What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Panzerjaeger]

Question of the night: Will Panzerjaeger stop making sarcastic comments and actually engage in intellectual conversation?

No

Having Bendira on your side Sibirsky means you are already fucked intellectually.

[Panzerjaeger]

There are perfectly safe medicines available in Europe for instance that are not yet approved, or even banned in the US.

For example, those medicines that use viruses.

All vaccines use viruses that is the point of a vaccine.

[The Black Forrest]

Profit motive will force companies to do proper testing lest they want to still turn a profit. Testing is part of natural R&D. If it kills a couple people or puts them in a hospital, no one will buy their products and they will lose profit. They might also be forced to pay restitution to injured families, which will also be another lost profit.

Sorry I am a skeptic with that in the age of hyper-capitalism. You are thinking old style capitalism where people wanted to create lasting entities. These days people are interesting in the quick strike and bail. I can't tell how many times I have heard version of the phrase "it's not my problem, it's my successors problem"

As examples of making sure it's good to protect profit fallacy. Vioxx and Fenn fenn(sp?). Where the execs punished for that? Do they have a lessor lifestyle for their decisions?

[Bendira]

Question of the night: Will Panzerjaeger stop making sarcastic comments and actually engage in intellectual conversation?

I honestly find it hard to debate people who respond to an argument about product regulation with "people die, tough shit."

If you have a choice between a shitty nailgun with all sorta of protection guards on it, or a "unsafe" but far more useable/mobile nailgun for far less, which would you prefer?

[United Dependencies]

Regulations to test products kill people? LOLOMFGWTFBBQ

Ok since we are talking about testing products, I'll stick to that. The FDA. They don't actually test, but they approve or ban products based on tests. If they approve a product and it turns out to be bad and kills many people due to side effects, the shit hits the fan. They're dragged in front of congress, it's all over the media, they lose their jobs and they are guilty in the court of public opinion.

If they are very slow with the approval process there is not a word about it from the media. Meanwhile people die due to a lack of good medication that would save lives. There are perfectly safe medicines available in Europe for instance that are not yet approved, or even banned in the US.

Yes, regulations to test products kill people.

That's unfortunate. We should of course work to speed up the government bureaucracy to try and prevent this. I think ending regulation would fix that problem but bring other with it.

[United Dependencies]

I honestly find it hard to debate people who respond to an argument about product regulation with "people die, tough shit."

If you have a choice between a shitty nailgun with all sorta of protection guards on it, or a "unsafe" but far more useable/mobile nailgun for far less, which would you prefer?

A hammer.

[Conservative Alliances]

For example, those medicines that use viruses.

All vaccines use viruses that is the point of a vaccine.

Different treatment, I should have specified. They are bacteriophages. Here is an article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193837.htm

[Techno-Kat]

If you have a choice between a shitty nailgun with all sorta of protection guards on it, or a "unsafe" but far more useable/mobile nailgun for far less, which would you prefer?

A hammer.

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

[Bendira]

A hammer.

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

So your guys solution is to individually hammer each nail when your doing a roofing job? No wonder you guys dont like capitalism

[Panzerjaeger]

A hammer.

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

I dislike nailguns as well. I prefer a trusty hammer, axe, etc. It just feels more natural.

[United Dependencies]

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

So your guys solution is to individually hammer each nail when your doing a roofing job? No wonder you guys dont like capitalism

That's funny I don't remember that part.

[Techno-Kat]

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

So your guys solution is to individually hammer each nail when your doing a roofing job? No wonder you guys dont like capitalism

Goalpost, where are you going?!

Nothing beats old-fashioned.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Never used a nailgun in my life and I probably never will.

I dislike nailguns as well. I prefer a trusty hammer, axe, etc. It just feels more natural.

This. Hammers also have easier instructions and don't require an extension cord. Means I can board up windows, fix broken door frames, get rid of automobile dents without power.

[Mediterreania]

Yet this will not bring back people who are dead.

It will kill the killers. When a state kills the innocent, they don't come back to life either. The state kills far for people.

If someone asks, "Does the government go out and kill people? I don't think so!" just reply: "What does the military do?"

[Sibirsky]

Ok since we are talking about testing products, I'll stick to that. The FDA. They don't actually test, but they approve or ban products based on tests. If they approve a product and it turns out to be bad and kills many people due to side effects, the shit hits the fan. They're dragged in front of congress, it's all over the media, they lose their jobs and they are guilty in the court of public opinion.

If they are very slow with the approval process there is not a word about it from the media. Meanwhile people die due to a lack of good medication that would save lives. There are perfectly safe medicines available in Europe for instance that are not yet approved, or even banned in the US.

Yes, regulations to test products kill people.

That's unfortunate. We should of course work to speed up the government bureaucracy to try and prevent this. I think ending regulation would fix that problem but bring other with it.

Have two tiers. Fully tested and approved and not approved. Not banned, just not approved. Make sure people understand that there are possible risks with taking these medications.

[Conserative Morality]

Have two tiers. Fully tested and approved and not approved. Not banned, just not approved. Make sure people understand that there are possible risks with taking these medications.

And how many people do you think would actually pay attention to the difference between not banned and approved?

[Sibirsky]

It will kill the killers. When a state kills the innocent, they don't come back to life either. The state kills far for people.

If someone asks, "Does the government go out and kill people? I don't think so!" just reply: "What does the military do?"

Yeah, that's the most obvious, and the biggest offender. But other agencies of the state kill as well.

[Conserative Morality]

If someone asks, "Does the government go out and kill people? I don't think so!" just reply: "What does the military do?"

Why would someone deny that the government kills?

[Sibirsky]

Have two tiers. Fully tested and approved and not approved. Not banned, just not approved. Make sure people understand that there are possible risks with taking these medications.

And how many people do you think would actually pay attention to the difference between not banned and approved?

I don't know. The key is to make sure they understand that medication A for example has gone through however many stages of trials, has minimal risks and known benefits, and has been approved by the FDA. Medication B however, has not gone through these tests. It may or may not have side effects, which if they do exist are not yet known.

[Mediterreania]

If someone asks, "Does the government go out and kill people? I don't think so!" just reply: "What does the military do?"

Why would someone deny that the government kills?

A lot of misinformed Americans would consider the government and military two separate things.

[Bendira]

So your guys solution is to individually hammer each nail when your doing a roofing job? No wonder you guys dont like capitalism

Goalpost, where are you going?!

I dislike nailguns as well. I prefer a trusty hammer, axe, etc. It just feels more natural.

This. Hammers also have easier instructions and don't require an extension cord. Means I can board up windows, fix broken door frames, get rid of automobile dents without power.

It was a hypothetical scenario outlining how a less safe, more effective and inexpensive product is the one most people would prefer.

[Wamitoria]

If someone asks, "Does the government go out and kill people? I don't think so!" just reply: "What does the military do?"

Why would someone deny that the government kills?

^This

One of the draws of government is that they kill people, specifically, dangerous people.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't know. The key is to make sure they understand that medication A for example has gone through however many stages of trials, has minimal risks and known benefits, and has been approved by the FDA. Medication B however, has not gone through these tests. It may or may not have side effects, which if they do exist are not yet known.

That's going to get about as much attention as those commercials for god-knows how many milder medications that remind everyone of the side-effects as an afterthought. Listing the side effects will not deter the average consumer, it's either something to solve their problem, or it isn't.

[Mediterreania]

Why would someone deny that the government kills?

^This

One of the draws of government is that they kill people, specifically, dangerous people.

Who decides who is "dangerous" and deserves to die?

[Sibirsky]

Why would someone deny that the government kills?

^This

One of the draws of government is that they kill people, specifically, dangerous people.

Yeah those Iraqi children where such a danger.

[Conserative Morality]

A lot of misinformed Americans would consider the government and military two separate things.

I've never heard of anyone claiming that the government and military are separate. In fact, I'm fairly certain that most people realize that the government and military are one and the same, and that the entire purpose of our military is that it's part of the government.