The Magnifying Effect of Violence

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
Theft is theft is theft. I thought socialism was all about equal treatment, but every day it seems to be just about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor under the veil of equality.

Hi, floyd.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Then why does the law have different penalties depending on how much you take?

Because the more **** you do bad, the more you should get punished. Very simple concept out West.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Hi, floyd.

Hence the shades.

[KrazyHorse]

And taking 1000$ from a poor person does them more harm than taking 1000$ from a rich person does.

(Wonders when Asher will get that I'm ****ing around)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
(Wonders when Asher will get that I'm ****ing around)

(Wonders when Frogger will get that I'm ****ing around)

[Berzerker]

UR -

Of course it is. Gun ownship creates a social cost. Are you going to foot the whole thing?

As long as government is in the business of "re-distributing" wealth, everything becomes a "social" cost to be avoided. Sorry, but the social cost of guns is miniscule to poor diets, so I guess government should regulate what we eat too. Then we can make sure everyone gets the proper sleep and exercise to avoid other social costs. We'd end up with a system so authoritarian the communists would look upon us with envy, and we'd have that system while claiming to be free, heehee.

[Berzerker]

Btw, watching "Half Baked" on Comedy Central now, funnier than the Cheech and Chong movies IMO.

[Ramo]

Yeah, it sure is. That way you could invade someone's house in Hollywood and steal $100,000 and get 20 hours of community service.

Wutang!

Seriously, I think it's more important to deter theft from the poor than theft from the rich. Prison isn't about equality or fairness, as taking away one's freedom is the most authoritarian, "unfair" thing one could possibly do. The only rationale for the existence of an institution like a prison is to protect society.

[Ramo]

I'm watching Half-Baked too. Great movie.

Hmmm.. doesn't the lead in the movie have that new show in Comedy Central?

[Berzerker]

Yup, Dave Chappelle. I love that scene where he first gets the pot from the lab scientist. The guy takes some pot out of the bag and hands it to him and Chappelle's hands are in the bag grabbing more.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
UR -
As long as government is in the business of "re-distributing" wealth, everything becomes a "social" cost to be avoided.

Why do Libertarians have such simplistic analysises?

Gun ownership is a social cost because guns do damage to the society which will require a cost to repair. For example, if you kill somebody with a gun, there's a social cost right there. Now, before you use the slippery slope argument of banning rocks, consider the statistics.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sorry, but the social cost of guns is miniscule to poor diets, so I guess government should regulate what we eat too. Then we can make sure everyone gets the proper sleep and exercise to avoid other social costs. We'd end up with a system so authoritarian the communists would look upon us with envy, and we'd have that system while claiming to be free, heehee.

Why did I have a sneaky suspicion that you will again resort to the slippery slope?

You can stop eating a poor diet, but you can't stop a bullet. In other words, a person has control over his own diet, but not on how other people use guns. That's why we need to control guns.

[Dis]

I'm not sure I agree that blacks are shown as bad guys that much in films.

Most film industries are scared to cast black people as bad guys. Thusly most bad guys are white actors.

Remember when Wesley Snipes was the bad guy in demolition man? Believe it or not some people were upset at that.

So I can't agree that violence in movies affects black crime rates.

[Berzerker]

UR -

Why do Libertarians have such simplistic analysises?

You established a simple standard with your argument that guns are our business - the social cost. Did your argument become simplistic only after I explained why it's a blueprint for totalitariansim?

Gun ownership is a social cost because guns do damage to the society which will require a cost to repair.

And that's true for all sorts of behaviors, including diet.

For example, if you kill somebody with a gun, there's a social cost right there. Now, before you use the slippery slope argument of banning rocks, consider the statistics.

Sure, compare the statistics. How many people die every year from tobacco, alcohol, and diabetes induced by poor diets? So, how many die from gunshot wounds after subtracting the people who would die from other means if guns were banned?

Why did I have a sneaky suspicion that you will again resort to the slippery slope?

What slippery slope? Are you suggesting we apply your standard inconsistently only to those social costs you want addressed?

You can stop eating a poor diet, but you can't stop a bullet. In other words, a person has control over his own diet, but not on how other people use guns. That's why we need to control guns.

But don't we end up paying the "social costs" of people with poor diets? It seems you're not really concerned with social costs, only gun violence. Therefore it is inconsistent to "control" guns because of social costs while ignoring all the other social costs.

Btw, Ramo, ain't Rachel True HOT? She's the chick Chappelle is dating in the movie.

[Berzerker]

Dissident - You're right, it seems the bad guys are often white business people nowadays. But how many movies depict middle or upper class blacks as role models like the Bill Cosby Show? And compare that paucity of positive role models with movies depicting the black gangsta culture. The music industry has picked up the slack if there is any...