Recent posts by ohmylanta on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Out of curiosity, if you do decide the government has become a tyranny, and you have to use your guns to sort things out, um, where exactly are you planning to start your campaign of justice? What unfortunate government department is going to first get your wrath?

The only certain thing is the ones you’re targetting first haven’t ah, actually done anything against you.

Well, I would say that if you knowingly and willingly participate in a particular department of government that attacks innocent people then you have lost your inherent innocence; if you directly aid those who do bad things then you hold some blame.

In a resistance movement against foreign oppressors, such as in WWII France, it’s clear where the tyranny is, it’s in the streets. To become a revolutionary against your own country’s authentic government is to believe that that government is foreign; that it is distant from the interests of the people and occupies the country. The military and police forces of any government are by definition the source of oppression: how is any law or any governmental order relevant unless it is backed by law enforcement or a military force? By targeting the police and military you directly decrease their power to oppress, and indirectly decrease the authority of other organizations without having to kill any of them. If a state is a tyranny then by definition the police or military has done something to you, whether they held you at gunpoint or simply backed the authority of oppressive laws.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

images of jesus in the stars

Actually most people have visual disturbances that causes them to see shapes where there are none, the fact that some people think they see Jesus in the stars doesn’t surprise me.

laminin

But this is very selective. First of all, Christianity picks a simple and recurring shape and is surprised when it is found in nature. It’s kind of like saying that being able to use your right hand to find the relationship between directions of electrical current and magnetic fields proves that we are intelligently designed and that humans are inherently aware of the fundamentals of electromagnetism. Does the shape of some snow crystals also prove that Judaism is correct?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Have you guys heard of the God particle? It could be the key to the creation of the universe

What if the god particle is just a product of the universe itself? The god particle only has to be called a god particle because most people still believe that a god was necessary to create the universe; if we call it the universe particle, or the big bang particle, then how has anything been proven?

Like I said in an earlier post, whether you want to associate existence with a God is arbitrary, and in that sense both atheists and deists are the same. However, to claim that a God requires specific human rituals and is biased in human affairs, and cares about our fates is a much bolder conviction.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by Badge_Ninja:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:
Originally posted by Badge_Ninja:

I think somewhere out there. There is a god.

If you think about it. It’s like this, everything needs a creator – To make a chair, you need a chairmaker. To make a house, you need an architect.

I just can’t believe that all this was just here. There has to be a creator.

So what created god?

God created himself :D

If God can create himself without any logical problem, then why can’t the universe create itself in a similar fashion? Your inability to accept that existence does not require a creator needs to be equated with anyone else’s inability to accept that god does not require a creator.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

You cannot say whether your way has a better chance of having an after life. Those things were already figured out before you were born. You cannot create afterlife, and you cannot play God like that. This isn’t my way. Being on the computer isn’t the way i’m going. My way in life, is my way in life. If i were to sum up one point out of all of this it would be that saying everyone is right and there are 1000 ways to heaven is completely wrong and doesn’t make any sense. I would try to expand on that more but i feel like being a scientist, politician, engineer, world changer, and/or a conservative is more important. It’s not. Just do what you do in the name of Jesus, because you’re supposed to take your faith where ever you may be. There is a very few amount of things in this world that will fulfill you to this end. I said christianity and an anti-justice clan can work hand in hand, but you don’t see that God’s works can do miracles. You just think that without God, you can do what you want to make this world a better place. You try releasing 27 million underaged girls from sex slavery then come back and tell me how much of the world you’ve changed.

Your claims about how afterlife works are just as valid as vikas, as you don’t have any real evidence. See, your problem is that you approach the questions to your beliefs with the presumption that you are right, and therefore the bible is credible evidence of God’s actions and the afterlife; you are recalling facts that are so set in stone for you that they are irrefutable in your opinion. Consider the fact that everything you’ve been told is wrong. Your justification for your religious beliefs basically amounts to “because you say it so”, and in reality you do believe that you can play God, because you are doing it. God is a made up concept, he may have infinite importance to you but to claim that your clarity of faith is of relevance to anyone else is a bold statement which require concrete evidence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

I’ve actually come to the point where I think that American politicians will get away with anything as long as they can present it in a way that makes us feel comfortable. Recently we’ve experienced numerous threats against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments, but these attacks are ignored or accepted because of “security” and “safety” reasons. The internet needs to be censored and monitored to “combat terrorism” and “stop child pornography/pirating”, we need the TSA to fondle our balls so that we can be safe from “terrorists”, the liberal use of the executive order is necessary to combat “terrorism”. Seeing a trend here? The government looks at the people and capitalized on our greatest fears. Right now terrorism, and in the cold war communism was the excuse for gross violations of the first amendment. The government controls us by fear; it makes us more afraid than we need to be, while “happening” to have a solution for it. George Bush got away with invading Iraq because of the fears of terrorism, even though Saddam and 9/11 weren’t connected, and there were no WMDs.

To put my rant back into perspective, I think it’s merely a case of excellent articulation by Obama. Nixon couldn’t get away with Watergate because he was a very sketchy fellow, and he had gaffes dating back to his 50’s career as VP under Eisenhower. However I think many of Obamas lies are so soothing that people won’t look any further for the truth. If Romney had been elected and now faced the same scandals, I think criticism would be fiercer just because his dishonesty has been exposed numerous times; however, because general criticism of Obama is irrationally associated with racism and far-right politics, it is not taken seriously. I think this ties in with what you said in the OP, John: critics become associated with those constantly outraged, and conspiracy theories are filtered out because there is a group of people who are constantly coming up with ridiculous theories, even though some conspiracy theories have credibility.

These are really just my speculations. To me, these scandals combined are worse than Watergate, yet the fact that he has received little attention over it hints that either Obama is somehow more appealing or the American populace has changed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

I don’t think the question is relevant. Most people will agree that modern science disproves much of God’s biblical responsibilities, but the goalpost keeps moving. I think the goalpost approaches the deistic god; that is, science will eventually be able to answer almost all of our questions except this one. The deistic god exists by definition, as all previous parameters have been removed: if the universe created itself, then who is to say that the universe isn’t the deistic god? And who is to say no gods were involved? The two claims are indistinguishable logically, and are therefore equally valid. So the answer to the question is entirely subjective; we can claim that either the creative mechanisms are associated with a god, or that the god is just a part of nature and not above it. The question is pretty meaningless.

It’s my opinion that if we really feel the need to associate the origin of existence with a single identity, which I would argue is a bolder and more speculative version of deism, then that identity would be so beyond our dimensions of existence that it would be indifferent to whatever we choose to do. I don’t feel the judgement of any god would be a subject of worry. But the answer to this question comes to me like this: does existence originate from existence, or does existence originate from God (who exists)? The two are really the same, but the latter brings in the unnecessary and confounding element of “God”. Therefore I opt for the former.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

Originally posted by slasher:

I have a gut feeling that the people who signed that petition wouldn’t mind that stuff happening. In fact, a lot of that I wouldn’t mind happening either to my Texas if I lived there.

The concept of forced dependence might work on states like Florida or New York, but Texan infrastructure, law etc. is already different from the US, and it seems likely that they would survive a transition to a new state and new governmental system. All of this is rather irrelevant, though, as 25000 or even 100,000 users on a website agreeing on something does not constitute popular opinion.

What I found most disturbing were the people who called for the exile or stripping of citizenship for those who signed secessionist petitions. The freedom of petition, and the freedom to say anything not threatening or classified within those petitions, are both protected by the 1st amendment. Furthermore, it is not illegal for a state to leave the union; congress maintains power to allow or disallow legal secession, however precedent has made it very clear that the federal government will not allow states to leave. So to talk about bypassing the most essential of our freedoms to punish dissenters is not demonstrating faith in the policies of the union which you wish to preserve, and it is also counter-intuitive. These people who call for such illegal means of deportation or exile are only fueling both people who legitimately believe in the right of secession and tinfoil hat theories.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Amanda Todd

Originally posted by UnleashedBeing:

UPDATE: Anonymous has found the bully for Amanda Todd. He is a 32 year old man by the name of Cody Mackson living in British Colombia.

Is this really important? Shouldn’t we be more worried about stopping people who are about to kill themselves rather than chasing down common internet harassers?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Amanda Todd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

You can get a lot more attention if you report the death of an attractive white girl who brought it upon herself instead of just some missing guy who was kidnapped and killed against his will.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

People who are outright racist, for example, are socially conservative.

I don’t know; even if what you say is true (which it isn’t) I think it’s better to be an outright racist than an unaware or in the closet racist.

Economically conservative people seek the economic disparity in society… which leads to social disparity.

…No. The ones who want distinct class identification and structure are the established elite who feel they are at risk. Why would they want a more competitive market when they are already at the top? The volatile market only appeals to people who are in a situation which is no desirable or sustainable.
They were still conservative, though.

What do you identify as conservatism, and upon what substantial doctrine or evidence is this based upon?
the GOP believes in limiting individual rights for specific groups, like women and homosexuals.

How? Can a man get an abortion? No, he is by nature inapplicable. That doesn’t mean outlawing female abortions is an attack on one group of people, as it could be a part of a universal doctrine which states that nobody should be allowed to kill unborn fetuses. This is not my view but it is a view, and it is not inherently sexist. Insensitive, maybe, but both men and women would be affected by such a law. I do not contest on the homosexual part though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Subjective Morality

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

If morality is subjective, why should the government be allowed to push its version of morality upon its citizens?

The theory of social contract. Basically, if you are born in a country then you are expected to follow a certain moral code. Some (mainly anarchists) see this as tyranny, and in a sense they are right, but nevertheless laws that outlaw murder or theft are popular tyranny.

To conclude, there is no objective moral code that justifies the actions of the government, nor a system that can possibly protect all moral tendencies. In an anarchy it’s just idealism that people will live and let live, and not form up into gangs and erect their own states. The idea of the current state, however, is that it is malleable and the moral code is not objective; it can be changed. Whether this holds has yet to be seen.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free market capitalism

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Ah, free market capitalism! What drove us to the 1929 and 2008 stock market crashes. It is such an efficient economic system, isn’t it!

I’m surprised this wasn’t addressed immediately.

Keynesian economics (specifically, the Federal Reserve) was responsible for the 1929 depression; you can hear it from me, or you can hear it from Bernanke himself. When such a big proponent of keynesian application admits that the Fed, not the market, caused the Great Depression, you should at least take skepticism to what you said earlier. As for the 2008 recession, I hear from just about everyone that the bank bailouts and the subsequent mismanagement of investments caused it, which is again not free market. Free market economists are OPPOSED to large involvement by the Fed, and OPPOSED to bailouts or subsidies of any kind.

Feel free to contest any of these points (except for the last one, I’m 100% sure it’s true).

yes, i think the USA is an unbridled free market capitalist country, relative to any other western nation

I’ve consulted a few sources which rank countries by economic freedom and I’ve found that Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Chile (not western?), Switzerland, and Denmark regularly rank above the US in terms of economic freedom. All of these countries that rank above us, as well as non-western countries like Singapore and Hong Kong, have some form of universal health care, just to put it into perspective (that is, even with a more privatized healthcare system we still rank below them).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

What “government policies” are overpricing American labor?

Minimum wage laws are a start. There are also civil rights laws which make it harder to fire employees that fall within a certain group of people, which increases the financial risk an employer is taking on.

whooooole lot of workers don’t feel their labor is “overpriced”

Of course they don’t. Because they think that if someone tells them they can get a job and make x amount of money, they will. Because they live in a first world country, and have been lied to by politicians with good intent. If a job has to be sent overseas to some unskilled worker, then clearly the domestic work is getting too expensive for employers to handle. There are so many liabilities towards shipping jobs overseas, yet they would still rather do it. That should be a clear indicator that the current mandatory pricing and protection of unskilled American jobs is unsustainable, or at least problematic.
3rd world labor & products are cheaper because they are….well, CHEAP…DIRTY…DANGEROUS

And yet we still buy them, because people are willing to accept a little risk if it means a much larger production rate. It’s like the whole health and unhealthy food thing; yes there are foods which are unhealthy, but unfortunately poor people don’t have the luxury to cope with the large stream of cheap, unhealthy food being removed.
DON’T WORK FOR SHIT

Source? Even my complicated electronic devices made in China have far more software than hardware malfunctions. They could be better but hey, that could mean that there would be way less computers and I wouldn’t get to have one at all.

It is well known just how bad China products are.

They are nowhere near the best, but that is, for the third time, ok, because it’s better that almost everyone gets something that’s a bit flimsy than only a few people getting a product that is designed much better. The rich can afford higher quality products and already buy them, the poor can’t, so why not keep a market which can provide both?

BUT, outsourcing of American jobs is likely by far bigger than all the others combined.

I have to call bullshit on this as well. Most of our economy is invisible money (hedge funds, stocks, loans), not transactions for real products being shipped over from China. Thus, the bank/wallstreet bailout and housing bubble easily had a worse effect on our economy then the constant outsourcing of jobs.

AND, ironically, most of the money (wages) paid the immigrants (by far Mexican) STILL goes out of country further shrinking our circular monetary flow

Lesson on economics. If someone comes into a country, participates in mutually beneficial transactions with local business, then leaves, both his country’s economy and ours benefits. If you’re a worker with an easily replaceable job, leaving the country isn’t going to hurt the economy at all, meanwhile any work they did benefits customers who felt the transaction was sufficient and the employers who made a profit. The money that they take over also is more valuable in Mexico than here, and so they are helping to improve Mexico’s economy by bringing back all this wealth. And if Mexico’s economy improves, then that’s good for the US, seeing as they are our neighbor and 3rd largest trading partner.

The point is that ppl who actually care if they lose money are investing.

But they likely won’t lose money because of the subsidies. That’s the point; the government knows wind energy is, by nature, financially risky, so they want to provide an economic incentive to build it anyway by making it cheaper. Wind farms are essentially low volatility investments; they won’t make much money but the risk of losing much is artificially low.

Of course, we are talking about the really efficient, intelligent, resourseful govt. here….lol.

Exactly. This needs to be addressed.

Alternative (to fossil fuel) energy is gonna be a huge whirlwind of experimentation, investment, challenges, govt. help//interference, etc. Fortunes will be made…will be lost. Nations will be built,,,others will wilt. ENERGY is the new “gold” that most interests sensible nations.

The alternatives are already out there. Solar, geothermal, and nuclear seem the most promising to me, though for now fossil fuels will still have to exist for our vehicles. The risk on all forms of energy investments, including fossil fuels, should be present in order for the experimentation to be successful. Anything that’s going to require private and public funding doesn’t seem like a sustainable form of energy production.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

It’s the “fat cat corps” SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS that is “losing” them

There’s an argument to be made, however, that government policies which overprice American labor force corporations to send jobs overseas to remain competitive.

And it’s not just outsourcing that is killing jobs. Immigration has obvious effects, and many businesses are failing. This is natural during a global economic recession, and the corporate interests are also quite natural. The problem is why the whole recession started in the first place, which relates to the housing bubble and bank bailouts, which did involve big business but was instigated by the government (for all purposes in this example, the Fed is part of the government. This is perfectly open for discussion). To claim the loss of jobs originates from only one variable, when there were many colluding interests which culminated in 2008, is ignorant.

AND YET,,,they continue to spend millions of PRIVATE INVESTOR DOLLARS putting them up…

The government gives green subsidies and tax cuts though, so it’s not all privately funded. It’s also worth noting that current regulations prevent this money from being better (?) spent on more realistic solutions to the energy crisis, such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) and geothermal plants. So whether those investors really think that this is the best possible investment really depends more on their political beliefs rather than economic knowledge. Nothing wrong with that, though; it’s their money.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Turkey Syria invade law

If Turkey motions to invade, 2 things could happen:

1. NATO tells Turkey to stop; Turkey obviously does not invade, and the civil war continues without intervention
2. NATO supports Turkey and a full intervention begins

In either situation, I don’t see how the result will be ideal. If the rebels solely win, the government will become more radically islamic, plus we have set ourselves up for more terrorist attacks by openly training guerrilla insurgents…again. If an intervention happens, either the same thing will happen or a puppet state will erect itself again and a revolution will happen a few decades later. Honestly, I think the best situation would have been for Al-Assad to be cautious with fighting the rebels, as now he has riled up the insurgents and strained his governments relations; he has set himself up for takeover by being too aggressive. The reason why I wanted Al-Assad was because at least his government was not at first incredibly abusive and was actually secular. When they turned more authoritarian they lost my support, but the rebels are no better, and anything NATO will put in place unfortunately won’t be either. An intervention on either side is just not necessary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

The main problem there, is how could we even begin to resell the idea of there being more realistic chouices to the citizens? I agree with Johnson’s policies (in the main, except for in healthcare), for example. But if I cast my vote that way, I’m willing to bet I’ll be the only state-registered voter to do so.

Healthcare is definitely one thing I don’t support the libertarian approach to. Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland are commonly used by them (and me) to show the potential of fiscally conservative markets; these countries are ranked higher than us in most lists of economic freedom measurement, yet they all have implemented universal healthcare. Yes, they have kept many of the good private aspects of healthcare, such as medicinal innovation, drugs and small operations, but they eliminated the problems that arise when private companies are expected to cover costs of those who get cancer, or those who have preexisting conditions for example. Unfortunately, Obama’s bill will largely not solve these problems, and I’m still curious as to whether the “penalty” for not owning health insurance is truly going to be a tax.

Citizen ignorance is an almost-unscalable problem.

Well, ultimately any idea to educate the populace on ANY idea, no matter who logical or simple, is idealism. I can understand, for example, why there are still a lot of people who do not believe in evolution, even though the evidence points that way.

My point is that the reasons people give for not voting for an ideal 3rd party candidate follow a circular logic chain. They won’t vote for 3rd party candidates because they won’t get elected, and they won’t get elected because nobody seems to vote for them. People have some idea that their vote is more relevant if it follows a large stream of voters who vote for the lesser evil, instead of voting for a less popular candidate. I would argue the opposite is true, but you do have a point. There is no way in which the problem can be solved currently when you have two parties on the spotlight with terrible policies. People are always afraid of one or the other, and will rally among the strongest opposition to what they fear, even if they don’t like it. I’d say a reasonable start, however, is to reform the prerequisites for entering the debates. If you are on the ballot in enough states to win without write-ins, then that should be enough. It does not make sense that the commission is pretending that these are the only 2 options then expecting people not to be confused when they see 4-6 people on the ballot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

Quick did Israel create internment camps?

The status of the west bank and Gaza is not a step up. Israel has violated property laws and civilian freedoms in their acquisition and maintenance of those territories. Here’s one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Israel yes. used atomic bomb? Israel no.

This should not be used to deter the fact that Israel 1. Has an estimated 400+ nukes which are purposefully unreported, 2. Israel is one of 4 countries in the world to not sign the NPT, and 3. Israel has implied the threat of a nuclear strike on its enemies (see: “whatever means necessary”). The US has way more nukes but does report them, has signed the NPT and is depleting its stockpile, and has not used the threat of nuclear strike as agressively as Israel since the 1960’s, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I have no doubt that any country that acquired nukes first during WW2 would have used them, so the whole “we were the only ones to use them” is a moot point.
wait why does that sound familiar?

I’d like to see the references to these Palestinian attacks stop. Not because I don’t acknowledge them, but because they are too often used out of proportion to justify Israel’s often criminal actions. The fact of the matter is that both sides have committed atrocities, which is why one shouldn’t be held as a moral standard for the other.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

Let’s establish a more comprehensive series of choices firstly.

Barack Obama (Democrat)
Mitt Romney (Republican)
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Jill Stein (Green)

These are the 4 candidates who are on enough ballots to potentially win presidency without write-ins, in descending order of current polling popularity. Virgil Goode, of the Constitution party, is the most prominent candidate that can win only with write-ins (his potential electoral gains are still 13 votes under the number required to win).

The reason why I bring this up is I’ve been well aware of the “bleak” state of affairs our election process is in. It seems like the sentiment of tiredness from the two party system, who are felt to have very uninspired policies, is popular. So, for all of you who are tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils, note that there are 2 other candidates this year who still have the electoral potential to win presidency. Third party candidates are only unelectable because people aren’t voting for them. This is bad. So, let’s have people be aware of the other policies out there, as America easily has the potential to have a multi-party system, as it did before. Here is a general overview of the policies that each candidate promotes:

Obama:
-Higher taxes, especially on capital gains and the rich
-Eventual withdrawal from the middle east
-Promoting economy via stimulus and bailout banks
-Subsidizing green energy, oil and farmers
-Increased enforcement of war on drugs
-Acceptance of controversial laws such as SOPA and NDAA
-Minor cuts on defence(?), overall federal expansion; does not stress the debt crisis

Romney:
-Lower taxes for all income brackets; primarily middle and upper class
-Likely increased presence in the middle east
-End stimuluses and bailouts
-Likely keep subsidies the same
-Increased enforcement of war on drugs
-Acceptance of controversial bills like SOPA, including potential bills that could outlaw abortion or gay marriage on a federal level
-Cuts on medicare and other entitlements, education, and other public services; outlines national debt as major problem

Johnson:
-Lower taxes for all classes
-ASAP withdrawal from middle east, gradual withdrawal from occupied countries like Germany and other locations of US bases (likely not those in E. Asia); normalize relations with formerly hostile countries
-End stimuluses and bailouts
-End or reduce subsidies for most businesses and individuals
-Decreased enforcement of current drug policy, ultimate goal to legalize all drugs
-No acceptance of controversial bills like SOPA and NDAA
-43% cut on nearly all federal expenditures with exception of SS and veterans benefits; eliminate certain programs and areas of spending

Stein:
-Higher taxes, especially on the rich; redistribution of wealth
-Eventual withdrawal from middle east, normalize relations with formerly hostile countries
-More stimulus, less bailout
-End subsidies for “unclean” business practices, continue/expand green subsidies
-Decreased involvement in war on drugs; legalization of marijuana
-No acceptance of controversial bills regarding internet, bills undermining 2nd amendment likely accepted
-Decrease defense budget, increase budget for stimulus, green energy and entitlements, especially SS

A nice thing that we have now is that for each point I addressed with each candidate, there are at least 2 contrasting ideas, and all 4 seem to have unique views on how government should operate. These choices are therefore much more representative of the differing politics of Americans, and each platform should be considered by anyone who will vote come November.

I personally will vote for Gary Johnson, because I have trouble finding a policy of his I don’t support at least 70%. Taxes on all groups are becoming a burden, and the tax code needs to be reformed. Our foreign policy has unnecessarily bloated our defense spending and strained our diplomatic relations. The stimuluses and bailouts have only seen the hands of bankers and other rich, and are not helping to end the wealth gap and economic recession. Subsidies are unfair ways of the government artificially promoting one business over the other and usurping the principles of popular consumership. The war on drugs has, like 20th century prohibition, yielded not only a rise in drug use but a black market and gang culture that is undermining the security of this country. Bills like SOPA are unwarranted and unacceptable breaches on the freedom and privacy of US citizens and should not be tolerated, even if the proposed intention is good. And finally, nearly all aspects of federal spending are bloated and wasteful, and part of governmental reform should include substantial cuts in the size of federal government. These are policies that he and I agree on, these are among the policies I deem most important in a candidate, and so I will vote for him. And for those who say voting 3rd party is a wasted vote, then let me just say that there is no greater waste of a vote than using your democratic right to endorse the lesser of two evils when a platform you agree with exists and is tangible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

Both sides are protesting, and there’s no clear indication that the “traditional marriage” side is bigger. I honestly imagine they’re smaller, since it’s a lot easier to stop buying from somewhere than it is to start buying somewhere.

The thing is, a lot of the people protesting against CfA never were CfA consumers and are just there to support LGBT or whatever, therefore they didn’t make them lose sales, while a lot of the people counter-protesting may become CfA consumers if they weren’t before, and some will eat there more often, adding to their profits. The targeted protesting population was probably not very invested in CfA to begin with, as it was pretty much known they were owned by conservative Christians, so I don’t think their boycotts have caused such a drop in profits; meanwhile, many CfA restaurants were packed and had 30 min waiting lines. And if protesting can be done simply by eating fast food, you better believe Americans will be doing this for quite some time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

Not stance of someone who is for “traditional” marriage but someone who is against marriage of others.

Again, he is not being bigoted or homophobic in the context. What he is saying is not that “gays don’t really love each other or should have rights”, but that he thinks that marriage is a holy union that is not defined just by love but also to do with the examples of Jesus Christ and the Bible. He defines religion by his own religious texts, and only by those texts does he rule gays out. We don’t know whether he references the Bible to justify his beliefs, or whether he is bound to the terms of his religion, so it makes more sense not to make assumptions. I don’t support his values but I still wouldn’t go as far as to call him bigoted.

A fast food restaurant targeting family people with specific religious conservative ideals.

That is not the exclusive target, nor is it the only group that is standing up for Chick Fil A. They do more to appeal to that group however they do not exist to serve only that group. Just like how the Whole Food’s owner is also very conservative, and yet gets plenty of business from liberals and centrists too. Chick Fil A also stands on more than it’s values as, from what I’ve experienced, Chick Fil A is better quality than its competitors. Furthermore, even if it was selectively targeting certain consumers that agreed with them then their customer base would have already been pretty small, thus when using the logic “the targeted customer population is too small”, arguing that therefore an increase in demand is unlikely is non-sequitur.
The communities have the expressed rights to decide such voluntary decisions based on their own biased and subjective impression of the People planing to build the store/building.

If the community actually owns the land and has a clear policy in regards to it then yes, they can. As it was, Chick Fil A is a private enterprise and owned the restaurants and the area for themselves, meaning that a public removal of their restaurant is nonsensical as they were not in violation of any law. If you can show thatthe cities of Boston and Chicago had policies which regulated what kinds of beliefs could be expressed by a CEO with business in their cities then fine, that’s on Chick Fil A then, as it stands however it seems like this was just an abuse of mayoral power probably used by those politicians to get them extra support from a targeted voter base for any upcoming elections. If that regulation exist I would still contest its constitutionality and usefulness, but I have not seen any specifically written law which justifies these actions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How did Europe get ahead of other nations of the world?

ok, even if you buy into the “we can’t believe such a small country” propoganda

It’s not propaganda, it’s just fact. The netherlands was a small country, and it is amazing how much they were able to expand overseas, but ultimately they could not triumph over the British.

your order of putting France before England is still wrong

Recall that in the 18th century France had the upper hand in fighting against England, and also had more territory and better relations with the natives in the Americas, meaning they were dominant in two sections of the world. This changed with the Seven Years War, as most of French America became British and the British had actually won for once. Then, the American Revolution happened and France greatly weakened Britain again, and throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries was the dominant power of Europe, fending off forces from all across Europe. Britain did not become dominant until after the fall of Napoleonic France, where the industrial revolution made it an economic powerhouse in Europe and America and dominant in Africa and India. The rise of the British Empire coincided with a weakening Dutch empire that could not compete, a tattered French empire and a crumbling Spanish empire (at the time, most of Latin America had revolted against Spain successfully), so the only time I would identify it as dominant in the colonial age would be after the French had their go.
and i’d argue that we were less warlike but more influential than France with their brief period of manic bloodshed.

Again, the French empire was not always so warlike, especially with their relations with native Americans. What they did in Canada and the west was build an economic empire designed to get France rich off of the fur trade, similar to what the Dutch and British were doing in India, which is why they tolerated the British in America for so long. You could argue that your empire was more influential however the OP implies that the discussion revolves around why the Europeans were able to surpass other civilizations and conquer them, and even from what you said in your post it simply feels like the Dutch were more relevant to other Europeans than distant civilizations. This is all stemming from a bit of laziness on my part, so I would list the Dutch as a relevant empire as well as the Portuguese and Russians if I were asked for a more comprehensive list.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How did Europe get ahead of other nations of the world?

not exactly. Western Europe isn’t exactly close to those, and certainly not directly on their trade routes. they were also largely if not wholely unaware of eachother.

I didn’t say that. I said that they had that advantage early on. The Romans, who were the ancestors of the Latin countries in Europe and partially the UK, had the benefit.

Spanish, then DUTCH, then British. only then, maybe, the French.

I’m going to assume you’re Dutch now, as I doubt any other sane person would react that way to semantics. The Dutch empire really never had the same influence or success that the Spanish, French and British did so I choose not to place them in the same category. For a small country it was quite the feat but it was never a dominant empire like the others.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

That claim only holds if you reject any and all context of the statement. In context, it is clear he is a bigot and a homophobe.

Proof?

Some did, no doubt, but that doesn’t answer the question. How many others were emptier than usual? And will the spike of " support" last as long as the drop in support?

A lot of new people are going to be introduced to the chain now, so overall I’d say they are going to profit and become larger.
Some ideas should be put on a pedestal compared to others. Racism is a fine example, one that tends to correlate well with homophobia as it happens.

You ignored my point. It doesn’t matter how batshit crazy anyone’s spoken beliefs are (frankly what he said wasn’t even that extreme), that person is still entitled to their beliefs and should not face legal repercussions from it. The consumers determine which beliefs make most sense for a CEO, or how much they care, by buying or not buying from a business; however, these decisions imply that those mayors are inherently representative of all consumer interests and can decide for everyone which companies they can buy from.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

1) What “people” are being shown…….

Those who are not aware of why we should not ban businesses where the owners have controversial beliefs.

2) Is there not “room” for the concept that the success of a business CAN BE JUDGED by what make the most sense……REGARDLESS of the satisfaction & population of the customers.

It can be judged that way, but not in the legal system. Being a nazi as CEO will hurt your business prospects for certain but it should not be made illegal as it is not inherently damaging to anyone’s rights or property. Defending rights and property (includes your life) of individuals seems like the only thing to warrant the government barring any business practice.