CitizenX

Wild Bill you are socially retarded. I want you to look over this over The sum total determines the extent of a person's psychopathy. PCL-R model of psychopathy Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism" • Glibness/superficial charm • Grandiose sense of self-worth • Pathological lying • Cunning/manipulative • Lack of remorse or guilt • Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric) • Callousness; lack of empathy • Failure to accept responsibility for own actions Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle". • Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom • Parasitic lifestyle • Poor behavioral control • Lack of realistic long-term goals • Impulsivity • Irresponsibility • Juvenile delinquency • Early behavior problems • Revocation of conditional release Traits not correlated with either factor • Promiscuous sexual behavior • Many short-term marital relationships • Criminal versatility • Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive) The ones marked red are the ones I've noticed

if you are in a situation where you can operate under the condition of "less laws" and get away with it, would you? I depends on the law, and if consider it to be just. You know my definition of Law. If I was outside and had to take a piss, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone or damaging property I would. If I was some where in the bush camping and I knew I could kill the person I was with and get away with it I wouldn't do it. It seems to me that where there are more people, there is more chance of laws being applied. Is there a corollary there you think? Yes I think so. The smaller the town you live in the more interaction between people that know each other therefore more social pressure to conform to the social norms. there would probably be less crime against one another because of the chance of social scorn. Yes but, protect it from whom? from one another. I believe this is how law began. to be impartial judge of disputes between individuals within society, and to ensure justice happens. No man is an island. There isn't a single thing on your list that doesn't involve other people in one way or another, including taxpayers. I guess I see where you are coming from. This is because so much is in the public domain. Health Insurance, Public Auto Insurance premiums,....right? Well all I can say to that is People within this society have no choice in the matter. I live in BC so I can't buy private insurance, does that mean I have to give up my personal liberty as far as whether I wear a seat belt or helmet? I eat junk food sometimes, should I be Taxed excessively on these products like cigarettes? If I want to play a physical sport like rugby or hockey should there be a law that requires me to report this so that I can pay a risk tax? This is the problem with socialism. I believe if you look back through history law after law has been added over time to deal with this. More and more red tape. People are slowly losing there liberty. I believe in the concept of helping one another in society but I don't believe in authoritarian socialism which this country is moving towards in such a slow speed that few people notice. I tend to agree and on your poll I chose option #3. I think that is probably the choice of most canadians My view, other than #3, is that where it will save the public money and/or improve efficiencies, why not regulate? So, for example, why should I have to pay for someone else's stupidity (medical bills)when they crash their bike without a helmet? I'm for private insurance which would solve that problem. As far as Canada Health Should people pay for your heart attack because you don't eat right, ect, ect,ect. I'm sorry but If your going to have Public Health Insurance (Which I'm for) you can't start dictating how people live there life. I don't play rugby why should I pay for someones broken leg? Good discussion...your up

I'm not sure if I'm following you. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and it's pretty basic. every child probably knows it. You don't hurt other people, or destroy their stuff, you don't steal, and you don't commit fraud (Lie). If you are a moral and thinking person these laws are self evident. So when you say "If you don't get caught at breaking the law, does this constitute "less State?" I'm not following. If your asking if less laws that interfere with my idea of liberty means less state then yes i guess so. I'm not sure what isolation has to do with it. Maybe you could respond and re-phrase the question. The Laws job is to protect peoples rights and property and to prevent fraud. I'm sure that you will add a few things, but for me that's about it for me. Liberty for me means full self-ownership (I own my life). As long as I don't interfere with other people's rights and property in a negative way or without their permission or commit fraud the state should not interfere with me. I'm not an isolationist I just don't think the government needs to interfere so much with the social interaction of the citizens. Less red tape, less social engineering, less government. These are just my views and I'm open to a friendly swap of ideas. But please note I've noticed in this forum that people are more interested in simply smashing ideas and not having civilized conversations. I have no problem if you question my views, but add yours. I'm open to any and all new ideas and am not afraid to learn something new. It's just that it seems I write my views, someone tries to smash it, then I have to justify it, then they try to smash it, ect. ect. ect. If you look at the title of the Post it's What are your views on Paternalistic Legislation.

I just realized that they were probably smarter than me, and gave up earlier. It's like talking to a special needs class. You've beat another one, but believe me it wasn't through your intelligent remarks and questions. It's due to futility.

Really? It sound so ridiculous, and I get a little sick of answering to such dumb comments. But OK here I go again. 1) Is he really blaming all 10,000 lawful protesters for the actions of about 200 anarchists? Let me ask him a question. What is more likely, the 19,000 police officers drawn from across Canada to control and protect the summit couldn't contain 200 assholes? Or is it more likely that they let those cars burn, and let these buttheads destroy property to justify the 900 million dollar security cost. What do think the Canadian people would have said if it was just a peaceful protest and the police security wasn't really required to that extent? Because they are ranked 7th and 8th overall Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita United States of America is 2nd, and Canada is 10th on List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions And finally they are two of the riches countries in the world. Plus they have taken the most advantage of the cheap energy that caused the problem. Now I refuse to answer any more dumb question. If you have something useful to say maybe.

WOW...I can only assume you are just trying to bug me now. Just trying to egg me on. No one is this ignorant? Ohhhh.......Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. ~John Stuard Mill

It's people like me and the G20 protesters that get things done. It people like you that watch your house burn down and wonder what the economic viability of putting it out are, discussing the engineering feasibility. I'm jumping up and down saying enough thinking about it, enough talking about it, lets get started. You are happy to pass on this problem along with you debt crisis to the next generation. I'm saying lets grow up and start acting responsible, less selfish. I'm saying we as a society, as member of North America have got to start living a less excessive lifestyle. Without taking the lead there is no way the rest of the world follows. I'm doing what I can. I don't live in a McHouse, I live in a 2 bedroom condo. I bike or walk most of the time and drive a small Toyota corola when I have to. I recycle. I go out of my way to buy local, which is eye opening for anyone that try's. I'm involved with a community garden. This is not holier-than-thou preaching. This is leading by example. What else can I do when I see my neighbourhood on fire and all my neighbours standing around discussing the economy.

The 60's happened here in Canada too, wasn't just in the States. I'm not stupid I realize that society can't just stop using hydrocarbon cold turkey or even completely. Am I off the grid? No but I'm pretty sure I'm more environmentally responsible than you. Maybe if the Government subsidized the solar industry as much as they do the Oil Industry I would be. Feed in Tariffs would be a good start.

People are running out of patience. Your going to start seeing more and more battle for Seattle, and G20 protests. If protesters can make the government pay 1 billion dollars every time they have a meeting they force people to hear them. Things are going to ramp up from here, and I will be at the next one. The 60's 2.0.

weeble wooble don't fall down Lets face it this is going no where, you just don't believe. It's wouldn't matter if every scientist in the world told you " hey this stuff is fact, and we are running out of time". You would just put on your fox news and ignore it.

UN report: climate change and food shortage major problems for Earth's future Why Britain faces a bleak future of food shortages Climate 'Tipping Points' May Arrive Without Warning, Says Top Forecaster Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system

Yes it was clearly an omission on my part and/or my misunderstanding. There are many ways in which this tool can be used. Another way is it is easier for groups to get their information out to the public through advertisement campaigns or documentaries produced by them selves at a low price. Examples: http://robinhoodtax.ca My linkNot to mention access to different news sources that report on things that mainstream media won't, and in more depth. whether you agree with them or not at least it's available.

A great book written by Philip George Zimbardo The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

Sorry

How much of this is due to Christian views on contraception, and their work in the third world? I simply put up a video related to the subject that thought people might find of some interesting. If you have a problem with the content then criticize or critique it.

There is something called a tipping point. Without people like me expressing the urgency, and screaming for action nothing will ever be done. Stern Review Summary of the Review's main conclusions The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs. The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions. Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment. The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed — the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead. Climate change may initially have small positive effects for a few developed countries, but it is likely to be very damaging for the much higher temperature increases expected by mid-to-late century under BAU scenarios. Integrated assessment modelling provides a tool for estimating the total impact on the economy; our estimates suggest that this is likely to be higher than previously suggested. Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth. 'Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now. [...] It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilise at 450ppm CO2e. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilise at 500-550ppm CO2e may slip away.'[3] The transition to a low-carbon economy will bring challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth. Policies to support the development of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency technologies are required urgently. Establishing a carbon price, through tax, trading or regulation, is an essential foundation for climate change policy. Creating a broadly similar carbon price signal around the world, and using carbon finance to accelerate action in developing countries, are urgent priorities for international cooperation. Adaptation policy is crucial for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change, but it has been under-emphasised in many countries. An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now. sounds allot like what I said earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_O0vuUrjbo&feature=related

Gotta go for now, but I want to leave you with this. The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Professor Al Bartlett

You must be the arithmetic man; you add trouble, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance. If you were twice as smart, you’d still be stupid

Maybe they know were already fucked and want to go out partying.

??????????????? Your logic makes me dizzy

Some men you just can't reach

There is plenty of scientific research out there. But you are a climate change denier, that only wants to discuss the financial feasibility of saving society from a horrific future. You are in denial. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed......................>> YOU ARE HERE Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.......>> This is the end of the world as we know it I dedicate this song to you sir