The government isn't forcing anyone to vaccinate their children. If you choose to skip out on some or all of your child's vaccinations, then there's no reason for your child to be entitled to government services.

See, this would be a valid argument if the government allowed an actual competitive education market to exist.

Instead, "free" government education is all that is really available to most poor and middle-class Americans. Policy in place does not allow private education to compete fairly with government-funded schooling, driving costs up and making it inaccessible for the poor.

It's not a fair game if one of the players gets to set the rules.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 02:13:43 PM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 06, 2015, 12:52:20 PM

now he just needs to legalize all drugs and he's cool in my book

people in cali shouldn't do drugs

I mean they should be allowed to

But they shouldn't

Because unless they can trace that shit all the way down to an origin point in the states, they're probably funding murderers.

...why does this not apply to residents of other states?

It usually does, depending on the state. It's just that this thread is about Cali, and this is especially true for urban California. You've got a pretty lucrative market there, and in the Southwest in general.

Not sure how prevalent mexican drugs are elsewhere. I don't risk it even here in NC, though. Always make sure my shit is grown domestically.

If you fags will stop pretending that me not playing a shit game keeps me from knowing the mechanics of said shit game, I'm willing to buy it used down the line and document

every

single

thing

Wrong with it.
If that's what it takes for you to understand why it's objectively a bad Fallout game.

Most of those things are cool.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 12:23:34 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 06, 2015, 12:14:25 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 06, 2015, 12:13:50 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 06, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 11:51:15 AM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 06, 2015, 12:49:20 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 05, 2015, 03:01:51 PM

American.

Any other heritages I have are so miniscule they aren't worth counting.

"American" isn't an ethnic group. The United States is composed of a very large number of ethnic groups from Europe and elsewhere. That's why it's referred to as a melting pot.

White Americans can be considered a distinct ethnic group, especiallly those without close ties to a foreign culture.

I can trace my lineage back to Swiss colonists and Palatine German refugees who founded the city of New Bern in the early 1700s.

But I don't call myself Swiss-German because I'm not fucking Swiss-German. My ancestors came here centuries ago. I don't speak German, let alone the Swiss dialect. I know very little about German or Swiss culture or history going any further back than 1870.

I was raised in the US. I speak English with an American accent. I'm versed in American history and I participate in American culture. I'm not Swiss, or Swiss-German, or any other kind of kraut, whether or not I have a ton of kraut genes. I am, ethnically an American.

That's NATIONALITY. Nationality is the culture you are brought up in.

ETHNICITY is genetic. There are certain ethnic groups that have general characteristics associated with them. Blonde hair for Nordic peoples, more olive skin tone for Italians, etc.

Well if you're going to play it like that, everyone in this thread is doing it wrong and we shouldn't be talking about what countries we're "from"

Certain peoples with genetic characteristics hail from certain places

Looking back, yes.

In the modern day, people have moved around enough that just having certain genes doesn't associate you with a distinct ethnic group you've never interacted with.

If I came up to a Swiss man and tried to start up a chat about our glorious ethnic group, he'd laugh at me.

Well yeah there's been a fair amount of interbreeding in recent years. But When your ancestors first came to America around 250 years ago the ethnic divisions were still present to a degree (although certainly a lot less present than 500-750 years ago). They were ethnic Germans. Meaning that despite interbreeding, you still have ethnic German blood.

genetically speaking yes

Ethnically speaking I'm not German. There's more to ethnicity than genes.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 11:51:15 AM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 06, 2015, 12:49:20 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on October 05, 2015, 03:01:51 PM

American.

Any other heritages I have are so miniscule they aren't worth counting.

"American" isn't an ethnic group. The United States is composed of a very large number of ethnic groups from Europe and elsewhere. That's why it's referred to as a melting pot.

White Americans can be considered a distinct ethnic group, especiallly those without close ties to a foreign culture.

I can trace my lineage back to Swiss colonists and Palatine German refugees who founded the city of New Bern in the early 1700s.

But I don't call myself Swiss-German because I'm not fucking Swiss-German. My ancestors came here centuries ago. I don't speak German, let alone the Swiss dialect. I know very little about German or Swiss culture or history going any further back than 1870.

I was raised in the US. I speak English with an American accent. I'm versed in American history and I participate in American culture. I'm not Swiss, or Swiss-German, or any other kind of kraut, whether or not I have a ton of kraut genes. I am, ethnically an American.

That's NATIONALITY. Nationality is the culture you are brought up in.

ETHNICITY is genetic. There are certain ethnic groups that have general characteristics associated with them. Blonde hair for Nordic peoples, more olive skin tone for Italians, etc.

Nigga I take classes about this shit

Nationalize supermarkets

Door I too would enjoy an Anarchic utopia but humans are too shitty for that to exist. Laws have to exist.

"us niggas is too dumd to fend for ourselves

We need massa!"

TBH though it's good to see European nation-states doing this instead of just importing third-worlders to make up for their declining population like Sweden and Germany are.

Hope it works out for the Danes.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 05, 2015, 07:28:04 PM

Also I'm probably not going to bother responding to utilitaricuck arguments ITT or for a while, you people have morality so backwards I'm not going to bother trying to turn you the right way around.

About that, I have just one hypothetical question.

Suppose that everything I already posted would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Every single expert, researcher, scholar, academic, criminologist and jurist in the world agrees with the points I made. New evidence found would be so strong, absolute and irrefutable in support of the points I presented that there literally was no academically or logically sound way of disagreeing with it.

Say that all of that would conclude that private gun ownership and easy access to firearms (meaning that not the only people being able to own a firearm are those who have a solid reason for doing so, have undergone training, have passed theoretical and practical exams, have had their health and criminal background thoroughly evaluated and so forth) is beyond doubt detrimental to society. Widespread private gun ownership undoubtedly and absolutely leads to higher homicide rates, more gun violence, more mass shootings, more violence, more suicides and more crimes in general. Their presence does not deter crime yet only facilitates it. Defensive gun ownership almost always results in more harm than good, results in more serious injuries to all parties involved and puts both yourself, your family and innocent others at risk. Guns do not help fight tyranny or protect your freedoms but instead foster dictatorships. They are not an equalizer but result in "might makes right". Guns make a society generally more violent and more prone to crime and abuse.

Right now, I'd say that the common consensus among (international) experts is that guns do in fact cause more harm than good. But let's say that, hypothetically, all of that would be proven beyond any reasonable doubt and accepted by all academics and experts in the entire world regardless of their political beliefs or agenda, would you still hold the same opinion? Would you still dismiss it as "utilitarian cucking" and weak bullshit that is of no importance when compared to what you consider a basic human right?

While you accuse me and the people here who agree with me of having no sense of morality, I'd say that supporting the unfethered enjoyment of a "freedom" (that on top of this is recognized nowhere else in the entire world and baffles criminologists and legal experts from outside of the US) that causes considerable harm to society as a whole and leads to the suffering of many innocent people is more immoral than clinging to what most people don't even consider a human right just for the sake of it.

I think first I should clarify that I don't see gun ownership specifically as a distinct human right. I do believe, however, that a person has the right to own and use whatever private property they choose, so long as they aren't interacting with others against their will, or using force (or the threat of it). That's the voluntarism in me talking. This includes a broad spectrum of things, including drugs and guns. I think that anything obtained through legitimate means is private property and doesn't concern anyone but it's owner. Unless you're actively hurting people with it, it's yours. I just get up on guns a lot on this board because I like them more than I do drugs or alcohol, and they're relevant pretty often.

As I've said before, I see all law as intrusive and abusive. I don't believe laws are an ethically or morally acceptable way to solve problems.

If I was convinced beyond a doubt that guns do more harm than good? I'd be disappointed, and probably would stop participating in the gun culture. But I wouldn't give mine up, nor would I back anti-gun policy. I'm not a utilitarian and I don't think it's right to do something immoral in hopes of a moral outcome.

Jews were considered just as much as enemies as the Muslims were, though. Anti Semitic values were rampant despite what the Catholic Church would have told you at the time.

I know this brah. The European peasants were not the brightest bunch. That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the crusades were to return control of previously Christian lands to Christendom.

It's a notable example of how the Crusades were never intended to be this glorious moral obligation of Christian values

You're right. It was a military campaign that was fueled by religious fervor.

seeking to hound out the Islamic conquest of Europe.

This was the actual goal of the crusade.

That was a secondary objective.

Primary, actually.

The primary goal was the unification of the Catholic Church for the Pope.

There is only one Holy Catholic Church, brah, and it isn't the one led by a pope. I have no doubt that the Pope intended these lands to be dominated by Catholicism- he did send a Catholic army. But to write it all off as some kind of catholic power grab is silly. The Byzantines requested military aid.They were terrified and if they fell, Islam was going to become Western Europe's problem.

Serfs and peasants were in it for the money and women.

lol. Think you've got it mixed up. Peasants were in it because the poor and stupid are extremely susceptible to violent religious movements. Same reason teenagers go Jihadi.

Bishops were in it for the acquisition of power.

Okay Mr Guardian Writer. Religious leaders were into a fucking holy war for political gain, it had nothing to do with them being the chief advocates of the religion at war.

It had very little, if anything, to do with liberating Europe from Islam, at least initially.

It was about liberating the Mediterranean from Islam, first and foremost. Later on was when things got really shady.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 02:51:25 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 06, 2015, 02:48:27 AM

>systematically raped and slaughtered multiple Jewish communities as soon as they got to Germany that conveniently happened to be wealthy
>"muh faith"

What does killing Jews in Germany have to do with the Crusades? I don't get what you're referencing.

Of course, Jews have not traditionally fared well in Europe.

Rhineland Massacres. It was literally the first thing the Christian peasants did when the Pope called for a crusade.

Yep, that sounds pretty much exactly like something Medieval Europeans would do to religious minorities.

This shit seems like it had a weird way of happening every time something notable happened. Like Europeans just get all massacre-y when they're excited.

Should note this was mostly just Yuropeasants being retarded, not the Church (for fucking once). Rome condemned it, for what little that's worth.

This doesn't really have much to do with the crusade itself though, these dumbasses weren't even attacking the enemy.

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 06, 2015, 02:10:40 AM

Quote from: Cindo on October 06, 2015, 02:01:20 AM

I don't think "literally slaughtering the citizens of Jerusalem and then stacking their bodies into piles" is an entirely justified response.

I doubt this was the plan going in.

Like I said, war at the time was brutal and these types of atrocities are committed by every faction.

A few cases of abuse by a force that was not tightly organized (the first crusade had no central leadership) are to be expected.

Looking at these conflicts entirely through the lens of modern morality is a little silly IMO.

But yeah, the fourth crusade was fucked, I'll give you that.

Eh, I'll give you that much.

Like I said, it's silly to see either side as fully justified. I doubt every single crusader was a heartless bastard out to slaughter arabs and jerk off over their dead bodies, but I also doubt every single one was a selfless pinnacle of morality that only wished to do good by his god.

That being said, they totally slaughtered a bunch of people hiding in a mosque. That shit's fucked, yo.

Plenty of undocumented cases of these kinds of abuses probably went on from both sides. I can't imagine the Islamic conquest of the Levant was very polite.
I'm trying really hard not to come from a biased perspective here. It is hard though.

I think rather than looking at these kinds of conflicts as right or wrong based on today's morality, it might be better to try and understand the way these people saw the world they lived in.

What I'm learning from my Greek Civ class, and reading about the character Ajax in particular, is the people of the past were as rooted in their worldviews and moral systems as we are today. And I have to wonder if there is something we can gain from looking into them.

So this is real: http://www.imperiumlex.com

This lawyer, running for the vacated Senate seat in Florida left by Marco Rubio:

>Has changed his name from his previous name (which he refuses to disclose) to Augustus Sol Invictus (Augustus being the title given unto Caesar, basically meaning "Emperor", and Sol Invictus which is a metaphor for "God")
>Law firm is called Imperium. Literally.
>Has published articles about the reign of Chaos in the US and the Cult of the US Constitution
>Believes that he will wander into the wilderness and bring about a new age of Mankind