No they couldn't. Assange is an Australian citizen so that automatically disqualifies him for being convicted of treason. I suppose they could still have the CIA do some covert mission to detain him or kill him, but that is the avenue they would have to take if they wished him harm. A legal avenue is just completely impractical

It might be somewhat misleading to say it's not COMPLETELY addictive, but apparently so is fast food! Should we ban that as well? Because apparently the right combination of salt and sugar makes you addicted to fast food. I don't know, I saw that on Harry's Law (good show btw). But I think the more fundamental question is should we ban something because A. we don't like it and B. because it's bad for you? I should certainly hope not. Although I think the most compelling is the lack of deaths resulting from marijuana which has stayed consistent, 0.

I think it would be prudent of me to say I am NOT in any supportive of the views of the Ku Klux Klan. But at the same time, isn't a slippery slope to what ideas can be regulated and which ones cannot? Sure what they preach is morally incompatible with a free society, but how can it be a free society if you decide arbitrarily what speech is acceptable and what is not?

I wouldn't say people 'hate' anarchism. They just don't know anything about it, really. They get the idea that there is no external authority that governs people, but they don't understand how such a system, or lack thereof, could work. There are, however, a lot of authors and philosophers who have outlined how such a society could work. Proudhon, Rothbard, Bakunin, Stirner, Konkin, and Josiah Warren are pretty good reads, if one would want to educate themselves on the subject. And contrary to popular belief there are examples of anarchic societies in the past. The most obvious would be the prehistoric hunter-gather groups, an example of anarcho-communism. Another, is the Free Territory of Ukraine. They existed between 1918-1921. One could argue that they technically had a government under Nestor Makhno, but he has no more than a respected military leader that lead the army that protected the territory. Josiah Warren also founded towns that were, I guess you would call them an anarcho-capitalist society. So really, anarchism could work one day in the future, when more people are open to the idea, but not now. And then again, possibly never. This isn't to say you could be a philosophical anarchist and just reject the governments 'authority' as a lone individual.

They already have a venue where one can learn creationism...it's called church.

Ooooo I sense some condescention! Lets address your counterpoints.

Are you actually advocating thievery? Yes. If your good enough to steal it, its yours. What is property anyway?

You are a revolutionary! Quick, take your idea to the news, so that they might educate the ignorant masses of this amazing new idea!

Abstinence only education does not work. I never claimed to be a revolutionary because abstinence is not a revolutionary idea, but that does not take away from the merit of my argument. Would society be better if teenagers practiced abstinence? I think it would, can't have a baby if you don't have sex. But as i said, I would be naive to believe that ignoramuses would be open to the idea

There are more choices than abstinence, or have a baby. We are talking about contraceptives, after all. You are correct. But condoms do break, so what do you do then? Abortion perhaps? But there is much controversy about that as well. There are also a lot of crazy females who seek to sort of "trap" their partner into commitments by breaking the condom before its used.

I understand the other side of this issue but I do not see a very obvious flaw being addressed. If the issue is that people do not want more of their money taken for public health, then what happens when teenagers do not have easier access to condoms, don't use them as often, and STDs and pregnancies are more common? The alternative is far more expensive. Actually, my issue is peoples money being used for things they dont support. Yes, high school girls getting pregnant is a problem. So therefore we should use public schools to solve the problem? How ridiculous. It's one thing to use peoples money to fund the government to protect the rights of people, its another to use it for things that there is a clear divide on.

Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this? - me

Why not?

why not? because they can barely afford decent textbooks or teachers for that matter, or provide a quality education. If that doesn't shed any light, I don't know what to tell you

But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem.

Providing easier, anonymous access to contraceptives, combined with comprehensive sex education, would help. Schools are capable of doing this. And how do you know it would help? Have you done extensive research on the subject? Schools arent even capable of educating our children properly, but yet you want them to give them a "comprehensive sex education"? What does that entail exactly? Will they be teaching them positions as well?

Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools.

If parents neglect to do this, then the cost their child may incur is the responsibility of everyone. MAY being the key word here.

Parents who wish their children to only practice abstinence are still free to raise them in a way that encourages such a procedure. Easily accessible contraceptives just ensure that a child who disobeys is not permanently afflicted with a disease or a child because of it. That falls under the personal responsibility category

So basically what I'm gathering here is that you believe that the schools should provide condoms to teenagers because it would provide a safety net. Well, let's say schools do end up providing condoms for their students. Who is actually going to use them? The reason they don't is just as I already pointed out, they're uncomfortable. Everyone I know doesn't use them for that reason, hell I don't use them for that reason.

I completely support a repeal of ALL restrictions on the right to own firearms. First there is a constitutional perspective, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, I wish it could be as clean cut as this, but sadly there are several misinterpretations of this seemingly straightforward amendment. The most prominent being that, this is specifically reserved for the National Guard. But by that interpretation, it seems a little redundant to add this when the National Guard would be given arms, with or without a specific amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution was written to RESTRICT the federal government, not give it power to enslave its citizens. This interpretation would seem just a tad contradictory to what the Founders had in mind. From a logical perspective, more guns appears to mean less crime. In switzerland for instance (I realize this is an exhausted argument, but that does not at all take away from its merits) everyone is required to serve in the military and therefore knows how to wield a weapon. They have very low crime rates, consequently. Also, those who claim gun crimes go down with the complete ban of guns, should look at the violent crimes with knives. Ireland recently banned guns and with that, gun crime plummeted. A win for the gun control lobby, no? But what skyrocketed? Ah yes, violent crimes involving a knife. Should we then ban knives? oh wait you could kill someone with a bat, or a rock, or other blunt/sharp, objects. Should we just ban everything that could possibly kill someone? Oh wait a minute, you could kill someone with your bare hands, should we be forced to cut them off? I realize is an example of reductio ad absurdum, but my point still remains, guns are not the source of violence, they are a mere instrument of violence. the source of violence is within the individual. Instead of trying to reduce violence by placing restrictions on guns, we should try to find out why are we violent to begin with? What can we do to calm our violent urges? Can anything be done at all? If the answer to that last question is in the negative, then gun restrictions still make no sense. For one thing, all that would be accomplished would be the disarming of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. (This has been historically used by repressive regimes, i.e, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. but thats another argument) Considering that criminals don't obey the law in the first place, how can we expect to lower crime by making new laws? When you make a new law or punishable offense, you are actually increasing crime rates, because there are new crimes to be convicted for.

It is not the job of the schools, the taxpayers, or society for that matter to supply condoms. The "teenagers have sex" argument is ridiculous and absurd. Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen. Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?! I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice, if of course you have a brain. And even if abstaining is completely impractical, that still doesn't answer the more philosophical questions about this topic. Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue? I should think not, but then again personal responsibiliy and common sense are dead, so this is to be expected. Another question is, if provided, would the students actually USE them. Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this? They can't even provide a quality education, how can we expect them to provide quality condoms, or quality anything for that matter? It may be naive of me to believe that abstention is not hard at all. (Maybe they can just resort to anal or oral, as opposed to vaginal?) But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem. If it starts in the home that's where it needs to be fixed. Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools. Whatever happened to the Three R's? I guess now it's four, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and sexual Reproduction classes.

Words only do as much damage as you want them to. While it is true, as you said, that words can drive people to insanity, then final step is theirs to take. Also, if cyber bulliying were made a felony, let alone a crime, this sets a VERY dangerous precedent. If I say something to you that even remotely hurts your feeling on the internet, then I can be a charged. This would also open doors for the regulation of the internet and TRUST me, no one wants that. The real solution to this problem is not giving the government power to punish it, (I think they have enough power already), but maybe not letting some possibly unknown person having so much control over your feelings and emotions. And if you do know this person, stop associating with them, and if they keep harassing you, file a complaint. Just by the fact that you even admit that everyones life is their own defeats any argument you could conceivably lay out. Let's also take the suicide by cyber bullying scenario a step further. Let's suppose I kill myself and leave a note saying that if you hadn't done whatever hurtful thing you might have or might not have done, I'd still be alive, by your logic do the police have cause to arrest you? Also how are we to know that this person killed themselves over what someone said over the internet? "You never know what is going on in someones life nor do you know what that persons insecurities may be." EXACTLY! So really, the ultimate intiator is whatever these things might be.