don't know

don't care

isn't relevant to my point

Liberal moral relativism (sorry for the redundancy, though) in this thread

They like to push gays off buildings.

I would prefer just to do that to murderers.

I know you liberals have difficulty understanding the distinction, but you can do it if you try.

that's like literally the opposite of moral relativism. And master's question about gun crime rates is directly relevant to your argument, since your argument was that gun control laws won't help because "bad guys" will ignore gun control laws.

Liberal: "ooooo look at that enlightened culture"
Friend: "you mean where they throw gays off rooftops and don't let women drive or wear swimming suits?"
Liberal: "Don't be so paternalistically colonially hateful."
Friend: "What about this Zorkman dude who wants a swift, sure death penalty for murderers?"
Liberal: "Wait, what, what, WHAT? Now THAT's a bridge too FAR! Keep it to the gays and women, please. Oh and the unborn babies. I have an evil reputation to uphold!"

Barbarism is Barbarism whether it's done to an innocent or a criminal.

Maybe you could... I dunno, suggest a constitutional amendment that fixes that pesky eighth amendment we have.

Also, based on the new rules, if you are going to use leftist as a pejorative, you may want to stop referring to others in this thread as such, lest you run afoul of the rules.

I mean, if I used the term Right wing nutjob to refer to the *******s in power currently and then called you the same, you would be crying foul. Just trying to keep the playing field level, ok cheif?

I don't know what you're talking about.



I take the words literally and don't read every damn thing I want into them, unlike certain LIBERALS.

There shouldn't be a juvenile justice system. You do the crime, you need to do the time. I don't believe in probation or parole, either. Probation is just how liberals facilitate double the victimization (first victim which gets the perp probation, which keeps him free to do it again to a second victim after which if you're lucky he finally gets jailed to keep the public safe). Why not just jail him the first time and cut the victims in half? Oh and it would be nice if people were required to carry a firearm, but I don't suppose I'd get enough support for that constitutional amendment. I really think it would make everyone safer, and would satisfy the many anarchists in this thread as to the reduced need for police officers. But I will admit it does appeal to me the trolling factor of supporting such an idea when the libs don't even want us respecting the plain language of the constitution vis a vis constitutional right to bear arms. But seeing libs cringe at such ideas is only the icing, not the cake.

ULMTA

my bad

Your name being in purple doesn't change the fact you're wrong.

Nope to that, too.

I don't need anyone opening the door to twist statistics to prove that up is down or that black is white. Common sense trumps.

Nope.

I like my 8th amendment just fine, thank you.

Whatever, leftist.

P.S.: Notice I didn't say "nutjob." Don't sully my political viewpoints with your personally attacking pollution!

When someone calls someone else a nutjob of whatever stripe, then that post should be reported, mkay? Conservatism is rightist and liberalism is leftist, and the more we can put off the day when political correctness finally makes EVERYTHING off limits, (thus achieving its ultimate goal of silencing all speech thus defeating the First Amendment), the better!

This is a strawman. Nobody said anything about Islamic countries being enlightened. In fact, I said their treatment of criminals was barbaric, and that you were arguing to implement the barbaric qualities. Where in that statement is anything about emlightenment?

"Barbarism is barbarism whether it's done to an innocent or a criminal" is not a morally relativistic statement. It's not even a statement of relativity. The opposite (that barbarism is relative to the attributes of the victim) is. I would suggest that the above is correct not by virtue of the color of my username but by virtue of the meaning of the term "moral relativism", the word "relative", and the plain meaning of master's sentence. I'm not sure I can be of further assistance.

You've changed your objection. First you said it wasn't relevant. Now you're claiming that his argument is wrong because you believe empirical data is trumped by your common sense. My common sense, on the other hand, tells me that reality often has a way of falsifying "common sense", but also that it would be foolish to argue epistemology with you.

Just like barbarism being barbarism, a pejorative is a pejorative. I'll let MB decide, but I'm pretty confident I'm right here.

Your 8th amendment prevents you from throwing criminals off of buildings like you suggested

Zork, Paul's plan explicitly creates an antitrust exemption for healthcare providers.

Do you know what antitrust is?

Thought VMF should read this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...054053798.html

Power to the imagination!

Welcome contradictions. Eschew hypocrisy.

Understatement of the thread ^

And please don't, for everyone's sake. The *arguments* on this page have been so offensive and terrible that I'd hate to see you inviting more to be posted. I don't think anyone would be edified by debating or further reading any posters who make it clear they are not interested in actual debate.

I mean, granted that I invited karmarein's newest missive by responding to his previous post, so guilty as charged, but I think it was worth making the point I did.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

no justice, no peace

I think it makes more sense for the state just to pay you.