Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The problem with you leftists is you think government should make you breakfast in the morning, wipe your ass when you get off the toilet, and pass the gravy at your dinner table. Some of us don't believe that. Some of us believe that government is only there to govern--not manipulate people's personal choices.

Commie leaders penalize tobacco and alcohol users because they are not large enough to defend themselves through vote. It's the same reason many of us stick up for the wealthy when they get unfairly taxed. We may not be wealthy, but certainly can relate to their unfair treatment by the government.

Like I said earlier, if you don't like a free country, move to a country where government makes all the decisions for you either by banning things or by taxing you away from your personal choices. Here, our country is about freely making personal choices without government manipulation. In Singapore, you have the choice to use illegal drugs or not use illegal drugs. If you choose to use illegal drugs, they execute you. But I guess you are behind that because after all, it's your choice whether to be executed or not.

 

[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.

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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The problem with you leftists is you think government should make you breakfast in the morning, wipe your ass when you get off the toilet, and pass the gravy at your dinner table. Some of us don't believe that. Some of us believe that government is only there to govern--not manipulate people's personal choices.

Commie leaders penalize tobacco and alcohol users because they are not large enough to defend themselves through vote. It's the same reason many of us stick up for the wealthy when they get unfairly taxed. We may not be wealthy, but certainly can relate to their unfair treatment by the government.

Like I said earlier, if you don't like a free country, move to a country where government makes all the decisions for you either by banning things or by taxing you away from your personal choices. Here, our country is about freely making personal choices without government manipulation. In Singapore, you have the choice to use illegal drugs or not use illegal drugs. If you choose to use illegal drugs, they execute you. But I guess you are behind that because after all, it's your choice whether to be executed or not.

Bollocks Ray, absolute and utter crap coming from you right now. I've never, EVER said anything along the lines of what you're pretending I've said. If you have to make shit up in order to be able to fling it, then you know you're losing BIG TIME.

Firstly, I believe in choice. Not as a matter of being able to thrust it in people's faces, and then ignore the whole thing when it's convenient for you. Yes, you love choice when choice can be used to show how great your views are, but where are you when real choice is lacking? No where, that's where.

Like I've said, I've lived in many countries, and in each of those countries I've been free to get on with my life.

Do you know the difference in freedom between the US and places like Germany? Apart from guns, which isn't really freedom anyway, the difference is that in Germany people are more empowered to live their lives. In the US people get told how free they are, while being massively controlled. But the people have the feeling they're free, and they're told how other countries are less free, and all of a sudden you start to believe.

Choice isn't between Hillary and Trump, what is that for choice? In Germany you vote twice, vote for the guy you want to represent locally you and vote for the party you want to represent you nationally. You get to choose between 5-6 viable parties with different views, and there is less populism and more sensibility in government.

People are empowered because education, learning etc aren't looked down on, people are empowered because they're not fat slobs, they get to eat all the crap they want, but they've learned that healthy food is better and healthy food is also promoted, it's a viable choice, rather than in the US where the crap food companies basically end up controlling the govt.

More Coca-Cola Ties Seen Inside U.S. Centers For Disease Control | The Huffington Post

Companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and many others control the govt to get what they want. They get what they want when it comes to taxes, making their products overly competitive. They get what they when when it comes to information coming out of the govt, they get everything they want, and they mind control half the damn population too. That's freedom huh? Where your govt is controlled by them, and they can control the people too. Great... freedom.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

Suggested federal law: 10yrs. mandatory minimum for possession of a stolen firearm and 20yrs. for selling stolen firearms.

 

[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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

 

[Rustic]

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.

The problem with you leftists is you think government should make you breakfast in the morning, wipe your ass when you get off the toilet, and pass the gravy at your dinner table. Some of us don't believe that. Some of us believe that government is only there to govern--not manipulate people's personal choices.

Commie leaders penalize tobacco and alcohol users because they are not large enough to defend themselves through vote. It's the same reason many of us stick up for the wealthy when they get unfairly taxed. We may not be wealthy, but certainly can relate to their unfair treatment by the government.

Like I said earlier, if you don't like a free country, move to a country where government makes all the decisions for you either by banning things or by taxing you away from your personal choices. Here, our country is about freely making personal choices without government manipulation. In Singapore, you have the choice to use illegal drugs or not use illegal drugs. If you choose to use illegal drugs, they execute you. But I guess you are behind that because after all, it's your choice whether to be executed or not.

Bollocks Ray, absolute and utter crap coming from you right now. I've never, EVER said anything along the lines of what you're pretending I've said. If you have to make shit up in order to be able to fling it, then you know you're losing BIG TIME.

Firstly, I believe in choice. Not as a matter of being able to thrust it in people's faces, and then ignore the whole thing when it's convenient for you. Yes, you love choice when choice can be used to show how great your views are, but where are you when real choice is lacking? No where, that's where.

Like I've said, I've lived in many countries, and in each of those countries I've been free to get on with my life.

Do you know the difference in freedom between the US and places like Germany? Apart from guns, which isn't really freedom anyway, the difference is that in Germany people are more empowered to live their lives. In the US people get told how free they are, while being massively controlled. But the people have the feeling they're free, and they're told how other countries are less free, and all of a sudden you start to believe.

Choice isn't between Hillary and Trump, what is that for choice? In Germany you vote twice, vote for the guy you want to represent locally you and vote for the party you want to represent you nationally. You get to choose between 5-6 viable parties with different views, and there is less populism and more sensibility in government.

People are empowered because education, learning etc aren't looked down on, people are empowered because they're not fat slobs, they get to eat all the crap they want, but they've learned that healthy food is better and healthy food is also promoted, it's a viable choice, rather than in the US where the crap food companies basically end up controlling the govt.

More Coca-Cola Ties Seen Inside U.S. Centers For Disease Control | The Huffington Post

Companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and many others control the govt to get what they want. They get what they want when it comes to taxes, making their products overly competitive. They get what they when when it comes to information coming out of the govt, they get everything they want, and they mind control half the damn population too. That's freedom huh? Where your govt is controlled by them, and they can control the people too. Great... freedom.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

OK, you go ahead and live in Germany and live life as you like over there. Leave the rest of us out of it, because most of us would fucking hate it over there in the shit hole like that…
Socialists need to keep their socialism to themselves... forcing that fucking shit on everyone else.

 

[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.

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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

And the government taxing people into submission is at the top of that list.

 

[Papageorgio]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

There is more to it than a parenting problem. There's a society problem.

In what world do kids think they need weapons to protect themselves? Well, in a society that is failing to protect people, to instill morals into kids and all of that.

The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then bitch and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

Exactly who on the right is pushing for an 80 work week?

 

[Papageorgio]

Kids should have guns. If they don't have guns, they can't accidentally shoot others and really, that's what it's all about, right?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Why use a gun when you can use a Bible? That seems to scare the crap out of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

you can't distinguish between things that are truly crimes and those that aren't

saying locking up murderers is the same as manipulating prices so as to coerce people to buy what you think thy should buy is an apples to orangutans comparison

and I've already addressed the fact that we incarcerate too may people for nonviolent crime I have and remain in favor of alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes and incarceration only for those who commit violent crimes

and it's not up to you to make people live "better" lives
people are living the life they want whether you believe it or not and it certainly isn't up to you to tell people how they should live

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

once you start this shit it can't be stopped

I suppose it's OK to have the governemnt quadruple the price of any car that doesn't get 50 MPG and you would still think people had a choice to buy a car that only got 25 MPG

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

and every one of them is nothing but a manipulation and the forcing your will on others

 

[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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

And the government taxing people into submission is at the top of that list.

And what are we talking about here? About what I'm talking about, or about how you want to present this?

 

[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.

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.

you can't distinguish between things that are truly crimes and those that aren't

saying locking up murderers is the same as manipulating prices so as to coerce people to buy what you think thy should buy is an apples to orangutans comparison

and I've already addressed the fact that we incarcerate too may people for nonviolent crime I have and remain in favor of alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes and incarceration only for those who commit violent crimes

and it's not up to you to make people live "better" lives
people are living the life they want whether you believe it or not and it certainly isn't up to you to tell people how they should live

I'm not comparing locking up murderers to manipulating prices. What I am doing is saying that both of them are about forcing people to act in certain ways, which you seem to be avoiding talking about. They're different, but the act is within the same category, or do you deny that locking up murderers is designed to prevent people murdering?

So, if it's not up to me, or up to the govt to make people's lives better, then why do they bother locking up murderers? If someone wants to murder someone else, then fuck it, let them do it. It's not the govt's place to say who can and who can't murder people. If I want to murder someone, they should stay out of my life. Right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

once you start this shit it can't be stopped

I suppose it's OK to have the governemnt quadruple the price of any car that doesn't get 50 MPG and you would still think people had a choice to buy a car that only got 25 MPG

Well, the point here would be to make sure you have a govt that functions in a proper manner. Looking at the US govt isn't proof of anything positive, is it? So you could dispel anything by pointing a finger there. But looking at other govts and you see positives in government that you don't see in the US.

 

[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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

and every one of them is nothing but a manipulation and the forcing your will on others

Well, it's a philosophical question.

Just like, which is better, people starving to death because of over population and lack of food, or people being killed in a war to fight for that food?

Well, some would start by saying neither is good. But then "better" doesn't have to be good, does it?

Here we have a situation where you can either be manipulated or you can be manipulated. One is to be manipulated by representatives who have been elected by the people, the other is to be manipulated by companies out to make as much money as possible and they couldn't give a damn what they get up to, as long as they make more profits.

Maybe neither is good, but which one would you prefer?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

you can't distinguish between things that are truly crimes and those that aren't

saying locking up murderers is the same as manipulating prices so as to coerce people to buy what you think thy should buy is an apples to orangutans comparison

and I've already addressed the fact that we incarcerate too may people for nonviolent crime I have and remain in favor of alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes and incarceration only for those who commit violent crimes

and it's not up to you to make people live "better" lives
people are living the life they want whether you believe it or not and it certainly isn't up to you to tell people how they should live

I'm not comparing locking up murderers to manipulating prices. What I am doing is saying that both of them are about forcing people to act in certain ways, which you seem to be avoiding talking about. They're different, but the act is within the same category, or do you deny that locking up murderers is designed to prevent people murdering?

So, if it's not up to me, or up to the govt to make people's lives better, then why do they bother locking up murderers? If someone wants to murder someone else, then fuck it, let them do it. It's not the govt's place to say who can and who can't murder people. If I want to murder someone, they should stay out of my life. Right?

no both are NOT the same you lock up a murderer AFTER he has chosen to kill it is a consequence and it obviously didn't force him to not commit murder

and obviously locking up murderers doesn't prevent murder it is punishment for the crime and all crime is at it's base one person forcing his will on another. Nowhere have I ever said ALL behavior is acceptable. When your behavior infringes on another then that behavior is NOT acceptable I don't care if its murder robbery assault or forcing people to pay more for simply making a choice you don't like

and "better" is subjective so no it is not up to you or anyone to tell someone what is "better" for them that is an individual choice

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Social engineering is 1984; the idea that government will make you think what they want with the support of the public. If you fall out of line, you need to get reprogrammed.

It's like saying cake has chocolate on it.

There are many, many different forms of social engineering.

and every one of them is nothing but a manipulation and the forcing your will on others

Well, it's a philosophical question.

Just like, which is better, people starving to death because of over population and lack of food, or people being killed in a war to fight for that food?

Well, some would start by saying neither is good. But then "better" doesn't have to be good, does it?

Here we have a situation where you can either be manipulated or you can be manipulated. One is to be manipulated by representatives who have been elected by the people, the other is to be manipulated by companies out to make as much money as possible and they couldn't give a damn what they get up to, as long as they make more profits.

Maybe neither is good, but which one would you prefer?

I prefer neither because I am not manipulated by any company to do anything and I am certainly not penalized by a company should I choose not to do business with that company.

But people are forced to do business with the governemnt from the outset therefore government attempting to control people via force of law is far more egregious than a company trying to get you to voluntarily buy its product

 

[Crixus]

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.

you can't distinguish between things that are truly crimes and those that aren't

saying locking up murderers is the same as manipulating prices so as to coerce people to buy what you think thy should buy is an apples to orangutans comparison

and I've already addressed the fact that we incarcerate too may people for nonviolent crime I have and remain in favor of alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes and incarceration only for those who commit violent crimes

and it's not up to you to make people live "better" lives
people are living the life they want whether you believe it or not and it certainly isn't up to you to tell people how they should live

I'm not comparing locking up murderers to manipulating prices. What I am doing is saying that both of them are about forcing people to act in certain ways, which you seem to be avoiding talking about. They're different, but the act is within the same category, or do you deny that locking up murderers is designed to prevent people murdering?

So, if it's not up to me, or up to the govt to make people's lives better, then why do they bother locking up murderers? If someone wants to murder someone else, then fuck it, let them do it. It's not the govt's place to say who can and who can't murder people. If I want to murder someone, they should stay out of my life. Right?

The answer to that question there is right in he constitution, but with that question you are setting up a straw man argument kind of.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

once you start this shit it can't be stopped

I suppose it's OK to have the governemnt quadruple the price of any car that doesn't get 50 MPG and you would still think people had a choice to buy a car that only got 25 MPG

Well, the point here would be to make sure you have a govt that functions in a proper manner. Looking at the US govt isn't proof of anything positive, is it? So you could dispel anything by pointing a finger there. But looking at other govts and you see positives in government that you don't see in the US.

no YOU call them positives because it fits with your need to control peoples' personal choices