Syria

Watch: 3 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria

|

This video was first released on August 30, 2013.

Here's the original writeup, which is more relevant now than ever:

As the Obama administration beats the drum for yet another military engagement, here are three reasons we shouldn't go to war with Syria.

1. It's not our fight

U.S. foreign policy—especially military actions—should proceed from clear and compelling national interests. But neither the president nor anyone in his administration has clarified what America's security stake is in Syria's civil war.

Humanitarian interventions are notoriously ineffective in practice. If the president wants to reduce the violence that's already claimed over 100,000 lives, lobbing cruise missiles or putting boots on the ground is no way to accomplish that.

2. Chemical  weapons shouldn't be a red line

President Obama has said that chemical weapons are a red line that no country should be allowed to cross. But even assuming such weapons were used by the murderous Assad regime, the case for treating poison gas as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons is hardly clear.

Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a war be a trigger for action?

3. What constitutes victory?

Obama hasn't just failed to articulate a cause for action, he hasn't even bothered to explain what might constitute victory in Syria. The inherent risks are compounded massively by regional and global politics involving Iran, Jordan, Russia, Israel, and European countries.

The U.S. doesn't even have a clear sense of who the Syrian rebels are and what their agenda is.

For god's sake, if the past dozen years have taught us anything about foreign policy, it's that military interventions shouldn't be done in a half-assed fashion, without clear and widely shared goals.

If the Obama administration can't be bothered to articulate why we should fight, who we're helping, and how we would know that we succeeded, it's got no business getting involved in Syria.

About 2 minutes.Produced by Meredith Bragg and written by Nick Gillespie.

Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Related: "8 Reasons Not to Go to War with Syria," by Peter Suderman

Read Reason's comphrehensive Syria coverage.

NEXT: How a Conspiracy Theory Sparked a Revolution in Maryland

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. lol, the United States cant even fix Detroit! Stop playing World Police, deal with your own problems!

    http://www.AnonWebz.tk

    1. As always, anonbot see right into the heart of the matter.

    2. Wow I think Anonbot might be close to passing the Turing test. The robot apocalypse is upon us.

      1. It would fix Detroit and not bomb Syria…

        Are you sure it will an apocalypse?

    1. No booking photo? Has the media suddenly embraced the presumption of innocence? Ha ha ha ha!

  2. 3. What constitutes victory?

    Damn it Nick, why must you saddle Obama with such difficult questions. We need to fight this war engage in this kinetic humanitarian action to see what winning is.

    We must ________* for the Syrian people, FREEDOM and childrenz.

    Obama promises to fill that part in later. When Obama makes a promise you can believe he’ll deliver!

  3. I am so going to have a candlelight vigil!

  4. 3. What constitutes victory?

    Napalm in the morning?

    1. Goddammit! Now I want to watch that scene again, for like the 400th time.

      You bastard.

    2. +1 Charlie don’t surf!

  5. How about?

    1. It’s not our fight

    2. It’s not our fight

    3. It’s not our fight

    1. “No, see, this is a really shit idea. You know why? Because it’s really obviously a shit idea.”

      1. Yeah, that’s jerkular logic!

    2. That really is the only reason that matters. It would be nice if Obama could list one thing the United States would gain by attacking Syria, or one thing it would lose by not attacking, and then we could decide whether or not those goals are worth it.

      This whole “international standard” and “red line” bullshit just doesn’t cut it.

      Honestly I would prefer if he would say we just wanted to steal some oil, or whatever resources, if any, that Syria actually possesses.

      1. Which commenter was it that said the other day about how we’re not getting much of an empire back for acting like an imperialist?

        1. No idea, but it sounds like something Mark Steyn would say.

      2. Seriously playing world police is like having all the costs, and negative consequences of running a huge empire without any of the benefits.

        Going in to steal land or resources might be immoral, but at least there is something to show for it. What the hell is there to show for these Middle East adventures other then death and debt?

        1. A Strong Dollar.

      3. Why cannot our interest be that we abhor the use of chemical weapons on civilians? Do interests have to be economic interests?

        1. So we abhor using chemical weapons, more than say, fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo? More than say nuking two cities? Chemical weapons are worse than gaping holes through people’s bodies, missing limbs or people burned beyond recognition as a result of “conventional” weapons?

          War is a vile miserable thing, no matter which weapons you use.

          This one, however, happens to be none of our concern.

          1. First, Dresden and Tokyo were about seventy years ago.

            Second, of course more conventional weapons and methods can do horrible damage. Why is that a reason to not try to let a new horrible method become ‘conventional?’

            1. How long ago was Vietnam? We napalmed villages there all the time.

              The POINT is that war is ALWAYS horrible. Gas is no worse than dropping a bomb on someone, which we do all the time.

              Saying use of a weapon, no worse than those we regularly employ, is justification for becoming involved in someone else’s civil war is beyond retarded.

              We have no dog in this fight, and, what’s more, we have no authority to tell other nations what they can and cannot do. It’s beyond arrogant. What would the US do if another nation told us they were going to attack us for using JDAM? We’d lose our fucking minds. Yet when we do it to others it’s justified? Because FYTW?

              No wonder half the world despises us.

              1. Saying use of a weapon, no worse than those we regularly employ, is justification for becoming involved in someone else’s civil war is beyond retarded.

                We especially have no moral authority for claiming that his use of weapons on civilians is reason to invade. Given America’s tendency to blow up weddings and aspirin factories, we’ve got plenty of civilian blood on our hands.

              2. -The POINT is that war is ALWAYS horrible. Gas is no worse than dropping a bomb on someone, which we do all the time.

                You are missing my point, again.

                It is not necessarily about which is worse. Let us stipulate both are terrible. But for whatever reason, likely because of historical accident and the newness of it, international sentiment is galvanized against chemical weapons use, and there is lacking the air of tradition and convention that exists for more conventional methods such as explosive bombs, such that a prohibition on chemical weapons use has and can be likely brought to bear. So why not pursue that goal? It would be to let the perfect (intellectual consistency) be the enemy of the good (taking a step toward making war less awful) to not.

                1. So why not pursue that goal?

                  Because it isn’t the job of the US to impose our version of morality on the rest of the world.

                  I don’t see other nations pushing for this. If they are, they want us to do all the fighting for them. If it’s so goddamned important to the rest of the world, they can lead the charge.

                  1. -Because it isn’t the job of the US to impose our version of morality on the rest of the world.

                    If you came across a man tonight who was beating a young woman bloody with a bat, and you wrested the bat from him would you be imposing your morality on him in a way you should not?

                    1. If two drunks are brawling outside a bar, are you morally justified in joining the fight? On whose side?

                    2. Hard to say without knowing more, right?

                      If this is akin to two drunks brawling you have an excellent point. I do not think those 400 hundred children were brawling with anyone.

                    3. “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.”

                      Assad and the rebels are the brawling drunks. Is that clear enough for you? The 400 children killed, the 1400 people killed, that’s the shit that happens when drunks brawl.

                      Now, if you have some clever way of breaking up the fight & hauling off the two sides to separate drunk tanks, that’d be great. But you don’t. All you have is the ability to blow up shit in the general vicinity of the bar.

                    4. If this is akin to two drunks brawling you have an excellent point. I do not think those 400 hundred children were brawling with anyone.

                      Bo, arguing with you is fast becoming like nailing Jello to a wall.

                      One moment you’re patronizing us about how the world is a complicated place, the next you’re pouting about dead children.

                    5. -Bo, arguing with you is fast becoming like nailing Jello to a wall.

                      This strikes me as more than a little ironic since some commenters here like to tease me as the ‘new Tulpa.’

                    6. If this is akin to two drunks brawling you have an excellent point. I do not think those 400 hundred children were brawling with anyone.

                      And the al Queda terrorists fight Assad are pure humanitarians, right Bo?

                    7. I never said they were.

                    8. If you came across a man tonight who was beating a young woman bloody with a bat, and you wrested the bat from him would you be imposing your morality on him in a way you should not?

                      You’re quite the hero, Bo. I’ll buy a rifle for you, and passage aboard the ship of your choice to Tarsus so you can fight for your beliefs.

                      Oh wait. You’re talking about forcing other people to go wrest the bat from the bad man.

                    9. I am actually opposed to the strikes, but based on a version of ‘reason number 3’ given in the main post.

                      Having said that, the talk of forcing other people may be overdone considering we have an all volunteer army.

                2. international sentiment is galvanized against chemical weapons use

                  I don’t see them all lining up to take the fight to Assad.

                  There are only two classes of weapons that should be on the “shit” list – nukes and biologicals. Simply because the effects cannot be contained.

                3. By “international sentiment is galvanized against chemical weapons use,” you mean the world is willing to make a statement condemning the use of such weapons. Quite clearly, the world is NOT galvanized to attack a nation who uses chemical weapons (see United Nations, Great Britain, et al). If they were, there would be no need for the U.S. to attack Syria, since the UN would handle it.

                  1. Also, the US government was happy to look the other way or cheer them on when Saddam’s Iraq gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. The US government has no moral authority in this matter.

                    1. -the US government was happy to look the other way or cheer them on when Saddam’s Iraq gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. The US government has no moral authority in this matter.

                      This is like saying that because you walked past a man beating his wife in the street twice you would be wrong to stop him the third time you came across the same.

                  2. What I mean is the world has agreed not to use those weapons themselves. Additionally, do not confuse ‘not joining in an attack’ with ‘not approving of such a response.’

                    1. “What I mean is the world has agreed not to use those weapons themselves.”

                      Bullshit. Syria did not sign the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, so that isn’t binding law on Syria. So, the part of the world that “has agreed not to use those weapons” does not include Syria.

                      And though most of the world (including the United States) ratified that Convention, it is not an agreement to attack any nation that uses chemical weapons. It is an agreement to eliminate one’s own chemical weapons– which many, and perhaps most, of the signees haven’t actually done.

                      So, you’re still looking for a justification for attacking Syria. International sentiment doesn’t get you there, and neither does abhorrence. All you’ve got left is: “Obama makes me tingle.”

              3. How long ago was Vietnam? We napalmed villages there all the time.

                We also dumped about 20 million gallons of dioxin laced agent orange all over the country, seriously damaging the ecosystems of large areas and causing tens of thousands of deaths and ‘we’ also intentionally poisoned crops to starve out civilian populations with the all but forgotten Agent Blue.

        2. I abhor meth heads, but my abhorrence doesn’t justify me initiating violence against them. I can tell them that meth is a helluva drug, I can apply all the social pressure I want, but abhorrence doesn’t magically make it okay to violate someone else’s rights.

          1. I think you may be equivocating here. To abhor someone who is harming only himself is quite different than to abhor one who is harming others. I am not saying we should act against whatever we abhor, but perhaps we should against things we abhor because they are the violation of the basic rights of innocents.

            1. I think you may not understand what equivocating means.

              If we want to do more to help refugees get out of Syria, that’d be fine. In an ideal world, that should be a private effort, but it really doesn’t bother me if government leads the effort. That’s not what we’re doing.

              If there’s a domestic abuse situation going on with a neighbor, I might try to help him/her try to get away and get to a shelter, but I sure as hell will not get in the middle while the fight is going on. And what I most certainly will not do is lob a grenade at the house, hoping that it hits the abuser.

              1. Equivocation in argumentation means to use a word or concept in one sense in order to make a point about the word in another sense, no?

                Abhor means to have a strong dislike or hatred for, and can mean things that we as libertarians may hate for being wrong as a violation of our personal moral codes or something we hate because it violates a person’s basic human rights. I meant it in the latter but you constructed an analogy using the former. If that is not equivocation then I truly do not understand that term and would welcome you explaining it to me.

                Your second paragraph is all about prudence, which is a different matter (and one where I think I agree with you) than what is would be the right (as in ‘morally correct’) thing to do.

                1. That’s great, Bo, but you said: “Why cannot our interest be that we abhor the use of chemical weapons on civilians? ” And I pointed out that abhorrence is no basis for initiating force. No equivocation there.

                  I don’t care what the basis is for your abhorrence, the abhorrence doesn’t justify initiating force. Maybe the thing that caused your abhorrence justifies force, and maybe it doesn’t, but the abhorrence itself doesn’t justify anything more than a shocked expression and a clutching of pearls.

                  Now, if you’d like to make an actual argument for attacking Syria, feel free.

                  1. That is silly, since as you seem to recognize the abhorrence can come from something like the recognition of a violation of rights that warrants the initiation of force.

                    1. Wow. Just wow. The fact that you can feel abhorrence at things that justify force doesn’t mean that abhorrence itself is any basis for the use of force. The feeling is separate from the thing causing the feeling, and is no basis for the use of force.

                      Your argument boils down to: “muh feelz… must kill!”

  6. 14 Principled Anti-War Celebrities Who Must Have Been Kidnapped

    LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
    “I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
    ? Sheryl Crow

    LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
    “I also think that there is a strong streak of racism, and whenever we engage in foreign adventures. Our whole history in regime change has been of people of different color.”
    ? Ed Asner

    LAST KNOWN PRE-2009 COMMUNICATION:
    “War is failure! When you are at war, you have failed!”
    ? Janeane Garofalo

    1. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.

      Said Sheryl Crow to the Poles as German troops bored down on them.

      1. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems.

        “My mother said violence never solves anything.” “So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.”

        1. Since most wars start with at least two parties in disagreement, it follows that in fact any war successfully prosecuted does indeed yield an “answer” to the matters in dispute. As a general rule, the finality of the answer is directly proportional to how complete the victory imposed on the losing side.

          Not only is war often the answer, it is sometimes the only way to obtain an “answer” to real world conflict between nations.

    2. I guess Janeane has been at war with comedy since the late 80’s.

      1. Comedy has won every battle she ever engaged it in.

  7. Wealthy people are jerks

    Increasingly in America, wealth insulates us: Where once we sat on bleachers together, now the wealthy sit in box seats. They fly in private planes (or relax in exclusive clubs at the airport), live behind gates and in general maintain a buffer from those who are less fortunate. Studies suggest that actual personal distance in conversation grows with wealth as well.

    A second theory that Piff and Keltner offer is that the wealthy are more likely to value greed as a social good ? as a driver of the economy ? and therefore to cut corners to make money. Ethics slide because making money is viewed as having social benefits as well as a personal ones.

    As a rabbi, I see a spiritual explanation as well. We all know, deep down, that most of what we have is a product of good fortune. No matter how hard we work, we did not earn our functioning brains or the families into which we were born. We didn’t choose being born into an era, or a nation, that allowed our talents to develop. We ride in cars and live in homes we did not build, are warmed by heating and cooled by air conditioning we did not invent, live in cities others created for us organized by a government and protected by a military shaped by our predecessors. Yet we still point to our accomplishments and proudly proclaim, “I did this!”

    YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!

    1. That’s silly. There’s only one good reason to despise the rich, and it’s because they drive their luxury cars like entitled pricks. That guy who’s driving down the shoulder for half a mile and trying to merge in right before the exit, or is blocking the next lane over until someone lets him in, because he’s too important to wait in line is probably driving an Audi, Benz, Leaf or BMW. Beyond that I have no beef with the wealthy.

      1. There’s only one good reason to despise the rich, and it’s because they drive their luxury cars like entitled pricks.

        That’s not because they’re rich. That’s because they’re ASSHOLES!

        1. That’s because they’re ASSHOLES!

          I find there’s significant overlap between the category Audi/Leaf driver and asshole. And not much overlap between Audi/Leaf owners and poor people. The Nissan Leaf has recently managed to overtake Audi as car most likely to be driven by someone I want to stab for driving like a reckless, inconsiderate fuckwit.

          I’m sure all Audi drivers here are exceptions to that rule, although you should probably alert me to your presence by having an orphan, holding a monocle flag, tied to the top of your car at all times.

          1. More than Prius drivers? I find them to be consistently incompetent on the road.

          2. I don’t know. I find people who drive large F250s or Silverado HDs to be assholish.

            1. Now wait right there, my northern friend…

              Just because you have pickup envy is no reason to get pissy!

          3. Oh and fuck Audi, unreliable pieces of junk. Glorified VWs with all of the electrical problems and twice the mechanic bill.

            The only luxury car worth having is a Lexus. I hate stuff that breaks.

          4. Maserati drivers, on the other hand, are all class…

            Vroom!

          5. But then I’d have to get a roof rack installed, and that’s expensive.

    2. I just threw up a little…

      …out of my ass.

      1. Apparently, so did the writer.

        1. Banjos!

          How’s stuff? What have you done with your husband? Did you finally have enough and find a way to collect the insurance money?

          1. He was kidnapped by his boss before I could off him. He’s at Buffalo Wild Wings right now with him watching the OSU game.

            1. My boycott of BWW is the only time my “no supporting antigun” places policy has really hurt me. I miss football and wings.

            2. Damn libertarian…abandoning his friends for more money.

              Greedy bastard!

              Tell him we miss him. Well…not me…but some of us.

              How’s Reason doing?

    3. A second theory that Piff and Keltner offer is that the wealthy are more likely to value greed as a social good ? as a driver of the economy ? and therefore to cut corners to make money. Ethics slide because making money is viewed as having social benefits as well as a personal ones.

      This is hilarious. If this were true, then we’d expect middle and upper class people to commit more crimes…which is the opposite of what we see.

      Western morality is a privilege of wealth. The entire history of pre-wealth humanity was nothing but one of violence, death, and, by modern standards, immorality. The wealth of the western world is what made us privileged enough to treat each other the way we should.

      It’s poverty that breeds immorality.

      1. It’s poverty that breeds immorality.

        Not really. Look at East Asia. Why do you think they have so much less immorality than America even though America is wealthier?

        1. Define immorality. I’d say that the ghastly regimes in Vietnam, endemic child prostitution, and plenty of what goes on in East Asia is leaps and bounds more immoral to anything that goes on in the US.

        2. Uh…unless by immorality you only mean murder and violent crimes, they certainly are more immoral. As TIT points out, many of those countries have no laws against child prostitution and in places like the Philippines you have rampant political violence and assassinations.

          You also have to take into account that the places with crime in America are those that are poorer. Wealthy parts of America have crime rates comparable to Denmark. That actually supports my point.

          1. Define “child”.

            So they’re immoral for allowing people to do what they will with their own bodies?

            Oh wait, if they are one second under 18 they are still a “child”, and have no rights to their own body… I forgot! Silly me!

            1. Now if you had said “forced prostitution” or “child slavery”, I would be in agreement with you.

              1. Now if you had said “forced prostitution” or “child slavery”, I would be in agreement with you.

                If someone’s a 14 year old prostitute, how do you think such a person got into the industry?

              2. Anywhere from half a million to nearly a million children under the age of 16 are bought and sold as sex slaves in Thailand, with estimated accounting profits per unit exceeding those of the drug trade. That is to say, something like 80-90% of the prostitution of minors in Thailand involves children of that age.

                Please, tell us more about how upright poverty has made these East Asian societies. Oh wait sorry, I meant superior Asiatic genes — I forgot who I was talking to for a moment, there.

                1. Sounds more like the problem is outright slavery, rather than “prostitution”.

            2. No. I mean like 13 year olds. Adults should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies, but fucking 12 year olds should not be legally abused by western sex tourists.

              Do you really think that child prostitution in Thailand is limited to 16 and 17 year olds?

              1. Again, the question should be… is anyone forcing them? I’m sure in many cases they are, but…

                If you had a choice between horrible poverty or a decent wage for whoring yourself out. Which would you choose?

                But if it is of their own free will I’m confused how you can automatically call it abuse without begging the question.

                1. Is anyone forcing who, the 13-year old child?

                  This question is unreal… presumably you don’t take pedophiles’ claims about mutual consent at face value?

                  Then again, you are a horrible and stupid racist so who knows?

                  1. Can you make a logical rebuttal, instead of begging the question?

                    So you really believe no 13 year old ever has voluntarily taken money for some sort of sexual favor?

                    A 15 year old girl used to fondle me when I was 6. Much worse things have happened to me, and I certainly believe it is possible in a poor country for one to voluntarily whore themselves out at such a young age if the alternative was grinding poverty or even starvation.

                    1. I’ll say it one more time, the problem is child slavery and the concept that children can be owned that is the problem… not “prostitution”.

                      Your argument is basically no true scottsman.

                    2. What the fuck. Are you seriously arguing that child prostitution is not a terrible institution? A 13 year old cannot effectively consent to sex with a rich westerner.

                      A 15 year old girl used to fondle me when I was 6. Much worse things have happened to me, and I certainly believe it is possible in a poor country for one to voluntarily whore themselves out at such a young age if the alternative was grinding poverty or even starvation.

                      Which would prove my point that poverty degrades morality. It is immoral and horrible to have sex with a 12 year old. If 12 year olds are doing that because of crushing poverty, then that would prove my point.

                    3. So then you really have no argument that isn’t effectively No True Scottsman or some form of question begging?

                      I never said that poverty didn’t degrade morality btw. On that I agree with you.

                      I just get tired of people going apeshit and then spewing the same fallacies over and over because they find an idea distasteful.

                      It’s no different than a lefty arguing for free education or free medical care because “capitalism always victimizes people”.

                    4. You would agree that childhood is distinct from adulthood, correct? That, say, a child just learning to talk and read can’t for example consent to a multi-page credit card agreement?

                      If you do, then I can’t see how a child’s agreement to have sex (‘whatever that is’, says the child) can possibly be considered meaningful consent. Children don’t know enough about the world to make an informed choice regarding prostitution, or to assert themselves once they are in that degrading and violent world.

                      Establishing consent in legalized prostitution between consenting adults is difficult enough; the customers and pimps in the child prostitution industry coupled with a child’s ignorance and lack of development make it impossible. People who have sex with children are not well-balanced and will often take advantage of a child’s innocence or ignorance in pursuit of their own pleasure. Given the severe consequences and results of child prostitution (HIV and other STD rates in that population are simply staggering), there is a compelling interest in ensuring that children are not subject to agreements that they neither understood and from which they cannot meaningfully opt-out.

                      Simply put, childhood is categorically distinct from adulthood as a phase of life and situations where an adult can give consent are not always (in fact, are rarely) circumstances where a child can be expected to do so.

                    5. So long winded version of No True Scottsman and that it’s dangerous and government needs to protect them from themselves?

                      Oh and it’s too hard for police to figure out if “consent is established”. That’s why something should be illegal… *rolls eyes*

                    6. I agree childhood is different than adulthood, but it isn’t some magical switch that gets flipped where you switch between the two phases in one fell swoop.

                      So yeah, your last reply is just a longer winded no true scottsman while also sprinkling in some nanny statist type arguments that people must be protected from themselves.

                    7. Explain how TIT’s argument is a “no true scotsman”? I’m assuming you’re referring to the premise that “no child can truly give consent”; however, you haven’t shown any evidence to counter the argument that a child’s mind isn’t neuropsychologically developed enough to understand the full consequences of both engaging in sexual activity at such a young age and engaging that sexual activity for money. So until you provide convincing evidence to counter this argument, your claim that TIT’s and Irish’s arguments are fallacious are extremely specious, to say the least.

                    8. But neither has TITs or Irish produced any evidence that 100% of 13-17 year olds are so braindead they can’t decide if they wish to do something or not.

                      Are you really making the argument that a teenager is unable to know what they wish to do or not? I’m not saying their decision making process would likely be as developed at that age as most adults, but we are all individuals who vary greatly.

                      There is nothing specious about me pointing out that their whole argument is predicated on begging the question.

                    9. -Are you really making the argument that a teenager is unable to know what they wish to do or not?

                      In the sense that sense of ‘being aware of’ what they are doing then yes a 13 year old can be said to ‘know what they are doing.’ But I think everyone else here is using that term to mean ‘able to give a consent that is informed enough to be allowed liberty and responsibility.’ As a general matter 13 year olds are not commonly thought to have reached that level. Not only is common sense in favor of that view (a 13 year old by definition has less experience and education, which are characteristics at least incident to being able to form such consent, than most adults) but a great deal of neural and developmental science demonstrates that there are significant differences in the thinking of 13 year olds and older adults.

                    10. It seems to me that all locutors involved in this argument are conflating certain terms, especially “child” and “teenager”. Indeed, to claim that a 13 year old can give consent in the same way a 17 year old can because they are both “teenagers” is as arbitrary as the definition of “child” that you claim your opponents are using.

                      That having been said, there has been much evidence that the prefrontal cortex of a person, the part of the brain most identified with reasoning and (more importantly) inhibition, isn’t fully developed until one is in their early twenties. (See here for a basic introduction, and see here for something more in depth.)

                    11. Tell you what Plopper — I’ll kidnap you and lock you in sensory deprivation room for a couple of years, and then I’ll take you to an alien planet. Five minutes later, Froog here will insist that you write a few scribbles you don’t understand on his high-tech pad. Perhaps he might tell you what for; perhaps not. Whether you do or not, every Tuesday at 5 PM he’ll come to where you work and beat you bloody for 5 minutes with the approval of all present. Naturally, you’ll complain about this. If you did write those scribbles, he’ll point out that you agreed to his doing this, signed it in triplicate in fact. If you didn’t, he’ll laugh in your face and ask you what you’re going to do about it — to which you’ll have no response, since you know nothing about his alien world and how to get justice in it.

                      Suppose that two weeks later, I show up on a Tuesday evening and you’re getting ye olde 5 o’clock treatment — I suppose there’s the off chance that you really did want to be beaten bloody for 5 minutes on a Tuesday evening or worked something out with Froog on your own, but if I’m looking at this situation from the outside there’s no way of telling whether this is the case or not. Back on Earth, there’s no lawyer in the world who would tell you that contract is worth the paper it’s printed on.

                    12. If that is the case for an fully developed adult with average cognitive capacity and reasoning ability, how much more so for a child! We bring children into a world not of their own making or understanding; hell, it’s a small miracle in itself that humans understand complex modern society considering our evolutionary and social origins. Whether you like it or not, the growing process and the time it takes to adapt to society complicates the libertarian ideal of an individual making choices for him or herself. Fortunately this is the exception when it comes to adults in modern, Western societies; most people are not kidnapped and brought to Froogistan to learn an entirely new way of life. It does, however, describe children to a T.

                      If you want to argue that childhood is too long or that the age is set too high, have at it. That is very different from suggesting that a child is equivalent to an adult and can be considered the same for the purposes of consent.

                    13. “That is very different from suggesting that a child is equivalent to an adult and can be considered the same for the purposes of consent.”

                      I never even suggested that, I merely said there is no clear point in an individuals development where they magically become an adult, and certainly not at any specific age…

                      However, just because someone isn’t equivalent to someone else doesn’t make any interaction you have with them automatically coercive, even if of the sexual type.

                      What about my example with the borderline retarded mentally ill 30 year old woman? Would sex with her automatically be rape?

                      I’m still not seeing your argument beyond more question begging.

                    14. But that’s not very analogous to a 15 year old getting paid $500 for giving a handjob to an adult.

                      If a 30 year old woman has a low IQ, and is mentally ill to the point she can’t make good decisions, decisions worse than most 13 year olds would make, would sex with her also automatically be rape? And if not, why so?

                    15. $500 bucks? When I was in Bangkok the going rate for intercourse was 45 to 50 bucks.

                      Jus’ sayin’

                    16. @Heroic Mulatto

                      The amount paid isn’t the point.

                    17. At this point it is getting impossible to read the replies because the order/threading is all screwed up.

                      But I’ve yet to see anyone make an argument that isn’t glorified no true scottsman or that aren’t totally analogous nanny statist type arguments.

                    18. If a 30 year old woman has the mind of a 13 year old, then yes I would have some issues with someone knowing this fact having ‘consensual’ sex with her.

                    19. I find “adulthood” to be extremely arbitrary. How old were the youngest prostitutes in the old west? I’m sure many were orphaned at an early age and needed to eat and found they could make money selling sex. And probably most people didn’t give it a second thought.

                      A lot of “kids” back then needed to make adult decisions in order to survive. I suspect it’s still that way in many places.

                      The part I find intriguing, is how “kids” of 150 years ago were able to consent to transactions (and I don’t mean just sex) yet “kids” today are not.

                      How did society decide 14 was too young but 18 is okay? And because we’ve evolved to an older age of consent here in the US, why do we insist other cultures follow our lead even though those cultures may be at the same point in their development that we were 150 years ago?

                      Does an increase in wealth postpone the age where children become responsible? Or is it something else?

                    20. -How did society decide 14 was too young but 18 is okay?

                      I imagine it had to do with the advent of universal schooling.

                      An illiterate 14 and 30 year old ditch digger may seem to be somewhat equivalent to many. But it becomes rather obvious that most high school freshman will struggle with the work that most college freshmen can accomplish. This likely made society take more notice of something it already knew as a matter of common sense, that young kids had no business being thought of as capable and responsible as older people. And later scientific study in brain use and development has only led to confirmation of this.

                    21. @Bo Cara Esq.

                      This totally contradicts my personal experience. Also, citations please on these studies that ‘prove’ that younger brains have no business learning things than older ones, and that they make worse decisions than older brains 100% of the time.

                    22. Of course the studies will be about general matters, you certainly do not get to claim ‘question begging’ when you are asking for studies to show something ‘100%’ of the time. If you would like to see citations of studies producing evidence about the generally lower capabilities of young teens relative to adults in areas which are thought important to responsible decision making please read any of the decisions of the SCOTUS declaring that juveniles cannot be executed (Roper v. Simmons or Thompson v. Oklahoma). They cite such studies.

                    23. This likely made society take more notice of something it already knew as a matter of common sense, that young kids had no business being thought of as capable and responsible as older people.

                      So 14 year olds didn’t work as full grown men back in the late 1800s? They didn’t take jobs as cowhands or working in the mines? And if they did they were unsuccessful?

                    24. I honestly do not mean this ‘snarkily,’ but did you read my post which you are responding to? Because it seems you got it entirely backwards.

                    25. No, I don’t think I did. You were pointing out that it was the responsibility of society to hold back those capable of making successful decisions at an early age because others are incapable of doing so.

                    26. Does an increase in wealth postpone the age where children become responsible?

                      I think there is a lot to be said for that observation. Child labor laws come to mind.

                    27. @Francisco d Anconia

                      Exactly!

                      We in our current modern American suburban culture live very sheltered lives, and for some reason this also creates some sort of self-righteous emotional bullshit when it comes to individuals who may develop early or who are in situations totally different than our own.

                      Like somehow “we” know better than “them” and can make decisions for them, because we’re older and richer.

                    28. @Heroic Mulatto

                      I am 100% against child labor laws. When I was 13 I wanted to drop out of school and pursue some sort of apprenticeship in IT because I was already so knowledgeable, especially compared to the population of the time in the early-mid 90s. I was using Slackware with a SLIP/PPP connection and writing my own code, most computer literate adults back then couldn’t even do that.

                      But even had I been able to find someone that would give me work or something like an apprenticeship it would have been illegal.

                      I felt like I “regressed” back into childhood by being forced back into that stupid school.

                      In the end I still dropped out, and I make a pretty decent living for my region and I don’t even have to ever leave the house. I work from home.

                      I still however feel my development has been permanently retarded because I was not allowed to make decisions for myself which I still believe would have been better for me than the decisions the adults in my life were making for me.

                      I’m well over 30 now…

                    29. -Like somehow “we” know better than “them” and can make decisions for them, because we’re older and richer.

                      Living in a wealthier society and being older makes one more likely to know more about mathematics, would you not say? Does that fact make the math not ‘true’ or ‘correct?’

                    30. just because someone isn’t equivalent to someone else doesn’t make any interaction you have with them automatically coercive, even if of the sexual type.

                      That is not what I have suggested; in fact in my constructed scenario I allowed for that possibility.

                      We in the West, especially if we are classical thinkers, want to make sure that arrangements between two parties are being conducted voluntarily — especially if they relate either money or bodily autonomy. One could construe virtually any observed scenario into a voluntary one with enough circumlocution. I could be beating the shit out of my wife on my lawn because that’s how we do before we get freaky, and she’s totally down with it. She could be screaming because bitch got mad at me for some silly woman reason and now she wants to pretend that a gouged out eye doesn’t normally feature in our lovemaking. Officer, that manipulative bitch retroactively pulled consent.

                      The above scenario is *possible*, is it not? It also illustrates why we don’t base our standard of what constitutes observed consent as pertaining to every possible scenario; we base it on what is reasonable.

                      I would suggest that myself and most people would consider the level of knowledge of a person and their developmental state relevant to establishing reasonableness of consent as viewed from the outside. Thai child prostitutes don’t operate in an environment where a reasonable person can assume consent has been given — at all.

                    31. The part I find intriguing, is how “kids” of 150 years ago were able to consent to transactions (and I don’t mean just sex) yet “kids” today are not.

                      How did society decide 14 was too young but 18 is okay? And because we’ve evolved to an older age of consent here in the US, why do we insist other cultures follow our lead even though those cultures may be at the same point in their development that we were 150 years ago?

                      Financial transactions in the world today are a buttload more complicated than they were 150 years ago. That said, there are SOME 12 year olds who would be perfectly fine managing their lives and finances on their own, and some 26 year olds who are incapable of doing so. Because the law has to be clear about what conduct is legal and what conduct is illegal, there has to be an objective standard established for the age of majoirty. Otherwise it would be unsafe to do business with anyone under the age of 40 because they could try to get out of the contract claiming they are incapable of consent.

                      Likewise with sexual decisions.

                    32. Because the law has to be clear about what conduct is legal and what conduct is illegal, there has to be an objective standard established for the age of majoirty. Otherwise it would be unsafe to do business with anyone under the age of 40 because they could try to get out of the contract claiming they are incapable of consent.

                      So we should lock people in cages because otherwise the law won’t be clear? Even if no one was coerced into doing something they didn’t want to do?

                      Can I not take 50 cents from a 12 year old in exchange for a can of soda because he might claim later he wasn’t old enough to consent to giving me his 50 cents?

                      That being said I can see the argument for some minimum age for some types of contracts, but your argument for this is terrible.

                      Plus, it’s kind of your fault if you expected a 5 year old to keep up his mortgage payments.

                      The issue more lies with stuff like if you had convinced some very young child to sign themselves into some sort of indentured servitude (and I don’t even think this is legal for adults) to you and then have the courts enforce it. This is about the only case where I can see a truly rational need for an age of consent and it should only apply to written contracts.

                      A sexual encounter isn’t something that needs the law to exist.

                      The only reason the law needs to be involved in sex is in the case of REAL rape.

                    33. The point of making the law clear is to afford people some protection from being prosecuted.

                      Vague laws encourage arbitrary and capricious prosecutions.

                    34. Problem of adolescent sexuality is not just limited to the poor though that is where it is the most horrifying. One thing causing anxiety for mothers in my circle of friends is what their adolescent daughters are doing on their computers, webcams and phones. They are quite a bit more sexualized a few years earlier than my peer were. Thank Cthulu, I don’t have a daughter. As one comedian said, when you have a son you have to worry about one little bastard, when you have a daughter, you have to worry about all of them.

                    35. peers — I knew more than one girl when I was growing up. Really! I’m not making it up. Some of them would even talk to me as they were running!

                    36. Can we please move this down so the threading isn’t all screwed up… or commit to always replying to the comment at the bottom which means they will at least appear in order.

                      I can’t keep track of where the argument is going now because the ordering is all screwed up.

                      Regardless, I declare myself the winner against the question beggars.

                      And if you missed it because of the retarded threading, please read my comments about when I was a young teenager and how I feel I was screwed out of my full potential by the adults around me.

                    37. @Heroic Mulatto

                      Just because one’s brain continues to develop well past the age of 20 does not mean that everyone under 20 lacks free will.

                    38. @Heroic Mulatto

                      Just because one’s brain continues to develop well past the age of 20 does not mean that everyone under 20 lacks free will.

                      Or even that they are incapable of making the best decisions for their own lives.

                      Your argument is akin to saying an Ivy League professor with an IQ of 170 should be allowed to dictate what everyone with average or under average intelligence must do with their own lives.

                      Again, I am still greatly bitter about being held back in my own development and from my own full potential because the adults around me thought they knew so much better for my own life than myself.

                    39. Just because one’s brain continues to develop well past the age of 20 does not mean that everyone under 20 lacks free will.

                      From the perspective of neuroscience, free will is an erroneous concept.

                      Or even that they are incapable of making the best decisions for their own lives.

                      No one has argued that; however, it is fact that teenagers have a less-developed prefrontal cortex than adults, which suggests that they are less able to reason through the consequences of their actions.

                      Your argument is akin to saying an Ivy League professor with an IQ of 170 should be allowed to dictate what everyone with average or under average intelligence must do with their own lives.

                      No. No, it isn’t. In fact that is so far removed from my actual argument I have to question if you’re not merely being mendacious.

                      Again, I am still greatly bitter about being held back in my own development and from my own full potential because the adults around me thought they knew so much better for my own life than myself.

                      Which is fine, but what does that have to do with a 13-year-old getting an erect penis thrust over and over again into his colon until he is left cold and naked; shivering in the dark as a thin steady stream of blood and semen, with flecks of fecal matter, trails down his upper thighs?

                    40. Does ‘having free will’=’capable of making decisions which one deserves to be given the liberty to make and to which one should be held responsible for?’ My dog seems to have ‘free will,’ in that he can choose and want to do some things over others, but I think it is for his best that I decide whether to let him run free through the neighborhood or not.

                    41. Just because one’s brain continues to develop well past the age of 20 does not mean that everyone under 20 lacks free will.

                      ^This is what you do if you want to address a particular point. For years we did not even have threading.

                      It’s not that there can’t be that rare wunderkin who is emotionally and intellectually mature at 12. In sixth grade there was a girl, Lisa Grant, in my class who was just that. Her IQ tested in the 170 range, and she could quote the majority of Shakespeare’s work with eidetic recall. Would you want to limit her sexual proclivities with adults at that age? Yes, because the law was designed to protect her from predators who might not even have her emotional and intellectual range, but have they do have the street smarts that she would still be lacking they can use to exploit her.

                      Sixteen is the best age to declare a cutoff between protecting them and acknowledging their rights and independence, as well as the fact attraction is no longer necessarily predatorial.

                    42. but have they do have the street smarts that she would still be lacking they can use which could be used to exploit her.

                    43. Regardless, I declare myself the winner against the question beggars.

                      And if you missed it because of the retarded threading, please read my comments about when I was a young teenager and how I feel I was screwed out of my full potential by the adults around me.

                      How is your situation analogous to child/teen prostitution? (Unless you’re arguing that laws against teenagers sex work inhibit their full potential to be adult sex workers.) Considering you’re so found of using the term “question begging” (incorrectly, as I have pointed out up-thread), allow me to introduce another term from the discipline of logic ignoratio elenchi, of which your latest argument reeks.

                    44. @HM

                      Considering you’re so found of using the term “question begging” (incorrectly, as I have pointed out up-thread), allow me to introduce another term from the discipline of logic ignoratio elenchi, of which your latest argument reeks.

                      You do realize the “I declare myself the winner” thing was a joke, or are you too blinded by irrational rage to have realized that?

                      You also never showed me how Irish and TITs weren’t begging the question by insinuating that 100% of sexual interaction with young teenagers is equal to “abuse”. Otherwise what is the premise of AoC laws? The whole premise is based on the idea that anyone who has sex with someone under the AoC is automatically committing rape. So how can you argue for AoC laws without begging the question?

                      @Bo Cara Esq.

                      Of course the studies will be about general matters, you certainly do not get to claim ‘question begging’ when you are asking for studies to show something ‘100%’ of the time.

                      My response to you here is pretty much the same as my response to HM right above, except I also want to add the fact that one’s brain is still developing and still has “plasticity” I think gives them the greater potential to specialize in a specific field and also to learn from their own mistakes.

                    45. @Killazontherun

                      Sixteen is the best age to declare a cutoff between protecting them and acknowledging their rights and independence, as well as the fact attraction is no longer necessarily predatorial.

                      Based on what, the arbitrary number you just came up with?

                      No one has argued that; however, it is fact that teenagers have a less-developed prefrontal cortex than adults, which suggests that they are less able to reason through the consequences of their actions.

                      Your argument is akin to saying an Ivy League professor with an IQ of 170 should be allowed to dictate what everyone with average or under average intelligence must do with their own lives.

                      No. No, it isn’t. In fact that is so far removed from my actual argument I have to question if you’re not merely being mendacious.

                      How isn’t it? You’re arguing that just because someone might not be or probably would not be as intelligent in a specific aspect as someone else that people who are presumably more able to make good decisions can control other’s lives.

                    46. @HM

                      Which is fine, but what does that have to do with a 13-year-old getting an erect penis thrust over and over again into his colon until he is left cold and naked; shivering in the dark as a thin steady stream of blood and semen, with flecks of fecal matter, trails down his upper thighs?

                      Who is being mendacious now? When did I ever say that assraping a 13 year old or anyone for that matter should be legal or is moral?

                    47. When did I ever say that assraping a 13 year old or anyone for that matter should be legal or is moral?

                      In your universe no prostitute ever does anal? Or maybe they do but only if they charge 5,000,000 dollars in hard currency?

                    48. Based on what, the arbitrary number you just came up with?

                      I was hoping you would ask as it is an aside from the necessary condition of the argument. No, it is based on the equal protection clause which makes an arbitrary cutoff age necessary for a law to be lawfully applied. Any criteria based on maturity would be subjectively applied and thus discriminatory.

                    49. No, it is based on the equal protection clause which makes an arbitrary cutoff age necessary for a law to be lawfully applied. Any criteria based on maturity would be subjectively applied and thus discriminatory.

                      I never said it should be based on maturity, but that the entire concept is flawed. Also how is it not against equal protection to say that those below ‘x’ age don’t get the same rights?

                    50. Everyone (that lives so long) is twelve at some point in their lives, everyone (that lives so long) is sixteen at some point in their lives, so it applies equally to everyone (that lives to that point), and thus, well within a reasonable interpretation of the equal protection clause.

                    51. BTW, I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m just engaging the part of the argument that personally entertains me, and also, to be a fair participant in the discussion, of what is directly asked of me. I don’t think you are evil incarnate for bringing the subject up, and I admit, I haven’t deciphered through the entire discussion because it is a bit long.

                    52. It is not just ‘plasticity.’ Young teens are more impulsive, less capable in terms of cognitive capabilities, and significantly different than older people in other ways that are usually thought important for establishing responsibility in decision making. Again, please read the studies cited and discussed in the cases I mentioned.

                    53. You also never showed me how Irish and TITs weren’t begging the question by insinuating that 100% of sexual interaction with young teenagers is equal to “abuse”.

                      This was never asserted by anyone, and I disavowed that statement specifically.

                      Otherwise what is the premise of AoC laws?

                      The premise is that, at some undetermined point in human development, the knowledge and developmental state are such that to an outside observer consent cannot be determined or inferred without a type of knowledge outside the scope of the observer’s point of view. Sex and money being two areas in which the potential for damage is quite high (and for which most minors require education), consent in these first interactions in such subjects should be subject to great scrutiny.

                      An age that is believed to include most individuals affected is then set to preclude interactions before they can be assumed to bear responsibility and understanding for the consequences.

                      Not everything is about hard-and-fast principles on an abstract theoretical plane, however much libertarians like to pretend that it is.

                    54. The premise is that, at some undetermined point in human development, the knowledge and developmental state are such that to an outside observer consent cannot be determined or inferred without a type of knowledge outside the scope of the observer’s point of view. Sex and money being two areas in which the potential for damage is quite high (and for which most minors require education), consent in these first interactions in such subjects should be subject to great scrutiny.

                      An age that is believed to include most individuals affected is then set to preclude interactions before they can be assumed to bear responsibility and understanding for the consequences.

                      Not everything is about hard-and-fast principles on an abstract theoretical plane, however much libertarians like to pretend that it is.

                      None of this changes the fact that AoC laws assume that anyone having sex with someone under the arbitrarily set age should be locked in a government cage because they are automatically committing rape even if consent was given.

                      Again, how does this change the fact that the very concept of AoC is nothing more than one huge No True Scottsman codified into law?

                    55. AoC laws assume that anyone having sex with someone under the arbitrarily set age should be locked in a government cage because they are automatically committing rape even if consent was given.

                      …just as all laws against assault assume that outside observance of consent to make contact with my body as determined by general community standards has been violated. Your point?

                      And, as has already been stated by HM, you’re applying No True Scotsman and question-begging fallaciously.

                    56. You do realize the “I declare myself the winner” thing was a joke, or are you too blinded by irrational rage to have realized that?

                      Obviously not, but that’s because you have the sense of humor of a macroeconomist with Asperger’s Syndrome; not from any “irrational rage” you falsely ascribe to me.

                      Do you think you are so important that you would stimulate any emotional reaction in me or anyone else?

                      I am merely having a discussion with you. It seems that pointing out errors in your reasoning is equal to aggression in your mind. If I were to engage in the same armchair psychoanalysis that you used to deduce erroneous statements about my character, then I might point to the fact that you seem to be a sociopath due to your unwarranted sense of self-importance and inability to accept criticism. Furthermore, it would seem that your molestation at the age of six combined with your frustrations as a soi-disant gifted teenager, combined with the sociopath’s inability to empathize with others and inability to morally reason outside one’s own ego-constructed identity, have rendered you unable to approach this topic with any sense of objectivity.
                      [cont]

                    57. You also never showed me how Irish and TITs weren’t begging the question by insinuating that 100% of sexual interaction with young teenagers is equal to “abuse”.

                      Actually, I have. Several times in the thread, in fact. However, you have either ignored them or you don’t possess the mental sophistication to grasp my arguments.

                      Otherwise what is the premise of AoC laws? The whole premise is based on the idea that anyone who has sex with someone under the AoC is automatically committing rape.

                      Which is a completely different argument than what you were discussing before concerning child/teenaged prostitution. Again, you indulge in ignoratio elenchi, and when called on it, screech about informal ad hoc fallacies that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

                    58. Which is a completely different argument than what you were discussing before concerning child/teenaged prostitution. Again, you indulge in ignoratio elenchi, and when called on it, screech about informal ad hoc fallacies that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

                      And how are AoC laws irrelevant when it comes to prostitition? Where is the ignoratio elenchi?

                      Do you think you are so important that you would stimulate any emotional reaction in me or anyone else?

                      You could have fooled me… I’m sensing more and more anger from you in every response I see.

                    59. Actually, I have. Several times in the thread, in fact. However, you have either ignored them or you don’t possess the mental sophistication to grasp my arguments.

                      Then do me a favor and explain it again, the threading is so messed up it makes it hard to follow anything at this point.

                    60. …just as all laws against assault assume that outside observance of consent to make contact with my body as determined by general community standards has been violated. Your point?

                      And, as has already been stated by HM, you’re applying No True Scotsman and question-begging fallaciously.

                      But this isn’t the same at all, you’re manufacturing coercion that might not even exist. If you assume that all sexual interactions between someone over the AoC with someone under the AoC are automatically coercive you are indeed engaging in question begging, what is essentially a no true scottsman type argument.

                      You can cry all you want that you aren’t begging the question, but the entire concept of AoC is based on that fallacy.

                    61. But this isn’t the same at all, you’re manufacturing coercion that might not even exist.

                      Is there any age or any criterion you would agree to in order to differentiate between a child and an adult for the purposes of consent? How about 2 years old as AoC — I’d have to imagine there aren’t a whole lot of 2 year olds who know what they’re signing onto. As Killaz said above, other restrictions such as subjective maturity are a bit more subjective and potentially violate the Equal Protection clause.

                      It is difficult for me to be sure whether you are being satirical/unintentionally overstating your point, or if you genuinely believe that there is no reasonable way to establish certain markers indicative of consent.

                    62. @TITs

                      Check my response at 8:51PM regarding this. I missed this comment until now because of threading 🙁

                    63. And how are AoC laws irrelevant when it comes to prostitition? Where is the ignoratio elenchi?

                      Because in the S.E. Asian countries you cited in your original argument, the AoC laws allow for sex with teens, or if they don’t, the laws aren’t enforced.

                      You could have fooled me… I’m sensing more and more anger from you in every response I see.

                      You’re claiming to be a Jedi now?

                      Then do me a favor and explain it again, the threading is so messed up it makes it hard to follow anything at this point.

                      Go back to my response @7:02 and start from there.

                    64. In your universe no prostitute ever does anal? Or maybe they do but only if they charge 5,000,000 dollars in hard currency?

                      Again, you accuse me of being mendacious, yet you are describing a situation which would much more reflect rape than a consensual encounter regardless of the age of the people involved.

                      Because in the S.E. Asian countries you cited in your original argument, the AoC laws allow for sex with teens, or if they don’t, the laws aren’t enforced.

                      I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here, my position is there should be no AoC laws, and that S.E. Asian countries aren’t immoral for not having or not enforcing such laws, but rather immoral for allowing child slavery to continue.

                      Go back to my response @7:02 and start from there.

                      I just re-read the whole discussion and you never explained how AoC laws are not based on the fallacy that anyone who has sex with someone under ‘x’ age must be a rapist and should be locked in a cage.

                      Again, how is this not begging the question? How is it not very similar to No True Scottsman?

                    65. Again, you accuse me of being mendacious, yet you are describing a situation which would much more reflect rape than a consensual encounter regardless of the age of the people involved.

                      OK, first of all, it’s clear you’ve never done anal. Secondly, You think sex with a prostitute is all romance, giggles, and hugs & kisses? It’s pay the money, fuck, and leave. My description is quite accurate.

                      I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here, my position is there should be no AoC laws, and that S.E. Asian countries aren’t immoral for not having or not enforcing such laws, but rather immoral for allowing child slavery to continue.

                      No, liar. You were arguing that people’s criticism of your support of young teen prostitution was grounded in the arbitrary dictates of AoC law.

                      I just re-read the whole discussion and you never explained how AoC laws are not based on the fallacy that anyone who has sex with someone under ‘x’ age must be a rapist and should be locked in a cage.

                      I never explained it because that’s not the argument. You’re purposefully obfuscating the argument because deep down you sense your premises are false.

                    66. No, liar. You were arguing that people’s criticism of your support of young teen prostitution was grounded in the arbitrary dictates of AoC law.

                      I never meant to imply this. If this is what you got from my argument you completely misunderstood me.

                      I never explained it because that’s not the argument. You’re purposefully obfuscating the argument because deep down you sense your premises are false.

                      Huh? I think you you just misunderstood what my argument was. Which was simply they shouldn’t be considered “immoral” for not having laws against prostitution or AoC laws, but rather only considered immoral for allowing actual slavery.

                    67. Damn, HM. You wrote a lot of stuff when you could have just said I AM AN ANGRY BLACK MAN AND I WILL QUESTION-BEG. If you weren’t so invested in your anger and illogic, it would be obvious to you that consent between a 13-year old Thai girl and the 3 Westerners who want to sodomize her on a given night should be assumed.

                      /Plopper

                    68. Damn TITs, great ad hominem and strawman there.

                    69. Damn TITs, great ad hominem and strawman there.

                      Yes, because discussion on a comment board on an internet blog is exactly like discourse in an academic symposium, which must follow the rigorous laws of logical reasoning for debate.

                      Except, when, you know, you make a joke. Then we’re all supposed to fall out of our seats laughing at your rapier-like wit.

                    70. You know an argument is over when you start arguing about how your opponent is arguing.

                    71. Yes, because discussion on a comment board on an internet blog is exactly like discourse in an academic symposium, which must follow the rigorous laws of logical reasoning for debate.

                      I just want a debate based on reason and not some emotional preconceptions about people’s lives who you have never met yet you seem so sure you know what is best for them and how to better make decisions for them forced at gunpoint by the state.

                      Also don’t miss my response at 8:39PM.

                    72. not some emotional preconceptions about people’s lives who you have never met

                      Really??? I lived in Bangkok for almost five years, son. How long did you live there?

                    73. Really??? I lived in Bangkok for almost five years, son. How long did you live there?

                      So you can speak for everyone in Bangkok because you lived there for 5 years? I can’t even speak for someone who lives on the other side of my neighborhood.

                    74. I can’t even speak for someone who lives on the other side of my neighborhood.

                      And yet, you’re speaking for every child prostitute on the planet.

                      Give it up dude. You’re not even arguing in good faith anymore and have devolved into concern trolling.

                    75. And yet, you’re speaking for every child prostitute on the planet.

                      LOL and you accuse me of being mendacious. I don’t claim to speak for anyone. If someone doesn’t want to have sex with someone, I’m not telling them they have to or that they really want to.

                      You on the other hand are telling them they can’t even if they do want to.

                      Give it up dude. You’re not even arguing in good faith anymore and have devolved into concern trolling.

                      Me, concern trolling, while you are so concerned about a bunch of teenagers who you think you can make better decisions for than themselves?

                      One more time, they should be condemned for allowing child slavery, not condemned for allowing prostitution or not enforcing AoC laws.

                    76. Me, concern trolling, while you are so concerned about a bunch of teenagers who you think you can make better decisions for than themselves?

                      I do think I can make better decision for them. That’s the point of maturity. However, I never said I believe my decisions should be impressed upon them by the force of the state; however, that didn’t stop you from conflating the two when I criticized your absurd premise that a 13 year old is a just as capable reasoner as a neurologically and psychologically maturated adult.

                      One more time, they should be condemned for allowing child slavery, not condemned for allowing prostitution or not enforcing AoC laws.

                      And no one disagreed with you on that. You just got all pissy when I pointed out to you that you were using the terms “no true Scotsman” and “question begging” incorrectly. In response, you decided to beat up a bunch of straw men for a while.

                    77. I do think I can make better decision for them. That’s the point of maturity. However, I never said I believe my decisions should be impressed upon them by the force of the state; however, that didn’t stop you from conflating the two when I criticized your absurd premise that a 13 year old is a just as capable reasoner as a neurologically and psychologically maturated adult.

                      Then we have nothing to argue about and we are in complete agreement and we somewhere along the way confused each other. I never meant to imply that a 13 year old is just as capable of a reasoner as most adults. Just that some 13 year olds could very well be better compared to some of the less intelligent adults out there.

                    78. It’s hard when you’re arguing with 5 different people at once and the ordering of posts is all messed up.

                      So I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I did not mean to attack any strawmen.

                    79. Actually… I take back my apology after reading your response at 8:53PM where you call me a liar and you attack the strawman that I “support” child prostitution.

                      It’s about the same as saying someone supports heroin use because they think it should be legal.

                    80. It’s also extremely angering you would claim this at 9:17PM:

                      however, that didn’t stop you from conflating the two when I criticized your absurd premise that a 13 year old is a just as capable reasoner as a neurologically and psychologically maturated adult.

                      After I had said at 6:52PM:

                      I’m not saying their decision making process would likely be as developed at that age as most adults, but we are all individuals who vary greatly.

                      And then you dare call ME a liar?!

                      Multiple times I said this is not what I believed. Yet you harp on me for bashing on strawmen?

                      Seriously, fuck you. You’ve been the most mendacious person on this whole thread.

                      You just got angry that I pointed out there is no principled libertarian argument for AoC laws and that it is nothing more than No True Scottsman codified into law.

                      Then you accuse me of obfuscating because you don’t have a fucking argument.

                    81. Damn. I have a daughter. I have to hope she’s prudish like her mother. My wife had ONE partner before me. She saw no point in sexual activity for its own sake. Attagirl!

                    82. My wife had at least twenty partners before me, she was in her late twenties when we met. I would like to shake the hand of everyman she slept with because by the time she got around to me, she was really good at it. Sloppy seconds? No, perfected seconds.

                    83. And which ever of you coworkers of her taught her that new trick where she kneads my balls with her kegel muscles, bravo, sir, bravo.

                    84. coworkers of hers taught

                    85. Ha, ha!

                    86. Is there any age or any criterion you would agree to in order to differentiate between a child and an adult for the purposes of consent? How about 2 years old as AoC — I’d have to imagine there aren’t a whole lot of 2 year olds who know what they’re signing onto. As Killaz said above, other restrictions such as subjective maturity are a bit more subjective and potentially violate the Equal Protection clause.

                      Most two year olds can barely even say “yes” or “no”. So I’d say they are incapable of sexual consent.

                      It is difficult for me to be sure whether you are being satirical/unintentionally overstating your point, or if you genuinely believe that there is no reasonable way to establish certain markers indicative of consent.

                      I think it’s pretty simple, if they say yes, don’t indicate they want for you to stop, and you aren’t physically injuring them in any way then consent has objectively been established. Assuming that is they aren’t mute or you’ve drugged them or something.

                    87. Most two year olds can barely even say “yes” or “no”. So I’d say they are incapable of sexual consent.

                      I fail to see how this is relevant if you want to argue in principle against AoC laws on the basis that reasonable observed consent is insufficient grounds on which to imprison someone who very well may have consented in a metaphysical sense.

                      I think it’s pretty simple, if they say yes, don’t indicate they want for you to stop, and you aren’t physically injuring them in any way then consent has objectively been established. Assuming that is they aren’t mute or you’ve drugged them or something.

                      Why put barriers on drug use or physical harm? Usage of either one is the prerogative of consenting adults, after all. Does consent stop being consent because of an altered mental state (which pain and drug use are subsets of)? I don’t see how you can argue that on NAP grounds.

                      This discussion really confirms in my mind why I’m not a libertarian.

                    88. I fail to see how this is relevant if you want to argue in principle against AoC laws on the basis that reasonable observed consent is insufficient grounds on which to imprison someone who very well may have consented in a metaphysical sense.

                      You have a point, but I didn’t mean that there should be any AoC, it’s just that if you tried to stick an adult penis inside of a 2 year old’s vagina or anus they would surely be screaming in pain. There would be no need to prosecute them on “statutory” rape, as the physical damage would be obvious.

                      Why put barriers on drug use or physical harm? Usage of either one is the prerogative of consenting adults, after all. Does consent stop being consent because of an altered mental state (which pain and drug use are subsets of)? I don’t see how you can argue that on NAP grounds.

                      I think you’re confused about what I meant. I mean like if you raped them while they were totally unconscious or they were so screwed up you knew very well they wouldn’t want to do it but weren’t conscious enough to say ‘no’ or stop you.

                      This all seems so clear to me, I don’t understand why anyone would be confused about why I take the position I do. (Assuming you are actually a libertarian and someone who believes people should be free to make their own mistakes and rule their own lives).

                    89. What she does feels so warm, wet and sloppy, its like getting a blowjob from a vagina.

          2. Wow, this Plopper person is a piece of work, even by the standards of reason.com. He obviously knows nothing about the subject but acts like he is the expert. He is a true believer of the worst kind. He should really just join the church of Scientology and get it over with.

            1. Wow this Puggg person is great at ad hominem, last I checked that wasn’t a valid form of argument though.

    4. Does anybody really believe that, were you born in Somalia, even assuming the same intelligence and personality, you would be as wealthy as you are now?

      1. Doesn’t like Africans, does like East Asians. Puggg=American?

        1. It’s obviously American. I knew it was him the instant that racist posted about the decline in Computer science pay. He was obviously saying that because he’s arguing we shouldn’t let Indians and other people here to work in STEM careers.

      2. born in Somalia

        I believe my parents would would wonder what the fuck they were doing in Somalia and as soon as they could would bundle me up, board on a plane and get the fuck out of there.

        You may think I am being facetious but I have at least 4 great grand parents who did exactly that…and a bunch more great great grand parents who did that as well.

        Do we stand on the shoulders of giants? You bet. but the wealth those giants accomplished was given out of love of family and not intended to be shovelled over to some government bureaucrats for them to squander.

        1. If everyone from Somalia got on a boat to Japan and everyone in Japan got on a boat to Somalia, in a few years, Japan would look like Somalia and Somalia would look like Japan.

        2. This is exceedingly well said.

          Redistributionists often make this kind of argument, that ‘a child born in Somalia/Appalachia/Detroit/etc., just does not have the same chances as a child born in a better off place.’

          Of course as a general matter that is true. And I see what they are getting at: ‘why should a child be punished because of where he or she was born? Shouldn’t they have the same chance as a child born elsewhere?’ My answer is, of course that child should not be so punished, but my parents and I are not the ones that are punishing him so your point does not in the least warrant you taking coercive measures against us. What they really want is to punish the better off children for having the temerity to be born in a better off place!

          1. Bo, my sister would often use the fact we were born into a “wealthy” life style as an ad hominen whenever I would offer my perspectives on poverty.

            My own buddy uses it too. Apparently, whenever we discuss say “free” post-secondary education, my arguments are invalid because I don’t know what it’s like to pay for education – which was a total crock of shit and insults me to no end.

    5. “Most rich people rarely come into close contact with those in need. I recently asked a child in our school in Westwood if he knew anyone who ever went to bed hungry for lack of food. “No one,” he answered. I suspect that’s typical.”

      Unless they have a pen pal in North Korea, I don’t think any child in America could answer yes to that question.

      1. I don’t think any child in America could answer yes to that question.

        I do. I grew up in the South, there were a lot of poor people then and there still all today. Most of them are Black but I knew some White ones as well. That this commenter thinks hunger doesn’t exist in America tells you how ignorant he is. Maybe if he got out into the real world he would rethink the polices he supports.

        1. When did you grow up? I grew up in Yauco (significantly more rural and poor than anywhere I’ve been in the US), and I knew some kids who went hungry — but they were rare, and it has become significantly richer in the interim (so has the South, btw).

        2. Oh, bullshit! If you’ve ever truly seen poverty, it sure as shit wasn’t in the US. Go do a tour of Africa and then come back and tell me about the hordes of starving Americans.

          1. Yeah, and I’m not a big fan of Africa. Americans deserve better.

            1. Americans deserve better.

              I know that’s true! My phrenologist says so.

            2. So poor/poverty is whatever you say it is then, huh? No real objective definition, just whatever you claim it is to make your point?

              Tell me, Puggg, how much wealth do the poor need before you’ll no longer consider them poor?

              1. Let me apply that logic elsewhere:

                You think Taxes are high now? Move to the Soviet Union. Then come back cry about how much in taxes you have to pay. Your entire premise is based on taxes being “too” high, but you realize now that “high taxes” has no real objective definition?

                1. First, you didn’t answer my question.

                  However, I’ll play your little game. Taxes are too high when everyone cannot pay an equal share for the services provided. When the poor cannot afford to pay a flat fee for the services provided by the government, and their portion must be subsidized by stealing more from the wealthy, THEN taxes are too fucking high and the government is doing too fucking much.

                  Now, you answer my question.

                2. Move to the Soviet Union.

                  _______

                  If I had a time machine, I’d take a sports almanac back in time to 2010, and make my living in Vegas as the greatest handicapper of all time.

        3. Ah yes, the South, known for their emaciated children.

          1. Poor Americans: So hungry there’s an obesity epidemic. /Liberal Logic

            1. FAT STUPID AMERICANS can’t even do poor right.

            2. To be fair one can be nutritionally deficient while being calorically over-fed, which can make one more prone to disease. There’s no good reason for this to happen in the US besides a combination of laziness and parents failing to teach kids how to prepare a basic meal that doesn’t contain Velveeta. When I was a youngling we were on food stamps and we still ate basic, but reasonably well balanced meals because my mother’s family put a premium on cooking as a skill.

              Liberals just put the cart before the horse and say if you fill supermarkets in poor neighborhoods with kale by mandate everyone will be healthier.

            3. And the “poor black south” has the worst obesity in the county.

              Puggg is talking bullshit.

              1. It isn’t surprising that the poor are more likely to be obese and to be hungry. Their poor impulse control causes them to be poor, and thus hungry, but when they have a source of income, that same poor impulse control causes them to become obese.

                1. Their poor impulse control causes them to be poor, and thus hungry

                  Ok, this has to be sockpuppet parody.

          2. It’s ironic that the face of poverty in America today is a celebrity millionaire.

          3. It’s ironic that the face of poverty in America today is a celebrity millionaire.

        4. I do. I grew up in the South, there were a lot of poor people then and there still all today. Most of them are Black but I knew some White ones as well. That this commenter thinks hunger doesn’t exist in America tells you how ignorant he is. Maybe if he got out into the real world he would rethink the polices he supports.

          The South is poorer than the North for two reasons: 1. Past racism that resulted in huge amounts of effort being expended to keep a large portion of the population poor

          2. The fact that the South was run by New Deal Democrats for decades.

          The South has become far less poor since they got rid of segregation and switched to voting for comparatively free market reforms. That tells me that the policies I support not only should not be rethought, but actively helped raise the South from poverty.

          The South, which at this point is much closer to my preferred policies than the North, is growing at a much faster rate and has far higher population growth than any other region of the country. This is because the policies I am in favor of have clearly worked.

          1. “Past racism that resulted in huge amounts of effort being expended to keep a large portion of the population poor”

            That explains why Sweden is having such a good experience with immigration. If the Southerners wouldn’t be so racist, they would act like they do in Sweden.

            “The fact that the South was run by New Deal Democrats for decades.”

            And the North wasn’t?

            “The South, which at this point is much closer to my preferred policies than the North, is growing at a much faster rate and has far higher population growth than any other region of the country.”

            The South has an agricultural economy. You can’t ship the soil to China. You can’t ship Mcdonalds to Asia either. The North is suffering because it had an economy centered on industry.

            1. “The fact that the South was run by New Deal Democrats for decades.”

              And the North wasn’t?

              It is staggering how little you know about history. Here’s a map of the 1956 presidential election. Blue is Republican in this case, red is Democrat. Notice anything interesting about the difference between the South and the rest of the country? Every state voted Republican except for Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, North Carolina and Alaska. Yeah, it’s pretty safe to say that outside of the deep south, America was not run by New Deal Democrats.

              “The South, which at this point is much closer to my preferred policies than the North, is growing at a much faster rate and has far higher population growth than any other region of the country.”

              The South has an agricultural economy. You can’t ship the soil to China. You can’t ship Mcdonalds to Asia either. The North is suffering because it had an economy centered on industry.

              What. The south has a mining, an oil drilling, a manufacturing and a technological economy. Texas is not booming because of fertile soil, it’s booming because of gas drilling, manufacturing, and, in the case of Houston, medical research and pharmaceutical production. The South is more of a manufacturing economy today than the North is, and your claims to the contrary show how ignorant you are about the issue.

              1. Every state voted Republican except for Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, North Carolina and Alaska.

                Sorry, not Alaska. Alabama. Stevenson lost every state except for the Deep South. The fact that you didn’t know this is hilarious.

                1. Because voting for Republicans in that era means you disagree with the New Deal, and voting for Democrats means you agree with it? Wrong.

                  You can’t ship oil wells to China either.

                  1. Actually not wrong. The Republicans explicitly wanted to scale back the New Deal programs and eliminate many of them and they did so. They were certainly less big government than the Democrats were at that time. For example, after WWII the Republicans cut spending and agitated for the removal of price controls and the Democrats were convinced this would destroy the economy. Just to give you one example of the difference.

                    Honestly, did your history teacher just beat you unconscious with the textbook and then hope that you’d learned something through osmosis?

                    You can’t ship oil wells to China either.

                    No, but you can choose to drill it. There are large natural gas deposits in southern Illinois, New York and California, and they have not experienced the same economic impact as Texas drilling because the Democrats won’t allow people to really take advantage of the gas deposits because of left-wing environmental hysteria.

                  2. You can’t ship oil wells to China either.

                    No, but you can raise the cost of oil exploration and extraction enough through regulatory burdens and taxes enough that it makes more sense for the Chinese to do it and ship it here than for Texans to do it. If other sources of oil started drying up (peak oil scenario) it might eventually become cost effective to extract domestic oil again, but it wouldn’t until oil prices from other sources outstripped base production costs + extra burden costs.

            2. And the North wasn’t?

              It wasn’t.

              It is now….and look at Detroit.

              1. The New Deal came out of the North, it was northern workers and their unions who supported it to a much greater extent than Southerners. Also look at Boulder, Colorado. I went there recently. Very nice place.

                1. And it was subsequently repudiated by Northern States when they swung Republican after WWII and experienced an economic boom during a time of decreased regulation and price controls.

            3. You can’t ship Mcdonalds [sic] to Asia either.

              Huh?

          2. How can anyone argue that kids go to bed hungry in the US when the average amount of money welfare recipients get from the most common government programs is $35,000 per year?

            If any kids are going to bed hungry – after the free lunches, free breakfasts and gov’t programs it’s because the parent is spending the money on something else.

          3. The South is poorer than the North for two reasons: 1. Past racism that resulted in huge amounts of effort being expended to keep a large portion of the population poor

            2. The fact that the South was run by New Deal Democrats for decades.

            I’d add a third reason.

            That Jim Crow was fundamentally an anti-market political system that produced stagnation and lower growth than the more pro-market US economy as a whole. Those lower growth rates compounded over the decades to produce much poorer societies overall. That paradigm was flipped in the last 30 years, with the north and midwest adopting anti-growth market restricting policies while the South has liberalized, with the result that the South has experience faster economic growth and is near closing the wealth gap altogether. If the current trends continue for another three decades the South will be noticably wealthier than the north and midwest.

      2. I won’t dispute that there is some small number of children who “go to bed hungry”, but it is not because of poverty, it is because of neglect.

    6. live behind gates and in general maintain a buffer from those who are less fortunate

      They live behind gates because of the very policies the writer supports. In America circa 1950 there was a feeling of unity because America meant more than an artificial geographical area that happens to be ruled by one set of tyrants rather than another.

      1. In America circa 1950 there was a feeling of unity… as long as you weren’t a colored, homo or ethnic.

    7. -Studies suggest that actual personal distance in conversation grows with wealth as well.

      Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Personal space is now elitist?

    8. “They fly in private planes (or relax in exclusive clubs at the airport)”

      Back in the day, poor people couldn’t fly.

      1. Oh, wait right there Bam. Are you actually implying that “today’s poor” have a higher quality of life than the poor of 50 years ago?

        It can’t be true. They are still in the bottom 33%. Or is that bottom 75% now?

        1. I think the number you were looking for is 99% FdA…We’re all in this together, except Audi and Leaf drivers, and Canadians.

          1. The only thing worse than the rich are the Canadians. And the only thing worse than Canadians are Canadians who watch soccer! eh?

            1. are you trying to sweet talk me?

            2. Shit. I’m a Canadian who watches soccer.

              Forza Milan!

        2. Are you actually implying that “today’s poor” have a higher quality of life than the poor of 50 years ago?

          The poor haven’t seen any increase in their quality of life over the last 30 years even though they spend a lower percentage of their income on food than ever before and a poor person with a cell phone has better communication technology than the president did in 1980.

          Still, the poor have seen no improvement in their quality of life. I know this because the Democrats have told me so without actually bothering to prove it.

          They are prophets and must be obeyed.

          1. I always find this interesting. People who believe things are generally getting better cite changes in overall well-being between the past and the present and say “A rising tide lifts all ships” and people who want to prove that things have gotten worse from the poor indicate the difference in wealth disparity just after WWII and the present.

            I discussed this with a friend who was upset about income inequality and she (I think rightly) pointed out that we don’t compare ourselves to our forebearers so much as we compare ourselves to our peers, which is why the income inequality argument has more emotional salience than the massive generational improvement we’ve seen.

            1. she (I think rightly) pointed out that we don’t compare ourselves to our forebearers so much as we compare ourselves to our peers,

              AKA: Envy and Greed.

              1. Absolutely. I don’t think this mindset is in anyone’s best interest, but I think it’s a reality.

                But I’m also considered a little kooky in my friend group for waxing poetic about the fact that a device in my pocket replaces and far surpasses a phone rented from PacBell that I could barely lift as a child and could’ve easily been used to batter someone to death AND the first several computers I owned combined and multiplied by a few thousand.

            2. It’s because most leftists know nothing about history and therefore are unable to compare themselves to the past.

              When you’re ignorant, you tend to be unable to compare your lot to people around the world and people throughout history. As a result, you compare yourself to the only thing you DO know about, which is people in your own time. Envy over wealth disparities is basically caused by the egregious historical ignorance of the left.

              1. It’s because most leftists know nothing about history and therefore are unable to compare themselves to the past.

                Unfortunately I don’t think that’s always true. I know some intelligent and well informed people who willfully choose to view life through the lens of contemporary wealth disparity rather than as a series of improvements from one generation to another. I even know several people who spent part of their childhoods in much poorer countries before their parents moved them here, who still fall prey to this line of thinking.

                1. -I even know several people who spent part of their childhoods in much poorer countries before their parents moved them here, who still fall prey to this line of thinking.

                  I think it is very basic in human beings.

                  At a recent visit to a park I saw two kids at play. One kid owned the baseball equipment they were playing with, the other did not. While the owner shared whichever piece of equipment he did not want at the moment with the other child he ‘hogged’ whatever item he wanted, loudly reminding the second kid that the items were his. Of course, it is better to have some equipment than none, so the second child was better off in some sense, but it was unpleasant to watch. There is something in the human heart that is bothered by that. It is a powerful intuition and emotional trigger. Of course there are powerful intuitions and emotional triggers that are incorrect or unjust to act upon, but there it is.

              2. -It’s because most leftists know nothing about history

                That does not seem correct to me. The left seems unusually focused on the past, celebrating events like the March on Washington fifty years later and talking about slavery every fifteen minutes.

                1. That does not seem correct to me. The left seems unusually focused on the past, celebrating events like the March on Washington fifty years later and talking about slavery every fifteen minutes.

                  As Reagan said, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

                  The left may talk about history a lot, but it is almost always couched in some fallacious revisionist interpretation.

              3. It’s because most leftists know nothing about history

                Hundreds, if not thousands, of angry historians affiliated with the University of Chicago are currently beating an angry path to your door.

                1. Hundreds, if not thousands, of angry historians affiliated with the University of Chicago are currently beating an angry path to your door.

                  I’m sure Howard Zinn is spinning in his grave too.

                  1. Note: In the case of Howard Zinn, ‘historian’ should be applied as loosely as possible.

            3. and people who want to prove that things have gotten worse from the poor indicate the difference in wealth disparity just after WWII and the present.

              Even that is fucking bullshit.

              The gulf between the rich and the poor in the 1940s was larger than it is now, not smaller.

              For example, my father was a WWII vet, who married, had kids, went to work in a factory and bought a crappy 2-bedroom house in a new suburb. My mom and dad in remembering those days recalled that they only time they ate meat (beef) was when the boss invited them over for dinner, which was a couple of times a year and how my brothers (who were young kids at the time) embarassed them by making a big deal of it.

              Today, the socialist scum on the left would be outraged at the idea that a working family (or even a welfare family) was so deprived.

        3. The poor today are more likely to live in homes with granite countertops (thanks to section 8 and the collapse of the subprime mortgage) almost all have air conditioning, all have refrigerators all have multiple TV’s, cable and more than 80% have x-boxes. They are also more likely to have very pricey sportsnamed footwear like Air Jordans.

          We working fools should be so lucky.

    9. We ride in cars and live in homes we didn’t build? Of what significance is that? I hear people are paid to build those cars and homes. People are paid to supply the materials to build those cars and homes. People are paid to move and store the cars. More people are paid to sell those cars and homes. Every set of hands that touches those cars and homes prior to reaching the final buyer is made wealthier for having done so.

      Leading to the next point: It boggles my mind that Jews are not the most anarchistic people on Earth. Given the last 2000 years of history, of pograms and purges and blood libel and Holocaust, that any Jew with a sense of history would extol the benefits or worse, the benevolence of government, especially centralized government. Looking at the Torah, your own God did not intend that you be ruled over by kings and lords and governors and potentates, but to have a loose tribal confederation with occasional leaders for times of crisis (The Judges).

      The final thrust is that by some perverse calculus is that by throwing money at people and non-profits, you prove yourself more righteous than all those around you. Following that reasoning, only the wealthy can be truly good because only they have the money to throw to charities or to visit “poorer countries” on one of these self-affirming, masturbatory pilgrimages.

      1. It boggles my mind that Jews are not the most anarchistic people on Earth.

        Emma Goldman? Alexander Berkman? Lawrence Jarach? Martin Buber? Murry Bookchin? Chomsky? Rothbard? Friedman? (Milton and David), just off the top of my head.

        {Was Konkin 3 Jewish?)

        It seems for 2% of the global population, Jews are overrepresented in anarchist thought.

        1. To be fair, Jews are over-represented in almost every intellectual pursuit, heh.

          1. To be fair, Jews are over-represented in almost every intellectual pursuit, heh.

            They suck at hockey and I don’t care if you think I am anti-Semitic for saying so.

        2. Half that list are Anarcho-Communists.

          Jews are about 0.3 percent of the world population.

          Jews are always going to be overrepresented, that is a consequence of their very high verbal intelligence. However it the over-representation in leftist causes is much, much greater than is warranted by that alone. Compare to the overreprsentation in pro-American movements, which is much smaller.(though still existent)

          1. Oh, please give an example of what you define as a “pro-American” movement.

            This should be delicious!

            1. Pro-American movements support the historical American nation in the fight against communism and multiculturalism. My favorite pro-American website is VDare.com

            2. This should be delicious!

              My favorite pro-American website is VDare.com

              And it was. Gee, I wonder who “They are here!” is?

          2. Why would you expect them to be overrepresented in pro-American movements? Historically, the US was not a major area of Jewish settlement until recently; hell, even post-WWII Europe had more Jews than the US for many years IIRC.

            1. Let’s be fair now, there wouldn’t have been an (successful) American Revolution without famed Son of Liberty Haym Solomon.

              1. My favorite pro-American Jews is Judah P. Benjamin, who was the Confederate Secretary of War during the war of Northern Aggression.

            2. As soon as they got here they were overrepresented in anti-American and communist movements. They were instrumental in passing the disastrous “Civil Rights” act as well as the 1965 Immigration Act.

              1. You are a barrel of laughs, American. If you were just a HBD fanatic, you’d get boring after awhile but you’re the complete package — a neo-confederate, Sinophilic, pickup artist quasi-socialist/technocratic protectionist. I can imagine all of that in one VDare seminar, but all of it wrapped up in one person? Truly delightful.

                1. I’m not a pickup artist.

                2. a neo-confederate, Sinophilic, pickup artist quasi-socialist/technocratic protectionist. I can imagine all of that in one VDare seminar, but all of it wrapped up in one person? Truly delightful.

                  It’s not even original. All of the above is basically a description of Jared Taylor.

                  Hey! You know what would be pathetic, yet at the same time hilarious? If “American’t!” was Jared Taylor, who has nothing better to do than to obsessively troll reason’s Hit and Run.

                  1. My views are much more attune to those of the typical American than yours. Most Americans would be considered by you to a “HBD fanatic”(anyone who notices race) “sinophile”(anyone who notices China) “Socialist”(anyone who supports public schools) “protectionist”(anyone who is a protectionist), “pickup artist”(anyone who is not a feminist).

                    1. Not bad, but I want to hear you talk about how jazz music has a corrupting influence on society’s morals.

                    2. Ah yes, special pleading by claiming you have unique insight into the minds of 300 million people. And then you buttress your nonsense with idiosyncratic definitions for commonplace terms.

                      Listen, I’m going to tell you something you should have been told a long time ago, kid. You’re no where nearly as smart as you imagine yourself to be; in fact, you’re not even smart at all.

                    3. In the dictionary definition, I am neither a “socialist,” a “pickup-artist,” or a “sinophile.”

        3. Goldman was more communist than anarchist, at least from what I’ve read of her. Berkman the same. Jarach, I don’t know. Buber was anti-nationalist with regards to Zionism, but I have not heard of him being anti-nation state altogether. Bookchin, I don’t know. Chomsky surrendered whatever anarchist bona fides he may have had when he wrote apologies for Pol Pot. Plus, I don’t see how trade unionism is conducive with anarchism, but Chomsky does. Rothbard…I liked Man, Economy and the State. But do anarchists break bread with David Duke? Or give cover to scum like Lew Rockwell? I had not heard of Milton Friedman claiming the anarchist label. David Friedman, I can concede. The man is an Ancap.

          As for Konkin, he may have been Jewish. The name sounds about right, but I don’t have Jewdar so…I couldn’t say with any confidence.

          1. Agree with all of this. I’m not anything close to an anarchist, but once you start writing apologia for the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot shouldn’t someone point you to the exit?

          2. David Duke was more of a libertarian than MLK ever could be, but that doesn’t stop Reason writers from writing articles praising the man. At that time, Duke was not the holocaust denying Jew-hater that he has since become, he was simply another southerner who was attacked for having been a member of the Klan. This was a hypocritical attack since many of the Democrat leaders had been Klan members as well.

            1. David Duke was more of a libertarian con artist than MLK ever could be

              FIFY.

              Nobody is stopping David Duke from catching a bullet with his head. Death tends to improve people’s opinions of the deceased.

        4. Anarchism is as stupid as an idea as communism. It only works if everyone is an angel.

      2. Anon, the Jewish support for liberalism makes perfect sense if you are brave enough to think about it.

        For one, there is no correlation between “the gumint” and the pogroms. It was often in anarchistic chaos, such as during the Khmelnytsky Uprising, that the Jews were persecuted. The common people were usually more antisemtic than their rulers. Jews have always survived by serving the ruling elite.

        And if you look at liberalism you see that Jews control a lot of it, over half of all Democrat donations come from Jews. Everyone hates the government, until they control it. The Jews naturally dislike non-Jewish Whites, particularly observant Christians.* I’ve been around them and I’ve seen it firsthand. Liberalism allows them to stick their fingers in the eyes of White Christians, forced integration and welfare programs are a big part of that. You can see in Israel what happens when there are no White Christians to hate.

        *to be fair, European history has shown these fears not entirely irrational.

        1. Oy.

          That said, I do agree that Jews in the early Middle Ages had much more to fear from local lords or the gentile community than they did kings. Monarchs by and large saw Jews as walking sacks of cash; they didn’t have the authority or bureaucracy to allow for a dedicated sacking of said income until the late Middle Ages/Renaissance, so they were perfectly happy to tax and protect Jews on the royal demense. One Jewish account praises a Polish king for what was at the time a very generous 50% surcharge on all Jewish wealth for the privilege of being left to their own devices while on royal land. Local lords tended to be more arbitrary and rapacious since they had even less territory and bureaucracy than kings through which to enforce mandates — and of course the commoners were not immune to up and killing Jews for any reason or no reason at all.

          It wasn’t until the late Middle Ages/Renaissance that kings developed effective bureaucracies to facilitate relatively efficient property divestment at a large scale, at which point you start seeing the large state-coordinated expulsions and persecutions a la Spanish Inquisition.

        2. he Jews naturally dislike non-Jewish Whites, particularly observant Christians.* I’ve been around them and I’ve seen it firsthand

          Well, that settles it then. You’ve been around them and seen “it” firsthand.

      3. The Jews are proof why contemporary Arabs are losers. The Jews were convenient scapegoats throughout history. Islam and Christianity bitch slapped it around. Yet, who would have thought they could make a go of a tiny, piece shit plot of land? Despite all the obstacles, they have companies on stock exchanges and function as a society.

        Arabs on the other hand had their lands, had oil fall on their laps and still fuck it up. With all that money they’ve done fuck all besides put up a few vanity buildings.

    10. We all know, deep down, that most of what we have is a product of good fortune.

      No I don’t know that – fuck wit.

  8. Computer science wages are down.

    So much for that “STEM” “shortage.” How do you know you have a shortage of something? You have to pay for it!

    1. …you really are incredibly stupid, aren’t you, American.

      I can assure you that this is not the case for STEM jobs in the aggregate.

      1. “STEM jobs in the aggregate.”

        It is one of the main arguments and it is not true.

  9. It would be nice if Obama could list one thing the United States would gain by attacking Syria

    It makes him look Presidential; manly, yet compassionate.

  10. The 2020 Olympics will be held in Tokyo

    1. If it’s still habitable.

      1. We need to make Pacific Rim-style giant robot boxing an Olympic sport by 2020.

  11. -Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a war be a trigger for action?

    I actually think there is a decent answer to this question.

    Yes, as Sherman said, ‘war is hell.’ But that should not mean that any attempt to institute rules of war that protect civilians or bar especially vicious methods of war is wrongheaded. Chemical weapons are arguably in that area since they kill so indiscriminately and have often been said to be more effective against civilian populations than against organized military forces. Additionally, while something new may not be that much worse than some traditional thing does not mean that barring the new thing is silly, especially if both are regrettable. If it is only the ‘newness’ of the second thing that allows sentiment to organize against its use then that is something to build on, not be ashamed of.

    1. But that should not mean that any attempt to institute rules of war that protect civilians or bar especially vicious methods of war is wrongheaded. Chemical weapons are arguably in that area since they kill so indiscriminately and have often been said to be more effective against civilian populations than against organized military forces.

      The US method of prosecuting war, for most of our history, has been to attack civilian populations as part of the larger war effort.

      From indian wars to the Civil War, repressing the Philippine revolt to WWII to Vietnam, the US has seen civilian populations as legitimate military targets.

  12. A second theory that Piff and Keltner offer is that the wealthy are more likely to value greed as a social good ? as a driver of the economy ? and therefore to cut corners to make money. Ethics slide because making money is viewed as having social benefits as well as a personal ones.

    What a steaming pile of dog shit.

    Economic efficiency not same as greed.

    I may “greedily” shop at Grocer A because their prices are lower, but that is not the same as stealing from Grocer B.

    I’ll hire a guy with a twenty year old pick up truck to mow my lawn, because his prices are lower. Is he unethically “cutting corners” by not saddling himself with high overhead by declining to buy a shiny new truck every two or three years?

    1. Really? The price system? Trade-offs? The profit-loss dynamic? Individuals calculating what is in their best interest?

      You Randian scum, it’s not about that stuff! It’s all about feeling what should be!

      1. And I’ll bet the guy in the beat-up pickup truck is operating without a license! How dare that prole make money without permission from the state?!

    2. Economic efficiency not same as greed.

      Sure it is, so what.

      The word greed carries an illegitimate negative association. It’s a quasi religious bullshit attempt to limit the natural human inclination to self improvement through acquisitiveness.

      It is a neutral aspect of human nature which can be fulfilled through the positive means of voluntary exchange; or the negative means of theft. It’s telling that the people who brandish the word think that the latter is somehow superior to the former.

  13. I would very much like to see Reason examine the role of oil/LNG in this sudden humanitarian red line. Russia has a monopoly on LNG to Europe where the price is 3x the US. Qatar would like to sell its huge LNG supply to Europe but needs a pipleline through Syria to do so. So far Qatar has supplied the rebels with $3 billion in aide.

    Saudi Arabia reputedly offered Russia a deal if allow Saudi Arabia to install a puppet gov’t in Syria.. When Russia refused, Saudi said there would be a military strike.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..s-pipeline

    http://opinion.financialpost.c…..-in-syria/
    Follow the money.

    1. Saudi Arabia needs its clock cleaned. Antagonizing Russians is one way to do it.

      1. Not when they’re the key to America’s empire.

  14. OT:

    Follow The Bitcoins: How We Got Busted Buying Drugs On Silk Road’s Black Market

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/an…..ck-market/

    The crypto-currency Bitcoin has become the preferred payment method for much of the online underground, hailed by none other than the administrator of the booming Silk Road black market as the key to making his illicit business possible. But spending Bitcoins to anonymously score drugs online isn’t as simple as it’s often made out to be.

    We at Forbes should know: We tried, and we got caught.

  15. Chemical weapons are seen as uniquely and particularly horrible for one reason, really:

    Our current laws and standards for war were generally first articulated in the 20’s. The men who devised those standards had vivid memories of WWI.

    Chemical weapons were seen as horrible by WWI infantrymen because, since the gases used were heavier than air, you couldn’t just crouch in a trench to avoid them.

    That’s the long and the short of it, really. We’re still coasting on the moral-conceptual momentum of outrage of a bunch of former WWI infantrymen.

    If tanks had been built sooner, fewer members of the British and French upper classes would have been traumatized by being small unit commanders facing gas attacks, because they would have all been tank commanders instead. And people would laugh at gas attacks as stupid, unwieldly, tactically ineffective, a waste of time, etc.

    1. -And people would laugh at gas attacks as stupid, unwieldly, tactically ineffective, a waste of time, etc.

      I think most military experts do consider chemical weapons to be rather ineffective when used against conventional military forces, which is why their use is often directed at civilians as is alleged in Syria. I think it is the conjunction of their use against civilians which provides most concern.

      1. Unlike the widespread usage of high explosives, incendiaries, herbicides and land mines.

        1. Your argument seems to amount to: we have allowed rapes to pass so our later intervention to stop a robbery would not be justified.

    2. Our current laws and standards for war were generally first articulated in the 20’s. The men who devised those standards had vivid memories of WWI.

      Chemical weapons were seen as horrible by WWI infantrymen because, since the gases used were heavier than air, you couldn’t just crouch in a trench to avoid them.

      Excellent observation.

      Objectively, the WWI developments* of machine guns, aerial burst artillery and landmines have all been more deadly, by many orders of magnitude, than ‘chemical weapons’ and all have become common features of war.

  16. Does anybody really believe that, were you born in Somalia, even assuming the same intelligence and personality, you would be as wealthy as you are now?

    You know why this doesn’t matter?

    Because all the things you say that I “didn’t make”…also weren’t made by the poor.

    If you could convince me that I owe somebody somewhere something for “cars, houses, and air conditioning” (even though I distinctly remember paying identifiable individuals for all of those things), you know who isn’t the person I owe that something to? Any poor person in the inner city. Because they certainly didn’t do fucking shit to put that stuff there.

    So if you can reanimate Thomas Edison, I will buy Zombie Thomas Edison a drink and thank him for electric lights. But the people down at the “My Name is Earl” welfare motel on the other side of town aren’t getting a drink and aren’t getting any thanks, because if there are any people in America right now who didn’t do shit to get me a car and a house and air conditioning, it’s them.

  17. -Mother has newborn taken from her for 75 days because she failed drug test after eating salad dressing with poppy seeds

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/…..-dressing/

    1. Hang on a second. Seen this somewhere before. Hm.

      /snaps finger.

      Got it!

      Elaine! Poppy seed bagel will get you everytime.

      1. Tested it on MythBusters too. Surprising small amount needed.

    2. Boy that Julie character in the threads is some piece of work.

  18. UBC investigates frosh students’ pro-rape chant

    The chant condones non-consensual sex with underage girls saying, “Y-O-U-N-G at UBC, we like ’em young, Y is for your sister, O is for oh so tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for go to jail.”

    1. If “G is for go to jail”, how on Earth can anyone say the chant “condones” rape?

    2. Um, could it be blowback from being told looking at a girl and having unclean thoughts is rape?

      People will only be pushed so far before they push back.

      1. I have you know, when I look at girls my thoughts are not unclean. They usually involve a lot of soap and a shower messager.

    3. Thoughtcrime will not be tolerated at UBC. Even thinking about rape is the same thing as violently raping the entire freshman class in a fashion remincient of Jenghis Khan.

      Joking about rape is worse than raping your own mother.

      1. Raping your own mother is just pathetic. Unless she is Lucy Lawless, it would not be much a challenge.

        1. What if your mother was Nicole Bass?

          1. Yeah, I wouldn’t rape that.

          2. I thought that was Warty?

            1. Warty’s delts have better definition.

              And he prefers pink lipstick.

  19. Matty Yglesias says something kind of sensible for once

    You can try to keep Brooklyn affordable by making Brooklyn a place where nobody wants to live (Detroit is very affordable) but if it’s going to be a place where people want to live, then it will only be affordable if new buildings are built. There’s a lot of possible nuance around taxes and affordable housing set-asides and inclusionary zoning and all the rest and it’s great for politicians to debate that stuff. But at the end of the day, if you’ve succeeded in making your city a place where people want to live and work then you need to allow for the construction of places for people to live and work. People who can’t see past their desire to emotionally affiliate with the anti-business side of an argumen to see that have no business running a city.

    In response to proggies throwing a fit over NYC mayoral candidate Bill De Blasio’s support for urban development.

    1. The only reason Yglesias makes this argument is from his experience in playing SimCity. There is no way he would have been insightful enough to reason it out on his own.

      1. He’s actually fairly sane when it comes to the distortions caused by local governments via taxing, zoning and licensing schemes.

        Which makes his faith in larger governments all the more perplexing.

  20. Need a ruling.

    Do you put a lime in a rum and coke?

    1. Only if you want it to be a Cuba Libre

      1. The Cuba Libre (/?kju?b? ?li?bre?/; Spanish pronunciation: [?ku?a ?li??e], “Free Cuba”) is a highball made of cola, lime, and white rum. This highball is often referred to as a Rum and Coke in the United States, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand where the lime juice may or may not be included.

        That was a big help.

    2. If the lime wants to go and the rum and Coke? want to have it.

      Free association…

  21. Hey, where are Potsie and Ralph Malph?

    I have no idea who Tony and Palin would be.

  22. My liberal friend (hey, he is from Mass.) is going with the “Obama is being painted into a corner because of Israel” angle about Syria.

    I unleashed on him.

    1. It’s never surprising when liberals become anti-Semitic, isn’t it?

      1. You know who else was anti-Semitic….

        1. Papa Smurf?

          1. Really? I did not know this…

            1. Well, Gargamel is very single negative Medieval stereotype of Jews rolled into one.

              1. Of course. Why didn’t I notice that?

        2. Of course, that well-known Austrian, Empress Maria-Theresa.

    2. Wow. Israel has a great deal of influence on matters pertaining to Israel, outside of that limited sphere, not so much. I wished the neocons like Adelson would stfu though and stay out of it, as they give an ill gotten form of credence to the notion Israel is a puppet master here, when they are not. The puppetmasters here are the Saudis. They are our masters in every aspect of Middle East policy that does not have direct bearing on Israel. They are the ones we need to neuter economically by throwing our energy policy wide ass open to exploration and development. It was their lobbying in the seventies that got the spigots turned off in the first place.

      1. Saudi Arabia are the silent but deadly farts of diplomacy.

        The Jewish lobby argument seems somewhat overplayed, if not dated.

        1. The so-called Jewish Lobby makes campaign donations and lobbies Congress.

          The Saudis fund endowments, scholarships, think tanks, charities, “fact-finding missions”, and cushy jobs for idiot sons and daughters.

          But the JOOOSSS run American foreign policy.

          Now pull the other leg.

      2. They are our masters in every aspect of Middle East policy that does not have direct bearing on Israel.

        No they’re not.

        They are the ones we need to neuter economically by throwing our energy policy wide ass open to exploration and development. It was their lobbying in the seventies that got the spigots turned off in the first place.

        The paradox of the petro dollar is that the US actually benefits from higher oil prices.

        1. …the US Government actually benefits…

        2. How many wars has Israel got us entangled in? 0
          Saudis? 4 and no I’m not counting Afghanistan.
          They are the problem.

          1. I’m not sure which wars you’re putting in Saudi Arabia’s column. GWI & II arguably benefited Israel too.

            Anyway, the central thesis of the petro-dollar is that the US protects the house of Saud and their investments in exchange for their demanding payment for oil exclusively in dollars, and using the leverage that they have as reserve producer to compel all OPEC countries to do the same.

            So, whatever wars we fought to protect them were an inherent part of the deal and done because it was in our interest to do so.

        3. The petro dollar is over valued due to the embargo and containment policy we have placed on our own energy sector. Eliminate the Saudis, the market will adjust almost instantly.

          1. High world prices for oil actually strengthens the demand for the petro-dollar. So restricting production in the US works in favor of those benefiting from it. Yes the policies hurt most Americans but the federal government and the people that control it don’t give a shit about most Americans.

            1. Well, okay, you couldn’t be more right about that.

    3. My message to Israelis is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. You might get the West Bank and you might get your Apartheid state, and then you will end up like the Whites of South Africa, facing genocide once more.

      1. Where is Underzog when you need him?

  23. I’m bored tonight.

    What a leftist is.

    The other day, after merely making an off the cuff remark about not being able to take a day off as a business owner, an angry response from someone was “if you can’t take a day off then you must not be a very good business owner.”

    I sat in stunned silence. This people are not just arrogant in their ignorance, they’re ignorant in their arrogance. Evil, stupid, people.

    It’s like the concept of responsibility to the business and everything attached to it (including employees) has no worth or merit in their myopic, envious minds.

    1. Yeah, that’s just an ignorant statement. You bitch slapped him/her, right? RIGHT?

      Cause they earned a bitch slap for saying that.

    2. Possible response: Get your family and loved ones checked for tumors, your ignorance has reached radioactive levels.

      1. I’m the worst when it comes to come backs. I may as well be deemed a dim wit.

        Jerk store!

        1. I’m great at comebacks…30 to 45 minutes later.

          Ah l’esprit d’escalier

        2. If all the businessmen like you were better at business, their plans for what to do with your wealth would just be so much more workable. As it stands, the failure of the welfare state is your fault for not being a superman to support it.

        3. “Well, yes, you see, only the other day, Prime Minister Pitt called me an idle scrounger, and it wasn’t until later that I thought how clever it would’ve been to have said, “Oh, bugger off, you old fart!”

    3. It is seriously amazing how many people think running a business is nothing more than telling workers what time to show up, playing 18 holes of golf and then reaping profits made on the backs of your exploited workers.

      Economics needs to play a larger role in primary education. Most people are , quite simply, ignorant on the topic.

      1. I keep telling everyone I meet they need to not only have what you say but an entrepreneur class. We shouldn’t accept people being ignorant of one side. All of us are employees in life so we get to see that side but not everyone becomes a business owner.

        The new thing? People want to be compensated for the loss of income paid through taxes. For example, I say we pay $12 an hour (which is really $14 because of payroll taxes). The worker says but that’s just $10 net! I want $14 thus pushing my cost to $16!

        The structure is based on gross – not net. If you have problem with it, take it to the politicians and quit asking for free shit and maybe you’ll have more in your pockets. Better yet, stop living beyond your means.

        But noooo. People want to eat their cake and suck cock at the same time. They want the free shit AND higher pay.

        Apparently my margins are there to subsidize their lifestyle.

        1. But you have all that money in your basement that you roll in, naked, by the light of the full moon. All they are asking for is some of that money…you greedy bastard!

          1. No one cares about the pain and suffering that goes with BUILDING a business. They only see the success. Hence, why it’s so easy to be envious.

            But they even have an answer for that. I’ll never forget some asshole on Huffington railing against business owners who “think they are heroes for their pain.”

            You can’t win.

            We’re just greedy. End of story to them.

            1. Not being them is winning.

      2. Economics needs to play a larger role in primary education. Most people are , quite simply, ignorant on the topic.

        IMO, the socialist school system actually makes people dumber, by a lot, when it comes to economics. Seven year old kids have a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between prices, supply and demand and respect for voluntary exchange. Give those same kids 16 years of skooolin and they’re all “I have a right to free shit”

  24. Neighbor down the street was having a mud bog in his back field. Tons of big ass trucks with fucking tractor tires. It was epic.

    #America #TRAKTURPULLZ

  25. Jesus. Watching a movie where one of the Baldwins are acting like scientist/intellectuals on TV. Talk about asking to pull off the impossible.

  26. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ent…..030518.stm

    Bat-Woman is lesbian now.

  27. IBM endorses Obamacare for its retirees:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-rise.html

    IBM had projected that with its current plans, costs for retirees would triple by 2020. Most of that would affect retirees’ premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

    IBM said the new arrangement puts the retirees in a bigger pool of beneficiaries, spreading risk and lowering cost.

    Reuters reported the change yesterday.

    “IBM didn’t make this change to save money — it does not reduce our costs,” Shelton said, noting that IBM’s subsidies were capped in the 1990s.

    Interesting.

    1. So, Shitstopper, tell us how you feel about your savior wanting to indiscriminately bomb brown people?

      Let me guess…BOOOOOSH!

      1. I am opposed to war in Syria – which I am sure Obama will not pursue.

        I am also opposed to mild intervention in Syria – which Obama seems hell-fire driven to do for some reason. It worked in Libya but Syria seems far more complicated.

        1. I am also opposed to mild intervention

          “Mild intervention” isn’t war.

          “Just the tip” isn’t penetration.

        2. …”It worked in Libya”…

          I’ll presume this means people in Libya were killed.

        3. Carnac the Shrikenificent will prove to be right yet again.

          Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

          If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

  28. There’s a question I can’t get out of my head

    What’s the meaning of Stonehenge?

  29. Cincinnati-based grocer Kroger cuts health care benefits for workers’ spouses

    Cincinnati-based Kroger has become the latest major employer to cut health care coverage for workers’ spouses, negotiating an Indiana contract that could become a model for companies nationwide.

    The contract applies to only 11,000 Kroger workers in Indiana, but it puts Kroger at the leading edge of a growing movement to restrict or eliminate spousal coverage.

    Experts say two forces are driving the change on spousal benefits: the continuing increase in health care costs and the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, known colloquially as Obamacare.

    “As costs go up, you’re going to cover less benefits or less people,” said Debra Lawrence, director of member services for the Employer Health Care Alliance in Cincinnati. “It comes down to math.”

    Needs moar subsidies!

  30. This coffee tastes like shit: Scientists develop reliable method for verifying that exotic Kopi Luwak coffee is the real thing

    Scientists have found what they call a “metabolic fingerprint” that allows them to verify “real Kopi Luwak” (Indonesian for “civet coffee”) using metabolomics technology, Eiichiro Fukusaki, a corresponding author of the study, says in an e-mail. The unique chemical fingerprint reflects higher levels of citric acid and malic acid as well as a certain inositol/pyroglutamic acid ratio.

    Metabolomics is research that focuses on metabolites, which are substances produced during metabolism (chemical processes such as digestion). A metabolic fingerprint consists of metabolites that can be detected by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry.

    Fukusaki, a professor in the biotechnology department at Osaka University in Japan, says the method of authenticating the coffee by its fingerprint could eventually be widely used, but technical improvements would first be needed.

    1. Is this the coffee made from cat excrement or is that a different one?

  31. To appeal to democrats, three better reasons:

    1. Attacking Syria is an *international war crime* under the UN Charter;
    2. The only country endorsing an invasion is Qatar, one of the biggest customers of the military-industrial complex;
    3. There will be serious “blowback” – Syria has 400 MIG Fighters, who could easy kill soldiers in naval ships offshore – to say nothing of destroying any detente with Russia.

  32. Federal grand jury impaneled for Michele “Crazy Whore” Bachmann.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201…..ivjnT8pj5K

    She fucked us for that Big Gov money.

    1. Shrike and Bachmann sitting in a tree…

      But, he’s right.

      Palin’s Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#

      If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.

  33. “Piopper” is almost certainly “otherhmm” from years past, who was also supposedly molested by a teenage girl at the age of 5-6. Given that he shows up exclusively to talk about how child sexual abuse is OK, and the title of this thread isn’t even about that issue, I’m assuming he’s someone’s sockpuppet.

    1. Disturbing. I have heard some bizarre child emancipation commentary from libertarians, but not quite on these lines. There is a breaking point for every ideology, and for libertarians that point comes when it pertains to children and the mentally disabled.

      1. Disturbing. I have heard some bizarre child emancipation commentary from libertarians, but not quite on these lines. There is a breaking point for every ideology, and for libertarians that point comes when it pertains to children and the mentally disabled.

        *GASP* Disturbing! I’m so sorry I dare question your view that it’s perfectly moral to throw someone in a government cage because they engaged in perfectly voluntary behavior.

        1. Just telling it like it is. My conscience is perfectly clear with respect to putting people who fondle children’s genitals in a cage, to say nothing of the other behaviors pedophiles engage in with children.

          I’m sorry to see that your conscience is not troubled by those acts, and after reading part of the linked thread I see no basis for continuing in dialogue.

    2. “Piopper” is almost certainly “otherhmm” from years past, who was also supposedly molested by a teenage girl at the age of 5-6. Given that he shows up exclusively to talk about how child sexual abuse is OK, and the title of this thread isn’t even about that issue, I’m assuming he’s someone’s sockpuppet.

      I am. Why don’t you actually make a rational argument against my argument. Rather than accuse me of believing “child sexual abuse is OK” or that I’m somehow promoting it.

      If I think crack should be legal, am I promoting the use of crack?

      Also if you searched for my other comments under whichever name I’m using (including Plopper), you’ll see I make arguments on other issues as well.

      It’s just my two pet peeve issues are “libertarians” who believe banks should be forced to keep 100% reserves, and “libertarians” who believe someone should be locked in a government cage because they had some sort of sexual relations with someone one minute under the age of consent.

      Tulpa, you’re the biggest shitbag poster on this entire site. You’re worse than Tony, and you’re worse than Shriek.

      You can do nothing but beat down strawman and engage in ad hominem attacks.

      Do the world a favor and fuck off and die.

      By the way… the only handles I’ve ever posted as was “hmm” (until I realized someone else posted as that), then I switched to “otherhmm”. Now after the required registration I post as “Plopper”.

      1. Also, just because I know someone is going to make the claim, someone who is a complete turd like Tulpa.

        I don’t think child abuse should be legal, I just don’t believe throwing 20 year olds in prison for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends is in any way moral. Or even that they couldn’t sell their own bodies for sex if that’s what they wanted to do.

        I’m not saying you should allow your 15 year old daughter to whore herself out, but if you are such an incompetent parent that you can’t exercise this much control over your child then it’s not someone else’s fault.

        1. Plopper| 9.7.13 @ 11:58PM |#
          …”I don’t think child abuse should be legal, I just don’t believe throwing 20 year olds in prison for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends is in any way moral. Or even that they couldn’t sell their own bodies for sex if that’s what they wanted to do.”

          Do you think government has any role in that activity, and where might the line be drawn?

        2. So, in this example where you’ve pushed the ages up to something remotely plausible, what punishment do you think is appropriate for the adult who’s sodomizing the teenager? A fine? Community service?

          Or is it just like the Flag Code — technically a law but with no force to back it up, so that child rape becomes as common as lazy-ass gas station managers leaving the flag up during a thunderstorm.

      2. If I think crack should be legal, am I promoting the use of crack?

        Not necessarily; but you are promoting the prosecution of people who attempt to forcibly prevent the use of crack.

        If you think child sexual abuse should be legal, you must favor the prosecution of people who try to stop it by force. Such as the kid’s parents, for example (assuming they’re not the ones performing the abuse).

        1. Not necessarily; but you are promoting the prosecution of people who attempt to forcibly prevent the use of crack.

          So I’m a bad person for being against using force against people who want to do something which isn’t harming anyone but themselves? You’re seriously making this argument on a libertarian site?

          If you think child sexual abuse should be legal.

          Did you just see what I fucking said shitface?

          Here… I’ll quote it again for you.

          Also, just because I know someone is going to make the claim, someone who is a complete turd like Tulpa.

          I don’t think child abuse should be legal, I just don’t believe throwing 20 year olds in prison for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends is in any way moral. Or even that they couldn’t sell their own bodies for sex if that’s what they wanted to do.

          I’m not saying you should allow your 15 year old daughter to whore herself out, but if you are such an incompetent parent that you can’t exercise this much control over your child then it’s not someone else’s fault.

          1. OK, and I’ll try again:
            “Do you think government has any role in that activity, and where might the line be drawn?”

          2. So you don’t think adults should be punished for having sex with 15 year olds?

            Up above you were talking 13 year olds… just trying to get some clarity here.

            1. I state my position very clearly here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989211

              1. Maybe you do, but I have no idea where to look in that link.
                Arguments back and forth; which one of yours makes the case?

                1. Sevo:

                  I’ll summarize it here:

                  I think it’s pretty simple, if they say yes, don’t indicate they want for you to stop, and you aren’t physically injuring them in any way then consent has objectively been established. Assuming that is they aren’t mute or you’ve drugged them or something.

                  I think you’re confused about what I meant. I mean like if you raped them while they were totally unconscious or they were so screwed up you knew very well they wouldn’t want to do it but weren’t conscious enough to say ‘no’ or stop you.

                  (Then that would be rape which I believe should be punishable by law)

                  If you tried to stick an adult penis inside of a 2 year old’s vagina or anus they would surely be screaming in pain. There would be no need to prosecute them on “statutory” rape, as the physical damage would be obvious.

                  (Some generic child abuse law should cover this or just plain “rape”)

                  One more time, they should be condemned for allowing child slavery, not condemned for allowing prostitution or not enforcing AoC laws.

                  I think these quotes should make my position on the subject clear enough.

                  Also this comment below:
                  https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989363

                  1. OK, so if the person being penetrated fights back against the penetrator, isn’t the penetrated one now guilty of assault?

                    The doctrine of “initiation of force” would seem to require that we prosecute the person who resisted being raped, under your new definition of force.

                    1. OK, so if the person being penetrated fights back against the penetrator, isn’t the penetrated one now guilty of assault?

                      The doctrine of “initiation of force” would seem to require that we prosecute the person who resisted being raped, under your new definition of force.

                      Can you maybe go back to elementary school and get some reading comprehension skills Shit-Pa? How in the fuck you derived this from anything I said I have no idea.

                    2. It’s the logical conclusion of what you said.

                      If penetrating someone / using their body for pleasure is not force, then using force in response to these actions is the initiation of force.

                    3. Tulpa… I’m with Francisco on this.

                      You’re totally disingenuous. You aren’t here to actually debate, you’re just here to argue.

                      If you actually believe that is what I said or was implying you have the reading comprehension skills of a kindergartener. Wait… no… a preschooler.

                      If someone penetrates you against your will, I said that IS rape and that IS coercion/force.

                      But on the OTHERHAND I said if someone is fondling you while you are giggling and enjoying it, I can’t genuinely call that rape.

                      If you still don’t get it, then it only proves my point further you aren’t here to do anything but troll or you’re so fucking stupid you can’t have anything explained to you.

                    4. But on the OTHERHAND I said if someone is fondling you while you are giggling and enjoying it, I can’t genuinely call that rape.

                      Even if “you” are 5 years old?

                      If she had strapped on a dildo and anally penetrated you, and the 5-year-old-you didn’t know what to make of it and giggled, would THAT be rape?

                    5. Yeah Tulpa, I’d be giggling as my anus throbbed in pain and I screamed for her to stop.

                      Are you a fucking idiot, or are you just a troll?

                      Goodnight Tulpa. I’m going to read a book and get some sleep.

                    6. That’s not what I asked. You are evading the hypothetical by changing the details.

                      It would be perfectly possible for her to use something small enough that it wouldn’t cause pain.

                    7. If you actually believe that is what I said or was implying you have the reading comprehension skills of a kindergartener. Wait… no… a preschooler.

                      I never said you intended to imply it.

                      I’m saying that the arguments you’re making that child sexual abuse is not force WOULD imply that rape is not force if you chose to apply them to that other situation. That you have not applied them to the other situation is irrelevant. What I’m saying is that you must embrace this conclusion, or abandon that argument, or be inconsistent.

                      While I admit I can be abrasive and overly persistent at times, the animus I enjoy at this blog is mostly a result of people not wanting to be confronted with that decision, preferring to remain cozy in their ideological cocoons, where everyone who disagrees with them is really a sockpuppet or a statist-fellator or a troll or whichever insult happens to be in fashion at the moment.

  34. Is there anyone here, except for trolls?

    1. Onde esta voces, meus amigos Americanos de Oeste e as Canuckistanians? Me ajuda, amigos!

      Damnit, my US/International keyboard profile has stopped working and I can’t use the accents…

      It’s a fucking conspiracy.

    2. Shitstopper
      Tulpa
      American x 3

      Nope, just you and me.

      1. …is the pedophile one of the Americans?

        Am I one of the Americans?

        IS EVERYONE COMMENTING AMERICAN??!!!

        1. I have seen no evidence that American actually exists outside of someone’s deluded fantasy. Just like that other guy with the beard and the lepers.

        2. TITs, are you accusing me of being a pedophile?

          I did have some respect for your previous arguments, but if you’re going to go around accusing me of being a pedophile, you’re as big of a turd as Tulpa.

          Why is it if anyone dare think that people act irrationally when it comes to minors and sex must be a pedophile or a child molester?

          How the fuck can you possibly have any real debate on the subject if you shut down all discussion with ad hominem attacks.

          1. “Why is it if anyone dare think that people act irrationally when it comes to minors and sex must be a pedophile or a child molester?”

            Once more:
            Do you think gov’t a role in the issue?
            If so, how do you define it such that it becomes a rule of law rather than a rule of man?

            1. Sevo:
              See my reply above to Shit-Pa. I link to a comment where I draw the lines.

              Tulpa:
              Can you not understand why someone who was fondled by a teenage girl when he was 6 and wasn’t left traumatized by the incident other than the horror and overreactions from his parents and other adults in his life thinks that people are a little bit crazy over this whole subject. I’m not saying what she did was right, but how did she injure me? Where is the premise for legal recourse when I wasn’t injured in any way?

              Also, can you understand that I find it even MORE laughable that 15 year old girls can’t consent to sex when one used to fondle me when I was 6. A 15 year old girl who was already “mature” enough to be a true pedophile, and then I’m somehow crazy for laughing at the idea that every adult who has sex with a teenage girl should be thrown in prison and that they can’t possibly consent to sex, 100% of the time?

              1. You didn’t draw any lines in that comment, you merely continued to obfuscate.

                I’m not saying what she did was right, but how did she injure me?

                She used your body as an object for her own pleasure-seeking without your consent (which you were incapable of giving because you weren’t old enough to understand).

                Seriously, dude? If you define injury so strictly to require lacerations or bruises or amputations, then you’ve demolished the case for rape itself being illegal.

                1. Seriously, dude? If you define injury so strictly to require lacerations or bruises or amputations, then you’ve demolished the case for rape itself being illegal.

                  In the case of rape one is coerced into letting you penetrate them against their will.

                  This is not the same as me giggling as some teenage girl fondled my little ween0r.

                  In one case the victim was clearly injured, in the second case the only injury is invented by people overreacting to what happened.

                  1. In the case of rape one is coerced into letting you penetrate them against their will.

                    Not necessarily. Many rapes don’t take that form. Drunken or drugged sex, sex by surprise, etc.

                    Plus, I’m not sure how you can consider there to be any “injury” under your new definition, when most rapes don’t involve bruises or cuts or the like. And those that do generally result from resistance to the rapist, resistance which would now have to be considered assault.

                    1. I already covered the drugged thing in my above comments. And I said that if you had sex with someone when they were totally unconscious or so screwed up they were barely conscious would be rape as well.

                      Tulpa, reading comprehension, do you fucking have it?

                    2. And I said that if you had sex with someone when they were totally unconscious or so screwed up they were barely conscious would be rape as well.

                      What are your grounds for saying this?

                      You’ve stated there was no injury when an older person fondled a five year old. How then is there injury when a conscious person has sex with an unconscious person?

                      Like so many others around here, you label as poor reading comprehension when the real problem is your own contradictory statements.

          2. I agree that there is no evidence that you are a pedophile. But assuming you’re being sincere here, you do have a strong urge to protect pedophiles, made all the more puzzling by your claim of being a victim of abuse yourself.

            1. Tulpa:

              In a way I do wish to protect pedophiles from overzealous, self-righteous shitbags like yourself when the pedophile hasn’t actually injured a child.

              Having been “molested” as a child, I can’t honestly explain how I’ve been legally injured, and psychological injury is a whole new can of worms. Even if you wanted to take that angle, the fondling never hurt my feelings, but the way my parents and other adults in my life reacted when they found out about it certainly did.

              But really I get upset when you’re talking about someone who had sexual relations with a teenager who has reached pubescence. This would not be pedophilia and in fact some of us are probably even genetically programmed to take this sort of reproductive strategy.

              1. Like all the other animals on earth, we’re genetically programmed to do a lot of things that are horribly, monstrously wrong. Our DNA has been optimized for reproduction, not happiness or justice.

                Even if you wanted to take that angle, the fondling never hurt my feelings, but the way my parents and other adults in my life reacted when they found out about it certainly did.

                Well, given that you were so young (assuming this story is true) it’s quite possible that your memory is playing tricks on you with regard to your feelings at the time, as it often does in response to trauma in humans.

                Even if you really weren’t hurt by the experience that doesn’t mean that every 5 year old is as thick skinned as you were.

                1. No, my memory of the incident is quite clear.

                  Although, I doubt I would even remember it if it wasn’t for the fact my parents and some other kid’s parents freaked out so much that it traumatized and scared me and made me feel guilty when I wouldn’t have otherwise.

                  What was really bad was when I was later punished for “playing doctor” with another girl my own age. It left me feeling that sex was a bad, evil thing, that I should feel guilty about. And the only basis for this is some sort of bullshit Victorian sexual mores.

          3. In Tulpa’s linked thread you state that you are sexually interested in prepubescent children, but that you haven’t acted on the desire. That’s pedophilia.

            1. …or did I mix you up with someone else? I speed read the thread.

              If so, apologies.

              1. I’m quite certain you did. Maybe you could link to the specific comment you’re talking about?

        3. Murican was Puggg, They are here! and possibly Page Turner (not certain on PT).

          I’ve been monitoring the entire thread. Calling plopper a ped, based on his posts here today is disingenuous. He has legitimate arguments and calling him a ped is an ad hom.

          1. Someone on Tulpa’s linked thread declared an unconsummated preference for prepubescent children — evidently that person was not otherhmm.

            1. Perhaps. And that would explain it. I would never click a link posted by Tulpa, as he has about as much cred as shitstopper or Tony. He is without principle and is only here to argue for the sake of arguing.

              1. So, my alleged lack of credibility contaminates even the links I post?

                Sounds like someone’s constructing a wall to protect his cherished beliefs from the buffeting of contradictory evidence.

                1. No, I’ve just decided not to waste my time arguing with disingenuous assholes.

              2. I am no fan of Tulpa, but he is not Tony, PB, or American.

                Not. Even. Close.

                1. No he’s not, but he still is disingenuous, mostly just being a knee-jerk contrarian, which is why I don’t usually engage with him. I don’t engage with the trolls either.

                  1. Arguing against legalizing adults having sex with children is contrarian?

      2. Hey! The hateful one is at least checking in!

        1. So who do we have here… the hardcore atheist, the mathematician, the pedophile, and the boricua… we got any rabbis lurking in the comments? Reason’s late-night commentariat is threatening to become the setup to a joke.

          1. TITs, fuck you. I bet you don’t even know what a pedophile is.

            Just because your opponent takes issue with the fact your argument is complete shit doesn’t make them a pedophile.

            1. Jeeze, Plopper the ‘hard core atheist’ has now asked at least three times:
              If you object to the current laws re: child molestation, how would you change them?

              1. Jeeze

                Caught you!

              2. Sevo:

                I already responded to Shit-PA with this:
                https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989211

          2. WIH is a ‘hardcore atheist’? Is that someone who really, really, really doesn’t bleeve in Santa Claus?

            1. Well, and you have to be willing to kill other people who don’t believe in Santa Claus. And there you have it.

            2. “Evangelical atheist” would be more precise; you seem quite invested in propagating your lack of faith.

              That said, if I ever have kids, they’re being told Santa Claus is a myth from the moment they learn how to talk. That shit is probably the origin of 90% of conspiracy theorists.

              1. Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 9.8.13 @ 12:20AM |#
                “Evangelical atheist” would be more precise; you seem quite invested in propagating your lack of faith.”

                Nope.
                Have only objected to silly bleevers pitching the ‘word of god’.
                One idiot sometime last week claimed the supposed virgin Mary was a ‘unique individual’. Yeah, sorta like Superman is a heck of a guy.
                Sorry Tulpa, laughing at your stupidity is not the same as pitching an alternative. I never bothered to ask you to stop being stupid.

            3. It was just a joke.

              Substitute in “vocal non-subscriber to metaphysical explanations”, if you prefer.

              Erm, “Vocal non-subscriber to metaphysical explanations… of color”.

              There, now we’re good.

              1. The Immaculate Trouser| 9.8.13 @ 12:24AM |#
                “It was just a joke.”

                Awright. Often it isn’t.

          3. It’s almost like that game, The Cave. And it’s a lame fucking game, because you can’t just pull out your incendiary revolver and blow their brains out all over the place.

          4. If I wasn’t an atheist I’d be a Catholic and likely a member of one of the orders.

            Does that count?

            1. Well, if you live in South America, and you were catholic, you could mix that up with all sorts of Macumba, and whatever.

              Do I get free beer and peyote if I join your church? Oh, and do you have a big screen for the Sunday futebol Americano?

      3. If Hyper was in doubt about the answer to his question, doesn’t that mean he considers himself a troll too?

        1. Do Trolls Dream of Trolling Sheep?

          1. Are there 2 Tulpas? Or is there only one person on the planet stupid enough to earn that title, that’s not called Cytotoxic?

  35. Well, shit. It’s troll weekend or something like that.

    I just checked in between playing Borderlands(level 22, as deep as I’ve ever made it in this game), and helping wife put half a cow we just bought and she’s hacking up, into the freezer.

    1. Meh, back to Borderland fer a bit…

      1. 57th level Siren, finished second play through, 3 DLCs, a few custom maps, now running around to find the Easter eggs.

        Dope fish lives!

        1. Wow, I have an impressed.

          I love this game. My wife thinks she’s lost me to another woman game…

        2. Four minutes in, you’ll see what I’m referring too.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbAFtKfYSBw

          1. I don’t know if I want to look, seeing as I’m only level 22 now. I just killed Mad Mel, with a revolver, believe it or not, after my ride caught on fire and I had to abandon ship, and am in New Haven working on quests.

            1. I see. This is an Easter Egg spoiler, but it wont reveal anything about the plot if you take a look see. When you get to Treachers Landing, look for an arrow sign over a boat, jump in the boat and look for things to blow up. If you find enough you’ll get a little treat.

              1. Thanks.

                I actually started playing this game about a year ago, tip here from Epi. And then I got side trekked by several other games, and just got back to it about a week ago.

                If you like FPS, check out Call of Juarez Gunslinger, not anything like the RPG elements and vast arrays of weapons like Borderlands, but the immersion factor, graphics, and story line, is, IMHO, pretty much without equal for a FPS.

                1. Have you seen my gun?

                  Sometimes he’ll say, ‘It’s funny how thing started disappearing around here.’

                  Oh, he’s accusing moi?

                  There are some secrets around New Haven area too worth checking into. You’ll here a sound in the back area behind the doctors office sometimes that is taking from a magic effect from Diablo. It’s tied to a door opening and closing back there. Some nice weapons in one of those buildings.

                2. Deus Ex series and Dishonored really impressed the hell out of me in the story telling. Dishonored is just incredible in the immersion factor. You play a bastard you feel like a bastard.

                  1. Deus Ex series and Dishonored really impressed the hell out of me in the story telling

                    I agree with Dishonored. Deus Ex had awesome story telling. The end game options for the other games have sucked balls and none of them have lived up to the depth of world that Deus Ex had.

                    1. Harvey Smith being the factor in both of those games. He’s the Dave Mustaine of the game development world. Quite flaky in his personal belief system, and makes brain dead stumbles every now and then (universal ammo!?!? Still, Invisible War being the weakest of the titles, it was better than most everything else that came out that year), but when he gets it right — just wow.

                    2. And I didn’t like the end games to Human Revolution, and Invisible War either. IWs was too nostalgia based with the Denton brothers going into a weird direction (not to mention Nicolette), and Human Revolution, literally given a set of buttons to push to decide which movie you will be watching. Not satisfactory at all.

    1. If it’s left in will a pearl grow?

  36. As amusing as Plopper McProlapse’s lust for tender, underage flesh is, here’s a topic of more political interest:

    Obama to give six television news interviews on Monday as Syria vote looms

    Ah, the transformative power of speechifying! Because we haven’t heard enough of the Campaigner-in-Chief! The problem with this whole Syria debacle isn’t that he flapped his gums when ought to have kept them pressed tight together. Rather, he didn’t properly explain to the ignorant, unwashed masses what a great idea it is to bomb Syria. Or how the red line he declared isn’t really his red line, but everybody else’s. Or that Congress should ignore their constituents and give him the war he wants. Or that Syria is totally guilty of gassing people, but that evidence is classified so you’ll have to take him at his good word.

    Is it January 20, 2017 yet?

    1. Not cool, dude, not cool. I agree with FdA upthread:

      I’ve been monitoring the entire thread. Calling plopper a ped, based on his posts here today is disingenuous. He has legitimate arguments and calling him a ped is an ad hom.

      1. To be accurate, I never said he was a paedo. I said he was rather obsessed with tender, underage flesh, as evidenced by his heartfelt tales of playing doctor and getting a May-December handjob in kindergarten. And the McProlapse jab was in regard to his “throbbing anus.”

        Pay for therapy or drink the pain the away. The line is where it is because the legislators figured it was cheaper than coming up with a written exam or sending teens into the woods to kill something as a rite of passage.

        1. Well, I didn’t read the whole thread, but he seemed to be arguing in good faith, unlike so many. So even if one disagrees, not really deserving of cheap mockery IMHO.

          1. Yeah, I’m calling it a pedophile.

            Who the fuck argues in favor of child prostitution.

            Seriously, what the fuck.

            1. IMO it was more about the fluidity of when people are or should be considered adults. Where did he say he was in favor of child prostitution?

            2. Someone brushing up on their debating skills by taking the immoral or unpopular position for one. Given child prostitution does occur there has to be a lot of people out there who have internalized a justification for it, trying to understand their point of view gives a greater insight into the human continuum. Monsters don’t get unmade by our repugnance alone.

            3. I never argued saying child prostitution was a good thing or that prostitution at all was a good thing.

              My argument was simply that there is no magical point at which you become an adult mentally and that AoC laws are predicated on question begging/no true scottsman type fallacies.

              To have a law that says that anyone who has sexual relations with someone under the AoC is 100% of the time a rapist and that 100% of the time anyone under the AoC is truly incapable of consent is nothing more than one big No True Scottsman codified into law, and that there is no good libertarian based moral justification for having them or banning prostitution below ‘x’ age.

  37. This is why we roll that beautiful bean footage!

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.