Cycloneman

I got in contact with him but he wanted to wait for his signed copy or w/e and about a month ago I sent him an email that I didn't care about a signed copy and have gotten no reply since.

guess who never got his game.

When has LOF ever lied? Serious question.

No there isn't. So long as your opponent is making actual points? Yes there is.

Hmm, perhaps the real reason why cultures which accept polygamy engage in extremely patriarchal forms of behavior is historical coincidence rather than a fundamental characteristic of polygamy? Just maybe...

Saskatchewan, Canada: literally the caliphate? The answer may surprise you!

It's a misogynistic stereotype to claim that all wives are "nagging." Further, it's interesting that you automatically assume that polygamy means having multiple wives... that's polygyny. Having multiple husbands is also a form of polygamy. Please cite some evidence for this. Ah, that's right, you can't, because it isn't true.

There is nothing wrong with polygamy.

What's this, if not romanticization of the British Empire?

The truth? Your empire killed millions. As opposed to the brits, who never engaged in slavery, genocide and general nastiness. Perhaps because we have a passable awareness of the methods that the British Empire used to maintain control of its colonies? Divide and rule policies exaggerated and worsened any difficulties than were there and in some cases (such as Sri Lanka), purposefully manufactured ethnic troubles that did not previously exist which still deal serious harm to the peoples involved.

As opposed to the peaceful, harmonious Brits who just rampaged across the globe and formed the largest empire in history. BP has caused serious economic damage to the US economy. Once again: do the people whose livelihoods rely, directly or indirectly, on the marine life of the Gulf not count? I dislike the lack of any real liability of a corporation for any illegal behavior it may engage in, not corporations per se.

Oh goody, whitewashing of the British Empire as a perfectly justified, wonderful little altruistic exercise in running your troops into other countries, dividing the local population against itself, and letting them starve whenever doing otherwise would violate laissez-faire economics (all the time). The British Empire survived because it pitted the peoples it conquered against each other. You know where the current troubles in Sri Lanka come from? What their nonsensical redrawing of the British Raj into Pakistan and India did? The British Empire survived on divide and rule tactics, not kindness. Don't forget it. If you kill it off by taking its assets, then you've got compensation. QED. I want to ban offshore drilling because it can have extremely detrimental environmental effects (e.g. this). It's silly to talk about "US jobs and US security" as a consequence when this disaster has seriously harmed both. What about towns on the Gulf Coast whose entire economy is built around fishing? Do their jobs not count because they aren't employed by a multinational corporation? Is it somehow not a threat to US security to dump a billion barrels of oil all over our coastline? I don't like how corporations actually function. It removes the possibility of liability, because the individuals who make up the corporation (and would be prosecuted) sure as **** aren't going to have the money to pay the $10 billion+ in damages that this disaster has caused. Of course, let's ignore this for a moment and look at a simple fact: under the Clean Water Act, they can be fined up to $4,300 per barrel if the spill resulted from "gross negligence,". The current spilling rate is between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day. As you might guess, that adds up very quickly. $4,300 per barrel for 60,000 barrels a day for 60 days is $15,480,000,000. $1,100 per barrel for 35,000 barrels a day for 60 days is $2,310,000,000. That's a lot of money (it's more than BP's total assets). The United States ain't exactly the Porfiriato, buddy, our corporations can take care of themselves.

The assets of BP ain't exactly in harmony considering they're still ****ting up the Gulf. BP has a long record of criminal incompetence, and anything less than the seizure of at least some of their assets will result in a pittance for the people who have had their livelihood destroyed by this. Considering we have a liability cap of $75 mil on oil company damages, you'll forgive my doubts about the plausibility of a fine helping anyone. They'll just turn right around and **** up again, maybe not as bad, or maybe worse, unless they are actually made to really pay for this damage. His father was born in British-occupied Kenya. Try cracking open a history book some time. I know it's difficult for your Brits to understand, but your empire was a bad thing that really hurt people and it has blow back even to this day.

3012. Healthy living, you know.

Have you ever heard of seizing the assets of a company to pay its debts? Or do you believe that when companies go bankrupt, their assets fade into nothingness?

I know that there's a whole "gamers are unfit lol" stereotype going around but seriously I can't imagine how you can get like that (look good, be young, have godawful actual health) except by drug abuse or genetic unfitness.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Obama ordering the BP chairman to lick his boots, much less ordering him to visit the White House. The whole "public vilification" is so blatantly meaningless that it really demonstrates more the fact that Obama is prepared to screw over the American voter with a pleasant smile and some bull**** about helping them than doing what's right. There is every reason to go to every reasonable length to deal with BP, regardless of where it's headquartered. Every reasonable length stretches a very long way due to the insane level of negligence and incompetence displayed by BP with regards to this disaster.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. America can basically do whatever the **** it wants in terms of punishing corporations because in the end they will always bring their business back here no matter what, and the United States has proven again and again that it has a truly ludicrous double standard for itself and the rest of the world. What exactly is supposed to happen if we seize an appropriate portion of BP's assets? Every corporation runs off because they're worried they'll manage to equal or outdo BP's disaster? India will launch a covert strike force to extradite Warren Anderson?

Actually, they appointed Nouri al-Maliki to speak for them. But I understand your confusion, we look very similar.

Yet Iraq still wants us gone. Funny how that works. They want us gone once order has been reestablished, which isn't exactly surprising. They want us gone now.

This is basically completely untrue on so many levels I don't know how it got to be popular as an idea. Human beings are naturally social creatures, with a huge emphasis on subsuming themselves to greater things. So many political ideas of varying popularity rely heavily upon humanity's social instinct: communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, even more simple ideas like universal health care are dependent on it. If human beings are so self-centered, we would not have such an advanced civilization because everyone would have tried to cut everybody else's throat before they could get beyond agriculture. There are two primary characteristics of human's social behavior which are fundamentally opposed to the idea that we are all selfish pricks: Firstly, (neurotypical) human beings do not generally enjoy to see others come to harm. There are some circumstances where this is not true (I'm thinking primarily of vengeance, which factors into my second point), but there is a reason we naturally react to images of dead bodies with revulsion, to images of torture with hatred, and so forth. We are responding on a very basic level to others - even others we do not know and never will know - coming to harm. Secondly, human beings are fundamentally and constantly seeking social acceptance. If you want evidence, just look at advertising; a large portion of ads are based solely upon the idea that people want other people to like them. This requires them to behave in certain ways, i.e. the social mores of their particular society. If someone pisses in the street, for example, people won't like them. There are some other examples of humanity's fundamental interfacing with reality as social creatures. In fact, there are countless. Have you ever changed or created a belief based solely upon what others were saying, rather than evidence or facts? That's an example. Communists generally believe far too much in the idea of tabula rasa, but the general idea which has come about in the political center that people are selfish pricks is demonstrably untrue. I believe LoF posted a meta-study a while back of a bunch of different psychological experiments where the author examined various people placed in various competitive/cooperative models and discovered that they did not behave in the most rational way (i.e. be a prick).

Yet Iraq still wants us gone. Funny how that works.

So you are for a policy of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, then? It's hardly even ignorant self-defense now that Saddam Hussein is gone.

Oh thank God. That's me. e: oh, you should probably tell him that I've moved since then and he should check his inbox here for my new address.