Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?

You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.

Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.

Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime?

In addition, each crime can be shown, within the case itself, to have other motives outside of 'being psychos', for example, as with an already cited case, for money, out of jealousy, or any other ends the criminal may want to pursue by committing a crime.




Reading it a wonderful thing, isn't it?






Check the last few pages- you know, the bits where I beat it into your head that it is outrageous for a government to pursue such thing, that it is immoral, and that no one should even consider it if they have any semblance of 'empathy'.







Because the government is not criminal, we can expect Justice more fairly meted out against potential criminals, and guard ourselves against such fascistic measures as the one you propose, where our natural autonomy is not violated in a way that we would find unacceptable, where each person, regardless of whatever arbitrary distinction he may have, is treated fairly under the law, where people are not forced into something against their own volition, and where the price of security does not compromise, too much, our liberty. Our government is far from this ideal (indeed, the greatest ideal would be to have no government, and, instead, men who shall respect each other's autonomy out of their own will, a Orderly Community of Equal without Laws or Government), but, at least, it is commendable in that it does not even remotely approach your illogical fascism.

I refer to severe crime as sexual assault, homocide, and hate crimes in this discussion.






How can you prove that these criminals did not have psychological problems?








How is trying to prevent crime not empathetic?

Why shouldn't the government try to prevent crime?







How does this prevent crime?

You did talk of them, but never mentioned that they were the sole constituiants of the category 'severe crimes'.






Ockham's Razor, I shaved off the requirement for 'psychological problems' on the grounds that there have not been any psychological problems proven in many cases of murder, robbery, etc..








Because you propose to segregate people for no reason but some arbitrary distinction, and commit menticide upon them.



Refer to the previous post where I explained the basics of government and its duty to the citizen.







Did you read any of it, or are you simply pretending to not understand so you can continue trolling?

There are others that could be considered severe, but I just thought of those off the top of my head.







Then why do people commit severe crime?







Then what should we do to prevent severe crime?

I will not bother to break it up and answer them individual for this reason, since you refuse to engage in any form of debate, there is no point in arguing with someone who repeats the same thing over and over. I have the patience to do so, I just don't feel like exercising it.

So you admit that we, as a society, need to find a way to prevent severe crime?

Rather, I think that you should stop trolling, seeing as you have yet to answer anything, repeat the same thing over and over again, that it is impossible to think you are even being serious about anything.

How am I trolling?







What have I not answered?







Only because you repeat your same bullshit over and over again.







It is hard to be serious with a fool like you.

I like to have a drink of alcohol every now and ten but i don't tend to do so excessively (like I might have a glass of wine wit a meal or have a few drinks with friends) it is very rare that I drink and because complete drunk (although that still does happen) as for sex I've only ever had it while being in a relationship so I can't really comment for casual sex but sex is known to release endorphines in people and endorphines invoke good feelings it is like a natural high our body produces and they lower things like stress levels etc.

As you can clearly see, most of your post are completely devoid of any actual content or substance, and that you put a smiley face when I call out your trolling only indicate that you are aware of your trolling. You ask me what you haven't answered- you have not answered anything at all, in fact, everytime a point is being made, you choose to ignore the actual substance in favour of pithy, meaningless one sentence post, in the form of asking the same question over and over, despite answering that question thoroughly and reasonably as possible. Seeing as you are not taking anything seriously, and you cheerfully admit to trolling, while at the same time telling random strangers over the internet to kill you (in fact, you have repeated this tactic with several other people), and since any argument is lost upon you, as you make no effort to read any of it, only writing what seems to be the most provocative, and by the bye, ignorant statements, it is clearly impossible that you are even taking the whole concept of debating seriously.

What have I not answered?






How can I learn about the reasoning behind your opinions without asking questions?






You most certainly have not done this.

In case you haven't noticed by now, I wouldn't be asking the same questions over and over again if you would just answer them AND explain the reasoning behind your answers. Since you have not done this, you leave me no choice but to question your stance on the issue. If you were as intelligent as you think you are, you would take the time to explain yourself in the clearest and concisest way possible, so that even a "fool" like me could understand. You don't just assume you are right, you explain to your audience why you are right in order for them to take you seriously. By just saying you are right, without answering any of the possible questions that a person might have, you are showing a lack of confidence in your own beliefs. If you are unsure of your beliefs, then why should you expect anyone else to hold the same beliefs? Why are you even trying to discuss this topic if you can't even defend your own opinions about it? If you were truly right, you would be able to answer any question I threw at you, WITH AN EXPLANATION. Since you are not able to do this for some reason, you are just wasting your time by trying to convince me of your opinions.

I am currently being healthy, happy, and successful as a man who drinks regularly and enjoys casual sex. Neither of which cause you any harm unless you are an utter fool. I may also partake in a sort of inhaleably green herb like substance but I'm not sure how moderation works on this site so let's operate on the premise that I do not.

You are absolutely ignorant on the effects of having a drink and making love to a partner if you think that is self destructive. What a sheltered human being.

Which is why I said specifically said "abuse" in the beginning. Please read more carefully next time, before you decide to be an asshole.

Also, alchololic drinks do more nutritional harm than good, so it is perfectly acceptable to consider them self-destructive. Look it up if you don't believe me. And I presume you don't want to have a baby with the random woman you are fucking, so sex could also be self-destructive in some circumstances, you just need to take a break from the porn you are watching and think a little bit to realize this.

Besides birth control and the use of condoms, keeping one partner typically makes it pretty hard to get STI's or become pregnant (due to agreed upon counter measures). If you had ever been to college you may notice that there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, MILLIONS, of people in north America alone that have casual, consensual sex currently are fine. Infact it could be said that the majority of people have sex lives that lack consequence in developed nations these days seeing as so many people are in relationships or married.

Anyway, perhaps you were born in some obscure hicktown where proper sexual education was never administered so I'm not going to hold you to understand.

A nice dark beer is actually shown to be pretty good for you in moderation. It contains several kinds of complex carbohydrates and therefore does actually contain nutritional value. A soda however is far more detrimental. Anything, especially cheese burgers in sufficient abundance is horrible for you so don't cry too much about how everyone should be an angel like yourself.

Why to people abuse things? They abuse things because they accept the loss in order to distract themselves. Why are people fat for instance, well because they do not want to expend the effort to lose weight.

One needs only to read through our 'debate', more of my beating you around the head with logic, while you, growing more and more imbecilic, repeat the same thing over and over, to see all the things you have not answered, take one example.

For example, in this lengthy explanation, I demonstrate, with infallible logic, that you are wrong to say that people need to be shut off from society and brainwashed.



You responded by asking if it would be okay if it made people happier, which ignores the whole argument, in favour of asking a repeated non-sequitur, which went around in a circle until we got back to this point, and where I gave up since I have completely lost patience.

Indeed, the only reason I am responding to you now is to show to others, without having to slough through all your nonsense, my teachings, which will, undoubtedly, make all who read it wiser, having been elevated by the sheer profundity of my gnosis.




The reason has clearly been demonstrated, and should not even have been demonstrated as basic as it is, but have been demonstrated out of my kindness already, prior to your inquisition. For example, I have said, rightly, that, in response to your statement, that 'psychological problems are the only cause of severe crime'



This would suffice as explanation for why it is fallacious, but you continue by ignorantly asking, for two more post, why this is not so?






I have already shown two examples of me doing precisely that, only for it to be ignored in favour of repeating the same question or asking non-sequiturs.



No, you ask for no particular reason, as it has already been explained, and clearly so, but that you had not bothered to read any of it. You had a choice, you could have read.



I have, you just don't pay attention or read at all. If you had actually read, I am quite sure you would understand immediately, shut off from the light of wisdom and knowledge as you are.



Reminds me again who made the unfounded assertion that drugs, sex, alcohol leads to rape without any evidence, and then, moving from that, making another unfounded assertion that psychological problems lead to crimes, and, therefore, we should lock all people with psychological problems up?

I actually reason out my argument, if you had bothered to read, unlike you, because I actually argue, instead of repeating the same question as an infant. I provide reason enough, and had, at time, had to repeat the exact same thing, in almost the exact same words.



Because I am sure of my beliefs, and I have reasoned it out so well, no one could argue otherwise but that my beliefs are the most reasonable and logical.



I have, so thoroughly, that anyone else, as in anyone else who have bothered to read it, would agree that I am right on the matter, and lay the matter to rest. You just don't bother to read it at all, which is why you are in the predicament you are in right now.




I have, you just don't bother to read THE EXPLANATION. Which is why you are almost as ignorant as you came in, and is the substance of my charge against you.

If you have a faulty premise, you reach faulty conclusions.