|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 17, 2019 17:13:40 GMT
Just a twilight zone episode of something hypotheticala China is a close example in the real life and I have often seen you panicked about them. I think concerned is the better word than panicked.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 17, 2019 19:50:39 GMT
They dare to force protecting the most helpless humans. They dare to defy the right to choose to kill the most helpless humans. Law is a statement of morality. If you don't want to have any morality established, then you want Anarchy, absolutely no law. Except some of you still want law, your own vigilante law to serve Satan or demonic forces, which means those of you who do so are so mentally challenged that you think demons will reward you. Fine. Lets not have any laws. Oh, you want laws when they're convenient for you? All law is enforcing a morality. Which morality do you choose? I'm certainly more comfortable with people who choose a morality of protecting the helpless than those who force a morality of killing humans when it is convenient. If the latter is the case, then why have a Fire Department to save people from fires? Why even look for people who are missing in the Grand Canyon? Why even bother having hospitals? You want to have laws in place to ensure the defence of the most helpless? I guess you'd be in favour of socialised medicine and large welfare payments to help out then? After all - it's not the kid's fault who their parents are is it? So everyone else should be happy to pay for them. Am I right?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 19, 2019 22:19:53 GMT
They dare to force protecting the most helpless humans. They dare to defy the right to choose to kill the most helpless humans. Law is a statement of morality. If you don't want to have any morality established, then you want Anarchy, absolutely no law. Except some of you still want law, your own vigilante law to serve Satan or demonic forces, which means those of you who do so are so mentally challenged that you think demons will reward you. Fine. Lets not have any laws. Oh, you want laws when they're convenient for you? All law is enforcing a morality. Which morality do you choose? I'm certainly more comfortable with people who choose a morality of protecting the helpless than those who force a morality of killing humans when it is convenient. If the latter is the case, then why have a Fire Department to save people from fires? Why even look for people who are missing in the Grand Canyon? Why even bother having hospitals? You want to have laws in place to ensure the defence of the most helpless? I guess you'd be in favour of socialised medicine and large welfare payments to help out then? After all - it's not the kid's fault who their parents are is it? So everyone else should be happy to pay for them. Am I right? You'll find most people think as I do, and are for socialized medicine, in fact for free health care for all, because a nation cannot possibly be civilized if it doesn't implement this as a basic right. As for unwanted children, that can easily be greatly alleviated by three simple steps that no one can be against: 1. Allowing people "choice" for stewardship. They may either be stewards over a personal family, over government, or over law. Those who choose the last two must get an operation that prevents them from having children of their own. The sooner one chooses either of the last two, the more points up the ladder that person is escalated. If the person becomes a poor steward, then a demotion is in order in which the person gets a lower level of stewardship. 2. Gay marriage. With incentives for gay people to adopt unwanted children. 3. Present abortion clinics to be confined for a certain population, with each clinic having an equal population to represent, and each doctor, nurse, administrator, and medical worker to be given an equal salary to respective doctors, nurses, etc. at other clinics, regardless of how much work they do, or how many abortions they perform. A doctor who finds a way around abortions, and manages to get adoptions for children, he or she can go to the races, play Golf, whatever, while enjoying the exact same pay as a doctor who performs fifty times as many abortions and works 100 hours a week. The incentive is gone for abortions, and they'll look for other options, if possible.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 19, 2019 22:28:41 GMT
You want to have laws in place to ensure the defence of the most helpless? I guess you'd be in favour of socialised medicine and large welfare payments to help out then? After all - it's not the kid's fault who their parents are is it? So everyone else should be happy to pay for them. Am I right? You'll find most people think as I do, and are for socialized medicine, in fact for free health care for all, because a nation cannot possibly be civilized if it doesn't implement this as a basic right. As for unwanted children, that can easily be greatly alleviated by three simple steps that no one can be against: 1. Allowing people "choice" for stewardship. They may either be stewards over a personal family, over government, or over law. Those who choose the last two must get an operation that prevents them from having children of their own. The sooner one chooses either of the last two, the more points up the ladder that person is escalated. If the person becomes a poor steward, then a demotion is in order in which the person gets a lower level of stewardship. 2. Gay marriage. With incentives for gay people to adopt unwanted children. 3. Present abortion clinics to be confined for a certain population, with each clinic having an equal population to represent, and each doctor, nurse, administrator, and medical worker to be given an equal salary to respective doctors, nurses, etc. at other clinics, regardless of how much work they do, or how many abortions they perform. A doctor who finds a way around abortions, and manages to get adoptions for children, he or she can go to the races, play Golf, whatever, while enjoying the exact same pay as a doctor who performs fifty times as many abortions and works 100 hours a week. The incentive is gone for abortions, and they'll look for other options, if possible. Nothing ever surprises me about what you think or say on here, butt that is the weirdest conjoining of socialism and capitalism I have ever heard!
|
|