TWO TO ONE!

I state that airbags are good because they save 22:1. I say that secondhand smoke is bad because 300,000 cases of intestinal infections a year strike kids, and that is an absolute number, not a ratio.

Apples to apples, dumbass.

[TXChris]

I think we're talking about different things here. I've been discussing state licensure and regulatory agencies for nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. You're suddenly switching over to talking FDA, which is pretty much bought and paid for by big pharma and which doesn't actually regulate nursing, psych, or medical standards of practice.

The medical system we have now is broken and needs to be fixed. But going straight to a fair market system with no regulation or licensure is going to hurt a lot of people - I asked you once if you felt that loss of innocent life was acceptable collateral damage in the name of smaller government, and you didn't answer.

For example, if your argument is that the free market would still result in regulation of doctors, then I understand what you're saying. But the result of that would be that without a licensing system to verify physican practice, there would be a hell of a lot of fake "endorsement" certificates hanging in offices, and more likely than not, more dead people with little or no legal recourse. And some of those dead people would be children and those too ill to make their own decisions - do they not have rights to competent health care? If you are critically ill or are accidentally injured, do you really have the time to research a doctor's CV? What if you're out of your own state and are hurt or become ill in an emergent situation?

I totally appreciate the free market when it comes to, say, car mechanics. You want your neighbor to work on your car, fine. That's a free market system. Your neighbor jacks your car all to hell, it's on you. Ditto, lawyers. You want to get your neighbor to defend you in court and your neighbor is a fucktard, fine. That's on you.

You want to take your child to a doctor who may or may not have a license and who may or may not treat your child within prescribed standards of practice? You're playing roulette with more than your car and your ass, you're playing with your child's life. At least under the current system, if a fake doctor kills your kid you have some legal recourse. Under what you propose, it's collateral damage until the free market puts that fake doctor out of business, and you're out a kid. Meantime, a child's rights haven't counted for crap.

What's your reasoning for wanting a free market and deregulation of state licensure for medical professionals? Is it because you want smaller government, or perhaps because you feel that it will lower medical costs and insurance? If not those reasons, what? Or are you arguing for the sake of keeping our forum alive?

Exactly. The problem most people face when considering a free market is the release of government responsibility for regulation. Just because we would be in a free market system does not mean that there would not be regulation. It just means that the regulation would be created by the free market and not some government, whether it be federal, state, or local. I use the FDA as an example because it is a government agency charged with regulation. And, yes, you are correct. There is tons of corruption by big pharma. Yet ANOTHER reason for getting government out of the regulation business. The free market better polices regulation than a government that is bought and paid for by those with the most influence. It would be up to the free market to determine what kind of licensing would be required for specific practices and just how to go about licensing them. That would have nothing to do with big pharma and everything to do with the collective practices of individuals.

My belief in the free market system is both for smaller government AND because it would lower the costs of health care, which would hopefully get the idiots to stop considering the "universal health care" joke.

[TXChris]

That's why they have warnings, and why the government suggests that children ride in the back, or you disengage your airbag. Are you suggesting we pass a LAW to ensure this, or should we rely on people reading the warning and using common sense?

Hypocrisy example number 5 TODAY!

Your bullshit still doesn't counter the fact that airbags save more lives than they take. TWENTY TWO TO ONE!

I state that airbags are good because they save 22:1. I say that secondhand smoke is bad because 300,000 cases of intestinal infections a year strike kids, and that is an absolute number, not a ratio.

Apples to apples, dumbass.

Ohhhh, I get it. So the use of ratios or absolute numbers can be decided based upon your position in an argument. Silly me. Your ability to logically reason proceeds you. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, when airbags first came out there were no warnings about children riding in the back, etc. So, I'm just looking at your argument from the beginning, not from the point at which we currently sit. What if one only has a regular cab truck? Those are pretty big around here as a form of transportation. There is no back seat in which to sit one's child. A lot of vehicles don't have switches for their air bags. But, hey, the government is right...right? Whatever. :rolleyes:

[impqueen]

Exactly. The problem most people face when considering a free market is the release of government responsibility for regulation. Just because we would be in a free market system does not mean that there would not be regulation. It just means that the regulation would be created by the free market and not some government, whether it be federal, state, or local. I use the FDA as an example because it is a government agency charged with regulation. And, yes, you are correct. There is tons of corruption by big pharma. Yet ANOTHER reason for getting government out of the regulation business. The free market better polices regulation than a government that is bought and paid for by those with the most influence. It would be up to the free market to determine what kind of licensing would be required for specific practices and just how to go about licensing them. That would have nothing to do with big pharma and everything to do with the collective practices of individuals.

My belief in the free market system is both for smaller government AND because it would lower the costs of health care, which would hopefully get the idiots to stop considering the "universal health care" joke.

I give up. You're not answering the majority of my questions to you. You've yet to answer the question I've posed twice now: Is innocent life lost acceptable collateral damage if it buys you smaller government? You've given me no alternative program to license or regulate medical professionals other than the hardcore Libertarian "free market" line. I don't dislike Libertarianism. Hell, I'm married to a Libertarian. But deregulating the standard of practice of the medical profession by just saying "well, the free market system will come up with its own regulations to take its place" is playing roulette with a huge segment of our most vulnerable populations. You have not addressed how or even if that "roulette" time period could be avoided.

Medical standards of practice need basic government regulations at the state level in order to protect its citizens who can't protect themselves. I have no problem with going to any doctor you want - as long as that doctor has a medical degree and a license to practice. That license means that she hasn't committed felonies, isn't defrauding the public, and isn't killing your children.

[swivel]

Ohhhh, I get it. So the use of ratios or absolute numbers can be decided based upon your position in an argument. Silly me. Your ability to logically reason proceeds you. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, when airbags first came out there were no warnings about children riding in the back, etc. So, I'm just looking at your argument from the beginning, not from the point at which we currently sit. What if one only has a regular cab truck? Those are pretty big around here as a form of transportation. There is no back seat in which to sit one's child. A lot of vehicles don't have switches for their air bags. But, hey, the government is right...right? Whatever. :rolleyes:

I don't think "proceeds" means what you think it means.

In all seriousness, if we are going to argue morality by looking at a convenient slice of the past, which will artificially suit the present discourse, I am going to be forced to drag slavery back into the discussion. Are we arguing to learn, or just trying to see who can be "right" more often?

[TXChris]

You ask if "innocent life lost acceptable collateral damage if it buys you smaller government" but that's the same problem everyone else who wants to impose their views on the rest of the world comes across. First define innocent. Is it one who chooses to do themself harm? Is it one who unknowingly does himself harm? Is it someone who is done harm by another? You can't use a general statement to make such a strong point. Also, what evidence do you have to support your belief that smaller government is going to increase collateral damage? Obviously, I am assuming that is your belief based on the phrasing of your question. You only give me two choices: either we can have big government and no increase in collateral damager or a smaller government and an increase in collateral damage. That is too narrow-minded a proposition for me. I believe that collateral damage is not a good thing. It is what the military uses to justify its use of force and the subsequent loss of civilian lives on both sides.

Who knows what the program that becomes the most viable would be in a free market. I certainly do not pretend to know. That is the whole case for a free market. The ability for the populace to choose what is most important to them. At least we would have a choice in picking something that actually works and not something that is bought a paid for by special interest groups. Whatever evolves will be much for efficient and effective than government. How do I know that? Because it is the basis of economics. Those things that have worth will succeed and prosper and those that do not will fail and go away. Once again, this is unlike government programs which when they fail all that happens is that they are rolled up into another government program or they are funneled even more money. Contrary to what you say, I see no roullette. But, I understand your fear. The problem is we, as a populace, have been so brainwashed into the belief that government is needed to decide these things that anything else just doesn't make sense.

I firmly believe that if there were no government regulation those that saw the need for it would create companies which do just that. And, yes, there would be numerous organizations doing the same thing, but those that do it the best would stay in business. It really is as simple as that, contrary to what fear-mongers would have you believe. There are tons of people like yourself, who believe in helping those that cannot help themselves, and among y'all SOMEONE would seize the chance to form a company to help regulate to the extent which the free market determines is acceptable.

[swivel]

TXChris, you do not think that a 100% free market will result in many situations where the motive for profit will trample individual liberties? You are dreaming if you don't.

Don't you know about the calculations that go into deciding whether or not to issue a recall? Man, you have no leg to stand on with this argument. You are advocating anarchy. You are arguing for profits above all else.

I'm as big a fan of Capitalism as you will ever find. Seriously, I worship Adam Smith and have read Wealth of Nations several times. But you can not mix the market with the laws. You can't let the businesses decide what is right and wrong, you should only let them decide who makes what, and how much. Free trade does not mean free morals.

It always sounds like you want to cast aside the judicial system and replace it with a board of CEO's. That is crazy.

[TXChris]

I don't think "proceeds" means what you think it means.

In all seriousness, if we are going to argue morality by looking at a convenient slice of the past, which will artificially suit the present discourse, I am going to be forced to drag slavery back into the discussion. Are we arguing to learn, or just trying to see who can be "right" more often?

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I meant precedes. I'm sure you got the point. Sue me. :)

We are not arguing morality, rather we are arguing your belief that morality is as you see it and as such should be the model by which we operate here in the U.S. and the rest of the world. What really turns me off is your racism toward Muslims, for instance. How can I, in good faith, take seriously your "belief" in human liberty if you already show that you feel you are superior to all others?

The things you suggest are exactly what have gotten us into the situation we are currently in. You continually suggest the need for at least some government regulation but fail to understand that is exactly how we started and that power corrupts and usurpation happens. As long as governments can abide by the fact that they are there to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then we would be a lot better off. It's when people start suggesting that the government should become involved in the life of the populace that the problems become apparent. For instance, if government can regulate A then why not B? If government can create laws against C then why not D?

The truth is, as history has shown, government continually looks for more power. I, for one, am not at all down with giving them more than is absolutely 100% necessary. There is no way you can prove that your view of an objective moral truth is correct. So, as I said previously, I would much rather guarantee the rights of others to choose to think and act differently, giving them personal responsibility, so long as they respect the rights of their neighbor rather than take the chance that you might be wrong in your belief, and thereby hurt more than you help.

[TXChris]

TXChris, you do not think that a 100% free market will result in many situations where the motive for profit will trample individual liberties? You are dreaming if you don't.

Don't you know about the calculations that go into deciding whether or not to issue a recall? Man, you have no leg to stand on with this argument. You are advocating anarchy. You are arguing for profits above all else.

I'm as big a fan of Capitalism as you will ever find. Seriously, I worship Adam Smith and have read Wealth of Nations several times. But you can not mix the market with the laws. You can't let the businesses decide what is right and wrong, you should only let them decide who makes what, and how much. Free trade does not mean free morals.

It always sounds like you want to cast aside the judicial system and replace it with a board of CEO's. That is crazy.

That is your belief in the need for government regulation that causes you to think this way. Profit is always a motive, whether there is government regulation or not. I trust more in a free market to regulate itself than a government. A free market is not beholden to any one particular interest. Government, on the other hand, quite often is. Most laws that are passed are because of special interest groups. Few are actually based on what is best for the populace. In a free market system, the populace decides what is best for themselves and creates the opportunity to do just that, which acted upon by one or more people. If the people acting upon it do a good job, then they continue and prosper. If they don't, they fail. This is not a decision by the business; it is the decision of the populace.

I am arguing that it is because of true Capitalism that the greatest things in history have happened and have been afforded the population. One person's want to make a better life for himself creates invention which in turn betters the populace. We are not allowing the business to decide what does or does not happen, rather we are allowing the populace the voice by their patronage. If, what a business is doing works then they succeed. If not, they fail. Government intervention only helps businesses stay afloat that should already have gone down the drain.

[swivel]

What really turns me off is your racism toward Muslims, for instance. How can I, in good faith, take seriously your "belief" in human liberty if you already show that you feel you are superior to all others?

It isn't racism. Go look "racism" up wherever you just looked up "proceeds". Muslims are defined by their religion, not their race. There are African Muslims, Swedish Muslims, and so on.

I hate the religion. Just like I hate Communism.

Man, you are so dense.

[impqueen]

TXChris, I can't argue with you. I mean, I CAN, i just don't wanna anymore. You're just not all that fun, y'know? Nothing personal, but it's a pain to try to engage you in intelligent, well-reasoned debate.

You won't answer my questions. You dance around going "define innocent" and I'll tell you that innocent to me is a child, or an adult who is ill to the extent that he or she cannot care for him- or herself. And then you still won't answer the questions, and you'll find another word to dance around like we're high school sophomores in a team tournament and you have four minutes to hold me off so you can break semifinals.

Either you can read what I'm saying or you can't. I believe that you could, if you wanted to - you just choose not to, because you don't like the valid points I've raised in my last several posts - virtually all of which you've ignored or refused to answer. In response, you're making wild assumptions, broad generalizations and offering incredibly narrow options all so that I'll have to rephrase the exact same things I've been saying for ten posts or whatever. You've gone from delicensing at the state level to the FDA like you somehow think the FDA regulates medical standards of practice, (which is patently false) and then stumbled back to the party line about free market without really looking at the human cost of transitioning to same.

Maybe you don't give a shit who dies, as long as you get a free market economy. But you fail to realize that the free market is already in place in American medical practice and it's really not helping that much. Yeah, it would be great if doctors would say "I no longer take insurance, all office visits are $10." A massive deregulation of the insurance industry could accomplish more of a free market without deregulating standards of medical practice and leaving licensure and regulation in the hands of profiteers.

But whatever. All I'm hearing is the same Libertarian party line that is so against universal health care that it swings around to anarchy and lack of protection for the citizens who need it the most. You never did tell me what happens when you personally are too ill to research your doctor under such a system. Are you collateral damage, too?

[swivel]

Impqueen, you stole the words right out of my mouth. Brilliant post.

My toy is starting to bore me, too.

[TXChris]

It isn't racism. Go look "racism" up wherever you just looked up "proceeds". Muslims are defined by their religion, not their race. There are African Muslims, Swedish Muslims, and so on.

I hate the religion. Just like I hate Communism.

Man, you are so dense.

You can try to hide behind religion, but your true colors were shown then just as they have been since. It's not about the religion, it really is about the race, isn't it? Go on and admit it. That makes your whole use of the term racism toward everyone else perfectly clear. At least we can all understand why you refer to everyone else that way. LOL

[TXChris]

TXChris, I can't argue with you. I mean, I CAN, i just don't wanna anymore. You're just not all that fun, y'know? Nothing personal, but it's a pain to try to engage you in intelligent, well-reasoned debate.

You won't answer my questions. You dance around going "define innocent" and I'll tell you that innocent to me is a child, or an adult who is ill to the extent that he or she cannot care for him- or herself. And then you still won't answer the questions, and you'll find another word to dance around like we're high school sophomores in a team tournament and you have four minutes to hold me off so you can break semifinals.

Either you can read what I'm saying or you can't. I believe that you could, if you wanted to - you just choose not to, because you don't like the valid points I've raised in my last several posts - virtually all of which you've ignored or refused to answer. In response, you're making wild assumptions, broad generalizations and offering incredibly narrow options all so that I'll have to rephrase the exact same things I've been saying for ten posts or whatever. You've gone from delicensing at the state level to the FDA like you somehow think the FDA regulates medical standards of practice, (which is patently false) and then stumbled back to the party line about free market without really looking at the human cost of transitioning to same.

Maybe you don't give a shit who dies, as long as you get a free market economy. But you fail to realize that the free market is already in place in American medical practice and it's really not helping that much. Yeah, it would be great if doctors would say "I no longer take insurance, all office visits are $10." A massive deregulation of the insurance industry could accomplish more of a free market without deregulating standards of medical practice and leaving licensure and regulation in the hands of profiteers.

But whatever. All I'm hearing is the same Libertarian party line that is so against universal health care that it swings around to anarchy and lack of protection for the citizens who need it the most. You never did tell me what happens when you personally are too ill to research your doctor under such a system. Are you collateral damage, too?

I'm not "fun" because I ask you to clarify your generalized statements? I'm not "fun" because I see more to a situation than your two archaic choices? Give me a break. We are talking reality here, not some ridiculousness to prove your point. Sorry to inconvenience you by pointing out things you have not considered and asking you to make sense.

Innocent, as you defined it, would be taken care of by the free market. They were before all this current government regulation, and they will be again. Your reliance on government for regulation really scares me. It's as if you have not learned anything proven throughout history. Everyone is okay with government regulating their lives until government does something that directly affects them in a way that is more than a mild inconvenience.

Now, to get to your little rant about the FDA. You are as insane as Swivel. Truly. I will say again, what I have ALREADY said, the FDA was used as an example of a government agency created to supposedly save human life. It has failed. THAT was my point. Any government agency charged with that same responsibility will always fail also. So, as that is the case, your argument that government regulation and agencies are needed to save lives is false.

Do you even realize what licensing is for? Obviously, based on your rant above, you do not. Contrary to what you have been led to believe, the only case for licensing is to support artificially high income. It creates a barrier to practice. This guarantees there are always less employed in a particular job category than the market would normally support. This, artificially creates a higher wage. So, don't even try to use the case for licensing as a means to protect people on me. It's a bunch of bullshit.

And, while we're on the subject, as long as there is government intervention there is no free market. That being said, there is no true free market in medical practice. Why not get off that bandwagon, too.

Here is fact:
If we were to transfer to a free market system tomorrow there would be no huge rise in deaths. People would continue to go to those doctors they know are adept at what they do. It's not like we're starting off at zero here. As more people, with varying educations, made their way into the practice they would be paid what they are worth. Some would make it; some wouldn't. But the populace, the free market you are so scared of, would decide how much regulation is needed by the trading of their dollars. So, in answer to your little question about becoming ill, yada yada yada, there are already practicing individuals out there from which to choose so we would be fine. Remember, we are not starting from zero here.

[swivel]

You can try to hide behind religion, but your true colors were shown then just as they have been since. It's not about the religion, it really is about the race, isn't it? Go on and admit it. That makes your whole use of the term racism toward everyone else perfectly clear. At least we can all understand why you refer to everyone else that way. LOL

Nice try, dude. You don't get under my skin in the least.

I do appreciate you displaying just how intellectually dishonest you are. It helps put all of your previous posts into perspective.

[impqueen]

I'm not "fun" because I ask you to clarify your generalized statements? I'm not "fun" because I see more to a situation than your two archaic choices?

No, you're not fun because you're an uptight crankyass who won't answer questions or provide intelligent options, you just get mad and get personal. I gave you all the clarification you needed a bazillion posts back. I never boxed you into two choices - you did that without my help. In fact, I proposed deregulation of the insurance industry as an alternative. You never did answer my questions or address that point or most of the others I made. Frankly, you're really boring me on this topic because all you can do is parrot the party line, and it doesn't sound at all like you're thinking fully, which is why you keep changing topics, doing the TXChris Twist, and trying to compare the FDA to state licensing boards.

I do understand what licensing is for. I hold licensure in my state and two others. Do you? Do you even have standards of practice to which to adhere? Until you've spent time on the ground in the health care field, you're woefully undereducated on what we do and why some government oversight in this particular field is always going to be necessary in order to save lives.


You are as insane as Swivel.

Thanks! I was gonna groan your whole post, since you took my Groan Cherry in a total rape of good taste, but then I saw you compared me to Swiv, who is magical, and that made it all better.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

TXChris, I can't argue with you. I mean, I CAN, i just don't wanna anymore. You're just not all that fun, y'know? Nothing personal, but it's a pain to try to engage you in intelligent, well-reasoned debate.

You won't answer my questions. You dance around going "define innocent" and I'll tell you that innocent to me is a child, or an adult who is ill to the extent that he or she cannot care for him- or herself. And then you still won't answer the questions, and you'll find another word to dance around like we're high school sophomores in a team tournament and you have four minutes to hold me off so you can break semifinals.

Either you can read what I'm saying or you can't. I believe that you could, if you wanted to - you just choose not to, because you don't like the valid points I've raised in my last several posts - virtually all of which you've ignored or refused to answer. In response, you're making wild assumptions, broad generalizations and offering incredibly narrow options all so that I'll have to rephrase the exact same things I've been saying for ten posts or whatever. You've gone from delicensing at the state level to the FDA like you somehow think the FDA regulates medical standards of practice, (which is patently false) and then stumbled back to the party line about free market without really looking at the human cost of transitioning to same.

Maybe you don't give a shit who dies, as long as you get a free market economy. But you fail to realize that the free market is already in place in American medical practice and it's really not helping that much. Yeah, it would be great if doctors would say "I no longer take insurance, all office visits are $10." A massive deregulation of the insurance industry could accomplish more of a free market without deregulating standards of medical practice and leaving licensure and regulation in the hands of profiteers.

But whatever. All I'm hearing is the same Libertarian party line that is so against universal health care that it swings around to anarchy and lack of protection for the citizens who need it the most. You never did tell me what happens when you personally are too ill to research your doctor under such a system. Are you collateral damage, too?


Goddamn, Imp, youre one tough cookie.

Im glad that I got Talking Jesus' wrath instead of yours. It's like I received a flick instead of an elbow to the face.