Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was a time in college where I didn't want to pay for fire services...

But that's because the fethheads in my dorm building had pulled the fire alarms 6 times before the semester started (I was there early for work), and the fire department and the school said they'd start charging us 150 bucks per visit if it turned out to not be an emergency, and to make it worth it, they'd go through and do a room by room clear of every floor (7 residential floors)... The alarm wasn't pulled a single time that semester...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.

Word...

My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!

(in Gollum's voice...)

My PRECIOUS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that if babies are the responsibility purely of the parents, the state has no right to butt into abortion.

Heh... just knew someone would do that.

We need to come up with some Goodwin/Drago's law to determine how quickly abortion get brought up in these threads.

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.

Word...

My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!

(in Gollum's voice...)

My PRECIOUS.

Be sure we don't want your kids, I've no interest in them at all. You made them, you deal with them, just keep them fething quiet in restaurants.

But I and everyone else is very interested in how you train them to exist with the rest of us, we are concerned that you do not inspire them to behave in a way that is not conducive to being a constructive citizen. Because the rest of us will have to pay for them, either benefits, prison or asylum, if you do not do a good job.

So, we can be said to have a certain responsibility, as they will be entering the wider society after you turn them loose (you know, when they become arrogant, spotty, drunken little horny scumbags that hate you and have driven you nuts borrowing the car and you can't wait to see them spread their wings).

The rest of the village does have a vested interest in your kids, insofar as you'll be adding them to the village soon enough and we don't want you to screw them up.

The public education system is reasonable. You do have options besides the public schools and College is completely optional.

Its where you have no choice in the matter that things become bad. Having to buy health insurance, being too poor to afford it but not poor enough to have the government pay for it. Things like that.

Police and Fire are more important than Health care in my opinion. With the order being Fire, Police, and then Health. The Fire Departments are there to stop a small fire from spreading and potentially destroying massive swaths of towns(like they used to do before there were fire departments)

The Police keep order on the streets and enforce the Law, thus they are necessary. A tertiary job is to protect the citizens, but as reactionary force they are too slow to be effective. hence why being armed for self-defense is always a good idea.

Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.

Word...

My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!

(in Gollum's voice...)

My PRECIOUS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that if babies are the responsibility purely of the parents, the state has no right to butt into abortion.

Heh... just knew someone would do that.

We need to come up with some Goodwin/Drago's law to determine how quickly abortion get brought up in these threads.

Do you disagree that it is a fair point?

If so, on what grounds?

Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record I despise all children, I don't want responsibility for your useless and disgusting offspring. The village can feth right off.

Word...

My boyz are MINE! So...ya, "Mr. Village".. feth off!

(in Gollum's voice...)

My PRECIOUS.

Be sure we don't want your kids, I've no interest in them at all. You made them, you deal with them, just keep them fething quiet in restaurants.

But I and everyone else is very interested in how you train them to exist with the rest of us, we are concerned that you do not inspire them to behave in a way that is not conducive to being a constructive citizen. Because the rest of us will have to pay for them, either benefits, prison or asylum, if you do not do a good job.

So, we can be said to have a certain responsibility, as they will be entering the wider society after you turn them loose (you know, when they become arrogant, spotty, drunken little horny scumbags that hate you and have driven you nuts borrowing the car and you can't wait to see them spread their wings).

The rest of the village does have a vested interest in your kids, insofar as you'll be adding them to the village soon enough and we don't want you to screw them up.

Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?

Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.

Interesting lottery system, right until your nearest and dearest is made unemployed and then develops cancer. Then you can enjoy getting that second mortgage to pay off the medical expenses.

In the case of state healthcare, everyone pays a bit against them being selected by the finger of doom and suffering entire financial hardship. With the insurance you are playing a lottery against being 'really' ill, because they will try to avoid paying you, not some benevolent bunch of friendly ducks, geckos and oddly haired ladies waiting to hand you free cash when you're in trouble.




We have friends who recently had a child born with cerebral palsy, born 15 weeks early, they are both reasonably well off professionals, their medical insurance would not have covered his conditions, but Obamacare did. They are now engaged with their private medical insurance over a wheelchair, because the insurance is arguing this poor little lad doesn't need one...

I worked for medical insurance for several years, it is dedicated to avoiding paying you, that's how it makes its money.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

In other words you children arn't your own.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

Oh ho a shot across the nannystater's bow. And herein's the rub no? Hold, on I need to get some popcorn for this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

In other words you children arn't your own.

I wonder, if there's been DNA testing. I imagine a serious sitdown discussion with the wife is called for...

 whembly wrote:

Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?

Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?

Spanking is find in my book, I was smacked when I was a gak, didn't do me any harm. Then again I've sat on a bus in Bristol and ended up 'having a word' with a woman who just smacked her child because he wouldn't sit still whilst she was texting.

I have worked in child protection, I suffered through several years of it before it burnt out my retinas, I've seen a 3yr old with a shattered jawbone and broken cheek because they wouldn't stop crying whilst mummy was trying to watch her soaps...

I think society was right to intervene in that case, don't you?

That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.

That's a rather selfish ideology. Just one question though: if you get cancer and can't afford the proper treatment will you accept government help or decline it and allow yourself to die in a horrible painful way?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...

Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Sure... but where do you draw the line? You can't protect every kid... nor can you predict how well/bad the kids will turn out. It's at the family level that drives that and society really doesn't have that much of an impact (except for the egregious stuff that's already against the law). Put simply, how much should society at large interject in the parenting?

Here's an easy question: What's your opinion on spanking?

Spanking is find in my book, I was smacked when I was a gak, didn't do me any harm.

Yup.

Then again I've sat on a bus in Bristol and ended up 'having a word' with a woman who just smacked her child because he wouldn't sit still whilst she was texting.

Good for you.

I have worked in child protection, I suffered through several years of it before it burnt out my retinas, I've seen a 3yr old with a shattered jawbone and broken cheek because they wouldn't stop crying whilst mummy was trying to watch her soaps...

And that's abuse. There's a fine distinction there.

I think society was right to intervene in that case, don't you?

Absolutely...

That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.

I absolutely agree with you there.

It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).

Don't you agree that America (and rest of the Western world) have various degrees of these "ism"?

In other words... we ain't easy to figure out.

Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!

Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...

 Frazzled wrote:
Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!

Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...

My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.

Now, I just give them that "Daddy" look...

Awesome powah.

But, man... they smart asses already... o.O

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.

I'm pretty sure even they have more mental capacity than a cockroach, so no.

(And if someone was literally born without a brain, yes, I would say that it would be wrong to waste valuable medical resources on their survival just because we have machines that can keep a brainless body "alive".)

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!

Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...

My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.

Now, I just give them that "Daddy" look...

Awesome powah.

But, man... they smart asses already... o.O

You have no idea what you're in for...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

Since when does "murder" include things that have less mental capacity than a cockroach? Or will squishing cockroaches be illegal in the libertarian utopia? I sure hope the free market decides to provide cockroach-free houses for everyone...

Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?

Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Healthcare is a very personal thing. Its different from the above where the person doing the job protects massive numbers of the populace. Some guy getting state funded cancer treatment does diddly squat for me, the Police keeping criminals off the street does directly benifit me. As does the Fire Department putting out the fire next door.

That's a rather selfish ideology. Just one question though: if you get cancer and can't afford the proper treatment will you accept government help or decline it and allow yourself to die in a horrible painful way?

Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.

And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry you're ok with killing the slowed then. Interesting.

I'm pretty sure even they have more mental capacity than a cockroach, so no.

(And if someone was literally born without a brain, yes, I would say that it would be wrong to waste valuable medical resources on their survival just because we have machines that can keep a brainless body "alive".)

So you standard is only those who are mentally incompetent? What about alzheimers patients? Those who've had seizures? Newborns? Do you support post birth abortions as testified by Planned Parenthood at committee?

After all life is sacred and the State has a duty to protect it. In addition, as part of that protection the State can insure harzardous activities for it are prescribed. After all, what it does impacts everyone else. So remember kids, Mother (state) knows best. Now pick up that can citizen.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Try to spank my kid and...well he'll beat the gak out of you now. He works out. a lot!

Spank Genghis Connie and little canine piranhas will chew your ankles to the bone in the three seconds it takes The Tank Dog to get a running start for your face...

My boyz are now 7 & 9... and I think the last time I spanked them was when they were 2-ish.

Now, I just give them that "Daddy" look...

Awesome powah.

But, man... they smart asses already... o.O

You have no idea what you're in for...

I can take 'em... for now.

Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.

Then they hit 15 and everytime you pass them its an improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match. Mmmm..good times.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats why Spanking is effective. Once they get it in their heads you won't have to spank them anymore. Mearely the threat is enough to discipline them.

Then they hit 15 and everytime you pass them its an improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match. Mmmm..good times.

Uh... Frazz... it's improtmptu wrestling / king of the hill match now. Those little buggers are getting good.

I might need to start taking UFC training to keep up.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?

Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.

(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)

Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.

Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.

Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.

And this is why libertarianism is a broken ideology: you admit that you won't act consistently according to your supposed beliefs, but you still want to force other people to.

And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.

That's not how insurance works. If health care plans beyond a basic "fix my broken leg" are optional then the only people who will buy them are the ones who need expensive treatment. Then you're inevitably stuck with the choice to either deal with a huge financial mess, or leave people to die.

No no, its fun now. Wait until they are filled with testosterone. its like the young bulls with an old bull walking by...CLASH!

Course now GC is so literally just pokes and shoves me out the room when I am annoying her.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?

Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.

(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)

Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.

Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.

Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.

And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when is brain processing power the determiner of if something is human or not? Or do you advocate the killing of mentally slowed people?

Since when is it NOT? Why do you think it is legal to take someone whose brain is gone off life support even when we have machines that are capable of keeping the body alive well beyond that point? If brain function wasn't required for "personhood" then this would be murder.

(And nice straw man there, we're talking about a complete absence of higher-level brain function, not just mental disability.)

Where do you draw the line? I prefer to play it way safe, a human is a human. Regardless of what their brain functions are.

Given that the vast majority of abortions take place before the fetus has ANY consciousness or higher-level brain functions (beyond the kind of 'make the heart beat' control that a cockroach has) it doesn't matter where the line is drawn. No reasonable line will ever be relevant.

Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.

And this is why libertarianism is a broken ideology: you admit that you won't act consistently according to your supposed beliefs, but you still want to force other people to.

I for one will be glad when we finally have our death panels to make these complicated decisions for us

Who said anything about Death Panels?

I did.

I don't wanna decide if somebody is too slowed to live. So I way bring on the death panels! All the money saving benefits of denying health care to the needy, with all the bureaucratic joy of socialism!

It's a win-win.