Thread: 100% Effective

and you were outside playing soccer... :-(

Originally Posted by HNSB

and you were outside playing soccer... :-(

Hey, may be youse was smart when you was 15, but I wasn't. I was being obnoxious until she cried and through her tears could only scream 'get out'. How the hell would I know any other way of making a hot girl notice me?!? It's not like I was Newt Gingrich smooth and all

She probably had an aspirin between her knees anyway.

Wow! We're all just victims of those horrible white men and this terrible capitalist system that rewards acheivement, inititative and self-reliance. A socialist state is our only hope. If you're not on board with that well you're just an ignorant dumb ass. Don't you represent the party always yammering about civility?

If it's any consolation, I have no skills in soccer. I also noticed you used the term "youse" is New York English included in your polyglot resume'? In any case you seem to have mastered it quite nicely. Would I be far off in guessing you might be from Spain?

Huh? I do not represent any party and no party represents me. If I was not able to express myself fairly clearly with regards to abstract and complex ideas I would not have gotten into this country. The 'youse' and such are just taking advantage of being here to learn the local culture and every now and then I mock these things as a sign of endearment. When I previously lived in Italy I didn't do it to the same extent, and ever since I wish I had.

And no, I come from eastern Europe, not Spain, but one day I may go and live in Spain for a while - it always seemed to me a rather appealing place to get to know up close. Who knows if I end up in Barcelona I may even try lisp, I take myself lightly enough to not care if I make a fool of myself.

Originally Posted by gugi

, but 'equal' most certainly stil does not mean in practice what it means in the dictionary. Or may be it does mean the same thing as in a dictionary - an abstract idealized concept with little bearing to reality.

There is more than one way to be equal, is there not? You can focus on equal outcomes and/or equal oppotunities. I prefer equal oportunities, as in everyone is the same in the eyes of the government and can all equally exercise their rights. Most everyone is capable of lifting themselves out of poverty through education and persperation, if they so choose.

For the sake of argument lets say it is possible to create equal outcomes, even though we are all individuals with our own unique skills we bring to the table. It would be impossible to raise all of the poor to the level of the wealty(for more reasons than just the wealthy had it easier), so inorder to seek equality the wealthy have to be pulled down to a level the poor can match. But even then they are not equal in their exercise of rights, one group had their rights restricted, for another group to exercise special priviledges. That doesnt sound equal or fair to me. On top of that, is it fair to force those in a lower bracket to move up? I know plenty of people that are plenty happy and content at their current levels, even when bordering on poverty. There are also those that are wealthy who are miserable, money is not an end, it is a means.


Regarding your replies to the OP: Abstinence IS the only 100% safe form of birth control as well as STD control, I would think someone as smart and educated as youself would know that, or is it just that you are arguing for arguments sake? I understand that sex is fun and feels great and everyone would love to do it risk free, but you must have taken a biology class at somepoint and realize that sex can make babies, but immaculate conception only happens in that book you seem to hold in such high regard. That being said, as a host on TV the other day pointed out there are plenty of ways to get to the job done, where a womans knees can be touching, so an aspirin, between the knees would not force abstinence on anyone.

Responibility may not be 100% effective for everything, but the more people are reponsible for themselves, the more resources to help those that are incapable of it for whatever reason, aslong as that reason is not that I dont have to be responsible because momma government will pick up the pieces whenever, for whatever, even if it is my incompetence. How does one learn without consequences, if your teacher gave you a correct, no matter your answer, would you be a physisist(or whatever your line of work is)? Would you ever change your spending habits if more money was put in your account, no matter what? Would you learn the proper way to run a budget, so you could get yourself ahead in life, if the previous scenario was in place? If one truly believes in helping those less fortunate, teaching them lessons is the way to do it, like this saying: If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Or another one, I think was Napoleon Hill, you could take all the money from the rich and give to the poor and in a short time the rich would have it all back. Why would that be the case? Is it that the rich(used to be poor) dont have the skills neccessary for keeping the money, while the poor(used to be rich) do have those skills? Or is being rich just dumb luck? Yes, I know there are those who are rich that didnt make, dont know how to make, and never could build wealth, but they are a minority, for examples sake John Kerry come to mind, and dont forget the Kennedys.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

There is more than one way to be equal, is there not? You can focus on equal outcomes and/or equal oppotunities. I prefer equal oportunities, as in everyone is the same in the eyes of the government and can all equally exercise their rights.

You sincerely believe this? And especially that this is how it was intended to be? You must be reading some other country's founding documents.
The most obvious case being that of some men created to be proprietors and some to be property.

I'm not sure did you not understand my statements on contraception and responsibility, or you are just not interested in addressing them and instead address something completely different? The question is how do you actually make people responsible. Because it doesn't seem to me that 'on the Xth day the Lord God made man responsible'. You surely can look up the statistics on abstinence, divorce, having children outside of marriage, etc. And compare between the 'Christians' who are supposed to believe and live their life according to the high moral standard of the teaching of Jesus, against those who are not religious. So, again, where exactly do you find this magic that simply makes people responsible? And if you do not find magic, why stop right when the important stuff begins, let's hear how responsibility happens in practice.

Without that you are simply arguing that there is an utopia and it's just a matter of we collectively entering into it. So, I say again, let's start where the responsibility actually starts and buy that mirror. You take a look at your life and find out how much you personally pocket out of that government spending, but be responsible and do it honestly so include all those benefits that you may not like to count.

I really have heard enough of the "Get the government's dirty hands off my Medicare".

And I'll say it again this time explicitly, it is actually sad to watch people making caricatures of themselves by resorting to a straw man argument.

I'm impressed with the level of this discussion. These are difficult concerns for difficult times. I't great that these ideas can be brought out here in a positive way.

This was mentioned but as far as I could see no one addressed it:

What about women who might need oral contraceptives for real medical reasons? It's a legitimate treatment for things like polycystic ovaries.

If you are a religious institution entering into a public realm, you need to be able I offer your employees whatever they want. Frankly, to deny someone specific health insurance on religious grounds is discrimination. We need to respect the rights of others, and women have the right to choose what they put in their body. Our society is not catholic and public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, need to recognize that.

To OldGi's detractors, the assertions of hypocracy are irrelevant to GI's assertions about freedom requiring responsibility. Because some break the law doesn't mean the law is invalid. It sounds like various sore points are being unleashed that don't have to do w/ his assertion. I have some empathy about the sore points, but with just a scan of the first page, it looks like a fast descent into confused discussion.