prev <-> next
[2004-05-12 12:03:00] - fyi, wcf = wtf ~a
[2004-05-12 12:03:00] - pierce: wcf is age relativism? sounds made up to me. ~a
[2004-05-12 12:03:00] - yay, pierce and I are back to sharing a brain - vinnie
[2004-05-12 12:03:00] - Vinnie: HHGTTG is filming. http://imdb.com/title/tt0371724/ - pierce
[2004-05-12 12:02:00] - inappropriateness is kind of a sliding scale. the older you get the more inappropriate it would be to find britney attractive. if you were 16 when baby one more time came out, then it's totally appropriate. but not if you're 26 - vinnie
[2004-05-12 12:02:00] - Paul: regarding Britney, they are (ostensibly) selling her sexuality to people of that same age group. Adults are "supposed' to have age relativism, and not find underage girls attractive. That doesn't make it wrong, but it makes in inappropriate to mention it (like vinnie said). - pierce
[2004-05-12 11:59:00] - just like the red dwarf movie has been in "production" for years now - vinnie
[2004-05-12 11:59:00] - yeah, I think the contract for potc locked them into at least two sequels. and the hitchhiker's movie is kind of like vaporware, just pops up every few years and gets crammed back down. i'll believe it when I see it - vinnie
[2004-05-12 11:56:00] - Ok, it's time for a meeting for me. Be back in a bit. -Paul
[2004-05-12 11:55:00] - Travis: I wonder if they have Depp and Knightly signed on for the third. -Paul
[2004-05-12 11:53:00] - http://www.animated-news.com/archives/09-keyrelease.jpg two pirates sequels? a hitchhiker's guide movie? - travis
[2004-05-12 11:52:00] - Vinnie: What if it's the case of somebody like Britney Spears, where they are intentionally trying to look attractive and selling sexuality? -Paul
[2004-05-12 11:50:00] - inappropriate to find, no. inappropriate to call attention to your finding, probably
- vinnie[2004-05-12 11:43:00] - Alright, in the spirit of spurring debate to end the stagnation: Is it inappropriate to find underage (for the sake of argument, let's say 16 or younger) girls attractive? -Paul
[2004-05-12 10:33:00] - yeah, he was an ugly sort - vinnie
[2004-05-12 10:26:00] - I'll bet 1970s garfield could - aaron
[2004-05-12 10:17:00] - vinnie: i doubt a cat can digest a whole dog. he'll probably die too. ~a
[2004-05-12 10:16:00] - The peanuts one is funnier - aaron
[2004-05-12 10:14:00] - i never wanted odie dead! I wanted garfield dead! - vinnie
[2004-05-12 10:12:00] - http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20040512.gif odie is dead. finally. ~a
[2004-05-12 09:50:00] - vinnie: I'd love to see how my chimera deck stacks up though. I think it would lose, but I'd have to see it - aaron
[2004-05-12 09:35:00] - totally a casual card. it's even an uncommon, so no chance of drafting the rat deck either - vinnie
[2004-05-12 09:26:00] - vinnie: too bad the Type 2 environment right now seems way too fast for something like that to work -dave
[2004-05-12 09:23:00] - Dave: I'm not sure. I was more thinking of us invading Iraq in response to 9-11.
-Paul[2004-05-12 09:21:00] - http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts46.html was Brown v. Board of Education actually a good thing, or even necessary? - mig
[2004-05-12 09:19:00] - vinnie: That's just awesome. At least Dark Ritual is still type 1. I can't help thinking that kind of rat deck would still be a little slow. I don't know though - i'd have to see it. - aaron
[2004-05-12 09:18:00] - paul: yeah, but they were kinda doing that in retaliation for the mutilation of those private US security guys, right? -dave
[2004-05-12 09:18:00] - vinnie: haha, I like it! -dave
[2004-05-12 09:11:00] - Dave: I'm not sure I see the connection. We were trying to go after Sadr before this happened, no? -Paul
[2004-05-12 09:07:00] - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/as14 hahaha, a ludricrous magic card in the upcoming set - vinnie
[2004-05-12 09:01:00] - paul: so you think them trying to go after Sadr was/is a bad thing? -dave
[2004-05-12 08:34:00] - Dave: I think that if the government should do anything at all, it's to try to track down the people responsible (and that means the people who actually committed the murder, not some random dictator in another country who we say is connected somehow). -Paul
[2004-05-12 08:30:00] - Dave: Yes, I know you said that. It still pisses me off, though, to hear all these people whining that they can't find any players to buy and sell the microdrives to make a profit off of. -Paul
[2004-05-12 08:29:00] - Travis: And I think even females would admit the same thing. -Paul
[2004-05-12 08:29:00] - Travis: I'm with Dave on the matter. Whether a woman is offended or not entirely depends on whether she finds you attractive or not. It's that way with so many things when it comes to women. -Paul
[2004-05-12 08:07:00] - mig: I take it you think that that isn't the right thing to do? -dave
[2004-05-12 07:50:00] - dave: i'm not sure but the response willl probably be 'let's kill some more iraqis' in one form or another. - mig
[2004-05-12 07:20:00] - should we do nothing? should they launch some sort of retaliatory strike? -dave
[2004-05-12 07:20:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19048-2004May11.html what should official US reaction to this be (american being beheaded in retaliation of prisoner abuse) -dave
[2004-05-12 07:14:00] - paul: =P didn't I tell you at the very outset that the reason MP3 players were hard to find was because the drive inside was more valuable than what you pay for the mp3 player? -dave
[2004-05-12 07:14:00] - travis: I've had several female friends tell me that they absolutely hate guys whistling at them. I suppose it also depends on what kind of person the girl is -dave
[2004-05-12 07:13:00] - travis: I think it all depends. My take on the matter is that women are very illogical about it and are only offended if it is a guy that they think is attractive or at least indifferent to. If it's some guy they aren't really attracted to they think it is "creepy." Like I said tho, this is only my take on the matter -dave
[2004-05-12 06:28:00] - travis: Maybe she's just working out so she can beat up people like you who harass her at work/on the street
- aaron[2004-05-11 23:44:00] - ohhh diss. ~a
[2004-05-11 23:41:00] - travis: you know me ~a
[2004-05-11 19:22:00] - and if she's working out she obviously cares about how her body looks and so should be flattered if a guy checks her out since that means she's succeeding (at least i don't know of any guys that check out fat ugly chicks
) - travis[2004-05-11 19:21:00] - got a question to pose for possible debate: would a woman be offended if you were checking her out while she was working out? i avoid (being obvious about) checking women out in general, but it's more difficult when they're dressed in provocative exercise clothes - travis
[2004-05-11 18:06:00] - wahahaha - wtf is with "rawr"? what a weird command - you have to type them in manually, the links don't seem to work - aaron
[2004-05-11 18:03:00] - My bad, I misinterpreted. It's a list of the commands it accepts - aaron
[2004-05-11 18:02:00] - http://www.xeni.net/images/bb/clipData.html Here's a list of what people type into the chicken..... It's not filtered, but it's mostly clean - aaron
[2004-05-11 17:36:00] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/11/news/midcaps/bk_chicken.reut/index.htm "The chicken doesn't do mainstream" -Paul
[2004-05-11 17:26:00] - Travis: I'm convinced that google is the precursor to SkyNet and the Matrix. -paul
[2004-05-11 17:23:00] - Paul: how else did i find it? i searched "google is god" - travis
[2004-05-11 17:22:00] - Travis: What would perfectly top it all off is if you found that link using google.
-Paul[2004-05-11 17:14:00] - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/29/nyt.friedman/ just in case there's any doubt left
- travis[2004-05-11 16:59:00] - google can be pretty fucking scary sometimes, yeah - vinnie
[2004-05-11 16:58:00] - Ah, ok. Thanks all. Scary how google knows more about the world than our government.
-paul[2004-05-11 16:57:00] - like way back when I didn't how whether the phrase was "use to know" or "used to know" - vinnie
[2004-05-11 16:56:00] - haha, i actually do use google for things like that sometimes - vinnie
[2004-05-11 16:55:00] - paul: it's the google terrorist one. that's pretty damn funny - vinnie
[2004-05-11 16:55:00] - Paul: after you read that part of the article: see google is total arbiter of rightness!
- travis[2004-05-11 16:53:00] - paul: "The Google Terrrorist" - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:53:00] - Aaron: Well, I don't think that's the media's intent. Besides, has the media actually shown the video yet? I thought it was just the website and maybe the Arabic news station. -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:52:00] - The hostage-takers because it helps them win a war, and the media because it gets their web site more hits - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:51:00] - Mig: I don't see the blurb you are talking about. A little help? -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:51:00] - paul: I guess what I'm saying is, it seems like they're both trying to scare the american people with gruesome images of death - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:50:00] - I would have hate to have know what would have happened if there was actually a guy with the same name. - mig
[2004-05-11 16:49:00] - Aaron: I'm not sure I understand your point, but I think the "terrorists" want Americans to know that there is a price to pay for the wrongs we inflict on them while the media feels it has a responsibility to report things that it finds out. -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:49:00] - http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040517/whispers/17whisplead_2.htm video game character draws interest from the morons at national security. scroll down a bit for the blurb. this is incredibly hilarious and sad at the same time. - mig
[2004-05-11 16:46:00] - I'm curious what viewpoint the terrorists and media share, such that they both agree "Yes, it's a good idea to share this video with the american people" - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:35:00] - Aaron: Right, soldier. They dragged his body through the streets or whatnot. I think the difference is that this is a civilian though. So in theory, he is innocent. -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:34:00] - paul: Or maybe just a civilian - but someone who had been captured, in any case. It's possible it was just the same story, published sooner or something - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:34:00] - paul: I really think I remember reading a story a month or two ago about a video tape being released of an american soldier being killed - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:28:00] - Aaron: They don't often behead civilians on television. Usually they just blow up soldiers without video taping it at all. -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:24:00] - Is this really anything new? I thought they did this every few months. - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:23:00] - Paul: give it time, it became the top google new story only 35 minutes ago - travis
[2004-05-11 16:23:00] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html article about this video showing an american being beheaded on an islamic militant web site - aaron
[2004-05-11 16:16:00] - travis: yeah, it's being discussed over at the other message board i look at. quite frankly, everyone who is pro-murder iraqis are screaming for vengeance, basically. - mig
[2004-05-11 16:15:00] - Dave: Ok, so now should I reply to the cancelation email with another email thanking him?
-Paul[2004-05-11 16:09:00] - Travis: I hadn't read about it before, but I have now. Somewhat surprised that a bigger deal hasn't been made of it. -Paul
[2004-05-11 16:04:00] - has anybody else read about this video showing an american being beheaded on an islamic militant web site? now i guess everyone will be able to forget about the abuse of iraqi prisoners as we all scream for vengeance - travis
[2004-05-11 15:55:00] - Vinnie: Oh man, I did it too?
-Paul[2004-05-11 15:50:00] - wasn't that already linked? or didn't we talk about it? - vinnie
[2004-05-11 15:33:00] - http://gear.ign.com/articles/498/498316p1.html This is why I can't find the player anywhere. Those scavenging bastards.
-Paul[2004-05-11 15:30:00] - paul: yes, people can put money back on your credit card. I've had it done a good number of times -dave
[2004-05-11 15:27:00] - Vinnie: Except Mwave doesn't make the product.
-Paul[2004-05-11 15:26:00] - Dave: I might, since I finally found a link which I think will allow me to do that. I wonder what happens with my credit card then? Does it get a surplus added to it? -Paul
[2004-05-11 15:21:00] - they operate on no capital. they use the money they receive from you to make the product
- vinnie[2004-05-11 15:20:00] - paul: yeah, so like I said, if you're that concerned, cancel your order (since it appears that you can from their policies page) -dave
[2004-05-11 15:18:00] - Dave: Right, and I understand that. But I don't want them charging me for something which they could theoretically not be getting for months or years. -Paul
[2004-05-11 15:16:00] - paul: but that's what I'm saying. They don't know for certain, they just know what the manufacturer tells them. And then if the manufacturer changes it (which they do all the time) then they have to tell their customer's it has changed - just like they are now -dave
[2004-05-11 15:14:00] - paul: read their policies / warranty section. Says you can return anything within 30 days for refund or replacement (with exceptions, but it doesn't look like ur mp3 player is in those exceptions) -dave
[2004-05-11 15:14:00] - Dave: Oh, I'm pretty sure the delay is the fault of the manufacturer and so it's not really Mwave's fault. Still, I would rather they hadn't charged me for it before they even know when they're getting some in for certain. -Paul
[2004-05-11 15:12:00] - paul: the delay is probably not being dictated by mwave (they obviously want them as fast as they can get them) it is probably the manufacturer who they ordered them from -dave
[2004-05-11 15:12:00] - Dave: Except I don't think I can do that anymore.
-Paul[2004-05-11 15:10:00] - paul: if you're concerned, cancel your order. -dave
[2004-05-11 15:09:00] - Dave: Yeah, which is the annoying thing. When I ordered it, they claimed they were getting some in the 15th. Now when I go check it says 6/30/2004. And I'm not even sure they will get any in by then either. -Paul
[2004-05-11 15:07:00] - i've backordered stuff and again, no places have charged until they shipped - vinnie
[2004-05-11 15:06:00] - paul: actually, I think I wanted to order something that was back-ordered once, and I just waited till they showed them having it in before I ordered it -dave
[2004-05-11 15:05:00] - paul: don't they have a date next to the thing that says when they expect to get them? -dave
[2004-05-11 15:04:00] - k, well, I was just wondering. I went ahead and paid it off anyway, although I would've much preferred they wait until they got it in because if it's going to be awhile I may not want to buy it after all.
-Paul[2004-05-11 15:02:00] - paul: I've never ordered anything that was back-ordered, but usually they make the charge to your credit card so that when the product comes in they can ship it right out to you vs. having to check to see if your charge will go through -dave
[2004-05-11 14:59:00] - i've never seen a place that did otherwise - vinnie
[2004-05-11 14:55:00] - paul: i think standard practice is to not charge your card until they ship the item. - mig
[2004-05-11 14:49:00] - Aaron: I thought so, but I do trust the place since I bought like $800 worth of computer parts from them without a problem before. It's also a bit strange because I got an email from some other site saying thanks for my order so I think they forwarded my order to some other company.
-Paul[2004-05-11 14:45:00] - paul: That's very bad practice - aaron
[2004-05-11 14:41:00] - Dave: Hey, I ordered something from Mwave that was out of stock but they already charged me for it even though they haven't received any in stock yet. Isn't that a little odd? -Paul
[2004-05-11 14:40:00] - Dave: Or maybe I read that somewhere and just didn't remember where I read it.
-Paul[2004-05-11 14:39:00] - paul: no idea, I musta missed it -dave
[2004-05-11 14:35:00] - Heh, didn't Pierce or somebody already post that? -Paul
[2004-05-11 14:30:00] - "[on the Troy set] Pitt tore his left Achilles tendon while doing his own stunts during shooting. Luckily, the injury wasn't as bad for Pitt as it was for his character." -dave
[2004-05-11 14:08:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=wojnarowski_adrian&id=1799328 Larry Brown needs to learn to keep his mouth shut, I think. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:59:00] - paul: oh, yeah, of course ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 13:47:00] - Dave: I'm just saying that there are loads of judicial rules which lawyers abide by now which unbiased third parties may not be so inclined to follow. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:44:00] - paul: I would definitely say innocent until proven guilty. Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt is somewhat subjective -dave
[2004-05-11 13:43:00] - Dave: It sounds reasonable to let an unbiased third party hear both sides of the story. The problem is, do you hold him to the same standards of "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt"? -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:34:00] - paul: why, what do you think is fair? -dave
[2004-05-11 13:34:00] - paul: ummm, well the definition of "fair conviction" maybe. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:29:00] - Dave: So the definition of 'conviction' for you relies on having an unbiased third party reviewing the evidence? -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:28:00] - paul: but to answer your question, I suppose that would define the minimal conditions for "convicting" someone -dave
[2004-05-11 13:26:00] - paul: well, I think the definition of wrongful conviction is if the guy actually did it or not. So if he is innocent then it is wrongful. Whether there was anything else you could/should have done is another question -dave
[2004-05-11 13:25:00] - Dave: What if it's just you, the supposd murderer, and an unbiased third party. If he hears both sides and gives you permission to kill the other guy (and he is innocent) is that a wrongful conviction? -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:23:00] - paul: I think that the heart of the problem is that you personally shouldn't be making the decision if he is guilty since you are clearly biased -dave
[2004-05-11 13:22:00] - paul: ahhh. good question. didn't see that comment when i posted -dave
[2004-05-11 13:21:00] - paul: I'm failing to see the difference? Please elaborate -dave
[2004-05-11 13:21:00] - I'm wondering when it goes from being vigilante justice to being a conviction. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:21:00] - mig: it's true that he's "responsible" for the things those soldiers did, but using the same logic we are also "responsible" for those things that happened -dave
[2004-05-11 13:21:00] - Dave: No, no. That's not what I mean. Let's say somebody murdered your parents and your gang drags some guy to your house and says he killed them. You hear his side of the story, decide he's lying, and shoot him. Contrast that with a slightly larger gathering where the "defendent" has friends on his side too. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:20:00] - mig: it's not like he personally inflicted those things on those people anyways. As soon as the army found out it was happening, those soldiers were punished - even before the story got into the media -dave
[2004-05-11 13:19:00] - of course, he's not going to compensate them personally, he's just going to extort the money out of us. - mig
[2004-05-11 13:17:00] - http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/8617530.htm rumsfeld wants to compensate the iraqis who were abused by us soldiers. - mig
[2004-05-11 13:16:00] - paul: which makes sense since people generally think it is better to "punish" someone more who flat out just decides to murder someone vs. someone who murders someone they think killed their parents -dave
[2004-05-11 13:15:00] - is now - vinnie
[2004-05-11 13:15:00] - see that's exactly what I don't see happening in an anarchocapitalist world. people interact with each other too much for there not to be an encompassing set of laws. i simply don't think it would be feasible for you to live in the same area with socialists. i think there would end up being a socialist country and a non-socialist country like there
[2004-05-11 13:15:00] - paul: I suppose in our current system you would be convicted of a "lesser" crime since you could argue temporary insanity etc. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:15:00] - paul: wrongful conviction? You would be convicted of killing a person. That's true whether he actually killed your parents or not it seems -dave
[2004-05-11 13:14:00] - paul: ahhh ok. That is a distinction then. I suppose the point of contention is whether a society / set of rules work if not everyone in the community is subject to them. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:13:00] - Dave: Except it's not. If we had an anarcho-capitalist society, then I could decide not to pay taxes and not get harassed by anybody. I dare you to try that now. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:12:00] - Dave: Basically, if I think somebody killed my parents and I go shoot that person and kill him (but he was innocent), would that could as a wrongful conviction? -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:12:00] - Dave: No, I could still live with a group of people who decided to be socialists and choose not to be a socialist in an anarcho-capitalist society. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:10:00] - paul: I guess what is amusing about your AC is that it is exactly the same as what is going on in the world today. It is just that the groups of people are larger (countries) than what you are talking about -dave
[2004-05-11 13:09:00] - paul: revenge killing as a wrongful conviction? I don't understand the question -dave
[2004-05-11 13:09:00] - paul: you being forced to fund or abide by a country's rules comes back full circle to the fact that if you don't want to, then go to a different system or country. Just like in your AC country you would move to a different "group" of people. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:07:00] - Dave: Would you count a revenge killing as a wrongful conviction? -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:06:00] - Dave: Which is fine. Like I said, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you are free to set up whatever kind of ultra safe court system you want in your own community. Just don't force me to fund it or abide by it.
-paul[2004-05-11 13:05:00] - paul: ahh by errors I meant people being convicted wrongly. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:04:00] - Dave: Yeah, and depending on what you define as errors, I think the percentage is a lot lower (maybe around 50%). There are also times when people who are most likely guilty get off free. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:04:00] - paul: yeah, exactly. My point was just that you are in the extreme minority of US citizens that believes that IMO -dave
[2004-05-11 13:03:00] - I'd be curious about seeing some numbers on cost of execution vs. cost of life imprisonment. I've always heard that stat but never seen any hard numbers -dave
[2004-05-11 13:03:00] - Dave: It probably is more reliable, but I'm not entirely sure that little bit of extra reliability is worth all of the time and money invested in it. -Paul
[2004-05-11 13:02:00] - paul: ahhh, yes. A good point. I believe that the general consensus in the US is that it is worth a lot of cost and time to minimize mistakes. This is at odds with what I believe the philosphy is of AC -dave
[2004-05-11 13:01:00] - paul: I believe that the checks and balances prevent a majority of "errors" in convicting people wrongly. If I had to take a stab in the dark, I would say over 99%. However, 99% means that 1 in 100 criminals is convicted wrongly, and there are a ton of convicted people. -dave
[2004-05-11 13:00:00] - Dave: It really depends on what you're going for. If you're trying to minimize mistakes while putting less emphasis on cost and time, then MAYBE our system is better. -Paul
[2004-05-11 12:59:00] - paul: well, I take that back, I know our system isn't perfect, but it sounds like I may think it is more reliable than you. Hard to say since how much I think you think it is reliable is a judgement call -dave
[2004-05-11 12:58:00] - paul: Yeah, I don't have any disagreements with you on the reliability of our system. I was more saying that it appears that anarcho-capitalism (AC) is even worse at dealing with the issues than our current system is. -dave
[2004-05-11 12:22:00] - *burp* - aaron
[2004-05-11 12:13:00] - I guess it's lunchtime.
-Paul[2004-05-11 11:54:00] - Aaron: Exactly. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:46:00] - paul: Like airbags. Yeah i can see that. - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:44:00] - Aaron: No, not necessarily with the type of government. I'm just saying that checks and balances like Dave mentioned may not be such a great thing if the sense of security they provide outweighs the wrongs they prevent. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:43:00] - paul: But i don't think it's a fault with the type of government - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:43:00] - paul: Well that's our government's fault for not being efficient enough at killing people - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:42:00] - Vinnie: Dammit!
-paul[2004-05-11 11:41:00] - Aaron: I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but I think that the death penalty is actually more expensive right now than life imprisonment. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:41:00] - cue someone dredging up that stat about how it costs more to execute someone than give them life in jail - vinnie
[2004-05-11 11:41:00] - oh,nm, you meant life in jail vs. death penalty - vinnie
[2004-05-11 11:40:00] - it is profitable in the same way it is efficient for the us to have jails - vinnie
[2004-05-11 11:40:00] - mig: i think dc comics is seeing how well marvel is doing and is trying to restart their franchises (batman and superman), but superman has been in pre-production hell for a long time now - travis
[2004-05-11 11:39:00] - paul: Our current system awards life in prison a lot more frequently than the death penalty. I can't imagine that being profitable for anybody - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:39:00] - anarchocapitalism doesn't have many answers unfortunately. it seems like one of those things that you couldn't predict until you tried it out - vinnie
[2004-05-11 11:33:00] - Aaron: It also depends on what you define as the death penalty. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:31:00] - Aaron: I have no idea. I just think that perhaps this false security that all these checks and balances give us makes us more willing to assign harsher penalties because we think that there is less chance for error. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:28:00] - paul: Would less innocent people receive the death penalty in a different style of government? - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:27:00] - Doh! -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:26:00] - Dave: I wonder how often people get wrongly imprisoned in our current system despite all those checks and balances though. Sometimes I think the checks and balances cause us to believe that our system is more reliable than it really is. Would we be so quick to approve the death penalty and life sentences if we knew how unreliable the system is? -Pa
[2004-05-11 11:24:00] - paul: because not even those checks and balance are there. At least they exist in the current system -dave
[2004-05-11 11:23:00] - paul: she actually won a major award (oscar?) -dave
[2004-05-11 11:22:00] - Dave: It's funny that you put quotes around "fair" and "impartial" when talking about our current system (implying that it's not necessarily fair and impartial). What makes you think things will be any better or worse in an anarcho-capitalist society? -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:22:00] - haven't there been like 4 superman movies already. we don't need another one. - mig
[2004-05-11 11:21:00] - Travis: Wow. I don't know who this Scarlett person is, but any of the rest of those would be wonderful. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:21:00] - travis: they're making a new one? -dave
[2004-05-11 11:20:00] - paul: I agree it still happens, it just seems that there are many more checks and balances against having it happen now than in anarcho-capitalism. And that's where my feeling of "more advanced" came from. The "more advanced" label could still be wrong tho -dave
[2004-05-11 11:20:00] - what is wrong with the superman movie people?: ""Jim Carrey, Jonny Depp, Will Ferrell, and Robert Downey Jr." are all contenders to play Lex Luthor". at least this makes up for that: "Keira Knightley, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, and Elisha Cuthbert were all contenders for the role of Lois Lane" - travis
[2004-05-11 11:19:00] - paul: yes, but at least the guy has access to "a fair" trial where an "impartial" judge looks at evidence. And the guy has a chance to present his case, have a lawyer, etc etc -dave
[2004-05-11 11:17:00] - Dave: The exact same thing could (and does) happen in our society.
-Paul[2004-05-11 11:17:00] - paul: I've got an example of kinda why I think anarchy may not protect "rights." What if a community is convince that a guy murdered someone (when he really was just setup by someone else). So they want to kill this innocent person. He doesn't seem to have much recourse as far as his rights -dave
[2004-05-11 11:15:00] - paul: ahh I see. It's just that the articles I have read on the matter say that this guy (Rob?) and Richard Hatch were just very dominating on the whole manipulating / conniving thing -dave
[2004-05-11 11:14:00] - Dave: I've only seen the first season of it, but from what I can tell it seems like the women are much more fluid in their alliances and backstabbings and manipulation whereas the guys are a little more loyal. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:13:00] - Aaron: Ok, that's cool. Because it wouldn't be too interested if they had a bench-pressing competition between Rupert the man-beast and Colleen the waif. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:12:00] - paul: yeah I guess, but the guys who control the thing backstab and manipulate to do well too yes? I guess I really have no clue how the show actually goes ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 11:12:00] - Paul: They're pretty good about coming up with challenges that don't greatly benefit either gender. - aaron
[2004-05-11 11:09:00] - Dave: Interesting. It certainly would seem like the physical aspect should handicap the women but I would also guess that it's possible the men get turned off real quick by any excessive manipulation or backstabbing by the women. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:08:00] - paul: I really don't know, maybe more women do win it, I don't really follow the show ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 11:08:00] - paul: a woman just won it, but apparently the game was almost entirely controlled by the guy who got second and proposed to the woman (on the show) who won -dave
[2004-05-11 11:06:00] - Dave: Are you sure it's usually won by a guy? Haven't two women won it? -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:05:00] - Dave: I think it's because there are two reasons somebody would want to work for the government. A sense of duty (the smart ones) or because the pay and job security is excellent (the morons). -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:04:00] - on a random note, it's interesting that Survivor, a game much about social conniving and plotting, is usually won by a guy. One would think women would be much better at it than guys. Maybe the physical aspect hampers them too much? -dave
[2004-05-11 11:04:00] - Dave: I think it's both academic exercise AND practical plan as much as communism and socialism and democracy is. There are loft ideals, and then there is the messy reality. -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:03:00] - Dave: I suppose you can think of it that way. Except anarcho-capitalists have no qualms whatsover with using force in retaliation for when it is used against them (in general). -Paul
[2004-05-11 11:01:00] - paul: what's funny is that even tho the govt is stereotypically known for "morons and leeches" it's also known for really smart and high-tech people (CIA, FBI, etc) -dave
[2004-05-11 10:59:00] - paul: so anarcho-capitalism is more of an academic exercise than a hammered out practical plan? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:58:00] - paul: seems like the answer for the hamish people is that they let the non-hamish people protect them ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 10:56:00] - paul: hmmm, it seems kinda like an hamish problem - how do they protect themselves if they abhor violence? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:55:00] - Dave: I honestly don't know, but the key thing to remember here is that anarcho-capitalists are all about freedom and being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't bother others. So I doubt they would be going around being authoritarian in order to prevent somebody else going authoritarian. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:54:00] - dave: well if more people are armed, it's kind of hard to impose your own way on them. - mig
[2004-05-11 10:54:00] - Mig: I am 100% not surprised. Not to insult government workers, because I know quite a few who are quite capable, but I think that government jobs attract lots of morons and leeches who can't make it elsewhere. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:53:00] - paul: is there some sort of plan that anarcho-capitalists have come up to make it more practical? as in safeguards to keep dictators out of power etc? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:52:00] - Heh, apparently you can get high level government jobs with those phony baloney degrees that spammers advertise. - mig
[2004-05-11 10:50:00] - Dave: Anarchy would probably lead to dictatorship if the people aren't vigilant in preventing it from happening. I think as long as the population is aware and vigilant, things would be ok (of course, that's unlikely, but so is actually managing to get an anarcho-capitalistic society). -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:48:00] - Dave: What primarily concerns me is that I believe that I should have the ultimate control over what I do with my own property and in return I don't try to forcibly take property from others. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:48:00] - paul: is there some sort of built in mechanism to stop someone from becoming a "dictator" in anarcho-capitalism? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:47:00] - Dave: It all depends on your definition of "freedom" and "rights". Do I have a right to bear arms? Does that mean the government has to give me a gun if I can't afford one? Etc. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:47:00] - paul: I think anarchy naturally leads to dictatorship - like someone powerful steps into the situation and takes control -dave
[2004-05-11 10:46:00] - Aaron: I don't know too much about African governments but there is a difference between anarchy and a dictatorship which is what I think a lot of Africa falls under. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:46:00] - paul: I think there's a decent case to be made that the majority ends up having fewer freedoms and a select few powerful people end up having all the power / rights -dave
[2004-05-11 10:45:00] - paul: yeah, I can see how it would be to a certain extent. I think that this becomes a theoretical govt. discussion then - debating whether you actually have more "freedom" if the system lets anyone do whatever they want -dave
[2004-05-11 10:44:00] - Dave: It breaks the country down into billions of individuals, not countries. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:44:00] - paul: From what I learned in World Regions it sounds like a large portion of Africa works that way. You obey me because I have the bigger gun. I order you to build more guns. Isn't that what it comes down to? It doesn't sound like anarcho-capitalism would last very long before it would become something else. - aaron
[2004-05-11 10:43:00] - Dave: I would say that anarcho capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and rights. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:43:00] - paul: so basically, it seems like anarcho-capitalism breaks down the country into a billion small countries that each have their own rules? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:43:00] - Dave: I'm sorry, I thought that's what you were equating when you said anarchy was a step backwards. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:42:00] - paul: I think I'm getting "more advanced" from the popular american view of religious freedom / rights, etc. Sorta like how the US motto is that even the small man deserves legal representation / protection of rights etc etc. Whether this is actually more advanced is something that can be debated -dave
[2004-05-11 10:42:00] - Dave: But the beauty of it is that you can create whatever kind of mini-society you want inside of an anarcho-capitalist society just fine. Whereas you could never have a mini anarcho-capitalist society inside of our current one. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:41:00] - paul: it's not the rigidly enforced laws that make it "more advanced." -dave
[2004-05-11 10:41:00] - Dave: You're probably right. I think the percentage of the population that would accept such a society is small because it requires putting pretty much all responsibility on yourself and most people don't want to deal with that. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:40:00] - Dave: I do take exception to the "step backwards" comment, though. A society with more rigidly enforced laws isn't necessarily a step forward. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:39:00] - paul: I think selling a legal / enforcement systems like that would / will be very difficult. I doubt many people would accept it. I could be wrong tho -dave
[2004-05-11 10:39:00] - Dave: Yeah, anarcho-capitalism is a step towards anarchy? I'm shocked!
-Paul[2004-05-11 10:38:00] - Dave: If you want to think of it like that, but keep in mind that it would likely be a lot less chaotic than that. The west was wild partially because it was undeveloped. America is a lot more developed now. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:38:00] - paul: somehow, a legal setup like that seems like it would be a step backwards into a slightly more anarchy-type society. I suppose that's where you get the "anarcho" part of the name ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 10:37:00] - Dave: It depends on what kind of local set-up that the community has in place. It probably boils down to if the majority thinks that somebody should be jailed, then he will be jailed. There would be no guaranteed legal representation. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:36:00] - paul: ahh I see. no across the board criminal laws. so it would end up being kinda like the "wild west" where communities kinda defined their own laws and enforced them themselves? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:35:00] - Dave: There wouldn't be any national criminal laws (heck, there technically wouldn't be a nation). Any court system would be private, so there is always the potential for a biased court, but I think the reality wouldn't be much different from what we have now. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:34:00] - paul: would there be guaranteed legal representation? who pays if the person is too poor? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:34:00] - paul: but how could you say that your punishments had to take place if someone else has to pay for them? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:33:00] - paul: so maybe the punishments would just be "recommended" ? that seems kinda messed up too -dave
[2004-05-11 10:33:00] - paul: and then who would decide what punishments to give to the criminals? if the prison system is private, then you couldn't exactly say that you have to put him in a prison? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:33:00] - Dave: It's hard to say, but I would guess that more people would decide to own guns, yes. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:32:00] - paul: seems like the court system would have to be independent from any other group, otherwise they would be biased -dave
[2004-05-11 10:32:00] - paul: I can't help but think that this security thing sounds a bit chaotic. Would there be national criminal laws? If so, would there be courts that decide whether someone has committed one of them? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:30:00] - paul: ahhh, so communities would have to defend themselves? So I guess the number of people who owned firearms would go up? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:29:00] - Aaron: I imagine right now they probably are totally funded by the government. But that doesn't mean that only the government can fund them. Besides, I imagine private prisons without government funding are probably actually illegal right now. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:27:00] - Dave: A community wouldn't have to hire a security firm to protect them at all. They could be responsible for their own security or, if they wanted added security, they could hire a private police force for them. -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:26:00] - I can imagine prison construction/security jobs being contracted out by the government, if that's what you mean... but I imagine they're still funded federally - aaron
[2004-05-11 10:26:00] - Dave: Well, I meant private prisons exist now but private police forces almost exist now as well (in the form of security firms, like you say). -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:25:00] - paul: so I guess communities would have to hire private security firms to protect them? -dave
[2004-05-11 10:24:00] - paul: private police force exists now? more like private security firms who "protect" people who pay them to -dave
[2004-05-11 10:24:00] - Aaron: It wouldn't be for a pizza place. I'm thinking it would be the job more of a private police force or even private prison (which exist even now, I believe). -Paul
[2004-05-11 10:24:00] - aaron: so they can jail all the people who leave without paying ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-11 10:23:00] - Mig: At least on this message board, it seems. -Paul
prev <-> next