Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
I bring your attention to this..... Quote: Anti-drug campaigns are being run all over the world, but the message is not getting through. The abuse of intravenous drugs is spreading from the US, western Europe and Australia to just about every other region of the world. Countries now report that the number of injecting drug addicts and the spread of Aids through sharing needles is reaching epidemic proportions in Asia and parts of Eastern Europe. At a conference in Geneva last month scientists, politicians and drug users met to discuss the project. The idea behind 'harm reduction' is to prevent drug addicts from harming themselves and society. It is about prescribing drugs to addicts so they do not have to buy from drug dealers, as well as providing clean needles for addicts to prevent the spread of HIV. Quality of life Conference president Dominic Oiser says society has a moral duty to support the policy. "My moral question or my ethical point of view is that as public health people, as medical doctors, as social workers, we have to find ways to maintain and improve quality of health, quality of life, of individuals and of the society where we are living in and that there is no reason to not choose a method that is effective," he said. Studies show that harm reduction does save lives, as well as improving addicts' quality of life. But critics say that governments should be encouraging them to kick their habit completely, instead of supplying clean needles and methadone. The Director of the International Harm Reduction Association, Pat O'Hare, disagrees. "Giving methadone to drug users - what it does is it stabilises their life," he said. "The evidence is very clear about methadone, it stops people injecting, although some people do inject methadone. It stops them using street heroin, it reduces the amount of sharing of needles and it reduces the amount of crime that those people commit. Now, that sounds to me like a pretty good deal." Needle exchange The HIV epidemic has added weight to arguments in support of harm reduction. Provision of clean needles for drug-injecting addicts is seen as vital to curb the spread of the disease. Brazilian politician Paolo Tishera says for poor, developing world countries it is the most cost-effective way of preventing Aids. "It's easy for us to make programme like that, because it's too expensive to treat people living with Aids," he said. "And when you have a needle exchange programme, the number of people living with Aids also decreases. So treating people once they have Aids is more expensive than making a prevention programme like needle exchange programmes available to addicts." But the costs of needle exchange programmes are still too high for many developing countries. Remains controversial Non-governmental organisations are having to step in to fund schemes in central and eastern Europe, where HIV rates have soared, mainly because of unsafe drug injecting. Glen Baksis, Director of the Open Society's harm reduction programme, said: "We're working in central and eastern Europe and in particularly the former Soviet Union - Russia, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine - because they are the new centre of HIV in the northern hemisphere. "The number of cases that happened in Russia and Ukraine alone last year surpassed all of north American infections and all of European infections last year." Ten years after the "harm reduction" approach was first tried, it still remains controversial. Offering clean needles to addicts is becoming more acceptable - but supplying them with substitute drugs is still too radical for many to accept. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/338633.stm What is your opinion? Do you think this is right? That they pass out free needles to help lower AIDS and HIV by people sharing needles. But at the same time this is also consirdered wrong because it seems to incourage the use for drugs and drug addiction. They can get a liquid form of herion in Russia and the surronding parts for a very cheap prive and then use it to enject it into the users blood strem.
Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users
it should be done so that strange viruses dont start comming up, this way they wont bring theyre germs over here and wipe out half the population, causeing us to nuke them acusing them of useing bio weapons. this will start a nuclear war of epic porportions. everything will die. this is why they should do it.
More needles will mean more sharing, sure you can get them for free, but if people dont want AIDS or disease, then dont share or even use drugs where you inject yourself, their just promoting that they are pro drug and want people to be addicted to heroin.
Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple.
why shoot something up when its so much more fun to put it up your nose
Not that easy. In places like the Ukraine it is so poor and rural in these areas that they can't affoward to stick druggies into cells. They have no money for medicines for AIDS patient's. So they die and there hospitals are not that even big, like a max of 25 people.
IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 14:09 Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple. So governments should be spending tax payer money on jailing people for putting substances into THEIR bodies? Nope, that doesn't cost a shitload of money. GOOD IDEA.
So....rather than using tax payers money to increase hospital capacity, order medicine from europe, and jail thieves/drug addicts.....they're giving people needles to do drugs.....I think we all know the answer to the poll.
Hard to argue either way. 1 Syringe $0.40 1 Hospital $5,000,000 (With build cost and standard equipment) Each Really they should just take everyone in the back that shows up and start giving out euthanasia treatments.
I think that you should offer the people that are already addicted to drugs the possibility to get clean, and if they can't than this is a good alternative. As ok, the people will continue to use drugs, you are greatly reducing the risk of HIV infections etc.
Free needles means they won't need to share, means less HIV infection rate, and other diseases. (Hepatitis, for example) EDIT: In Ottawa, we had a free needles program for drug addicts, but the city took it down. It reduced infection rate pretty well, until it went without funding.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 13:26 IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 14:09 Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple. So governments should be spending tax payer money on jailing people for putting substances into THEIR bodies? Nope, that doesn't cost a shitload of money. GOOD IDEA. In fact, is it a really good idea in the long run, open your mind. The entire cost of a druggie impact on society is more then it would to keep them in a cell for a few weeks till they get over it. Most people who take drugs, do crime, though-out that crime, people can get hurt, so there is medical costs, the cost of fixing whatever they just done, like breaking in a car or something, the cost of the police dealing with them, the time for the police to deal with them, then, the court costs, honesty, the list goes on and on. All you need to do is stick them in a room for 6 weeks, not let the fuckers out expect for walks in a closed space and showers. You can feed people for a day on less then 1 pound, depending how cheap you wanna go, yes, there is the cost of guards and the costs of running a building, but that is small to the cost they do on the outside. That's if you wanted a building to house them, myself, I would use a unused ex army base, build a few wooden buildings with small rooms, could even use tents, shit, the little details like that, could be thought off later.
6 weeks in a cell wont fix anything. The second they go home and get back in to their environment they will just pick up where they left off. Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do.
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 16:09 6 weeks in a cell wont fix anything. The second they go home and get back in to their environment they will just pick up where they left off. Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do. That is probably the most uneducated thing I have ever heard you say.
luv2pb wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 16:12 Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 16:09 6 weeks in a cell wont fix anything. The second they go home and get back in to their environment they will just pick up where they left off. Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do. That is probably the most uneducated thing I have ever heard you say. I, actually, agree with him. I doubt most of the "addicts" are truly addicted. It's just a cop-out, so they can skimp on personal responsibility and keep doing what they desire. Either way, you get rid of welfare, let people put whatever they want into their bodies, and then watch as nothing gets worse!
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 15:09 6 weeks in a cell wont fix anything. The second they go home and get back in to their environment they will just pick up where they left off. Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do. I did think about that after I posted, but that is the real issue, soon we fix that, better everyone is off. For a quick fix, could always dump them in the Army.
IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 22:01 cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 13:26 IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 14:09 Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple. So governments should be spending tax payer money on jailing people for putting substances into THEIR bodies? Nope, that doesn't cost a shitload of money. GOOD IDEA. In fact, is it a really good idea in the long run, open your mind. The entire cost of a druggie impact on society is more then it would to keep them in a cell for a few weeks till they get over it. Most people who take drugs, do crime, though-out that crime, people can get hurt, so there is medical costs, the cost of fixing whatever they just done, like breaking in a car or something, the cost of the police dealing with them, the time for the police to deal with them, then, the court costs, honesty, the list goes on and on. All you need to do is stick them in a room for 6 weeks, not let the fuckers out expect for walks in a closed space and showers. You can feed people for a day on less then 1 pound, depending how cheap you wanna go, yes, there is the cost of guards and the costs of running a building, but that is small to the cost they do on the outside. That's if you wanted a building to house them, myself, I would use a unused ex army base, build a few wooden buildings with small rooms, could even use tents, shit, the little details like that, could be thought off later. To bad that having a drug addict convicted (in a country with trias politica) is time consuming and costly. Besides that I know for a fact that having someone locked up in a cell in the Netherlands costs about 300 euros a day (which will probably be not much different from most western europe countries), excluding any help to get rid of the addiction... Besides that, you would need to make extra cells avaible, which would mean building more prisons, or releasing more serious criminals. And, locking them up doesn't some the (potential) AIDS problem, which seems to me like the primary concern in this case. As of course, none wants drug addicts. Then again, something worse then a drug addict is a drug addict with AIDS.
People complain about the jailing idea, but what else are we supposed to do? Let them take drugs and ruin society?
I voted "Yes, they should hand out free needles!" as it might encourage drug use yes. I don't like this and believe in all manors that Illegal drug use is wrong! But think about those who really do need the needles. You can'y just leave them out to dry because there's a chance that some drugy will come along and use it to carry on fueling his addiction.
They shouldn't pass out needles for free. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that shit. I bet outside of programs like this, needles are hard to get. They shouldn't be hard to get. Let them take the damn drugs. It doesn't DIRECTLY infringe on others' rights. Others' rights are infringed on when the drug user or addict DECIDES to do that for their next dose.
sadukar09 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 15:20 Free needles means they won't need to share, means less HIV infection rate, and other diseases. (Hepatitis, for example) EDIT: In Ottawa, we had a free needles program for drug addicts, but the city took it down. It reduced infection rate pretty well, until it went without funding. Wait a second, you live here? Shit. z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 21:36 They shouldn't pass out needles for free. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that shit. Logic behind this: stopping the spread of blood/sexually transmitted diseases to cut expenses related to said diseases, be it lawsuits or treatments. And it's more likely that they'll start asking for help if they're getting their needles from the government (also chances of some sort of follow-up) than from other junkies, which helps reducing the number of junkies. "omg taxpayers money" - if you turn the junkie into a regular citizen it's like an investment anyway, as that money is likely to come back - keeping in mind that governments are non-profit (supposed to be) organizations that provide services that its population wants. And you're also implying that everyone who does drug doesn't pay taxes. Beyond preventing the spread of diseases I don't know why I'd have to add anything, but I have anyway.
I remember reading they did this in the USA somewhere and the stopped because the druggies were just selling them to other druggies.
Kind of a side issue here but, this will also bring more money into their government since they'll be the ones giving the drugs (it did mean the government was selling them to people now, right?) That would bring money away from the dangerous drug cartels and such but do you think it could also corrupt the government some now that they're getting this money? (shrugs)
i say yes because it may stop some disease that get passed by sharing needles, but it just encourages people to go slam it up ............... Most use needles for heroin because the greater high u get from it. there are other ways to take the drug like crushing it up and snorting it.
Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 blah blah blah Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I stand by what I said.
This is old news. My city has a clinic which dispenses free needles, and Methadone to addicts. The addicts get a clean, supervised location to shoot up, and we have the opportunity to give these people a second chance. The success rate is debatable, but there have been quite a few who have gotten clean, and are now self-sufficient, hard working people.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 10:17 This is old news. My city has a clinic which dispenses free needles, and Methadone to addicts. The addicts get a clean, supervised location to shoot up, and we have the opportunity to give these people a second chance. The success rate is debatable, but there have been quite a few who have gotten clean, and are now self-sufficient, hard working people. With this there is always success, even when the people can't get clean, being that they don't need to steal stuff to get their shot, and that they don't need to take their shot out in to open (where for ex. your kid could see it).
z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 23:30 Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 blah blah blah Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I stand by what I said. And what SHOULD taxpayers be spending money on, if not helping out their fellow man?
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 18:59 I agree with all of Iron's posts. QFT!!
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:47 People complain about the jailing idea, but what else are we supposed to do? Let them take drugs and ruin society? I agree! Legalizing drugs will ruin society just like legalizing alcohol has. Oh, wait... (Hint: Every prohibition of alcohol has failed, and it only encouraged organized crime. You know, like what the War on Drugs is doing.)
Dover wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 08:59 z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 23:30 Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 blah blah blah Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I stand by what I said. And what SHOULD taxpayers be spending money on, if not helping out their fellow man? On whatever the fuck they like. Government-supported stealing is still stealing.
cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 12:55 Dover wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 08:59 z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 23:30 Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 blah blah blah Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I stand by what I said. And what SHOULD taxpayers be spending money on, if not helping out their fellow man? On whatever the fuck they like. Government-supported stealing is still stealing. This is why we can't have nice things, though. D:
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 05:17 This is old news. My city has a clinic which dispenses free needles, and Methadone to addicts. The addicts get a clean, supervised location to shoot up, and we have the opportunity to give these people a second chance. The success rate is debatable, but there have been quite a few who have gotten clean, and are now self-sufficient, hard working people. Except their taking methadone, not the drugs they are addicted to. Bit of a difference. Nothing about handing out free needles promotes or encourages drug use. It's ashame that they can't budget their addiction a little better as to afford the $1-2 a day for needles, but I guess that comes with the disease. If this is proven to hinder the spread of HIV/HepC/etc, then so be it. z310 wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 03:30 I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. These diseases kill more people than anyone in the Taliban ever has, yet you're perfectly fine with spending the money to combat them instead? Do you think Iraq poses the more immediate threat over AIDS? So ~3000 were killed on September 11th, over 30 million are living with a death sentance right now because they have AIDS. Suck it up and caugh up your 40 cents. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of 9/11, it's just a good comparison. For all I know you could be anti-war, it doesn't really matter though.
You can't compare the Taliban to AIDS like that. The only right way to pass out free needles is via charities, not government thievery.
IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 13:09 Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple.
puddle_splasher wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 06:42 IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 13:09 Just stick the fucking druggie in a cell for 6 weeks, he can climb the walls in there till he gets over it. So fucking simple. Yeah, I would never expect you to respect anybody else's rights.
z310 wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 19:39 You can't compare the Taliban to AIDS like that. The only right way to pass out free needles is via charities, not government thievery. No reason?
IF what I'm hearing is correct, all these "government thievery" remarks sound like a call to abolish taxes altogether. In that case, have fun without anybody to answer the phone when you dial 911, or anyone to fix potholes in the freeways (Or build new ones), or to defend you when Canada gets too uppity and invades. Really now, is your money THAT important to you? Can you really lay in your solid gold bed and roll around in your hundred dollar bills while your fellow man suffers? And don't get me started on the government! How DARE they assume that they can take part of YOUR money based on how much you make? It's like they think they're providing you protection and integral services or something. Oh, wait...
Dover wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 13:11 IF what I'm hearing is correct, all these "government thievery" remarks sound like a call to abolish taxes altogether. In that case, have fun without anybody to answer the phone when you dial 911, or anyone to fix potholes in the freeways (Or build new ones), or to defend you when Canada gets too uppity and invades. Really now, is your money THAT important to you? Can you really lay in your solid gold bed and roll around in your hundred dollar bills while your fellow man suffers? And don't get me started on the government! How DARE they assume that they can take part of YOUR money based on how much you make? It's like they think they're providing you protection and integral services or something. Oh, wait... I'm a Minarchist. I am not just sitting here saying "TAXES AND GOVERNMENT ARE BAD". I have a reason behind saying, "leave my money alone." I believe that we do need SOME, necessary, taxes. I have no problem with maintaining the police force, military, and the justice system. I don't have a problem with paying taxes on gas, if that money is strictly used for highway and road construction. Much else besides that is a waste of money, in my opinion.
cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 10:36 Dover wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 13:11 IF what I'm hearing is correct, all these "government thievery" remarks sound like a call to abolish taxes altogether. In that case, have fun without anybody to answer the phone when you dial 911, or anyone to fix potholes in the freeways (Or build new ones), or to defend you when Canada gets too uppity and invades. Really now, is your money THAT important to you? Can you really lay in your solid gold bed and roll around in your hundred dollar bills while your fellow man suffers? And don't get me started on the government! How DARE they assume that they can take part of YOUR money based on how much you make? It's like they think they're providing you protection and integral services or something. Oh, wait... I'm a Minarchist. I am not just sitting here saying "TAXES AND GOVERNMENT ARE BAD". I have a reason behind saying, "leave my money alone." I believe that we do need SOME, necessary, taxes. I have no problem with maintaining the police force, military, and the justice system. I don't have a problem with paying taxes on gas, if that money is strictly used for highway and road construction. Much else besides that is a waste of money, in my opinion. Well, I'm a Decent Human Being, and I believe that hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding wealth instead of using it to do some good in the world is more disgusting than 2girls1cup. Money isn't that important. It's a fleeting, fickle friend. But if I can turn my money into something positive, like a box of chocolates for my girlfriend of helping a druggie get clean, then who the fuck am I to say no? Any use beyond that is a waste of money, in my opinion. On that note, who the fuck are you to say no?
Who the fuck do you think you are to think that you should have a say about what I do with my wages? That's pretty damn arrogant to think that you or anybody else can tell me that I have to spend money on some half-wit that I don't give a fuck about. You're just as bad as those moral-crusading Republicans. Do I think we have moral obligations to help out those less fortunate and in need? Absolutely, but in no way should we have any LEGAL obligations. You don't earn my wages, so step the fuck off of it. How would you feel if your bank decides that the money you deposited isn't all going into your bank account because it figures that it has an obligation to take a chunk out of your deposit and give it to the people with considerably less in their accounts? If you don't care, then go ahead and give all your money to charity. That's fine by me. I'd respect you for being so willing to give away your money, but to turn around and tell our government that it's their job to make sure I do the same? Fuck your self-righteous bullshit. Until you are the one earning my wage for me, you have no fucking right to have a hand in what I do with it.
Renx wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 08:42 z310 wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 19:39 You can't compare the Taliban to AIDS like that. The only right way to pass out free needles is via charities, not government thievery. No reason? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. An AIDS epidemic is far different from a Taliban attack. AIDS isn't a terrorist organization attacking.
cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 16:54 Who the fuck do you think you are to think that you should have a say about what I do with my wages? That's pretty damn arrogant to think that you or anybody else can tell me that I have to spend money on some half-wit that I don't give a fuck about. You're just as bad as those moral-crusading Republicans. Do I think we have moral obligations to help out those less fortunate and in need? Absolutely, but in no way should we have any LEGAL obligations. You don't earn my wages, so step the fuck off of it. How would you feel if your bank decides that the money you deposited isn't all going into your bank account because it figures that it has an obligation to take a chunk out of your deposit and give it to the people with considerably less in their accounts? If you don't care, then go ahead and give all your money to charity. That's fine by me. I'd respect you for being so willing to give away your money, but to turn around and tell our government that it's their job to make sure I do the same? Fuck your self-righteous bullshit. Until you are the one earning my wage for me, you have no fucking right to have a hand in what I do with it. No, you're right. You don't HAVE to give your money to anyone. You can save it hoard it and build a castle out of bills and coins if you'd like. You have every LEGAL right to. But that still makes you a dick.
Dover wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 20:06 cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 16:54 Who the fuck do you think you are to think that you should have a say about what I do with my wages? That's pretty damn arrogant to think that you or anybody else can tell me that I have to spend money on some half-wit that I don't give a fuck about. You're just as bad as those moral-crusading Republicans. Do I think we have moral obligations to help out those less fortunate and in need? Absolutely, but in no way should we have any LEGAL obligations. You don't earn my wages, so step the fuck off of it. How would you feel if your bank decides that the money you deposited isn't all going into your bank account because it figures that it has an obligation to take a chunk out of your deposit and give it to the people with considerably less in their accounts? If you don't care, then go ahead and give all your money to charity. That's fine by me. I'd respect you for being so willing to give away your money, but to turn around and tell our government that it's their job to make sure I do the same? Fuck your self-righteous bullshit. Until you are the one earning my wage for me, you have no fucking right to have a hand in what I do with it. No, you're right. You don't HAVE to give your money to anyone. You can save it hoard it and build a castle out of bills and coins if you'd like. You have every LEGAL right to. But that still makes you a dick. I'm not arguing that I'd be a complete asshole because of it. I just don't see where it's my government's job to tell me that I have to pay taxes that go towards helping people I don't feel deserve my money. I donate my money to children's hospitals. I give it to people that NEED the money, and I know that my money is going to people that NEED it. Plus, the giving isn't as joyful to know that my government automatically takes my money out of my check and then writes a check to some nitwit whore who has 3 kids and is living off of food stamps. Do welfare programs do some good and give money to people who deserve it? Yes, but so do private organizations, and private organizations do a shitload of a better job than government programs can do. Plus, what are the organizations fueled by? The desire to help people, and dedication that private organizations have to their projects is so much more than any government employee would have about their job. Again, do I think people have a moral obligation to give money to people that truly deserve it? Absolutely, I feel that we, as people, should come together and help out the less fortunate. However, that's the government regulating morality and economics. I may be a Capitalist, but I am still very capable of compassion. I just don't feel right about making the government into a Robin Hood character. I want to do good, and I should be able to do it alone without the government forcing me to.
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 16:09 6 weeks in a cell wont fix anything. The second they go home and get back in to their environment they will just pick up where they left off. Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do. very true. Maybe they should try build rehab centers?
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 17:09 Druggies do drugs because they want to, addiction is just an excuse to justify the terrible things they do. That is the most senseless pile of garbage to ever come out of your mouth. You obviously have absolutely no experience regarding anyone with an addiction, nor have you ever bothered looking up any information on addictions.
Ohhh...wow...your cool.
Did you actually mean anything by that or are you just upping your post count?
Renx wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:34 Did you actually mean anything by that or are you just upping your post count? I was stating the fact that you are completely wrong, what Oblivion said is some what true. And upping my post count I guess... +2 now
cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 17:15 Dover wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 20:06 cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 16:54 Who the fuck do you think you are to think that you should have a say about what I do with my wages? That's pretty damn arrogant to think that you or anybody else can tell me that I have to spend money on some half-wit that I don't give a fuck about. You're just as bad as those moral-crusading Republicans. Do I think we have moral obligations to help out those less fortunate and in need? Absolutely, but in no way should we have any LEGAL obligations. You don't earn my wages, so step the fuck off of it. How would you feel if your bank decides that the money you deposited isn't all going into your bank account because it figures that it has an obligation to take a chunk out of your deposit and give it to the people with considerably less in their accounts? If you don't care, then go ahead and give all your money to charity. That's fine by me. I'd respect you for being so willing to give away your money, but to turn around and tell our government that it's their job to make sure I do the same? Fuck your self-righteous bullshit. Until you are the one earning my wage for me, you have no fucking right to have a hand in what I do with it. No, you're right. You don't HAVE to give your money to anyone. You can save it hoard it and build a castle out of bills and coins if you'd like. You have every LEGAL right to. But that still makes you a dick. I'm not arguing that I'd be a complete asshole because of it. I just don't see where it's my government's job to tell me that I have to pay taxes that go towards helping people I don't feel deserve my money. I donate my money to children's hospitals. I give it to people that NEED the money, and I know that my money is going to people that NEED it. Plus, the giving isn't as joyful to know that my government automatically takes my money out of my check and then writes a check to some nitwit whore who has 3 kids and is living off of food stamps. Do welfare programs do some good and give money to people who deserve it? Yes, but so do private organizations, and private organizations do a shitload of a better job than government programs can do. Plus, what are the organizations fueled by? The desire to help people, and dedication that private organizations have to their projects is so much more than any government employee would have about their job. Again, do I think people have a moral obligation to give money to people that truly deserve it? Absolutely, I feel that we, as people, should come together and help out the less fortunate. However, that's the government regulating morality and economics. I may be a Capitalist, but I am still very capable of compassion. I just don't feel right about making the government into a Robin Hood character. I want to do good, and I should be able to do it alone without the government forcing me to. The problem is, even if, IF you're as generous as you claim, not everyone is such. A handful of generousity in a system based on greed and "He who dies with the most toys wins" is a drop in the bucket. If you can think of a non-government solution that doesn't rely on the good of man (which sadly can go away when his stomach turns), I'd be glad to hear it.
The Elite Officer wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 13:51 Renx wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:34 Did you actually mean anything by that or are you just upping your post count? I was stating the fact that you are completely wrong, what Oblivion said is some what true. And upping my post count I guess... +2 now And what exactly are the two of your formulating this opinion on? Whatever it is it can't be anything too far outside of your imagination since physical and mental dependancies are two incredibly real conditions. Try spouting your bullshit infront of an alcholoic that has been sober for over 20 years and I'm sure you'll recieve an earfull at the least.
Why are people greedy? A good deal of it is human nature, but human nature also has a lot of compassion. I blame a lot of the hoarding and materialistic views on the government. They've been eager to help the less fortunate out with handing them over checks. Yes, there are people who receive it and do good with it, but most of it's wasted, and people don't try to improve. A community will come together and help each other out in times of need. We've seen time and time again that communities come together after a natural disaster and help each other clean up and rebuild. There's very little government help in that. It's all the people working to rebuild their communities. If we force people to work with each other instead of turn to the government, we can survive. Quite frankly, Americans have been living in luxury for the two centuries that we've been a nation. It wasn't until the 1930s-1960s did we see any welfare programs. What happened in the previous century and a half? We didn't have any welfare state, but our nation didn't fall apart. In fact, our nation flourished. It wasn't until the 1960s did we see people stop caring about actually working, and that's when most of the modern welfare system was formed. That fact isn't perfectly correlated, but it does show that it only helped to support the belief that people shouldn't have to work to earn their money. So where am I going with this? For the most part, people are kind and generous. There are plenty of people willing to give more than their fair share to others, and then there are those of us who are willing to give, though we don't give much outside of our comfort zone. I, also, realize that there are people who will hoard their money, but those are the type of people who will also cheat on their taxes, so forcing them to pay doesn't work that well, either. If we force people to rely on each other as mankind has done for THOUSANDS of years, a welfare system is not needed. The people will come together and assist each other when it's needed. I see why the welfare state was created in the first place. The Great Depression happened, and it affected everyone, some more than others. The government did what it had to, and I feel that it did what was right to protect the nation. However, we're not in an economic depression, let alone one of a catastrophic magnitude. We don't need to rely on our government to survive, anymore. Besides this, it's the sheer principle that you're trying to steal my money to give to someone else who I don't care to give to. Most people under welfare don't dare lift a finger, and they benefit from my and your hard work. Those people won't lift a finger after they received the check besides to spend it. They won't try to better themselves. If it was privatized, the organizations would be working with the people, making a much higher success rate. Oh, and taxing me on my wages is wrong, too. Note, I'm not saying "income" because income defined by the Supreme Court is profit, and wages are not profit. They are, effectively, a barter. You exchanged your labor for currency. It's a trade between what you have and can offer to get what you want (labor for wages), and what they have and can offer to get what they want (wages for labor). It's not profit. It's like asking me for change for a $20, and then the government saying "oh, currency is being transfered, so I'm going to consider that to be income and tax it".
Great post cheesesoda My topic should be moved to "Heated Disscussion and Debates"
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 Why are people greedy? A good deal of it is human nature, but human nature also has a lot of compassion. I blame a lot of the hoarding and materialistic views on the government. They've been eager to help the less fortunate out with handing them over checks. Yes, there are people who receive it and do good with it, but most of it's wasted, and people don't try to improve. I almost stopped reading right here. Ridiculous. "Human nature" is a LAZY excuse for flaws. "Oh, please pardon my greed. It's just the way I am". People are (mostly) a product of their environment. Children raised in a world of greed are (usually) greedy. Children raised otherwise are (usually) not. Furthermore, people are responsible for their own actions. If you are a drug addict, you attempt to get clean. If you damage public property, you pay for it. IF YOU ARE GREEDY, YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 A community will come together and help each other out in times of need. We've seen time and time again that communities come together after a natural disaster and help each other clean up and rebuild. There's very little government help in that. It's all the people working to rebuild their communities. If we force people to work with each other instead of turn to the government, we can survive. Why must compassion only show it's face in times of natural (or unnatural) disaster? Is that really compassion at all? And what is "government", if not people working together? If you took a group of citizens, organized them, apointed a leader and gave them a task, have you not just created government? cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 Quite frankly, Americans have been living in luxury for the two centuries that we've been a nation. It wasn't until the 1930s-1960s did we see any welfare programs. What happened in the previous century and a half? We didn't have any welfare state, but our nation didn't fall apart. In fact, our nation flourished. It wasn't until the 1960s did we see people stop caring about actually working, and that's when most of the modern welfare system was formed. That fact isn't perfectly correlated, but it does show that it only helped to support the belief that people shouldn't have to work to earn their money. We'll ignore slave trade and exploitation of native Americans and minorities, and their hand in the "flourishing" of America, then. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 So where am I going with this? For the most part, people are kind and generous. There are plenty of people willing to give more than their fair share to others, and then there are those of us who are willing to give, though we don't give much outside of our comfort zone. I, also, realize that there are people who will hoard their money, but those are the type of people who will also cheat on their taxes, so forcing them to pay doesn't work that well, either. In times where the top 1% of the population holds 20% of the wealth, and the top 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth, I think there are more hoarders and cheaters and less givers than you realize. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 If we force people to rely on each other as mankind has done for THOUSANDS of years, a welfare system is not needed. The people will come together and assist each other when it's needed. That's the idea behind a welfare state. Understand that "when it's needed" isn't only in case of hurricanes and terrorist attacks. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 I see why the welfare state was created in the first place. The Great Depression happened, and it affected everyone, some more than others. The government did what it had to, and I feel that it did what was right to protect the nation. However, we're not in an economic depression, let alone one of a catastrophic magnitude. We don't need to rely on our government to survive, anymore. Except we ARE in hyperinflation at the moment. Are you aware that the Canadian doller is now more valuable than the US dollar? I submit that we are in an economic crisis. And even IF we as a nation are not, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out that that need help. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 Besides this, it's the sheer principle that you're trying to steal my money to give to someone else who I don't care to give to. Most people under welfare don't dare lift a finger, and they benefit from my and your hard work. Those people won't lift a finger after they received the check besides to spend it. They won't try to better themselves. If it was privatized, the organizations would be working with the people, making a much higher success rate. If it were privitized, you'd be holding millions of people's lives hostage to the whim of capitalist monoliths. I'd much rather have someone I can hold accountable. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 Oh, and taxing me on my wages is wrong, too. Note, I'm not saying "income" because income defined by the Supreme Court is profit, and wages are not profit. They are, effectively, a barter. You exchanged your labor for currency. It's a trade between what you have and can offer to get what you want (labor for wages), and what they have and can offer to get what they want (wages for labor). It's not profit. It's like asking me for change for a $20, and then the government saying "oh, currency is being transfered, so I'm going to consider that to be income and tax it". Fudge over definitions all you want, the facts remain the same. You are in a certain income bracket, therefore you pay your income tax. If you were truely so stricken by these taxes, your earnings would be so low you would be exempt from all but social security taxes. Clearly, you have the money. Just deal with it and pay your 40 cents a month for needles.
Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different. My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does. When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it. I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government. The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money. Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine. I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different. Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does. And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"? cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it. I fail to see why not. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government. And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out. And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money. Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine. I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it. Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat. Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism.
Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different. Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring. I understand people disagreeing, but you ignored what I was saying to nitpick. Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does. And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"? They dedicate their time and effort to making sure people get what they need? They don't just do hand-outs like the government does. Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it. I fail to see why not. Because they don't have the force to enforce it? Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government. And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out. And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT. Who better to trust than someone with actual compassion and desire to go above and beyond their moral obligations to see that you have a meal that night? Fuck you and your insinuations that churches only have one selfish goal in mind to gain more mindless drones. Most churches operate as soup kitchens and other outreach programs and have no silly objective to convert someone before they can give them assistance. Plus, if you're not willing to converse with them about your and their faith in order to get food and shelter, then you didn't really need it. Plus, you'd be awfully greedy to think that you should receive help without respecting their desires to talk to you. Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money. Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine. I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country. What a nice way to dodge my point. That way of justifying taxes is terrifyingly mindless and toolish. Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it. Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat. Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism. Yes, I realized this after I said it, but I was too lazy to change it. Either way, Capitalism promotes high quality even in high quantity in an effort for businesses to make profit. It's a Hell of a lot better of a system than no competition and no desire to produce services and goods in a high quality and efficient way because the government regulates everything. Neal Boortz tells a story that's a perfect example of when he visited Soviet Russia a couple decades ago.
Dover wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 14:59 z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 23:30 Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 blah blah blah Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. I stand by what I said. And what SHOULD taxpayers be spending money on, if not helping out their fellow man? Tss, don't you get it, the goverment shouldn't be allowed to ask taxes, it's EVIL! Like, you know, they can build roads with that, and fight crimes and stuff, all things that do not directly benefit you. Would've been way better if you could've kept the money so you could just pay for your own protection, and not the protection of the neightbours etc. By the way, the USA goverment isn't spending that much of taxpayers money anymore... They are more like spending money from Chinese investment companies and the like. And they are doing so in a rate of about 1.52 Billion dollars a day http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Another thing, did you know that your government is indeed stealing your money, and I don't mean by taxes. By creating inflation, they are making more and more money, as in the psycal piece of paper. But by making more of them, they get less rare, and thus less valuable. Thank Bush for that btw, with Clinton your government was indeed just paying taxpayers money.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21 Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different. Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring. I understand people disagreeing, but you ignored what I was saying to nitpick. 1) I didn't ignore, I addressed. 2) Nitpicking is not ignoring. [quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21] Dover Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does. And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"? They dedicate their time and effort to making sure people get what they need? They don't just do hand-outs like the government does. Funny. I thought that's what government social workers did. [quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21] Dover Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it. I fail to see why not. Because they don't have the force to enforce it? Neither do governments, in some cases. In any case, nothing stops our hypothetical group of citizens from being able to enforce, either. Perhaps they have big sticks to hit people with. [quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21] Dover Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government. And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out. And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT. Who better to trust than someone with actual compassion and desire to go above and beyond their moral obligations to see that you have a meal that night? Fuck you and your insinuations that churches only have one selfish goal in mind to gain more mindless drones. Most churches operate as soup kitchens and other outreach programs and have no silly objective to convert someone before they can give them assistance. Plus, if you're not willing to converse with them about your and their faith in order to get food and shelter, then you didn't really need it. Plus, you'd be awfully greedy to think that you should receive help without respecting their desires to talk to you. Funny, because when you say "private organization", I think "large multinational corporation with alterior motives", or "charity group of people that has to break even at the end of the day". The latter being only slightly more comforting than the former. Government suffers neither of these constraints. Not all churches are so selfish, perhaps, but enough (even a few is enough) so that I wouldn't want them being my first, last, and only hope. [quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21] Dover Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money. Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine. I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country. What a nice way to dodge my point. That way of justifying taxes is terrifyingly mindless and toolish. What can I say? We've reached an impasse. You clearly value your hard earned dollar much more than I, so go enjoy it. See how long the government you form lasts before "stealing". [quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21] Dover Dover cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it. Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat. Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism. Yes, I realized this after I said it, but I was too lazy to change it. Either way, Capitalism promotes high quality even in high quantity in an effort for businesses to make profit. It's a Hell of a lot better of a system than no competition and no desire to produce services and goods in a high quality and efficient way because the government regulates everything. Neal Boortz tells a story that's a perfect example of when he visited Soviet Russia a couple decades ago. Which system is more efficiant is argueable. I doubt Boortz's objectiveness when writing his report. But really, at the end of the day, if I can know that a nation has achieved equality, I'd be jumping for joy, even if it meant there aren't enough iPods to go around.
Equality of Outcome is a crock of shit. That's all I am going to say to this whole Marxist ideology. Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. EWD, if you would have read my post where I talked about Minarchism, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Also, do you think I support my government causing inflation? I sure hope not, else you don't know jack shit about my leanings, which I've stated in more than one topic.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 16:39 Equality of Outcome is a crock of shit. That's all I am going to say to this whole Marxist ideology. Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. EWD, if you would have read my post where I talked about Minarchism, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Also, do you think I support my government causing inflation? I sure hope not, else you don't know jack shit about my leanings, which I've stated in more than one topic. I read your learnings, and I disagree with them. In your words, they are "a crock of shit". I'm sorry you can't handle disagreement.
I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA. I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current.
You people are really intense.... I just think that it would be a 'no'
Dover wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:25 cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA. I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current. I think most of history has relied on this principle. Most of the people that have made something out of themselves didn't thrive because the government stepped in and handed it to them. They made something out of themselves.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 09:02 Dover wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:25 cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA. I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current. I think most of history has relied on this principle. Most of the people that have made something out of themselves didn't thrive because the government stepped in and handed it to them. They made something out of themselves. What you just described has nothing to do with equality of opportunity. It just describes opportunity, leaving out the all-important "equality" part. Look, this is getting nowhere. I'm pretty sure we've beaten out all the discussion we can out of this. You're a money-grubbing capitalist, I'm not. We disagree, and I'm okay with that. Clearly, nothing I say will influence you in the slightest, and you could say the same for me. Feel free to put the dead horse down any time.
Money-grubbing? Heh, at least, my ideology respects people instead of steals from them.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 09:32 Money-grubbing? Heh, at least, my ideology respects people instead of steals from them. Wrong. Your ideology respects those who have money, and ignores those who don't. Which is why schools in intercity districts are so shitty, why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Dead horse. Down.
Fact: Schools pay twice the amount per student than 3 decades ago (adjusted for inflation, too!), yet they're not any better. Fact: More money isn't the answer. Suggestion: Watch "Stupid in America". Fact: John Stossel > you
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 10:32 Fact: Schools pay twice the amount per student than 3 decades ago (adjusted for inflation, too!), yet they're not any better. Fact: More money isn't the answer. Suggestion: Watch "Stupid in America". Fact: John Stossel > you Fact: Ad hominem gets you nowhere. Fact: For any bit of statistic you can dig up, I can dig up another bit to contradict it. Fact: Financial cost per student is much less three decades ago than it is now. Consider that any halfway decent school has a computer lab, and some have camera systems and metal detectors. Things that simply did not exist three decades ago. Question: Why compare to 1977 anyway? Suggestion: Don't turn this into a battle of statistics. It'll only wear us both out and turn into a contest of resolve. Fact: John Stossel has a silly mustache, and he also not Borat, therefore Me > Him. Suggestion: Ditch this bullshit. Fact: This is the third time I'm asking you to stop pissing in the wind. I don't really care, I could go on for weeks, but this is far from the first time I've had this discussion, and it'd be nice if you offered something new or stfu.
That commie bastard goes to my college.
Are you sure? What college do you (And supposedly, I) go to?
No way? You drive all the way from Baldwin Park for shitty 'ol Sac? Edit: You're right, by the way, I do attent Mt. Sac. How'd you know?
Under your account information, you show your homepage as your MySpace profile, and there you claim you attend Mt. SAC. It's only eight miles from me, which is about the same distance as Rio Hondo. It seems to be a good rated school, too, even though it looks like shit. hah
I do indeed attend Mt. Sac. I thought you've seen me around and recognized me somehow, which would be slightly creepy. I guess it's actually a pretty good school, as far as Junior Colleges go.
Sorry for the double-post, but editing time passed. Elite, is this some kind of pathetic attempt to get back at the community? Your image marcos blow. Get over it.
What are "image macros"? Are they the name for a picture with text on it?
It's actually a moderately-convincing fake, but still not appropriate. Link removed but not ban-worthy.
Meh. I didn't want to download it to check