Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Skull Pilot]

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, because we lock up criminals to stop them from hurting more people. If I want a Big Mac.combo, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. If I want to drink a 12 pack, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. Now if I decide to drive my car after that 12 pack, then the police arrest me to prevent me from doing harm to others.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we actually lock them up after they have hurt someone with the hopes it stops them from hurting someone else

that is a far cry from manipulating their behavior in the way Weirdo likes with tax penalties and price manipulations

Not really. Under this logic they'd go to prison, be rehabilitated and when people think they're no longer a threat to society, then they'd be released. This isn't what happens. In the US rehabilitation doesn't happen that much, and they're released when their sentence is over, and their sentence is based on the harshness of their crime (usually), rather than a specific time it takes to rehabilitate this person.

Prison doesn't rehabilitate anyone. Our recidivism rate is proof of that.
prison is supposed to be punishment not charm school

we need to revamp our sentencing guidelines so violent offenders stay in prison for long periods of time

so let's get off the prison analogy since it is a poor one and you are talking about forcing people to make legal choices by penalizing one legal option and not giving incentives to choose another legal option because you think one is "better" than the other

 

[Skull Pilot]

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, because we lock up criminals to stop them from hurting more people. If I want a Big Mac.combo, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. If I want to drink a 12 pack, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. Now if I decide to drive my car after that 12 pack, then the police arrest me to prevent me from doing harm to others.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

we actually lock them up after they have hurt someone with the hopes it stops them from hurting someone else

that is a far cry from manipulating their behavior in the way Weirdo likes with tax penalties and price manipulations

What's even more disturbing is that he thinks that's what our federal government is for.

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together. You think every person is an individual who owes nothing to their society and everyone should be on the take.

the individual always trumps society and a person owes nothing to society except to follow the laws

it's not up to people to tell other people how to live and what choices to make in their personal lives especially when those choices affect no one but the person making them

and I don't know where you got the on the take thing but I have never said any such thing

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

We are trying to preserve this free society, but liberals want to keep restricting freedom.

Choice is freedom, and the more choice you have in a country, the more freedom you have.

If we want to be an obese society, so what? Is it governments role to insure we are not by force?

Why don''t you read the founding fathers opinion of the governments role in our country? Why don't you read the Fn Constitution for crying out loud. Our founders never meant for our federal government to parent your every decision in life from what kind of food you eat, what kind of toilet paper you use, what kind of car to drive, what kind of energy you should use to drive that car, and what kind of toilet you should have.

If you think government should be so intrusive in our lives, then don't move here; if you are here, move TF out! We don't want a government run society. We want a society separate from government. We want a country where the individual makes their own decisions and not government for us.

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

Choice is freedom. Right.

So, when I present to people the CHOICE of being able to vote positively and for whichever party you like, with Proportional Representation, do you know what comes back? "NO! We like the shitty system we have in place already, it does this and that that we like (which is essentially that it favors the right much more than the left, and keeps out smaller parties)" That isn't choice, between Hillary and Trump IS NOT CHOICE, and yet you harp on about choice the whole time.

School vouchers, you seem to think throwing money at rich people is choice, you pretend that parents choosing their school can only be done if you give more money to rich people. Every time I bring up that in the UK parents can CHOOSE which state school they send their kids to, and they don't see a single fucking school voucher in sight, it gets ignored. Why? Because the right want to PRETEND they're choosing choice, when in reality they're choosing "FUCK THE POOR".

When it comes to gay marriage, you know, the choice of an individual to choose their partner, choose which consenting adult they want to marry, the right go MENTAL, telling everyone it's an illness, telling people it's wrong, telling people every mother fucker should adhere to their twisted religion, because their religious book says that being gay is wrong, because they don't like it. And they don't give a FUCK because they're not gay. It's okay to fuck with other people's lives, just not their life.

Don't throw choice at me Ray, because I smell so much BULLSHIT every time I hear the right talk about it, I want to vomit.

What it is Ray is that the right don't want govt in THEIR lives, but DEMAND that govt interfere in the lives of other people. That's not CHOICE Ray, that's BULLSHIT.

I never mentioned right or left.

I don't like to play that game we are talking about a philosophy

And specifically one of individual freedom vs collectivism

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

society moves in one direction or another as a result of the combines individual choices of the members of that society

and our entire system is based on people leading the government not the government leading the people

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

This is getting ridiculous. Fine, you want to get off on one about them not being the same. Go ahead, but I'm not playing such games.

it's not the same even though you seem to think it is

Again, if you're going to spend your whole time talking about something which has NOTHING to do with what we're even talking about, then what's the point here?

Eating a pea and eating a steak are not the same, and yet they're both EATING.

yet to eat one you have to draw blood

defining crime and setting punishments if that crime is committed is a far cry from manipulating a persons individual choices as to what they eat drink smoke etc with tax punishments or price manipulation by the governemnt because you want them to make the choices you want them to make.

But the point isn't that one you have to draw blood. The reason we have labels is to differentiate between two things which are, as the word suggests, DIFFERENT. So, comparing two things is clearly, by definition, comparing two things which are DIFFERENT. So, by telling me that I can't compare two things because they're different is fucking nonsense, and you know it.

But you seem to love getting into pedantic little arguments over the smallest of nonsense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

This is getting ridiculous. Fine, you want to get off on one about them not being the same. Go ahead, but I'm not playing such games.

it's not the same even though you seem to think it is

Again, if you're going to spend your whole time talking about something which has NOTHING to do with what we're even talking about, then what's the point here?

Eating a pea and eating a steak are not the same, and yet they're both EATING.

yet to eat one you have to draw blood

defining crime and setting punishments if that crime is committed is a far cry from manipulating a persons individual choices as to what they eat drink smoke etc with tax punishments or price manipulation by the governemnt because you want them to make the choices you want them to make.

But the point isn't that one you have to draw blood. The reason we have labels is to differentiate between two things which are, as the word suggests, DIFFERENT. So, comparing two things is clearly, by definition, comparing two things which are DIFFERENT. So, by telling me that I can't compare two things because they're different is fucking nonsense, and you know it.

But you seem to love getting into pedantic little arguments over the smallest of nonsense.

the prison analogy was poor to begin with because prison is not used to preemptively manipulate choices the way you want governemnt to do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

We are trying to preserve this free society, but liberals want to keep restricting freedom.

Choice is freedom, and the more choice you have in a country, the more freedom you have.

If we want to be an obese society, so what? Is it governments role to insure we are not by force?

Why don''t you read the founding fathers opinion of the governments role in our country? Why don't you read the Fn Constitution for crying out loud. Our founders never meant for our federal government to parent your every decision in life from what kind of food you eat, what kind of toilet paper you use, what kind of car to drive, what kind of energy you should use to drive that car, and what kind of toilet you should have.

If you think government should be so intrusive in our lives, then don't move here; if you are here, move TF out! We don't want a government run society. We want a society separate from government. We want a country where the individual makes their own decisions and not government for us.

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

Choice is freedom. Right.

So, when I present to people the CHOICE of being able to vote positively and for whichever party you like, with Proportional Representation, do you know what comes back? "NO! We like the shitty system we have in place already, it does this and that that we like (which is essentially that it favors the right much more than the left, and keeps out smaller parties)" That isn't choice, between Hillary and Trump IS NOT CHOICE, and yet you harp on about choice the whole time.

School vouchers, you seem to think throwing money at rich people is choice, you pretend that parents choosing their school can only be done if you give more money to rich people. Every time I bring up that in the UK parents can CHOOSE which state school they send their kids to, and they don't see a single fucking school voucher in sight, it gets ignored. Why? Because the right want to PRETEND they're choosing choice, when in reality they're choosing "FUCK THE POOR".

When it comes to gay marriage, you know, the choice of an individual to choose their partner, choose which consenting adult they want to marry, the right go MENTAL, telling everyone it's an illness, telling people it's wrong, telling people every mother fucker should adhere to their twisted religion, because their religious book says that being gay is wrong, because they don't like it. And they don't give a FUCK because they're not gay. It's okay to fuck with other people's lives, just not their life.

Don't throw choice at me Ray, because I smell so much BULLSHIT every time I hear the right talk about it, I want to vomit.

What it is Ray is that the right don't want govt in THEIR lives, but DEMAND that govt interfere in the lives of other people. That's not CHOICE Ray, that's BULLSHIT.

I never mentioned right or left.

I don't like to play that game we are talking about a philosophy

And specifically one of individual freedom vs collectivism

So, do you believe that the individual should always, in every instance, trump society?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is getting ridiculous. Fine, you want to get off on one about them not being the same. Go ahead, but I'm not playing such games.

it's not the same even though you seem to think it is

Again, if you're going to spend your whole time talking about something which has NOTHING to do with what we're even talking about, then what's the point here?

Eating a pea and eating a steak are not the same, and yet they're both EATING.

yet to eat one you have to draw blood

defining crime and setting punishments if that crime is committed is a far cry from manipulating a persons individual choices as to what they eat drink smoke etc with tax punishments or price manipulation by the governemnt because you want them to make the choices you want them to make.

But the point isn't that one you have to draw blood. The reason we have labels is to differentiate between two things which are, as the word suggests, DIFFERENT. So, comparing two things is clearly, by definition, comparing two things which are DIFFERENT. So, by telling me that I can't compare two things because they're different is fucking nonsense, and you know it.

But you seem to love getting into pedantic little arguments over the smallest of nonsense.

the prison analogy was poor to begin with because prison is not used to preemptively manipulate choices the way you want governemnt to do.

Sigh.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, because we lock up criminals to stop them from hurting more people. If I want a Big Mac.combo, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. If I want to drink a 12 pack, I'm not hurting anybody but myself. Now if I decide to drive my car after that 12 pack, then the police arrest me to prevent me from doing harm to others.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course, but here comes the problem. If a parent feeds their kid a big mac, they ARE hurting someone else. Right?

If I have a family and I get wasted on alcohol, I am potentially hurting someone else.

No, you are not bringing harm to children by giving them a big mac. That's the parents call--not governments. A big mac is consumable food.

If you get wasted on alcohol, you "potentially" do harm to other people. Yet you are all for making drugs legal in this country. Hypocrisy is thy name.

Ah, so parents are able to go around hurting their children? What if a parent kills their child? Is that okay?

What desperation. You are comparing giving a kid a big mac combo to killing them? You really are a liberal, aren't cha???

Look, I've already got pissed of with Skull Pilot for playing this bullshit game. So fucking stop it. I'm not doing "oh, you've just compared this to that", no, I didn't. This isn't comparing Ray. I asked you a fucking question and you didn't answer the question. ANSWER THE DAMN FUCKING QUESTION.

I see, so you don't like games you started then lose on. We were discussing harm to children when you posted this:

Of course, but here comes the problem. If a parent feeds their kid a big mac, they ARE hurting someone else. Right?

Because you lost that debate, you moved the goalposts to killing a kid knowing full well what my answer is. No, murder is against the law. Feeding a kid a big mac isn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

What a stretch. What Republican wanted to stop people walking across the road? What Republican wanted to stop people drinking alcohol? What Republican wanted to stop anybody from being Muslim? And abortion is still legal in this country.

Correct, we do not want people taking recreational drugs. Many don't have the ability to work, end up homeless, or on a government program where taxpayers have to support them. They get involved in crime like robbing stores and homes. Drugs cause birth defects in children that may be a financial burden to society in the future. People kill themselves on drugs causing harm to the family, and that is increasing every year.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

society moves in one direction or another as a result of the combines individual choices of the members of that society

and our entire system is based on people leading the government not the government leading the people

So... where do you see "the people" leading the govt? I don't see it. I see the rich leading the govt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course, but here comes the problem. If a parent feeds their kid a big mac, they ARE hurting someone else. Right?

If I have a family and I get wasted on alcohol, I am potentially hurting someone else.

No, you are not bringing harm to children by giving them a big mac. That's the parents call--not governments. A big mac is consumable food.

If you get wasted on alcohol, you "potentially" do harm to other people. Yet you are all for making drugs legal in this country. Hypocrisy is thy name.

Ah, so parents are able to go around hurting their children? What if a parent kills their child? Is that okay?

What desperation. You are comparing giving a kid a big mac combo to killing them? You really are a liberal, aren't cha???

Look, I've already got pissed of with Skull Pilot for playing this bullshit game. So fucking stop it. I'm not doing "oh, you've just compared this to that", no, I didn't. This isn't comparing Ray. I asked you a fucking question and you didn't answer the question. ANSWER THE DAMN FUCKING QUESTION.

I see, so you don't like games you started then lose on. We were discussing harm to children when you posted this:

Of course, but here comes the problem. If a parent feeds their kid a big mac, they ARE hurting someone else. Right?

Because you lost that debate, you moved the goalposts to killing a kid knowing full well what my answer is. No, murder is against the law. Feeding a kid a big mac isn't.

I'm not doing this Ray. I'm not playing this stupid little childish games.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

What a stretch. What Republican wanted to stop people walking across the road? What Republican wanted to stop people drinking alcohol? What Republican wanted to stop anybody from being Muslim? And abortion is still legal in this country.

Correct, we do not want people taking recreational drugs. Many don't have the ability to work, end up homeless, or on a government program where taxpayers have to support them. They get involved in crime like robbing stores and homes. Drugs cause birth defects in children that may be a financial burden to society in the future. People kill themselves on drugs causing harm to the family, and that is increasing every year.

You want me to prove it? Did you not see how many dry counties there are in Texas?

Do you know about J-Walking and why it was enacted? Maybe you could go look it up. Supremacy of business over individuals, that's why.

No, Republicans don't want to stop people being Muslims, they just want to kill them.

Abortion is still legal in the US, no thanks to the Republican Party though.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

We are trying to preserve this free society, but liberals want to keep restricting freedom.

Choice is freedom, and the more choice you have in a country, the more freedom you have.

If we want to be an obese society, so what? Is it governments role to insure we are not by force?

Why don''t you read the founding fathers opinion of the governments role in our country? Why don't you read the Fn Constitution for crying out loud. Our founders never meant for our federal government to parent your every decision in life from what kind of food you eat, what kind of toilet paper you use, what kind of car to drive, what kind of energy you should use to drive that car, and what kind of toilet you should have.

If you think government should be so intrusive in our lives, then don't move here; if you are here, move TF out! We don't want a government run society. We want a society separate from government. We want a country where the individual makes their own decisions and not government for us.

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

Choice is freedom. Right.

So, when I present to people the CHOICE of being able to vote positively and for whichever party you like, with Proportional Representation, do you know what comes back? "NO! We like the shitty system we have in place already, it does this and that that we like (which is essentially that it favors the right much more than the left, and keeps out smaller parties)" That isn't choice, between Hillary and Trump IS NOT CHOICE, and yet you harp on about choice the whole time.

School vouchers, you seem to think throwing money at rich people is choice, you pretend that parents choosing their school can only be done if you give more money to rich people. Every time I bring up that in the UK parents can CHOOSE which state school they send their kids to, and they don't see a single fucking school voucher in sight, it gets ignored. Why? Because the right want to PRETEND they're choosing choice, when in reality they're choosing "FUCK THE POOR".

When it comes to gay marriage, you know, the choice of an individual to choose their partner, choose which consenting adult they want to marry, the right go MENTAL, telling everyone it's an illness, telling people it's wrong, telling people every mother fucker should adhere to their twisted religion, because their religious book says that being gay is wrong, because they don't like it. And they don't give a FUCK because they're not gay. It's okay to fuck with other people's lives, just not their life.

Don't throw choice at me Ray, because I smell so much BULLSHIT every time I hear the right talk about it, I want to vomit.

What it is Ray is that the right don't want govt in THEIR lives, but DEMAND that govt interfere in the lives of other people. That's not CHOICE Ray, that's BULLSHIT.

I never mentioned right or left.

I don't like to play that game we are talking about a philosophy

And specifically one of individual freedom vs collectivism

So, do you believe that the individual should always, in every instance, trump society?

Yes
any choice an individual makes that has no effect on another is completely acceptable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

society moves in one direction or another as a result of the combines individual choices of the members of that society

and our entire system is based on people leading the government not the government leading the people

So... where do you see "the people" leading the govt? I don't see it. I see the rich leading the govt.

That is one of those choices people make
As a population less than half of all eligible voters vote in elections

so society has chosen what it wants and you should like that

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

We are trying to preserve this free society, but liberals want to keep restricting freedom.

Choice is freedom, and the more choice you have in a country, the more freedom you have.

If we want to be an obese society, so what? Is it governments role to insure we are not by force?

Why don''t you read the founding fathers opinion of the governments role in our country? Why don't you read the Fn Constitution for crying out loud. Our founders never meant for our federal government to parent your every decision in life from what kind of food you eat, what kind of toilet paper you use, what kind of car to drive, what kind of energy you should use to drive that car, and what kind of toilet you should have.

If you think government should be so intrusive in our lives, then don't move here; if you are here, move TF out! We don't want a government run society. We want a society separate from government. We want a country where the individual makes their own decisions and not government for us.

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

Choice is freedom. Right.

So, when I present to people the CHOICE of being able to vote positively and for whichever party you like, with Proportional Representation, do you know what comes back? "NO! We like the shitty system we have in place already, it does this and that that we like (which is essentially that it favors the right much more than the left, and keeps out smaller parties)" That isn't choice, between Hillary and Trump IS NOT CHOICE, and yet you harp on about choice the whole time.

School vouchers, you seem to think throwing money at rich people is choice, you pretend that parents choosing their school can only be done if you give more money to rich people. Every time I bring up that in the UK parents can CHOOSE which state school they send their kids to, and they don't see a single fucking school voucher in sight, it gets ignored. Why? Because the right want to PRETEND they're choosing choice, when in reality they're choosing "FUCK THE POOR".

When it comes to gay marriage, you know, the choice of an individual to choose their partner, choose which consenting adult they want to marry, the right go MENTAL, telling everyone it's an illness, telling people it's wrong, telling people every mother fucker should adhere to their twisted religion, because their religious book says that being gay is wrong, because they don't like it. And they don't give a FUCK because they're not gay. It's okay to fuck with other people's lives, just not their life.

Don't throw choice at me Ray, because I smell so much BULLSHIT every time I hear the right talk about it, I want to vomit.

What it is Ray is that the right don't want govt in THEIR lives, but DEMAND that govt interfere in the lives of other people. That's not CHOICE Ray, that's BULLSHIT.

I never mentioned right or left.

I don't like to play that game we are talking about a philosophy

And specifically one of individual freedom vs collectivism

So, do you believe that the individual should always, in every instance, trump society?

Yes
any choice an individual makes that has no effect on another is completely acceptable.

And how many choices have no impact on anyone else? People don't have families now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And I can say the same about you two, that it's disturbing that you really want to see the degradation of society, that you don't think society should improve itself, that you don't think society should work together.

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

society moves in one direction or another as a result of the combines individual choices of the members of that society

and our entire system is based on people leading the government not the government leading the people

So... where do you see "the people" leading the govt? I don't see it. I see the rich leading the govt.

That is one of those choices people make
As a population less than half of all eligible voters vote in elections

so society has chosen what it wants and you should like that

So, just because society says something, you should be happy with it? So if society says that you should be locked up for no reason, you'd be happy with that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We are trying to preserve this free society, but liberals want to keep restricting freedom.

Choice is freedom, and the more choice you have in a country, the more freedom you have.

If we want to be an obese society, so what? Is it governments role to insure we are not by force?

Why don''t you read the founding fathers opinion of the governments role in our country? Why don't you read the Fn Constitution for crying out loud. Our founders never meant for our federal government to parent your every decision in life from what kind of food you eat, what kind of toilet paper you use, what kind of car to drive, what kind of energy you should use to drive that car, and what kind of toilet you should have.

If you think government should be so intrusive in our lives, then don't move here; if you are here, move TF out! We don't want a government run society. We want a society separate from government. We want a country where the individual makes their own decisions and not government for us.

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

Choice is freedom. Right.

So, when I present to people the CHOICE of being able to vote positively and for whichever party you like, with Proportional Representation, do you know what comes back? "NO! We like the shitty system we have in place already, it does this and that that we like (which is essentially that it favors the right much more than the left, and keeps out smaller parties)" That isn't choice, between Hillary and Trump IS NOT CHOICE, and yet you harp on about choice the whole time.

School vouchers, you seem to think throwing money at rich people is choice, you pretend that parents choosing their school can only be done if you give more money to rich people. Every time I bring up that in the UK parents can CHOOSE which state school they send their kids to, and they don't see a single fucking school voucher in sight, it gets ignored. Why? Because the right want to PRETEND they're choosing choice, when in reality they're choosing "FUCK THE POOR".

When it comes to gay marriage, you know, the choice of an individual to choose their partner, choose which consenting adult they want to marry, the right go MENTAL, telling everyone it's an illness, telling people it's wrong, telling people every mother fucker should adhere to their twisted religion, because their religious book says that being gay is wrong, because they don't like it. And they don't give a FUCK because they're not gay. It's okay to fuck with other people's lives, just not their life.

Don't throw choice at me Ray, because I smell so much BULLSHIT every time I hear the right talk about it, I want to vomit.

What it is Ray is that the right don't want govt in THEIR lives, but DEMAND that govt interfere in the lives of other people. That's not CHOICE Ray, that's BULLSHIT.

I never mentioned right or left.

I don't like to play that game we are talking about a philosophy

And specifically one of individual freedom vs collectivism

So, do you believe that the individual should always, in every instance, trump society?

Yes
any choice an individual makes that has no effect on another is completely acceptable.

And how many choices have no impact on anyone else? People don't have families now?

if a guy with 100 kids wants to eat Ice cream and pie every meal that's fine with me

 

[Skull Pilot]

Society should, but not by government manipulation. If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. But when government or politicians decided how society should move--even if it's against the will of society, we no longer live in a free country.

How does society improve itself then?

We know that when you let individuals rot, they rot.

We know when you don't deal with obesity, it goes through the roof. It isn't a surprise that the country that is most known for trying to keep govt out of people's lives is the country with the highest obesity rating, and it's nearly 3 times the rate of countries like Germany.

Your sentence "If society decides to move in a certain direction, we will do so on our own. " makes no sense.

First, "on our own", if you mean, as individuals, then it's never going to happen. So, what's the point of saying it. If you mean as a country, then it's the govt leading the way anyway.

You think you live in a free country? Really?

society moves in one direction or another as a result of the combines individual choices of the members of that society

and our entire system is based on people leading the government not the government leading the people

So... where do you see "the people" leading the govt? I don't see it. I see the rich leading the govt.

That is one of those choices people make
As a population less than half of all eligible voters vote in elections

so society has chosen what it wants and you should like that

So, just because society says something, you should be happy with it? So if society says that you should be locked up for no reason, you'd be happy with that?

all "society" is is the sum total of millions of individual decisions

so when we decide to lock people up for no reason it will be because many millions of individuals want it.

but we have already made the decisions about locking people up and we have the procedure to change those decisions ( constitutional amendment) so if and when "society" decides to do that it will be what we get

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, yeah, sure thing Ray. Trying to preserve the free society by... by... stopping women being able to have abortions, stopping people being able to take drugs, drink alcohol, walk across the road, being Muslims.... should I carry on with the list of things the right want to do to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "liberty". Bullshit Ray, complete and utter bullshit.

What a stretch. What Republican wanted to stop people walking across the road? What Republican wanted to stop people drinking alcohol? What Republican wanted to stop anybody from being Muslim? And abortion is still legal in this country.

Correct, we do not want people taking recreational drugs. Many don't have the ability to work, end up homeless, or on a government program where taxpayers have to support them. They get involved in crime like robbing stores and homes. Drugs cause birth defects in children that may be a financial burden to society in the future. People kill themselves on drugs causing harm to the family, and that is increasing every year.

You want me to prove it? Did you not see how many dry counties there are in Texas?

Do you know about J-Walking and why it was enacted? Maybe you could go look it up. Supremacy of business over individuals, that's why.

No, Republicans don't want to stop people being Muslims, they just want to kill them.

Abortion is still legal in the US, no thanks to the Republican Party though.

Counties decide if they will be dry or not. If the people of any county don't want alcohol sold, then you just have to buy alcohol in another county. If enough people don't like living in a dry county, they can elect representatives that will rescind the law and become a wet county. As to an answer to your question, Texas currently has 7 dry counties.

I don't know about where you live, but I've never seen anybody get a ticket for jay-walking. I wish they would do it here; people running in front of your car causing you to stop.

Republicans want to kill terrorists no matter who they are. What Republican representative ever said they want to kill all Muslims?