Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I was referring to liberal politicians. They in general love war. Liberal people are generally against war until Trump ends a war, then they accuse him of being soft on terrorism (which is just a euphemism for endless war because radical Islam isn't going away from the middle east).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I'm not. I'm sick of subsidizing red welfare states with my tax dollars. My taxes are lower if I move to Canada.
Created:
-->
@Bones
If your solution is, "If you don't want kids, don't have sex", realize that even most pro lifers don't obey that advice. They won't abort; they are worried about unwanted pregnency. Despite this, even most pro lifers still have premarital sex.
Mandating childbirth to save children is more tyrannical than mandating vastectomies. You'd figure people wanting to save the unborn child would advocate for mandating vastectomies.
All I'm looking for is a little consistency.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not advocating for mandatory vastectomies, although I want one for me personally. I'm saying that mandatory vastectomies to save children from dying is less tyranical than mandatory childbirth to save children from dying.
I don't know how the sperm would be lost in every location. It might disappear in a few locations, but definitely not all of them. People that are worried about it can freeze their sperm in multiple sperm banks if they don't want all of their sperm to get lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“23. disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site”
So if you complain about Twitter on Twitter, you get banned from it? Doesn't seem ideal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Slavery was supposed to have been abolished. I do not support this policy. Slavery is not a suitable punishment or a suitable living condition for anyone.
The 13th amendment allows an exception for a punishment for a crime.
I don't want prisoners living off government assistance for their sentence. Slavery I think is the only way they can pay off their debts.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There will be people that argue the right of the unborn child's life exceeds the right to maternal comfort and convenience. I'm just pointing out other examples where convenience (such as not getting a vastectomy) outweighs the unborn child's right to not die. I like either being principled or justifying the times where I am not as with politics, being unprincipled is inevitable in anyone that both is anti suffering and anti tyranny. An example of this is with gun control. If you support it, your violating your anti tyranny principle since you want the government involved in people's lives. If you oppose it, your violating your anti suffering principle due to the (unfounded) fear that comes with guns. Being unprincipled is inevitible and acceptable if you can find a way to justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Blue America is very similar to Anglophone Canada. Many residents in blue America want UHC and gun control, so Canada would have an easy time absorbing blue America.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
In Canada, the rich pay less than the rich do in America since their upper income bracket is less. That's what my sources confirm. Your source kindof confirmed that as well.
Even someone making $100K/year pays less in Canadian taxes than someone making $100K/year would in the US.
This is even factoring in Canada's socialized healthcare. This is because Canada isn't waging these expensive wars that the US is. Canada also doesn't pay corporate welfare like the US does.
These items help explain why American taxes are higher than Canada's.
But tax deductions are the government's way of picking favorites and they shouldn't exist. Canada is doing that right.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
R.75734c0e2c25b30ddbd1601492066326 (847×401) (bing.com) shows Canadian income taxes.
Screen-Shot-2014-02-24-at-10.32.43-AM.png (622×267) (nerdwallet.com) shows US income taxes.
For the most part, Canada has lower taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
All the people that want to join Canada can move to a blue state and save money on their taxes. All the Trump supporting Americans can move to the United States of Trump, where Trump is their king (not even their president, but their king).
Created:
-->
@Athias
So your saying if a majority of the people in a town wanted a confederate statue (or any statue) taken down, it would be taken down? That seems fair. Referendums should be every year or so because I think people change their minds on this stuff.
Created:
Abortions almost entirely come from unwanted pregnencies. Both parties know this so they offer different solutions on how to reduce unwanted pregnencies.
Disclaimer: I refer to "pro lifers" as "opponents of Roe V Wade" because they aren't pro life for every life usually and I refer to "pro choicers" as supporters of Roe V Wade because they aren't pro choice for every choice usually.
The pro Roe V Wade solution is to make contraception free. The left cares more about reducing unwanted pregnencies than they do about reducing abortions, but they are fine with reducing abortions if it results in less unwanted pregnencies and they have realized that free contraception reduces both unwanted pregnencies and abortions.
The anti Roe V Wade solution to reduce unwanted pregnencies is just to not have sex. This advice is so bad that not even most people that oppose Roe V Wade follow their own advice. 97% of Americans don't "wait until marriage" and this includes at least 94% of people that oppose Roe V Wade. Most people that oppose Roe V Wade don't follow their own advice.
Now consider the following scnaraeao: Lets say a white person wants to enslave a black person for 9 months in order to save his life (kind of like how an unwanted fetus requires the slavery of a female for 9 months to save their life). Would this be morally acceptable? No; it would not be. The 13th amendment makes Roe V Wade the law because slavery (even to save the life of a white person or a fetus) is unconstitutional.
But opponents of Roe V Wade would argue that the slavery and the unwanted pain from pregnency are morally acceptable to save a child. However, if I were to ask many of these anti Roe V Wade people if it would be morally acceptable to vastectomize every male, freeze his sperm, and if he ever wants kids, he uses some of the sperm that was frozen to get the kid (all assuming the female consents to be impregnanted), they would claim it's a violation of their freedom.
This view to me makes no sense. You think forced vastectomies to save a child's life are tyrannical, but that forced childbirth to save a child's life is morally acceptable? I'm pretty sure the vastectomy is significantly less of a sacrifice and it achieves the same goal. In addition, nobody is arguing that an unwanted pregnency is beneficial for the female that has it. But I can argue that vasectomizing all men and freezing their sperm when they want to have kids produces long term benefits for the men that get them. For example, now they don't have to worry about pregnency, so assuming they and their partner get tested for STIs and it's proven they don't have any STIs, they can have significantly more consensual sex and not have to worry about unwanted pregnency.
The main reasons why I encourage abstinence is because of the fear of unwanted pregnencies and the fear of STIs. However, with a vastectomy, the first fear becomes obsolete, and with STI testing and treatment when applicable, the 2nd fear also becomes obsolete. At this point, some benefits to unprotected sex are below:
Created:
Posted in:
I'm a right leaning independent in a blue state, so I want my state, as well as every other blue state that feasibly can to join Canada. Canada has lower taxes than America.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Christian principles would dictate that these statues be taken down anyway because it's against God's directive against graven images. Funny enough, there are also pagan statues in the Bible belt. I wonder why that is?
Good point; however separation of church and state prohibits legal policy from being made on religious grounds. Otherwise we would have to ban abortion and gay sex and punish them as they are to be in the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It incentivizes not just being fiscally neutral but turning a profit at which point someone is profiting from slave labor.
What enslaving prisoners would do is the revenue generated from the prisoner's slave labor goes to the victim(s) of the crime.
What if you knowingly order the death by drone strike of a large number of civilians in order to execute without due process a relatively small number of accused international criminals?
Then that politician would be a terrible person. The innocents being bombed weren't costing tax payers a penny to live, and I'm anti war as a matter of principle. Bombing the civilians to kill the terroists isn't a good idea as as long as those terrorists stay in their home countries, I have this America first policy. We need to focus on our own problems before we kill terrorists in other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
This is ridiculous.
Here is why I oppose going to war with Haiti.
1) America first; no money going to help other countries.
2) Going to war with Haiti won't help Haiti, it will make their situation worse because when the US military gets involved with other countries, it makes their situation worse.
3) Waste of innocent Haitian lives.
4) Waste of our troop lives.
5) Waste of trillions of dollars while this nation is in debt.
6) Hypocrisy from both sides if we go to war. Here is how:
a) Conservatives: We are pro life and like low taxes, so we are going to waste trillions of tax dollars on a war that will result in huge amounts of death.
b) Liberals: We believe black lives matter and we don't like the cops killing a few hundred black people a year, so we are going to fund this war in Haiti that will result in thousands of black deaths.
Me: Why are you 2 clowns running the country?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m quite sure in my last reply to you I specifically stated one of the major reasons to oppose capitol punishment was to ensure we do not execute innocent people
There are 2 options for dealing with innocent people who are murder convicts.
Option 1: Execute them. Out of 25 murder convicts, 1 will be innocent.
Option 2: Life in jail. Lets say it costs $2 million to feed somebody for their whole life if they start to be in jail when they are in their twenties and they stay there for the rest of their lives. Multiply this number by 25 (because it takes 25 murder convicts to produce one innocent person) and you end up spending $50 million to save one innocent person.
We either can spend $50 million on 1 innocent person and 24 people that actually committed murder (people who should be executed) or we can let kill one innocent person.
To see which is better, lets look at precedent. The typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa (a kid that requires saving no murderers to save). If people felt the need to pay, they would do it directly instead of using government funds. But people don't want to spend a mere dollar a day to save a stranger (even if that stranger isn't believed to have murdered anybody).
If people aren't willing to spend $1/day on saving strangers who never committed murder and aren't accused of doing it, why should society spend $50 million to make sure 1 innocent person doesn't die?
It is because of that that I conclude that it is better to kill one innocent person than it is to waste $50 million to keep them alive.
I’m also quite sure that I haven’t yet said anything about money, so I’m not sure why you have suddenly become so fixated on it.
Because I'm very fiscally minded.
Prisons are expensive and due to my anti welfare stance, I also don't want prisoners receiving government assistance either. To be fair, not all prisoners deserve execution. But all prisoners that don't get executed should generate labor where the revenue generated from that labor pays for the living expenses of the prisoner as well as pays for any damages the prisoner has done.
Having a murder convict do labor takes a job away from a construction worker. Other criminals would be taking jobs away from someone in the workforce, but that is better than lets say a drunk driver getting executed. However, if I had to pick between a murderer taking someone's job from hard labor and them getting executed, I'd pick the ladder. If I had to pick between a drunk driver taking someone's job and them getting executed, I'd pick the former because it is a less serious crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
Vaccines should not be mandatory, but hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat covid positive people. Make your own decisions and accept the results of those decisions.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
but those that aren't should be free to choose (actually those that are should be free to risk their life in a way).
I'm glad RM advocated against vaccine mandates here. One of the few times where I agree with him.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
So let’s start off with a simple question - why do you think that Stalin and Saddam out up statues of themselves?To teach history?
They are narcists. All statues are a waste of money if built by the government if they don't pay for themselves.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
should germany erect statutes of hitler and put them up for prominent display in public areas?
Waste of money.
would you agree that there shouldn't be statutes of hitler at all?
Yes; however if there were statues of Hitler, taking them down is a waste of money. People aren't in Halocausts because of a piece of metal.
do you recognize that all reputable academic sources say the confederacy was about slavery? not just as part of the reason... that's the reason they went to war.
Yes
you say museums might not have room for the statues but would you agree that the proper place would be a museum if there was room and there was no cost issues?
Sure; why not. I think removing or placing any statue is a waste of money unless it pays for its self (I think Mount Rushmore pays for its self due to tourism). But taking down any statue is a cost, a waste of money, and not worth government intervention. If you want confederate statues taken down, develop a private sector fund to take down statues of confederates and pay for it using the funds of consenting donators instead of forcibly obtained tax dollars. Also buy the statue from the state before you relocate it because the statues are government owned. Time to lower taxes by at least a little bit by having confederate statue sales pay a little bit for schools used by an integrated classroom.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Conservative southerners opinions carry no greater weight than mine, and you have not addressed the substance of my post.
I just figured they might know something either of us don't.
Your post indicated that confederate statues were erected due to segregation. However, segregation is over so it's just pieces of metal that are in the public eye.
Fwiw, maintaining Confederate statues in perpetuity stands to be much more expensive than taking them down
How does it cost money to maintain a statue? You just build it and it stays there. Dust gets washed off by rain.
why should I or anyone care if they can all fit in a museum?
The museum is going to care because it would be overkill for a civil war museum. They already have all the statues they need. The extra statues are going to degrade the value of the business because too many statues makes it unappealing for customers.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm a southerner - the Confederacy deserves no glorification.
I think conservative southerners would disagree.
I think removing statues is a waste of money. The left thinks these statues should be put in a museum, but then civil war museums would be filled with confederate statues and they don't need them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Statues are how we glorify our history
Not always; I've seen Boy Scout statues, even though boy scouts aren't prominent in American history.
Please explain what there is to glorify about the confederacy.
I'm not a southerner; your asking the wrong person. I think it's a lot like Mongolia glorifying Ghengis Khan or Egypt not taking down their pyramids (which were built by slaves).
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Do you think Khan Academy is named after Genghis Khan?
Who else was it named after? I thought it was named after Ghengis Khan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
RM was getting angry that someone of Indian ethnicity dared to be pro Columbus day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If I sent a dollar to every starving kid in Africa I would be homeless. The fact that I hold onto my money says nothing about whether I care about innocent lives being killed by the state.
If the richest 30% of bleeding heart liberals sent $2 a day to 2 separate starving African families with starving children(which only costs $1/day to do per kid), then they would save way more lives on a per dollar basis than they would if they spent the needed money on keeping guilty murderers alive. Yet this doesn't happen.
If "bleeding heart liberals" aren't willing to make such a small and efficient sacrifice, why should I have to sacrifice a higher dollar to life ratio (because murderers are more expensive than African children) to save a murderer from getting executed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That seems like a huge problem that might lead to more innocent people incarcerated. Someone should probably change that.
You can usually only convict one person of murder.
Prisoners generating profit at slave wages is a slippery slope
How would it be a slippery slope?
State sanctioned killing is not murder at all. That doesn't make state sanctioned killers innocent.
Legally; it does. Morally, it depends. If you kill some middle eastern civilian because you knew you could get away with it, that would be murder and you should face the death penalty. But if you kill someone whom other people have decided that they committed murder with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that's just implementing punishment.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How many Genghis Khan statues do we have in the US? Not sure we get to tell other countries what they can and can't do.
There is a US company named after Ghengis Khan. If Mongolia is allowed to have statues of leaders that raped, we are allowed statues of pro slavery generals.
Actually people are spending money on having religious statues removed from taxpayer property.
You don't see any of these people advocating for banning religion, but you see plenty of people advocate for banning the confederate flag.
Again we're addressing statues in public areas or that are being kept up by tax money privacy is a completely different matter.
I don't think governments spend money on statues that are already built. They were built over a hundred years ago and they just stay there. No matinence necesesary. If matinence is necesesary, mantaining them is like Mongolia mantaining Ghengis Khan statues.
Created:
Genghis Khan was a terrible man. He is a serial rapist and a war lord. We need to take down every statue of him because he was a terrible person. Khan academy should be renamed because Khan was evil.
Ancient Egyptian pyramids are human rights abuses. They were built by slaves. Egypt has them as a tourist attraction. Egypt literally profits from slavery to this day. Tear down the pyramids.
Muhammad was a war lord. He raped many people. He killed people for refusing to accept Islam. He killed people for territory. We need to ban anything that states Muhammad was a good person (including the Quran). Take down every statue of this horrible man.
God is a horrible entity. He genocided almost all of humanity in the great flood. He said Isralis are God's chosen people. God is a racist against gentiles. God told slaves to obey their masters instead of advocating for their freedom. We need to ban christianity, judaism, and islam, because God is an evil entity.
Me: If none of these things are happening (I don't think they should), but if none of these things are happening, then why should we waste tax dollars on taking down confederate statues and prohibiting people from flying the confederate flag? Freedom is a trade off.
Created:
Posted in:
My dick is in a blender and blood is gushing all over the place and my slutty little vampire girlfriend is drinking up the blood that came from my chopped up seven inch Italian Stallion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not support the left. They support the capitalist state.
The left tends to favor more socialization than the right (like with healthcare), but assuming your a socialist, that's a left wing ideology.
I do not support the privatization of prisons because it incentivizes incarceration through profit.
Life in jail will generate more profit for prisons.
Prisons should be incentivized to rehabilitate the guilty and to release the innocent.
Prisons should be fiscally neutral; meaning the labor generated from prisoners should pay for the costs of the prison. With this being said, prison lengths should be shorter generally.
One innocent person executed is one to many... also if we support execution for those who kill innocent people who is got execute the executioner?
The executioner had no idea they were innocent; he thought they were guilty like the people who sentenced the prisoner to punishment. People that are believed to be innocent by the justice system don't get punished.
The murderer on the other hand, killed people that he knew never committed murder.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
You are failing to take into account how much more of a loss is for someone who only has 50k.
If all I invested was $500K and that investment becomes worthless, I have lost much more.
Also you are simply assuming that another job is available. Workers do not choose which jobs are available or when.
In a free market, there are jobs available.
Man you really don't know what it is like to not have enough money to live on do you? For many people there are no excess funds.
I had a grand father who was poor, his dad didn't know much English and he made himself to be a lawyer through grit. People are able to get out of poverty in a capitalist society.
Half of all people make less than the average. That is what average means.
Half make less than the median, not the average. The university of Georgetown found 13 million job openings in the US that only require a HS degree to complete that pay $55K a year or more. But politicians on both sides have incentives to not help the poor out. Some are curropt. Even if your a non curropt democrat, you know that poor people tend to vote for democrats, so you have to tell your base, "I want to get you out of poverty", but you know if you actually did that, they would start to vote republican (and it costs you your job potentially). So even AOC doesn't have an incentive to actually help the poor; she just has to pretend that she is.
For example bank loans (a critical component of starting a small business) are statistically far more likely to be awarded to white men than to women or people of color.
Do you have evidence for this? Are you potentially ignoring lurking variables that are usually present in data?
There is no law that specifically says that this should he the case. It is enough that no law prevents it.
Below is the law that outlawed racial discrimination:
Jeff Bezos did end making more profit than any of his siblings but I think you will find that mathematically there must be a top earner in any family.
Duh! Every family has somebody from it who earned more than every other member. But Bezos is more productive to society than all of his siblings combined.
You think black people being more likely to be impoverished is the fault of black people and you don't think some racism is going on? Maybe examine that for a moment.
I wouldn't say it's the fault of black people; it's just different priorities.
For example, lets say you have person A who wants to be a runner, and person B who wants to be a weightlifter. The person As of the world tend to be faster than the person Bs of the world. The person Bs of the world tend to be stronger than the Person As of the world. This isn't bad; it's just because Person A and Person B have different goals in life.
Lets say you have white people and black people. The whites of the world tend to want to earn more. The blacks of the world tend to want stronger family values. This is often due to the rampant single motherhood within the black community(R.85713f559ea8c2f40913d8fb86d24529 (1222×799) (bing.com)) and this tends to make blacks respect family more, since they know first hand the effects of single motherhood. Often family values come at the expense of a higher salary (because if you focus on your family a lot, you tend to be less focused with your career and vice versa).
Because of this, whites tend to earn more and blacks tend to have stronger family bonds. This isn't wrong, and it's not like one is better than the other, it just shows that racial groups tend to have different goals in life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that doesn't sound like a good system. Someone should probably change that.
I'm surprised you said that because private prisons (which the left hates) have an incentive to oppose the death penalty(something the left supports).
Still your philosophy seems to suggest that lif you lived next to a murderer that would be your problem not mine and it would be unreasonable to ask me for twenty dollars to fix the problem.
The $20 is less than the $2 million needed to house somebody for their whole life for a murder charge.
As things currently stand it us more expensive to execute.
I've heard that, but what I would propose is cheaper executions. We will make more mistakes, but the economic freedom generated from this idea is a legitimate trade off to saving lives as what precedence indicates.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How are you risking more than your workers? Should you go out of buisness you both face possible destitution, homelessness and starvation. I would actually wager you would be better able to recover than the workers actually. Sounds like it is more of a risk for them.
Someone that owns $500K of stock is getting $50K/year from that stock. A worker may earn $50K/year from their labor. If the company goes bankrupt, I lose $500K and the worker loses their job and would have to find a new one (a process that usually takes about a year). I lost $500K and the worker lost $50K. I'm more at risk as an investor.
If only they weren't bothered with things like buying food and paying rent and dealing with systemic oppression. More to the point if only their parents would be wealthy and loan them money.
Workers aren't oppressed. Food and rent are cheap for workers working 40 hours a week. They use their excess funds to invest.
I am glad you are a member of the religious in group to such a degree you feel that is an option for you. Must be nice.
Atheists can use the church for money as well if they need it. Jesus made a former atheist the pope. Christianity doesn't hate atheists.
Most people also do not make 60000 a year. Let's say you need 30000 a year to live and you make 28000 because that is closer to the truth for most of us. If nothing goes wrong that is.
The median salary in the US is about $35K/year(median us salary - search results (bing.com)). They live off $30K, and they invest the rest in the stock market. People making less should find better jobs.
This is a non sequitur. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Any siblings he dies have are still more privileged than poor people of color.
I was saying that despite growing up in the same environment, Jeff Bezos ended up more successful that his siblings. If America was a white supremist country, then minorities would be heading to the Bahamas instead of the US because the Bahamas are both rich and black majority. But people are moving to the US because America's isn't racist.
Blacks tend to be less sucessful because they aim for different things than whites. Females tend to be less sucessful because they tend to aim for different things than men.I would be careful speaking for others and also making generalizations.
I think Thomas Sowell wrote a book on why race groups end up in different places. Blacks focus on certain things; whites focus on different things, and this produces different results. Male and female brains are different that leads to different results for the genders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not true. Lobbying Congress is expensive. Just ask the petrol industry and big tobacco.
I fail to see what this has to do with the death penalty. Taxpayers don't pay for lobbyists, and private prisons have an incentive to oppose the death penalty because they have more prisoners to take care of so they can get more money from the government.
Again move to a better neighborhood. No one is forcing you to live by a murderer. It's a free country.
The neighborhood I live in in is pretty good.
Don't steal someone else's twenty dollars just because you are to lazy to move and invest in proper security.
The $20 to execute someone is cheaper than the $2 million it takes to feed them for the rest of their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Check my bio to determine my age.
P1: I refuse to pay more money to keep a murderer alive than a kid in Africa.
P2: I refuse to pay any money to keep a kid alive in Africa.
C1: I refuse to pay a single penny to keep a murderer alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There are many other possibilities, please stop projecting your close minded views onto others.
How do we get it so murderers aren't a fiscal burden to the state? The only way I'm thinking of is slave labor, but if you have them do construction work, this runs into 2 problems:
1) They would be taking jobs away from working class Americans.
2) They are going to do a worse job than those working class Americans.
Where for example does your consideration for wrongful convictions come into play? How many innocent lives is an acceptable cost to ensure all murderers are killed by the state?
Most people don't really care about the lives of strangers, this is why they aren't willing to spend $1/day to save a kid in Africa via sponsorship. If people aren't willing to sacrifice $1/day to save an innocent child in Africa, I don't know why they would be willing to sacrifice $20/day through collective tax money to save some adult that probably committed murder.
I don't know the proportion of innocent deaths that is acceptable to execute all murderers. But I have a high tolterance for risk, so that number is pretty high, especially since I don't want to spend money to save lives that are obviously innocent (like children in Africa). If I'm unwilling to save kids in Africa, why would I be willing to save people in the US that probably committed murder?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I like Pie thinks for himself. He prefers western civilization over Indian civilization, and it is ideal for an immigrant to prefer the country they move to over the country of their origin.
But in terms of what I think about renaming Columbus day to indigenous people's day, telling westerners to hate Columbus because he did terrible stuff is like telling Mongolians to hate Ghengis Khan because Khan was a serial rapist and war lord, or telling Muslims to hate Mohammod because he raped a 6 year old girl and was also a war lord.
Nobody is suggesting renaming KhanAcademy, even though Khan was a genocidal maniac. So why people are trying to change Columbus day, I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is not the current reality. We spend millions of dollars on executions once court costs and appeals are taken into account
So get rid of the court cases and appeals. Make executions cheaper.
If it is not your problem when other people are starving to death why would it be your problem if people are murdering each other?
Because I might get murdered.
I mean even if it happens close to your house. Just get a good security system or move to a better neighborhood.
Not going to prevent murder. Murderers don't care about social security systems.
Stop trying to steal twenty dollars that isn't yours to kill someone who isn't doing anything that is your problem?
They might come over here and kill me if they have a history with murder. I don't want them killing me.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
In any case an investor isn't actually producing anything and I'm not convinced he deserves as much of the profit as the workers that do, especially workers in dangerous or back breaking conditions.
A worker in a company can also be an investor; they just need to buy stock. I'm taking the risk. I'm accepting the profits or losses that come with buying stock. THe worker has a fixed salary. Workers should invest more.
Who gets the better jobs is not up to the workers.
The University of Georgetown found 13 million job openings that meet the following requirements:
1) No college degree required.
2) Pays over $55K/year.
Minimum wage workers who are perminately out of school should find better paying jobs like what the University of Georgetown found.
I don't know where you get this idea but the people who earn the most do not produce anything for themselves. They only take from society.
They made the business. If it wasn't for Jeff Bezos, Amazon wouldn't exist and now we can't get cheap goods from the convenience of our home.
Even the startup capital he "risked" was mostly in the form of loans. In other words everything was given to him.
He had to pay back the loans and manage the loans well. If you think this is easy, try copying Bezos.
If you were starving and cold and alone would that just be your own problem and you wouldn't ask for or accept help?
I would get help from a church, not from the government. The church operates using funds obtained through means as consensual as religion it's self. The government forces you to pay money to them. Homeless people can use private churches all they want; using the government is theft.
They are only rich in the first place because of generations of colonialism and exploitation.
Jeff Bezos never colonized. He didn't exploit anyone, otherwise he couldn't get his business so successful.
No one needs more money than they can reasonably spend in thirty lifetimes.
There is a good chance that you make more than you need to live in this lifetime. Are we going to take all your excess funds and give it to children in Africa? I think your dodging the question.
F you think it would cost someone as much to go from being a billionaire to being merely a millionaire than for a person with a minimum wage job to give up all of their income then you clearly are a little out of touch with the consequences of being poor.
Most people don't work minimum wage jobs.
Lets say you make $60/year (average US salary). You need $30K/year to stay alive. So that leaves you with $30K/year. Are we going to force you to give all that money to strangers in Africa? Of course not; that would be theft.
Lets say you make $100 million/year. You need $30K/year to stay alive. So that leaves you with $100M/year. Are we going to force you to give all that money to strangers in Africa? Of course not; that would be theft.
Most of the indicators of whether a child will grow up to be wealthy are arbitrary, as in beyond that child's control. Things like being white and a man and most importantly being born into wealth.
If this was the case, then Jeff Bezos would have comparably rich sibilings. After all, they are all white, Mark Bezos is a man. They were all born into the same level of wealth. Yet Bezos was richest because he contributed the most to society.
Blacks tend to be less sucessful because they aim for different things than whites. Females tend to be less sucessful because they tend to aim for different things than men. If a black woman wants to be sucessful, she can merely copy what Bezos did with a different industry and she can hopefully get there.
But different races and different genders want different things. For instance, blacks and females tend to be more family oriented than white males, so white males tend to be more sucessful and blacks and females tend to have stronger family bonds.
Created:
Posted in:
Ah, there goes RM. Respecting minorities until one minority decides to celebrate Columbus day, then he turns on him.
@RM
Not every minority thinks the same. Grow up!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Under our system execution is more expensive than keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life.
How? Life in jail costs millions of dollars. A death sentence costs $20 or so to hire the travelling executioner who travels from jail to jail executing their murderers if firing squad is the chosen method of punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
You're a fucking monster dude."executed within 1 hour"Do you have ANY moral standard whatsoever?
I don't want to keep guilty murderers alive for decades. I'd rather execute the within 1 hour after their conviction.
" but the money saved is a trade off to killing innocents."Do really only care about the money saved?
Most people's priorities are the following:
1) Their kid's lives.
2) Their own lives.
3) Saving $1/day
4) Stranger kids in Africa
5) Strangers that are murder convicts
Meaning, if they had to pick between saving their kid's life and theirs, they would pick their kid's life, if they had to pick between saving their life and saving $1/day, they would save their life, and if they had to pick between saving $1/day and saving a stranger kid in Africa, they would pick saving the $1/day (otherwise you would see way more people sponsoring kids in Africa).
If society isn't willing to sacrifice a mere $1/day to save a child in Africa that never committed murder, why should taxpayers be forced to spend $20/day on keeping an adult alive that probably committed murder?
Since most people (including myself) care more about saving $1/day than saving a kid in Africa (who everybody knows committed no murder), I have to be consistent. I would rather taxpayers save $20/day than keeping a murder convict alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you should vehemently oppose the death penalty as an execution tends to cost more that the price tag of life long incarceration. If the goal is saving tax payer dollars then life sentences are more cost effective.
How? Life in jail means taxpayers are spending millions of dollars on keeping murderers alive.
I don't know how people can think death by firing squad is expensive compared to free shit to murderers for their whole lives as a "punishment" for murdering. People say it's due to multiple court cases, which is why if you are found guilty of murder, no more court cases; death penalty within an hour by firing squad by sharpshooters from Texas(because Texans know how to shoot).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Death sentences cost way more; a better way could be to replace american style prisons and replace them with scandinavian style prisons (i.e norwegian)Death sentences are also retarded because if say 3 years later we find out the person was innocent they're already dead.
Scadinavia still spends a lot of money on murderers. A better solution is if convicted guilty of murder, you get executed within 1 hour. We will make mistakes, but the money saved is a trade off to killing innocents.
Created: