Damn people, I never said it OK to murder people. I said I was glad he was called out for being who he was. If you read the story the teens gave him ( a 25 year old guy) shit for banging a 15 year old. The 25 year old guy then " call his friends " ( see gang violence ) the teen kicked his ass and he left ( would have been the end of it ) but turned around fight some more and ended up getting killed.Macbeth wrote:
He was killed because he was a Mexican not because he was tapping a 15 year old.Lotta_Drool wrote:
No, I'm the one that was glad that a 25 year old illegal molesting a 15 year old was not embraced by society.13/f/taiwan wrote:
oh wait, now i remember you. your the guy who thought killing someone is justified if they are a 25 year old dating a 15 year old. you're more of a fucked person than anyone in that poll.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2620531
I remember you, you are that illegal that likes to molest 15 year olds.<---- see how that works when I use your level of reading comphrehension.
If he was killed for being a Meixcan then that's clearly a racist hate crime.
If he was killed for being a pedo than give the kids a medal.
But was killed for being a Mexican and that's not cool.
Poll
Which do you find most offensive.
| Someone being openly gay | 6% | 6% - 6 | ||||
| Someone being openly Democrat or Republican | 2% | 2% - 2 | ||||
| Someone being openly an illegal citizen | 35% | 35% - 31 | ||||
| Someone being openly addicted to Drugs | 28% | 28% - 25 | ||||
| Someone being openly uncaring about the environment. | 27% | 27% - 24 | ||||
| Total: 88 | ||||||
A 25 year old dating a 15 year old is kind of strange, but it's not something someone should be killed for. She was clearly in love with this guy, and there's no reason to believe that he was abusive to her.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Damn people, I never said it OK to murder people. I said I was glad he was called out for being who he was. If you read the story the teens gave him ( a 25 year old guy) shit for banging a 15 year old. The 25 year old guy then " call his friends " ( see gang violence ) the teen kicked his ass and he left ( would have been the end of it ) but turned around fight some more and ended up getting killed.
Sex laws are often rather questionable in their logic. For example, in most states, there is no legal difference between a 25 year old fucking a 15 year old and a 40 year old doing the same. To me, there's a huge difference. I would argue there's a bigger difference between an 80 year old fucking an 18 year old than an 18 year old fucking a 17 year old, but for some strange reason, the latter is illegal in many states.
A 25 year old and a 15 year old can feasibly be around the same level in maturity if either the guy is lacking maturity or the girl is very mature for her age. I don't see how it's the business of the state as to whether or not a relationship between the two should be allowed.
Of course, the main reason these things are put into place is because parents get paranoid. It's the same reason we have a sex offender registry but not a murderer one.
Null, I could justify my reasoning for not being offended by all of them.
Did I push your buttons in this thread or are you just in full bore troll mode today?Macbeth wrote:
What exactly makes you arbiter of worth of views and master of logic and reason?JohnG@lt wrote:
I edited. I discount peoples views when it's warranted. If their ideas aren't based on logic and reason then they are worthless.Macbeth wrote:
Uh no that is as wrong as calling their views stupid. I'm not a big fan of making debates personal or totally discounting people's views.
I'm sorry Macbeth but not all opinions and ideas have merit.
No one made me the arbiter, but if they are in a forum title "Debate" and serious talk and their arguments can't stand up to argument, well, then they've lost the debate no? The forum title implicitly states that any opinion expressed here is subject to debate. You don't like that? Go to a forum that states "No debate, all opinions welcome and appreciated equally".
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
JohnG@lt wrote:
Did I push your buttons in this thread or are you just in full bore troll mode today?No didn't push my buttons, I'm calmer than a Hindu cow actually.Macbeth wrote:
What exactly makes you arbiter of worth of views and master of logic and reason?JohnG@lt wrote:
I edited. I discount peoples views when it's warranted. If their ideas aren't based on logic and reason then they are worthless.
I'm sorry Macbeth but not all opinions and ideas have merit.
No one made me the arbiter, but if they are in a forum title "Debate" and serious talk and their arguments can't stand up to argument, well, then they've lost the debate no? The forum title implicitly states that any opinion expressed here is subject to debate. You don't like that? Go to a forum that states "No debate, all opinions welcome and appreciated equally".Um having a debate is one thing, totally discounting another persons view and claim your view supreme for no other reason than it follows your flow of logic and reason which is guided not by any deep objective analysis but instead by your own predetermined philosophical views is just the height of narrow mindedness and since complete objectivity is impossible everyone's view is on the same level of worth.
So if I hold the opinion that the earth would be a better place if we chopped down all the trees and drained the oceans it is the same level of worth as a person who thinks that Obama is a Democrat?Macbeth wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Did I push your buttons in this thread or are you just in full bore troll mode today?No didn't push my buttons, I'm calmer than a Hindu cow actually.Macbeth wrote:
What exactly makes you arbiter of worth of views and master of logic and reason?
No one made me the arbiter, but if they are in a forum title "Debate" and serious talk and their arguments can't stand up to argument, well, then they've lost the debate no? The forum title implicitly states that any opinion expressed here is subject to debate. You don't like that? Go to a forum that states "No debate, all opinions welcome and appreciated equally".Um having a debate is one thing, totally discounting another persons view and claim your view supreme for no other reason than it follows your flow of logic and reason which is guided not by any deep objective analysis but instead by your own predetermined philosophical views is just the height of narrow mindedness and since complete objectivity is impossible everyone's view is on the same level of worth.
Or even better... If I were to argue that women are equal to men, and another person were to argue that they were not equal to men. How can both be correct?
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-16 13:30:31)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The first is an opinion, the second a fact.JohnG@lt wrote:
So if I hold the opinion that the earth would be a better place if we chopped down all the trees and drained the oceans it is the same level of worth as a person who thinks that Obama is a Democrat?Macbeth wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Did I push your buttons in this thread or are you just in full bore troll mode today?No didn't push my buttons, I'm calmer than a Hindu cow actually.
No one made me the arbiter, but if they are in a forum title "Debate" and serious talk and their arguments can't stand up to argument, well, then they've lost the debate no? The forum title implicitly states that any opinion expressed here is subject to debate. You don't like that? Go to a forum that states "No debate, all opinions welcome and appreciated equally".Um having a debate is one thing, totally discounting another persons view and claim your view supreme for no other reason than it follows your flow of logic and reason which is guided not by any deep objective analysis but instead by your own predetermined philosophical views is just the height of narrow mindedness and since complete objectivity is impossible everyone's view is on the same level of worth.
Both are neither right nor wrong. Pretty simple.JohnG@lt wrote:
Or even better... If I were to argue that women are equal to men, and another person were to argue that they were not equal to men. How can both be correct?
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-01-16 13:35:50)
I should be able to do whatever I want with my property as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings. Isn't that a libertarian view?JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot.
Also didn't Rand whom you named yourself after a character from one of her books have a really big issue with people telling others how to use their property even if it didn't them or anyone else?
Besides I'm allergic to cats and like dogs better.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-01-16 13:40:25)
So by that extension if you had been a slave owner you feel that you would be within your rights to beat that slave to death because you owned it?Macbeth wrote:
I should be able to do whatever I want with my property as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings. Isn't that a libertarian view?JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot.
Also didn't Rand whom you named yourself after a character from one of her books have a really big issue with people telling others how to use their property even if it didn't them or anyone else?
Besides I'm allergic to cats and like dogs better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Honestly, yeah. It would actually have been my within my legal rights and going back several hundred years it would have been as social acceptable as anything else. Hell it is actually socially acceptable current in some places.JohnG@lt wrote:
So by that extension if you had been a slave owner you feel that you would be within your rights to beat that slave to death because you owned it?Macbeth wrote:
I should be able to do whatever I want with my property as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings. Isn't that a libertarian view?JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot.
Also didn't Rand whom you named yourself after a character from one of her books have a really big issue with people telling others how to use their property even if it didn't them or anyone else?
Besides I'm allergic to cats and like dogs better.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-01-16 13:47:48)
But you're adversely affecting the rights of another human being, so no, you're not upholding libertarian views.Macbeth wrote:
Honestly, yeah. It would actually have been my within my legal rights and going back several hundred years it would have been as social acceptable as anything else.JohnG@lt wrote:
So by that extension if you had been a slave owner you feel that you would be within your rights to beat that slave to death because you owned it?Macbeth wrote:
I should be able to do whatever I want with my property as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings. Isn't that a libertarian view?
Also didn't Rand whom you named yourself after a character from one of her books have a really big issue with people telling others how to use their property even if it didn't them or anyone else?
Besides I'm allergic to cats and like dogs better.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Property, not a human being.
So you believe that they lose human status as soon as they become property? We could run a simple DNA test if you want to prove that they are in fact human.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Property, not a human being.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I find 1, 2 and 5 to be extremely offensive.
Gayness is a DNA malfunction, its not a fucking personal choice and you shouldn't be fucking happy for being a faggot.
Politicians are among the highest class of human excrement to live on this planet, they lie to entire nations on live television, whatever.
Not caring about the environment.. I'm not even going to get started on this one.
Gayness is a DNA malfunction, its not a fucking personal choice and you shouldn't be fucking happy for being a faggot.
Politicians are among the highest class of human excrement to live on this planet, they lie to entire nations on live television, whatever.
Not caring about the environment.. I'm not even going to get started on this one.
A simple change in perspective and circumstances. If I were able to own slaves or did, I would think I could do whatever I wanted to them but I cannot, and there is no way we'll ever revert back to slave ownership so the default position would be "as long as it doesn't affect any other human beings". But if we lived in a slave owning fantasy U.S. and I owned slaves then I would say "As long as it doesn't affect any other human beings or slaves which aren't my own".JohnG@lt wrote:
But you're adversely affecting the rights of another human being, so no, you're not upholding libertarian views.Macbeth wrote:
Honestly, yeah. It would actually have been my within my legal rights and going back several hundred years it would have been as social acceptable as anything else.JohnG@lt wrote:
So by that extension if you had been a slave owner you feel that you would be within your rights to beat that slave to death because you owned it?
It's pretty simple, it wouldn't have made sense if I had said "Do anything with my property as long as it doesn't affect any humans which aren't my own slaves." since we don't live in a reality in which slave ownership is possible within the U.S..
$5 says FM says something along the lines ofJohnG@lt wrote:
So you believe that they lose human status as soon as they become property? We could run a simple DNA test if you want to prove that they are in fact human.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Property, not a human being.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a homosapien is different than being a human being.
illegal citizen
One of the last three, probably.
The illegal citizen is really the only one who in any sense of the word is breaking the law, and openly disregarding that is offensive in my view. The drugs are offensive as well, but probably only to me, because I find that practice particularly off-putting. The environment is really the only one that affects others, though. Sure, I'm not an eco-mentalist and don't get pissed off at every little thing, but despite not considering myself an environmentalist, I still act with a sense of responsibility, and not doing so makes it something selfish and wrong.
The illegal citizen is really the only one who in any sense of the word is breaking the law, and openly disregarding that is offensive in my view. The drugs are offensive as well, but probably only to me, because I find that practice particularly off-putting. The environment is really the only one that affects others, though. Sure, I'm not an eco-mentalist and don't get pissed off at every little thing, but despite not considering myself an environmentalist, I still act with a sense of responsibility, and not doing so makes it something selfish and wrong.
^Macbeth wrote:
$5 says FM says something along the lines ofJohnG@lt wrote:
So you believe that they lose human status as soon as they become property? We could run a simple DNA test if you want to prove that they are in fact human.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Property, not a human being.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a homosapien is different than being a human being.
They were considered property, not people. Most libertarians in such a circumstance would defend the rights of the property owner.
Why? Because you think Thomas Jefferson did? You need to get off his nuts. Even he was anti-slavery.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
^Macbeth wrote:
$5 says FM says something along the lines ofJohnG@lt wrote:
So you believe that they lose human status as soon as they become property? We could run a simple DNA test if you want to prove that they are in fact human.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a homosapien is different than being a human being.
They were considered property, not people. Most libertarians in such a circumstance would defend the rights of the property owner.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He owned slaves, he enjoyed procreating with them IIRC.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Because you think Thomas Jefferson did? You need to get off his nuts. Even he was anti-slavery.
the fuck you doing pulling big TJ out of your assJohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Because you think Thomas Jefferson did? You need to get off his nuts. Even he was anti-slavery.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
^Macbeth wrote:
$5 says FM says something along the lines ofJohnG@lt wrote:
So you believe that they lose human status as soon as they become property? We could run a simple DNA test if you want to prove that they are in fact human.
They were considered property, not people. Most libertarians in such a circumstance would defend the rights of the property owner.
This is about you being a hypocrite. You didn't like where the argument was going with Macbeth so you turn to " Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot. ". He went after your espoused views with that and the example is blowing up in your face.
It's not blowing up in my face at all. FM, you believe that all opinions are equal? That was his original point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the fuck you doing pulling big TJ out of your assJohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Because you think Thomas Jefferson did? You need to get off his nuts. Even he was anti-slavery.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
^
They were considered property, not people. Most libertarians in such a circumstance would defend the rights of the property owner.
This is about you being a hypocrite. You didn't like where the argument was going with Macbeth so you turn to " Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot. ". He went after your espoused views with that and the example is blowing up in your face.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The example is people that own slaves have the right to do what they want with them. If you are consistent in your views, you agree with that statement, particularly for the time period. At the same time, you tried to use that statement to "get at" Macbeth.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not blowing up in my face at all. FM, you believe that all opinions are equal? That was his original point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the fuck you doing pulling big TJ out of your assJohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Because you think Thomas Jefferson did? You need to get off his nuts. Even he was anti-slavery.
This is about you being a hypocrite. You didn't like where the argument was going with Macbeth so you turn to " Oh shit, I forgot you're the guy that wants to be able to stomp kittens to death if he wants to. Yeah, you're an idiot. ". He went after your espoused views with that and the example is blowing up in your face.
I agree with Macbeth when he said "Both are neither right nor wrong. Pretty simple. " A point which you never responded to.
You keep hopping from point to point when he pins you somewhere.