Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of sanchopanza
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sanchopanza

Pages: [1]
1
No.

You can't convince me that every person is worthy of the right of owning and/or carrying guns. 

And thus, there are laws. 

`

Ahh, Bill, the drive-by poster.

Bill is the perfect example of people that attack others with different opinions than their own and, because Bill is unable to logically and rationally defend the ideas he holds dear, he resorts to the drive-by shooting style of airing his point. He can't stick around to defend his ideas because he doesn't want to risk being wrong. You see, that would then force him to critically evaluate ALL other beliefs he holds. And THAT he couldn't stand. Right, Bill?

Poor, poor Bill. Pity him because HIS disability is SELF-IMPOSED.


2
The Polling Pit / Re: Wages/Salary
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:46:04 PM »
Workers/employees should be free to negotiate salary and fringe benefits with their potential employers to the end where they (the individual and the employer) negotiate a mutually beneficial employment agreement. Regardless of the job or position, the employment contract is between the employer and the potential employee. No one else.

3
Serious Business / Re: Taxes
« on: January 02, 2012, 11:11:17 AM »
EVERYBODY pays taxes in one way or another; either through sales taxes or excise taxes like those imposed on gasoline as well as the ever-present theft tax on the financial benefit one receives from the exchange of value with an employer (time and labor -- which have value to the individual and the  employer) or the same arrangement through self-employment.  

I can't accept that taxes are a 'necessary evil'. Evil is evil. Even if one doesn't agree that the METHOD of tax collection is criminal (i.e. Under threat of violence and/or imprisonment -- or both) the myriad uses given taxes certainly are. Government (used in the plural sense of the word) take as the see fit, under threat of violence and or physical harm, and spend without regard.  To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, to put these decisions in the hands of faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats, that pay no price for being wrong, is the height of stupidity, inefficiency and borders on criminal.

Why is it the population is incompetent to arrange for distribution of THEIR money in ways that benefit THEM or in ways THEY feel benefit society most?  I say that we don't need expensive governmental bureaucracies to redistribute our money the way THEY see fit. De-fund Governments altogether and allow each individual the freedom to fund, or not fund, projects as he or she see feels appropriate.

Let me add further that government intervention in the economy by means of unemployment compensation and other welfare programs does not stimulate the economy. On the contrary, the economy slows down. Taking from the productive to give to the unproductive causes the unproductive to just hold out their hand  for more. The productive then can't expand their activities to produce more economic benefit because government stole their profits.

The poor have always been around and always will be around. Welfare programs are not the way out of poverty. Welfare perpetuates itself and creates a cycle of dependency that many times becomes generational and creates an entitlement mentality. Welfare a failure and should be stopped.

It's strange how, when forced to do so by circumstances, the needy find work. It may not be the ideal position; they may need 2 or 3 jobs to be where they have to be economically, but they find it.

Personally speaking, I would be much more willing to give to the needy if Government would stop stealing the money I earn by exchanging my time and labor for money by mutual agreement with my employer.

If I earn just enough to take care of my family and my debts, why should I be forced by government, or anyone else, to contribute my much needed finances to someone else (either by force or by being socially ostracized if I don't, as you appear to imply) whether or not I have a say in how it's spent? My earning are MINE. If I don't feel inclined to contribute toward someone else's need, why does that suddenly become a problem? More to the point, why should anyone care if I put my money under a mattress and save it for 'a rainy day' or if I use some of it to fund an animal shelter, or to help a family in need due to unemployment, or to buy a load of groceries for an elderly shut-in. It's no one's business but my own.


4
General / Re: Quiz Question for You.
« on: January 01, 2012, 08:22:49 PM »
Is the right answer Level 3 --  Post-Conventional?

5
Serious Business / Re: Family
« on: December 27, 2011, 08:10:59 PM »
I simply expressed my opinion. I don't expect you to embrace it any more than I hope you expect me to embrace yours.

Right on. Just keep in mind that when you throw the word "virtue" around you're sorta claiming a moral high ground and you'll draw the attention of people who don't agree with your definition of what virtue is, and they will question it.

Also, you tossed the word "Utilitarian" into the mix in regards to my view of family...

Taking a moral stance about not associating with bad people is not utilitarian at all. As a matter of fact, in an immoral world, refusing to deal with people who are immoral is sorta the opposite of utility. It would qualify as quite the inconvenience most of the time. So I take back my acceptance of your comment about my views being utilitarian. It's fucking hard to try to be the good guy in a world of bad guys, even at the cost of separating yourself from family.

So utilitarian? No. Practical? Yes. Easy? Hell no. Right? Damn skippy.

Thanks for correcting me.  When you express it the way you did this time, I can't but agree.


6
Serious Business / Re: Family
« on: December 27, 2011, 05:30:46 PM »
That's a very utilitarian way of maintaining a relationship with anyone, let alone family.

Don't associate with bad people. That is absolutely utilitarian and it is also moral. And I will do as I please, thanks very much.

Families do drift apart. Varied interests and work schedules often prevent interaction until a holiday forces our hand and we interact with virtual strangers.

Who is this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? You're collectivizing there.

However, I demonstrate no virtue in loving those that love me in return. That's E-A-S-Y....and selfish.

I demonstrate real virtue by loving those that can, or don't, give me a thing in return, are unpopular and/or unloveable. In other words, selflessly. I should love others, especially family, regardless whether they love me back.

Everything you say in this part of your post is the opposite of what is good and true. Selflessness is not a virtue. Rand covered this in 1943 and codified it in 1957 fairly well.

This is many times difficult and painful. I  only grow as a human being when I'm stretched out of my 'comfort zone'; when I do what I KNOW is right vs what I FEEL like doing. When I act out of conviction instead of simply reacting.

What you "KNOW is right" is wrong. Altruism is for suckers.

If I withhold relationship from anyone in my family I'm committing violence against them, albeit covert, but violence just the same.  

Incorrect, also stockholm syndrome.

I'd give you advice but you probably won't listen, so I'll just hope you eventually see how self abuse isn't any better than abuse from others and wish you good luck.

But look, it's your life, right, go do what you want and if you think you have an obligation to associate with bad people then by all means go ahead and enjoy it, or not enjoy it for the sake of your interpretation of what is virtuous if that suits you.

But I have to disagree and reject with great distaste your definition of virtue and absolutely refuse to acknowledge it as valid.

Also, the claim that me NOT giving something to someone else is the initiation of violence is absolutely absurd, and logic like that could be turned right around and applied as an argument for pretty much any power the state currently wields. So double ick on that.

<<<Goes to shower off the icky.


I simply expressed my opinion. I don't expect you to embrace it any more than I hope you expect me to embrace yours.

Thanks for posting your reply.


7
Serious Business / Re: Family
« on: December 27, 2011, 12:01:44 PM »
I refuse to associate with immoral people if I am not being forced to under the threat of violence. 

My family is immoral.

Therefore I no longer associate with them.

"Family" is an accident of genetics and obligations based on an accident of genetics are erroneous.

If you have a cool family that has earned your friendship, then awesome. Otherwise it's just another bunch of people. 


That's a very utilitarian way of maintaining a relationship with anyone, let alone family.
Families do drift apart. Varied interests and work schedules often prevent interaction until a holiday forces our hand and we interact with virtual strangers.

However, I demonstrate no virtue in loving those that love me in return. That's E-A-S-Y....and selfish.

I demonstrate real virtue by loving those that can, or don't, give me a thing in return, are unpopular and/or unloveable. In other words, selflessly. I should love others, especially family, regardless whether they love me back.

This is many times difficult and painful. I  only grow as a human being when I'm stretched out of my 'comfort zone'; when I do what I KNOW is right vs what I FEEL like doing. When I act out of conviction instead of simply reacting.

If I withhold relationship from anyone in my family I'm committing violence against them, albeit covert, but violence just the same. 

8
General / Re: Beating the DP Issue to Death. Someone please help me.
« on: December 18, 2011, 01:32:42 PM »
To be sure, applying the death penalty or imprisonment for life is a violent act against whom either is waged.

But how does a free society deal with sociopathic or psychopathic criminals who violate natural law with impunity and without regard to the rights of his fellow man?

While the death penalty makes it impossible to redress a wrong made against an imprisoned innocent, imprisonment for life or banishment from society allow for SOME type of restitution for anyone imprisoned unjustly and later exonerated.


9
The Show / Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« on: December 17, 2011, 07:32:15 AM »
What I've heard Mark say is, if someone supports the death penalty knowing innocent people are sentenced to death,  then that person supports putting innocent people to death. Logically, I can't find a way to disagree with that statement.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that human beings make mistakes. Right? It stands to reason that 100% of those sentenced to death CANNOT BE guilty. Statistically impossible. So, there must be a small percentage that are truly innocent. How much? Who knows? 5%? 2%? Do the math at 1%. If we can concede that 1% of those on death row who are put to death are truly innocent, then we are applying that penalty unjustly on the innocent 1% for the sake of the other 99% and I find THAT unacceptable. Would ANY death penalty supporter find it acceptable if he or she were innocent and sentenced to death?
  I know I can't.

There is a very good movie starring Kevin Spacey and Laura Linney that deals with exactly this subject, The Life Of David Gayle.

I'm a new listener and, prior to finding FTL, I supported the death penalty. Now, I'm against it.

10
The Show / Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« on: December 13, 2011, 07:07:18 AM »
From my point of view, I would want the murderer to suffer for the rest of his/her life. Death would be too easy. American prisons would be too easy. Survival on a deserted island would be a good start. Or maybe, THE ARCTIC. Now we're talking!

So, you see, revenge is subjective and, as discussed on the show, the death penalty as a deterrent for murder is ineffective.

Many proponents of the death penalty quote The Bible to justify it's use. However, the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy was Old Testament. The New Testament was a game changer. The Bible isn't 1 book. It's many books that put together make the Old Testament and a few more that make the New. For that reason alone there should be a moratorium on the Death Penalty, while we, as a society decide if or not we want to use The Bible as our guide to what is moral or immoral or if we should look to other sources for moral guidance. If we decide to use The Bible as our guide, then we need to consider if we want to use the New Testament or the Old. And, if we're not about imposing our religious views by force on others, then maybe the Biblical view of restitution should be undone completely.

The Christian scriptures also state:

"Suffer not a witch to live." and,

"'Vengeance is mine',  sayeth the LORD."

So where exactly do we draw the line?


2 wrongs don't make a right.

11
General / Aggressor Nation
« on: December 09, 2011, 11:44:22 AM »
I just heard on Fox News that the federal government confirmed they lost a 'spy drone' in Iran.

Has anyone seen these things? They look like a scaled-down version of the B-2 Stealth Bomber (Spirit?).

Is it any wonder that the USA is HATED in that region of the world? They violate with impunity other countries borders for any reason they wish. This is the definition of violence and aggression. And the population is surprised when the country is attacked ala 9-1-1?  

Terrorists attack the USA for its interventionist and aggressive policies in that region. They use methods and tactics available to them. Attacking military targets would be ineffective as the US military would likely annihilate them. Attacking population centers of economic importance makes greater sense. Hurt the population in their pocketbook for their indifference to what officials THEY elected to office instruct the military to do on THEIR BEHALF.

Maybe, the USA is reaping what it's sown; the lessons of which appear to have been ignored in the name of empire building or some other hidden agenda.

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 33 queries.