Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Skull Pilot]

so we settle for your government social engineering and manipulation via taxes?

Imagine you're a teacher in a school, and you have a naughty kid. What do you do? Do you have expectations about their level of behavior and then force them to accept such levels of behavior, using punishment when they don't reach those levels of behavior, or do you let them do what they want?

Why do you teach kids how to behave "properly"? We do so because we have expectations about how children should behave, and we also have expectations about how adults should behave too. That's why there are laws. They set out those expectations and then they punish those who go beyond those expectations.

Personally I know what sort of society I want to live in. I've spent time in South Africa, and the place is scary. I wouldn't want to live in a place with 8 times more murder and crime than the US. Even for me the US is more dangerous than it should be. Yes, there are differences between areas, but that doesn't mean it's the sort of society I want to live in.

I want a society where people are aware of those around them. A society where people have the skills to do a job that is necessary, have the skills to be good to other people, have the skills to be decent human beings.

Okay, it's never going to be 100%. but there are better and worse places.

Why is Louisiana the murder and prison population capital of the US? Almost certainly because the ideas that you're espousing are more prevalent in places like Louisiana than in places like the North East.

The perfect society isn't going to exist. You have to start basing things in reality, and from there try and make things better. You can call it social engineering, I'm not totally sure you understand what, exactly, my thoughts on this are, a lot of my thoughts are simply about education. I'm not the sort of person who wants to force people to be something. I'm the sort who wants to educated them so they're more likely to be like this.

why don't we talk about adults instead of kids because your desire to control doesn't stop at children

and regardless of the school kid analogy the teachers have the permission of the parents to do what they do those parents who refuse to give a government employee the ability to control their children choose to home school

Why don't you stop being pedantic?

This doesn't get us very far when all you're doing is throwing things at me.

Kids HAVE to be educated and many parents can't afford, or don't know, how to home school. So the permission is given in so much as a murder gives the govt permission to lock him up.

parents give permission for government functionaries to teach their kids by CHOICE

especially in this day and age where there are countless free resources for people who would home school

no murderer chooses to be locked up or given the needle

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

 

[frigidweirdo]

I went to Sweden a few years back, and every time I got close to a crossing on the road, cars were stopping. They could easily have made it through before I even got there, but they stopped for me.

I went to Japan too, I illegally crossed the road because I wanted to go to the shop on the other side and there was no crossing. Some guy on a pushbike stopped because I was crossing the road, even though, again, he could have carried on without even disturbing me.

Here is what I don't get: people always come here telling us how much better other places are to live, yet never leave the USA. That being said, what makes you live here if things are better in other places?

I live where I live because of my work. The job I do where I am is much better hours and much better pay than if I did my job elsewhere. There are plenty of things I'd prefer to be different where I am, but I can either choose to be poor, and I mean poor, or I can earn a good wage and suck up the shit.

The problem with your argument, and I've heard such an argument many times, is that you're basically saying that if you don't like a place, then fuck off. Don't try and change it, don't try and make it a better place, just fuck off.

What kind of a shitty attitude is that?

It's not a shitty attitude at all. if I was disgusted with the way things were here, I would move to a more conservative/ Republican country than this one. The problem is, there aren't any out there. As you pointed out already, there are plenty of Socialist liberal countries to move to if this one does not appeal to you.

Once you ruin things here with Socialist ideas, there won't be anywhere else to move to. It will be just like all these other countries you speak of but won't dream of moving to. You can't make the kind of money in other countries that you can here? Well why do you suppose that is?

There are plenty of more conservative countries out there. Many of them are Muslim. Russia isn't.

I'm not sure why you're talking about "Socialist ideas", I'm not a socialist.

Also, don't start making assumptions about where I live. I didn't tell you where I live and I won't be telling you where I live.

Good choice on your part. So do tell, which Muslim countries are for freedom and capitalism?

Well, again, it's a matter of choice, isn't it? Are the right really for freedom and capitalism in the US? They used to be, sort of. Now they don't like capitalism because China's doing quite well at it, capitalism used to be the US went around the world fucking people over and making large profits from it, now all of a sudden capitalism involves other countries taking some of that money back and some on the right don't like this any more.

Freedom, well... half freedom. You'd be as free, as a right winger, in Russia as you'd be in the US. If you were gay on the other hand, different story.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine you're a teacher in a school, and you have a naughty kid. What do you do? Do you have expectations about their level of behavior and then force them to accept such levels of behavior, using punishment when they don't reach those levels of behavior, or do you let them do what they want?

Why do you teach kids how to behave "properly"? We do so because we have expectations about how children should behave, and we also have expectations about how adults should behave too. That's why there are laws. They set out those expectations and then they punish those who go beyond those expectations.

Personally I know what sort of society I want to live in. I've spent time in South Africa, and the place is scary. I wouldn't want to live in a place with 8 times more murder and crime than the US. Even for me the US is more dangerous than it should be. Yes, there are differences between areas, but that doesn't mean it's the sort of society I want to live in.

I want a society where people are aware of those around them. A society where people have the skills to do a job that is necessary, have the skills to be good to other people, have the skills to be decent human beings.

Okay, it's never going to be 100%. but there are better and worse places.

Why is Louisiana the murder and prison population capital of the US? Almost certainly because the ideas that you're espousing are more prevalent in places like Louisiana than in places like the North East.

The perfect society isn't going to exist. You have to start basing things in reality, and from there try and make things better. You can call it social engineering, I'm not totally sure you understand what, exactly, my thoughts on this are, a lot of my thoughts are simply about education. I'm not the sort of person who wants to force people to be something. I'm the sort who wants to educated them so they're more likely to be like this.

why don't we talk about adults instead of kids because your desire to control doesn't stop at children

and regardless of the school kid analogy the teachers have the permission of the parents to do what they do those parents who refuse to give a government employee the ability to control their children choose to home school

Why don't you stop being pedantic?

This doesn't get us very far when all you're doing is throwing things at me.

Kids HAVE to be educated and many parents can't afford, or don't know, how to home school. So the permission is given in so much as a murder gives the govt permission to lock him up.

parents give permission for government functionaries to teach their kids by CHOICE

especially in this day and age where there are countless free resources for people who would home school

no murderer chooses to be locked up or given the needle

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem of illegal immigration is very complex and few can grasp the idea that removing 11 million people from the economy will have a devastating effect on the economy. But they can grasp "Build that wall" as a solution to the problem. And they can blame Mexicans for stealing their jobs.

Conservatives want a "Daddy" - a strong man who will take care of them and make their lives better. Someone who speaks to their fears and offers simple solutions. Like Reagan.

That's liberals--not conservatives.

The federal government is supposed to do what the Constitution charges them to do. The federal government does things that's impossible for individuals to do like build a wall hundreds of miles long.

Liberals on the other hand need that daddy you speak of: they want government to take money from the rich to give to them, government to feed them, government to house them, government to give them medical care, government to educate them and even give them rides to and from school; all things individuals can do for themselves, but just don't want to.

Drugs and illegals flow into the country through that border, and US cash flows out through that border. They take our jobs and lower our pay scale which is perfect for the Democrats since they want to create as many government dependents as they can.

Actually there are people on both sides who want a strong man, but the right like it a lot. See Putin and see how much respect he gets from the right when it's convenient for them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here is what I don't get: people always come here telling us how much better other places are to live, yet never leave the USA. That being said, what makes you live here if things are better in other places?

I live where I live because of my work. The job I do where I am is much better hours and much better pay than if I did my job elsewhere. There are plenty of things I'd prefer to be different where I am, but I can either choose to be poor, and I mean poor, or I can earn a good wage and suck up the shit.

The problem with your argument, and I've heard such an argument many times, is that you're basically saying that if you don't like a place, then fuck off. Don't try and change it, don't try and make it a better place, just fuck off.

What kind of a shitty attitude is that?

It's not a shitty attitude at all. if I was disgusted with the way things were here, I would move to a more conservative/ Republican country than this one. The problem is, there aren't any out there. As you pointed out already, there are plenty of Socialist liberal countries to move to if this one does not appeal to you.

Once you ruin things here with Socialist ideas, there won't be anywhere else to move to. It will be just like all these other countries you speak of but won't dream of moving to. You can't make the kind of money in other countries that you can here? Well why do you suppose that is?

There are plenty of more conservative countries out there. Many of them are Muslim. Russia isn't.

I'm not sure why you're talking about "Socialist ideas", I'm not a socialist.

Also, don't start making assumptions about where I live. I didn't tell you where I live and I won't be telling you where I live.

Good choice on your part. So do tell, which Muslim countries are for freedom and capitalism?

Well, again, it's a matter of choice, isn't it? Are the right really for freedom and capitalism in the US? They used to be, sort of. Now they don't like capitalism because China's doing quite well at it, capitalism used to be the US went around the world fucking people over and making large profits from it, now all of a sudden capitalism involves other countries taking some of that money back and some on the right don't like this any more.

Freedom, well... half freedom. You'd be as free, as a right winger, in Russia as you'd be in the US. If you were gay on the other hand, different story.

Gays are not free in this country? Imagine that!

I suggest you do a google search on our trade deficit for your other concerns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I live where I live because of my work. The job I do where I am is much better hours and much better pay than if I did my job elsewhere. There are plenty of things I'd prefer to be different where I am, but I can either choose to be poor, and I mean poor, or I can earn a good wage and suck up the shit.

The problem with your argument, and I've heard such an argument many times, is that you're basically saying that if you don't like a place, then fuck off. Don't try and change it, don't try and make it a better place, just fuck off.

What kind of a shitty attitude is that?

It's not a shitty attitude at all. if I was disgusted with the way things were here, I would move to a more conservative/ Republican country than this one. The problem is, there aren't any out there. As you pointed out already, there are plenty of Socialist liberal countries to move to if this one does not appeal to you.

Once you ruin things here with Socialist ideas, there won't be anywhere else to move to. It will be just like all these other countries you speak of but won't dream of moving to. You can't make the kind of money in other countries that you can here? Well why do you suppose that is?

There are plenty of more conservative countries out there. Many of them are Muslim. Russia isn't.

I'm not sure why you're talking about "Socialist ideas", I'm not a socialist.

Also, don't start making assumptions about where I live. I didn't tell you where I live and I won't be telling you where I live.

Good choice on your part. So do tell, which Muslim countries are for freedom and capitalism?

Well, again, it's a matter of choice, isn't it? Are the right really for freedom and capitalism in the US? They used to be, sort of. Now they don't like capitalism because China's doing quite well at it, capitalism used to be the US went around the world fucking people over and making large profits from it, now all of a sudden capitalism involves other countries taking some of that money back and some on the right don't like this any more.

Freedom, well... half freedom. You'd be as free, as a right winger, in Russia as you'd be in the US. If you were gay on the other hand, different story.

Gays are not free in this country? Imagine that!

I suggest you do a google search on our trade deficit for your other concerns.

I'm not sure what you want to say with anything you've written.

 

[Skull Pilot]

why don't we talk about adults instead of kids because your desire to control doesn't stop at children

and regardless of the school kid analogy the teachers have the permission of the parents to do what they do those parents who refuse to give a government employee the ability to control their children choose to home school

Why don't you stop being pedantic?

This doesn't get us very far when all you're doing is throwing things at me.

Kids HAVE to be educated and many parents can't afford, or don't know, how to home school. So the permission is given in so much as a murder gives the govt permission to lock him up.

parents give permission for government functionaries to teach their kids by CHOICE

especially in this day and age where there are countless free resources for people who would home school

no murderer chooses to be locked up or given the needle

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why don't you stop being pedantic?

This doesn't get us very far when all you're doing is throwing things at me.

Kids HAVE to be educated and many parents can't afford, or don't know, how to home school. So the permission is given in so much as a murder gives the govt permission to lock him up.

parents give permission for government functionaries to teach their kids by CHOICE

especially in this day and age where there are countless free resources for people who would home school

no murderer chooses to be locked up or given the needle

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

 

[Skull Pilot]

parents give permission for government functionaries to teach their kids by CHOICE

especially in this day and age where there are countless free resources for people who would home school

no murderer chooses to be locked up or given the needle

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again, you can choose to leave the country, so on your logic, everything you do, if you stay, is about choice. Right? So, what's the problem with teaching kids how to be decent adults when they grow up if it's all choice?

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

when you start advocating punishments via taxes or other government interference in people's choices simply because it's your opinion that something is "good for them" or "bad for them" you are imposing your will on them.

it's not the government's place to manipulate prices of goods so as to promote behavior simply because you desire that behavior and that is especially true if that behavior does not have any effect on you. What other people eat drink or smoke has absolutely no bearing on your life hence those choices are none of your business and certainly none of the government's business

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IDGAF ABOUT KIDS their parents decide what they learn

YOU want to control the behavior of adults with ham handed sin taxes and social engineering experiments paid for and carried out by the fucking government

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

That's not choice--that's manipulation.

What if Republicans created a law that everybody without a firearm in the home has to pay $500.00 a year? That's a choice whether to own a gun or not, isn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not a shitty attitude at all. if I was disgusted with the way things were here, I would move to a more conservative/ Republican country than this one. The problem is, there aren't any out there. As you pointed out already, there are plenty of Socialist liberal countries to move to if this one does not appeal to you.

Once you ruin things here with Socialist ideas, there won't be anywhere else to move to. It will be just like all these other countries you speak of but won't dream of moving to. You can't make the kind of money in other countries that you can here? Well why do you suppose that is?

There are plenty of more conservative countries out there. Many of them are Muslim. Russia isn't.

I'm not sure why you're talking about "Socialist ideas", I'm not a socialist.

Also, don't start making assumptions about where I live. I didn't tell you where I live and I won't be telling you where I live.

Good choice on your part. So do tell, which Muslim countries are for freedom and capitalism?

Well, again, it's a matter of choice, isn't it? Are the right really for freedom and capitalism in the US? They used to be, sort of. Now they don't like capitalism because China's doing quite well at it, capitalism used to be the US went around the world fucking people over and making large profits from it, now all of a sudden capitalism involves other countries taking some of that money back and some on the right don't like this any more.

Freedom, well... half freedom. You'd be as free, as a right winger, in Russia as you'd be in the US. If you were gay on the other hand, different story.

Gays are not free in this country? Imagine that!

I suggest you do a google search on our trade deficit for your other concerns.

I'm not sure what you want to say with anything you've written.

I'm sure you don't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

when you start advocating punishments via taxes or other government interference in people's choices simply because it's your opinion that something is "good for them" or "bad for them" you are imposing your will on them.

it's not the government's place to manipulate prices of goods so as to promote behavior simply because you desire that behavior and that is especially true if that behavior does not have any effect on you. What other people eat drink or smoke has absolutely no bearing on your life hence those choices are none of your business and certainly none of the government's business

When you start imposing punishment in form of prison sentencing simply because it's your opinion that it's good or bad, then you're imposing your will on them.

But society imposes all sorts of "punishment" on people, simply because this is what people "think". Why do you think different countries are so different? It's because of how society perceives things. Society can choose to make things better or it can let things slide and things become worse. No matter how you set society up, it's going to be this way.

You say it's not the govt's place to manipulate the price of goods to promote behavior. I say it is. You don't have to like this. But it's going to happen one way or another. Your view is that something shouldn't happen. Fine. Welcome to Utopia. But it's a vision that won't be borne out in reality.

Society can shape the world around it.

Countries Compared by Health > Obesity. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

You have the USA, where people are against govt interference. This leads to a 30.6% obesity level. Americans are FAT.
Then for example you have Germany, more pro-active in people's lives with a 12.9% rate.

How many of those 18% of Americans more who are obese would rather not be fat? How many of them would rather the govt had done something about it?

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia

You have the USA, where people are against govt interference. This leads to 693 people in prison per 100,000.
Then for example you have Germany, more pro-active in people's lives with 78 people in prison per 100,000.

It would seem in the US they let you free, to then lock you up for doing stupid shit.

I've lived in the US and I've lived in Germany, and Germany is a nicer place to live. So the govt tries to teach people how to live better, so the govt tries use social engineering. And yet it works. The country is a nicer place, it's a better place to live, the freedoms are basically the same, except when it comes to guns, but then again you're safer in Germany. Go to the big cities and you're much safer.

Being pro-active leads to BETTER LIVES. How many people in the US live lives they hate? I mean, when you have someone like Trump getting in the White House because there are so many miserable people in the country that they'll jump at the chance for "hope", a false hope, a fake hope, but they don't care, it's hope none the less, then you realize that the US way isn't working for the people, it's working for the RICH PEOPLE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you want to control the behavior of adults by locking them up.

Oh, no.

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

That's not choice--that's manipulation.

What if Republicans created a law that everybody without a firearm in the home has to pay $500.00 a year? That's a choice whether to own a gun or not, isn't it?

No, it's choice. There's manipulation in there too, but manipulation happens anyway. All those big companies getting to pay no taxes to pump you full of shitty food, why do you think it's so damn cheap?

Yes, it's a choice if they force you to pay an equivalent for not having a gun, and many people would then go out and buy guns. That's society's choice.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are plenty of more conservative countries out there. Many of them are Muslim. Russia isn't.

I'm not sure why you're talking about "Socialist ideas", I'm not a socialist.

Also, don't start making assumptions about where I live. I didn't tell you where I live and I won't be telling you where I live.

Good choice on your part. So do tell, which Muslim countries are for freedom and capitalism?

Well, again, it's a matter of choice, isn't it? Are the right really for freedom and capitalism in the US? They used to be, sort of. Now they don't like capitalism because China's doing quite well at it, capitalism used to be the US went around the world fucking people over and making large profits from it, now all of a sudden capitalism involves other countries taking some of that money back and some on the right don't like this any more.

Freedom, well... half freedom. You'd be as free, as a right winger, in Russia as you'd be in the US. If you were gay on the other hand, different story.

Gays are not free in this country? Imagine that!

I suggest you do a google search on our trade deficit for your other concerns.

I'm not sure what you want to say with anything you've written.

I'm sure you don't.

Then why write something that people aren't going to understand?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

for imposing their will on others since that is the root of all crime

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

That's not choice--that's manipulation.

What if Republicans created a law that everybody without a firearm in the home has to pay $500.00 a year? That's a choice whether to own a gun or not, isn't it?

No, it's choice. There's manipulation in there too, but manipulation happens anyway. All those big companies getting to pay no taxes to pump you full of shitty food, why do you think it's so damn cheap?

Yes, it's a choice if they force you to pay an equivalent for not having a gun, and many people would then go out and buy guns. That's society's choice.

No, there is no "manipulation too" it's entirely manipulation not to mention Social Engineering.

What you are talking about here is penalizing people that don't march in lockstep like Nazi's in order to avoid penalties for not behaving in ways the government likes. That's not choice. Do you think our founders would have supported such an idea?

And if we approve of it with diet, then what's next? Government penalizing people who don't drive electric cars? Government penalizing people who do own guns? Government penalizing people who have cable television with certain news outlets on them? Where would it stop?

How about this: government penalizing nobody and leaving us the free will to do what we want? Our founders didn't create our federal government to tell us how to eat, drink, smoke, obtain healthcare insurance, or what choice of exercise we want. It's not the Fn governments business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've lived in the US and I've lived in Germany, and Germany is a nicer place to live. So the govt tries to teach people how to live better, so the govt tries use social engineering. And yet it works. The country is a nicer place, it's a better place to live, the freedoms are basically the same, except when it comes to guns, but then again you're safer in Germany. Go to the big cities and you're much safer.

Right out of the book 1984. God help us all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're imposing your will upon those who impose their will upon others? Sounds... logical...

And yet you think that what I want to see, is bad, because it offers choice, and yours doesn't... hmm.

you seem to think I'm some kind of anarchist

you are of course wrong

I never said there should not be laws

but there is a big difference between telling a person what to think what to eat or how they should make any decision that has no effect on anyone else and having a law against murder

you don't seem to realize that

No, I don't think you're an anarchist.

What I'm doing is showing you where there's a gap in your logic. You can't argue for something, if that something then leads to something else which you don't agree on. It's very common for people to end up in certain situation. Most people wouldn't care, they just want to "win", but I think perhaps you're different.

Yes, there's a difference between telling people what to eat or how to make decisions and murder.

But then again, you're making out I'm FORCING people to do something, not leaving them with any choice in the matter, which is completely wrong.

All I've said is that you can push certain types of food by reducing the cost of those foods and other types of food you can increase the cost in order to make them less attractive. People can still buy those foods, the choice is still there. I'm not in favor of banning things. Even with cigarettes, I don't see the need to ban them, let people waste their money on massive amounts of tax if they choose to do so.

In fact I'm even in favor of having other drugs legalized, but with heft taxes placed on them (some of which would go towards making sure that when people are taking them, they're in a safe place and that the impact of those drugs is much reduced). That's choice.

That's not choice--that's manipulation.

What if Republicans created a law that everybody without a firearm in the home has to pay $500.00 a year? That's a choice whether to own a gun or not, isn't it?

No, it's choice. There's manipulation in there too, but manipulation happens anyway. All those big companies getting to pay no taxes to pump you full of shitty food, why do you think it's so damn cheap?

Yes, it's a choice if they force you to pay an equivalent for not having a gun, and many people would then go out and buy guns. That's society's choice.

No, there is no "manipulation too" it's entirely manipulation not to mention Social Engineering.

What you are talking about here is penalizing people that don't march in lockstep like Nazi's in order to avoid penalties for not behaving in ways the government likes. That's not choice. Do you think our founders would have supported such an idea?

And if we approve of it with diet, then what's next? Government penalizing people who don't drive electric cars? Government penalizing people who do own guns? Government penalizing people who have cable television with certain news outlets on them? Where would it stop?

How about this: government penalizing nobody and leaving us the free will to do what we want? Our founders didn't create our federal government to tell us how to eat, drink, smoke, obtain healthcare insurance, or what choice of exercise we want. It's not the Fn governments business.

So what's wrong with social engineering?

There's choice. Clearly there's choice. You claim to be someone who likes choice, yet seem to oppose choice when it comes to voting, you think two parties is enough choice. So why not the choice between buying something cheap and buying something expensive?

Actually, it is choice. Lack of choice would be the govt BANNING things. You can CHOOSE to drink (well, assuming you're over 21, because clearly those under 21 aren't to be trusted by the right) but you can't choose crack cocaine (well you can, just not legally). But in choosing to drink you choose to pay whatever taxes are imposed on the alcohol that you buy.

Texas, yeah, that Republican, right wing, loves choice (unless it's to do with abortion, or as we'll see, alcohol) "is one of approximately 30 states that allows the existence of “dry counties.” No sales of alcoholic beverages of any sort are legal in dry counties, which can be confusing for folks from states without dry counties."

Texas Alcohol Taxes - Liquor, Wine, and Beer Taxes for 2017

"In addition to (or instead of) traditional sales taxes, alcoholic beverages like wine, beer, and liquor are subject to excise taxes on both the Texas and Federal levels. Excise taxes on alcohol are implemented by every state, as are excises on cigarettes and motor fuels like gasoline."

So, why does Texas impose more taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gas?

Why does liquor have a $2.40 a gallon tax but beer and wine $0.20?

This happens everywhere. And yet you're acting like this is something that only liberals would do.

Yeah, let the govt do what you want to do. Let the govt ignore the problems. Let govt let the country rot. And when the US is China's bitch, then you can stop moaning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've lived in the US and I've lived in Germany, and Germany is a nicer place to live. So the govt tries to teach people how to live better, so the govt tries use social engineering. And yet it works. The country is a nicer place, it's a better place to live, the freedoms are basically the same, except when it comes to guns, but then again you're safer in Germany. Go to the big cities and you're much safer.

Right out of the book 1984. God help us all.

Yeah, well, if you've never lived anywhere else, and you don't understand, then you don't understand. Ignorance isn't going to get you very far. As for 1984. Come off it. You have no idea what you're talking about.