First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Controversial views you hold
17954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

hq145 wrote:




Marizzie wrote:

Here's mine:

I truly believe people have the right to govern themselves. Yeah, I'm talking a limited government - Anarchy - Libertarianism what ever you want to call it. Don't bring history up against me, because times have changed. I used to be against abortion, because in my mind it is murder but other people have the right to their opinions and their beliefs. It should be legal because like someone mentioned before, we have limited resources, people are not mature enough to bring up a child. Make everything legal, we don't need government to restrict us from alcohol, drugs, or the right to choose one thing over another. A parent's job is to bring up their child, don't let government do it for you. You don't want your child mingling in drugs and alcohol, well instill that in your child and he most likely wont want to, you don't need big business and corrupt balding men to help you. Everyone has the right to their actions, and their later consequences. All people need is information as to what happens when they do something, but information that is not biased in any way. Gay marriage? Go for it, it's YOUR decision, as long as your actions don't limit and/or harm someone else's liberties, you're in the clear.

If the correct information is set out, then people wont make half-arsed decisions. No more right vs wrongs. (Yes I do realize the legal complications, the crime rates and everything. How anarchy works in theory but not when placed into action, take to mind that these are VIEWS we have.)


Yes! The founding fathers were great proponents of limited government. Government limits people. With laws, with grants, with socialistic programs like welfare. I'm not saying no government, as people simply cannot live in as large a nation as America without some standards and regulations, but only in regards to criminal laws and product safety. The rest is superfluous and subject to corruption. And as for parents bringing up their children, the health care reform bill will be helping them learn how to do that.
http://commontater.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/government-run-health-care-details-fuhgeddabout-it/

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'Well not really I have found charts that show countries with less laws and freedom have less murder.

Did you know America people have less freedoms than the Japanese people. Yet America has 12.8 times more Crime.
More freedom less government control = less crime, less stressed out people.


That's not strictly true. There are certain ideals on propriety the west holds that the east does not which might lead one to think that Japan has more freedoms than America, but it isn't true. Not less or more, simply different freedoms.... There are also about 200,000,000 more people in the US which could account somewhat for the higher crime rate.
The chart that do crime rate judge by per 10,000 people.
so America has 58.4 murders per 10,000 people, and 450.8 other crimes other than murder per 10,000 people.
Japan per 10,000 people have murder and other crimes are far less per 10,000 people.
So the amount of people is not a factor in the amount of crime wen they are compared.
528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

hq145 wrote:


miraimike wrote:

Access to the internet must be either fully subsidized for all Americans or treated as a utility. Its creation (along with e-mail, FTP, and VoIP) was funded by the American taxpayer, thus it belongs to the taxpayer.


I thought only the initial concept was funded by the taxpayer as a military thing for communication. Then there were private investments and it finally went global in its development phase.


Nah, DARPA developers and the NSF created e-mail, FTP, and VoIP.
Posted 8/6/09

hq145 wrote:




Marizzie wrote:

Here's mine:

I truly believe people have the right to govern themselves. Yeah, I'm talking a limited government - Anarchy - Libertarianism what ever you want to call it. Don't bring history up against me, because times have changed. I used to be against abortion, because in my mind it is murder but other people have the right to their opinions and their beliefs. It should be legal because like someone mentioned before, we have limited resources, people are not mature enough to bring up a child. Make everything legal, we don't need government to restrict us from alcohol, drugs, or the right to choose one thing over another. A parent's job is to bring up their child, don't let government do it for you. You don't want your child mingling in drugs and alcohol, well instill that in your child and he most likely wont want to, you don't need big business and corrupt balding men to help you. Everyone has the right to their actions, and their later consequences. All people need is information as to what happens when they do something, but information that is not biased in any way. Gay marriage? Go for it, it's YOUR decision, as long as your actions don't limit and/or harm someone else's liberties, you're in the clear.

If the correct information is set out, then people wont make half-arsed decisions. No more right vs wrongs. (Yes I do realize the legal complications, the crime rates and everything. How anarchy works in theory but not when placed into action, take to mind that these are VIEWS we have.)


Yes! The founding fathers were great proponents of limited government. Government limits people. With laws, with grants, with socialistic programs like welfare. I'm not saying no government, as people simply cannot live in as large a nation as America without some standards and regulations, but only in regards to criminal laws and product safety. The rest is superfluous and subject to corruption. And as for parents bringing up their children, the health care reform bill will be helping them learn how to do that.
http://commontater.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/government-run-health-care-details-fuhgeddabout-it/



After reading that, a part of me died inside. Another thing, is that people (like the commentator at the bottom) shouldn't BUY into the whole left-right paradigm. No matter who is in office we're always getting screwed over -- because to be honest I feel we lack individual control, and so are being controlled.
6860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 8/6/09 , edited 8/6/09


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
The chart that do crime rate judge by per 10,000 people.
so America has 58.4 murders per 10,000 people, and 450.8 other crimes other than murder per 10,000 people.
Japan per 10,000 people have murder and other crimes are far less per 10,000 people.
So the amount of people is not a factor in the amount of crime wen they are compared.


Not in a direct comparison, no. But when you take into account the attributing factors of most violent criminals. Overall, men, minorities, the young, and those in financially less favorable positions are more likely to be victimized by, as well as commit, crimes. Spread these people out in densely populated cities throughout a nation as large and US and the larger population becomes a factor in crime that can't be seen in a side by side glance at crimes per 10,000 people charts.


miraimike wrote:



Nah, DARPA developers and the NSF created e-mail, FTP, and VoIP.



*quick research trip* Dang.. even Google was made in America. Well we can hardly charge them now that it's all set up and globally understood. Besides, it was only by connecting it to other countries that it became the world wide web. While other countries might not have contributed much to development, without their content the internet would be a much poorer place.


Marizzie wrote:


After reading that, a part of me died inside. Another thing, is that people (like the commentator at the bottom) shouldn't BUY into the whole left-right paradigm. No matter who is in office we're always getting screwed over -- because to be honest I feel we lack individual control, and so are being controlled.


Right? Republicans are Democrats. Democrats are Socialists. And no one votes for third parties because it's a wasted vote. The peoples voices are ignored by their representatives, though that's hardly surprising given that there are so many of them. Demanding that we quit spending tax money and conserve, but heaven forbid they cut back on any of the existing socialist programs. Save the world by being eco-friendly, but don't set regulations on manufacturing waste output. Don't have a government health care system, but don't let the poor unfortunate people die of sicknesses that are cured daily at hospitals throughout the country. Do something, but don't do that. Honestly, I'd hate to be in that position.

To be fair, Obama did say he was going to change America. Remake it. He never said into what. And if he would do it slower and with more of the vast disposable man power rather than the non-existent money, I'd say it was a step in the right direction. But you can't create a good philanthropic society by simply throwing money at it. Of course, he'd also have to stop going around and apologizing to the world for the country's history and misdirecting the public's attention with cheap political party tricks to gain any respect back from the people.

6860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

leviathan343 wrote:


Saiyori_xo wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

New topic:

I personally would allow millions of the poor and starving to die (or be killed) to let the "strong" survive and flourish.


Oh. Shit. :|

That's pretty bad..
There are one in a million of the unfortunate that have the ability to make something of themselves.
That's really quite unfair, but i can see where you could have gotten that from.

- サイヨリ 。♥


I think a lot of people misinterpret what I mean by "strong".


I know what you mean. By pandering to the weak and instilling the idea that pride is arrogant and you should help those who can't help themselves, those that could help themselves if they had to don't. Those that contribute nothing to society are saved. It's a flawed system that weakens everyone.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

hq145 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


Saiyori_xo wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

New topic:

I personally would allow millions of the poor and starving to die (or be killed) to let the "strong" survive and flourish.


Oh. Shit. :|

That's pretty bad..
There are one in a million of the unfortunate that have the ability to make something of themselves.
That's really quite unfair, but i can see where you could have gotten that from.

- サイヨリ 。♥


I think a lot of people misinterpret what I mean by "strong".


I know what you mean. By pandering to the weak and instilling the idea that pride is arrogant and you should help those who can't help themselves, those that could help themselves if they had to don't. Those that contribute nothing to society are saved. It's a flawed system that weakens everyone.


Somewhat close. I don't agree with Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Posted 8/6/09

hq145
Right? Republicans are Democrats. Democrats are Socialists. And no one votes for third parties because it's a wasted vote. The peoples voices are ignored by their representatives, though that's hardly surprising given that there are so many of them. Demanding that we quit spending tax money and conserve, but heaven forbid they cut back on any of the existing socialist programs. Save the world by being eco-friendly, but don't set regulations on manufacturing waste output. Don't have a government health care system, but don't let the poor unfortunate people die of sicknesses that are cured daily at hospitals throughout the country. Do something, but don't do that. Honestly, I'd hate to be in that position.

To be fair, Obama did say he was going to change America. Remake it. He never said into what. And if he would do it slower and with more of the vast disposable man power rather than the non-existent money, I'd say it was a step in the right direction. But you can't create a good philanthropic society by simply throwing money at it. Of course, he'd also have to stop going around and apologizing to the world for the country's history and misdirecting the public's attention with cheap political party tricks to gain any respect back from the people.



Yah, politics especially if you see it that way [Republicans=Democrats=Socialists=Selfish Pigs] is a pigsty of contradictions. At first I was amazed by him, all his charisma and his promises of 'Change' but now, I'm starting to doubt if any change will happen. Or maybe I'm being unfair, I mean Bush certainly left quite a mess, but going back on your word or any semi-promise you made during the campaign isn't going down that well with the public. Maybe he will remake it, but not into something 'nice' considering he has people whispering in his ears just about drowning in self interest. We're just headed into more debt with the way things are currently going. I agree.
6860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

leviathan343 wrote:



Somewhat close. I don't agree with Ayn Rand's Objectivism.


Really?

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.



I guess it varies slightly in that you're concerned with the world of the future whereas she was concerned only with the individuals of the present. But only very slightly.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

hq145 wrote:

Really?

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.



I guess it varies slightly in that you're concerned with the world of the future whereas she was concerned only with the individuals of the present. But only very slightly.


I'm way more Nietzschean than Objectivist.

1. True.
2. Wrong.
3. So vague as to be meaningless.
4. I know little to nothing about the economy. I watch Mad Money; that's about it.
6860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 8/6/09

leviathan343 wrote:


hq145 wrote:

Really?

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.



I guess it varies slightly in that you're concerned with the world of the future whereas she was concerned only with the individuals of the present. But only very slightly.


I'm way more Nietzschean than Objectivist.

1. True.
2. Wrong.
3. So vague as to be meaningless.
4. I know little to nothing about the economy. I watch Mad Money; that's about it.


1.) As far as we know anyway

2.) And what else does man perceive reality with?

3.) And yet it's very similar to Nietzsche's idea that man lives to obtain power (money). They both say to live for your own sake. Then again Nietzsche failed to see the power money brought, or rather scorned it as he thought it "had lost its symbolic value, that is, a symbol of an exchange between goods of real value (such as livestock), instead being regarded as intrinsically worthy and pursued as an end in itself"(a)

4.) This is where Nietzsche and Ayn Rand really differ. Ayn Rand was all for capitalism in its purest form whereas Nietzsche felt "revulsion for the debasement of the concept of culture by modernity’s reduction of it to utility in relation to supply and demand, profit and growth. In Nietzsche’s day, ‘Culture [was] rendered a tool of mercantile interests’. "(a)

(a) http://academici.sossoon.net/blog.aspx?bid=6182

Personally, I don't completely agree with either than them. I think compassion is a necessary component for an ideal society. Not excessively, mind you. But a balance between living for others and living for yourself.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 8/7/09

hq145 wrote:

1.) As far as we know anyway

2.) And what else does man perceive reality with?

3.) And yet it's very similar to Nietzsche's idea that man lives to obtain power (money). They both say to live for your own sake. Then again Nietzsche failed to see the power money brought, or rather scorned it as he thought it "had lost its symbolic value, that is, a symbol of an exchange between goods of real value (such as livestock), instead being regarded as intrinsically worthy and pursued as an end in itself"(a)

4.) This is where Nietzsche and Ayn Rand really differ. Ayn Rand was all for capitalism in its purest form whereas Nietzsche felt "revulsion for the debasement of the concept of culture by modernity’s reduction of it to utility in relation to supply and demand, profit and growth. In Nietzsche’s day, ‘Culture [was] rendered a tool of mercantile interests’. "(a)

(a) http://academici.sossoon.net/blog.aspx?bid=6182

Personally, I don't completely agree with either than them. I think compassion is a necessary component for an ideal society. Not excessively, mind you. But a balance between living for others and living for yourself.


1. Yep.

2. Man perceives the "external world" through the medium of his senses. And everything else after that is, again, so vague as to be meaningless. "Only guide to action"?

3. Man lives to obtain power and channel it through mediums (according to Nietzsche). With his mindset, he would despise people would thought hoarding money was equivalent to gaining power. Remember, he envisioned a certain kind of character as ideal for following the will to power.

4. I don't know much about that. I don't agree with Nietzsche's eternal recurrence or Rand's analysis of human nature.
6860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 8/7/09

leviathan343 wrote:


1. Yep.

2. Man perceives the "external world" through the medium of his senses. And everything else after that is, again, so vague as to be meaningless. "Only guide to action"?

3. Man lives to obtain power and channel it through mediums (according to Nietzsche). With his mindset, he would despise people would thought hoarding money was equivalent to gaining power. Remember, he envisioned a certain kind of character as ideal for following the will to power.

4. I don't know much about that. I don't agree with Nietzsche's eternal recurrence or Rand's analysis of human nature.



2.) You find reason to be vague? And yet it's reason that allows philosophy.

3.) And you really believe that people should live for power? That those that have a lesser will are lesser people?

4.) So which parts of Nietzsche's philosophy really resonates with you?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 8/7/09 , edited 8/7/09

hq145 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


1. Yep.

2. Man perceives the "external world" through the medium of his senses. And everything else after that is, again, so vague as to be meaningless. "Only guide to action"?

3. Man lives to obtain power and channel it through mediums (according to Nietzsche). With his mindset, he would despise people would thought hoarding money was equivalent to gaining power. Remember, he envisioned a certain kind of character as ideal for following the will to power.

4. I don't know much about that. I don't agree with Nietzsche's eternal recurrence or Rand's analysis of human nature.



2.) You find reason to be vague? And yet it's reason that allows philosophy.

3.) And you really believe that people should live for power? That those that have a lesser will are lesser people?

4.) So which parts of Nietzsche's philosophy really resonates with you?


2. Her language is vague and doesn' t pertain to anything.

3. It's not a question of should. I'm just explaining how his view of money was influenced by his concept of how people should live.

4. That logic cannot solve or justify existence; that Christianity is responsible for a mindset that holds back individuals; that values are only justified by those who hold them.
Posted 8/8/09

digs wrote:

I have many contraverisal beliefs, but I guess my most (politically) would be abortion. I think it's murder and should be illegal for all stages of fetal and zygote development. I believe that life begins with conception and should not be ended. That a woman has no right to a life that does not belong to her whether it be dependent on her body or not.



I agree with you on this in some ways. However, let's say a woman is raped and she finds out that she is with child. A child she does not want and has never asked for. What do you say to this? Tell her to give birth to the child anyways?
Also, even if we were to ban it, there would be the issue of illegal abortions. No matter what, usually a girl who is stupid enough to get pregnant from having sex with a guy and doesn't want the baby will get an abortion, whether it be at a clinic or in a bathroom stall.
15142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Australia
Offline
Posted 8/8/09 , edited 8/8/09
I hold a number of what would be considered controversial views.

1. Abortion should be completely legalised up until late stage. I think late stage abortion should be legalised in specific circumstances -- either medical, social or otherwise.

2. Stem cell research should have all bans taken off to allow for much better study into its potential uses. Foetal, bone marrow and placental should be all up for use. If we use the stem cells from aborted foetuses anyway, why not put them to some good use instead of burning them as medical and biological waste?

3. Marijuana use should be legalised. Takes away from the black-market appeal of the drug, and may help in decreasing the crime rate because of exorbitant costs associated with it.

4. I believe in the legalisation and control of euthanasia, through the introduction of a 'living will'. I believe that a person has the right to end their life if they are given a terminal diagnosis -- and which would lead them to suffering. I also believe that criminal charges for assisted suicide should be removed for GPs and family members who help their loved ones die. We don't let our pets suffer, so why should we let our loved ones?

5. I believe in the right for gay and lesbians to marry and be afforded equal rights in romantic partnership. I personally don't believe in marriage-- but I believe that people have the right to be married regardless of sexual orientation if they choose to.

6. I believe that people who took up smoking in the eighties or nineties or later should pay higher medical premiums than everyone else because the clog up the medical system through their own stupid choices. Reimburse the people who are working their butts off trying to keep you dumb buggers from slowly killing yourselves.

7. As above with people classified as overweight or obese.

8. I believe organ donation should be an opt-out programme. That we should all be organ donors unless we request not to be; rather than the other way around.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.