Tab Content
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-11-2017, 08:03 PM
    Wait, what lmfao? ... -You're right, I propose dolphins enact all future human governments. (That's being wise ass.) What is your suggestion on how our form of government should be chosen? Also, when did we come to a consensus that people were bad?
    16 replies | 517 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-11-2017, 07:12 PM
    Wait, was there a question in this or was this a statement? How does this work? I've seen the opposite, people in government are the worst-of-the-worst. I don't get things like the president worship, and the idea that they're good people. They're megalomaniacs. I would never want to be president. Why would you want to, or what makes you think you could lead an entire country of 300 million people? Don't you have your own life to live? People who want to work in government and pass laws have a complex. They see the world as some kind of sandbox and they want everything to be all lined up and pretty, according to their own personal definition regardless of what anyone else thinks.
    16 replies | 517 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-03-2017, 06:07 PM
    I came "this" close to editting that into my post:). I would agree, it would be a duty for someone who saw a blatant crime to ensure it's stopped. That said, I envisioned my hypothetical scenario where my wife (who sadly, is hypothetical) is driving down the road and witnesses a drunk driver who's a clear threat to any other driver near them. Unfortunately, as a husband, I would probably just encourage my wife to pull off the road and stay away from him, so she can come back to me (in my own selfish human desire). So I suppose that's the not-so-black-and-white reality in my mind at the moment, people have duties, but I would never presume that people will selflessly fulfill their obligations.
    83 replies | 2156 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-03-2017, 05:48 PM
    Just as you may have additional stipulations if it came to fruition, I reserve the right to any reservations :). -Seems reasonable. All people should have the right to apprehend a criminal, and that's the only power police should need. Makes sense. -Seems appropriate, no one should have to pay for something they don't want (and particularly won't use, especially in its current state). It would raise concern with others that a vital service won't get funding, and not exist. o I'd argue that a vital service would get funding, and if it didn't then it must not be so vital It raises the concern that people could avoid paying for a service but still enjoy all the benefits
    83 replies | 2156 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-03-2017, 04:33 PM
    Taking a crack at replying here without having to contemplate an over-arching end-all philosophy... Assuming the definition of the police is "to control", I'm not sure why that has to be immediately applied to all people, as opposed to rightful criminals? I can see how under our current government the concern is to create a "people" who are criminals at any point in time for any reason, but that strikes me as more a problem of our form of government rather than the existence of the police. From an initial perspective, police controlling an appropriate definition of criminal seems like a good thing. Personally, I can see myself as having a higher quality-of-life if there was a way to keep criminals from having a negative impact on me or society, without implying that I become personally responsible for resolving all issues (and accepting the liabilities involved). I suppose that's how law enforcement came to be, the idea that someone can't just commit a crime (get away, move states), life a normal life and repeat, because there's an agency who's job it is to ensure that criminals are apprehended/subsequently sentenced to justice. With that said, I can understand how that's ultimately a personal preference, and you actually shouldn't be required to buy-in to my notions of a good society. I suppose that's why a lot of people got together and tried to establish a limited (and partitioned government) to form a baseline people could agree upon, which had criminal laws introduced at various levels, and law enforcement created. I think we both see the current clusterfuck the current government is, but if it had to be recreated I would probably still vote to have a police force, at whatever level of government that's appropriate. I get the feeling you wouldn't, I'm open to alternative ideas if there's a good theory not involving an otherwise unrelated individual having sole responsibility (and authority) to apprehend or not apprehend a criminal when they may just want to live their life.
    83 replies | 2156 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-03-2017, 04:09 PM
    Hahaha, I don't recall that being brought up - if we're going to fire everyone in public education, get our tax money back, and fund private institutions that'd be great :). Otherwise, I'm not optimistic her replacement will be quite as friendly to our causes. On that note, yeah - hopefully she can get a better job at a private institution, that reminds me of my personal policy of never working for the government.
    83 replies | 2156 view(s)
  • 106459's Avatar
    02-03-2017, 03:56 PM
    Ah yes, nothing like the irate minority on a minority forum (or other arbitrary percentage thereof)... Anyways, my initial thoughts are that this is a sad story. Angering as well, I get the feeling that even Texas has any number of anti-discrimination laws or list of reasons why you can't fire someone without cause, yet it seems they want to be held to a lower standard. In the interest of limited government, Texas should have any of those restrictions its passed strictly enforced on itself. I'm not understanding the "never-call-the-cops" sentiment in this thread. I would self-identify as extremely anti-cop, I have a lovely category in my personal finance for "government extortion" in my finance software, and have no immediate desire to call them for any reason outside of a personally life threatening emergency, for better or worse. With that said, it doesn't seem reasonable to blame someone for calling the cops in the proposed scenario of egregious drunk driving. It seems like the "be a hero" sentiment is being pushed, where there's the idea that a normal person is expected to initiate a pursuit against a suspect, perform intervention techniques as needed, and neutralize threats? Call me crazy, but I'd like to think there are alternatives to having me (an 8-5 sit at a computer all day guy) personally resolve the issue. I can't begin to imagine all the liability induced by me attempting to ensure a dangerously drunk driver is taken off the road. I guarantee I wouldn't risk my lifelihood to do anything different, other stay the hell away from him. Other unsuspecting people, or those unfortunate enough to not have an option to react? Probably less lucky. To clarify, again we'd be talking about egregious drunk driving where a guy is pretty clearly not controlling his vehicle. It isn't so much a comparison of there is a piss-drunk guy with a properly holstered and secured gun walking around, but that he's now actively holding it, it's being waved around and pointed at you for you or anyone less fortunate to be shot at a moments notice. -To add, I also absolutely despise the current "drunk driving campaign", where everytime I go to a bar and have 1-2 drinks I have to have 4 different people tell me "dont drink and drive (hurr-durr)". I can see the backlash of why people get pissed off when drunk driving is talked about now, because honestly, there are plenty of people who drink and drive safely. Anyways, just wanted to express the above sentiments. Back on topic, my immediate thoughts are this is BS where the government fired someone they no longer liked whereas they require other private companies to retain them all the time.
    83 replies | 2156 view(s)
No More Results
About 106459

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
28
Posts Per Day
0.02
General Information
Last Activity
02-16-2017 07:51 PM
Join Date
05-06-2012
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...

02-03-2017


11-29-2016


09-07-2016