Messages

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.

1

General / Re: Excellent breasts.

« on: June 18, 2014, 07:52:35 PM »

It's good to know that nothing really changes.

2

General / Re: What Video Games Are You Currently playing?

« on: October 23, 2010, 05:28:26 AM »

New Vegas update:

"Awesome, I just launched a religious cult of ghouls into orbit... Holy fuck, it's 3.30 in the morning!"

Coffee is now essential for continued employment.

3

General / Re: Is Modern Physics near a working model for "Everything"?

« on: July 25, 2010, 05:59:00 PM »

299,792,458 meters per second (within a vacuum.)

4

General / Re: A candidate that voluntaryists could support?

« on: December 28, 2009, 05:32:32 AM »

Suppose that someone ran for office promising to only vote no, on everything. Would this avoid the moral problems of working in the system? Seems to me that it would.

The problem isn't the candidates, the problem is the system. Doesn't matter who you're voting for, the system stays the same; mandatory and enforced with (the threat of) violence.

5

General / Re: buying a new computer....

« on: December 16, 2009, 05:10:47 AM »

I'll build you a sick computer for a lower price than a competitive "Brand Name" system.  And I'll even give you a 1 year warrantee on it.

I'd offer to beat your quote, but honestly, the shipping alone would put me out of the market.

AMD is cheaper and still fast.  The Intel i7 is sexy but still too expensive for me.  I run a 3.0 Phenom x4 (actually a 2.6 I o/c'd to 3.0 on stock voltage) that cost me 150 bucks when I bought it last year.

To be honest, the i5 is nothing to scoff at, I've thrown the Core i5-6xx in my new baby and it works just shiny. With the GTX 260 (896mb) I can hit max graphics for virtually every new release.

If you're going to grab a decent laptop, expect prices to double over the box specs.

6

General / Re: Converting Friends to Liberty Ideals

« on: December 11, 2009, 05:39:55 PM »

Don't. Simply don't.

Do not attempt to convert, to preach, enlighten or otherwise shove your opinion in their faces. If it comes up naturally in convesation, feel free to inform them of your opinions and elaborate on your reasoning, but converson bad. No conversion.

7

General / Re: Tough Guys ONLY in this thread.

« on: October 20, 2009, 04:52:02 AM »

About a week ago in the Uk, a gang of drunken yobs was out terrorising people in Bristol. They encountered a stag party with a few of the guys in drag. A couple of the drag acts wandered off near the end of the night to get a cab and the yobs jumped them.

The guys in drag were cage fighters.

End of fucking story.

8

The Show / Re: For Self-Ownership but opposed to Doctor Assisted Suicide

« on: July 05, 2009, 04:21:21 AM »

Why should a purported healer, a doctor be involved in this enterprise?  Can't a pharmacologist, a pharmacist or a chemist set up the dosage?

Pharmacologists, pharmacists and chemists are types of doctors. A doctor is someone with a doctorate. You can get a doctorate is physics or chemistry as much as a docorate in medicine.

Also, while you haven't mentioned it, you're alluding to the "do no harm" aspect of of the Hippocratic oath like it's damn religious scripture. To this my responce would be that sometimes, leaving people alive is more harmful than letting them die.

Also, I'm still not seeing what the moral aspect here is; Person X wants to be killed in the hands of a skilled medical doctor, Medical Doctor A obliges. Matter over.

9

The Show / Re: For Self-Ownership but opposed to Doctor Assisted Suicide

« on: July 04, 2009, 06:08:27 PM »

Okay, so anyone except a doctor should be able to help you commit suicide?

Dude, that's messed up.

In a free society you would be able to buy all the drugs you needed to commit suicide.  You wouldn't have to beg for a doctor's help.  We currently live in a society where medicine is dominated by the governmen.  It would be very dangerous to put that kind of power in the doctor's (government's) hands.  As Sheldon Richman pointed out in the article I linked, in the Oregon Death with Dignity statute, the doctor is the one calling the shots.  I would hardly say that qualifies as an assistant.  I would never advocate using force to stop someone from contracting with a doctor but that mean I think its right.  Using your logic, a priest couldn't theoretically help someone commit suicide but I don't think that would be morally proper.

1. Doctor =/= State in this instance. Fallacious comparison.

2. I'm unclear whether you're stating that doctors shouldn't perform assisted suicides as a mandated legality or as a personal preference. If it's the former we have a point of contention, if the later, I reserve the right to disagree, but "whatever".

10

The Show / Re: For Self-Ownership but opposed to Doctor Assisted Suicide

« on: July 04, 2009, 01:24:20 PM »

Okay, so anyone except a doctor should be able to help you commit suicide?

Dude, that's messed up.

11

General / Re: Excellent breasts.

« on: February 10, 2009, 07:53:01 AM »

Still, I kinda wonder how often guys who like the more non-standard looking chicks-- chubby, modified, strangely proportioned-- hide their interest and pretend to like what they think is socially acceptable so that other guys won't make fun of them.  I know you're not doing that, but I think it does happen.  You could call it "Cindy Crawfordization."  It's sort of a race toward the generic. 

If by "hide" you mean not openly stating the fact every time the topic of women comes up, then it probably happens a fair bit. If you mean outright lying and pretending to prefer "barbie girls" I don't think that's a very frequent occurrence, at least not in the social circles I've been accustomed to. When men give each other a hard time, it's usually intended to be in at least humour, if it fails at good humour. It's unlikely that most guys in my experience would seriously denounce another preferences short of necrophilia/bestiality/rednecks or the like.

Now less diatribe, more boobage:

12

The Polling Pit / Re: My cousin is thinking about asking this girl out

« on: December 20, 2008, 08:26:59 AM »

Hit it and quit it.

But be nice about it.

I'd assume that's a given, coming from me.

I spent the last seven hours talking to a guy who is 3x divorced, and is now engaged to be married again. 

Never once did we say "hit it". 

Lets not forget I'm an asshole. 

99.9% of guys are assholes to some degree, so that's not really much of qualifier.

It's more of a youth thing, not necessarily "younger generation" - just younger. It's indicative of how young men think. I've got a couple of friends in their late 20's, early 30's range and you can occasionally catch them snickering when we use these type of qualifiers, because to them, it's somewhat juvenile. They've found more eloquent and flattering ways to avoid being seen as "a pussy" in the eyes other other men, or even have the maturity to just no longer consider that a motivation on their actions and speech.

This is one of the few areas in which I differ online to reality. I would never seriously say "I'd hit it" about a real girl I was interested in, maybe because most of my friends are female I've just developed better ways around it. In fact, I generally flippantly dismiss the questioning; "Sure, she's attractive, but I don't know her, man." Generally accompanied, by an offer of drinks and a little anecdote.

I digress; what I'm saying, is that using that little phrase is more indicative of a guys mental maturity and experience than as a genuine "asshole" qualifier. If a girl finds the phrase unpleasant, it probably means she's interested in a higher caliber of guy.

13

The Polling Pit / Re: Would You Ever Pay For A Hooker?

« on: December 03, 2008, 08:58:27 PM »

If I actually live to be a 40 year old virgin, I might consider it. But I still have 15 and a half years against that possibility.

how would you feel about someone else buying you a hooker?

Just about the same. Sex doesn't mean all that much to me, unless it's within the context of a real relationship.

You don't miss what you've never had.

Yeah, basically. And I'm pretty sure that if I start doing it now for its own sake, then it won't mean anything to me when I finally do have a relationship.

Seperating the concepts of "love" and "sex" isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it gives you a deeper understanding on what love actually means to you.

14

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: November 24, 2008, 05:24:49 AM »

And every other system.

No, that's exactly the opposite of the truth. Polycentric law means you get to choose which code of law you will follow, without being penalized for neglecting others (which includes not having to move to the next country, state, county, city, or municipality). It would exist if, say, insurance companies formed their own codes of conduct (legal orders, effectively) to which people could subscribe and unsubscribe at will. All states are, by definition, not polycentric. Even if they have multiple legal orders within the same geographic area, their jurisdictions are fixed exclusively to their respective areas. States are monocentric legal institutions.

A state may be monocentric but a multitude of states that exist today is polycentric. Your caveat for free movement between varies types of law is panarchy, not polycentric.

15

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: November 23, 2008, 06:19:00 PM »

I've always favored using the term "polycentric law" instead of "anarchy".

No.

Yes. It's a perfectly accurate way to describe it.

And every other system.