Ben No.3
-
Posts
528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Ben No.3
-
-
What we're saying
-
if the government wouldn’t have gotten involved, these children would have jobs and could actually afford a doctor themselvesThree more weeks of funding approved as another stopgap: Dems got CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) re-approved for six more years in exchange for it. I think that's a pretty decent deal for both parties, all things considered. Neither Dems or Republicans really want to be labeled as denying healthcare to children, I would think.
-
2
-
-
people weren’t starving in East Germany though. Or in Yugoslavia.It's an amazing thing about communist countries. They provide food for their people but there has never been one where people didn't starve to death by the millions.
Edit: right. Sorry. More single posts
-
but what if ovens are really expensive? They’re just kids, they’re definitely not at fault for the conditions they’re living under.
Then tell the kid that makes the cookies to buy an oven and make cookies for himself. People do that every single day. Heck the guy that owns the oven he's using now did that at some point. Or someone in his family did. The way I see it you have two choices. You can whine about who gets cookies or you can make your own cookies.
ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven.
It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another.
That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-yearLOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing.
Well I guess there is a third choice. Enact a government that kills than man with the oven, takes over the cookie factory and gives everyone a cookie. If there are enough to go around. If not... oh well. But even if there is I hope you like the cookie you're getting because they will never get any better and there will never be any variety.
And it isn’t good for the kid with the oven either. He is born into his role as well, which forces him into an, fundamentally, unnecessary antagonism with all the other kids. That poor, lonely kid. Just because he has an oven.
And why would we have to kill him? If I’m not mistaken, government takes away people’s money, as you’d say, all the time without resorting to violence.
Besides, I’d argue the original scenario is actually a much more violent one
-
you have a very poor understanding of Marxist theory
The complaint is that kids owning the ovens and baking get cookies and the kids that don't want ovens and refuse to bake don't get cookies.
ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven.
It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another.
That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-yearLOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing.
-
the fight to obtain and preserve gun rights is fought much more fiercely than the one to obtain and preserve women’s rights.
Me and milions around the world. Please enlighten me what this slogan means.You have a very poor understanding of slogans
-
ah come on, put in some effort here. The complaint is that one kid makes the cookies and the other one gets (almost) all of them just because he owns the oven.
It isn't. I'm just tweaking Ben here. I always get a kick out of hearing the commie types cry about how one kid got more cookies than another.LOL the rich just "took" it huh? Were they wearing little masks and holding a little cloth bag with a $ on it? Oh well, someday you'll get to the chapter in your economics book that discusses investing.
That's the Independent's headline, though, Oxfam uses 'bagged' and 'went to' which shouldn't be anything for you to get upset over - https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year
-
huh? I never doubted that people can become rich."It helped spark the sharpest increase in the number of billionaires ever recorded, to 2,043, with one created every two days"
This cannot be right. After all one cannot become billionaire other than by inheritance right Ben?
-
You have a very poor understanding of slogans
-
-
Would someone explain to me in what way the civil rights act was abominable? In detail, i mean
-
Who would’ve thought that the one thing this forum could agree upon is that Marx was right?
-
„Hey, lets talk about Trump. No, not the devastating effects he already had on the environment, national unity, international relations or American political culture. Let’s rather talk about his weight.”
-
1
-
-
yeah, the degree of niceness of the French can... vary. But it is Europe’s most beautiful cityI've heard a lot of horror stories from friends, coworkers, and acquaintances who've been to Paris... though most of them praised the countryside
-
I’d go to Athens. Or Paris.
Go to Paris
-
I’m sure the cat had a fulfilled life. After all, what else matters? My condolences
-
yeah, I was kinda getting off the rails
I think this one is getting away from you Ben. If they've never offended then they'd never be on a sex offender registry unless you guys have some kind of pre-crime unit like in Minority ReportA pedophile who has never harmed anyone obviously has the same access to everything as anyone else. Why is this a question? In all likelihood, we’ll never even know this guy was a pedophile.
Sure, but that's not the question here. The question is the people who DID harm someone.
You can say anything, but I think (hope?) you would never send your kid to a school where a convicted sex offender is teaching or send your daughter to an interview with Harvey Weinstein even after he finishes his eventual sentence.
-
1
-
-
see, this is a poorly chosen example. Tigers have to kill to live; pedophiles don’t have to follow up on their desires.jesus, next time protest in Zoo that tigers are in different coop than lamas
If a pedophile never does anything even remotely illegal, then it is of course immoral to exclude him from society. Society gains nothing from it, but he looses practically everything that enables his existence as an individual. No gain, lots of harm.
Again, with convicts, this might be different and I frankly don’t know enough about how pedophilia works to make a sensible assessment. But excluding someone for being a pedophile (not for the act of raping children) seems wrong
-
A pedophile who has never harmed anyone obviously has the same access to everything as anyone else. Why is this a question? In all likelihood, we’ll never even know this guy was a pedophile.
-
being attracted to children is not the same as raping them though.I don't know where you worked but everyone in our company and company i worked before have to go through background checks involving criminal records...
I did clarify my previous post though
And I think it’s very debatable to what extend or if at all employees should have insight into ones criminal history. If criminals can’t find jobs, they’ll stay criminals.
-
I’m perfectly fine with a pedophile (being, someone who is attracted to children) being employed at a school. I’m not okay with him raping the children. Similarly: I’m okay with straight male professors teaching female students at uni. I’m not okay with him raping his students. Being attracted to someone is very different from raping or even just having sex with someone. I think Sharp one once said he harassed his female employees (or someone said he said this). I don’t have a problem with sharp being straight, I have a problem with him harassing his employees.
So lets get this stright, you are ok with pedophiles being employed in schools?
it underlines the severeness of the issue. If you actually publicly threaten someone if they should employ pedophiles, that won’t exactly help the pedophiles to lead a normal life
I was responding to this (it sounds like he thinks that it is the bad part?):No, but this database can be seen by everyone, even your potential boss in a non-child related job, therefore pretty much making it impossible for you to get any job at all.
The data includes pedophiles and especially severe rapists.
Furthermore, any school employing one of these people is threatened with fines or prison.
That being said, these lists of corse only contain known sex offenders. So that’s a different question, and I haven’t thought about it thoroughly enough to give an appropriate answer
-
no, we punish someone for the crimes he committed, not the ones he might presumably commit in the future. We punish someone for the rape he committed. After he served his time in jail, he’s a free man. No further punishment. Thus, we punish him for the act (raping) rather than his personal history (being a rapist). If the latter was the case, this would mean a life long sentence and societal isolation. Rapists are capable of suffering too, and thereby equally worth in any moral consideration as any other such being. Adequate punishment can be justified; but effectively stripping someone if his humanity can hardly be called adequate.Hah! We can’t talk about economics without people telling me big government will lead to a dictatorship. Yet when government effectively declares its own citizens vogelfrei (a term I can’t find a good translation for; means that laws no longer protect a person and anyone can do anything with them), that’s somehow ok?
Being a pedophile is not a crime. Raping children is. Similarly, being a murderer is not a crime, murdering is. Etc. Tell me, how do you imagine people who are on these lists ever going to live the life they are entitled to? “We believe these truths to be inalienable”. That the government ignores this is nothing new. But this time you people stand behind it. You people support completely isolating other people from society, which is identical with making them subject to any sort of abuse. How do you people find this justifiable in any way? In your view, can one fall from grace? Loose his humanity? Loose his ability to suffer? Or do you loose your ability to feel empathy?
Society will gain close to nothing from this. These people will loose every chance they had to lead a normal life post sentence. The morals here are obvious. So why is this a question.
Sooooo, the crime should be punished but not the criminal? How would that work? We put murder in prison but not the murderer?
BTW. Isn't "You people" a racists term?
-
1
-
-
it underlines the severeness of the issue. If you actually publicly threaten someone if they should employ pedophiles, that won’t exactly help the pedophiles to lead a normal life
I was responding to this (it sounds like he thinks that it is the bad part?):No, but this database can be seen by everyone, even your potential boss in a non-child related job, therefore pretty much making it impossible for you to get any job at all.
The data includes pedophiles and especially severe rapists.
Furthermore, any school employing one of these people is threatened with fines or prison.
-
Hah! We can’t talk about economics without people telling me big government will lead to a dictatorship. Yet when government effectively declares its own citizens vogelfrei (a term I can’t find a good translation for; means that laws no longer protect a person and anyone can do anything with them), that’s somehow ok?
Being a pedophile is not a crime. Raping children is. Similarly, being a murderer is not a crime, murdering is. Etc. Tell me, how do you imagine people who are on these lists ever going to live the life they are entitled to? “We believe these truths to be inalienable”. That the government ignores this is nothing new. But this time you people stand behind it. You people support completely isolating other people from society, which is identical with making them subject to any sort of abuse. How do you people find this justifiable in any way? In your view, can one fall from grace? Loose his humanity? Loose his ability to suffer? Or do you loose your ability to feel empathy?
Society will gain close to nothing from this. These people will loose every chance they had to lead a normal life post sentence. The morals here are obvious. So why is this a question.
-
1
-
The Political Quinceañera Thread
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
In other news: Berlin rejoices as General Secretary Merkel seems to have come to terms with Comrade Schulz.