prev <-> next
[2004-06-03 09:40:05] - dave: That's a logical explanation then. People are kind of forced to make a conscious decision on sexuality, while religion they can kind of ignore unless it becomes an issue... so i guess that's logical - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:32:49] - aaron: just think, sex is probably a lot more bandied about in our culture than religion, so it makes sense that people might decide on their sexual orientation moreso than on their religion -dave
[2004-06-03 09:31:31] - predisposition, that is - vinnie
[2004-06-03 09:31:30] - aaron: a lot of people just dont put that much effort into thinking about religion. For someone to be an atheist, they usually have had to think through the matter and made a decision. So I'm not all that surprised if gay people outnumber atheists -dave
[2004-06-03 09:31:06] - there's a lot of areligious people that consider themselves whatever religion they were born into, even though they don't practice. does the 10% figure count actual number reported or attempt to guess redisposition? - vinnie
[2004-06-03 09:29:33] - for a rough judge at how running the engine at a constant speed would increase efficiency, just think about the mileage difference between driving a gas car in the city as opposed to the highway. That's the difference, one is running all sorts of engine speeds and the other is running engine at roughly constant speed -dave
[2004-06-03 09:27:58] - the hybrids are more efficient in the city because, like Paul said, it relies more on the electric motors in stop-and-go traffic and more on the gas-powered engine on the highway -dave
[2004-06-03 09:26:56] - Aaron: Hybrids gas engines are more efficient in that many times when the engine is running, it is only running to charge the electric batteries and runs at a constant speed. They pegged this speed at the speed which is most efficient for the engine, which increases the overall efficiency a good deal -dave
[2004-06-03 09:26:52] - Aaron: Yup. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:26:21] - paul: Yeah come to think of it, almost every special interest group celebrates like four holidays that very few people even acknowledge. - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:23:41] - Aaron: The problem is that holidays that only specific groups celebrate don't tend to be that popular unless they find a way to appeal to the majority like Christmas and Easter. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:21:36] - So i guess now, there needs to be a gay holiday that people celebrate so that everyone will call themselves homosexual
that will fix the numbers - aaron[2004-06-03 09:20:47] - paul: I guess that's true. Maybe a lot of people think "well i celebrate christmas so i'm christian" when it comes to surveys, even if they don't believe in or pray to a god - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:18:44] - Aaron: Ah, but would those people describe themselves as athiest on a survey? I think there is a big disparity between people who call themselves athiest and people who don't believe in god. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:17:53] - Aaron: Hmmm, maybe. I guess I've read enough about gays who are christians that it doesn't seem too weird to me, but I can see why it would. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:16:46] - I guess it just seems like from my experience, most gay people I meet are either non-religious, or at least questioning their religion... so the percentages should be the other way around - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:14:50] - paul: Fair enough, it just seems weird. If i knew the actual percentages, I could quantify how weird. But if like, %10 of people are gay, and %5 are atheist, then that means that only half of all gays (at most) can be atheists? And that just sounds way off to me - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:11:44] - Aaron: Depends on how you define an athiest. Plenty of people probably claim a religion (or claim to believe in some sort of god) but would have no problem with homosexuality methinks. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:10:26] - Aaron: Yeah, I think it uses the gas engine on highways and the electric in the city, and so you only get real good gas mileage when driving in the city (although I imagine higway driving is still pretty good). -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:09:27] - I had a weird realization in my car. Don't gays outnumber atheists? Doesn't this seem backwards to anybody? - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:07:34] - paul: Yeah, because the engine is not really any more efficient than other cars. From my understanding, it mainly saves on gas when it's using its battery (driving slowly, or accelerating after braking) - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:06:28] - That's according to the car's in-dash monitor, so I don't know. Maybe that is flawed too. - aaron
[2004-06-03 09:05:38] - Aaron: Yeah, I've heard that it does much better in the city than highway, which is somewhat opposite of the norm. -Paul
[2004-06-03 09:04:26] - My coworker owns a prius, and his average MPG is 48. He says many owners get over 50, but it just depends on how the car is driven. It does much worse on long trips, and gets its best MPG in the city / while idling. - aaron
[2004-06-03 08:59:17] - Paul: Indeed she is. - aaron
[2004-06-03 08:58:47] - Paul: yeah he's pretty big on hating people who eat meat. - mig
[2004-06-03 08:43:46] - http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1360 Interesting that Bill Maher supports PETA. -Paul
[2004-06-03 08:33:51] - http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_975359.html Police siren killed chickens? -Paul
[2004-06-03 08:27:34] - http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1086228235.html An Ars Technica article about those EPA fuel ratings that were talked about. -Paul
[2004-06-03 08:08:01] - Nice, green's the least stolen car color.
-Paul[2004-06-03 07:30:11] - http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=2891&src=msn>1=3491 top ten most stolen cars -dave
[2004-06-02 22:19:59] - howl! ~a
[2004-06-02 22:06:53] - Aaron: You just like her because she's showing skin. -Paul
[2004-06-02 21:43:39] - Not half as hot as miss czech republik http://www.santabanta.com/contestants.asp?picid=734 - aaron
[2004-06-02 19:51:22] - well, I think the world can do better than that... - vinnie
[2004-06-02 18:07:10] - http://www.santabanta.com/contestants.asp?picid=714 i guess this is supposedly the most beautiful woman in the world this year since she won miss universe - travis
[2004-06-02 16:38:07] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/06/02/kosher.water.ap/index.html I thought this was kind of funny. The discovery of microscopic crustaceans in NYC drinking water led some restaurants to further filter their water, to cater to their patrons following a strict kosher diet - aaron
[2004-06-02 15:32:41] - Travis: Yeah, from what I've heard/read, it's always like that. She likes to dress up and the guys, as you can tell, go more for the messy dressed up look. -Paul
[2004-06-02 15:28:46] - emma is so much more dressed up than the boys in that pic gallery. rupert looks like an alternative rock star who's purposefully trying to look unfashionable - travis
[2004-06-02 15:18:34] - Paul thanks Pierce and his odd, third person referencing ways. -Paul
[2004-06-02 15:15:33] - Which Paul may borrow on friday. - pierce
[2004-06-02 15:15:19] - Pierce does, in fact, own a copy of the DVD. - pierce
[2004-06-02 14:17:40] - http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/gallery.aspx?gallery=4704 Some pictures of the stars from the HP3 premiere. -Paul
[2004-06-02 14:17:03] - aaron: I imagine it's Marlon. as I was reading the book I was actually imagining it as a movie - vinnie
[2004-06-02 14:13:24] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?id=1814133&partnersite=espn Interesting to note that the Pistons split their series with a healthy Lakers team without Rasheed. -Paul
[2004-06-02 14:07:35] - vinnie: Hey no way, is that Marlon in that photo for the scrabble movie? I'd love to see that, if just to see G.I. Joel dress - aaron
[2004-06-02 13:01:33] - Travis: Movies are easier than books.
-Paul[2004-06-02 12:57:17] - Paul: you could also read the book for fight club, i own that, but i think pierce might own a copy of the dvd - travis
[2004-06-02 12:17:30] - Vinnie: I'm sure I won't see it coming in either movie.
-Paul[2004-06-02 12:13:08] - Fight Club's is a little harder to guess - vinnie
[2004-06-02 12:12:06] - the problem with Usual Suspects is that knowing it has a twist ending really ruins the surprise. see http://palpable.org/3-2004.html#56 - vinnie
[2004-06-02 12:09:44] - I still need to see the Usual Suspects too.
-Paul[2004-06-02 12:09:15] - Vinnie: Well, I actually know very little about it accept that a lot of people seem to like it and it's supposed to be different than what it seems and it has some sort of twist ending and so I see no reason not to see it. -Paul
[2004-06-02 12:07:20] - but no, sorry, don't own a copy - vinnie
[2004-06-02 12:07:11] - you won't like it, but nice to hear you'd like to watch it anyway
- vinnie[2004-06-02 12:05:28] - Does anybody here own a copy of Fight Club that they wouldn't mind me borrowing sometime? -Paul
[2004-06-02 12:02:32] - http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9647534%255E13762,00.html Visas easy for Mexican strippers -Paul
[2004-06-02 12:01:28] - you were supposed to give him a fairly permanent address (like my parents haven't moved), but if it's changed then yes it won't work - travis
[2004-06-02 11:49:01] - this letter idea seems more and more problematic by the minute - vinnie
[2004-06-02 11:45:41] - oh, and doesn't he have to go find out where we live? ~a
[2004-06-02 11:44:24] - i have no idea what was in my letter. all i know is that it's probably stupid. ~a
[2004-06-02 11:18:06] - http://movies.go.com/movies/W/word-wars_2004/index.html - a scrabble documentary, though I don't think affliated with word freak even though it features four of the people in the book - vinnie
[2004-06-02 10:54:07] - travis: doesn't that defeat the point? - vinnie
[2004-06-02 10:49:12] - dave: hey, i actually remember some of the stuff i wrote to myself in that letter, thank you very much - travis
[2004-06-02 10:48:05] - vinnie: or just dump the letters, not like anyone is going to remember ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-02 10:41:56] - lindo will have to pay for the extra postage. his poor foresight - vinnie
[2004-06-02 10:25:46] - Paul: Don't ask me ^_^ but I remember it being a fun class -dave
[2004-06-02 10:21:01] - Dave: And how does this relate to government? -Paul
[2004-06-02 10:20:25] - vinnie: in govt class we wrote letters to ourselves that lindo was going to mail to us like 10 years later (don't remember exactly how long) -dave
[2004-06-02 10:12:38] - dave: what was this? - vinnie
[2004-06-02 10:09:53] - maybe we put more than adequate postage trying to account for increases? -dave
[2004-06-02 10:09:36] - for some odd reason this popped into my head - you know how we wrote letters to ourselves in mr. lindo's class and put them in self addressed envelopes etc? did we put postage on them? and if so, wouldn't the postage have gone up by the time they needed to be mailed? -dave
[2004-06-02 10:04:47] - paul: I don't think -dave
[2004-06-02 10:04:31] - Paul: yeah, I would agree with vinnie and aaron, I'm don't think that's necessarily such a clear cut thing -dave
[2004-06-02 09:59:21] - paul: yeah, I don't think that divide is as clear-cut - vinnie
[2004-06-02 09:58:17] - dave: it would have no dunks, but good fundamentals - vinnie
[2004-06-02 09:58:17] - paul: I think that's only with maybe half of all men at best.... - aaron
[2004-06-02 09:56:29] - Dave: I think that oftentimes, for a woman, it's more important to make people happy and feel good than to be right, whereas often the opposite is true for men. -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:52:50] - Paul: or maybe women really are still rooted in the same logical fundamentals, but they are just operating on different information -dave
[2004-06-02 09:49:07] - Paul: makes you kinda wonder what on earth science/math etc would be like if women created it all ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-02 09:47:50] - Dave: I guess you're right. -paul
[2004-06-02 09:45:29] - Paul: at least IMO ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-02 09:45:04] - Paul: so it's less of a matter of one sense is logical and the other isn't, and moreso, they're both just different -dave
[2004-06-02 09:44:02] - Paul: so a woman would say the same thing, how are we supposed to understand men when there is no logic behind the things they do? The problem is each gender has their own sense of logical rules when it comes to relational things -dave
[2004-06-02 09:43:09] - Paul: well that's just it. things make "logical sense" to us, but women have their own sense of "logic" based on things that don't seem like logic to us. I would conjecture that the reason our logic matches "scientific" logic more is because men probably created it -dave
[2004-06-02 09:33:23] - Travis: Have you heard about how the Lakers have actually been in nearly half of all the NBA finals and how it's a higher percentage than the Yankees in the World Series? -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:30:07] - the reason an eastern team would have a better shot at any other western team besides the lakers if experience in the finals, which most eastern teams lack but the lakers have in spades - travis
[2004-06-02 09:21:09] - Dave: Well, in men's defense, how exactly are we supposed to understand what women mean/want when there is admitedly no logical basis behind it? -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:19:51] - Paul: it's almost as if they each know in their heads that it's supposed to be true, but can't quite get themselves to actually believe the other gender is like that -dave
[2004-06-02 09:19:14] - Paul: what's so amusing is that even tho guys know girls can be apparently illogical and girls know guys generally say what they mean, everyone still gets mixed up with it -dave
[2004-06-02 09:18:49] - Dave: I could be wrong, but I've read some of the other stuff he has written so I think I have some more background information regarding what he might mean. -paul
[2004-06-02 09:17:58] - paul: yeah, I suppose. -dave
[2004-06-02 09:17:29] - paul: wow, criminal responsibility at 14? -dave
[2004-06-02 09:15:57] - Dave: Well, I don't think he was saying that they should become more logical necessarily, just that they need to recognize te difference between their feelings and facts. -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:15:36] - Paul: at least IMO -dave
[2004-06-02 09:15:24] - Dave: And the Pistons went 1-1 against the Spurs also. Not sure if Duncan was playing in all of those games or if the Pistons had Rasheed or not... -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:15:19] - Paul: yeah, the last one about girls becoming more factual / less emotional etc isn't going to happen. I think that's just a fundamental diff. Might be good for women to understand where the guy is coming from, but they'll never change to do the same -dave
[2004-06-02 09:14:30] - Dave: Well, I think I agree on the details of what he says too, just that there are one or two suggestions he gives which I don't know if I necessarily agree with. -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:14:29] - Paul: yeah, and I think having a playoff atmosphere changes a whole lot -dave
[2004-06-02 09:13:55] - Paul: to sorta summarize, the sticker is that guys don't want to be married to someone who the are intimidated by -dave
[2004-06-02 09:13:37] - Dave: Well, this doesn't prove anything, but the Pacers beat the Spurs in regulation one game and loss in overtime by one point for the other game. -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:13:04] - Paul: hehe, article on difficulty of high-powered women finding husbands is intriguing. I think I'm with you, agree on the premise but not all the details -dave
[2004-06-02 09:10:47] - I want that anti-marijuana poster they show in South Park, with a pot leaf silhouetted behind the twin towers crash, and the word "HARMLESS?" in front of it... I would so hang that up - aaron
[2004-06-02 09:08:03] - Paul: too bad we can't match them up and see ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-02 09:07:05] - "MPP belives that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is imprisonment." Really, you think? - mig
[2004-06-02 09:04:45] - http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr052604.html Drug ads aren't effective? -paul
[2004-06-02 09:02:29] - Dave: I think the Spurs had the best shot at defeating the Lakers, but I still maintain that the Pacers or the Pistons could've beaten them in a seven game series. -Paul
[2004-06-02 09:01:35] - http://www.freep.com/news/nw/japan2_20040602.htm Be wary of those 11 year old Japanese school girls. -Paul
[2004-06-02 08:57:55] - Paul: well, I think the Spurs are/were just about as good as the Lakers. -dave
[2004-06-02 08:24:41] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30830 Not sure if I agree with his suggestions, but I agree with the general premise. -Paul
[2004-06-02 08:21:24] - But then again, everybody thinks I'm loony. -Paul
[2004-06-02 08:21:13] - Dave: I think the top two teams in the east could probably beat all the teams in the west in a seven game series except possibly the Lakers. -Paul
[2004-06-02 08:14:33] - andrew and I were talking last night, and we agreed that the top 4-5 teams of the west could all probably beat the top 2 of the east. Pretty sad eh? -dave
[2004-06-02 08:13:05] - anyone know what betting odds are for the pistons vs. lakers? ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-02 08:06:19] - Pierce: How does it feel?
-Paul[2004-06-02 08:00:24] - pierce: good save ~a
[2004-06-02 01:16:34] - again, I wasn't saying it was a big deal. I was being tongue-in-cheek. - pierce
[2004-06-01 22:04:31] - pierce: the fact of the matter is not everybody is interested in everything all the time. for a good example, look at the message board stats in 2002 and 2003. or look at my ill fated journal (oh, right, you can't; i took it down because it sucked so much) ~a
[2004-06-01 21:33:03] - http://www.westerntalesofterror.com/ yet another instance of my idea being into action. i'm a genius and a prophet i tell ya! - travis
[2004-06-01 17:16:57] - Pierce: And nobody responded. So I learned my lesson, don't post on Pierce's blog.
-Paul[2004-06-01 17:14:50] - I guess you said something intelligent in response to the Kerry entry, but that was a while ago. - pierce
[2004-06-01 17:14:04] - Especially on a monday or a monday-equivalent. - pierce
[2004-06-01 17:13:51] - Paul: really, I was mostly being sarcastic. Usually somebody says something, intelligent or no. - pierce
[2004-06-01 17:03:23] - Pierce: What did you want us to comment about? Seriously, I couldn't think of anything intelligent to say. -Paul
[2004-06-01 17:02:54] -
- pierce[2004-06-01 17:02:51] - Vinnie: yeah, to be honest I wasn't expecting a ton of discussion, but I thought somebody would say something... everybody else's journals got traffic. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:55:55] - pierce: I left you a comment about your last design - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:54:08] - Aaron: That's one way of putting it. I dislike having things forced on others unless it's something they chose (paying $50 for a computer game, etc). -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:52:29] - mig: I'm interested in the ones in the expos moving, but only as it relates to traffic
- vinnie[2004-06-01 16:51:42] - pierce: I read them (even the Perl one), but didn't have much to add. we kind of talked about the kerry thing here, and the perl one I found amusing, but wasn't sure if you wanted a comment amounting to such - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:51:41] - Paul: in your system, who enforces contracts? - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:51:11] - pierce: just like everyone is uninterested in my baseball rantings
- mig[2004-06-01 16:48:16] - paul: So you're against being born into a system of laws - is that what it comes down to? - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:47:12] - Aaron: Well, yes, but I'm talking about being forced to follow laws as opposed to following through on a contract. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:42:18] - Boy, you all are completely uninterested in my final Designs on the White House entry, my political rantings, and my Perl woes, aren't you? - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:41:53] - paul: Well you could always have that issue in any government. Even in anarchy, I could be forced to do something I didn't want to do, maybe because I'm going to get something i like in return. (i.e i get to live near the lake, but I have to pay the lake-owner 50 clams per day) - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:41:02] - Vinnie: Anarchy, "ideally", is the complete absence of power hierarchy. And you're right, since that never actually exists (because of people assuming power over others), anarchy basically spontaneously becomes a power hierarchy. But what Paul wants (total self-government) doesn't exist in a power hierarchy. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:38:03] - Well, and it's not something as minor as just making the states more extreme in their difference in laws, because you would still have the issue of people being forced to obey laws they didn't want to in many cases. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:36:47] - Aaron: Basically, I guess so. Intolerance will still be around and will muck things up, but I don't think it would be a bigger problem than it currently is. Possibly even a smaller problem. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:35:59] - vinnie: And not enough variance where it matters (income tax, % of funds going to federal gov't, minimum wage, etc...) - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:34:28] - yeah, they are. but too much (necessary?) overseeing from the federal govt - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:33:36] - i.e technically different laws, but not in a very interesting way - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:33:07] - vinnie: States are kind of like smaller countries, in the same way that M+Ms come in different flavors - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:32:09] - paul: I get it, and to extend that idea, you'd like everybody in the world to be able to live next door to eachother and be tolerant of eachother's individual governments - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:31:40] - I think you just want smaller countries. I think that's what I want too (agreement shockah!) - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:28:38] - Aaron: Well, selfishly, I would be fairly happy if there was some island out in the Pacific which had an agreeable government where I could live and find a job. Ideally, though, I would like everybody in the world who would want such a society to be able to have one. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:26:23] - paul: No i'm being totally serious, actually. I was just realising, like, "well what Paul is describing is basically what we're living in now" but then I realized, "but that's not convenient for him, because then he has to live somewhere else"... so the obvious solution, is you want america and all other countries to dissolve their govrnmnt - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:24:01] - Aaron: Well, assuming you were being serious with your second comment, that's actually somewhat accurate. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:23:30] - aaron: who wouldn't want that? I mean cmon, just think! orange goo! -dave
[2004-06-01 16:22:52] - Paul: This isn't about you moving to somewhere where you can govern yourself, this is about everybody else ceasing to govern - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:22:27] - Paul: I get it! You want all of the governments of the world to pull an "eva" and release their citizens, drowning the earth in a sea of orange goo - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:20:31] - Vinnie: I told you I would take Pleasantville over the real world.
-Paul[2004-06-01 16:19:11] - paul: oh no! you're choosing pleasantville over the real world!
- vinnie[2004-06-01 16:17:58] - Dave: No fun = Nobody gets upset. I'll gladly sacrifice a little bit of pride for that. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:15:36] - paul: yeah, but it's no fun if you can't say things ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 16:15:12] - there's no way you're gonna "reset the score". I think there's always some power structure. anarchy to me is just the loosest structure comparatively - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:14:55] - Dave: That's been what I've been trying to do. And it worked out pretty well, just look at Aaron asking Pierce to defend my positions.
-Paul[2004-06-01 16:13:41] - pierce: anarchy isn't power hierarchy how? - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:13:37] - pierce: I think you're picking at technicalities. For all intents and purposes, cavemen had no laws or anything. they just did what they thought was best -dave
[2004-06-01 16:12:26] - paul: haha, ok. be silent on the matter ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 16:12:20] - In other words, there was always a previous system of power hierarchy that was either maintained or directly opposed, in any governmental transition. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:11:49] - Vinnie: I disagree. At the start (apes?) we had noncodified laws and rule (for the most part) by the strongest of the tribe. To start an anarchical society now, we'd have to reset everybody's score, so to speak. But never in the observable past has that been the case. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:11:13] - pierce: What would keep aristocracies and monarchies from forming under paul's form of government? It seems like a very sensible way to provide aid to people who don't have any interest in defending themselves - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:11:02] - I guess even Adam and Eve had laws, didn't they? maybe we just need God to come back down and set the record straight - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:10:56] - Dave: Those are questions for scholars and the like. I have my personal opinions which I shall chose not to share.
-paul[2004-06-01 16:10:32] - pierce: yeah, I guess each tribe had their own rules, so i guess go back to cavemen -dave
[2004-06-01 16:09:54] - paul: I think we were - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:09:33] - Dave: my understanding (which may well be wrong) was that the native americans had rule of law within small tribal communities, usually based on mutual (traditional) respect for tribal elders. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:09:12] - Vinnie: Mayhaps we were talking about different quotes then. I was referring to the initiating force quote. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:08:43] - pierce: I raid your tribe for women, they come back and raid right back, etc -dave
[2004-06-01 16:08:41] - pierce: take it back further. at the start we had no law or govt - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:08:30] - vinnie: Well yay! - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:08:24] - pierce: actually I was thinking of back when there were just indians in america. no laws, just people doin what they thought -dave
[2004-06-01 16:07:54] - vinnie: haha yeah, that's what I figured too -dave
[2004-06-01 16:07:52] - aaron: 1,000 years ago there were aristocracies and monarchies. It was often, OFTEN abused, but it was a system of government with rule of law nonetheless. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:07:31] - paul: can a third party initiate force to try to break up two warring families? -dave
[2004-06-01 16:07:18] - aaron: yay! you're coming to the exact same conclusions I did - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:06:39] - Pierce: Initiation of force is wrong, once it's been initiated, I guess all bets are off. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:06:20] - pierce: How is paul's system any different than what was around 1,000 years ago? What makes you think it will degenerate into anything different than the current systems of global government? - aaron
[2004-06-01 16:06:08] - Paul: what I'm asking is the prevention of force against a third party. Can I use force to stop a mugger attacking an old lady? - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:06:05] - paul: so who decides initiation of force? like I said earlier, one guy cusses another out. the other guy goes and beats on him. then both families start beating on each other over the matter. -dave
[2004-06-01 16:05:18] - Paul: Your system (IMO) inherently degenerates, and develops a system of government. Moreover, it will more than likely turn into a dictatorship or a fascist government because it will leave the most ruthless people as the ones with power. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:05:14] - paul: that's not exactly the same. using force in self-defense doesn't fall under "everyone governing themselves" while it does fall under "not initiating force". that's interesting that the party makes its members sign that pledge tho - vinnie
[2004-06-01 16:05:09] - haha oops, didn't see paul's clarification -dave
[2004-06-01 16:04:44] - hehe, no wonder there aren't any libertarian govt. they were all taken over by foreign powers with militaries ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 16:04:36] - Pierce: Hence 'initiation' of force. Once force has been initiated against you, it can be justified to use force to defend yourself. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:03:41] - pierce: you don't think republicans are more conservative and democrats are more liberal? -dave
[2004-06-01 16:02:45] - dave: yes, but using different definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" than "republican" and "democrat". - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:02:23] - Pierce: Ok, so what is wrong with 'my' system again? Sometimes we might not be able to exercise our 'rights'? -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:02:18] - pierce: yeah, it's amish. I wonder why I thought there was an H in there. The people who say that violence is not acceptable in any situation. -dave
[2004-06-01 16:02:12] - Paul: so what about in the prevention of someone else initiating force? Topical to vinnie's journal, can a libertarian, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm by another person's hand? - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:01:44] - pierce: so in a strict sense, libertarians would be more conservative than liberal? -dave
[2004-06-01 16:01:07] - Vinnie: Actually, it is. Party members need to sign a pledge saying they won't initiate force against another or something to that effect. -Paul
[2004-06-01 16:00:57] - dave: are you talking about the people in Pennsylvania who mostly shun technology? - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:00:27] - dave: yeah, essentially. American libertarianism, as far as I can tell, mostly sees the constitution as the complete description of necessary governmental function. - pierce
[2004-06-01 16:00:09] - pierce: oh, is that how it's spelled? ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 15:59:57] - pierce: that's the party line, I don't know if that's the ideal of the philosophy though - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:59:43] - dave: hamish? do you mean amish? - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:59:31] - pierce: ahhh, so the kicker is what people think is "strictly" necessary -dave
[2004-06-01 15:58:44] - And all governing that isn't strictly necessary is left to the individual to assume or subsume as they see fit. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:58:35] - dave: they enforce it themselves? i'm sketchy on how a libertarian ideal works in practice. I'd imagine much like the current system - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:57:36] - vinnie: I don't see that as the libertarian ideal, though I admit I don't know the technical definition. I see it more as everyone is governed to the minimum extent necessary to maintain a stable society and the protection of fundamental rights. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:57:03] - pierce: nope, everyone has to be hamish ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 15:56:43] - vinnie: if that's their philosophy ideal, how can they have a govt that enforces anything? -dave
[2004-06-01 15:56:23] - Paul: what about as retribution (or prevention) of another person initiating force against a human being? - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:56:12] - paul: hehe you need to recruit more people. somehow this always ends up being you answering everyone's questions ^_^ -dave
[2004-06-01 15:55:31] - but the libertarian philosophy ideal is that everyone governs themselves - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:55:14] - Paul: a right is a practice that people ought to be able to exercise. Pragmatically (such as in terms of the bill of rights), people ought to be able to exercise them because free exercise of that practice has an overall positive effect on human society (how to measure that is left undefined). - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:54:53] - paul: well the problem is you run into the definition of initiate force. Some people would say cussing out someone else is initiating force whereas others wouldn't -dave
[2004-06-01 15:54:41] - dave: it's not a libertarian party ideal, if that's what you mean - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:53:52] - paul: is that really a libertarian ideal? Even in Heinlein's book they were creating a govt with laws and enforcements etc -dave
[2004-06-01 15:53:31] - Aaron: There is really only one rule as far as I'm concerned, and that is that you should never initiate force against another human being. -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:53:00] - ahhhh, so that's it. Paul thinks that there can be no real govt, govt being a group of people trying to enforce some laws on some group / area -dave
[2004-06-01 15:52:28] - Pierce: Ok, so what is the definition of a right? -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:52:19] - paul: It's not a contradiction... I can choose to be governed by someone else, or I can choose to have someone else govern me.... Am I to understand that the one universal law in your form of government, then, is that it's unlawful to govern anybody else? Even if they consent to it? - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:51:11] - That's why it bugs me to hear people say that the military gives us the right to freely speak against the military, for example. We have that right all along, the military just protects our ability to exercise it. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:49:37] - Paul: there's a difference between the possession of rights and the exercise of rights. What you said is like saying "the concept of truth is contradictory because people can lie". The rights are not contradictory, it's just that they can't always be exercised due to practicalities of certain situations. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:49:17] - Aaron: *Blank Stare* I think you have a contradiction in that very sentence. If everybody is governing themselves and nobody else, then how do you have somebody who is governing somebody else? -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:47:01] - paul: Well - you govern yourself as long as you're not in a territory which is governed by someone else, right? - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:46:53] - Pierce: Sure they are. There are no rights that can't be taken away from you SOMEHOW. -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:46:21] - pierce: Well it's not necessarily a bigger gun, but what if Billy's constructed a military system and a health care system which is helping pay for Gary's father's kemotherapy treatment, or etc.... - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:45:52] - Paul: they're not inherently contradictory, unless you include "a right to define your own rights with complete disregard for the rest of society". - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:44:52] - Aaron: You govern yourself and don't worry about trying to govern others. -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:44:30] - we had a big debate in miguel's journal I think? - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:44:22] - Ah, and thus we discover the inherent contradiction of rights. -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:44:18] - pierce: well, that's the problem I had with governments that aren't locational, not paul's system in theory - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:43:24] - dave: the problem with Paul's system is that there's a contradiction. He wants each person to be able to choose his or her own laws, but in the absence of a rule-of-law entity there's nothing that stops Billy Biblethumper from forcibly stopping Gary Ganja from smoking pot if Billy has the bigger gun, thus negating the desired outcome. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:42:56] - dave: The only law is there are no laws
- aaron[2004-06-01 15:40:22] - paul: so basically no laws, everyone just does what they think is best / "their own laws" ? -dave
[2004-06-01 15:40:03] - paul: I don't understand? - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:38:29] - aaron: which seems to contradict that view -dave
[2004-06-01 15:38:27] - Aaron: Think of it as a government of one. -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:38:08] - aaron: that's what I thought at first too, but he thinks he should be able to live in the US and have his own laws I believe -dave
[2004-06-01 15:37:36] - aaron: that's essentially the conclusion I came to to - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:37:23] - Paul: I guess the difference is that hopefully there won't be as many agreements as if everyone was in much smaller groups. -dave
[2004-06-01 15:36:51] - It sounds to me like Paul's form of government is essentially "default". It's the type of government within which each of our current government's exists... - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:36:49] - Vinnie: "Do not initiate force! Vote libertarian!" -Paul
[2004-06-01 15:36:35] - vinnie: HEHE -dave
[2004-06-01 15:36:09] - pierce: I think the "making the entire citizenry into the most powerful faction" is the thing that might spell the difference then? the exact implications of that phrase elude me tho -dave
[2004-06-01 15:35:38] - paul: show us your mot-to! - vinnie
[2004-06-01 15:35:22] - dave: Well that's too bad. In Paul's system it's perfectly valid for someone to create a nation-state and create whatever form of government they want within that territory - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:35:03] - yeah. ~a
[2004-06-01 15:34:51] - aaron: I'm not sure that's his exact "motto" but it's something like that...I think -dave
[2004-06-01 15:34:40] - aaron:
~a[2004-06-01 15:34:23] - a: Protected and package do different things - If you declare a method with "package" scope, it cannot be accessed by subclasses outside of that package - aaron
[2004-06-01 15:34:05] - Pierce: And so it's much better to force humans into massive groups so that when they do disagree, they can do so with so much more violent force.
-Paul[2004-06-01 15:33:49] - aaron: yeah, I guess, it just seems to me that that violates paul's motto of, I can stay in a place and people's laws shouldn't apply to me if I decide I don't want to follow them -dave
[2004-06-01 15:33:05] - aaron: forget the link, this is the only quote that matters "if the member or constructor is declared protected, then access is permitted . . . [if] Access to the member or constructor occurs from within the package containing the class in which the protected member or constructor is declared." ~a
[2004-06-01 15:32:49] - Dave: correct... I think all evidence shows that humans will find any excuse to disagree, and they will frequently do so violently. In those cases, the faction with the most power "wins". Rule of law, especially in a representative democracy, is essentially the practice of making the entire citizenry into the most powerful faction. - pierce
[2004-06-01 15:32:39] - ok, not the same thing. but again, you're right i think. ~a
prev <-> next