"They are having a laugh, not trying to insult anyone. "

the whole premise of painting the things ont he car was trying to insult people; and then their bullshit responses to people at the gas station were very insulting too.

"ou must think that these customers are pretty stupid if they assume the service station owner endorses them just cause they happen to be stopping in for 5min to fill up."

in the US you can deny people service of such things, and if they know the owner is there, they know the owner is supporting them.

"Isn't that what you do all the time avo?"

i never do that

"We tolerate other parties than the one we like"

yeah, thats why you erase entire lengthy posts that have 1 or two swear words in posts for people you dont like, and for most others you just leave them in there, or if someone else you like reports them, you edit the swear words but nothing else. you're a nazi. you're an intolerant bastard, [ ] you.

"The only one mouthing off to somone else was the petrol station owner."

and how do you know this? the people trying to look like victum's told you?

"The Top Gear boys didn't start anything"

and how do you know that? because it didnt show them start anything on the episode and the people ont he show claimed they didnt shot anything? are you really that stupid to take 1 side of a story and call it fact?

> arms wrote:

> sorry but its really pointless to talk about football with US ppl

no offense, but its like talking to a 3 year old about quantum physics. ^^

yeah, its so far above our heads that we're regularly ranked top 15 in the world?

they need better sound, i want to hear the pop when a joint pops out of its socket

"It is the most popular recreational sport for both boys and girls and has been so for about 25 years...However, professional soccer has been vastly less popular in the United States than in Latin American, Asian, African or European nations. Its professional first-division league is not as well-attended in general as the major leagues of American football, baseball or basketball"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_in_the_United_States

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> > good thing i didnt claim India doesnt have enough people in urban areas smart guy. i said the majority of their population is farmers

And India STILL HAS A GREATER URBAN POPULATION THEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN A SMALLER AREA.

and that has nothing to do with my argument.......

> Schniepel wrote:

> "define "best". A football player woulnd't last 1 quarter in a soccer match"

the intresting thing here is that soccer is played in halfs and not in quarters

btw.. some of these are super amazing:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD8f_Qgwc50

yeah, some of them are pretty nice. you gonna watch Spain rape the US? the US may be one of the top 20 teams in the world, but its definitely not the same caliber as Spain, shouldnt be close.

"what u describe is only political motivated murder though.
fine, u are right for political motivated murder but i highly doubt that a big part from murder rate results from political motivated murder.
lots of crime is motivated by things like that u can not handle that ur ex wife is making porn with your ex best friend now, because u are too greedy, because people in school allways bullied you, because u realize ur wifes dick is longer then yours...because u realize the 10kg of "cocain" u just bought are good for nothing but baking pizza... what do i know...:"

are you theorizing that that type of stuff happens more in the US and thats why we have a high murder rate? i think thats more unlikely, i think alot of murders are people with different ideals clashing. one person thinks what someone did is horrible, the person that did it thinks its fine, the government sides with 1, the other is mad either that the person gets away with it, or that someone turned him in to the government for something he should be able to do, and often reacts in violence. the large number of people disagreeing with their government also results in a large demand for banned substances which funds gangs which result in a high percentage of the murders in the US.

"if there life 300 people on a km

international soccer is entertaining to watch. the US beating european teams is like european teams competing in american football and beating the US national team.  Soccer is such an unpopular sport, with none of our best athletes its hilarious when we outperform these countries where soccer is the best thing.

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> > my current theory for why the US has such high murder rates compared to other first world countries is because of our immense population.

Also as indicated above there are less gun deaths in India then there is in the U.S. India also has a much higher population, and a smaller land-mass.

#     24      United States:    0.042802 per 1,000 people    
#     26      India:    0.0344083 per 1,000 people

This is for all murders though. Its hard to get a clear picture of anything due to a lack of statistics.

how are gun deaths worse then other deaths? i wasnt saying our size is why he have high gun deaths, but high violence and crime rates. India is also highly rural, where the majority of the population is farmers, and not comparable to the US. India also has fairly lax gun control laws, so that throws away the most popular theory on this board for why the US has a high murder rate.  the next highest 1st world country is probably Japan with about 130 mil compared to our 330 mil and has the highest suicide rate in the world, but socially and economically is very different. (the two first world countries with the largest populations, one has the highest murder rate of a first world country, the other has the highest suicide rate period; coincidence? i think not)

the highest western, first world country other then the US is Germany, which has roughly 1/4 our size and isnt comparable.

"Then you concede that life is the #1 most valuable thing to protect. "

absolutely not.

"If life itself is a prerequisite to achieving other possible benefits of life, and you can protect life while not destroying the value to life, then the only logical course of action is that the protection of life is a priori over all else, as long as protecting life still allows the possibility of a value to life."

you are confusing life as in all living things, life as in a singular human life, and life as in all human lives. you also forget that everyone dies and everyone that is killed has lived. you are also ignoring existence outside of life and what things that people do in life that can destroy value outside of life.

"But language is defined by our world and culture.  That world and culture is defined, shaped, and interpreted based on predictions."

language is defined on the individual basis and while you can empirically predict what people beleive a word means, you are not empirically proving the definition of a word no more then you would be empirically proving the existence of God by empirically predicting what people beleive about God.

"2: If morality has no empirical basis, then morals themselves have no source basis, which means they aren't to be valued anyway."

why do you value empirical basis? morals are valued and theres no empirical way to determine that its wrong to value them.

"3: Wait, what?  Huh?  A religious person saying that atheists define a "good" and "bad?"  Um... what planet do you live on?  And what religion is that?  I've never seen that one before.  tongue"

i see it all the time on these forums, primarily from Econ and Justinian.

"  A culture will need a particular trait in order to help their society.  For example, let's take something as similar as the Jewish doctrine against eating ham.  Remember, Judaism came from Israel, obviously.  The climate was hot as hell.  In fact, attempting to raise pigs in the region was difficult due to the fact that pigs can't sweat, so they can't deal with the extreme heat.  As a result, the conditioning method of morality was slowly established to increase the efficiency of livestock production by selecting and removing inefficient animals from production.  We could go through one moral or another if you want.  But many of them can be traced to either a real or a perceived social gain."

i agree, but "helping" a society is moving it in a direction, and whether that move in that direction is good or bad is very subjective.

"Avo, could you come back and call me an idiot or something?  Reading ARFeh's crap is physically painful!"

i have a life, i cant respond asap all the time man. oh, and dont show the pain, thats why he posts to see the pain.

"Bullshit.  I did not say that valuing other systems was a prerequisite to valuing life."

you said "without all the other potential values, life is meaningless; life is just as subjective a value as the values giving life value.

True..."  you agreed that the potential values of life is required to have a value for life; so how did you not agree that the values of life is a prereq for life?

"You didn't answer my argument that you have to show that ALL other values are removed by valuing life."

because i didnt think you were gonna be stupid enough to push it. i do not need to show all other values are removed by the valuing of life to show that the other values are required to value life. and i do not need to show that all other values are removed by valuing life to show that the the value of life is no more a prereq for the values in life then the values of life are a prereq for the value of life.

"Why must I value Nazis in order to value life?"

you dont and i never suggested you did.

"At the point where an opinion is empirically proven to be dangerous for society, it should be thrown out."

it is impossible to prove something is empirically dangerous, because theres no empirical way to define danger.

"True, it is my opinion.  It's also the collective opinions of a good percentage of the planet, and it's empirically substantiated."

so the problem with nazi's isnt their violent nature but that they dont consist of a good percentage of the humans on the planet, but if they did, they would totally be right to kill off the jews? what is right and wrong is just whatever the mob decides?

"If you argue that the massive violence created by the marketplace of ideas is outweighed by the violation of freedom of speech... then you do!"

but i dont