Single mothers
-
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works. It not only works, it allows society to thrive.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works.
Yes, those elements need to exist, I agree. However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few. You forget that the winners write history. No-one cared about the people dying and being oppressed by that system.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Liberty, property rights, and free-markets is the only system that works.
Yes, those elements need to exist, I agree. However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few. You forget that the winners write history. No-one cared about the people dying and being oppressed by that system.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few.
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy. There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
However, a completely free market only works for the chosen few.
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy. There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy.
If the economy is too rigged, then perhaps, to some degree. My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people, and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy.
If the economy is too rigged, then perhaps, to some degree. My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people, and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system
As there should be.
Christian Graus wrote:
and they are the poor and under privileged
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
Christian Graus wrote:
and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
This is just a your made up bullshit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system
As there should be.
Christian Graus wrote:
and they are the poor and under privileged
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
Christian Graus wrote:
and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
This is just a your made up bullshit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As there should be.
Well, I don't expect everyone to have an equal lifestyle. I just think that my awesome lifestyle should not be built on pushing down my cost of living, by not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
This is a fantasy. If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
For the companies and the consumers, yes. You've shown many times that you don't care who suffers for you to get ahead. That's the difference between us. The irony is, I'm more successful than you could ever hope to be.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is just a your made up bullsh*t.
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As there should be.
Well, I don't expect everyone to have an equal lifestyle. I just think that my awesome lifestyle should not be built on pushing down my cost of living, by not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The poor can get a job, and better their lot so their children and grandchildren can be "privileged".
This is a fantasy. If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Taking advantage of cheap labor and low prices is a good thing.
For the companies and the consumers, yes. You've shown many times that you don't care who suffers for you to get ahead. That's the difference between us. The irony is, I'm more successful than you could ever hope to be.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is just a your made up bullsh*t.
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education. Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock. In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
Christian Graus wrote:
For the companies and the consumers, yes.
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
Christian Graus wrote:
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Except when you do it of course :rolleyes:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You are paying for the hope that the kids will have a real one.
That's a hell of a poor investment. Either way, I am creating an incentive for them to live dead end lives, being bad mothers, chain smoking and watching TV while their kids light fires and terrorise the neighbourhood.
RichardM1 wrote:
There is no system that can not be gamed.
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a hell of a poor investment.
Yes, it is, but it has a slightly better outcome than not doing it. I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns. They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You SHOULD go into stand up comedy! Every system can be gamed. In your system, it has to do with defining "your own mistakes".
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
not paying the people who provide me with goods and services, enough to live on. Capitalism does not care about that.
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the poor are not given access to free education, and if they spend all their time trying to make enough money to stay alive, there's really no chance for the kids to get out of that system.
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education. Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock. In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
Christian Graus wrote:
For the companies and the consumers, yes.
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
Christian Graus wrote:
And this sort of talk is how you hide from facts that don't suit you.
Except when you do it of course :rolleyes:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock.
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die. It might be true to a point, but only to a point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Except when you do it of course Roll eyes
Like when ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That's a hell of a poor investment.
Yes, it is, but it has a slightly better outcome than not doing it. I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns. They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns.
Christian Graus wrote:
A system that says you have to pay for your own mistakes, can't be gamed.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You SHOULD go into stand up comedy! Every system can be gamed. In your system, it has to do with defining "your own mistakes".
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns.
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns
Well, I think that is BS.
RichardM1 wrote:
Every system can be gamed.
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock.
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die. It might be true to a point, but only to a point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Except when you do it of course Roll eyes
Like when ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
No it does not, nor is it the case, I never said it was.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish
You see, you have nothing to back up your case for big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
In a free market system, the government couldn't take away or take over schools. The government would have no say in private individual's schooling.
Christian Graus wrote:
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die.
I did not say that. I said they will not prefer to starve and die, so they will have the incentive to do what is necessary to make a living.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
Everyone does want to be a consumer, and that is the drive for people to profit in some way or another. Either through sales, labor, or investments.
Christian Graus wrote:
Like when ?
Like now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
one way or another, we need to stop giving the people with the least to offer the gene pool incentive to breed at our cost.
Idiocracy Quite a prophetic movie We are really screwed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see how you can be so worried about someone taking your money, and so cavalier about someone taking my guns.
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are both in the name of a better society, the only difference is no one is taking your guns
Well, I think that is BS.
RichardM1 wrote:
Every system can be gamed.
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
Blatantly false. Duh.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I think that is BS.
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't? I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked. What side were you on in the social Darwinism argument?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
It broke. It's the father's fault. She said she was protected. He said he had a vasectomy. I could afford it, but I got fired. We could afford it, before the father died. Oh, I can afford the kid, it's me I can't afford. He's the father, but he is married, should I penalize his wife and kids for what he did? Or are you just going to make the kids pay for their parents' mistakes? That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Because money isn't used to kill people. Duh.
Blatantly false. Duh.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I think that is BS.
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't? I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked. What side were you on in the social Darwinism argument?
Christian Graus wrote:
How can someone who is not paid to have children they can't afford, game the system ? There's nothing to game.
It broke. It's the father's fault. She said she was protected. He said he had a vasectomy. I could afford it, but I got fired. We could afford it, before the father died. Oh, I can afford the kid, it's me I can't afford. He's the father, but he is married, should I penalize his wife and kids for what he did? Or are you just going to make the kids pay for their parents' mistakes? That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Blatantly false. Duh.
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke. To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
RichardM1 wrote:
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't?
You're one step removed from the issue. The issue is that the kids exist at all, to unfit parents who only have them for the money. Take away the incentive, and the kids don't even exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked.
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
RichardM1 wrote:
That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
This is as stupid as the 'people would get paid more without minimum wage' argument. If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
No it does not, nor is it the case, I never said it was.
Christian Graus wrote:
Rubbish
You see, you have nothing to back up your case for big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
In a free market system, the government couldn't take away or take over schools. The government would have no say in private individual's schooling.
Christian Graus wrote:
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die.
I did not say that. I said they will not prefer to starve and die, so they will have the incentive to do what is necessary to make a living.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
Everyone does want to be a consumer, and that is the drive for people to profit in some way or another. Either through sales, labor, or investments.
Christian Graus wrote:
Like when ?
Like now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No it does not, nor is it the case, I never said it was.
So you accept that a manual laborer has no real options but be a slave to whatever subsistence wage the company chooses to pay ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You see, you have nothing to back up your case for big government.
I'm not for big government. I'm just not for no government.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free market system, the government couldn't take away or take over schools. The government would have no say in private individual's schooling.
Exactly - the government would do nothing to provide education, so there would be more dumb people. Perfect wage slaves for the corporations.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I did not say that. I said they will not prefer to starve and die, so they will have the incentive to do what is necessary to make a living.
But only in a dream world where the corporations line up to make that possible to uneducated people with no skills, right ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Everyone does want to be a consumer, and that is the drive for people to profit in some way or another. Either through sales, labor, or investments.
So if I WANT to be a millionaire CEO, that's all it takes ? Just add some pixie dust, and anything is possible ? That DOES sound like the sort of fantasy world you're promoting in general.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Like now.
Say it as often as you like, so long as you convince yourself, that seems to be all that matters.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Blatantly false. Duh.
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke. To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
RichardM1 wrote:
So taking guns is in the name of a better society, but feeding children isn't?
You're one step removed from the issue. The issue is that the kids exist at all, to unfit parents who only have them for the money. Take away the incentive, and the kids don't even exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
I guess if they starve, I should be able to have my guns - you kill them your way, I kill them mine - and it's clear you will, on a routine basis, but I will not unless attacked.
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
RichardM1 wrote:
That way they can grow up in even worse squalor, with even less education, and pump out ever more children.
This is as stupid as the 'people would get paid more without minimum wage' argument. If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke.
Right. The US defense budget doesn't count? The money I used to buy my guns doesn't count? Money doesn't make hit man work? Nobody was ever killed to take their money, or for the insurance? Do you really think the money is any less to blame than the gun? Hell, if that's true, most 'gun shot victims' are killed by blood loss. I mean. yeah, the hole was caused by the bullet, but lets be fair here. It's not even the guns fault, since the bullet did it. How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Christian Graus wrote:
To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
Not all killing is bad killing, not all shooting is killing, and do I need to pull out the vasectomy quote? And who cares what LS says about anything? Your smart enough to know fame means nothing! Charlton Heston said guns are good, do you accept his word? He was a Famous Person, you know!
Christian Graus wrote:
to unfit parents who only have them for the money.
You are going to have to provide stats for that. I know there have been a couple of well publicized cases here, but that is like being too scared of terrorists to fly, but driving on the highway, your view on the stats is distorted.
Christian Graus wrote:
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
You've just utterly side stepped the issue - well done. There are going to be babies. There are going to be poor people. Unless you plan on mandatory abortion for the poor, you are going to have poor babies. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to spend any money on feeding them, or are you going to let them die?
Christian Graus wrote:
If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
In your church, are people only supposed to have sex to make children? (that is against your argument, not your church) The times I've had sex to make children is a small part of the times I've had sex. In general, the incentive for having sex is sex. Babies just sort of happen. Some people never figure out why, and they are the ones you want to stop, but you won't.
Opacity, th
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have it backwards, the chosen few win in a rigged economy.
If the economy is too rigged, then perhaps, to some degree. My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There are still laws in a free-market. You cannot falsely advertise, steal, break contracts, kill people. In a free-market, with liberty and property rights, you have the perfect balance.
None of this stops companies from taking advantage of people, and creating a system that the poor cannot escape, where their lives are cut short and rendered not worth living.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
My point is, there are clear losers in a pure capitalistic system, and they are the poor and under privileged. That is plainly true, from history.
Damn it, Christian, you say stuff like that when you are arguing with CSS? You know I won't say anything that agrees with him in the same thread! That was just wrong, doing that to me! :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Guess who are also capitalists, out to make as much money as they can? Regular workers.
This sort of statement pretends that a guy with no real skills beyond manual labour can negotiate as an equal with Ford or BP. It's not the case.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Look at all these welfare parents, living in wretched poverty, and stupider than a rock.
Sure - some people are stupid. Take away the schools, that would make them smarter ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In a free-market system, those people would be out to make a buck, and they would be developing necessary skills because THEY HAVE TO.
You say that like some people prefer to starve, and die. It might be true to a point, but only to a point.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that leaves out nobody, for everyone is a consumer
That is just so stupid. Everyone WANTS to be a consumer, some people just don't have the money to participate, or, in a pure capitalist system, the wherewithall to ever get it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Except when you do it of course Roll eyes
Like when ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Free government education is just as bad or worse as no education
Rubbish
Sorry, Christian, but you are arguing right into his trap. He can always point to himself to uphold his point. But I don't agree with him on this.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke.
Right. The US defense budget doesn't count? The money I used to buy my guns doesn't count? Money doesn't make hit man work? Nobody was ever killed to take their money, or for the insurance? Do you really think the money is any less to blame than the gun? Hell, if that's true, most 'gun shot victims' are killed by blood loss. I mean. yeah, the hole was caused by the bullet, but lets be fair here. It's not even the guns fault, since the bullet did it. How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Christian Graus wrote:
To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
Not all killing is bad killing, not all shooting is killing, and do I need to pull out the vasectomy quote? And who cares what LS says about anything? Your smart enough to know fame means nothing! Charlton Heston said guns are good, do you accept his word? He was a Famous Person, you know!
Christian Graus wrote:
to unfit parents who only have them for the money.
You are going to have to provide stats for that. I know there have been a couple of well publicized cases here, but that is like being too scared of terrorists to fly, but driving on the highway, your view on the stats is distorted.
Christian Graus wrote:
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
You've just utterly side stepped the issue - well done. There are going to be babies. There are going to be poor people. Unless you plan on mandatory abortion for the poor, you are going to have poor babies. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to spend any money on feeding them, or are you going to let them die?
Christian Graus wrote:
If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
In your church, are people only supposed to have sex to make children? (that is against your argument, not your church) The times I've had sex to make children is a small part of the times I've had sex. In general, the incentive for having sex is sex. Babies just sort of happen. Some people never figure out why, and they are the ones you want to stop, but you won't.
Opacity, th
RichardM1 wrote:
How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Simple. Society works in a way that means I need money, and I can use it for all sorts of things. The only reason to have a gun, is to kill. Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
RichardM1 wrote:
He was a Famous Person, you know!
Gosh - you're fired up. I don't care that it was Lynyrd Skynyrd that says it, that doesn't make me believe it. I used a song lyric to present what seems self evident to me. I was being flippant.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are going to have to provide stats for that.
How does one generate stats ? You ask people if they had kids for money, does that work ? Let's try this. Where I live, I am in a good area, but because where I live is small, and because my home is on the edge of the country, and the next suburb over is basically the edge of the city, I live right by an area that is literally close to 100% long term unemployed and single mothers. These families tend to have four kids. I don't remember the last time I met someone who was paying for their own family by having a job, who had four kids. I know it's more common in the US, but the point is, where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family. So, it's reasonable to assume that the extra money is part of the motivation, or they at least don't care how many kids they have b/c I will pay for it. My wife has a deadbeat friend who lives on welfare. She has four kids. The eldest is nearly 16. She's thinking of having another so she doesn't get a 'pay cut'. My wife's aunt works at the local primary school. They had a careers day and all the kids looked confused. The boys said why work when they can go on the dole, and the girls said 'but I'll start having babies at 14 and go on the dole so I can get my own home'. The same aunt, spent half her wage on feeding and clothing kids who, at age 7, were left to their own devices and would show up to school in their night clothes, which would be soiled more often than not, and very hungry. On the night that benefits come in, these parents typically throw kids of this age a pack of chips and leave them in front of the TV while they go to the pub. I have first hand accounts of this. Some of the parents at my sons school are from this area, and are not much better than what I'm describing. S
-
RichardM1 wrote:
How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Simple. Society works in a way that means I need money, and I can use it for all sorts of things. The only reason to have a gun, is to kill. Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
RichardM1 wrote:
He was a Famous Person, you know!
Gosh - you're fired up. I don't care that it was Lynyrd Skynyrd that says it, that doesn't make me believe it. I used a song lyric to present what seems self evident to me. I was being flippant.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are going to have to provide stats for that.
How does one generate stats ? You ask people if they had kids for money, does that work ? Let's try this. Where I live, I am in a good area, but because where I live is small, and because my home is on the edge of the country, and the next suburb over is basically the edge of the city, I live right by an area that is literally close to 100% long term unemployed and single mothers. These families tend to have four kids. I don't remember the last time I met someone who was paying for their own family by having a job, who had four kids. I know it's more common in the US, but the point is, where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family. So, it's reasonable to assume that the extra money is part of the motivation, or they at least don't care how many kids they have b/c I will pay for it. My wife has a deadbeat friend who lives on welfare. She has four kids. The eldest is nearly 16. She's thinking of having another so she doesn't get a 'pay cut'. My wife's aunt works at the local primary school. They had a careers day and all the kids looked confused. The boys said why work when they can go on the dole, and the girls said 'but I'll start having babies at 14 and go on the dole so I can get my own home'. The same aunt, spent half her wage on feeding and clothing kids who, at age 7, were left to their own devices and would show up to school in their night clothes, which would be soiled more often than not, and very hungry. On the night that benefits come in, these parents typically throw kids of this age a pack of chips and leave them in front of the TV while they go to the pub. I have first hand accounts of this. Some of the parents at my sons school are from this area, and are not much better than what I'm describing. S
Christian Graus wrote:
Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
In the US, 0.7% of death were caused by guns in '05. 39%[^] from alcohol. Remove alcohol, remove dead people. The end. If you don't like the laws in the US, stay away.
Christian Graus wrote:
where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family
You make NZ sound pretty f'd up. How come you keep complaining about the US? Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare. Maybe CSS's argument about public schooling sucking is right, at least in Aus/NZ. But, either way, you are mistaking correlation with causality, and I won't even insult you for it. Height correlates positively with death rate (and vise versa - if you want to be tall, die), but age is the actual causal factor.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, I have no stats. I don't see how any could exist.
You think people will pump out babies for money, but overlook the possibility of getting grant[^] money[^] to study[^] it? :laugh: You still want to make the kid pay for the parents mistake. You are being as dogmatic about this as CSS gets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That what socialism does. It breeds domesticated degenerate sheep
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]