And far beyond the point. Government has no right in regulating a person's personal happiness.

They do if your personal happiness effects other individuals without their consent.

Some people are only happy via substance abuse. You don't know anything about other people.

No, they aren't really happy only via it. It's just their only way to attempt to be comfortable. You think most addled drug addicts are sitting in their own filth, happily injecting heroine? No, they're miserable, and the drugs are the only thing keeping them from offing themselves.

This isn't to say I think drugs should be illegal. But in a way, it's better for a drug addict to be in prison where he gets hot meals then killing himself miserably. One is slavery to freedom, one is slavery to order, the difference is that one has more comforts in this hypothetical case.

But drugs being illegal is truly a crime, indeed. They should be legal and taxed, so that people can use them without sitting in their own filth in fear.

If only the world was as simple and easy as you make it seem. I wish I had your life.

Life is simple. I learned by suffering it. It's only complicated if people let it be.

(politicians and lobbyists)

Politicians, yes. Lobbyists, no. I can support one without supporting the other. Your logic is a fallacy.

So you just have MORE faith in the people who write the laws if you're willing to ignore the "faith" you have in people to live freely without "hurting" themselves.

I don't 'ignore' my faith in others, I'm simply not willing to risk people's well being for faith's sake alone.

However, in the end, the choice is their own.

Why should it be? Unless they are a nameless nobody who dies unheard of at every point in time other then birth, then their choice will effect others.

You are not some mighty God who can dictate who can truly recover and who can't, or what personal decisions are the best.

No, but I can regulate things so that people who CAN dictate such things with accuracy have the power to dictate such things. Like doctors, family, and close friends.

If I cannot be accurate, I can be generic in an efficient way. I will not sacrifice people's well-being for anything less.

Therapists are not police. For good reason, they don't support coercion, in general

Because they understand that you can make someone emotionally damaged and uncomfortable when you force things upon them. This is why laws should give more incentive then punishment... but how that can be done without significant suffering being caused, I'm not sure.

You're wanting to arrest people for something as so subjective as personal suffering.

Personal suffering is not subjective. Unless you are nobody, nowhere, everything that involves you or your choice also effects others.

Also, no, I don't want to arrest people for drinking... they can drink in bars and in their homes. If they walk into public or use a vehicle (depending upon the state), that's when it's a problem.

Drinking excessively isn't suffering.

So I suppose having liver disease isn't suffering either, right?

Not that pointing this out is even pertinent. There's no law against drinking excessively unless you harm/attempt to harm/risk harming others when you drink excessively, which is how it should be.

Lobbyists are people hired by special interests to write laws and push them unto politicians. Both anti-tobacco and tobacco advocates have lobbyists.

And so what?

Just because I support government doesn't mean I support bribery.

Hey, that's what I've been advocating the whole time. good thing you finally agree with me.

Tehpgy pls, y u do dis?

How we get this far and it end up being some sort of misunderstanding? ಠ_ಠ

In order to be civil, I will ignore any arguments where you try pushing this unto here.

I wasn't being joking. I was so baffled by statements where I claim you drunk that I actually wonder if you were drunk. It was not insulting or insinuating, it was literal wonder and consideration in the midst of being stupefied.

Hitler felt that Jews and their Capitalist greed was responsible for global suffering. He enacted legislation barring people from committing voluntary exchange among each other for he felt that on many it led to evils and suffering.

Hitler did not consider Jews as being equal to other people. I do. You're watering down a generic statement into it's worse possible conclusion. So what if it's statist? Statism, as I read it's definition, is the belief that government should exist in at least a minimum size. What you're thinking of is far more extreme then statism.

The only global suffering that I find preventable is the legislation enacted by a tyrant against it's people, specifically the united states legislation barring us from voluntary trade and consent.

It's not tyrannical to prevent children from making adult choices.

And if that's the only suffering you find preventable, then that's a tad depressing. You shouldn't give up on such a thing at a line. You should desire to prevent it at all costs. But alas, not everyone is me.

So really, if you REALLY want to "end suffering" by enacting legislation, you should test people for sleep deprivation. This is possible, dontchaknow.

Then that to should have traffic laws around it, like alcohol does.

What you advocate is a systematic approach to forcing others to comply to your sense of morality.

My sense of morality is obsessively thought over in the fetal position. It has far more credibility then someone who is willing to take risks on people's well-being.

An act of force against someone who is not forcing their will upon you is always immoral.

Whether you intended to hit someone in your car after you got drunk or not is irrelevant. There should be preventive measures to stop that situation from happening in the first place.

Drugs should not be illegal. I agree with this. But they should be regulated like alcohol. Because whether you intend to harm someone while under their influence or not is irrelevant, because when under their influence, you can harm people. Law should give you incentive to be smart and not harm people while under their influence. Whether that incentive is fear or not is not the fault of the law or the lawmaker. If you break it, you pay a price. If you fear the price you'd be paying, that's the incentive you form from it. It doesn't force you to fear.

And if you just behave responsibly, you have no reason to let yourself feel fear either.

...are just paranoid?

All of the things you listed here actually have reason to fear that isn't imagined.

This fear that the government is tyrannical because they don't want children making adult decisions is imagined, illogical, and thus paranoid.

Try again.

So i guess slaves who submitted to their masters were the only people who weren't "paranoid."

We are not slaves if nothing valuable is being taken away.

Your school of thought only changes with the time.

My way of thinking does not change with time because it's not what you are assume it is.

The point is that your laws based on personal morality directly prevent the voluntary, consensual acts between individuals.

If two people conspire and act that results in others getting harmed, I'm going to regulate it. Don't like it? Too bad. My morality is thought out intricately, and ultimately it's very simple. You don't get to do things that harm other people. End of story.

And if the thing you are being prevented from doing isn't quintessential to your personal happiness, then you have no reason to complain. If you complain because your 'freedom' is being threatened, then your plight is imagined for the sake of complaining. It's like when a child sits on a pet, nearly killing it, so the parent puts the pet away from the child, and so the child throws a tantrum. The only difference here from that is you're trying to argue on a basis of a principle that doesn't even relate to reality.

So, you can't drink and drive, so it's tyranny? How about, no, it's not tyranny, it's just practical so you don't hurt or kill some sod or group of sods.

On the subject of having age restrictions, it's the same thing. It's practical to not let children make adult decisions because they don't have the same judgement as adults. Period.

What benefits? you have yet to provide any evidence towards this "benefit" that you keep speaking of.

The benefit is mathematical. You're willing to risk things because you have an impractical principle with no application upon reality. I am not. What does anyone gain for their lives from having no age restrictions? Nothing. What does anyone have to loose from there being are restrictions? Nothing. What does anyone have to loose from having age restrictions? Nothing.

What does anyone have to loose from there being no age restrictions? Possibly their well being.

In your world, the one with the most influence in congress wins.

Not at all.

The middle-ground isn't the end all winner. And for good reason, as you pointed out, it's not realistic.

And does it being an unrealistic utopia mean it's not something to aspire and work towards?

Absolutely not. We should work to better ourselves at no one else's expense, and then work to better others at no expense to ourselves. Not simply stop trying and go with something set in stone. We should be trying to improve.

So what you're claiming is that your beliefs are superior to others, therefore, laws should be passed preventing others from living a personally free life just because they conflict with your beliefs on how people should live their lives.

Loosing a personal freedom not quintessential to being happy is like having never lost a freedom at all. My views are not about taking things from people I don't like. My views are about taking things from people that hurt them, whatever the relevant harm that may be (physical, psychological, emotional, etc).

Right, like laws against being gay. Thanks.

Again, not relevant to anything I believe. Never was, never has been. And yet you wonder why I call you a drunk asshole...

although, if you really pushed for laws to be passed, I'd discover what you love to do and just make it illegal

You seem to think I'd push for laws that regulate things out of spite, which is not what I have been saying. I'd only push for regulations on things that hurt people, by people.

If you'd just try and outlaw something out of spite that I do, the only care I'd have would be over the fact that you are truly spiteful and just don't care about others, which has nothing to do with my view.

How noble. I still don't trust you.

And I don't trust you, considering your entire argument is just a temper tantrum over not getting to do pointless things. Like a child smacking another child with a toy, and having that toy taken away. So you cry and cry and cry. Only right now you're trying to justify it by saying 'freedom' is important, even though what's being taken from you doesn't effect your ability to be happy; you simply are imagining a plight for yourself and making yourself unhappy, childishly.

The passing of special interest laws that may or may not restrict personal freedom

Lobbyists are unneeded to pass special interest laws.

Just because you think they're required for what I'm saying doesn't mean I like them or think they are required for what I'm saying.

So what if it's unrealistic? It's just as ridiculous as everyone in the world having a weapon. The point is that weapons help cause violence. Less weapons existing equals less violence.

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 0 = 1

Logic.

If a weapon caused more good them harm, then it would not be a weapon, because a weapon, as a prerequisite, causes harm.

Chatturgha, right and wrong is subjected to culture, morals that you have, and law of the land.

No, they are deeper then that. Morals are subject to logic, reasoning, and brain chemistry. Because of this, there is such a thing as a universal morality. Just because culture contradicts universal morality does not mean one culture thinking murder is right makes murder truly right.

Marrying is just a paper, if you're going to live together for the rest of your life or you plan to then I don't see bad thing out of it. You just have to respect what you have and live with what you promise.

Then you obviously support sexual relationships outside of marriage. If marriage is 'just paper' to you, then you've already seen and agreed with my point.

They are the best love you got. It's not like they know everything, but you should think it through quite well before moving on.

If your parents do not respect your adult ability to make choices for yourself, they aren't worth respecting. That's like saying that because your parents raised you, you have no right to elope should they not agree with your plans, which is outrageous. Nobody considers eloping lightly, nor do all people take sexual acts lightly. Those that do are doomed to suffer the consequences. 'Respecting' your parents is a fairly irrelevant incentive, considering you can become diseased, have need to bastardize children, or have the need to raise children as a consequence, all of which are pretty huge risks to just have sex with random strangers you have no connection to. If such things don't incentivize them into choosing to be responsible, they will rightfully suffer the consequences.

Dealing with things that create life should be taken just as serious as doing things that will take life away.

Agreed, but considering this debate is generic in that regard, it's obvious that applying this logic means that plenty of sexual acts outside of wedlock are okay. Not all are, but there are some, meaning you support sexual relationships outside of wedlock by applying this logic you are applying.

You're just being picky about it.

I have not contradicted myself.

This was months ago, you've lost me.

Imagine you have an 16 year old daughter and she's been sleeping with a dude in High School... but I'm sure you would not be happy with

If I didn't know the boy, I'd have to rely purely upon my daughter's word to know she's not being used, so yes, I would not be happy. If I had the ability to know she wasn't be used, then I would not mind her being intimate with someone she loves.

Sure that's illegal in this country

Actually, most states in the United States nowadays have an age of consent starting at age 16. So no, it would not be illegal. Not in my state.

I don't understand the second to last paragraph.

Those do nothing but cause troubles.

No, life is about living. It's about pleasing yourself without making others suffer and then making yourself be satisfied with the results. Pleasure without any concern for others is foolish, of course, but you're being narrow with an actually generic concept. Life was not meant to be lived with restrictions outside of your comfortability and others comfortability. When those two things are satisfied, you have harmony. If one or the other or both are not, you have conflict.

It's not pointless for the parents.

(And this is the second half)

No coercion, no fear of going to jail or having your property removed.

You should fear those things, though, so you don't hurt yourself or other people. That's why the law is there. To give you just fear where you make the mistake of having none.

Laws are only have ambiguous morality unless they restrict something that is helpful for people. Getting drunk does not help you, or anyone around you. So making it illegal to do certain things while under the influence of stone cold hard DRUNK protects people, and doesn't harm you.

And if you need to do wild and dangerous things to enjoy life, you should be psychologically treated by a doctor, because you are depressed or suffering from SOMETHING that needs to be rectified... and drinking yourself to death is not an adequate way to rectify your suffering. Because, you know, people care about you and shit.

if you have faith in your politicians and lobbyists who write the laws, I'm sure you could have faith instead in the people who these laws are meant to "protect."

I have NO faith in lobbyists. You must be drunk if you think I have a single care or good opinion about lobbyists, or the rich and greedy in general.

I don't have faith in politicians to be perfect. I trust they will make mistakes that are human mistakes, but will overall have predictable behavior, including trying to craft legislation that they think helps people... because if they craft legislation that hurts people, chaos will ensue and their power will mean nothing. Or they'll be voted out of office.

And I do have faith in people outside the government. I just am not willing to risk their lives and well-being upon the principle you describe. You can argue that I shouldn't determine what is best for them, but that's why they should just tell me what they think is best for them... then I will tell them they are wrong.

As someone empathetic, I am concerned with making certain that people are not suffering, even if it means telling people they don't know how to make themselves not suffer.

Using YOUR kind of logic, people shouldn't try and prevent others from committing suicide when there is PLENTY of hope to recover from past events. Like when a teenager in a middle class home is stricken with such huge depression that they want to choose to kill themselves... you think the parents should just let it happen?

Well... no, you probably don't. I'd be surprised if you did. But it's the same concept. Just because I haven't been in another person's shoes doesn't mean I don't generally know how to help them. This is what we have therapists and other mind-doctors for. To tell people that they are stupid and don't know how to be happy.

Just anything you and the lobbyists happen to hate at the moment.

You're sort of right.

I hate people suffering... so I refuse to let them suffer.

They can choose to, but not before I create an environment that gives them large incentive to choose to not suffer.

Also, grouping me in the lobbyists...? Are you trying to make me cease coherent thought and just be pissed off at you? Waaaaaaaaaagh ಠ_ಠ

I believe that people shall make decisions for themselves. You support laws that are forcing EVERYONE to live by the same, conforming values.

Not really. There should be a 50/50 split between freedom and law. People can be free, just not free to harm each other. People don't need to be able to harm one another to be free. I've reiterated this too many times then I can remember, and you still think I support a complete and total statehood where freedom does not exist?

Are you sure you're not drunk? Because you're debating like a presumptuous drunk... you know, like that guy in the bar who keeps calling you Johnny when he doesn't even know your name, and you try and tell him what your name really is, but he don't listen and just keeps assuming that your name is Johnny. ಠ_ಠ

since you equated me to Hitler, I will point out that your belief system is far closer to Hitler than mine... since you support telling people what to do with their own bodies. FOR THEIR PROTECTION.

I equated you to Hitler? I don't remember... but you're talking drunk, so maybe I didn't and you just think I did. I'm not sure, because even if you're drunk, I'm a vegetable.

Hitler was a totalitarian. I believe in nothing of the sort. Between Hitler, and you, I am in directly in between. And in that regard... yes, I am closer to believing in totalitarianism then you are, but only really because in this case, we are imaging a linear scale of some kind, and on it, you are opposite of Hitler because you are seemingly an anarchist, and Hitler was a totalitarian.

Far unlike Hitler, however, I see law and freedom as a tool to protect people literally, as where he wanted to just rule the world... I don't care about ruling the world. I care about eliminating global suffering. And both your and Hilter's ideals, while opposite of each other, are too extreme to eliminate global suffering.

coercion coercion coercion

violence violence violence

removal of freedom, life, and/or property

that's why.

So you want to go out drunk driving, possibly kill people, and pay no repercussions?

Why is your belief good, again? Because it has some sort of ambiguous tie between absolute freedom and being unharmed, when that makes no sense whatsoever, because too much freedom equates to being able to commit immoral and unjust acts without repercussions?

ಠ_ಠ

Also, I do not support violence. Police officers being the first to violence always upsets me. But if you did something illegal and need to come with them, you attacking them first instead of peacefully working with them is your fault, not theirs.

So that people who do wish to engage in activities that you don't approve have won't have to worry that people like you exist.

If you aren't conducting things immoral that could harm other people, nobody has anything to fear from me. If you intend to ruin peoples lives, or take them away through murder, then I hope you're positively terrified.

They can still do what they wish, and the people can freely trade among each other without the fear of the government taking away their business, their freedom, or their property.

These people and you need to get your heads out of your asses and acknowledge that the government is out to get you about as much as any other person is out to get you.

Or are you this paranoid with everyone?

Is that why you were drunk when writing this? Because you're scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk so you can cope with being scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk?

The government doesn't go out of it's way to create laws that blatantly contradict era-appropriate moral belief. If you're terrified of having things taken away from you, most of the time, this is because you are either guilty, or paranoid. This isn't to say the government, which is composed of imperfect people like you and I, is incapable of injustice. Far from it! But most injustices seem to me as simple mistakes and flaws, not intentions to destroy the lives of innocent people for no logical reason.

how funny. for the longest time they said the same thing about gay sex. As a person who is close with a few gay people, i personally take offense to that statement.

And why does that correlate into me hating gays? I don't. Being gay does not automatically equate to being a harmful, self destructive person, so why would I suddenly think that being gay is evil? Because you don't agree with me, and because you say so? Someone you don't agree with needs to be demonized for you to be able to make a point, huh? And somehow this all magically allows you to instantly get offended?

I mean, you do realize, you're just imagining this hate for gays I have, right? It's not real, and you had no way of knowing if it was real or not. So you're getting offended at your imagination. But I thought you said you don't have a deity or spiritual belief... but you believe things your imagination tells you to the point that you can actually feel offended? At your imagination?

I'm not sure at this point if you're drunk, or just a presumptuous douchebag while sober. I really am not sure.

When government passes these types of laws, they are attacking and stealing from people... so that's why i find it wrong.

What exactly are they stealing? I get how the analogy fits, oh yes, but the trouble is the credibility of it's application.

Children not having the freedom to do things that would be bizarre and suspicious for them to do in the first place, which they would probably not even have the capability to do in the first place, but they simply aren't allowed just by virtue of being better safe then sorry... what is that, in this analogy? What could it possibly be?

Because it seems to me like air is being stolen, or something. I dunno, it just doesn't have a lot of credibility, even though the analogy goes with your point.

Keep in mind, i'm the person who believes that all drugs should be legal.

As do I. All major drugs should be legal, as well as taxed and regulated, like alcohol.

So should prostitution. Legal, regulated, taxed.

But my stance comes from the very fact that you have no real reason to show that restrictions are beneficial... they are limiting freedom for the sake of limiting freedom.

No, they limit freedom for the sake of being anal and prissy. While being prissy and nitpicky can have it's benefits, it can be annoying for people who aren't as obsessively concerned with helping people as the person whom is being an anal nitpick.

But the problem with your stance is that you fail to say why the restrictions being lifted would be beneficial. Why does some ambiguous tie to freedom make it a good thing, automatically? The United States was free to join the slave trade, and freely own slaves, but was that a good thing when it was going on? Absolutely not. That's why we fought a war over it. Because it was an unjust freedom.

Saying the quality of freedom is good thing is to say that the freedom to help people and the freedom to murder people are both inherently good, just because they are both freedoms. Um... no, they are not both a good thing. One harms a human being and another helps a human being. Thus one is wrong is one is right, regardless of being freedoms.

Taking away liberty isn't okay just because you think it is.

Giving freedom away isn't okay just because you think it is.

I suppose you know all of these teachers who know better than everyone else?

I'm pretty sure I was referring to the environment teaching us this, not anyone in particular.

And again with this crap 'you don't know better then me'.

If you're harming yourself, harming other people, or are just generally young or ignorant or inexperienced, I know better then you. Egads I'm getting tired of seeing that.

If your ass is in a bar drinking yourself to death instead of trying to fix your life and yourself, you better believe I know better then you.

And I'm going to help you out whether you want me to or not.

What math are you basing this on?

Well, math is the wrong word.

I mean logic.

Math and logic are basically the same thing, except I know logic, and not so much math.

It's makes perfect sense to me that if you take two grand ideas, each having it's own faults and benefits, and then try to tie them together so that they have each others strengths and none of the weaknesses, then you've achieved something better then both of them stand-alone.

And while it's not realistic, it's a good thing to work towards. Perfection isn't obtainable, in my opinion, but trying to become perfect for the sake of others is a great thing to aspire to. Getting better, creating more happiness, less death, less suffering, more love, etc.

Laws against drugs, however... it's government saying "well, you go to jail because drugs are bad for you... and jail is good for you." Or better yet "you go to jail because you allowed for someone to do something to themselves" like Jack Kevorkian. A man that is a victim to Statist logic.

If I gave any impression that I believe in stuff like this, then I apologize. I am a potato. I find the war on drugs (and prostitution) to be quite wrong.

Though, I don't believe in allowing people to harm themselves. Letting your teenage son kill himself because of some principle where you think he should be freely allowed to is completely absurd. If someone is harming themselves, they should be made to stop so they can achieve a happier existence.

That's right skipper. I'm going to force you to be happy, or else. ಠ_ಠ You get no say.

I am not familiar with Jack Kevorkian's case, though all I know is that he allowed suicide, or euthanized people? If I knew the specifics, I'd have a more developed opinion on it. But as it goes... if the people who died because he let them die, died because they were undergoing incurable, unmitigated suffering which was going to eventually result in a long, slow fatality, and if this is how all the euthanized people passed, then I'd agree, this man is being imprisoned unjustly.

However, if these people were euthanized because they just gave up, even if they could have made a comeback, even if they could have had more hope, but instead just didn't want to continue on... then no, I don't think this man is necessarily imprisoned unjustly.

Ah yes, like you, I dream of this future where laws are perfect.

Until then, however, I'd like for no laws to restrict personal freedom. or, at least, as little as possible.

I'm not sure if you were mocking me or being serious. But oh well.

Laws don't have to be perfect. I'm not sure there is such a thing as perfect, in anything. But we should be trying to get as close to it as possible... and suddenly abolishing all restrictions isn't really going to help us get there.

But then again, you implied earlier that you are not necessarily an anarchist, so I'm not sure anymore if you advocate no restrictions and the such...

But if we're talking on terms of the debate subject, then we've both gone off-topic at this point. Oh well.

You know, without a doubt, that no one addicted to cigs or alcohol are living decent lives.

I know that without a doubt, their lives would certainly not get worse, even if they were happy. Unless the process of helping them out of their addictions would cause more struggle then they could handle, or more struggle then what is worth weening them off of, then I have no problem trying to get them out of the habit.

In fact, most smokers I've known (close friends, actually), even if they're living happy lives, don't generally hate the idea of getting weened off their addition. They just cannot accomplish it is all.

You know that it is JUSTIFIED to limit our freedoms just because you fear that human beings are just too stupid and careless to make decisions for themselves.

Not at all. I am not certain of anyone's decision making abilities. I am simply not willing to risk letting people suffer on the hunch that everyone knows how to intelligently care for themselves and not-hurt/care-for others around them.

I can consider people, or I can ignore people. If I were in government, I'd be forced to do either one or the other, not pick and choose whom my laws effect and help. Since that is the case, if I were in such a position, I will always choose to consider people, and make the laws extremely carefully. I would rather take a very long time to create a law that helps as many people as possible, then not make a law and let people try and solve their suffering on their own. It's courteous to give people space and privacy and independence and the such, but I'm not going to NOT help people if I have the power to help people.

Even if it means pissing a small minority off. I would not carelessly make laws, nor abstain from making laws. I would do everything I can to make sure as much suffering as possible is mitigated and that things are better then they used to be.

The lobbyists and politicians and YOU know more than me or my family.

Lobbyists are evil. I don't need to spell that out. Corporatism is the biggest problem in this country, yadda yadda yadda.

Politicians don't, but they still just try to help. You argue they should stop altogether because them trying to help doesn't work. I argue they should reform how they do what they do so that they vastly help more then they harm.

Both are valid positions. Inevitably, I think things should just continue to be worked on and improved, not brought all the way down to an all-or-nothing state of existence. I'd rather us all work things out together then just say 'fuck it' and start from scratch. We are a social organism. Progression on a scale of populations should not involve backtracking. Not if backtracking would cause more suffering then continuing on.

It does not make it right to FORCE her to do something against her own will.

There's a vast difference in logic in between thinking someone has a problem because they have a quality that correlates with a religious belief, and thinking someone has a problem because they are drinking themselves to death, or injecting drugs without any consideration for their or anyone's safety.

Harm is relative to the person whom is being harmed, but only on the basis of what they can perceive. Someone might not feel sick, but still be sick. And to that end, people outside of that singular perspective can be credible in things they perceive as issues, so long as it's a logical association of what's harmful and what's helpful.

So really, it depends on whom is doing the forcing. If it's your buddy who sees you almost kill yourself at the watering hole, it's just for him to force you to get better. If it's a parent who sees their teenager cutting, it's just for them to force their child to stop so they can get them help. And if a governor sees a huge portion of his civilian population suffering over an issue, he's just in trying to get that issue solved somehow. If he makes a mistake, he has that on his conscious, just as a parent who's child successfully committed suicide has that on their conscious, or how your buddy would have on his conscious the scene where he turned the other cheek to you drinking way too much then you should have.

There's just, and there's unjust. But when all is said and done, someone trying to help or protect you is someone that is trying to help or protect you. You can be insulted and tell them to stop, or you can try and help them understand how to help you properly.

Who, to you, tells them what they can and can't do, OR ELSE SUFFER THEIR WRATH.

You think that I think that a government should behave that way?

Absolutely not.

Not unless you're a truly bad person guilty of immoral things.

(I had to split my reply into two parts. This is the first half of it)

And your answer is "coercion to the rescue?"

Provided that you haven't already coerced yourself, why not?

And your answer is, let them run around with no incentive other then their own?

Hardly the point, though. My point is the ability to choose for yourself, regardless of the danger. Your Statist logic put Jack Kevorkian in prison.

You presume yet again that I take a one-sided position, like you do.

There is a difference between allowing someone to get away with driving drunk and allowing an inscrutably suffering person to end their lives. The first one is obviously a stupid as hell freedom to give someone, while the second is merciful and should be allowed.

So many presumptions, so many! It's almost not fun replying to you because of all these presumptions you make and all the leaps you take.

Hegemony is psychologically abusive.

I never advocated hegemony. You like making stuff up in your head about me, don't you? Do you presume this often when debating with other people?

And it is a problem when your subjective "stupid shit" gives you due cause to tell Americans what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

I'm American. I find it odd that you wrote this sentence in such a way as to imply that you don't think I'm American.

Furthermore you can do whatever you want with you body, there should just be laws that give you incentive to not to things to your body that harms you. Like how there are laws regarding being drunk in public or while driving.

Anal sex is dangerous, I suppose you support the sodomy laws that include anal sex?

Sex strengthens bonds between couples. Education on what consequences and benefits can result from sex acts is the only thing needed to give people incentive to make responsible sexual choices. For the most part, anyway, because I can't really imagine it being helpful to try and regulate sex down to specific terminology.

But then again, if you pass an STD onto someone, you should be fined. How that would be managed... I'm not sure though, because it's a really messy, private thing. So other then it as an idea, it's not really something to pursue by someone like me who doesn't know how they could possibly enforce it.

Good ol' statist logic.

You're the only one that's been using it this whole time as you imagined things that had nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Why am I not surprised you complimented it?

the point that legislation aimed at protecting us from ourselves is already retarded. The government is not smarter than the individual.

Not really. Regulations on alcohol are pretty good, I'd say. People get drunk in bars, and have their drunkenness be dealt with only in bars. Otherwise, ticket/fine/prison. You can freely drink alcohol, as long as you don't wander off somewhere that you could hurt someone.

The government is made of individuals. Why are they not exactly as smart as the individual, on average? Again with this dichotomy between government and civilians... it's getting old. But I've already explained why that's silly, so, moving on.

The government is separate from the individual and does not know what makes the individual happy or healthy.

I agree, which is why they should focus on issues that are extremely generic to the point that legislation focused on them would help more people then it would harm.

Such as, issues that are all about direct harms and dangers which are obvious, like murder, rape, drunk driving, hate crimes, etc.

it only knows what ever random bullshit a lobbyist presents to them.

Then the problem is obviously the lobbyist.

Though, you're also wrong. People in government are human beings like you or I. Therefore, it's not totally bizarre for them to make decisions based upon their own perceptions as human beings, because they aren't special. On the other hand, too many of them are rich white men, which limits their perspectives to that experience as a person, but since this is the case, you can only really get mad when these rich white men make decisions on issues they have absolutely no context over. That's when it stops being basic human flaw and/or disagreement and becomes unacceptable stupidity and/or arrogance.

To pass legislation on special interest is not only sick, it's unconstitutional.

You and I don't decide what's Constitutional or not. Judicial review does.

No, leave it up to the individual. Some people enjoy drinking heavily, and if they suffer from the consequences that is their life.

What if I don't want that person to ruin their life, skipper? What if I don't want them to ruin other people's lives?

Alcohol shouldn't be outright prohibited because people will always enjoy drinking it, and all Prohibition did was cause the creation of the North American mafia. A blanket ban is not a solution, as it's obvious that it harms people. But alcohol regulations that penalize you for doing the wrong things when under it's influence doesn't harm anyone. In fact, it prevents a lot of suffering, which Prohibition utterly failed to do.

You're acting like we should all either live the same lives or we should be threatened with the removal of property or even freedom

If you wander out while drunk, thereby possibly hurting or killing someone, you deserve to be fined (property) and possibly jailed (freedom), the severity of the punishment being based upon how much damage you did, the minimum being a fine for being irresponsible, as well as an escort home somewhere you aren't a risk.

It's not about living the same life. It's about not harming others or causing suffering. If your lifestyle has to deviate from the norm in such a way that it causes you to harm someone, well, tough shit son, you should be punished for harming that someone. And if your actions directly correlated with you harming that person, that action should be regulated, provided it's a common enough action for it to matter and not just be a freak accident.

just for OUR PROTECTION

Yup. Alcohol regulations aren't meant, inevitably, to stop you from getting drunk in a bar, yourself. Alcohol regulations are meant to stop another person from getting drunk, going out to their car, and killing you, plus another dozen people.

I suppose kids being forced to major only in subjects that will get them a job isn't evil or tyrannical since you know what's best for the students and not them.

Your imagination over my opinion is quite charming. Though to a degree, children are already forced by our corporate society to become educated in meager jobs due to the fact that only luck helps you acquire your dreams, thus indicating that they can't really pursue something that makes them happy because the chances of them getting lucky enough to succeed is slim to none.

I didn't do that. Your 'freedom' did that. And I hate nothing more then children and other youths having to suffer on the whims of someone else.

After all, choosing a major that doesn't get you a job HAS THE NUMBERS to show that I may be ruining my life by picking a Liberal Arts degree

If you think doing something you love is worth the possibility that you will become homeless, I think it's within your capability to understand the situation.

However, if you have a child to care for, and you'd rather take the risk of doing something you enjoy at the risk of not having a stable job to support the child... and the child is harmed because of this... then you should be punished by the law.

Which you would be, given the circumstances of how those real-world laws work.

Because if they DO wish to purchase a gun and the merchant is willing, the voluntary, non-coercive exchange should occur. you do not know what's best for them.

Not directly, no. But, I don't really care. I don't know what it's like to be in a murderers shoes, but I will still quickly outlaw murder and never support capital punishment. Using the argument 'you don't know what's best for them' is thus, silly. We are all human. We all experience pain and we can all be damaged or harmed similarly to other humans. Therefore, I can make an educated guess on what harms people and what helps people, and I will never make a decision that risks having the former happen over the latter.

I was a child once; I am not special. Why would a child need to purchase a firearm? Unless their parent is standing right next to them and hands them the money to buy the weapon, thus making it not even technically a voluntary exchange between just the child and just the seller, then what point is there in the child doing that? It seems fishy to me, while unlikely to ever happen.

Are you truly willing to simply be principled to the point of allowing a child this freedom when the entire situation is barely applicable unless something strange is happening? You're willing to bet principle over the risk of lives? Are you?

Considering a child has no need to buy a weapon, when a responsible parent could simply buy the weapon for them, and that children do not usually have any money to buy things on their own, making this restriction almost never applicable and probably never inconvenient for anybody with good intentions, I am not willing to take that risk simply on principle. There's no reason to. My principle is to limit as much suffering as possible, and in this case, having the restriction is inconvenient to nobody with good intent.

What is the problem, other then you are stubborn and seemingly would rather risk horrible incidents happening at the expense of nothing, instead of 'breaking' your principle?

Self-regulation, and once again, if they wish to drink excessively it's their choice.

So then you really don't give two shits about drunkards driving around killing people in semi-trucks? You can talk about self-regulation all you want, but self-regulation is not enough to ensure innocent people die in smaller and smaller numbers.

And yet you have the audacity to seemingly compare me to evil, while you're sitting here thinking there should be no regulations that prevent people from killing each other? I'm not sure whether that's hypocritical or just fucking sick.

yet we do not pass laws against these things because we know how "ridiculous" it is to regulate self behavior.

No, we don't pass laws against them because sexual education, as I said before, that is accurate should give plenty of incentive to be responsible, sexually.

But there should also be regulations that gives incentive to prevent the spread of STDs, but I can't really think of how that could go about, unfortunately.

not everyone wants to live your mainstream, family valued filled life. some people wish to enjoy whatever they have.

You can fuck yourself up as long as it doesn't fuck up other people's lives.

The problem though, is that most of time, you are fucking up other people's lives when doing a lot of things. Which is why, like with alcohol, there should be regulations on things that have a high potential to destroy people's lives, whether outright and brutally, or slowly and subliminally.

Some, like me, are fuckin' poor and don't have the luxury of belief in some kind of deity or spiritual meaning

So, because you're depressed and down on luck, regulations should be abolished so you can do things potentially dangerous to people around you?

Mmmmmhmm. I think I'd rather give you entitlements so you can get up off your bad luck. That's helpful to you and less dangerous to people around you.

But really, you're acting, once again, like removing coercive laws is somehow bad for these people... yet have provided no evidence for this 8l

Keeping them in place isn't bad for people, either.

The difference is that removing them has an inherent risk.

It's a very small risk, but it's still there. And since having the restriction in place doesn't hurt anybody, it's preferable by a teensy tiny margin.

That removal of laws will create some epidemic of children making "bad choices." What kind of arrogance is this? That YOU know what is and isn't a good or bad choice.

Adults know what's better for children then children do. If children knew what is and is not a good or bad choice for them, we wouldn't nurture our children for 16 to 22 years. We would have them, and then leave them to grow up and fend for themselves.

It's not arrogance at all. I am a human being, and so is a child. What's bad for me, I can generally assume, is also bad for a child. If I drink myself into a stupor and get alcohol poisoning, it's just as bad for me then if a child did it. The only difference is that a child does not know better, and thus have as much incentive to not do that, because they are growing and learning as they take each step. It's a good idea to provide an environment for children that doesn't pamper them, but isn't so open-ended that they can stupidly ruin their lives before they even grow up.

And to top it off, to just shorten my point, I think the restrictions should be in place so that there is less risk then if the restriction was removed. Just like with my argument upon guns earlier in this reply. Having them in place hurts nobody. Taking them away may not change anything, but the remote risk of something terrible happening is still there, and I am not willing to risk people unintentionally suffering on basis of a principle, no matter how remote, ESPECIALLY if the restriction doesn't hurt anyone.

So you're just hoping for tyranny to let up a bit in hopes that e-cigs will dominate the market? Why not ask for tyranny to end now? What are you afraid of?

What are you trying to do, bust my brain? I have no idea what this reply even means! I can only assume that when you say 'tyranny' you mean the government, since you hate them. But then your second use of 'tyranny' relates to my view of tyranny? I'm confused as hell... I don't find the government tyrannical, I find corporatism tyrannical. So asking me if I want 'tyranny to end now' does not relate to your earlier use of the word tyranny, for me. Since those two sentences do not correlate, the last question makes no sense.

Waaaagh, my brain. ಠ_ಠ

Tehpgi pls, y u do dis?

Assumption. I have seen little to no legislation written in favor of my or any of my peers' interests.

Then maybe you and your peers are in the minority, on whatever legislative level you're referring to. Also, if your interests are hazardous to other people, I don't blame legislation not being geared for you.

It's not really an assumption, otherwise. It's within the best interest of the state to keep it's citizens docile, and if it's not doing what North Korea does, then it has to do it by means of making us healthy and happy, lest we rise up and create chaos, chaos which renders the power of these politicians valueless.

I resist unjust and immoral laws, like Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. One who submits to a tyrant is a slave

There is nothing immoral or unjust about preventing children and teenagers from buying guns, alcohol, and tobacco.

Try again, before you compare yourself to people like that. You just reverse-Godwin'd your argument. ಠ_ಠ We shall now call this a Niwdog, the act of doing the opposite of a Godwin (comparing yourself on the internet to amazing people instead of accusing someone on the internet of being like Hitler).

Prove it.

How? By creating a micro-universe which I control that is the same as ours, except I test my point by having the United States lift these restrictions for a couple years, and so I measure the results? Huh?

The ultimate point of my entire disputation in this entire debate topic is that age restrictions on guns, tobacco, and alcohol do not hurt anyone. The slights you are speaking of are principle-based and are imagined. The slights you speak of do not inherently harm people, mostly because they only exist in your head.

How does a restriction preventing a child whom has somehow gotten hold of some cash, by himself, being able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun harm the child? Answer me that.

Please explain how.

Remind me what I was talking about, I don't want to open another window to see my previous reply. Unless you don't want to. If so that's fine.

Freedom of speech. And so? Are you saying that... you know more about what's best for children than the parents?

Influence children into wanting things that are dangerous is evil. I don't really care if it's freedom of speech, allowing it alongside a lift of the age restriction is just another thing that has the potential to hurt a lot of people, and having the restriction in place, I will reiterate yet again, does not harm anyone.

No, I don't think I know better then the parents, but parents are voters, and voters vote on politicians which maintain the restrictions. Why? Because almost no parent wants their child smoking cigarettes or being told by advertisements that smoking cigarettes is something they should be doing. So, in hindsight, I'd be doing what people want (since I've seemingly been arbitrarily thrown into the position of a politician in some of these hypothetical arguments).

Really, if you wish to give government more power, you're going to have to do better than just fear and paranoia.

I don't necessarily want the government to have more power. I want the right amount of freedom and the right amount of order that prevents the most amount of suffering when used together. Are you drunk? Because that might explain all your presumptions.

No reason to believe that children would become significantly damaged.

You mean by other then the fact that that shit is unhealthy in bad doses, and children don't know the difference between a bad dose and a dose that's not bad?

Better off safe then sorry.

What innocent people are being risked?

Children. Since they're the premise of the debate.

Did you know, that um, when people aren't aloud to choose for themselves, their innocence is being risked, so ha! it is in fact YOU who is willing to risk innocent people, not me.

I don't know how not being able to choose to harm yourself correlates with loosing your innocence. Unless you mean that legally... as in people risk doing things illegally and thus risk their 'innocence'. But that's not what I meant, and I think you know that.

Now, please, spin this one with more of your rhetoric instead of providing... evidence, or something in favor of your coercive and violent laws.

Yeah, you're drunk.

That's the only way you'd think I support violence. If you intoxicated.

Because I certainly don't think you're necessarily close-minded or an idiot.

Hey, exactly what I believe. so let the people choose. Some will make bad decisions, some won't

You should have the choice to do stupid things, but not without the presence of an environment that would prevent said stupid thing from totally destroying your life. In a totally free society with no restrictions and planned order, such an environment would not exist, and therefore suffering would vastly increase.

Considering that not everyone in the United States of America is Christian and believes in Jesus, I think it's only appropriate that Christmas is about Santa Claus, whom is not a mythological figure that is intrinsically tied in with Christian mythology. That way, more people then just Christians can enjoy the holiday.

This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting.

You just contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hunting, by definition and as a prerequisite, harms other creatures.

However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good.

They were invented to kill people, not point at people so they will leave you alone.

I am not attempting to measure the exact amount of harm and good done by weapons and guns because it's pretty self-evident. They kill people. Easily. They were invented to wage war.

If a weapon was originally created to do good, then it would not be a weapon.

Armor is what is meant to protect you, usually from weapons. Armor is inherently good, as it is created only to mitigate death by those who wear it.

Saying a weapon can do good because you use it protect people is a fairytale. If you want to protect someone, use yourself as armor for them or give them armor. Literally shield people. You don't need to be able to kill people to protect people.

People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).

Was it not apparent that I was speaking hypothetically?

Pulling the metaphor back into reality doesn't really dispute the meaning of it. If people could never have weapons again, violence would significantly decrease, perhaps onto oblivion. If everyone in the world had a weapon and couldn't get rid of it, violence would, at least, not decrease at all, and that's the best case. Moreover, people being able to easily kill each other would result in, duh, people killing each other more often, because it would be easier.

This is because the very nature of a weapon, any weapon, is to kill or hurt things. They are not meant to protect people. They can be used to protect people, but they were not made to protect. They cause violence, not mitigate it. Armor mitigates violence, because it's not designed to hurt people, even though armor can protect someone that hurts another.

Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.

My point was that weapons make killing each other easier.

When you take away the ease, it the killing is reduced.

That's just logic.

Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not.

Sure, but it would be lesser. And destruction would be limited to tools which are not weapons, and therefore it wouldn't be violent, making it stupid, but not violent (aside from non-human destruction, but that's beside the point).

Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world.

And they are also used by people with horrible natures as an offense against others.

But you know what guns and weapons in generally are primarily meant to do?

Violently kill people.

If weapons did not primarily do harm, they wouldn't be weapons. If weapons were primarily used to prevent harm, then their primary function wouldn't be to kill and harm other living things.

Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.

Everyone uses guns to kill and harm other people. Other then that, 'protection' and 'terrible reasons' are subjective, and based upon your view of most guns being used to protect, I suspect you and I differ upon what we define as 'terrible' and 'protective'.

I was pointing out that the fact that animals form social groups is not an argument FOR forming a government, because the animals formed these groups without forming government; that these groups and orders form in a state of anarchy.

Touche.

I am a vegetable. You'll have to bear with me if I miss subtle details. Or even blatantly obvious details.

It also allows an individual to exercise authority that is divorced from the actual value that person has demonstrated to society.

I'm not sure I've interpreted what you said here properly, but I'm not sure I haven't either. I could be just other-thinking it because you aren't using a simpler wording.

I'd say a flawed democracy does this, but so what? A better, or perhaps I should say ideal, democracy would create a balance between elected and elector in which it doesn't matter whether the elected official is experienced or inexperienced, because it would give incentive to the politician that guarantees they don't deviate away from helping out the people whom elected them. Education or experience should just assist them in having credibility that gets them elected, while someone exceptionally intelligent or charismatic, but not educated or experienced, would need to prove themselves in some other way that isn't deceptive to have the same credibility.

The point being, in a proper democracy, an elected official would not exercise authority directly related to their past value to society, because the power of the elector would be so great that the elected wouldn't have incentive to become corrupt.

Furthermore, why should pre-established value to society automatically equate to having more power? We are all human beings. This isn't Beowulf. You shouldn't necessarily have more societal power just because you have done great things. Nor does the act of doing great things automatically mean you are fit to have societal power.

Pure democracy is slavery to the "general will". Representative democracy is only slightly less so.

In it's current, manageable state, it is. In the design we should be trying to achieve, everyone would be comfortably accommodated locally, and more generally accommodated the higher the scale of law being created.

Furthermore, if most people disagree with you, you may want to rethink your opinions. Though, you moreover refer to the bullshit involving 51% over 49%, and with that, I agree it's stupid as hell.

But to rectify such things on a national level, national lawmaking should simply not be extremely severe and frequent. Important things that relate on smaller scales should be the most important things to vote on, while unimportant things that don't have positively tremendous bearings on people's lives should be what's nationally voted upon.

This isn't how things are currently done, but as I said, current democracy is not perfect, and we should be trying to constantly make it better. Getting rid of all order or all freedom is detrimental to our progression. We should be trying to build up to a utopia, not breaking ourselves down to a dystopia.

Such a democracy encourages corruption by making the position of the politician dependent upon pleasing only the majority of voters (not producers), even to the detriment of the remaining minority.

Not if the power in the elector is such that they have the ability to replace politicians they elect with the snap of their fingers.

Like, say, take a senator from a state. The senator from the state does something that most people in his state disagree with. The people in that state immediately have the choice to pull him from office and replace him.

In a democracy like that, no, corruption would not be encouraged. Not if each elected individual is at his or her wits end from trying to make sure they represent the their electors properly, knowing that making a mistake will cause them to be out of a job and paycheck that feeds them and their family.

And if they would representing their electors on such a precise basis, it would be up to the electors to make sure that society is improving overall on every scale... unless an elected official wants to greatly risk loosing his job just so he can do something contrary to his reason for being elected. And hell, in our age of technology, I wouldn't be surprised if it could be possible to meaningfully vote people in an out of office at a convenient fly! And if that were to be done, then that further eliminates the power of the elected to contradict their electors.

Furthermore, as long as nationally elected officials are not creating and voting upon laws that significantly change individual lives, then the worry of the majority opinions hurting the minority is a non-issue. If the smaller the scale, the more laws effect individual lives, then that just means people can conveniently live in cities, districts, and states which better accommodate their opinions on how the law should effect them.

--Elmer T Peterson (disputed)

This man's quote is absolutist. Since I fundamentally disagree with absolutism, I'm not going to bother picking apart his quote.

Moreover, I think most of what I've already written throughout this reply already picks it apart. Plus it's fairly self-evident that speaking absolutely about something that is not absolute is a sign of someone foolish, misguided, arrogant, or some other some such trait that would cause them to illogically speak absolutely.

I would argue that the goal of a society should be the greatest liberty, not the most order. Prisons are relatively orderly.

The goal of society is to advance our species, like just about everything psychologically healthy humans do. I don't advocate more order, I advocate both freedom and order being properly applied in proper amounts as to create the most prosperity.

And the complete elimination of either order or freedom is not conducive to this. Anarchy does not abhor order within itself, but it itself is not orderly. Order created within it was not orderly created, it was chaotically created. It was chance. It was not planned. And that's why it's unfavorable to me and what I think is best. If you have only order or only chaos, people are going to suffer, every time, and the more people that suffer, the less our species progresses. This is why the United States is a country preferred over some primitive tribal society or North Korea... because we don't eliminate one side of the spectrum or the other. We try and have a balance of both that creates as much prosperity as possible.

You must've not read what I wrote if that's where your thoughts led.

It's the fault of international government because international government freely trades, for the most part. Aside from totalitarian regimes scattered randomly throughout the world, international trade is basically unmitigated.

Since it's moreover unmitigated, greed is unmitigated. Since greed is unmitigated, corporatism ruins the global economy and causes suffering all across it, not just here in the United States.

Meaning, the problem isn't too much control, it's the lack thereof. Abolishing all government has nothing to do with solving this.

Paid for by everyone who pays taxes. So... everyone.

But considering taxes are just national rent since the state owns the land, it's not really everyone paying for it. It's the state. They're just using the income they receive from their 'tenants'.

Except instead of using it for themselves, in this case, they're using it to make their land more habitable for people. Then more tenants pay more rent and then they use their additional income to make more habitable for even more tenants, and so on, and so on.

I'm for everyone being equal and free as long as nobody is getting harmed in the process. That's sort of the point of law, at least in the United States. To stop people from suffering in wake of everyone being so incredibly free. We kinda fought a war over this issue; you know, the Civil War? A war fought between the freedom to harm people and the order to stop people from harming others.

Wealth does not always directly cause suffering in this country, but wealth is directly related to the severity of an individual's suffering. If someone is homeless, they generally did not choose to be. If someone whom is very wealthy gets severely ill, they have the wealth to get better fairly easily. Middle class families constantly suffer the stress of either trying too become wealthy or trying to not become homeless. I don't think a protection of rights should be different between the classes, but I think the mitigation of suffering should be made up to bridge the gap between people who can pay to not suffer and people whom cannot pay to not suffer.

Nothing about what I said above seems to conflict with the 14th amendment. But, neither you or I are Judges, therefore neither of us can really judge the 14th amendment properly. So, I don't really care about what the amendments specifically say, since I am not on the Supreme Court. I care about what seems right and what seems wrong.

So I do understand that I dont speak as good than you, but therefore I accompplished what many people did not, and speaking 4 other languages!

Good for you. However, my point was that you shouldn't be debating with me if we cannot communicate properly, and confusing English may result in this.

Though, I perpetuate the problem by replying to you... so, shame on both of us.

This is the typical answer of an evolutionist

There is no such thing as an evolutionist or evolutionism. These words imply evolution is some sort of belief or religion, whereas it is not. It is a scientific theory of development which happens on both a small and grand scale, testable and re-testable, all resulting in one basic conclusion time and time again.

pretending that humans ancestors were mammals then they metamorphose to primates, and then they metaporphose to anthropoids and so on..

Humans are mammals, and our ancestors were mammals. We also had pre-mammalian ancestors as well. Technically, all life converges down to one microbial beginning which eventually flourished into the entire biological Domain known as Eukarya. But the point I'm trying to make is that mammals are a classification of creature. Humans are mammals because the classification of mammals is that they are warm-blooded, give birth live in most cases, and have mammary glands.

You know, titties.

Whatever gender you are, if you take a look down at your nipples, that is the entire reason you are a mammal. Mammals are named after mammary glands, which your nipples are apart of. Mammals, for a time, even required the strict prerequisite that the creature give live birth to young, but the platypus as well as other more bizarre mammals broke this prerequisite by having mammary glands, to which the mammal classification was designed upon.

Also, there is no such thing as an 'anthropod'. And if you mean 'arthropod' then you are a complete moron, because arthropods are invertebrates and mammals, including humans, are vertebrates. So I'm going to assume you mean 'antropoid', or in other words, simians.

you are very creative!

It's not 'creative'. At least, it's not anymore. Now, on the other hand, we have a fossil record to show us past evolutionary progression, and a tremendous amount of present examples of short term evolution, which gives us educated reason to believe that processes observable in the present also took place in the past and never changed... since the laws of nature never inexplicably change. Ever. Unless it's because we are ignorant, ha!

Give us a source, or explanation.

That would take a long time, manually, so I will instead give you a list of all the individual extinct species we have discovered using the fossil record that connect humanity to simians, which is more or less in chronological order based upon what layers under the fossil record's timeline that they were found.

From the earliest human-like simian and up:

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensisr

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus bahrelghazali

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus sediba

Kenyanthropus platyops

Paranthropus aethiopicus

Paranthropus boisei

Paranthropus robustus

Homo habilis

Homo gautengensis

Homo rudolfensis

Homo georgicus

Homo ergaster

Homo erectus

Homo cepranensis

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo rhodesiensis

(Insert homo sapiens here)

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Homo floresiensis

I could go on, even farther BACKWARDS towards the diversion of the homo genus from the other great ape genus's, but I hate browsing the internet for articles.

what I do know is that several time, the archeologes pretended having found transitional skull after it has been revelead to be a lie, that they used some some sort of "superglue".

Of the extinct species listed above, all of them have had significant, in-tact finds to the point of them being classifiable as actual individual species.

Also, saying that scientists cheat to prove people wrong is idiotic. Some do, but you need democratic consensus from all scientists for something to be true, and the thing about science is that... it's about finding the truth through evidence. People wouldn't go out and dig on their hands an knees in the middle of nowhere if all they intended to do was cheat.

By the way... fossil skeletons commonly break and shatter because they are so old. So paleontologists will take both fossil molds (the imprint of what was dug up) and fossil skeletons (the literal fossilized skeletal structure composed of rock) so that if one version of them breaks, the paleontologists can put it back together by using the example of it's counterpart fossil. They don't use super glue to fake shit. They use plastic mixtures to recreate was broke.

Furthermore, scientists never create things in a fossil that were not there before. If you have any such credible evidence towards such a bullshit accusation, I'd suggest you link it.

therefore they need always to present a famous missing link!

As I listed above, there are 23 known links between humanity and other great apes, aside from the obvious physiological similarities.

How many 'missing links' do you need to be convinced? Because scientists are almost never truly convinced. Which is why they are still trying to search up missing links, so that they may connect every single last piece of the puzzle together that they can.

It's all about the truth, baby.

The National Institute of Genetics in Japan and Scientists at Penn State, philosopher Jerry Fodor and cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarinihave and many more demonstrated that the natural selection is wrong!

Show me. Not that showing me would necessarily prove anything.

Also, nothing in science is empirically wrong or right unless it's unanimously decided.

A few scientists in the middle of nowhere that support your idea of creationist bullshit doesn't mean you suddenly have empirical evidence that you are right. That's not how science works. For something in science to be true is for the majority of the scientific community to agree upon it. And even then, it's subject to change unless countless generations renumerate that truth as still being true, like Newton's Laws.

The rest of your points in this section is completely illegible. I don't understand what you were saying other then the end...

we share 50% of the dna of a banana, perhaps we use to be banana?

No, but Kingdom Plantae and Kingdom Animalia both have a common ancestor. You just need to go far back enough.

Think of evolution as an internet download. It takes a certain amount of time for the download to reach 30%. In the case of evolution reaching '30%' in a species, this is the point in which the common ancestor of two separate Eukarya kingdoms split off, or began to split off.

Which is why 30% of our DNA is the same as a banana. Because, at one point... we were indistinguishable from bananas, if it can be so retardedly worded that way and still be accurate.

There are many innumerable cases when when nuclear intervention has been abroted only moments before launch.

So what? That doesn't refute my point at all. We could have destroyed ourselves, but we didn't. It being at the last second doesn't mean anything.

Is this not happening?

No, it's not happening. You apparently did not understand my point, because your rebuttal has nothing to do with mine in any way.

When I said 'threaten our dominance' I meant in relation to other species of creatures.

Humanity is the top species on our planet. It doesn't matter if we rule each other in cycles if our dominance isn't threatened to drop below the dominance of another species. Of course, if we drag this out for a long enough period of time, we will eventually drop below the bar and become a prey species again, but it would require either a LONG period of time, or a TREMENDOUS amount of stupidity... stupidity we have yet to reach, since we have yet to destroy ourselves to this point even though we have the power to.

Most of the people are like that, only a minority has woken up and try to help the rest of the world

Ah, but the people who have do profound things.

Just look at this technology we have! The freedom to speak to anyone, wherever they are in the entire world?

If we can do things as profound as the internet and the atom bomb, we can do things profoundly helpful for others. All we need is time... and for people like you to not attempt to stop scientific progress in it's tracks.

I ment that people are changing, but the elites are still ruling the world

These 'elites' have approximately no power if our numbers grow to the point that they cannot sustain their power.

All the money in the world isn't going to stop entire civilian populations from dethroning you. And while it's not out of the question to consider the possibility of a tyrant being powerful AND insane, it's extremely hard to have a person whom is greedy, but cannot reason that hurting others enough will eventually hurt them back, a dozen times over.

What is wrong with it, if that person comitted a crime, which is under the law of that country. You find it choking because of your ethnocentrical group, and your believes.

Capital punishment and torture are wrong because it's a quintessential standpoint of a good person to be a better person then someone whom is evil.

If you torture and kill a man for torturing and killing a man, you are no better a person just because the person you tortured and killed was a torturer and killer.

This has nothing to ethnocentrism. It's logic. If you solve violence with violence, you accomplish nothing. Only whence you solve violence with something better then violence have you created a better solution to problems then violence. Justifying violence through righteousness is a child's fairytale where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. But here, outside of your fantasy world, people are all people, and the only way to be intrinsically good is to acknowledge that nobody is truly evil.

So if we want to have a better world, we cant act as individual.We must all be modest, we must all care for each other

I agree. But, you can be an individual without the sacrifice of selflessness.

even if on one country they stone to death if someone commits a crime of 1 degree, and other culture they just jail that person, we must still care for each other.

Well... yes. But both nations, if they truly care for one another, will eventually have to come to terms with differences in opinions like this.

If the point is to care for one another, then it's fully within our right to care about the fact that you murder people, and then stand up and claim you care about people. What? That's contradictory. Either our cultures are going to clash on that issue, or one of us is going to change.

And when it comes down to murder, I can guarantee that the country that respects life more isn't going to change into one that respects life less, like one that stones people to death.

Furthermore, we can be modest in the sense that we are not prideful, but modesty in the sense that we hide ourselves from each other is another contradiction to helping one another out. We should be modest in the sense that we are respectful, not insufferably separate. We should try and respectfully change one another for the better, not stubbornly and begrudgingly tolerate what we don't like about each other. Conflict is important for developing people, on both a massive and personal level... so as long as conflict does not involve violence and inescapable suffering, there is nothing wrong with it.

So when I say human being is still brutal..etc I mean that most of us we are just individualistic. Therefore we can be very dangerous

Individualism does not necessarily correlate with selfishness.

You can be individualistic and selfless, you know. Having the choice to choose for yourself does not automatically lead a person into choosing to serve the self. Selfishness is not the oppressed underdog mindset in humanity, it is the ancient way of doing things that we are struggling to shake off of ourselves.

The only reason economic policies fail time and time again is because international government allows free market to run rampant without any regard for all the damage caused by someone gaining hundreds of billions of dollars.

Ours is no different. They want to protect it, and while it's not all a bad idea to protect, it doesn't have enough inhibitors to prevent unmitigated greed. Thus, people go homeless and starve to death, and Africa remains socially unchanged while foreign companies strip away all it's resources.

Is this appeal to your own form of idealism inherent of just giving up on people whom suffer? Absolutely not. People aren't suffering right now because the big bad 1st world government is a horrible, terrorizing thing. People are suffering right now because someone, somewhere, made a mistake at some point. It doesn't matter who or what did it. It's just the job of a morally sound state to prevent the suffering that was caused.

And groups and orders within the right government doesn't happen within the system? Today's democracies are by no means perfect, but the entire structure they are meant to convey is that everyone is within the system that forms the authority. If the point of anarchy is to give individuals influence upon the order they live within, then why prefer that over a proper democracy? A truly proper democracy prevents corruption by giving enough power to individuals to the point of politicians and state employees having their own power hanging by a thread held by said normal individuals.

This basically ensures that everyone shares power and has a direct influence upon their life and order. The difference is that it also guarantees order, as where anarchy does not guarantee order.

I don't even notice them, so I'm not really against them.

Sure, but not all of them will. It takes a really bad seed to steal alcohol or a gun. It takes a relatively normal kid for them to go, 'eh, why not?' when all those things could be legally obtained at their age.

There are always some people willing to break the law, but what about the vast numbers of people who would have incentive to do stupid, dangerous, or immoral things if the laws weren't in place?

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Those are, to my knowledge, some teachings/commandments of Satanism. They're kinda immoral, just a tad, but otherwise, they look pretty cool.

Gooby pls

I don't think it would be a bad idea, but people who hate the government on every level wouldn't like it.

I think it would be prudent to not only have heavily-trained guards at schools put there by the elected officials of cities or counties (and I mean like, Rambo-bad-ass in how trained they are), but I also think there should be a tight surveillance system put in place so that the school guards have eyes and ears on every instance of there being someone with a weapon.

It's tough when it's such a fundamental difference in definitions and when he feels he's doing what he's doing for humanitarian reasons.

You can't know how to help starving Africans if you don't understand their word for 'food'. ;P

But to each their own.

And people wonder how I can possibly care about synergistic order and freedom instead of being an outright anarchist or totalitarian. ಠ_ಠ You saying what you just said is how. Nobody should have to suffer such a thing, and yet most are caught bickering in between the positions of 'all-or-nothing' or 'all-or-nothing'. PAH! If they weren't such fools, you'd have never needed to suffer through what you did.

What makes you believe incentive to make "healthy choices" outside of voluntarism is necessary?

Because prosperity and freedom makes our civilians inherently vulnerable to unwise choices. Why do you find it unnecessary? We don't want people to make a single choice that ruins their lives, do you?

A law making it illegal for you to buy something isn't incentive. It's coercion.

As long as you aren't psychologically abusing a child, there's nothing wrong with coercing a child into not doing stupid shit as a last resort. And considering children are ignorant of their environments and greatly depend upon their parents for context, the law is a last resort.

Now, if you mean actual neural development, yes.

That's what I meant. Good to see you're not intentionally complicating this.

All of these things could actually be better for them if used liberally than if used conservatively.

I am going to assume you mean 'used responsibly rather then if used irresponsibly', because I don't otherwise understand the context of your use of liberal and conservative in this.

With that said, there is nothing healthy about tobacco products. I'd like to see evidence that there's any such thing as a tobacco product being healthy in any amount for any significant group of people.

Though I could agree with you on the use of alcohol, as it could strengthen your body if consumed very sparingly, but the only way to ensure this is what would happen with children without damaging them would be if there was a regulation on it, which you could construe as a restriction, which means it's not an all-or-nothing solution.

As for guns, I'm not certain over whether or not there should be a restriction on whether or not children can purchase firearms, mostly because children don't usually have any money... so how is them not being allowed to buy them an issue anyway when they don't have money? Perhaps such a restriction doesn't necessarily do anything, but whether it's there or not is a non-issue. So the way I see it, there's no reason to get rid of such a restriction because it's just local governments playing it safe, and it's not harming anything by being in place since children don't go out of their way to buy guns in the first place.

2-4 alcoholic beverages a day (beer, wine, or liquor) is correlated with better health, lower cancer rates, lower dementia rates, lower diabetes rates, etc.

In some people, and not necessarily children. Their smaller bodies would handle the alcohol differently. And, since the chances of it being an unethical study are probably high, I doubt there are many legitimate studies upon the long-term effects of alcohol on children. I could be wrong, however. I would not mind a link if you have the desire to look one up, but I won't ask for you to find something on my behalf.

Though really, this whole thing about moderation you're spewing is a contradiction to your idea of there being absolute freedom. If all the restrictions are lifted, what makes you automatically assume that the majority of children will drink alcohol responsibly? Because their parents will moderate all their consumption? What about gullible parents, mischievous children, or negligent parents? What about accidents due to being uneducated?

There are so many dangerous holes in the idea of absolute freedom that it just further reinforces the ridiculousness of all-or-nothing positions like this.

Cigarettes are known to help with many digestive issues.

There are plenty of things to help with digestion that don't near-perfectly guarantee addiction and severe long-term health issues.

You know... like Raisin Bran cereal. Or... any food with fiber that isn't a cigarette...

And now with electronic cigarettes, we've found ways to keep nicotine but eliminate tobacco all together. Maybe the age restrictions will adapt, but I doubt it.

If electronic cigarettes end up dominating the market, I suspect the age restrictions will be changed so that they do not apply to electric cigs. The only slowness in change I suspect would be dependent upon the process involved with acquiring scientific results on the long-term effects up pure nicotine on children. Nicotine by itself in very small doses isn't largely dangerous, to my knowledge, but you never know what will happen to a child when they are exposed to a drug. For all the fuck we know (or I know, I haven't seen a child study with nicotine, if they exist), pure nicotine is one of the worst things you could possibly give to a child. But maybe it's not. Either way, we should make sure.

Government, and you, still feel that you know more about our individual best interests than themselves.

And instead of working with the government, you resist them, when it's in their best interest to keep you healthy and safe? What? Instead of screaming that you're being damaged and that the government is evil, why don't you try and assist the government in helping more people, more efficiently?

That would be a much larger contribution then taking these all-or-nothing bullshit stances.

All state and no freedom is stupid. All freedom and no state is just as stupid. This is my stance which I keep reiterating to you, as well as others, and yet you, as well as others, keep assuming I believe in totalitarianism or some retarded thing. At least, that's the impression I get. I'm sort of a potato.

Prove it.

If there are absolutely no laws and restrictions involving them, it would be disastrous. I can't see into the future, but I can see it now on basis of logical presumption. Companies would target children in adds, create subsets of product to attract children, and significantly lie and cheat all they could to make sure that children start drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.

Parents would need to adapt very quickly, possibly at the sacrifice to their sanity, to prevent their children from being significantly damaged. How many innocent people are you willing to risk just to have valueless freedoms that allow children to damage themselves and require parents to work harder then how monumentally hard they already work?

You are saying that choice is dangerous. You aren't saying that tobacco is dangerous. You are saying that giving someone the ability to choose FOR THEMSELVES is dangerous. Statist logic.

Now now, you are mixing terms as you go through these sentences that aren't the same thing.

Yes, some choices are dangerous.

No, the ability to choose is not dangerous.

See the difference? Just because I think people shouldn't be allowed to hurt themselves or each other doesn't mean I suddenly want them to be unable to have the ability to choose anything. Those are two separate intentions which are not necessarily connected.

And since you seem to believe so devoutly in individualism, surely you can trust me when I say that? I mean really, come on now. I trust people, but not to the point I will assume they always know to not harm themselves. You trust people, but not the point of them telling you they think structure and control and law is a good idea for preventing people from hurting themselves and each other?

Waaait... huh?

but still, would be nice if you proved that our children are in danger if we eliminate laws barring them from buying things...

Well, just as I spoke about what you said about guns, I suppose that could be the same truth with alcohol and cigarettes. They may not have the money to buy such things, so eliminating the laws may mean absolutely nothing.

But, as I also pointed out with what I said about guns, if it's a non-issue due to children not carrying around any personal funds, what's so wrong with the restriction? If it's not harming anything by existing or not existing, then why not just keep to as to be better safe than sorry?

Furthermore, since you spoke of ALL age restrictions, and not just restrictions from children under 15, well, that's a whole 'nother story. Teenagers can get jobs and make money. Teenagers have more independence then younger children, so an elimination of restrictions that effect teenagers is far more complex then eliminating restrictions that only effect children. But I won't get into that unless you have a direct point addressing it.

Not in my state.

I hope your state acquires such a law. Or, uh, lightens the current law so it's more akin to that one.

There are always limitations

I know. Allow me to clarify what I meant: Limitations outside of personal and locally social incentive.

And what makes this right is because it is not coercive and violent like government legislation

If you need to be intimidated or forced into being told to not harm yourself, others, and/or the future of you and others, then there is something wrong with you and you deserve to be intimidated and forced.

This isn't to say it should be done if it's an assumption that you intend to harm yourself, others, and/or the future of you and others, but when it comes down to helping people and being moral, I, personally, would only work with it based upon facts. Government isn't perfect, because people are not perfect, but the general intention inevitably is to help people, because their power is dependent upon our well being.

People's lives aren't ruined and we are still allowed to enjoy ourselves without the fear of government saying "FOR YOUR PROTECTION, NOW BEND OVER"

People's lives are largely ruined due to their own mistakes. Creating an environment where our mistakes do not obliterate our lives, but still teach us a lesson about living, is quintessential to having a healthy, happy civilian population.

And while government has made mistakes trying to reach such a system for time and time again doesn't mean they should suddenly neglect trying to get to that perfect point, as you are suggesting. The mathematically best amount of order mixed with mathematically the best amount of freedom. That's about the closest we could possibly get to a utopia while we are still homo sapiens.

Absolute statism and anarchism are completely contrary to achieving this, because while what I describe is a hybrid compromise taking the best of both worlds into one system, absolute statism and what you suggest are all-or-nothing, which have all the benefits and all the faults of that one system and doesn't try and eliminate the faults of that system... which is so incredibly stupid I practically take offense to it.

Ah, so your answer is MOAR LAWS AND MONEY SPENT ON ENFORCING THEM. got it.

Not at all. My answer is better laws, not more thoughtlessly shitty laws.

You are in fear, I get it. You fear that human beings can't make decisions for themselves.

No, I fear humans beings making mistakes they cannot learn from before said mistake destroys their entire livelihood, which is what addiction to cigarettes and alcoholism does to people. And for it to happen to children? Pah!

The idea of it happening to a single child is unacceptable.

You can tell me I'm evil and want power and hate others all you want, but ultimately, I believe everything I do and will because I care about others.

They need a mast-ah to make the decisions for them. and yeah, a Shepard may break the leg of a lamb, but it's only so he wouldn't wander.

People don't need masters to control everything they do and will do. They need a guardian. A protector.

Why be so nasty as to insinuate I'm evil? Is it just because you are as narrow-minded as a Nazi and cannot associate people disagreeing with you with being at all good?

How could you possibly become such a hateful person? I think you're misguided at this point, but hardly evil. Why place that assumption onto me?

Also, your analogy has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, unless you're completely stupid. Taking away from you the freedom to damage yourself is like taking nothing away from you at all, because why the fuck would you want to damage yourself unless you are misinformed or insane? There is no reason, that's why. But people do it all the time anyways because they are misinformed, or like you, principled in exactly the wrong way and would harm yourself just to prove a meaningless point.

You say I break the leg of the lamb. You suggest that, instead of torturing the lamb, I should let it wander off and get killed by wild beasts. What makes your suggestion most invalid isn't the fact that it allows the lamb to come to harm, but that you fail you realize that I never broke the leg of the lamb in the first place.

How about, no?

All or nothing positions are still silly no matter how you intelligently articulate them.

People should be free enough to give themselves incentive to do responsible things without fear of the law, but law should be strong enough that people who don't give themselves incentive will have further incentive from outside their own judgement.

When it comes down to age restrictions for the things you listed, it makes plenty of valid sense to have age requirements, because children, teenagers, and even young adults are still developing a sense of reality and understanding of their environments and existences. Allowing them to possess certain things may cause them to grow up with less incentive to be responsible and safe with themselves.

Smoking and drinking alcohol is eons worse then simply eating candy or fast food. Cancer and liver disease are eons worse then mild obesity. And one of the biggest reasons we don't see people dying from liver disease and tobacco-related cancers as often as we see people die from heart disease is because tobacco products and alcohol are so incredibly fucking dangerous that natural education of their dangers combined with legislative inhibitors give people a fairly good amount of incentive to not irresponsibly deal in those products.

Children already spend a huge amount of time learning about what to and to not incentivize when they're growing up then is safe. Letting them suddenly be a legally targeted audience by tobacco companies would be disastrous to their health. The same is true with alcohol. Children are already legally allowed to drink alcohol as long as they have consent from their guardian. If they could drink alcohol without any limitation, it would easily be disastrous to their health, especially considering that alcoholic beverages can be made to taste good to suit a sweet tooth, or a weakling who can't handle bitter pure-alcohol taste, like me.

So, to answer your ultimate questions, yes, parenting is not enough to guarantee children will incentivize being responsible with alcohol and cigarettes. Hell, man, these things are illegal for children and they already still deal in them, illegally. Obviously, the incentive from parenting AND the government even NOW isn't enough to prevent them from harming themselves.

And you think things wouldn't be even worse if all this shit suddenly wasn't legally limited? Are you nuts?

I see. That sounds like quite the chore, so I appreciate the heads up.

Ultimately, if this is his wording, he's completely correct. But he's correct in a manner that is blatantly obvious and completely stupid. It's obvious to everyone, even mongoloids, that people do everything based upon what they know, and what they believe about what they know. This isn't rocket science.

This wouldn't even be a debate if he hadn't redefined the word 'religion' to fit this very simple fact into something confusing. I don't WANT to say it's intentional, and deceptive, but if it's not, what is it? Stupid? Idiotic? Philosophically bizarre as fuck? I'm not sure. Maybe he wanted a laugh? I truly cannot guess with any accuracy.

This is only a debate because everyone is confused and not even speaking on the same idea as he is. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Is it supposed to be a stupid test? Because if he wasn't changing the meaning of the word religion in his argument and in his debate, everyone would pass this over as common sense truth, because how he means it, it is. But what religion usually is defined as makes this debate thrilling and crazy. His absolutism is correct in the term he is being absolutist, but the problem is that his term is different from the norm.

Surely he knows this, yes? You cannot debate unless both people debating know what the hell is being said at every turn of the debate. So the very creation of this debate is misleading because he made it on a premise that a minority of people would interpret it.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, my brain. ಠ_ಠ It dun went broke.