They already tried that, and it resulted in the creation of organized crime in America.

How about no. The system we have right now for alcohol is fine. You get drunk and do stupid shit, you get arrested and treated to punishments. Thus, people have a good deal of incentive to not get drunk and do stupid shit.

Did Jesus ever speak of a Judgement Day or Armageddon? I though that was in books of the Bible outside of Jesus' teachings.

Nope. I don't have a dark side trying to get out. If anything, I have a good side that has trouble getting out and being noticeably relatable to people!

I'm not glad about it, but I'm not upset either.

Big companies will either suffer for harming their workers, or, they won't harm their workers.

It's only sad that if a large, tyrannical company collapses from mistreating workers, it's those innocent workers who will suffer most because of how they don't have accumulative wealth to assist them in absence of a job.

Oh well. Something else will happen eventually to assist the common man against greedy corporatists. This just wasn't Michigan's victory, this time. I will have hope that the corporations in Michigan don't harm the lives of their workers as badly as they have the ability to, but the last thing I'm going to do is get brainlessly upset and angry about this.

The last time I checked, children were treated very, very specially in this country, perhaps all of 1st world society (other then totalitarian countries).

And while I don't totally disagree with the idea of treating children softly and better, I find it detrimental to their growth to enforce this idea that nobody looses and everyone is a winner and everyone is special, etc.

I was beaten when I did bad things as a child, with a wooden spoon, until my ass was scarlet and throbbing. And I didn't grow into a horrible person because of it! In fact, I think I have a very solid understanding of reality and the way things are.

But what about a child who grows up being spoiled and told that they can never loose and never be the wrong and that they are a unique in every way? I don't know... that just seems to me like a very bad idea.

Since I believe in evolutionary morality, I'm going to argue under the pretense that the aliens wish no harm.

With that said, if an alien race has the knowledge and understanding to traverse the speed of light, they will obviously have the capability to measure the perfect balance between risk & reward, thus knowing the perfect time to reveal themselves to us.

If that requires that we evolve, culturally, another few hundred years to the point that we are much more benevolent as a people, then so be it.

You didn't really dispute my point.

My point is that a space-faring race of creatures would be totally benevolent.

If they couldn't approach us without harming us, then they wouldn't.

And if they could without harming us, then they would.

If human, of course.

If not human... no. I'd say they could be trusted.

This is because I believe in evolutionary morality. I don't believe any advanced species of aliens will be evil, as we'd define evil. I think they would be totally benevolent and compassionate. I think they'd be able to be trusted if they came bearing gifts.

Surely you jest. ಠ_ಠ They don't do anything about it because there's nothing that can be done about it, not because they aren't miserable. And killing yourself is not an alternative to living...

That implies you believe they don't suffer as much as I think. The problem though is that, who the hell is going to hire a former beggar? Either nobody, or the beggar is going to have to get very lucky.

It's not that they make plenty of money, it's that they can't move up and get a better jobs. Because they're homeless, and businesses don't generally hire homeless people.

Being able to eat doesn't mean that they aren't at all suffering. If you were stripped of all things except food, I think you'd find yourself still pretty damned miserable.

I would say that logically, my story is more common an occurrence. Even when insane, people don't tend to enjoy suffering and prefer to, well you know, not suffer. To say that most of the homeless would turn down a meal is to say most homeless don't even adhere to basic instinctual logic, which I think it's a senseless, unlikely generalization.

Not that you necessarily made such a generalization.

ಠ_ಠ

Uncommon coincidence, I say. ಠ_ಠ

Because saving money from begging won't get him into the Middle Class.

In my experience, though, most of the time I give money to a panhandler, I will witness him or her immediately get up and walk to a nearby restaurant just so they can eat.

Whatever they do with it, it's just for the purpose of trying to survive or be comfortable, so whatever they do what it, I cannot judge them as they were born into miserable lives that they cannot be broken free from in our current system... unless they are lucky. Very lucky. Like that homeless man that became a singer because some random record producer was feeling generous (or was he feeling like mocking homeless people, and instead got lucky himself by finding one that could make him a fortune?).

I think this is stupid because humans can be inherently good or evil, both without logic.

But, logically, good is superior to evil.

Robots are logical.

Therefore, full automated robots, whom are logical, would be good.

Meaning that armies of only fully automated robots would be totally moral armies (provided their logic is not flawed even if their design is).

Checkmate Isaac Asimov, nigga.

War is retarded in the first place, mostly because it's not a battle of good vs. evil. Conflict is only really just when it's good trying to overthrow evil, but life is almost never so clear-cut in such open-ended conflicts.

So personally, I don't think any weapons should even exist at this point in civilization, but that's just me. They're going to be made anyway, and trying to stop them from being made isn't within our power at the moment.

Ideally, redistribution of wealth. I know, I've heard the argument that, if you punish wealth, nobody will have incentive to try and become wealthy, but I'm not sure about that. I think it's important to get rid of the one-tax-fits-all glove in this scenario and instead punish only the wealthy that have literally ruined peoples lives and manipulated opinions and bribed government officials (or tried to).

And while that would be difficult to manage, I'd assume, what it would do is encourage entrepreneurs to actually use what freedom of market we have to do good and not evil. To prefer generosity over greed.

But at the same time, such an idea makes me wonder, 'what if they have so much money and power that they can't be tracked down anymore and punished, like John Rockefeller was?'

If such was the case, then I would generally agree with a one-size-fits-all solution in wealth redistribution. Which again brings up the argument of incentive to be successful. Well, greed doesn't have to be the incentive, no? Nowadays people create small businesses for two reasons: because they have a dream to create and serve people, or, because they want to eventually become the owners of giant companies and have huge sums of money they will never use.

If you take away the later incentive of the examples above, does that really eliminate people's incentive to create products and serve communities? Not at all.

In fact, it's my own earnest belief that the only reason the poor are lazy (the few that are truly lazy, that is; most are just trying to survive or be comfortable) is because they have no hope to ever become successful, or even average, simply because they were born into their respective class. And they have every reason and plenty of supporting evidence to believe this! As the rich constantly work to take away power from their workers so that they may make larger personal incomes.

But if you take away the power of the rich to do these things, to control and destroy lives, to manipulate politicians and people's opinions, and then give that redistributed wealth to the poor, what happens? Maybe some would say they would piss the money away, but I say nay. I say, if the poor had such hope, and had such leeway to actually enter the Middle Class, the vast majority of them would, because the way I see it, the only reason they turn to being the 'scum of the Earth' is because they have no other choice because of being born into a class created by the rich.

Which brings me to what I think would be the best solution provided that we cannot really punish only the rich that violate morality: tightly knit classes. Redistribute wealth so that the three classes are almost nonexistent, and at least, are extremely close together. The rich would still have plenty of luxury, the Middle Class would be content, not stressed, and the Lower Class would be easily comfortable. And nobody could go above or below these standards, thus, preventing people from having the freedom to eliminate the freedom's of others.

I am especially concerned for the future of America indeed. Even though the rich were defeated this election, all their millions put into Mitt Romney poured down the drain, this country is still, for the most part, a corporate-controlled, somewhat fascist, oligarchy.

People are not free because of the disparity in wealth. The wealthy control almost everything, including our opinions. They can even go out of their way to make people believe that Labor Unions are the bad guys while they hide the information on how they raise their own pay and make themselves more comfortable while making everyone who works for them suffer.

Success should not be punished, ideally. But because of human nature, people who are successful in this country use their power and money to control free will and freedom of the Middle and Lower Class... which is evil and warrants punishment. The one-size-fit-all system of government punishment, regulation, may punish the innocent, which is not good, but I can also see why it may be the only way to punish the guilty, simply because the guilty among the wealthy are the ones with the power to avoid being punished in the first place.

In conclusion, yes, I am worried about the future of America, because we are barely different from Feudal Europe. We have an Upper Class that controls everything with their power, and then everyone else below them slavers away under their power, just trying to stay comfortable.

The only difference is that the Upper Class in America has the power to make people believe that this is not what is going on, when this is exactly what's going on.

So that explains why eating too many skittles gives you sores in your mouth!

Odd though, they go away after a time. Perhaps it's a much different form of herpes?

I cannot begin to describe how much your reply reeks with ignorance. But then again, it's only two sentences, so perhaps you can offer a rebuttal that makes you not appear racist and moronic.

While I would agree that R-Money voters are likely misguided, I can't safely say they are all simply 47% percenters that vote for Romney because they are drunk moochers.

Quite the contrary, it's important that Obama supporters not antagonize the other side, lest their party draws closer to the ridiculousness of the Republican Party.

I don't know how to reply to this debate, Joe. Being skinny is not necessarily a sign of health or stupidity, and neither is having a full figure a sign of poor health or high intelligence.

My potato brain hurts.

I generally accept is as a fact that most of the people who are unfortunate in this world are in their situations because they were honorable, kind, trusting, or innocent, and then some other person took advantage of those positive traits and ruined their lives.

Or they are born into it. In whence, they are totally innocent anyway, no matter whom they grow into.

Generally, I dislike a lot of pop music done by English-speaking nations, namely the United States. But, East Asian pop is something I enjoy, because I don't understand the lyrics. Since I don't understand the lyrics, I don't have the ability to dislike the lyrics, and therefore the entire song, and instead just enjoy the beat.

And, I enjoy the beat of Gangnam Style. And for the few English words said in the song, they're funny and meaningless, so their ridiculousness doesn't ruin the beat for me.

I believe human emotions have a threshold of control about them. I believe that yes, either of those people could learn to feel or express as long as they have the ability to let themselves learn to feel or express. Change is not a bad thing unless you let it be a bad thing. People like to complicate love because things happen within it that are frightening.

But if two souls are wise enough, no such complications or discrepancies really have any place to exist.