It's funny how people can justify Israels actions yet call Hamas war criminals.

Saying Hamas is worse than Israel is no justification of Israel's action.

I have no doubt that Israel need be called to account for both it's xenophobia and possible war-crimes.

All right.

This is wrong for a few reasons.

First of all, we can't really talk about human nature (as shown in your sweeping generalization of what "people" are) because what we see today isn't what people are naturally prone to do. We have been born and molded by unnatural conditions surrounding us, as seen in the existence of a state. To even take a guess as to what human nature would be, you'd have to look at nature and see how plants an animals cooperate without the existence of government.

Second, our governments exist through physical and mental violence and we've been exposed to this violence since the day we were born. Our lack of "moral good" is the result of our existence being an exchange of violence to get what we want. The state has prevented us from cooperation and limited our mentalities to competition.

Third, to put it as politely as I can, Africa might be the worst example as to why anarchism cannot work. Africa is the result of foreign colonists drawing arbitrary lines in the continent without any respect towards the location of different tribes. If we had let each tribe control their own devoted piece of land, the continent would have succumbed to the violent power vacuum it is today.

Even the examples of Anarchism working are woefully deplorable. For example, Catalonia didn't work out so well; non-Anarchists were persecuted mercilessly and economic production fell during, indicating a distinct lack of social and economic efficiency. And yes, we absolutely CAN talk about human nature, given our understanding of it. People aren't totally shaped by environment, and it'd be fallacious to try and claim so. Scientists generally agree that violence is inherent to human contact, and the philosophical argument between Hobbes and Rousseau has been largely won by the former. If you want to talk nature, then you have to have a specific or non-specific definition about what is natural, and the non-specific definition works best. A State IS absolutely natural, otherwise it wouldn't have evolved in the first place - even if it did come about through largely religious and economic reasons a long time ago, it still remains demonstrably necessary.

If you want to risk a specific definition of human nature, then you simply must be a Primitivist when you do it. The technology, economics and sociological factors have probably had a larger impact, combined, on how we act in comparison to the State. But not just on a consequentialist basis, on a philosophical one too; claims of moral and immoral practice are meaningless to me, and probably should be as equally meaningless to anybody wanting a serious discussion.

The main thing that converted me from Anarchism, however, was probably a quote by Professor Hare - the world's leading expert in psychopaths - who stated that: "If we rely on the inherent goodness of men then we are doomed".

Do you think you're better than people? If so, why?

Yes, because I'm yet to be outmatched by my peers in areas which are important to me.

No doubt some of that falls to my narcissism.

British Police don't carry guns???

How are they supposed to enforce anything?

Baton, pepper spray, tasers.

France's economy is sort of in the shitter. So much for social democracy.

They also charge you for restroom use in Germany, although I think it's only 50 cents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324

In a little-noticed move, a small number of police officers are now routinely carrying sidearms while on patrol in much of Scotland - the first in the UK outside Northern Ireland to do so. How did this come about, and does it alter the relationship between the constabulary and the public?

Saturday night in Inverness. Outside a McDonald's restaurant, a scuffle between two men breaks out. Three police officers arrive to intervene. So far, so mundane.

Except that strapped around the hips of each of the policemen approaching the brawl is a holstered Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol.

It's a sight that once would have been unthinkable. In this corner of the Scottish Highlands - an area with one of the lowest crime rates in the UK - the officers showing up to a relatively workaday disturbance are armed.

Although every police force has a firearms unit, for decades it has been an article of faith that in the mainland UK, almost uniquely among major industrialised nations, the police do not carry guns as a matter of course.

But with little fanfare at first, a policy of routinely allowing specialist officers to wear sidearms as they walk the streets of Scotland has come into being.

WHAT IS YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?

We call it a National Insurance number.

It's 1234 go fuck yourself.

You seem scared, brotato.

uw0t m80

Nope.

ur dumb

shut up fgt

It would work and has worked in the past.

It would just "work" terribly.

We are not gonna get along...

OT: If you could have any animal alive on this planet now as a pet, what would it be?

Motherfucking panther.

What were the instances that sparked the idea? Just random passerby or people you knew?

The closest I ever came was walking down an alleyway with a hammer behind a stranger.

All time favorite philosopher?

All time favorite politician?

Oh God. . . Um, probably Friedrich Nietzsche.

Margaret Thatcher.