It is rape when a good portion of the stuff is disease-causing with little benefit.
Yes, eradicating smallpox had little benefit -- in fact I think the only thing that could do a smaller amount of good for mankind would be eradicating HIV/AIDS and Malaria. I am talking about the required designer meds they sell you on at the doctor's office. |
|
|
|
Heh. It's funny how you just don't understand what I say. Also, I've read more works than that are prescribed in college.
If you can't express yourself clearly or with words you understand that have definitions the rest of the world shares, that ain't my fault. Every one of your posts is a grammatical train wreck. When someone like Nabokov or McCarthy throws a million big words at you, it's not bad because they know what all of those words mean and know when and where to use them. You, on the other hand, come across like a kindergartener running around in his dad's oversized shoes and knocking shit everywhere. Heh. Is that so? Well, I'll be happy to see examples if you're willing to go through the trouble. I have better things to do than give you a grammar lesson, and besides, there have already been several threads where people have done just that and you shrugged them off and kept on with your bullshit. You really don't listen to anyone, and you simply ignore any point that casts your belief system in a bad light, so what's the point? I don't even know why I'm writing this post. Also, stop starting every damn post with "Heh". Heh. |
|
|
|
I, personally would rather pick and choose who I paid (much like I do when shipping goods) but outside of satisfying personal preference, I don't think there would be a large difference in most people's wealth. That's like saying that if a woman is raped or she falls in love and has consensual sex, there's no difference in how pregnant she'll get. Wheal she is pregnant regardless of the way she got there. You can't be half pregnant. The difference is what preceded the sexual act which preceded the pregnancy . Physical Violence. Those that come after Violence is irrelevant at least to me. It's not worst to be raped than being forced to sign something or to take a pill . You really need to get out more. There is the world of difference between forcing a child to take an aspirin and raping him. No it ain't you forced him to something he didn't wanted. Maybe your child gets some neat complication when he gets an vaccine . I would love to see your face when you will explain to him why you forced him to take it if you ever have the chance to do it. I'm guessing you don't have children. Raise a pair and then we'll talk. The guy thinks that forcing a child to take its medicine is the same as raping a child. Are you sure you want him to reproduce? And if you are, are you sure children will be safe in his care? It is rape when a good portion of the stuff is disease-causing with little benefit. I see. Are you wearing your tinfoil hat ? Inconvenient and probable truths aren't necessarily religious conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Heh. It's funny how you just don't understand what I say. Also, I've read more works than that are prescribed in college.
If you can't express yourself clearly or with words you understand that have definitions the rest of the world shares, that ain't my fault. Every one of your posts is a grammatical train wreck. When someone like Nabokov or McCarthy throws a million big words at you, it's not bad because they know what all of those words mean and know when and where to use them. You, on the other hand, come across like a kindergartener running around in his dad's oversized shoes and knocking shit everywhere. Heh. Is that so? Well, I'll be happy to see examples if you're willing to go through the trouble. |
|
|
|
I, personally would rather pick and choose who I paid (much like I do when shipping goods) but outside of satisfying personal preference, I don't think there would be a large difference in most people's wealth. That's like saying that if a woman is raped or she falls in love and has consensual sex, there's no difference in how pregnant she'll get. Wheal she is pregnant regardless of the way she got there. You can't be half pregnant. The difference is what preceded the sexual act which preceded the pregnancy . Physical Violence. Those that come after Violence is irrelevant at least to me. It's not worst to be raped than being forced to sign something or to take a pill . You really need to get out more. There is the world of difference between forcing a child to take an aspirin and raping him. No it ain't you forced him to something he didn't wanted. Maybe your child gets some neat complication when he gets an vaccine . I would love to see your face when you will explain to him why you forced him to take it if you ever have the chance to do it. I'm guessing you don't have children. Raise a pair and then we'll talk. The guy thinks that forcing a child to take its medicine is the same as raping a child. Are you sure you want him to reproduce? And if you are, are you sure children will be safe in his care? It is rape when a good portion of the stuff is disease-causing with little benefit. |
|
|
|
Most of us have passed Philosophy 101.
What the fuck? You're not even old enough for college. Also quit saying not a zero-sum game about every subject in nearly every post you make on this forum. Like a lot of things you type, I know you think it makes you sound smart, but really it just makes everyone embarrassed for you. We can all see that you're using the same few phrases over and over to try and mimic what you think a smart person should sound like. Every time you learn a new word, we get to see it in every single one of your posts. In a way, it's kind of cute, but in another, more realistic way, it's insufferable. Heh. It's funny how you just don't understand what I say. Also, I've read more works than that are prescribed in college: I talk to a woman who is just about to finish her Bachelor's degree. We seem to be on similar grounds when it comes to material. Also, on a funny note, she's a Marxist yet my best friend. |
|
|
|
|
Most vaccines are useless and have negligible benefit to only a small portion of the population. The risk of complication is probably far greater for most children than benefit. My children won't be taking most vaccines out there. I will not be taking another vaccine for the rest of my life.
|
|
|
|
http://www.infowars.com/study-proves-fluoride-brain-damage/“High levels of fluoride in drinking water (1-12ppm) affect central nervous system directly without first causing the physical deformities of skeletal fluorosis.” Reddy writes in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences. Damage to the hippocampus often results in hyperactivity and cognitive deficits.
Numerous studies conducted in China, India, Iran, and Mexico have determined that fluoride exposure is associated with IQ deficits in children.
The correlation between fluoride exposure and diminished IQ was underscored earlier this year after the results of a study in China were published. “A recent Chinese study concluded that low dose sodium fluoride in drinking water diminishes IQ, especially among children. This is the twenty-fourth such international study with the same conclusion. Sodium fluoride has also been linked to reduced fertility and lower sperm counts,” Paul Fassa wrote for Natural News in April.
|
|
|
|
|
Hm, very interesting. You do have something here it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
I am only a voluntaryist.
|
|
|
|
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve. On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile. By magic? If there is no legal restriction on taking other people's kids, you may find that a little more than magical thinking about "greater societal forces" is needed. Heh, it's not magic. People don't like kids getting rape. They'll get upset and defensive before then. There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government. |
|
|
|
|
...or you can just insure your packages.
|
|
|
|
...snip...
No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.
They opposed it in opposition. Once elected, they supported it. Prove this. Also, can we really hold this man as a genuine founding father? "Early in the Convention he made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison." |
|
|
|
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve. On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her. Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ? Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions. The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these. Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family. Only the state can authorise that. It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution. You are dodging the point. We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care. Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you? Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable. You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how? Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve. |
|
|
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? Most of them didn't like him: He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duelThis nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton. Actually it was. He served under Washington and helped Jefferson get elected. All three maintained a national debt and a national bank and used implied powers to run the country. Your problem is that you want to cherrypick your facts. No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited. "Opinions of Hamilton have run the gamut: both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson viewed him as unprincipled and dangerously aristocratic. Aaron Burr and Hamilton became personal enemies." |
|
|
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. And there we have it. He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson. It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? Most of them didn't like him: He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duelThis nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her. Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ? Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions. The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these. Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family. Only the state can authorise that. It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution. You are dodging the point. We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care. Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you? Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable. |
|
|
|
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148 So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants. http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfareUm, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny. And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare. No contradiction there. They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution. You should read up on Hamilton and Washington. They went a lot further from day 1. Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks. |
|
|
|
I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.
Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection? Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state. Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her. Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ? Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions. The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these. Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family. Only the state can authorise that. It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
