Originally Posted by levnubhin
(Post 431150)
I especially hate the ones who walk around with their fucking underwear exposed. WTF would you want to wear your pants around your thighs?
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 432053)
I love this one. I wear my pants a little low, not excessively, but just a tiny bit. Every so often I'll bend over and show a little panty and my parents will ask why I show my underwear.
I reply: "Would you rather see my underwear or my ass?" A lot better than this I guess. I don't get it though, weather they stick out a little bit or a lot, it just does not look cool. http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~sp00012/baggy.jpg Who the fuck want's to see that shit? __________________ Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote |
Originally Posted by Dr. Nick
(Post 432144)
Ahh yes, but its 2 thumbs way up when a hot chickie rides her thong above her jeans. I'm not saying I don't love it, but its a mega double standard.
__________________ Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote |
I usually find that its the thicker bunch that tend to wear their pants like ------s. I don't care what the excuse, pull your fucking pants up and put on a belt you fat fuck.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 431145)
The right solution is to NOT give welfare based on # of children. You subsidize anything, you get more of it.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 432141)
The vast majority of human beings will work towards bettering themselves if a system of incentives are in place - i.e. they don't get handouts if they're lazy, and get to keep their earnings if they're not.
Trying to change people's attitudes and making them "better" is social engineering whose philosophical background is the same as fascism. Similar to Nazism, striving to make society homogenous and thinking alike, is like turning humans into the Borg. All dissent is quashed, resistance is futile. But seriously, there's a difference between striving for a homogeneous, conformist society (Borg, Nazis, Canada, etc) and merely placing limits on the right to procreate based upon one's ability (financial and mental/social) to raise and support a child. We already place limitations upon a person's right to be alive (capital punishment) so I really don't see how placing limitations on a person's right to create additional life is any different. |
You seem to be presupposing that fascism is entirely without redeeming qualities. One of the core tenets of pure fascism is social Darwinism, which I don't entirely disagree with. It is probably a human tendency to want to control those they feel are "beneath them". However it means that those "above" you will do the same to you. Imagine what the top .01% think... This country became wealthy in no small part due to the philosophy of freedom put in by the Founders. When people are free, they flourish. Alas it is continually under attack. I still say the incorrigibly lazy / scummy will be far less than 10%. Most of the bottom 10% will quickly shape up if they are not given handouts. In a system where the economy is productive, the basic necessities of life will be cheap even for the bottom 10%. For the <<1% who turn to criminality, that's what the justice system is for. |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 432238)
You are only saying that because you feel your are way above the bottom 10%. Again you are talking about violating individual rights. If the system allows 51% to violate the rights of the bottom 10%, then you have a slippery slope.
We (the people) deprive a small segment of the population of their individual liberties every day. We convict criminals of crimes, incarcerate them, and strip them of freedoms and rights that are guaranteed to every man in the founding documents of the republic. Some we eventually forgive, some we deprive for life (which is really no different than depriving of life, IMO) and others we outright kill. It's really just a more complex version of Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." There's no such thing as liberty and justice for all, sadly. And I don't mean that ironically or metaphorically, it is in fact a true paradox. By definition, justice for all means liberty for only some. It is probably a human tendency to want to control those they feel are "beneath them". However it means that those "above" you will do the same to you. Imagine what the top .01% think... By contrast, it would be impractical for the "upper 0.01%" to kill the "bottom 99.99%", since there'd be nobody left to grow the food, build the houses, generate the electrical power, mow the lawns, drive the limos, dance around the brass poles, etc. Now, if you're merely talking about the top 0.01% seizing absolute power, then I don't see this as a bad thing so long as they were sufficiently self-regulating as to cleanse their own ranks of the occasional bad egg as well. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what I was proposing in the first place when I condoned aristocratic governance. I grant you, a truly benevolent oligarchical government has never been known to survive in the past. But then, neither has a democracy, at least in the long-term. I still say the incorrigibly lazy / scummy will be far less than 10%. Most of the bottom 10% will quickly shape up if they are not given handouts. In a system where the economy is productive, the basic necessities of life will be cheap even for the bottom 10%. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 432258)
Depends on your point of view.
We (the people) deprive a small segment of the population of their individual liberties every day. We convict criminals of crimes, incarcerate them, and strip them of freedoms and rights that are guaranteed to every man in the founding documents of the republic. Some we eventually forgive, some we deprive for life (which is really no different than depriving of life, IMO) and others we outright kill. It's really just a more complex version of Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." YouTube - DVD Version INTRO Individualism vs Collectivism And if you're truly interested I can send you a 100 page book that goes into more detail, with analysis of historical events to support the thesis. I have also been studying the philosophies of many of the great thinkers, and the philosophies behind fascism, Socialism, and liberty. I can tell you unequivocally, that all forms of collectivism are rooted in elitism. The exception was Marx - but his understanding of Capitalism was fundamentally flawed, and he spawned Fabian Socialism, which teaches that the elite must spread Socialism among the masses in order to control them, so that they can keep their wealth and their power... again back to elitism. It is ironic that the practical system that actually creates the most common good is Individual Liberty, which doesn't put "the common good" ahead of individual liberty. For as individuals are allowed to better themselves as they see fit, society improves. There's no such thing as liberty and justice for all, sadly. And I don't mean that ironically or metaphorically, it is in fact a true paradox. By definition, justice for all means liberty for only some. Again, it's a matter of degrees. I'm proposing (again, as the Devil's advocate) that we kill the bottom 10% of our population, or at least send them to a work camp. That would have little to no negative impact on society, the economy etc., since those folks weren't contributing to begin with. Now, if you're merely talking about the top 0.01% seizing absolute power, then I don't see this as a bad thing so long as they were sufficiently self-regulating as to cleanse their own ranks of the occasional bad egg as well. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what I was proposing in the first place when I condoned aristocratic governance. I grant you, a truly benevolent oligarchical government has never been known to survive in the past. But then, neither has a democracy, at least in the long-term. Perhaps, but why take chances? Surgeons always excise some healthy tissue around the tumor. Sucks for the healthy tissue, but best for the body as a whole. Now that's just uncharacteristically naive for you. In every civilized society with a free-market economy there have always been the poor- those folks who are simply too damn lazy/stupid/retarded to provide for their own sustenance, regardless of whether or not social welfare programs exist for their benefit. It was the case in the US in the late 1700s, it is the case today, and it will always be the case so long as free will (and sufficient genetic diversity) exist in the absence of a centrally planned economy. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands