Violence Against Women

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
fb360 said:
So you think this, yet...

At the same time you are for, wealthy, responsible individuals who worked for their success through time and effort, to pay a higher tax %, effectively footing the bill for the poor, irresponsible individuals?

Curious to your thought process, why don't you fill us in?
Click to expand...
a progressive tax system has many benefits, such as preventing oligarchy via income inequality. income inequality leads to unstable economies as well, this is historical fact.

not to mention the fact that no one makes money in a vacuum, they make it using the infrastructure of the greatest nation on earth.
 
fb360

fb360

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
a progressive tax system has many benefits, such as preventing oligarchy via income inequality. income inequality leads to unstable economies as well, this is historical fact.

not to mention the fact that no one makes money in a vacuum, they make it using the infrastructure of the greatest nation on earth.
Click to expand...
Good points indeed, however that doesn't change its hypocritical stance, unless of course you are only speaking of children of age who cannot clearly make the sane decision for themselves.

Is there not an oligarchy even with our progressive tax system? To argue otherwise would be to argue that corporations and money is completely unassociated with any political position.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
so, we can all agree,

men should not hit women
we can all further agree women should not hit men.

so lets just team up and beat the living shit out of children, you know they deserve it.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
a progressive tax system has many benefits, such as preventing oligarchy via income inequality. income inequality leads to unstable economies as well, this is historical fact.

not to mention the fact that no one makes money in a vacuum, they make it using the infrastructure of the greatest nation on earth.
Click to expand...
a progressive tax does none of that. if it attempted to do that it would no longer be a tax.

taxes which have any purpose beyond acquiring revenue for legitimate programs (El Presidente's "Nevis Retirement Fund" is NOT legitimate) are a direct violation of the constitution and supreme court rulings.

progressive taxes were proposed to try and hurt the little guy less while still funding the government, not buttfuck the rich guy. the lefties have forgotten that taxation is to fund the government not level the economic playing feild which is why they woll always be WRONG when they talk about taxes, and REJECTED by the conservative, and moderates when they try to run on cornholing the rich.

considering that our tax scheme is not very "progressive" at all, one would assume the left would be pushing to reduce spending so that the taxes on the working class (their presumed constituency) could be lowered, but instead the left has joined the NeoCons in pushing for Free Trade boondoggles, wasteful ego projects and retarded porkbarrel spending. The left talks a great game about "leveling the playing feild" but real liberal programs like pell grants, student loans for poor kids,, farm relief, and urban revitalization get pushed aside when the opportunity to create a huge new bureaucracy appears.

the left (and the neo-cons) have abandoned the people and embraced the government contractors, international business interests, and special interests. when the left gets serious about what should be their goals ill listen to their blather, but as long as they keep meeting in the back room with goldman sachs, AIG and GE, they're just neo-cons in cheaper suits.
 
sonar

sonar

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Deaths from auto accidents have gone down every year from when seat belt laws and air bags became real - DAMN that nanny state, it took away our freedom to die and send the hospital bill to the state. Air transportation deaths have diminished to the point where, if I recall, we had not a single air disaster last year - damn the nanny state for telling airlines what to do with their planes. Fewer children are affected by lead paint and asbestos - damn that nanny state for telling builders how to do their jobs. Fewer children erupt into flame because their jammies are combustible - drat - the state telling apparel manufacturers their business.
Click to expand...
You need to ask yourself, however, are these new laws and regulations really the reason and not simply a more informed public. I wear my seatbelt. Don't give a shit about it being illegal if I don't, I just don't want to die or be brain damaged in a horrific motor vehicle accident. Same goes for air travel. Burning wreckage on CNN for a week straight isn't good for business. People tend to notice and ask questions.

That's really the only beef I have with progressive or leftist mentality. It assumes the American public is too stupid to make informed decisions on their own. I dunno, maybe a lot of folks are too stupid. All I know is that I'm not. I engage or have engaged in a lot of risky behavior, but I blame no one but myself.

Eating greasy, salty fast food 5 times a week isn't good for me? Who would have guessed. :rolleyes: Must be McDonald's fault for making me fat...
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
sonar said:
You need to ask yourself, however, are these new laws and regulations really the reason and not simply a more informed public. I wear my seatbelt. Don't give a shit about it being illegal if I don't, I just don't want to die or be brain damaged in a horrific motor vehicle accident. Same goes for air travel. Burning wreckage on CNN for a week straight isn't good for business. People tend to notice and ask questions.

That's really the only beef I have with progressive or leftist mentality. It assumes the American public is too stupid to make informed decisions on their own. I dunno, maybe a lot of folks are too stupid. All I know is that I'm not. I engage or have engaged in a lot of risky behavior, but I blame no one but myself.

Eating greasy, salty fast food 5 times a week isn't good for me? Who would have guessed. :rolleyes: Must be McDonald's fault for making me fat...
Click to expand...

The sentiment is valid, the reality is far different.

Most of us wear our seatbelts. Most of us do so not because of the law that says we should but because we don't want to exit the vehicle through the winshield. However. before there were laws mandating seatbelts in every car, few of us would wear our belts and few of us would opt for the "saftey upgrades" when purchasing our vehicle. Why? not because we are a stupid people but because it is the nature of man to believe that bad things won't happen to us and because bad things don't happen to us (we are safer drivers, we are lucky, we have quick reactions), then why bother spending that extra money on those belts?

it was only when each car manufactured had seatbelts that we all took to wearing them regularly. Air bags have saved thousands of lives but even if there were provisions for an airbag equiped car, most would opt instead for the leatherette interior and the flashy 15 inch rims - that is just the way it is. I recall the old days before seatbelts and airbags, only a very few manufacturers even offered such expensive "conveniences". Those were not terribly popular cars. Now, of course, few would even think to buy a car without those 6 airbags but it was government intervention that changed the mentality of drivers. (and of course insurance companies - over the very long run)

So far as the assumption of the stupidity of the American public is concerned, there is a problem. What you may claim is "stupidity" I will call the bent of mankind. It is not necessarily stupidity but simply how we act in the face of PR, advertisements, ad campaigns and corporate managed culture. We are rarely aware of how we are manipulated but a portion of that very manipulation is that we are induced to believe that we have free will in matters of consumption.

We do not. Corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the manipulation of individual wants/needs/wishes and desires. They would not spend this money if it was not effective.

There are companies that make their money in spotting trends and then vending this information to organizations that amplify and enhance those trends. Focus groups and polls give companies tremendous power over what it is we want and do, eat and wear, drive and purchase and it affects us all to one extent or another.

So, are we stupid? no, but we are the fattest people on earth. Are we fat because we are stupid? Or are companies very very good at creating foods that are difficult to resist and surrounding us with the temptation to eat that food?

Now, that being said, is it Mcdonald's fault for making us fat? that depends. If they spent one billion dollars getting us to try something that they designed to trigger our most primal desires for fat and sugar and salt, then it may be at least partly their fault for "making" us fat.


I know I know, it is hard for anyone to admit that they are not fully in control of themselves but this as well is at least in part the result of PR on a grand scale.

If Mcdonalds didn't make us fat, and we all know that eating too much crap is bad for us, and (as was recently discovered) excercise or the lack thereof has little to do with our ultimate body weight, then why are we more fat now than we ever were in U.S. history?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The sentiment is valid, the reality is far different.

Most of us wear our seatbelts. Most of us do so not because of the law that says we should but because we don't want to exit the vehicle through the winshield. However. before there were laws mandating seatbelts in every car, few of us would wear our belts and few of us would opt for the "saftey upgrades" when purchasing our vehicle. Why? not because we are a stupid people but because it is the nature of man to believe that bad things won't happen to us and because bad things don't happen to us (we are safer drivers, we are lucky, we have quick reactions), then why bother spending that extra money on those belts?

it was only when each car manufactured had seatbelts that we all took to wearing them regularly. Air bags have saved thousands of lives but even if there were provisions for an airbag equiped car, most would opt instead for the leatherette interior and the flashy 15 inch rims - that is just the way it is. I recall the old days before seatbelts and airbags, only a very few manufacturers even offered such expensive "conveniences". Those were not terribly popular cars. Now, of course, few would even think to buy a car without those 6 airbags but it was government intervention that changed the mentality of drivers. (and of course insurance companies - over the very long run)

So far as the assumption of the stupidity of the American public is concerned, there is a problem. What you may claim is "stupidity" I will call the bent of mankind. It is not necessarily stupidity but simply how we act in the face of PR, advertisements, ad campaigns and corporate managed culture. We are rarely aware of how we are manipulated but a portion of that very manipulation is that we are induced to believe that we have free will in matters of consumption.

We do not. Corporations spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the manipulation of individual wants/needs/wishes and desires. They would not spend this money if it was not effective.

There are companies that make their money in spotting trends and then vending this information to organizations that amplify and enhance those trends. Focus groups and polls give companies tremendous power over what it is we want and do, eat and wear, drive and purchase and it affects us all to one extent or another.

So, are we stupid? no, but we are the fattest people on earth. Are we fat because we are stupid? Or are companies very very good at creating foods that are difficult to resist and surrounding us with the temptation to eat that food?

Now, that being said, is it Mcdonald's fault for making us fat? that depends. If they spent one billion dollars getting us to try something that they designed to trigger our most primal desires for fat and sugar and salt, then it may be at least partly their fault for "making" us fat.


I know I know, it is hard for anyone to admit that they are not fully in control of themselves but this as well is at least in part the result of PR on a grand scale.

If Mcdonalds didn't make us fat, and we all know that eating too much crap is bad for us, and (as was recently discovered) excercise or the lack thereof has little to do with our ultimate body weight, then why are we more fat now than we ever were in U.S. history?
Click to expand...
What about motorcycles...?
 
Mindmelted

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
HFCS is what!

Tricks the brain into thinking the body is still hungry.

Get rid of that and watch the obesity start to go away.
 
Total Head

Total Head

Well-Known Member
i really can't believe people still use the "if she didn't want to get hit, she shouldn't have hit a man". that's bitch talk, plain and simple. the average woman does not have the ability to inflict half of what the average man can inflict. it's the equivalent of me pinching your arm fat so you punch me in the face, or a cop shooting a chihuahua.

if there is some big bodybuilding chick or some judo champ chick coming at you, or she has a weapon, or you're WAY smaller than her, then by all means tear that bitch up. if she's "punching" you with those hollow fists they make when they have long nails, slapping you, breaking your shit, etc. and you respond by bruising her face/body and breaking her jaw, you are a bitch of the most disgusting variety.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
i really can't believe people still use the "if she didn't want to get hit, she shouldn't have hit a man". that's bitch talk, plain and simple. the average woman does not have the ability to inflict half of what the average man can inflict. it's the equivalent of me pinching your arm fat so you punch me in the face, or a cop shooting a chihuahua.

if there is some big bodybuilding chick or some judo champ chick coming at you, or she has a weapon, or you're WAY smaller than her, then by all means tear that bitch up. if she's "punching" you with those hollow fists they make when they have long nails, slapping you, breaking your shit, etc. and you respond by bruising her face/body and breaking her jaw, you are a bitch of the most disgusting variety.
Click to expand...
so many faulty assumptions.

how can a chick be a body builder or a judo champ?

do so many kitchens have gyms and dojos in them?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
i really can't believe people still use the "if she didn't want to get hit, she shouldn't have hit a man". that's bitch talk, plain and simple. the average woman does not have the ability to inflict half of what the average man can inflict. it's the equivalent of me pinching your arm fat so you punch me in the face, or a cop shooting a chihuahua.

if there is some big bodybuilding chick or some judo champ chick coming at you, or she has a weapon, or you're WAY smaller than her, then by all means tear that bitch up. if she's "punching" you with those hollow fists they make when they have long nails, slapping you, breaking your shit, etc. and you respond by bruising her face/body and breaking her jaw, you are a bitch of the most disgusting variety.
Click to expand...
If a woman thinks its ok to assault a man, then she needs to expect repercussions the same as if I walk up to someone on the street and punch them.

It shouldn't happen regardless of gender, thus making the issue irrelevant.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
She does it because she expects a man not to react to it. She knows damn well the man could easily knock her out but she doesn't suspect a man to do it because of the unwritten rules. Not saying we should just stand there and take it but it's pretty easy to handle it. Of your daughter hit you, would you just swing without thinking?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
She does it because she expects a man not to react to it. She knows damn well the man could easily knock her out but she doesn't suspect a man to do it because of the unwritten rules. Not saying we should just stand there and take it but it's pretty easy to handle it. Of your daughter hit you, would you just swing without thinking?
Click to expand...
We're not talking about your own daughter, we're talkin about some random bitch, thus you have no idea of her intent.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
Lol, so you wouldn't. If I had a son, depending on his age, took a swing at me for whatever reason, I would swing back. What do you mean by you don't know her intent? She's trying to hit you, daughter or not, she's still a woman.


Now I ask you, would you swing back at your adult son if he tried to fight you?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
Lol, so you wouldn't. If I had a son, depending on his age, took a swing at me for whatever reason, I would swing back. What do you mean by you don't know her intent? She's trying to hit you, daughter or not, she's still a woman.


Now I ask you, would you swing back at your adult son if he tried to fight you?
Click to expand...
Why would my son take a swing at me? We're a little more civilised in my household, the only reason you should strike someone else is in defense.

Non-Agression Doctrine in the real world.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
Not saying "he" would per say, you're kinda starting to act like Neer, avoiding the main question. What IF he did?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
Not saying "he" would per say, you're kinda starting to act like Neer, avoiding the main question. What IF he did?
Click to expand...
I'd defend myself.

See the consistencies starting to form here?

You shouldn't hit another person.

If another person hits you first, regardless of gender, you have a right to self defense.

The other person initiated the aggression, why should you feel guilty? They obviously don't if they went for you.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
sonar said:
You need to ask yourself, however, are these new laws and regulations really the reason and not simply a more informed public. I wear my seatbelt. Don't give a shit about it being illegal if I don't, I just don't want to die or be brain damaged in a horrific motor vehicle accident. Same goes for air travel. Burning wreckage on CNN for a week straight isn't good for business. People tend to notice and ask questions.

That's really the only beef I have with progressive or leftist mentality. It assumes the American public is too stupid to make informed decisions on their own. I dunno, maybe a lot of folks are too stupid. All I know is that I'm not. I engage or have engaged in a lot of risky behavior, but I blame no one but myself.

Eating greasy, salty fast food 5 times a week isn't good for me? Who would have guessed. :rolleyes: Must be McDonald's fault for making me fat...
Click to expand...
I think people really are that stupid. Personally, I don't care what other people do to themselves. I draw the line with kids, though ..... and that's where I think some of these laws are worth while. If a grown ass man wants to roll around without a seatbelt on, I don't really care. BUT, I am happy that there is a law to buckle his children up. People shouldn't need incentives to do this beyond the health and well being of their own child, but apparently some people do.

On this same note, it drives me nuts to see parents smoking in their car with children in it. Again, I don't care if the adult wants to pollute their own body, but when that infringes upon another individual, it kinda pisses me off

Should we allow stupid parents to irreparably damage their children, or should we view children not as property of the parents, but as (often times) helpless individuals being mistreated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top