 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Spideynw
Show Posts Topics
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.
Pages: [1]
2
The Show / Startpage.com
« on: September 27, 2009, 11:38:28 AM »
I found the segment on startpage.com to be very fascinating. I am definitely going to use it. Does anyone know if there is some website I can go to that has the bullet points listed out of the arguments made in the segment? I would like my friends and family to start using this search engine, but I know if I just send them a link to it and say "this is a secure search engine", they will probably just ignore it, and I am really unable to explain why it is secure as opposed to google.
4
The Polling Pit / In which era were you born in?
« on: June 29, 2009, 05:22:18 PM »
I think this poll is better than asking for a person's age, since a person's age changes, but the year born does not.
5
The Show / Labels, specifically "libertarian"
« on: June 17, 2009, 11:29:29 AM »
I just wanted to say I am sympathetic to both Ian's and Mark's pov (point of view). First of all, from Mark's pov, he is not necessarily a "small-government Republican", because really, how many Republicans believe in legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Mark believes those should be legalized. So labeling himself a "Republican" is not really very valid, even if you add "small-government" to it.
On the other hand, he does believe in government. Ian does not. So how can both groups be clumped into being labeled as "libertarians"? And supposedly, a libertarian believes in liberty, and how can one have liberty when his or her property is taken without his or her consent through taxation?
On the other hand, he does believe in government. Ian does not. So how can both groups be clumped into being labeled as "libertarians"? And supposedly, a libertarian believes in liberty, and how can one have liberty when his or her property is taken without his or her consent through taxation?
7
The Show / Shooting a girl on your property
« on: April 13, 2009, 04:45:09 PM »
On the show the other night, I think Friday, they were talking about how the law would resolve shooting a girl for being on your property, for nothing more than being on your property.
For the law to be just, it has to be equitable. This scenario deals with the property rights of two individuals. The girl owns her body, even though she is on the property of someone else. Or at the least, the parents own their girls body. And then the owner of the land is the property owner of the land. Shooting someone for just being on your land would be considered excessive, in a civilized society. I never heard anyone on the show arguing about the fact that the girl, or at the least the girl's parents, owned her body. So the purpose of the law would be in resolving the property violations, the one being the girl trespassing, and the second being the land owner destroying the girls property, her body and life. I think just about any reasonable judge would say that taking a life is far worse than trespassing, and that the action taken by the land owner was far in excess of what the land owner should have done.
As to the solution being "democratic", it most definitely would not be "democratic". Democratic would be the majority imposing their will on the minority. The man who shot the girl could accept the courts decision, whatever it is, as well as the people who brought the suit. Or, either party could still disregard the decision, in which case they would be giving up the protection of a "fair" court of law. In this case, if the man who shot the girl decides to disregard the decision, he would be opening himself up to some other kind of retaliation from the offended party (the parents). If they decide to kill him for retaliation, then the case would go to court and the whole process started again, but probably with not as stiff a sentence than if he had complied with the court. If, on the other hand, they decide to kill him, even though he complied with the court, then they would go to court, and they would probably face a pretty stiff sentence. Regardless, it has nothing really to do with being democratic.
For the law to be just, it has to be equitable. This scenario deals with the property rights of two individuals. The girl owns her body, even though she is on the property of someone else. Or at the least, the parents own their girls body. And then the owner of the land is the property owner of the land. Shooting someone for just being on your land would be considered excessive, in a civilized society. I never heard anyone on the show arguing about the fact that the girl, or at the least the girl's parents, owned her body. So the purpose of the law would be in resolving the property violations, the one being the girl trespassing, and the second being the land owner destroying the girls property, her body and life. I think just about any reasonable judge would say that taking a life is far worse than trespassing, and that the action taken by the land owner was far in excess of what the land owner should have done.
As to the solution being "democratic", it most definitely would not be "democratic". Democratic would be the majority imposing their will on the minority. The man who shot the girl could accept the courts decision, whatever it is, as well as the people who brought the suit. Or, either party could still disregard the decision, in which case they would be giving up the protection of a "fair" court of law. In this case, if the man who shot the girl decides to disregard the decision, he would be opening himself up to some other kind of retaliation from the offended party (the parents). If they decide to kill him for retaliation, then the case would go to court and the whole process started again, but probably with not as stiff a sentence than if he had complied with the court. If, on the other hand, they decide to kill him, even though he complied with the court, then they would go to court, and they would probably face a pretty stiff sentence. Regardless, it has nothing really to do with being democratic.
8
General / Wikipedia - Public Education
« on: March 25, 2009, 09:45:17 PM »
Please feel free to help me edit this article. I have added a section "arguments against".
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References
9
The Polling Pit / Are you for or against patents?
« on: February 16, 2009, 01:46:02 PM »
So, are you for or against patents? If you are for patents, do you think they should be modified and how?
Pages: [1]