WEATHER »

Comments by loonpt

Previous | Page 2 of 328 | Next

Posted on November 18 at 4:04 p.m.

dewdly,

I am not for abolishing all public institutions overnight - I think we should start with the ones that are the most damaging like the majority of the Military Industrial Complex (DOD, CIA, FBI), the FDA and most federal agencies.

Social Security would be tough, but Ron Paul had an idea about making it voluntary so people could opt-out, they would still have some taxes going toward the unfunded portion of SS which they would have to pay anyway, but they would have some tax savings they could put toward their own retirement.

As far as public school, I think the best thing would be to legalize competition. The great thing about school vouchers is that it lets you take your child's allocated tax for education and put it towards a private school if you want. Not everybody wants their kid to go to private school, most of them are religious. But if they were in higher demand, you would likely have private schools based on themes such as technology, arts or medicine.

As more people shifted away from public schools, you would have public school infrastructure that could be bought by private companies and turned into more private education institutions. If the public schools did better, then people could send their kids there, so there is really no reason for the public school advocate to oppose a voucher system unless they are intent on stealing the taxes of wealthy parents who don't want to send their kids to public school anyway.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 3:49 p.m.

Botany if you think pedophilia is wrong, then you must believe that the child's rights have been violated - In fact I agree with you, pedophilia is wrong, it is violating a child's rights because children are immature physically and emotionally so are unable to understand what is happening and what they are going through. It is child abuse. It's hard to compare to anything else, but it would be like going to somebody's house and knocking on the front door, a child answers and you offer them a thousand candy bars to sell you their dad's jet ski.

Similar arguments can be made for selling drugs to children and statutory rape. I would handle those the way we handle them today, with a jury of our peers who can determine the mental fortitude and maturity of the alleged victim.

I'm against drunk driving, I don't do it personally and I discourage my friends from driving after too many drinks. However there are some people who are able to handle their alcohol responsibly and are very good drivers - they may be a better driver after a couple drinks than most of the sober drivers out on the road, yet currently they may still get in trouble for being on the road. I certainly think that people who drive under the influence should be held responsible for damages they cause, and they can be held to a higher degree of responsibility if they are impaired since rather than being a simple 'mistake' or 'accident' it may be proven that by drinking it becomes more true that the outcome was in their hands and due to some amount of selfish behavior.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 1:18 p.m.

"it devolved so quick."

You know you live in a devolved society when the person defending individual rights is considered 'devolved'.

"Individualism does not build teams."

That is such BS. Ensuring EVERYBODY's rights are protected IS THE ULTIMATE team effort. It should be what we all strive for. People should be free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others, damage or steal their property. That includes not being able to pollute other people's property.

Anything else requires stealing, kidnapping and tyranny.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 1:06 p.m.

"News today: F* the Police agitator gets her car stolen at a Ferguson protest rally. What rights should she have under the law? Or none according to loonpit, including her protected right to free speech."

Jarvis what in the heck are you talking about? Are you trying to insinuate that because somebody has a problem with a tyrannical regime, they lose the right to private property?

Let's say the Ferguson Police are like Nazi guards. If a Jewish person brings a personal gold necklace that is a family heirloom with them into a concentration camp and it gets stolen by a guard, did they forgo their right to the necklace because of a German law that says it is illegal to be Jewish? Do they forgo their right to be able to speak freely because they are Jewish living in a country? That wouldn't make any sense.

The fact is a person doesn't have a "right" to have an expensive police force protecting their property - what they do have a right to do is protect their own property and combine resources with others to fund a security force to help protect each others' property. If that is done within and by a community "government" and everybody's rights are respected them I'm ok with it... however since government implies force, this causes a potential problem where people who may have their own resources to protect themselves or who don't wish to fund that particular enforcement arm because they may be taking away people's rights would then be forced to pay for it which is why private police paid voluntarily by citizens is preferable.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 12:55 p.m.

Botany has it completely wrong. It is not about an 'individual's moral compass'. Murder is not moral, hurting people or stealing or damaging other people's property is not moral. Kidnapping people is not moral. Telling other people what to do is not moral. It is a universal morality based on securing EVERYBODY'S individual right to live freely on this planet without harming others. It's a very simple concept, most of these concepts we learned in pre-school and have since forgotten and we allow the tyranny of the state to kidnap and kill innocent people as we all sit by. THAT is immoral.

Botany, you own your private property, you don't own the entire country. I don't agree we should provide a government based welfare system, especially for immigrants, where your property is stolen and given to immigrants. That would be immoral because it doesn't respect your right to your property and the fruits of your labor. Immigrants should only be encouraged to come here for opportunity or jobs that we have, in which case it is actually beneficial to our country.

I don't like the idea of xenophobes controlling our borders, and I don't like the idea that anybody who does something without the permission of the state is a 'bad' person. Those are both dangerous concepts that are dangerous to people's liberty.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 11:48 a.m.

I don't have any problem with people who break laws that are unjust - like drug laws, prostitution and immigration laws. These are all restrictions on individual's given natural freedoms of movement, life and liberty.

If you have a problem with people just because they break "our laws" then do you have a problem with Jews who tried to break German law by breaking out of a Nazi concentration camp during WWII? What is the difference? These are all unjust laws that restrict individual freedom.

On To Each His Own

Posted on November 18 at 11:41 a.m.

The fact that some women are crazy is not logic, it's just a fact. I didn't say how many of them were, or if this woman was. All I know is this guy called the police and turned himself in after and has pleaded not guilty. Maybe he wants to clear things up, and those 'things' haven't come out yet. Or maybe he made a horrible mistake and decided that was his best course of action. I have no idea, but I'm not going to just go out and assume he is a scumbag before I've heard his story and seen the evidence.

On Wadford Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

Posted on November 17 at 5:42 p.m.

dewdly honestly I'm not convinced that what all girls really want deep down at age 16 when they are having sex with their high school boyfriend is to have a child right then and there, but since I'm not a female it is possible you are right and that everything they do instead - boyfriends, relationships, sex, etc, is a substitution for settling down and having a child.

My experience tells me that sex is a biological imperative for both sexes and the woman may feel more complete when she finally does have a child, but that having sex and relationships in the mean time can be a good opportunity to find out what type of guy they actually want to spend time with for the rest of their life and help them raise children.

If you are right, the only other reasonable solution I can come up with is to tell women not to go to college and maybe not even graduate high school, then find an older male who has graduated college or can support them. Anything else is just going to result in them filling that void with sex and drinking, right?

I just don't know if that fits very well into modern society. Women may in fact be better off having test relationships, using birth control and finding out what they like before getting married and at the same time positioning themselves to be independent if they choose.

On Talking Sexual Assault at UCSB

Posted on November 17 at 4:46 p.m.

"We don't hear about this problems coming out of BYU. Booze-obsessed culture=lots of problems."

Sorry bill, but promoting chastity and sobriety is not something that seems to reduce rape:

"“Utah has a struggle with rape in general,” she said. “Violent crime in Utah is quite low, but rape is quite high.” - See more at: http://universe.byu.edu/2014/11/12/vi...

I know that is Utah, and not BYU, but I think the point still stands. BYU may have less of a problem but that is because boring people who want to live that kind of life and live under those rules go to BYU. It isn't that they have less problems because the rules exist.. I could have gone to BYU but I chose UCSB and was quite happy there.

Want to reduce rape? Legalize prostitution. Ya, rape isn't always about sex, but let's be honest, most of the time it is.

And thanks for your concern Jarvis, I'm actually doing ok.

On Talking Sexual Assault at UCSB

Posted on November 17 at 2:01 p.m.

Well Jarvis no doubt horny folks will always be the butt of jokes for people who lack strong sex drives, but if I had the choice I'll take the strong sex drive. It makes life more.... lifey...

On Talking Sexual Assault at UCSB

Previous | Page 2 of 328 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: