Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[rockfist]

On one side you have Natty-Player defending the concepts of charity and how they should be woven into our societies culture. Something I agree with.

On the other side you have Phat-Strike demanding accountability and personal responsibility from this individual who is a drain on a system set up to help families, not support them.
Something I also agree with.

After twelve kids, this woman obviously cannot make good choices for her and her whelps.
So let's remove them from the home to ensure that they have a much better future in store for them than being raised by this woman who will teach them nothing but reliance on others.

Then lets sterilize her so that God won't be stuffing any more gifts up her chimney from via his ex-felon delivery elves. Give her a job as a wall-mart greeter, and BAM!!! Everyone's Happy!


Seriously. This bullshit will continue forever as long as we support the ideology that everyone has the right to squirt out a litter of kids. Raising children is the most important job on the planet. Not everyone is suited to do it. The amount of requirements to obtain an occupancy permit for a business, to get a drivers license, a liquor license, or the hoops of bureaucratic tangles needed to OPEN A DAYCARE, ensure that whatever I am doing to provide a service to my community will be done properly and to a set standard.
However it is my right to bring a child into this world without any minimum of education, or fiscal ability, and with as many addictions as I might have. I can raise my children in filthy squalor, in cramped conditions, without proper nutrition and positive social interaction. I can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and cause endless suffering to my own children, robbing them of any potential success and happiness because THAT'S MY GAWDAMMED RIGHT.

You preach about the rights of the mother. No one questions whether the Mother should be one at all. You want so offer more supports for an unsupportable situation.

Change the god-dammed situation. Remove Mommy dearest from the equation and get those kids into some decent foster care.

Johnny Rockets

/agree

[Phatscotty]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

you know your definition of human rights infringes the shit out of peoples individual rights and property rights and chances for opportunity right?

Guess there will have to be a fight.

Good Luck!

Explain a couple of things for me Scotty (referencing individual rights, property rights and chances for opportunity rights):

Introduction: This 10% additional tax I describe below is to be used specifically for providing a better public education system.

- How would you personally be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the woman in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the womans children in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 49th percentile wage earner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 51st percentile wage eaner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the the top 1% wage earners be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

Remember to link it all back to rights; I am especially interested on what you think the impact will be on the lower earners opportunity rights.

Mind your own business why dont ya? LOL like you get to poke your nose in everyone elses lives and jobs and earnings and get to say how much they should keep or redistribute! You don't even live in America so wtf?

Just because you think you have a good reason to based on someones need does not mean you get to take away their freedom and enslave everyone to everyone elses problems.

You don't understand freedom, and you may never understand it. We are a free country. End of story.

[Lootifer]

You serious?

[Aradhus]

You serious?

As a bullet to the head, I'm afraid. Don't for a second think that Scotty is being ironic, he's not. He's blithely unaware of wit.

[BigBallinStalin]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

you know your definition of human rights infringes the shit out of peoples individual rights and property rights and chances for opportunity right?

Guess there will have to be a fight.

Good Luck!

Explain a couple of things for me Scotty (referencing individual rights, property rights and chances for opportunity rights):

Introduction: This 10% additional tax I describe below is to be used specifically for providing a better public education system.

- How would you personally be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the woman in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the womans children in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 49th percentile wage earner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 51st percentile wage eaner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the the top 1% wage earners be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

Remember to link it all back to rights; I am especially interested on what you think the impact will be on the lower earners opportunity rights.

Mind your own business why dont ya? LOL like you get to poke your nose in everyone elses lives and jobs and earnings and get to say how much they should keep or redistribute! You don't even live in America so wtf?

Just because you think you have a good reason to based on someones need does not mean you get to take away their freedom and enslave everyone to everyone elses problems.

You don't understand freedom, and you may never understand it. We are a free country. End of story.

The US isn't a free country; it's a police state. Did you already forgot about the OWS movements?

[Army of GOD]

BBS, DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE RAEPED

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, Little Tebow! Go outside and play in traffic.

[AAFitz]

frivolous law suits too. Always the rich suing the poor.

Please to post the frivolous law suits you refer too. Include the actual details, not the made up ones.

Now, compare that to the actual lawsuits against the corporations that caused actual damage and death to people though negligence and gross negligence.

The balance will make the damage caused by frivolous lawsuits seem quite....frivolous.

Name one frivolous lawsuit that caused suffering and cost the life of a child.

For each one you name, Ill post 100 lawsuits that were filed as the direct result of corporate negligence which resulted in the death of a child.

Frivolous lawsuits are just that frivolous and are obviously a bad thing. Typically though, the real frivolous ones never get very far. However, the real ones, the ones that are labeled frivolous, typically, when viewed with the actual details, and not the sound bites, are actually quite real, and there is a reason 12 jurors awarded the plaintiff a verdict, and often included penalties for the negligent party.

The McDonald's one is the most often quoted, though now that the facts have actually educated people, most know well enough to stay away from it.

The sound bite is stupid old lady spill coffee on herself while driving.

The actual story is that scalding hot coffee was served at a drive through by a corporation that full understood the dangers. The coffee was kept at that temperature however, because it cost money when people sat down and drank the coffee in the store, so they made it so hot as to encourage people to leave with it. The woman in question was served a beverage through a drive through that caused 3rd degree burns on her genitals.

She was doing nothing reckless. She was doing nothing wrong. One can certainly assume it may hurt if the spill coffee on themselves, but I dont think one should have to assume that the mere act of dropping a flimsy styrofoam cup, would result in 3rd degree burns requiring medical attention.

McDonalds knew the risk, but continued to serve the beverage at unsafe levels. I just thank god the lawsuit happened so that some poor kid, didnt accidentally grab his parents coffee and burn himself or herself.

Lawsuits are the only way to keep corporations accountable. You just made a thread about someone needing to be accountable, and now with your quip response, you suggest that lawsuits are more of a problem, than the reason the overwhelming majority are filed in the first place.

Certainly in any system, people will try to take advantage of the system, and effort should be made to insure they are. However, if you are truly worried about accountability, than you would not be fooled for the notion of tort reform, which is and always simply has been a ruse, to protect corporations and others from being responsible for their actions.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6- ... -b.s..html

It is possible my opinion is skewed however. I live very close to one of the sites of one of the worst water poisoning cases the country has seen. I have spoken with a first hand witness who saw laws broken when toxic chemicals were dumped directly into the water supply. Those people, who absolutely contributed to the illnesses and deaths of children in the area, were never held accountable, and in because of this, others were no doubt emboldened by the fact, and more likely to do the same.

Ive also lived on a street in which half of the children got some form of cancer, one dying at age 26. This was absolutely the result of contaminated water, and there is no doubt someone very much should have been held accountable. The problem is, such cases are very difficult to prove. Cancer is an elusive disease, and the list of carcinogens is a long one, and even then, corporations decide to use them, simply because they are not held accountable enough. The only reason some are allowed to, is because they directly bribe the lawmakers of this country.

As you said, somebody definitely needs to be held accountable, and the rich in many cases, are the ones.

[AAFitz]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

you know your definition of human rights infringes the shit out of peoples individual rights and property rights and chances for opportunity right?

Guess there will have to be a fight.

Good Luck!

Explain a couple of things for me Scotty (referencing individual rights, property rights and chances for opportunity rights):

Introduction: This 10% additional tax I describe below is to be used specifically for providing a better public education system.

- How would you personally be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the woman in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the womans children in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 49th percentile wage earner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 51st percentile wage eaner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the the top 1% wage earners be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

Remember to link it all back to rights; I am especially interested on what you think the impact will be on the lower earners opportunity rights.

You really are going to have to talk about general principles and not be so specific with the math and reality of the situation, because that makes the argument so ridiculous when you look at the actual facts as to make it not even fun anymore. The general lying and fictional ideas are much more likely to cause debate, so please, lets not make the mistake of actual examples or math in future posts, because it just takes all the fun out of it, for the other side.

[Lootifer]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

Hold on. Is there a document called "human rights" that goes over actual human rights? If so, why haven't I heard of it?

FYI there's about 1000000 books on the topic.

A widely recognised reference books cites human rights as:

commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

Yes thats stolen from wiki but it's also taken from a leading publication on the topic.

In a first world country it is my opinion that this includes:
- [affordable] shelter and warmth
- [affordable] nutrition
- drinking water
- effective sewerage
- [affordable] healthcare
- [affordable] education

This is not to say sub-prime mortgages were a good idea or anything like that. It is far more holistic/less defined...

[PLAYER57832]

Try changing the words "job creators" for "monarchs" with manifest destiny behind them... and suddenly you may just start to understand why there is the anger.

[Phatscotty]

Try changing the words "job creators" for "monarchs" with manifest destiny behind them... and suddenly you may just start to understand why there is the anger.

Try changing the words "dependent" with "independent" with cradle to the gravism behind them...

You people live in the wrong country. Why don't you just change our national anthem while you are at it, just take out the part about "the land of the free and home of the brave" cuz yall can't even brave a can of soup.

[Aradhus]

yeehaw Freedom!

peeow! peeow!

[AAFitz]

Try changing the words "job creators" for "monarchs" with manifest destiny behind them... and suddenly you may just start to understand why there is the anger.

Try changing the words "dependent" with "independent" with cradle to the gravism behind them...

You people live in the wrong country. Why don't you just change our national anthem while you are at it, just take out the part about "the land of the free and home of the brave" cuz yall can't even brave a can of soup.

Actually, in this case, I believe it is the brave that are annoying you, for trying to make the country more free.

[rockfist]

You only remove freedom by forcibly taking things from one person to give them to another. It would be brave (but still morally wrong) if it is one person doing it to one other person. When mobs of people do it its not brave (but it is even worse than 1v1).

[Phatscotty]

Try changing the words "job creators" for "monarchs" with manifest destiny behind them... and suddenly you may just start to understand why there is the anger.

Try changing the words "dependent" with "independent" with cradle to the gravism behind them...

You people live in the wrong country. Why don't you just change our national anthem while you are at it, just take out the part about "the land of the free and home of the brave" cuz yall can't even brave a can of soup.

Actually, in this case, I believe it is the brave that are annoying you, for trying to make the country more free.

HAHA. Good one!

What's brave about them?


It's brave to go out and earn something yourself. There is no bravery in asking someone else to take care of you and your problems. Just give us all a break man!

[Lootifer]

You serious?

[thegreekdog]

In a first world country it is my opinion that this includes:
- [affordable] shelter and warmth
- [affordable] nutrition
- drinking water
- effective sewerage
- [affordable] healthcare
- [affordable] education

An inalienable right, by its definition, cannot be limited to only those people living in first world countries. Your list would have been more accurate with respect to the definition you espoused if you hadn't limited it like that.

As far as my own opinion - inalienable rights don't change with time. They are the same rights one thousand years ago that they are now. Just because 95% of people believe they should have effective sewers, does not make it a right. There is a reason the credo is "the pursuit of happiness" and not "happiness." Additionally, and also in my opinion, rights are not things the government grants to you, but things the government should not be permitted to take from you. For example, here in the United States we have the right to free speech. In other words, we have the right to speak without the government taking it away. We do not have the right to have the government pay us to speak (or whatever the analogy would be). On the other hand, we certainly should have the right to pursue "shelter and warmth" and the government should not be permitted to take away our shelter and warmth (or to prohibit us from attempting to achieve shelter and warmth). However, we do not have the right for the governnment to provide us with shelter and warmth.

[rockfist]

Well said Greekdog

[Phatscotty]

Well said Greekdog

Boom!

[Lootifer]

An inalienable right, by its definition, cannot be limited to only those people living in first world countries. Your list would have been more accurate with respect to the definition you espoused if you hadn't limited it like that.

As far as my own opinion - inalienable rights don't change with time. They are the same rights one thousand years ago that they are now. Just because 95% of people believe they should have effective sewers, does not make it a right. There is a reason the credo is "the pursuit of happiness" and not "happiness." Additionally, and also in my opinion, rights are not things the government grants to you, but things the government should not be permitted to take from you. For example, here in the United States we have the right to free speech. In other words, we have the right to speak without the government taking it away. We do not have the right to have the government pay us to speak (or whatever the analogy would be). On the other hand, we certainly should have the right to pursue "shelter and warmth" and the government should not be permitted to take away our shelter and warmth (or to prohibit us from attempting to achieve shelter and warmth). However, we do not have the right for the governnment to provide us with shelter and warmth.

I'll rephrase:

In a first world country it is my opinion that this should include (that is it should be a reasonable expectation of the government to provide a minimum standard of the following for it's entire population - assuming the countries GDP/wealth can afford such measures):

[Lootifer]

Well said Greekdog

Boom!

You know the accuracy of his statement has no bearing on the "validity" (for lack of a better word) of my opinion. I just phrased it too strongly (it was never meant as fact).

edit: apart from the inalienable bit, but that's kind of moot, since I am clearly referring to alienable things.

[rockfist]

Your opinion is one proponents of Ingsoc would be proud of.

[Lootifer]

Your opinion is one Ingsoc would be proud of.

Yes you're right, the position of moderate is an impossibility

[Army of GOD]

In a first world country it is my opinion that this includes:
- [affordable] shelter and warmth
- [affordable] nutrition
- drinking water
- effective sewerage
- [affordable] healthcare
- [affordable] education

An inalienable right, by its definition, cannot be limited to only those people living in first world countries. Your list would have been more accurate with respect to the definition you espoused if you hadn't limited it like that.

As far as my own opinion - inalienable rights don't change with time. They are the same rights one thousand years ago that they are now. Just because 95% of people believe they should have effective sewers, does not make it a right. There is a reason the credo is "the pursuit of happiness" and not "happiness." Additionally, and also in my opinion, rights are not things the government grants to you, but things the government should not be permitted to take from you. For example, here in the United States we have the right to free speech. In other words, we have the right to speak without the government taking it away. We do not have the right to have the government pay us to speak (or whatever the analogy would be). On the other hand, we certainly should have the right to pursue "shelter and warmth" and the government should not be permitted to take away our shelter and warmth (or to prohibit us from attempting to achieve shelter and warmth). However, we do not have the right for the governnment to provide us with shelter and warmth.

This is correct.

The most disturbing thing of the video is how the woman is demanding someone else pay, as if it's our fault she has so many kids. I wonder if she has any mental disabilities or if she's just plain fucking stupid.