Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Axelgear

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 281
Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: October 12, 2010, 02:47:09 pm »
Well, Lurk, actually arguing against gun control if most guns used in crimes are illegal ones anyway makes sense. Namely because it shows law-abiding gun owners are not the ones committing crimes. Anyone willing to deal with a registry and waiting period and such isn't likely to go out and pop their neighbour in the skull. It happens, sure, but it's an immensely rare occurrence.

That said, though, you're right; you'll never agree with me. I don't know why, it might be because you don't believe in human rights as a concept, but I can't wager at all why someone who'd accept the fundamental principles of right to life and property would deny the freedom of use of the most able tool in defending those rights.

Right now i don't know enough about the real world statistics to comment.

Right now, the number one form of homicide in Canada is accidental death as a result of drunk driving, with 3,500 deaths or so annually. After that, it's 320 murders annually total, split roughly evenly between death by beating, stabbing, and shooting.

So up here in Canada, deaths by firearms are absolutely negligible and are usually 100% gang related.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: October 12, 2010, 01:38:57 pm »
Since it was brought up elsewhere, let's talk about guns!

Personally, I'm fine with gun registries. They don't tend to do diddly-squat for their cost, seeing how most crimes involving firearms are committed with stolen or illegal guns here in Canada, but if people are willing to fork over money that could go to better things, that's their beef. I'm also okay with gun permits that require people undergo a basic safety course, as long as the course is cheap. I'm even okay with three day waiting periods, frankly.

What I'm not okay with is laws that prevent you from carrying a weapon, concealed or not, as well as laws that prevent firearms ownership in general, or any law that inhibits the use of a firearm in the defense of oneself and one's liberties.

Movies / Harry Brown
« on: October 12, 2010, 09:54:53 am »
Apologies that I've not put up a review for a while, but I'm back, and with a powerful, if depressing, story staring Michael Caine.

Full review here:

Everything Else / Re: Youtube Video Bonanza
« on: October 03, 2010, 05:55:59 am »
<a href="" target="_blank"></a>

If we're going for the lulz...

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: October 01, 2010, 03:12:38 am »
It moves like a Republican, talks like a Republican, acts like a Republican...

Suppose we need to start prefacing Conservative with Economic or Social.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 30, 2010, 04:36:23 pm »
But the Conservative elements of american government aren't ultra-capitalist nihilists. They're mostly socially un-permissive and anti-scientific (yes, not ALL of them are like that blah blah).

They're also rarely conservative; usually they're just puppets for big business. Republicans are, at least. Libertarians tend to be bros.

Since science is the study of reality, and the evidence that statistically scientists and academics seem to ascribe more often to a 'liberal' political philosophy would imply there is a liberal bias to reality :P

I got the joke. I just think the joke is stupid.

I suppose it depends on what motivates her beliefs - I'd hazard she holds them from Biblical scripture and has gathered the rest of her reasoning later to support the conclusion she had previously made. Not that I can prove that.

She probably did, yes.

Actually, it doesn't. The instinctive imperative not to kill members of your own species is basically inherent in all animals with a very few situational exceptions like the consumption of the male arachnids and mantids as well as the infanticide present in some hierarchically structured species such as lions.

Humans kill each other all the time. It's estimated by some that up to 4% of the population are psychopaths who'd feel nothing if they killed another human being, and there's probably just as many sociopaths out there of similar mindset. The fact that we can't measure half a century, yet alone a full one, of recorded human history without a war SOMEWHERE on the planet suggests that the instinct in humans NOT to kill each other is not so deeply ingrained as much as it is encouraged by cooperative relationships that develop from interdependence.

So, what I am saying is that the "morale" not to kill other members of your own species is not something the ten commandments or the bible made up. They just wrote it down, but it existed long befre there were even humans.

Plus, religious belief systems of any kind are, by default, illogical as they don't center around facts but beliefs. That's why they are called "belief" systems.

Just a quick note: It's moral, not morale. It's a small, meaningless typo, but it's like when people write "rouge" instead of "rogue", it just bugs me.

I'll grant you that the belief system is largely irrational (irrational and illogical are different terms), but that doesn't mean the beliefs espoused by the people that follow them are, nor are their reasons for doing so. She could argue very sound and logical reasons for what she states. Doubtful, especially on the Creationism one or the "human brains in mice" one, but I can certainly see the reason she has for some of them.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 30, 2010, 05:56:23 am »
Wouldn't reality have a really ultra-capitalist, nihilistic bias? Just saying, it's a grand case of "Whomever has the power makes the rules" in the grand scheme of thing, regardless of pretense of right or wrong. No goals, no grand scheme viewable, just a slow grind into disintegration with everyone along for the ride and unable to stop the car.

Is it crazy to base your philosophy on logical thought within an innately illogical framework? (faith)
How can something that's derived from an illogical belief system be logical itself?

Well, thou shalt not kill comes to mind...

More seriously, what she's saying is based on her past teachings and moral beliefs but such things can be founded in logic as much as faith. Thinking that sex outside of marriage is bad can be backed up by a whole slew of logical reasons, many of which I'm sure she is aware of (or has at least been programmed to say), probably the grandest of which is unwanted pregnancy and resultant child-rearing.

Just because someone's beliefs are guided by faith doesn't mean they are inherently illogical.

Movies / Good Night, And Good Luck
« on: September 29, 2010, 07:56:33 pm »
It's frequent to hear people natter on about how the government or big business is controlling the media, and then offer their "evidence" of such an illicit embrace between journalism and these big bruisers, but far rarer is it to see not only a well thought out story but one that gives insight into such a thing without beating you over the head with it.

Full review here:

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 29, 2010, 06:30:40 pm »
If you think a group of people should be denied rights another has, then that's a pretty good indication that you're morally wrong.

On the issue of gay marriage, most certainly; it shows her to be a hypocrite in that area. Does it make her inconsistent or wrong here? Well, it might cast doubts, but it doesn't essentially make it so. What you are doing here is suggesting that because she might be wrong in one area (there are arguments to be made on both sides in the gay marriage debate), she must be wrong in all others. That's faulty logic.

Tangentially related: I need a little tag to put at the bottom of Devil's Advocate posts, but my only current one has swearing...

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 29, 2010, 05:50:57 pm »
People are biologically driven to smoke cigarettes?

It could be so argued. That point doesn't matter (it was only meant as an analogy, not a direct comparison); the message is the same. From the candidate's point of view, saying "Here, take condoms to have safe sex" is no different from offering "safe" cigarettes; you're telling them that a bad habit is expected and can be somehow mitigated when it shouldn't be done in the first place.

THAT is her point. No amount of safe sex education in the world can ease what is, from her view, both immoral, psychologically harmful, and culturally damaging. There's nothing somehow crazy about suggesting what is, derived from her ideas, a logically sound conclusion.

To clarify my argument here, I am not agreeing with her; I'm for sex education in schools. However, I am saying that saying that her argument is somehow crazy when it's derived logically from her beliefs is silly.

Then something is seriously wrong with her morality - not with condoms.

Oh Flisch, you appear to have tapped into the perfected understanding of the cosmos - the one true morality! Share with us, oh Mighty One, this grand gift that has eluded mankind since the beginning of its history!

Forgive the sarcasm, but saying her morality is wrong requires some backing up.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 29, 2010, 02:49:49 pm »
But having sex with condoms is less unhealthy than smoking.

Depends on who it's with, if it breaks or not, etc. Frankly, though, that still doesn't matter; it's the same message to someone with her morality.

...and we want to encourage sexuality and display it as a natural part of human existence, not a vice.

She wants sexuality displayed as a natural part of human existence too, just not in the same way you do. She's not saying sex is somehow unnatural, just that it has a proper expression, and handing out condoms to children is not encouraging the proper expression.

People aren't naturally pre-diposed to smoking, either. It is not more or less a definite that they will smoke their first cigarette (lasting for an embarrassing mere few seconds)...

It's not a definite that people will have sex. Some are asexual, some are just downright pathetic, some physically incapable, some will never find time for it... One could argue that people aren't naturally disposed to do many things in our society, but cigarette use does arise from a natural urge and cultural (both large and small) impression.

In any case, it's an invalid argument to attempt to diminish the comparison. It's still the government advocating (tacitly, if not actively) a behaviour she finds immoral.

Re: Inkling and Munchkin;

I think you're both right; it's drivel that I cannot understand why anyone would want to watch, but to suggest it's somehow degrading to women is to suggest that Fraiser is somehow degrading to the cultured (or opera fans for that matter), or that Seinfeld is degrading to Jews, or that Everybody Loves Raymond is degrading to Italians, or that the Bernie Mac show is degrading to black people. They're caricatures, not meant to be held up as examples.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 29, 2010, 01:01:33 pm »
Hard to be pro-freedom and be anti-contraception too :P

Not really, Sam. She's against giving kids condoms because she believes it gives them the wrong message; a bit like saying to kids "Hey, don't smoke, but we know that you're going to, so here are some nicotine patches and low-tar cigarettes". I can understand the logic there.

I dont get that. Why does anything need to be offensive to an entire minority or, in this case, sex? I like sex and the city, she doesn't. I don't speak for all womankind, neither does she. She should stop putting words in my mouth since she's all pro-women's rights and all...except if I have a husband. Then I need to be supplicant while remaining strong and independent...

Yeah, never really understood how she can say women can be strong and independent while also having a mandate of submission; gender doesn't automatically make you a good head of household.

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 29, 2010, 03:31:55 am »
Well, to be fair, pimps actually PROVIDE the service offered, whereas "psychics" commit fraud.

Also, I'd love to ask her whether she'd legalize prostitution. Hard to stay pro-freedom and be anti-legal-prostitution.

TV / Re: Adventure Time with Finn and Jake.
« on: September 29, 2010, 03:27:25 am »
Yes, if you don't mind paying (or, barring that, letting Megavideo grab you by the spheres...)

Everything Else / Re: Politics
« on: September 28, 2010, 10:28:51 am »
I took a gander through at this and some of it is internally consistent. The woman's got that brainwashed Baptist feeling to her, though, and about the time you get into the science/religion section, she goes into crazyland and never emerges.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 281