RomneyRyan 2012!

[Aimless]

My land - yes. My gas, absolutely if I pay for it.

Really? I mean, you've existed on this planet for, like, what, barely three decades? How on earth can the land and the oil be "yours"? How are "land" and "gasoline" different from "air" in this respect?

Air being a little bit trick, if the air is the worlds problem because of "global warming" oops I mean "global climate change" (cus you know CO2 sometimes causes ice on the south pole!)

Okay, first of all, if you don't know of or get the sciencey bits then at least don't flaunt the wilful ignorance

would you require America to go to town on China? Or do you think they should only crack down on its own citizens?

I might like the former but I don't imagine it will be realistic any time soon. Moreover, the Chinese probably gain far more utility from their pollution than you do, so their acts may perhaps be more defensible. Anyway, the US's power to influence China in this respect is far more limited than its power to influence its own citizens and to safeguard the lives of its own inner-city asthmatics.

[Lewkowski]

You can own land... not sure what quackery you're talking about.

Goods you purchase are also yours, you own them.

As for willful ignorance...

Folks have said that increases in ice in Antarctic could be caused by global warming.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/artic...e195942389.txt
http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...-cause-ice-age

[Aimless]

You can own land...

How on earth can you own land? Who has "land" belonged to for the past few billions of years?

Goods you purchase are also yours, you own them.

Hang on now, are you talking about global oil deposits many millions of years old? How can you, exclusively, own them? What can that ownership really mean?

As for willful ignorance...

Folks have said that increases in ice in Antarctic could be caused by global warming.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/artic...e195942389.txt
http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...-cause-ice-age

My point is merely that you shouldn't mock what you've never really understood. An example of misguided mockery:

"global warming" oops I mean "global climate change" (cus you know CO2 sometimes causes ice on the south pole!)

[Lewkowski]

How on earth can you own land? Who has "land" belonged to for the past few billions of years?

Sorry but our world views are too fantastically different to actually meet at any common ground. If you don't understand the concept of owning property and land you're way too far off in hippy land for us to actually have a constructive discussion.

[Aimless]

Sorry but our world views are too fantastically different to actually meet at any common ground. If you don't understand the concept of owning property and land you're way too far off in hippy land for us to actually have a constructive discussion.

I'm just trying to help you remember that there's more to "owning" common natural resources such as land and oil than the utterly infantile "it's mine I can do whatever the hell I want with it and damn the consequences la la la la". Why is "air" different from "land" or "gasoline"?

[Nessus]

I'm sure he believes in Manifest Destiny too, as he says your views simply cannot penetrate his Weltanschauung

[RandBlade]

Just because land existed before we were born and still will after we die doesn't mean we can't own it in the meantime.

[Nessus]

Just because land existed before we were born and still will after we die doesn't mean we can't own it in the meantime.

I'm not exactly sure who made that specific argument, can you pin-point the guilty party

[Aimless]

Just because land existed before we were born and still will after we die doesn't mean we can't own it in the meantime.

No but it may place limits on what that "ownership" entitles you to. When it comes to oil, well, if you use it it won't continue to exist in that form but it'd be fun to learn more about the strange magic through which something unowned becomes "property".

[Veldan Rath]

So are we done moving the goal posts all over the place? Can we agree that land can be owned?

[Nessus]

*shakes Mittens* It says 'maybe'!

[Aimless]

Can we agree that land can be owned?

Well, if we couldn't, then land couldn't be owned the goal-posts have remained in place throughout this exchange but "goal posts" in a discussion are more like wickets in croquet than they are like those big-ass things you see in American football.

[Veldan Rath]

Wow...and we wonder why the population on these boards is so sparse.

[Aimless]

Wow...and we wonder why the population on these boards is so sparse.

It's because you take your kids to Disneyland on school days. Look I realise you want notions of "property" and "ownership" to be simple, straightforward and to fit in with whatever views make you tingle in your giblets. That's great but I can't let your desires blind me to the possibility that Lewk's take on these notions can be problematic. You can get pissy about it if you like but the question of what "property" and "ownership" entail is relevant to a general class of issues exemplified by eg. Lewk's beef with the liberal gummint over gas-guzzlers and environmental regulations. It's "you didn't build that" part deux.

[Nessus]

Why yes, I am three years old

[Veldan Rath]

Then address that specifically instead of all this word fencing. You go after with this 3 decade on planet, you don't truly own the land philosophical blah blah, and wonder why some of us are not connecting?

Then you get a bit prissy about it. Again, some of this behavior (not just you, but others here) drives people away.

[Nessus]

Then you get a bit prissy about it. Again, some of this behavior (not just you, but others here) drives people away.

I hope I'm not on your ignore list

It drives certain kind of people away. And conversely, I'm sure Loki's belligerence towards 'the left' drives other people away, and my juvenile humour and belligerence towards neo-liberals etc drives even other people away. I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the Internet, but a lot of places end up as echo chambers for some ideas or others (Free Republic, Conservapedia, Something Awful, other leftie sites I'm not familiar with), we have a notably diverse poster base. Over the years CC and now tWF distilled into a fine frothy brew of hatred and disagreement. Mostly people post at each other to yell at how awfully wrong they are. I'm not sure we can remove that aspect of this place, and even if we did, where do you see us picking up new members from? Can we gain anything by 'being nicer'?

[Veldan Rath]

I'm not a true fan of ignore, so no.

(plus you too damn funny most if the time)

I agree, Loki's umm...debate...umm...style...leaves a lot to be desired, but that is to anyone that may disagree with, not just politics. I've crossed swords with him (and just about everyone else except maybe ER)

Be nicer? Fat damn chance

[Nessus]

I guess my reasoning was that the people who bother participating in the piss fest that's D&D are used to the general rabid hostility, and I was curious what your view was given your posts at Minx. It seemed like a new idea about our low newbie turn-out, 'sall.

[RandBlade]

Where would we be getting newbies from?

[Nessus]

Confidence fairies?

Alternative punch-line, Facebook

I don't think we ever will, to any large extent

[EyeKhan]

Obama care hasn't fully kicked in yet but increased taxation or the forced purchasing of a healthcare plan impacts my freedom - regardless if I would never choose to go without healthcare insurance. The choice is now gone without significant financial hardship.

So you WILL in a few years lose the freedom to choose something you would never choose.... huh. Note you can still choose to do what you would never choose to do if you pay a fee (somewhere around $100 I believe - a small price to pay for the least sensible decision anyone can make) or if you're too poor to buy the insurance but too wealthy to qualify for medicaid. I'm going to toss this one.

New banking regulations have taken away my reward points for debit card transactions.

Seriously.

Banking regulations have impacted business and limited certain types of products and services they have provided.

Your business? Are these the sort of products and services that left unregulated recently collapsed the economy? Hmmm.

Obama has selected judges that are in the mold of Stevens and Ginsburg who are pretty anti-freedom. Look at how the liberal branch of the SC voted in regards to the Kelo case.

Yeah. I'm going to toss this one. "Almost" doesn't count.

Tax dollars were used to bail out unions (GM).

This limited your freedom??? How exactly??? You wanted to be free to enjoye those workers and their families suffer terribly? Have you considered that the rescue of GM and Chrysler was vastly better for the entire nation than letting them liquidate? If they had gone under literally hundreds of suppliers would have gone down too, and Ford would have gone under after that b/c their without parts suppliers they wouldn't be making cars. The economic crash was bad, but letting the auto industry disappear would have made it much much worse; doing so would have been lunacy. And the worse the economy is, the less freedom everyone has, including you.

Obama has pushed for more guns to be regulated - he's failed but attempts to take my freedom are almost as bad as successes.

"Almost" doesn't count. Which guns do you own that Obama wanted to take, btw? I don't recall the admin going after guns at all. Are you saying your suspicion that he wanted to regulate guns is the same as losing freedom? Tossed.

Obama administration increased regulations on MPG standards. If I want to buy a gas guzzling truck that spews "green house gases" by God that is my right.

Those are fleet averages. Even when they go into effect, years from now, you will still be able to buy a gas guzzler. Tossed.

Obama has been in favor of limiting political free speech if the group doing the free speech happens to be incorporated. Again - attempts to limit freedom are almost as bad since he will continue to try to limit those freedoms.

This doesn't affect you, so I'm tossing it. And just wanting to do it doesn't equal doing it.

[GGT]

Fact: Obama administration expanded gun rights by allowing them in national parks.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wow...and we wonder why the population on these boards is so sparse.

Because it's painfully obvious those who're posting here have a history, are in fact debating each other more often than the point being made, and new people probably don't want to get involved in a family feud.

Where would we be getting newbies from?

We can adopt a couple of them.

[Veldan Rath]

Where would we be getting newbies from?

I would assume our RL friends and colleagues. I had one nose over here, he was promptly told to f off. Maybe a good thing, he's a socialist university type

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would assume our RL friends and colleagues.

Nah, I like some of my friends and colleagues.

edit: We could use Dr. Phil though.

[Loki]

I hope I'm not on your ignore list

It drives certain kind of people away. And conversely, I'm sure Loki's belligerence towards 'the left' drives other people away, and my juvenile humour and belligerence towards neo-liberals etc drives even other people away. I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the Internet, but a lot of places end up as echo chambers for some ideas or others (Free Republic, Conservapedia, Something Awful, other leftie sites I'm not familiar with), we have a notably diverse poster base. Over the years CC and now tWF distilled into a fine frothy brew of hatred and disagreement. Mostly people post at each other to yell at how awfully wrong they are. I'm not sure we can remove that aspect of this place, and even if we did, where do you see us picking up new members from? Can we gain anything by 'being nicer'?

Considering that a vast majority of people who actively post here are rabid left-wingers, I find that incredibly difficult to believe. We do know that the left brigade regularly hounds people who dare to not share their ideology. Your constant attacks against Dread come to mind.

[Nessus]

Considering that a vast majority of people who actively post here are rabid left-wingers, I find that incredibly difficult to believe. We do know that the left brigade regularly hounds people who dare to not share their ideology. Your constant attacks against Dread come to mind.

Oh look, the persecution complex of the right showing its ugly mug!

A lot of our formerly vocal lefties have stopped posting altogether, never mind just in D&D, because hey maybe being pissed on on a regular basis drives people away.

What "vast majority" are you even talking about? Anyone left of Reagan is Stalin? I go for weeks without posting in the cess-pool, and I'm arguably the most leftie poster in D&D. Who does that leave? Is Rand Blade now a leftist in your insane-o-vision? Wiggin? Little Fuzzy? Where is your persecution complex coming from, man?

[Nessus]

Let's say serious posters, even with the risk of that qualifier excluding me

[Loki]

You, GGT, OG, Ziggy, Steely, Minx, Chaloobi. Wiggin is center-left. The Fuzzball is roughly centrist.

The bigger point is that most of the non-leftists here attack political positions. The lefties attack everyone else for their supposed immorality.