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.

... see that someone actually replied to me, thus showing I am not invisible.

I feel that way sometimes.

Though it's starting to get unnerving because nobody replies to me anymore. >_<

It's a preferable action to walking around in a mall with a bone that everyone can plainly see. That's a lot more embarrassing then being quick to get rid of it in a public stall.

A guy walks into a bar and asks, "Barkeep! Can I get a tab?"

"Absolutely!"

Another guy walks into the bar and asks, "One beer please! And a tab!"

"You bet!"

Yet another guy walks into the bar and asks, "Two tabs please! Feeling lucky tonight!"

"Sure thing!"

The last guy walks into the bar and says, "Cosmo and a tab please!"

"No pro-" the barkeep suddenly freezes mid movement. Then he un-pauses briefly and says, "Sorry, I gotta force myself to quit," and then he walks away.

The first guy walks up too the last guy and says, "Oops, looks like we opened up too many tabs."

Just another bad day at the Task Bar.

I'm thirsty. Maybe they won't have soda, but they should understand what water is...

Well, sure, but what would the women's toilet look like then?

All modern humans originated in Africa.

Why would a Black man not have the genes, therefore, to have a child with blue eyes?

Thanks for mocking me. ;D

People have every reason to be pissed off. Corporations leach off Middle Class citizens until those citizens have been sucked dry into the Lower Class. This happens all the time. People can therefore be pissed off at being the victims, fear of becoming the victims, or just be pissed off at the fact that there are victims of this crime in the first place!

I'm glad that they're Occupying. They've inspired other countries to do the same. Maybe the fear of violent riots will actually cause governments to do the right thing and stop being apart of corporate fascism.

If people panic on a crowded beach from yelling 'Tsunami', then they're idiots.

If a tsunami is coming, the tide recedes for miles. Any beach-goer who doesn't know this doesn't deserve to be at an oceanic beach.

Dress-up may be for girls and children, but Halloween can be hardcore.

Halloween is dress-up for the badass.

Dress to be so scary that children flee from you? I'll take that.

Last year I trick-or-treated as Death Knight from World of Warcraft. It was an unorthodox costume, but I wore a zombie mask, a black trench coat, and I carried around a plastic fantasy sword.

Yes, I trick-or-treat. Being short while wearing a mask stops people from realizing you're not a child. It's free diabetes after all. (I didn't think it would be a bad idea to try anyway; college students trick or treat without masks where I live, so why couldn't I while wearing a mask?)

And also yes, I scared the shit out of many small children. (Only with the help of their parents, though, pointing me out and acting like I was a real monster for their amusement as well as mine)

I don't know what to say. I tried to read the article, but I was too distracted by the add in a foreign language that showed a schoolgirl's stomach. Then I was too ashamed of myself to stay on the page once I realized I was distracted by such a thing.

New debate: Should chatturgha hang himself or jump off a cliff? :D

If you're going to be an obnoxious teenager and curse, do it properly. The stock market is a FUCKING sham. It's not an oldfuck's word, no, but it is an adult's word, which you apparently don't know the difference between.

No, I did not get fucked. I don't use the stock market, because only idiots and assholes use the stock market. It's a sham and only exists because people have no idea what the fuck money really is.

The stock market is a sham, so maybe no.

But then again, people like to think that shams are not in fact shams so that they don't feel stupid, so maybe yes.

We are evolving to the next level. Perhaps you have not noticed, but our technology has been exponentially increasing in complexity over the centuries since the Industrial Revolution.

Exponentially.

Technology is a natural adaptation of intelligent creatures to evolve even quicker then what their DNA allows them to biologically. In a way, therefore, we are evolving to the next level at an exponential rate because of our technology.

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone able to stay alive for the next 50 years will end up: living forever, seeing the achievement world peace, seeing the achievement of interplanetary colonization, seeing the achievement of socioeconomic perfection, seeing the achievement of interstellar travel/colonization, witnessing first contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond our super-intelligent AI, seeing the achievement of assimilation into the interstellar community, seeing the achievement of interstellar peace, etc.

It all sounds a bit crazy, but the problem is that an exponential rate is... exponential. Unless a catastrophe wipes us out and makes us start over from scratch in a Stone or Iron Age, I can easily see our technology putting us at the next level of evolution within this century. Goddamn it, if any of us can live another 50 years, we may not have to worry about death our medicine might be so much more exponentially advanced then it is right now.

I think it is a bit idiotic to go out of your way to look for things that probably aren't there. Unless there are any sensible conspiracy theories that aren't loaded to the brim with obvious bullshit, I don't see why it's a relevant field of study and investigation.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call all conspiracy theorists idiots.

They just want more cash to fund their future addition to the competition within the gaming-console market...

Aren't you forgetting Joe? If you think really really hard (or pray really really hard) then the tree grows faster! Maybe even over night! Especially if you humbly appeal to the Pagan Goddess of Inari. That makes things much easier.

But when it comes to debates, not much you can do. It's pretty much random. Not even paganism helps. And boy does it usually help with a lot of things. Cured my 15 year chronic diarrhea it did.

'Probably' is the key word. ;)

1. I would sue the plumbing that screwed me out of 1000+$ when they did approximately nothing to fix my sewage system during every session I paid them to come to my house, and then...

2. After raping them of all the money they stole from me, I'd pay a different, more reliable, smaller plumbing company and pump out the raw sewage and then outright replace my plumping with brand new, SUPER-plumbing.

...

See what I did there?

I'm not so much of an idiot as to agree with everything Obama does.

Such as the fact that he neglects to declare war on and have the National Guard invade all of this country's colossal companies and end their dictatorial/oligarchical, corporate fascism that caused this whole mess.

If the children ask...

If, ha ha. And even if they do, if they're young enough, a simple explanation will make plenty of sense to them. Perhaps their genes will make their simple brains think that homosexual love makes no sense, but there is no proof of such a thing yet since our culture is too homophobic to expose children to homosexuality in the same way they're already exposed to heterosexuality.

I know you are going to dispute me...

Assume nothing, you. Who do you think I am? Some senseless Neo-Con that doesn't listen to other people's words? xD

What is the purpose of marriage?

I believe the purpose marriage is SUPPOSED to serve is a symbolic union of two people's souls. That's why I don't believe in divorce. No, I am not religious.

If so, why does the government...

To be honest, the government only does this because it needs to make everything fancy and official. Marriage doesn't need to be a legal matter to be special. Marriage just needs to be marriage to be special. The word is supposed to revolve around love, not legality.

Is it to proclaim to everyone at your wedding that you promise to spend the rest of your life with your spouse? What if you get a divorce?

This is why all marriage needs to be based upon betrothals in all social classes. I'd say they should start from birth, but it's impossible to tell the sexuality of a baby. Betrothing a gay baby to a straight baby would just end in disaster after 30 years. 20 if they're lucky.

Is it for...

In relation to all of those things, I hope not.

Is it to proclaim...

You know, on a biological level, that's what love is. I see it as much more then that mere biological factor, but it's still a present factor.

Lots of questions. No easy answers.

To you maybe. I have all the answers I'll ever need. ;D

I would be surprised if anyone of them could give you a straight forward reason...

I married my wife because I love her. Is that straight forward enough?

Personally, I think most people get married in order to get exclusive rights to their spouse's naughty bits for sexual pleasure...

That's certainly an A+ bonus... ;3

But in relation to your point... I do understand it. I agree with it, in a way. But I do not believe that renaming all marriage 'Civil Unions' is going to solve anything, namely homophobia.

Gay people don't want to get married so they can do any or all of those numerous things you listed that heterosexuals get married for, they want to get married... to get married. It's about the word; I know a lot of gay and bisexual people. They don't care about legality, or otherwise, your point of marriage being renamed into Civil Unions would be a mainstream opinion.

They want to get married because the word 'marriage' is something special, and shouldn't be exclusive to heterosexuals. Taking the word away from EVERYONE does make things fair for everyone... but it's also a tab oppressive. If we want to emphasize freedom and equality and prosperity, we should go with the best solution that is the freest, namely, giving everyone equal right to a ritual union of two people becoming even closer together. Everyone should be allowed to use the word because the word is special.

Though, I do agree with you on your point in the following manner: marriage should apply to the First Amendment! Marriage shouldn't be a ritual accompanied by legal matters! Marriage isn't necessarily religious, but no matter what, it's supposed to be symbolic, and in my mind, it therefore should apply to the First Amendment.

So I agree with you in the sense that everyone should have to go through a Civil Union to get all of the legal rights involved in today's marriage. Instead of having marriage today have legal shit involved, it should be separate from State and be purely a ritual. If couples want to be married AND have a legalized union, they should have to go through marriage AND a civil union. That way romantics can be married and professionals can have civil unions, and everyone can have any combination of either of those alongside their sexuality.

It's sensible.

And if we make ritualized marriage be based upon children-to-teenage betrothal, that will virtual eliminate the chance of ritual divorce. If they have legal divorce, big deal? It doesn't necessarily have any romantic meaning. It might even be a good idea between married couples who need to fish themselves out of some sort of fiscal hole. Who knows?

Either way, gay marriage should be legal, and they should have every right to a romantic ritual as heterosexuals.

Them getting married will help children be more tolerate of gay people when they grow up. Not only would their choice of marriage be good for them... it would be good for America.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex at that stage in a child's life. Don't you remember what it was like being a child at all? Your mommy and daddy loved each other very much, they one day made a big wish, and had you. And then they did the same thing with your little brother/sister, and mommy got mysteriously round and more cuddly after her and daddy made the wish for your younger sibling.

So what makes your mind suddenly think that a GAY marriage is suddenly going to make children get exposed to gay sex? They won't, you cad. They'll get married on Sesame Street, then the children will ask their parents, "How come they got married? Aren't they two daddies?"

And the parents will say, "Well sometimes whatever-your-name-is, two daddies or two mommies can love each other very much, so they get married, just like a mommy and daddy."

Pretty simple. No sex involved.

In fact, it would help children grow up to be more accepting of homosexuals.