Lan

The US Navy certainly makes all others look like child's play, but considering the ASBM. Americas navy has been rendered useless in the face of modern technology. mutli billion dollar machines are now only effective against those who can't produce this. Of course, when it comes to world powers like Russia, China and the US, I highly doubt any of these nations would be able to effectively invade the other. It would all come down to ICBMs, hacking and other forms of solitary warfare. Which would be MAD. Both the US and China can shoot down satellites, and I'm willing to bet those would be the first targets in war between the two, so who knows? But it would be a nightmare on both sides.

And libertarian still means the same exact thing it did when it was created. The fact that libertarian socialism is still quite popular clearly indicates the meaning of the word has not changed. If it has, how exactly has it changed? Perhaps you need to review this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Why not? It could be a party. BYOWMD.

No, I read it. I was just informing you that your assumption is wrong. Up still means up doesn't it? Or does it mean down these days? Damn kids.

Nobody invaded the US because they actually can't. Not because it's pointless.

I concur. I find the idea of being nuked at my size quite fabulous.

Our newspaper is real news from KR, sir.

I concur. Having boobs is great.

He's weaker than two women.... I hate you....

Rand Paul was WAY better.

No

Why? Are all lives not valuable? Are you actually saying the life of a soldier is more valuable than any other? They should be legal across the board. As Clades pointed out, they can potentially preserve a humans life. What's wrong with that? Even if you're these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4mcYkIwU Who cares? If I have enough money I can go get my car fully armored to fully stop even AK rounds. Not only that, but getting shot while wearing armor, from what I hear, still applies enough force to break ribs and cause serious damage to the point that if you get shot, whether you're alive or not hardly matters. You're probably too !@#$ed up to be effective at killing anything anyway. I see nothing wrong with the preserving life when possible, regardless of who it is.

What it doesn't take into consideration is the war, American society at the time, nor does it provide what is being defined as murder. Countless factors are not taken into account in simple graphs, only one simple statistic. Which is why they are meaningless without a proper and full argument. Graphs without explanation, argument or sustenance are just that.

Why should they be illegal?

Then why not just resort to torture like the good old inquisition days? Or slavery? We could also burn pagans at the stake, crucify heretics and gas Jews. Why progress when we can regress? You know why the Muslim world never advances? Because they never progress. :facepalm:

And while we're at it, we should go back to slavery and just force inmates to fight to the death in arenas for everyone's amusement. It's not like this is 2015.

You realize the very large majority of people put on death row in the US are never executed, right?

I can find random graphs that say whatever I want with sustenance on google too... Especially one's that contradict eachother.

1. I can make moral judgement while acknowledging they are a false play on emotion. It's called expressivism. 2. lol. WTF? For starters, this is not 100 years ago. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Second.... FEAR ME!!!

I say no, because all moral judgments are false, regardless of how many people believe them. I base this on my own feelings, just like anyone else bases their own morals on. But mostly, I think calling love morally wrong is absurd.

Philosophical Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond toexperience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Not believing in God is perfectly logical. Good, evil and God? Not so much.

Of course it would be morally wrong, and I would call it morally wrong. But I cannot delude myself into thinking that those judgement are anything but purely chimerical. Any time we make a moral judgement, we are relying on our emotions to explain it. For example, you would likely consider homosexuality to be morally wrong. I call it love, which I consider morally right. And if America and Europe are nothing but rapists, don't move here. Go move to Saudi Arabia where rape isn't acknowledged and everyone throws a fit any time women are given rights.

Libertarianism does not refer to right or left politics at all nor is it synonymous with either. Libertarianism traces back to the late enlightenment as a term used to describe personal liberty which is still what it means today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology You're all probably thinking of a select small branch of libertarianism, known as American Libertarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#U.S._libertarianism