Reputation: 0 Neutral
- Active Posts:
- 728 (0.26 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Commander (274 posts)
- 05-January 07
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Sep 09 2009 12:38 PM
- Member Title:
- Sophomore Member
- 25 years old
- September 4, 1988
- Tustin, California
- Paintball. I mean, come on. Really.
- Brigade Name:
Posts I've Made
04 July 2009 - 11:16 AM
04 July 2009 - 09:04 AMI disagree with ALL seatbelt laws. The reasons being twofold.
One. It's their car, what right does the government have declaring what they have to do within their own property, and issuing punishment if they refuse to comply.
Two, if some moron is too stupid to comprehend basic physics and realize that if his vehicle hits something. it'll stop while he keeps moving, then BOINK him, one less idiot in the gene pool.
Not pickin on you with this PW, there were others but I'm too lazy to go quote them.
Like you (and hopefully most others) I'm very big on personal freedom and government non-interference (which is an unfortunate disposition considering the times). But here is the issue: The roads you drive on are all managed and paid for by the government (which, yes of course, is paid for with our tax money). If you're going to travel along roads owned by the government, then you are subject to the government's rules on it, whether you're in a motor vehicle, on a bicycle, or as a pedestrian -- and there are laws pertaining to all, not just cars. If you're on (your) private property, you can drive without a seatbelt, you can drive without a license and insurance (registration is a different issue), and you can drive "recklessly," because it is your property, your car (the registration issue), and you can do whatever you want. You can drive non-street legal cars on your own property too (farmland, if you have a personal race track, etc....)
So the first issue here is not whether the law is "good" or "bad," but whether or not the government is allowed to make such a law. Consider that first before you go into the practicality or moral objectivity of the law. Ask yourself "can they do that?" and if the answer is "yes" then go from there, if the answer is "no," then that is pretty simple.
01 July 2009 - 11:40 AMNever trust French manufacturing.
29 June 2009 - 08:28 PMSeems how he is 72, 150 years seems a bit excessive. I suppose it is mostly a symbolic thing.
I agree with slinkyaroo, white collar crimes are just as bad, sometimes even worse, because you can lose everything you have ever worked for.
WoW! Stating material goods is more important than intrinsic value. Ethically, that is scary.
Obviously a crime where someone is hurt badly, raped, murdered etc. is worse than any white collar crime. But something like this is worse than the fifteen year old down the street getting popped for smoking weed, or some other lesser crime like that.
They're not sentencing the crime, they're sentencing the man. This man is evil, and deserves to rot in jail for a century before they bury him.
Not many times where I agree with you MDK, but this is one of them (again).
Something nobody's mentioned yet is that though he is a criminal (white collar or whatever you wanna call it) and he stole money (not just as a principal issue of stealing from other people), he adversely affected the economy. I like the idea of a fine equal to the entirety of the money he stole as well as all of his assets (perhaps some claus negating hereditary issues so his beneficiaries don't get stuck with debt from his liabilities). Where was I (tired) oh yeah. Anyways, another point not brought up yet is that it takes money to incarcerate people. Last figure I heard was about $100,000/year/person, though I can't remember where I heard that so I might as well have pulled that out of my butt.
29 June 2009 - 08:18 PMIs digression a fallacy? lol.
Anywho, you all pretty well covered it. As far as Ma Duce's point, I'd just say that since we don't know the facts on the particular case and the tests involved at hand that we can't really comment on it directly. However, if what you pointed out could be utilized by a potential employer (particularly places where civil service tests are used) then yeah they should give the "equally understandable" or however u want to refer to it, tests.
With that point in mind I'd like to suggest that race may be a common factor but is not necessarily the cause of certain aptitude levels or deviance (which I'm sure most of you will agree with) but rather it is the general mental makeup of the individual. Any of you familiar with the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) will know that each "personality type" is racially, though not numerically, evenly "spread" between different races. Perhaps an initial test of what type of test/questions you respond to more easily, and that way even if the type of test you're more "applicable" to is based on your race, that claim could (probably) never be made, at least it wouldn't got through in court (ideally).