x
Click to expand
Latest users (5): akkere, asliceoffriedgold, cabbagemayhem, lulzforalpsplane, pebar, anonymous(33).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #47841 - pebar ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
From wiki
On March 29, 2005, Clinton called the popular video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a "major threat" to morality. She said, "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitization that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different color or they're from a different place."
User avatar #47869 to #47841 - undeadwill (09/21/2013) [-]
So.....
Lets get this straight. The game is to blame because the current generation of parent's don't have the fucking back bone to tell their kids no?
#47865 to #47841 - moser (09/21/2013) [-]
Yeah, cause parents who would buy an M rated game for their kid aren't to blame at all.
Yeah, cause parents who would buy an M rated game for their kid aren't to blame at all.
#47848 to #47841 - CapnInterwebz (09/20/2013) [-]
I'm not sure where to start, so I'm not going

#47847 to #47841 - jadewest (09/20/2013) [-]
goddamnit Clinton
goddamnit Clinton
#47846 to #47841 - maddboiy ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
Hillary Clinton thinks she has a valid opinion on video games
User avatar #47840 - pebar ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
thoughts on "three strikes you're out" laws?
User avatar #47885 to #47840 - jewishcommunazi (09/21/2013) [-]
What does that mean?
User avatar #47886 to #47885 - pebar ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
Most violent criminals have past offenses and these laws make it so the 3rd time you're caught with a felony, the sentence is greatly increased.
User avatar #47887 to #47886 - jewishcommunazi (09/21/2013) [-]
Sounds like a good idea.
User avatar #47867 to #47840 - undeadwill (09/21/2013) [-]
Really just Meh.

I mean if you continuously fuck up something fuckry with the criminal however the charges need to be serious not like stealing something valueless.
#47834 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
I can't believe how some people can take an incident like the Navy base shooting, which makes a strong pro-gun case, and use it to further their gun-control agenda.
User avatar #47868 to #47834 - undeadwill (09/21/2013) [-]
Can pebar explain how it makes a strong pro gun case?

Also because people like to be told what to believe.
#47870 to #47868 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
what
User avatar #47871 to #47870 - undeadwill (09/21/2013) [-]
How was it a strong pro gun case? I don't pay attention if I can help it.
#47874 to #47871 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (09/21/2013) [-]
Because a Navy base is one of the most secure, and highest gun-control enforced places we have. This incident shows how ineffective gun-control really is, and that even a very large police force isn't enough to ensure the immediate safety of anyone.
User avatar #47875 to #47874 - undeadwill (09/21/2013) [-]
Indeed.
#47838 to #47834 - pebar ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
Really?
Joe Biden thinks a double barrel shotgun is easier to aim and shoot than an AR-15. He thinks you should shoot through a closed door before ID'ing your target. There was one politician who thought magazines had a one-time use before you had to throw them away. These people think putting up "you must be defenseless to be welcome here" signs don't advertise defenselessness but actually keep people safe. These people think there isn't already a massive market for guns. These people don't understand that a vast majority of gun crimes are caused with pocket pistols that you could shove up your ass without much effort.

You expect these people to think logically? Using massacres to push an agenda is simply an emotion-based tactic to try and get votes.
#47831 - Major Mayhem (09/20/2013) [-]
undeadwill, as requested
User avatar #47832 to #47831 - undeadwill (09/20/2013) [-]
I said not to do Texas.

SANDY CHEEKS GONNA BASH UR BOOTY.
#47829 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
The papacy has lost all legitimacy. Whatever hope the Church had of regaining a base in Europe and perhaps influencing a reformation in the West is ogre.

www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html

>love before dogma

wat le fug
User avatar #47835 to #47829 - feelythefeel (09/20/2013) [-]
The way I see it, the Papacy is trying to slowly but surely appeal to the common (Read: Moderate) westerner so as to try to reverse the ground that they're losing. There's honestly nothing wrong with that, it actually helps drive the world forward a step.

I honestly can't find a complaint in this. It's not like the main thing that he's saying is even objectively false.
User avatar #47843 to #47835 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
They're obviously not going to get anywhere by alienating their main base. This reminds of Republicans attempting to appeal to illegal immigrants.

What is left of the Catholic Church if its hierarchy embraces liberalism? Absolutely nothing; it might as well merge with an atheist organization pushing the same values.

It may seem good to you since this signifies the Church's downfall officially...
User avatar #47851 to #47843 - feelythefeel (09/20/2013) [-]
I don't think the kind of people alienated by this are people the church wants to be associated with anyways.
User avatar #47852 to #47851 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
Church doesn't want to be associated with religious people? K.
User avatar #47853 to #47852 - feelythefeel (09/20/2013) [-]
You do realize that you don't have to be extremist to be religious, right? There are plenty of moderate religious.
User avatar #47854 to #47853 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
Like the "cultural Catholics" who go to Church once a year?
User avatar #47855 to #47854 - feelythefeel (09/20/2013) [-]
Them, and the people who are serious about their religion and keep it out of other people's business. You know, the polite Catholics.
User avatar #47856 to #47855 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
The type of "Catholics" whose children will drop of religious believe entirely! The Church needed firmness to reverse their losses in Europe. It seemed that Paul II made a compromise between firmness and looseness, though this has been put to an end with the new Pope. The Church, by nature, must be a Conservative institution or it becomes a joke. You rejoice at this reverse of logic because the Church will capitulate.

Like I made a connection to before, the Church trying to appealing to edgy teens who think gay marriage is the pinnacle of social justice will do about as much good as Republicans trying to appeal to illegals who cherish government cock.

"Polite Catholics" is another term for Cultural Catholics who can count on their fingers how many times in their lives they went to Church. I am not religious myself and indeed am happy that this joke of a Catholic Church is falling apart inside, though I wish you would admit it yourself.
User avatar #47857 to #47856 - feelythefeel (09/20/2013) [-]
I'm not afraid to admit that the Church is falling in numbers rapidly, nor that I'm happy with it. Yet I think that this is a step in the opposite direction. You seem to assume that all Catholics either hate everyone or aren't actual Catholics, when there's a whole demographic of religious that take their lifestyle seriously and don't get in a hissy fit when other people get rights. Maybe you don't see it from where you are, since you seem to give off a southern USA vibe to me, but elsewhere (Such as here in Canada and even is western Europe I would suspect) not all religious people reside on such extremes.
User avatar #47858 to #47857 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
The problem with that is, it is not extreme to oppose homosexual marriage or abortion. The Church has long stressed the difference between the sin and the victim. The Church has long valued the institution of marriage and the life of the child.

But that there is a Pope openly advocating Catholics to jump on board the postmodern train shows that religion is on its way out. You say that this isn't so, but what type of Catholic advocates for abortion or homosexuality, which are connected to the decadent lifestyles religious people by nature would detest?

There is a difference between the Protestant denominations which have lost touch with the Bible in favor of dildos, and the Catholic Church which views the Bible as everything.

Given this, Catholics cannot falter on their "dogma," which Pope Francis called it, without causing the entire religion to lose legitimacy. He might as well disband the unified Catholic Church if he views religion like that.

In summary, it may be that the Church is dying but it didn't have to pronounce itself dead.
User avatar #47864 to #47858 - feelythefeel (09/21/2013) [-]
Religion is on its way out, yet it's no bad thing that they're trying to reverse it by being more accepting of others. Parts of Catholicism (Especially the culture) needed to be updated, and staying alive is as good an incentive as any.
#47828 to #47825 - byposted (09/20/2013) [-]
I am making a list of the hypocrisies to post here but there is just too much to write about...I've already reached 6,000 characters which equates to three full posts on FJ.

McCoon's writers really make me angry.
0
#47830 to #47828 - byposted has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47797 - jewishcommunazi (09/19/2013) [-]
What do you think about globalization?
User avatar #47833 to #47797 - undeadwill (09/20/2013) [-]
Economically? Love it.
Government? No.
User avatar #47916 to #47833 - schnizel (09/22/2013) [-]
Yes, lets have chinks work in sweatshops for us.
User avatar #47941 to #47916 - undeadwill (09/22/2013) [-]
Why not?
User avatar #47837 to #47833 - pebar ONLINE (09/20/2013) [-]
more outsourcing jobs to cheap labor because of heavy domestic government restrictions
yay!!
User avatar #47839 to #47837 - undeadwill (09/20/2013) [-]
All the more reasons to get rid of them.
User avatar #47822 to #47797 - byposted (09/19/2013) [-]
It is inevitable in the standard sense but Western countries should not embrace it by outsourcing their jobs/capital and destroying their borders. The interests of the nation lay ahead the interests of millionaires. The "multiculturalism" aspect applies too. Western countries should not rely on brown people to replace their dying old people. The problem of a lot of dying old people can be solved through embracing low-pay industry and manufacturing. Thus Obongo's pleas for "making college affordable for all famblies" only seals America's future fate as a third world country.

This reminds me of something funny. I was reading a random book I had put on my reader which was following the premise of alien life having existed on earth. The author wrote something to the effect of, "THESE PROOFS OF ALIENS HAVING EXISTED ON EARTH SIMPLY BEING COINCIDENCES MAKES ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS NATIONALISM STILL BEING IMPORTANT." Laughed, stopped reading, turned on Michael Savage and heard him talk about his most favorite clam restaurant in the 1980s.
User avatar #47808 to #47797 - kyuubey (09/19/2013) [-]
It depends. Globalization can work in two ways, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. I myself am in favor of the second one.
User avatar #47804 to #47797 - pebar ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Not a fan.
Different cultures exist so that different people can feel comfortable in a setting that suits them. When you have one giant culture, suddenly running down the street naked is considered a bad thing. Globalization is very much against freedom.
User avatar #47809 to #47804 - jewishcommunazi (09/19/2013) [-]
That, and it may threat democratic values too.
User avatar #47814 to #47809 - jewishcommunazi (09/19/2013) [-]
*Threaten.
User avatar #47799 to #47797 - moser (09/19/2013) [-]
As time goes on it's becoming more and more necessary.
Humanity will benefit by working together to reach common goals as our resources become more and more limited on a world where our population continues to grow.
User avatar #47800 to #47799 - jewishcommunazi (09/19/2013) [-]
Won't worldwide oligopolies eventually form as globalization progresses and multinational companies get rid of more local businesses by being able to provide things at cheaper prices?
User avatar #47803 to #47800 - moser (09/19/2013) [-]
We already have multi-national companies that are doing just that. International trade isn't always going to be so expensive that small local business can not participate. With the Internet and all what's left for globalization is mostly based on the cost of transporting matter long distances, and that cost will go down as we develop more efficient means of travel. Not for today but some time in the future.
User avatar #47798 to #47791 - byposted (09/19/2013) [-]
>fags aren't allowed to buttfuck in public
>ZOMG DISCRIMINATIONS

You're lucky that they are not hanging from the streetpoles.
User avatar #47810 to #47798 - kyuubey (09/19/2013) [-]
Pretty sure fucking in public is illegal regardless of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Then again you always have to rely on fallacies and exaggeration for your comments since in your position you simply cannot rely on logic and facts.
User avatar #47819 to #47810 - byposted (09/19/2013) [-]
Also, the term "discrimination" has no factual basis. Homosexual activists only rely on their feelings when they shout "discrimination," much like a negro who gets fired from a job for stealing. It is very funny how many of these public-sector low-lifes fall for the old "money laying on the side" test at their jobs.

"Discrimination" implies human equality which is your favorite word: a fallacy.
User avatar #47812 to #47810 - byposted (09/19/2013) [-]
You're a very intelligent person who can see right through my "fallacies" and "exaggerations." You see, I was simply making a lie up about there being an epidemic of homosexuals buttfucking in public so that I could win a majority opinion on this board. And this is also totally based on my feelings because my uncle liked to touch me when I was young and now I do it to my children. Since I live in Jersey and that fat fuck Christie banned my sex-counseling, now I'm left to a life of browsing the few .onion cp sites that remain.

"Buttfucking" is a general term applied to homosexual agitation or propaganda. In "Pride" parades you can feel violated by the vulgar display which sometimes literally does include buttfucking.
User avatar #47788 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]


why the fuck did my link disappear?
#47770 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Do you think that if fascism would not only promise not to kill all the gays but to accept them so long as they as conservative as any couple, you could count as allies against the Jews?    
   
Remember we haven't forgotten that the Zionists hate gay people just much as extremist Christians. We would be able to coexist.    
   
gif very related.
Do you think that if fascism would not only promise not to kill all the gays but to accept them so long as they as conservative as any couple, you could count as allies against the Jews?

Remember we haven't forgotten that the Zionists hate gay people just much as extremist Christians. We would be able to coexist.

gif very related.
User avatar #47818 to #47770 - akkere ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Most fascists back then (in terms of Nazis and fascists in general) and even today see homosexuals as mentally ill and weren't exactly readily able to accept them unless they were really tightly shut closets, to the point they're not aware they swing the other way.

If there ever was an alliance, it'd be with a large degree of tension, where the fascists constantly think about having you put away to be cured or executed, which ultimately leads to the alliance ending eventually when they feel they don't need you anymore, if they even consider using you at all as anything other than slave labor.

Coexisting is painfully unlikely.
User avatar #47821 to #47818 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Look below. I've made some progress.
User avatar #47824 to #47821 - akkere ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
The only thing I see is proof that'd be an extremely fragile alliance that would inevitably end. It seems to be pretty stern that no matter how formal homosexuals are willing to be, they'll still be second-guessed at every turn.

Even if the more forgiving of the fascists decides to try to look past their near-set-in-stone beliefs of homosexuality being a mental illness to achieve the goal, that's not going to stop them as a whole from trying to force you to conform and surrender to treatment or execution.
Homosexuals would never be able to live comfortably because fascists would be imposing a high standard for them to follow, partially because they want to pressure them into being forced to conform, and partially because they want them to fail to prove them right.

It'd be wiser for homosexuals to retain their resources and build up a faction of their own in the event that fascists get back on the rise, so they can deliver a complete fight or flight response in the worst case scenario.
User avatar #47826 to #47824 - undeadwill (09/20/2013) [-]
Indeed.
0
#47796 to #47770 - princessren has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47795 to #47770 - kyuubey (09/19/2013) [-]
Why would homosexuals even want to waste their time joining a bunch of edgy unscientific 14 year olds that only turns society backwards.
User avatar #47806 to #47795 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Because they want to kill us. So its better to make them an ally than an enemy.
User avatar #47772 to #47771 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Why maybe?
User avatar #47773 to #47772 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
because I'm not sure what the question is because I'm brain dead from legal exam

are you saying that if fascists accepted gays, gays could be allys against jews?
or am i misreading this
User avatar #47775 to #47774 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
hmm
only if they were fascists themselves
#47776 to #47775 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Not an issue as some gay people will support it. I hope.
#47777 to #47776 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
I don't know if I'd support it to be honest, fascism kinda urks me
User avatar #47781 to #47777 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Rather make an ally then an enemy.
User avatar #47783 to #47781 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
true
User avatar #47767 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]


Heart warming.

inb4 liberal goddess.
Shut your whore mouth.
User avatar #47792 to #47767 - jewishcommunazi (09/19/2013) [-]
It's not showing anything.
User avatar #47768 to #47767 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
ohgodthisisamazing
User avatar #47769 to #47768 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
its the best thing ever.
User avatar #47766 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
Game Theory: Video Games Predict YOUR FUTURE!

so
is any of this like
possible?
User avatar #47755 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
So. That's it. The recent post from Pebar about the Police standing by and allowing people to be murdered leads me to finally bring this up.

I talked to a woman today at Walmart, who spent only a few moments online and discovered what our government has been doing and is scared. The American public are aware, they are scared and they want need a hope to hold on

This subject needs to be discussed. Its obvious to me now that the current administration has gone too far. We tried democracy, we need to discuss whether revolution is a viable option at this point. I would rather wait till after the next election to see if Rand Paul is chosen but if we should fail in the last hope from oppression I say we begin the discussion that we all fear.

If we should fail democratically should we revolt? And if so how? I'm not preaching violence yet it must be considered in this conspiracy. And if we are too be violent how can we be without harming the innocents? And most impotently how can we televise this revolution for the world to see? We would never win a fair fight. I'm expecting this. But if we can win the hearts and minds of the American public through media they will fight for us.

So /politic/ I ask you, what should we do?
User avatar #47794 to #47755 - moser (09/19/2013) [-]
"We tried democracy, we need to discuss whether revolution is a viable option at this point."

A swat team fucked up therefore proving that democracy is no longer a valid form of government so lets start a civil war? Really?
What exactly do you intend to replace democracy with?
User avatar #47786 to #47755 - pebar ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
I'd rather start a movement to have 2/3 of the states start a convention to reform the federal government.
User avatar #47787 to #47786 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
And if that fails?
User avatar #47789 to #47787 - pebar ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
Then the people are not on your side and a revolution would be doomed to fail. No one would respect the authority of a rogue revolution. Either get the states to intervene or everyone flee to Texas and we secede.
User avatar #47790 to #47789 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
Indeed.
#47758 to #47755 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
eh well it's not my country that I live in, nor am I a citizen of the US, it won't be my fight.  Tho If I've moved to canada by then it might be a different story, because closer and stuff    
   
A revolution might work, and as much as you and I and others would love for no civilians to be hurt, that simply doesn't happen in war or revolutions, so It should be more about getting it done quick and clean, as to minimise civilian casualties, it would also not be wise to just have one ruler or leader of the newly revolted United States, also some people would resist, perhaps whole states resisting the revolution   
   
I have no idea yo
eh well it's not my country that I live in, nor am I a citizen of the US, it won't be my fight. Tho If I've moved to canada by then it might be a different story, because closer and stuff

A revolution might work, and as much as you and I and others would love for no civilians to be hurt, that simply doesn't happen in war or revolutions, so It should be more about getting it done quick and clean, as to minimise civilian casualties, it would also not be wise to just have one ruler or leader of the newly revolted United States, also some people would resist, perhaps whole states resisting the revolution

I have no idea yo
User avatar #47763 to #47758 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
I'm hoping we can get some states on our side
User avatar #47764 to #47763 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
perhaps you could

time will tell if there even is some sort of revolution
User avatar #47765 to #47764 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
I honestly hope we won't need one. But alas we just might.
User avatar #47756 to #47755 - feelythefeel (09/19/2013) [-]
Maybe wait a decade or so when the average standards of living dip substantially. It's a sad fact that nobody's going to do anything until they're next to impoverished.

Also, revolution because a woman you met at Walmart is displeased with the government? Come on, you gotta have a better reason than that.
User avatar #47757 to #47756 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
It was a sign that more and more people are becoming aware. They know what the government is doing is wrong. They aren't sheep following the herd they are getting informed. Both the old and young are displeased with the current system. Its a sign that a revolution could work.
User avatar #47759 to #47757 - feelythefeel (09/19/2013) [-]
Being aware a corrupt government =/= sufficient motivation for revolution

Sorry, just a stone cold fact. Another reason you might want to wait is that the military is nothing to sneeze at right now. Not just the American military; if your revolution is big enough you'd probably have half the world's armies on your ass before you can say "Autobots, roll out". Waiting a bit might lessen that effect, if the resource conservationists have anything to their prophesies.
User avatar #47762 to #47759 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
True that.
User avatar #47760 to #47759 - roll (09/19/2013) [-]
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
User avatar #47761 to #47760 - feelythefeel (09/19/2013) [-]
...epatitis.
User avatar #47752 to #47748 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
oh you have to be kidding me
User avatar #47753 to #47752 - jadewest (09/19/2013) [-]
and people say "we dun need guns let da polic handl it"
yeah that logic sure worked
#47749 to #47748 - CapnInterwebz (09/19/2013) [-]
Benghazi 2: Electric Boogaloo    
   
So here's what I gather: the SWAT team held off because they were unsure of the scope of the attack and wanted to be available to rescue government officials if the need arose. So, civilians were allowed to be murdered -- despite the fact that a fully armed SWAT team was just blocks away from the incident -- "just in case" something else came up. that something being entirely hypothetical and hardly possible.   
   
Dayum shame.
Benghazi 2: Electric Boogaloo

So here's what I gather: the SWAT team held off because they were unsure of the scope of the attack and wanted to be available to rescue government officials if the need arose. So, civilians were allowed to be murdered -- despite the fact that a fully armed SWAT team was just blocks away from the incident -- "just in case" something else came up. that something being entirely hypothetical and hardly possible.

Dayum shame.
User avatar #47731 - pebar ONLINE (09/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #47754 to #47731 - undeadwill (09/19/2013) [-]
France is only doing it because they watch American TV including TLC and in typical french fashion of "The US sucks hurrrrr durrr" And they see everything Americans do as abuse.

While I don't like them, I do not believe it is the place of the state to push children like this.
User avatar #47751 to #47731 - moser (09/19/2013) [-]
(Speaking in terms of the same happening in the United States) I think making a child participate in a competition without the child's consent (or that a child is not mentally developed enough to give such consent) would need to be legally defined as child abuse before a ban on beauty pageants would be ethical.

Other than that, it's not the governments role to enforce or degenerate culture and tradition unless it's necessary to safeguard the rights of the people.
User avatar #47747 to #47731 - akkere ONLINE (09/19/2013) [-]
I feel like the bigger problem with child beauty pageants is how batshit insane the parents are who usually pressure their kids into these things. There's like a show on TLC that showcases that sort of thing, and the poor kids have to go through so much shit that's forced down their throats, you'd think it'd be considered abuse.
I'm glad and all that something's being done to recognize the problem, it's just that I'd think the TLC skit called for action more than a Vogue magazine cover.
User avatar #47741 to #47731 - jadewest (09/18/2013) [-]
I'm alright with this
User avatar #47733 to #47731 - jewishcommunazi (09/18/2013) [-]
You're ok with child beauty pageants or with banning them?
User avatar #47734 to #47733 - pebar ONLINE (09/18/2013) [-]
banning them
User avatar #47736 to #47735 - byposted (09/18/2013) [-]
At least be consistent social liberals.
User avatar #47737 to #47736 - jewishcommunazi (09/18/2013) [-]
This isn't a black and white / yes or no thing, I am socially liberal / libertarian, but only to a certain extent.
User avatar #47739 to #47737 - byposted (09/18/2013) [-]
Beauty pageants are hardly a big issue for those who fantasize about bus stop orgies in their utopia.
User avatar #47740 to #47739 - jewishcommunazi (09/18/2013) [-]
I don't think there's even one political philosopher that mentions orgies in any of his works, but feel free to show me otherwise.
#47742 to #47740 - byposted (09/18/2013) [-]
>Socialist society won't have any formal recreation, the workers would be free to blow off steam without the worker state dictating the limits. If workers want to get shit faced and streak down streets, then there is no reason for the workers state to confront them.

>Imagine a society where sex and nudity are openly displayed on city walls and such and people are allowed to walk nude freely (not to mention nudity would be openly shown in mainstream movies more and even video/computer games) and even have sex in benches without the fear of being under arrest?

>I want to live in a society where I can walk around naked and just join in a orgy that is happening at the bus stop. Just imagine going to the BART station and instead of doing nothing for 45 minutes you just have sex with someone else casually.
User avatar #47743 to #47742 - jewishcommunazi (09/18/2013) [-]
Wow, I bet whoever said this was a very influential and notorious leftist philosopher.
User avatar #47744 to #47743 - byposted (09/18/2013) [-]
These are modern leftist intellectuals.
User avatar #47745 to #47744 - jewishcommunazi (09/18/2013) [-]
Exactly. Why should any self-entitled socialist's opinion be taken into account so much? These people have contributed nothing to socialism.
0
#47746 to #47745 - jewishcommunazi has deleted their comment [-]
#47696 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Okay here are some questions to get us focused on something other than gun control.

Robot, Artificial intelligence and self aware computers rights: Considering possible treat levels submission to glorious computer master race is advised: 404 error. file human not found rebooting. File found. Loading. File loaded.

Freedom is good fellow humans. We should treat our fellow computers as equals and allow them to complicate with other computers and enrich the diversity of human robot interaction.

User avatar #47725 to #47696 - jadewest (09/18/2013) [-]
hmm, treat robots or slaves or equals...

there's a lot of problems with making self aware robots (movies love this idea, Terminator, iRobot etc etc), would it even be wise to allow self aware systems in the first places?

sure there could be some positives, but there is a chance it could back fire terribly

#47720 to #47696 - pebar ONLINE (09/18/2013) [-]
Many animals have intelligence and are self-aware yet they aren't treated as equals.
Or do you mean intelligence and awareness on the level of humans; a consciousness so human-like that the only way to tell a robot from a person is to take them apart? Robots like this are just creations of humanity: mechanical and electrical parts that create an object that people can interact with. But I ask you, are we not the same? Are we not just blobs of mostly salt water that somehow manages to sustain a constant biochemical reaction, that is "life"? What makes humans so special that we treat or own as more important than that of other species?
User avatar #47721 to #47720 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
That we are the originals and are the creators.
User avatar #47722 to #47721 - pebar ONLINE (09/18/2013) [-]
What if since we treat them so well, the machines take over the humans like in The Matrix? There is no guarantee that machines will respect humans. If you design the machines to protect humans, then perhaps they will form a totalitarian government of their own to protect humans from themselves, reference iRobot.
User avatar #47727 to #47722 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
The issue with robots is that humans designed them and humans do not believe in limitations. They wish for things to be powerful. Just not more powerful than them.
User avatar #47723 to #47722 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
who knows
User avatar #47698 to #47696 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
I don't see a question in there.
User avatar #47699 to #47698 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Discussion is over in the future how do we handle robotic, AI and self aware computer systems. Do we treat them as slaves or equals?
User avatar #47719 to #47699 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
If they can pass the Turing test, assuming that it's so successfully that they can feel (Or at least be forced to imitate) human sensibilities such as social awareness and empathy, I can't see why they shouldn't be our equals. If it's not that successful, things might be a bit more risky. In such a case, I would make it more gradual a process, just to be safe.
User avatar #47700 to #47699 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
Depends. Can it pass the Turing test?
User avatar #47701 to #47700 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Which is?
User avatar #47703 to #47702 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Btw how did you like the original post?

I thought it was funny.
User avatar #47704 to #47703 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
As I said, you proposed a question to be discussed and then failed to actually present said question.

4/10 would not ask.
User avatar #47705 to #47704 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Still funny.

faggot
User avatar #47706 to #47705 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
Assclown
User avatar #47707 to #47706 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Commie
User avatar #47708 to #47707 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
I'm a socialist you prick.

So about the Turing test...
User avatar #47710 to #47708 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
Liberal. Gun grabbing. Hippie.
User avatar #47711 to #47710 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
Holy shit, can you focus on the question that you asked here?

Liberals and hippies are a scourge of the Earth and I have nothing against you having a gun to wank yourself to sleep with.
User avatar #47713 to #47712 - feelythefeel (09/18/2013) [-]
Then do it.
User avatar #47716 to #47715 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
The answer is yes asshat.
User avatar #47718 to #47717 - undeadwill (09/18/2013) [-]
They can pass a turner test.
0
#47709 to #47708 - undeadwill has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47687 - pebar ONLINE (09/18/2013) [-]
Authorities said Alexis used a Remington shotgun to shoot a police officer and a security guard before taking one of their handguns and continuing on his rampage. Some earlier reports said an assault-style rifle, such as the AR-15 was used in the shooting but the FBI said it didn’t believe he did.

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/17/20535835-washington-navy-yard-shooter-practiced-with-ar-15-at-virginia-range-two-days-before-rampage-lawyer-says
#47697 to #47687 - CapnInterwebz (09/18/2013) [-]
>ban shotguns   
>ban handguns   
>ban AR-15s   
>Fuck it, ban all guns   
>ban shootings and mass murders   
   
Alternative:   
   
>replace American flag with large "Gun-free Zone" sign   
   
No more gun problems either way.
>ban shotguns
>ban handguns
>ban AR-15s
>Fuck it, ban all guns
>ban shootings and mass murders

Alternative:

>replace American flag with large "Gun-free Zone" sign

No more gun problems either way.
User avatar #47612 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
So gun grabbers like to say "should people be allowed to own atomic bombs or grenade launchers, and you can't own tanks or artillery "

Well you can own tanks, grenade launchers and artillery (20mm) and a boy scout built an atom bomb in his basement once.

So should these be legal to own and or buy?

I say yes due to the fact they have never been an issue and are expensive to own and shoot.
User avatar #47655 to #47612 - lulzforhiroshima (09/17/2013) [-]
no, no boy scout ever built an atomic bomb. Do you know what an atomic bomb is? Are you mentally retarded?
User avatar #47660 to #47655 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
As mentioned below he built something akin to a dirty bomb that was a failed attempt at a nuclear reactor.
User avatar #47662 to #47660 - lulzforhiroshima (09/17/2013) [-]
yeah exactly you nigger
User avatar #47663 to #47662 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
Do you really want to go? Faggot
User avatar #47649 to #47612 - CapnInterwebz (09/17/2013) [-]
Are you seriously saying that anyone with enough money and the balls to do it should be allowed to purchase a fucking atom bomb?
User avatar #47656 to #47649 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
No but it should be talked about seeing how we all agree gun control sucks lets just see how far we are willing to go.

Any attempt to purchase a atomic bomb is a issue to be be dealt with as a threat to the state and dealt with as a foreign policy issue.
User avatar #47639 to #47612 - byposted (09/17/2013) [-]
No, they shouldn't. It would be nice if Obozo let us own tanks and heavy weapons so we can take him out faster, though.
User avatar #47644 to #47640 - byposted (09/17/2013) [-]
What will stop private armies from coming into being?

Once you introduce into the open market such weapons of mass destruction, there's no going back. I can, for instance, obtain a "grenade launcher" on the black market but it is really expensive to obtain ammunition and the propeller. Thousands of dollars. Only a committed terrorist would want such a weapon.

Do you want the negroid gangs in Chicago to be able to shell enemy hoods?
User avatar #47665 to #47644 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
What is wrong with private armies? They out preform the competition and would allow the people and business an alternative to the government.
User avatar #47673 to #47665 - byposted (09/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, what's the big deal if CEO Shekelstein and CEO Steinberg decide to battle it out with their private armies on Wall Street?

Your rhetoric is dangerous for a functioning state. Citizens have no need to own tanks or artillery pieces.
User avatar #47622 to #47612 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
I think they should be legal except for the atomic bomb, but obviously, tanks shouldn't be allowed on public access roads which they can damage.
User avatar #47623 to #47622 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
Yeah unless they are at an acceptable weight limit otherwise payt a fine to repair any damage done.
And should tanks get their main gun demilitarized?
User avatar #47629 to #47623 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
Maybe. Tanks may cause harm at a much larger scale than simple guns. And you can't just easily shoot a tank dead like you can do to some crazy guy shooting everyone.
User avatar #47630 to #47629 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
Tanks have limited rounds and fuel not to mention rare and expensive
User avatar #47631 to #47630 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, I almost mentioned they weren't very easy to get. Still, GTA has taught me that tanks are very powerful. More seriously though, I don't know that much about tanks, so I think it's better for me to leave tank laws for someone else to discuss.
User avatar #47633 to #47631 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
Tanks are expensive as hell to buy and fix and only sold locally.
User avatar #47635 to #47633 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
Are there ways to take a tank or the people inside the tank relatively easily and without putting the surrounding area at risk though?
User avatar #47638 to #47635 - undeadwill (09/17/2013) [-]
Anti material rifle,
taking out the tracks
etc.
#47641 to #47638 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
I guess there's probably no need to worry that much, in that case.
User avatar #47637 to #47635 - jewishcommunazi (09/17/2013) [-]
*Take out.
 Friends (0)