[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Please lock (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 4/1/2014 4:04:30 PM EDT
| I can only handle so much fapping. |
|
Quoted:
Think of it as a revolver. With one bullet, how many chambers would there have to be before you wouldn't want the government to step in for making the kid play Russian roullette? If you're letting your child point a gun at his head and pull the trigger, especially with a round loaded, you probably shouldn't be allowed near the kid, or just people in general. |
|
Except, you weren't arguing that we shouldn't allow parents to do something risky to their children.
You were arguing that because a retarded parent could do something risky to their child with object X, we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X. There really is an important difference between those two things |
|
Quoted:
If you're letting your child point a gun at his head and pull the trigger, especially with a round loaded, you probably shouldn't be allowed near the kid, or just people in general. Quoted:
Quoted:
Think of it as a revolver. With one bullet, how many chambers would there have to be before you wouldn't want the government to step in for making the kid play Russian roullette? If you're letting your child point a gun at his head and pull the trigger, especially with a round loaded, you probably shouldn't be allowed near the kid, or just people in general. It's an analogy. I don't mean the actual gun, I mean the concept. Say raw milk killed kids 99%of the time, for the sake of argument. Would that justify government action against giving kids raw milk? |
|
Quoted:
Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop Trolling. EDIT: I don't care anymore. I give up. Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. No. |
|
Quoted:
Except, you weren't arguing that we shouldn't allow parents to do something risky to their children. You were arguing that because a retarded parent could do something risky to their child with object X, we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X. There really is an important difference between those two things No, I specifically said parents giving it to kids. I didn't say ban raw chicken outright. |
|
Quoted:
No. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop Trolling. EDIT: I don't care anymore. I give up. Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. No. No? What percentage then is fine with parents killing kids? |
|
Quoted:
No? What percentage then is fine with parents killing kids? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop Trolling. EDIT: I don't care anymore. I give up. Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. No. No? What percentage then is fine with parents killing kids? Why would anyone say any percentage is fine with parents killing kids? |
|
The attempt to make life as "safe" as possible has been a basic underlying motivation in the advancement of all civilization.
That said, life will never be completely "safe" of course. The notion that it can be is nonsense on the face of it. Society takes greater interest in the welfare of children because they are not of an age where they can make rational choices about risk on their own yet. If an adult wants to go base jumping off a bridge, more power to them - I would never stand in their way because they are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Children, OTOH, do need certain protections. Regulations protecting the well being of children are deeply rooted in our most primordial instincts of species survival. (I have no idea what locked thread you are referring to or what discussion went on there which is spilling over into this thread). |
|
Quoted:
Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop Trolling. EDIT: I don't care anymore. I give up. Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. 
|
|
Quoted:
No, I specifically said parents giving it to kids. I didn't say ban raw chicken outright. Quoted:
Quoted:
Except, you weren't arguing that we shouldn't allow parents to do something risky to their children. You were arguing that because a retarded parent could do something risky to their child with object X, we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X. There really is an important difference between those two things No, I specifically said parents giving it to kids. I didn't say ban raw chicken outright. Quoted:
Retard parents shouldn't be able to poison and kill their kids because they think natural is best. Those stats from the CDC would be really bad if everyone drank raw milk. It's not the total number of sick people, it's the percentage. Kids don't get to pick their parents. Sounds like you are arguing we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X because kids don't get to pick their retard parents. |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like you are arguing we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X because kids don't get to pick their retard parents. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except, you weren't arguing that we shouldn't allow parents to do something risky to their children. You were arguing that because a retarded parent could do something risky to their child with object X, we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X. There really is an important difference between those two things No, I specifically said parents giving it to kids. I didn't say ban raw chicken outright. Quoted:
Retard parents shouldn't be able to poison and kill their kids because they think natural is best. Those stats from the CDC would be really bad if everyone drank raw milk. It's not the total number of sick people, it's the percentage. Kids don't get to pick their parents. Sounds like you are arguing we should prohibit anyone from having access to object X because kids don't get to pick their retard parents. Uh... Everything I said was about kids and parents, not what adults do to themselves. Poison their kids, kids don't pick. See? Read the op from my locked thread. Again, specifically about parents feeding it to their kids. You are seeing what you want to see, not what I posted |
|
Quoted:
Why would anyone say any percentage is fine with parents killing kids? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop Trolling. EDIT: I don't care anymore. I give up. Stop derailing. How could that possibly be construed as trolling? It's not even a contentious topic, 99% here would support government intervention at some level would be my guess. No. No? What percentage then is fine with parents killing kids? Why would anyone say any percentage is fine with parents killing kids? You're agreeing with me now. Here, yes or no. Should there be legal consequences to parents feeding their kids food that will kill them 100% of the time? 90% of the time? |
|
Assuming good intent on the OP's part. Let's try this....
Any measurement has a noise level. A matter of uncertainty related to EXACTLY what caused something to happen. Bans, registration, regulation or whatever assume that everything can be controlled 100%. Therefore if controlled correctly the result would be the absolute reduction of the issue to a zero measurement. So let's use cars as an example. If you completely cocoon people in a shock absorbing gel, would it be possible to reduce deaths through accidental deaths to zero? The answer is no. That is because people die of heart attacks, fire, and other things in car accidents. So what is the undefined noise level of these issues? So now you have to ask what level,you,want to push agendas to "fix" things that take you into that noise level. |
|
Quoted:
The attempt to make life as "safe" as possible has been a basic underlying motivation in the advancement of all civilization. That said, life will never be completely "safe" of course. The notion that it can be is nonsense on the face of it. Society takes greater interest in the welfare of children because they are not of an age where they can make rational choices about risk on their own yet. If an adult wants to go base jumping off a bridge, more power to them - I would never stand in their way because they are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Children, OTOH, do need certain protections. Regulations protecting the well being of children are deeply rooted in our most primordial instincts of species survival. (I have no idea what locked thread you are referring to or what discussion went on there which is spilling over into this thread). Of course there will be risks, but I think we almost all agree that some things are too risky to just overlook. This thread is meant to discuss where we think that line should be. Thread was about feeding your kids raw chicken, like from Walmart. |
|
Quoted:
Assuming good intent on the OP's part. Let's try this.... Any measurement has a noise level. A matter of uncertainty related to EXACTLY what caused something to happen. Bans, registration, regulation or whatever assume that everything can be controlled 100%. Therefore if controlled correctly the result would be the absolute reduction of the issue to a zero measurement. So let's use cars as an example. If you completely cocoon people in a shock absorbing gel, would it be possible to reduce deaths through accidental deaths to zero? The answer is no. That is because people die of heart attacks, fire, and other things in car accidents. So what is the undefined noise level of these issues? So now you have to ask what level,you,want to push agendas to "fix" things that take you into that noise level. OP talking about regulating firearms or doubleheaded dongs? |
|
Quoted:
Of course there will be risks, but I think we almost all agree that some things are too risky to just overlook. This thread is meant to discuss where we think that line should be. Thread was about feeding your kids raw chicken, like from Walmart. Quoted:
Quoted:
The attempt to make life as "safe" as possible has been a basic underlying motivation in the advancement of all civilization. That said, life will never be completely "safe" of course. The notion that it can be is nonsense on the face of it. Society takes greater interest in the welfare of children because they are not of an age where they can make rational choices about risk on their own yet. If an adult wants to go base jumping off a bridge, more power to them - I would never stand in their way because they are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Children, OTOH, do need certain protections. Regulations protecting the well being of children are deeply rooted in our most primordial instincts of species survival. (I have no idea what locked thread you are referring to or what discussion went on there which is spilling over into this thread). Of course there will be risks, but I think we almost all agree that some things are too risky to just overlook. This thread is meant to discuss where we think that line should be. Thread was about feeding your kids raw chicken, like from Walmart. That will be for a jury to decide. Or do we need a law for every possible way to kill your children? |
|
Quoted:
Assuming good intent on the OP's part. Let's try this.... Any measurement has a noise level. A matter of uncertainty related to EXACTLY what caused something to happen. Bans, registration, regulation or whatever assume that everything can be controlled 100%. Therefore if controlled correctly the result would be the absolute reduction of the issue to a zero measurement. So let's use cars as an example. If you completely cocoon people in a shock absorbing gel, would it be possible to reduce deaths through accidental deaths to zero? The answer is no. That is because people die of heart attacks, fire, and other things in car accidents. So what is the undefined noise level of these issues? So now you have to ask what level,you,want to push agendas to "fix" things that take you into that noise level. That's why I was trying to make it more abstract. If a town had a thrill ride that killed one out of ten kids that went on it, should it be banned? It's easy to discuss the abstract, but you're right hard to discuss it that way in reality. Complicated situations and noise. |
|
Quoted:
So you're now asking me if it should be illegal for parents to kill their kids? Is that right? Do you realize how stupid all of this is? You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. |
|
Quoted:
That will be for a jury to decide. Or do we need a law for every possible way to kill your children? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The attempt to make life as "safe" as possible has been a basic underlying motivation in the advancement of all civilization. That said, life will never be completely "safe" of course. The notion that it can be is nonsense on the face of it. Society takes greater interest in the welfare of children because they are not of an age where they can make rational choices about risk on their own yet. If an adult wants to go base jumping off a bridge, more power to them - I would never stand in their way because they are old enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Children, OTOH, do need certain protections. Regulations protecting the well being of children are deeply rooted in our most primordial instincts of species survival. (I have no idea what locked thread you are referring to or what discussion went on there which is spilling over into this thread). Of course there will be risks, but I think we almost all agree that some things are too risky to just overlook. This thread is meant to discuss where we think that line should be. Thread was about feeding your kids raw chicken, like from Walmart. That will be for a jury to decide. Or do we need a law for every possible way to kill your children? I'm asking, in your opinion, when would you want the thrill ride to be banned? |
|
Quoted:
Auto accidents account for the majority - we haven't banned cars yet OP... grok this: https://www.schneier.com/ and... this, http://WarOnIrrationalFear.com/facts |
|
Quoted:
You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. Quoted:
Quoted:
So you're now asking me if it should be illegal for parents to kill their kids? Is that right? Do you realize how stupid all of this is? You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. You're putting words in my mouth because you're a troll. It's stupid to assume that any percentage of dead children is acceptable, it's also stupid to ban/make illegal/restrict/etc.etc.etc. because it's 'dangerous'. Stop trying to control my life with your restrictions. /thread |
|
snip
OP talking about regulating firearms or doubleheaded dongs? Does not matter. The same questions need to be asked. Negligence is a completely different matter. Even if something is unregulated or there being no law against it, you can still be found negligent of the conduct of a child, employee, or someone else you should have taken reasonable precaution to protect. |
|
Quoted:
I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. You're putting words in my mouth because you're a troll. It's stupid to assume that any percentage of dead children is acceptable, it's also stupid to ban/make illegal/restrict/etc.etc.etc. because it's 'dangerous'. Stop trying to control my life with your restrictions. /thread Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you're now asking me if it should be illegal for parents to kill their kids? Is that right? Do you realize how stupid all of this is? You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. You're putting words in my mouth because you're a troll. It's stupid to assume that any percentage of dead children is acceptable, it's also stupid to ban/make illegal/restrict/etc.etc.etc. because it's 'dangerous'. Stop trying to control my life with your restrictions. /thread That's retarded. It's stupid to ban thrill rides that kill too many kids? Either it should be allowed or shouldn't. Which is it? |
|
Quoted:
I'm asking, in your opinion, when would you want the thrill ride to be banned? I would not put my kid on that ride, but some parents would. In my opinion, those parents are fucking stupid. Stupid parents make stupid kids who grow up to be stupid adults. I would not support a ban on the killer thrill ride because we need less stupid people. |
|
Quoted:
I would not put my kid on that ride, but some parents would. In my opinion, those parents are fucking stupid. Stupid parents make stupid kids who grow up to be stupid adults. I would not support a ban on the killer thrill ride because we need less stupid people. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm asking, in your opinion, when would you want the thrill ride to be banned? I would not put my kid on that ride, but some parents would. In my opinion, those parents are fucking stupid. Stupid parents make stupid kids who grow up to be stupid adults. I would not support a ban on the killer thrill ride because we need less stupid people. Would you charge the parents? |
|
Quoted:
You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. Quoted:
Quoted:
So you're now asking me if it should be illegal for parents to kill their kids? Is that right? Do you realize how stupid all of this is? You are very close. Since you agree putting a child on a ride that kills every kid that rides it shouldn't be allowed, what level should it be allowed at? One out of ten dying? One out of a hundred? See the point now? You're intelligent, if you stop assuming that I'm trolling I know you understand the point. This is obviously a round about way of asking how much of your freedom should be given up for safety. The answer is none. It will always be none. And fucking rollercoasters have nothing to do with our freedom. kids dying on a rollercoaster at the rate of 1:10 is negligence. Just like a kid dying from a gun in the home at 3 or 4 is negligence on the parents part. Car accidents are caused by negligence. Kids dying in swimming pools is negligence. In a capitalistic society there wouldn't have been a chance to even get the long term statistic of 1:10 because people wouldn't ride the damn thing and it couldn't afford to stay open. |
|
Quoted:
Would you charge the parents? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm asking, in your opinion, when would you want the thrill ride to be banned? I would not put my kid on that ride, but some parents would. In my opinion, those parents are fucking stupid. Stupid parents make stupid kids who grow up to be stupid adults. I would not support a ban on the killer thrill ride because we need less stupid people. Would you charge the parents? YES. Same as taking a kid with a peanut allergy to a peanut farm. 99.99% of people are fine with those tours. Should we shut ALL peanut farms because a small percenatage of people have allergies even if they take precautions to plaster placards everywhere that say "PEANUTS ARE PRESENT AND MAY CAUSE REACTIONS IN THOSE THAT HAVE ALLERGIES"? |
|
Some social risks:
Old age poverty -- the government to this actually "works" in the sense that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than other age groups. On the other hand, stealing from the young and making them poorer, removing individual insight in the control and use of their own money, and not actually investing the money in anything are hardly risk free "solutions". Drug Use -- violation of 4th amendment rights is not worth the war on drugs. Drug use tracks economic conditions more than anything else. Great, if you like massive spending on prisons and police department equipment. Hands-off approach to the mentally ill -- So everyone watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in the early 60's and nearly completely dismantled the state mental wards. Now the mentally ill are on the street and in section 8 homes scattered everywhere. Whoever is doing the math on this "distributed" non-solution is practicing fraudulent accounting. These people are like graffiti - they make life less pleasant for everyone and sometimes do pretty horrible things. Government mortgage bundlers -- already caused a massive recession and the problem still isn't fixed. These need to be privatized and never bailed out again. One of the top reasons Congress is criminally negligent. more -- the list is endless. the Socialists lie is that government should be doing anything about any of these problems. Everyone's bought into it and all that has happened is that government is now the largest systemic risk. |
|
Quoted:
Would you charge the parents? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm asking, in your opinion, when would you want the thrill ride to be banned? I would not put my kid on that ride, but some parents would. In my opinion, those parents are fucking stupid. Stupid parents make stupid kids who grow up to be stupid adults. I would not support a ban on the killer thrill ride because we need less stupid people. Would you charge the parents? No. |
|
Quoted: Ok, serious thread. I was trying to get at this in the other that was locked, but I'll try again without the parody. Regarding children, because they can't take care of themselves... What level of risk is it acceptable for a parent to place their child in? Where would you draw the line and have society take action? To clarify, if behavior X resulted in the child dying 100% of the time, I think we would agree the parents can't get away with that. What if its fifty percent, or ten percent? Think of it as a revolver. With one bullet, how many chambers would there have to be before you wouldn't want the government to step in for making the kid play Russian roullette?  |
|
Statists will lean toward more involvment by the all-powerful state while diminishing the power of the parents/family. Is the OP trying to get us to pick the tipping point?
I say push back always at the schemes of the progressives, commies and statists. Guard your freedom of authority over your family with extreme diligence. |
|
Quoted:
Some social risks: Old age poverty -- the government to this actually "works" in the sense that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than other age groups. On the other hand, stealing from the young and making them poorer, removing individual insight in the control and use of their own money, and not actually investing the money in anything are hardly risk free "solutions". Drug Use -- violation of 4th amendment rights is not worth the war on drugs. Drug use tracks economic conditions more than anything else. Great, if you like massive spending on prisons and police department equipment. Hands-off approach to the mentally ill -- So everyone watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in the early 60's and nearly completely dismantled the state mental wards. Now the mentally ill are on the street and in section 8 homes scattered everywhere. Whoever is doing the math on this "distributed" non-solution is practicing fraudulent accounting. These people are like graffiti - they make life less pleasant for everyone and sometimes do pretty horrible things. Government mortgage bundlers -- already caused a massive recession and the problem still isn't fixed. These need to be privatized and never bailed out again. One of the top reasons Congress is criminally negligent. more -- the list is endless. the Socialists lie is that government should be doing anything about any of these problems. Everyone's bought into it and all that has happened is that government is now the largest systemic risk. Great post! 
|
|
Quoted:
This thread is now about pics of your girlfriend Quoted:
Quoted:
Ban everything of it saves one life!!!!! God damn yall. If my hippy liberal gf can understand guns go with personal responsibility I'm afraid you've got therapy level issues. This thread is now about pics of your girlfriend I don't have any coc compliant pictures. If only there was a forum. ... 
|
|
Quoted:
I don't have any coc compliant pictures. If only there was a forum. ... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ban everything of it saves one life!!!!! God damn yall. If my hippy liberal gf can understand guns go with personal responsibility I'm afraid you've got therapy level issues. This thread is now about pics of your girlfriend I don't have any coc compliant pictures. If only there was a forum. ... As long as it gets this thread locked, its for the good of the people. |