Shirtless Crackhead
-
Posts
3,861 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Posts posted by Shirtless Crackhead
-
-
2015 the U.S. is, according to the Census
https://factfinder.c....xhtml?src=bkmk
62.3% White
17.1% Hispanic
12.6% Black
2016 the FBI: UCR reports
https://ucr.fbi.gov/...tables/table-21
However, comma space the UCR doesn't separate Whites and Hispanics, so for purposes of the UCR the US is 79.4% White and 12.6% Black.
Murder
White - 44.7%
Black - 52.6%
Rape
White - 67.6%
Black - 29.1%
Robbery
White - 43.4%
Black - 54.5%
Aggravated Assault
White - 62.8%
Black - 33.3%
Burglary
White - 68.4%
Black - 29.1%
Larceny
White - 69%
Black - 27.7%
Motor Vehicle Theft
White - 66%
Black - 30.7%
Arson
White - 72%
Black - 23.3%
Other Assaults
White - 65.2%
Black - 31.4%
Forgery and Counterfeiting
White - 65.5%
Black - 31.9%
Fraud
White - 67%
Black - 30.5%
Embezzlement
White - 61.4%
Black - 35.8%
Stolen Property
White - 64.2%
Black - 33.4%
Vandalism
White - 68.4%
Black - 28.1%
Weapons
White - 55.9%
Black - 41.8%
Prostitution
White - 55.5%
Black - 37.9%
Sex Offenses (except rape and prostitution)
White - 71.6%
Black - 24.7%
Drug Abuse Violations
White - 71%
Black - 26.7%
Gambling
White - 45%
Black - 48.4%
Offenses against family and children
White - 67.1%
Black - 29.1%
D.U.I.
White - 82.2%
Black - 13.6%
Liquor Laws
White - 79.2%
Black - 14.5%
Drunkenness
White - 76.5%
Black - 14.7%
Disorderly Conduct
White - 63.3%
Black - 32.2%
Vagrancy
White - 66%
Black - 30.7%
All other offenses (except traffic)
White - 69.2%
Black - 27.4%
Suspicion
White - 35%
Black - 30.7%
American Indian or Alaka Native - 32.5% <- outlier
Curfew and Loitering
White - 56.3%
Black - 40.7%
Throughout the entire list, there's only one instance of whites (which if you remember is actually whites + hispanics) being arrested above their demographic percentage, and that's for D.U.I.
Also there's not a single instance of blacks being arrested below their demographic percentage, of all things the closest one is D.U.I.
I wonder how many people chalk this up to the meme of "institutional racism".
The divergence in criminality becomes even larger when you understand the scope of how crime statistics don't readily make it available as to what % of the "White" offenders are Hispanic.
Bureau of Justice Statistics gets into it circa 2015, however -> https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf
In 2014 "Sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state of federal correctional authorities..." (2015 did not have complete data from Nevada and Oregon)
White - 506,600
Black - 539,500
Hispanic - 326,400
In 2014 "Imprisonment rate of sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities..." per 100,000 U.S. Residents
White - 317
Black - 1,824
Hispanic - 860
In 2015 the U.S. had a homicide rate of 4.88% per 100,000 people.
Making us 126th in the world, according to Wikipedia.
If you knock the homicide rate down to just the "White" portion it becomes 2.18 per 100,000. (2.18136) Which would make the U.S. 75th on Wikipedia.
However, considering that there were ~46,000 white prison inmates serving time for murder in 2014 and ~43,700 hispanic prison inmates serving time for murder.
Let's just be conservative and knock it down an additional 40%, that would make the U.S. homicide rate 1.3 per 100,000.
That would make us 49th in the world, sat between Sweden with 1.15 and Israel with 1.36. (going next major country above and below, with 2015 statistics)
-
-
-
Object 430U is gonna come soon, and it's basically absurd.
122mm gun, compared to 121 and 113.
430U -> 2699 base dpm (9.78sec reload), 0.38 dispersion, 2.21sec aim time, 0.12/0.12/0.1 soft stats, -5/+?
121 -> 2750 base dpm (9.6sec reload), 0.35 dispersion, 2.7sec aim time, 0.14/0.14/0.12 soft stats, -5/+15
113 -> 2640 base dpm (10sec reload), 0.37 dispersion, 2.8sec aim time, 0.18/0.18/0.08 soft stats, -7/+18
Couple sources have the 430U's ammo selection as AP/APCR/HE but it's AP/HEAT/HE with the AP having 252mm pen, and HEAT having 340mm pen.
Mobility vs 121
430U -> 14.29 hp/t, 0.575 soft, 0.671 medium, 1.534 hard
121 -> 14.87 hp/t, 0.7 soft, 0.8 medium, 1.6 soft
But what makes the Obj 430U crazy is the Stationary Camo is 30.6% and Moving Camo is 22.9%. That and the armor, the 430U has 90mm sides + spaced armor over the sides, so basically full Russia. The UFP is side to side 160mm and highly sloped, basically enough to make the 113, IS-4, and E 75 cry. Also the turret is 300mm thick and has troll copulas, eat your heart out T62A.
-
-
#5. Fake News
Basically this one is a really dangerous situation to try and wrangle via state power. As I do believe quite strongly in free speech as well as free press. The very notion of 'the state' sort of deciding who is and who is not news, journalism, legitimate are all things to be avoided at all costs, basically. But I think it bears keeping in mind that the 'legitimate' fifth estate sort of brought this fake news revolution upon itself. Shilling out for big money, turning to 24/7 broadcasts that are constantly looking for a way to generate ad revenue and keep millions of people glued to the TV. I think some sort of transition away from advertising and news would probably be a good idea. I'm biased towards this however, comma space, as I think most forms of advertising are cancer and should be done away with. Marketing is probably moreso the root of all evil, than money itself, in a capitalistic society. I'll at least entertain that idea. I think legitimate news sites doing away with opinion pieces, grandstanding social and political issues by making value judgements on them, and sticking to objective factual reporting would be a step in the right direction. It's something Scott Adams has talked about at length, that Trump v. Media has sort of brought to the forefront the mainstream media's inability to simply report the news. They 'have to' make moral and ethical judgement on matters, because of how they've courted their audience. Likewise this panic coverage of things like healthcare risks, violence, and what have you; when we continue to live in a more and more peaceful world; disrupts and accurate view of the world. It's easy to cultivate a society of paranoid racists when all they see on the news or TV is blacks committing acts of violence. If you played nothing but episodes of Cops on syndicated TV, you would (and I don't think any economist or sociologist would disagree) see a rise in concern with regards to crime as well as anti-black racism. I've long argued that people on the whole are much more susceptible to non-factual argumentation and persuasion than the alternative. It furthermore ties to Trump, as he doesn't really engage in dialectic discussion, he's pure rhetoric. But so is the media, it's why they were so powerful for so long, but Trump has taken their weapons and used them to his own advantage. There has to be some larger effort to dismantle the power of rhetoric. It's no easy task, people are seemingly built to be indifferent to facts and logic, and vulnerable to emotional manipulation as well as your standard fair of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and other troubles with idiots.
"Most people would rather die than think and many of them do!" - Bertrand Russel, The ABC of Relativity
I will have to tap out on giving a legitimate answer for #5 as it's not something I've milled around in my head enough or long-enough to really grasp at some sort of real answer beyond what I've just given.
-
#4. Mass Shootings AKA The Artist Formerly Known As Domestic Terrorism (specifically non-political events such as Sandy Hook, Vegas (?), Pulse, GA Tech, etc)
Basically I don't think these are as problematic as people make them out to be. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned, but from a strictly statistical analysis of the matter, Mass Shootings kill a tiny number of people. About eight times as many accidentally drown in swimming pools every year. Estimates put medical error as the cause of ~250k deaths a year. Mass shootings are ~400 total a year, and that's based on 2016 which is turning out to be a particularly bad year. There's certainly room to talk about legitimate gun law reform, but really the "Mass Shooting" or really "Mass Casualty" 'problem' is primarily a mental health one. We shouldn't dismiss cases of actual terrorism like the Boston Marathon Bombing, but I'm focusing on what I think is the crux. So far as making drastic changes to the law due to an annual handful of bizarre and horrific events, I'm not into that. SoD should be a country of dudes who continue to drink their beer and flip the bird while being shot at, if not slinging insults at their assailants. <- Ideally, but that is a bit of exaggeration. But I think any nationalized healthcare plan aka public option, should maybe not right now, but every few years look at the idea of mandating people see a psychologist once every couple years. And if they're considered in a high risk category, or something. Basically the whole idea would be to treat mental illness a lot more like we do physical illness. But that said, there's a lot of problems with how we do the latter as well. Focusing on preventative care, treating illnesses not symptoms, and not relying on lifelong medication as the primary treatment options; things of that nature, would be a benefit to all, IMO. That said, if someone proposes studying any of these matters, they should be funded responsibly. And should someone come up with a solution that shows real potential, it should be tried. Whether it's public safety practices, or mental health regulations.
-
#1 Trans kids
In all seriousness, do you attribute the alternative culture of LGBT (and truly, you're painting with a broad brush - men who have sex with men (MSM) are the main demographic driving these statistics on virtually every metric) on some genetic predisposition to 'degeneracy' or do you consider that the culture of cruising, glory-holing, hookup apps and back-alley meetups is the ultimate result, reaction and response to decades of anti-gay rhetoric and suppression? Lack of education leads to poor sexual behavior, both physically and socially; and MSM don't have tricky things like accidental pregnancy to interfere with their momentum. Add to that the natural inclination of marginalized groups to double down on concepts of identity and culture, and it's no stretch to see these groups embracing a lifestyle that serves the dual purpose of satisfying the desires of its community and flies in the face of its oppressors.
Overall I agree with your position. While I don't necessarily feel that the state, in its current situation, is obligated to its trans citizens to aid them in achieving their desired orientation, that ultimately falls into a category of 'why can't we/how do we healthcare better'
I think it's cultural, but there probably is a genetic factor, same reason gay men tend to have a higher % of +120 IQ's than heterosexual men. Milo's theory was mother nature experiments on the fringes, sort of thing. But there are some trouble with the statistics just in and of them selves, to be sure. Like how many gay or bisexual men live as heterosexual just to conform to social norms? That's not as big an issue today as it was in the past, but that's certainly something that probably should be considered. I don't think there's any doubt as to the public health and also personal health risks associated with that lifestyle. Much the same as women who fill and satisfy stereotypical gender roles and statistically happier than ones who don't. These old school cultural memes of ours may get a reactionary, this is shit, analysis. But maybe we ought to take a second look at what such things as like monogamous relationships, and not be so quick to dismiss them. That's not to step on the personal freedom to do otherwise, but we certainly shouldn't educate kids to the myth that you can and will be just as happy and fulfilled as a person if you suck hundreds of stranger's dicks in alleyways on methamphetamine, as you would be raising a family; just because we don't want to hurt the feelings of a group of people that include a fair number of people who either participate or support the idea that they're fine and dandy practices.
How it is to be addressed, entirely another issue, education only goes so far. I think the LGBT community needs to police itself to an extent, as I do with pretty much any and all communities.
#2. Abortion
You've addressed the front end of the argument, which is regulating the abortions themselves - but 'reduction' does not equal 'elimination'. How does the State of Danger manage the inevitable ward of the state? Those that argue the hardest for pro-life by and large have no interest in dealing with the consequences of outlawing abortions - to date, no one has put forth a plan (that i've seen) that seeks to solve the problem back-to-front; that is to say, no one has said 'let's make adoption and foster care better for huge numbers of unwanted children, then begin to take steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate those numbers'. Is it logical, or fair, for people to only carry water for one piece of a problem?
You'd have to work on eliminating the social stigma for adoption. Like really, it's massively fucked up telling a kid "yeah well, you're adopted" is a pretty serious childhood insult. Elimination if never going to be possible, to be honest. You'll always have some kids without parents. You'd probably have to weight things like the economic impact of high rates of adoption, and thereby lower numbers of kids in group foster care. And all that, and look to ways to financially incentivize people to adopt. But also try and push for a cultural change that doesn't treat adopted children as basically second class kids. I can't speak too much on the matter, as I'm not really well education on the topic of adoption. But I also don't think anything I've proposed with regards to abortion will increase the number of orphans. Orphans are sort of another matter, and I'd be happy to address it, but I'd like to get better educated on it.
#3. Crime
No arguments here, all are very valid points.
I personally believe in a radical approach to capital punishment, which is to eliminate it entirely. I believe that the death penalty punishes everyone BUT the guilty party, as people who commit crimes deserving of the death penalty tend to be accepting of their execution or generally unbothered by the idea. Families of victims are denied closure for years while the killer awaits his sentence, and then get to sit in the room and watch that man die - this rarely provides a true sense of justice to the aggrieved, and is more likely to add further trauma since, y'know, they watched someone die. So eliminate it. Unless your society is pathological enough to proudly say 'honestly, we're just making room in our prisons', become a society that does not murder people. Lead by example. The culture will follow.
California has a really good takedown of capital punishment, which was that death row cost like 10 times more than life in prison; so just say fuck it and save money. And I'll say it bluntly, if that's the case, then yeah fuck it. Punishing criminals is basically the last priority of a public safety/criminal justice system. The primary concerns are to deter people from committing crimes, and should that fail, to try and get them onto a path where they won't do it again. Not to basically dangle people over a pit of freedoms, looking to punish them for exercising said freedom in ways society has just sort of unintentionally convened on to do so. We have to do stuff as simple as look at laws and ask what public good it serves to punish people for not complying with said law. What's the cost vs what's the benefit.
I only really think about capital punishment for cases where there's zero doubt that people are guilty, my favorite case in Anders Breivik from Norway. There's police helicopter footage of him shooting kids. In such a case, take him out back and shoot him, be done with it. That's assuming there's not some obvious avenue of rehabilitation I'm/we're missing.
-
State of Danger rules, on
#1. Trans kids
To cut thru some diatribe, here's the deal. Pretty much all kids grow out of these "feelings" by puberty, not even by the end of puberty, just by the time they hit puberty. SoD will not allow any medical treatments for minors. No hormones, no hormone blockers, no surgeries; until you're an adult. So far as people's obligation to identify you as you choose to identify, you can go fuck your horse. You're not entitled to not having your feelings hurt. That said, malicious targeting of individuals requires no special legal treatment as malicious targeting is always a crime to begin with. Should little Suzy want to be called Mitch in school, it's sort of one of those things that has to be social contract. If the kids/teacher are like, ya cool, whatev. If not, oh well. Life and reality do not bend to the dictates of your fancies and wims, if you can't handle it, SoD doesn't need or want you.
I would also invest state resources into legitimate psychological, psychiatric, clinical, and neuroscientific studies on the matter. As much as it is fin foil red light alarm bells, there probably is some argument to the idea of xenoestrogens and phytoestrogens in processed foods and products having a role to play, stuff like BPA and soy. But I'd gamble cultural/societal influences are far greater. The end game being what is functionally the greatest pathway to human happiness and fulfillment. Perhaps, to me at least, the most obvious factor that condemns the idea of gender transition as therapy is the zero impact it has on mental health outcomes. Post op and pre op transsexuals have the same rates of suicide/attempted suicide, depression, co-morbidity with other serious mental problems, etc.. etc..
It also runs into a different topic all together, which is basically the "degenerate" lifestyle of the LGBT community. Promiscuous sexual practices taken to the extreme (hundreds and or thousands of partners, large portion of whom are strangers), high rates of mental illness and instability, high rates of STD infection, etc.. etc.. You can't just pretend a group of people is "perfectly normal" when they have such negative statistical correlations that are orders of magnitude higher than the 'general populace'.
Basically, you're free to do as you please as an adult. Kids are not allowed to take drugs or undergo surgery to groom them for gender or sex transition. Pending studies looking further into the matters of both childhood and adult trans-identity stuff. Probably a special emphasis looking at the potential harm in parents 'grooming' their children to meet a specific standard. Namely both the notion of parents who say smack their son around for not being 'manly' but also parents who would face their daughter to participate in typically male activities in some weird fucked up home that she becomes transgendered. I think LS and I both agree, kids as much as possible, should be left the fuck alone; with regards to the very existentially dreadful shortcomings of most human adults.
#2. Abortion
I think Freakenomics is the best case for abortion, period. But I also highly empathize and understand, or so I hope, the arguments against it's allowance in society. You simply cannot rule out the positive impacts of basically reducing unwanted children from a society. It's quite terrible to think about, especially when you consider the numbers.
SoD will allow legal abortions, pretty much without any caveats under certain conditions, including but not limited to cases of..
-rape
-incest
-underage
-medical necessity
-birth defects of a serious nature
First three are somewhat obvious. I think it should go either way in the first instance. Should a man rape a woman, the woman can choose to abort the child. Likewise, should a woman rape a man, the man should be able to decide if wants to be a father or not (biological or otherwise). In the case of incest it should be the woman's decision. If either/both party is underage also allowable; obviously statutory rape charges and all that would have to be involved. However, comma space, I think putting up legal requirements for abortion clinics to report things to the police in any but the most egregious cases should be really deeply considered. I do not say women who were raped, not seeking an abortion, because they still live in fear of their rapist; that sort of thing. However, comma space, the push should be to eliminate that concern as a larger socio-cultural development. I would also like to be able to say the SoD conducts a "war on abortion" but on the demand side, not the supply side. By seeking to educate men and women, primarily about human health and anatomy, but also safe sex practices. I don't know what the best way to do that is, but I know we're not making much of an effort now, and we might want to in hopes of improving society. But basically I'd like to live in a society where abortions are legal, but generally speaking not gotten except for sorts of cases listed above.
The last two can get a little tricky. Medical necessity is basically a medical judgement in which a doctor says "you carry this baby to term, you have an X% chance of dying and/or the baby dying". I think cases in which the pregnancy has a dubious likelihood of success, abortion is an allowable practice. The birth defects of a serious nature, should basically be stuff that really prevents a child becoming a productive adult. But I will also indulge in my bias towards passive eugenics, and probably allow a fair bit more under this umbrella myself then most people would like. I'd be cool with aborting kids for things like down syndrome, but not oligodactyly. Furthermore, as much as possible abortions should be done in a timely manner. Ideally all abortions take place as soon as possible. I will go ahead and put an axe on the idea of late-term abortion for any reason not listed above. If it's not one of the above listed reasons, let's call them elective abortions. Elective abortions must take place in the first X-months of pregnancy, as I'm not an expert I'm not going to stamp a firm number in there. But conservatively, I'd easily say it has to be before the 6th month, probably earlier. Again, this emphasizes the importance of education, so women recognize the signs of pregnancy vs realizing 8 months down the road they're pregnant.
When it comes to elective abortions, I will throw in a couple more caveats. I think people with serious criminal convictions, or are getting repeat abortions; should be passively taken out of the reproductive game. I don't mean forced hysterectomies, but probably making them get their tubes tied would be a good idea. And if they want to have them untied, they can pay for it themselves. Someone who is wishing to have children, who can't afford that (in my hypothetical society, as it wouldn't be covered in SoD's national healthcare plan, for obvious reasons) has no business having children. I also think similar actions could be done with male criminals, to be entirely frank. But I entertain no idea of permanent alteration to a person's person, without concrete evidence. Which, oddly enough, will be covered in another topic.
#3. Crime and Punishment
I'm going to be somewhat terse with this one, as it's otherwise a very broad subject. But to hit the important points, I don't believe in the utility of incarceration for the most part. I'm a fan of Malcom Gladwell's talk on the "Three C's" (Above). I definitely think any crime that could be considered non-violent or victimless shouldn't be punished with incarceration. I also believe there's sort of two (or maybe more) tiers to evidence that result in conviction.
A - Eye witness testimony, circumstantial evidence
B - Video clearly showing the criminal act in progress
With evidence from exhibit A, I would never condone permanent solutions such as capital punishment. But under B, I would be open to their consideration. So if you were convicted of murder, you'd at worse get life in prison. Unless we found like video of you actually killing people, then we'd execute you. This is a really idealized concept, and I have no actual idea of how functional it would be in the magical world of legal language. But it's basically what I'd want, without concrete evidence of a crime, all considerations for punishment have to be kept within the realm of things we'd want to allow the state to do to people, without said concrete evidence. Because eye witness testimony is basically shit, and so is circumstantial evidence when you have it being pushed by professionals in the profession of convicting people for crimes; and further masterminded by DA's who's job it is to get those convictions to stick. Let 1,000 guilty men go before imprisoning 1 innocent, sort of notion.
But I also think a lot of things we consider laws suitable to punishment when people violate them are retarded. I don't believe in the necessity of state vehicle registrations, at least when they are of cost to the private citizen. If you're worried about emissions and stuff, try to do things in the opposite way. Keep your vehicle tested and up to date, get a tax break. Not a, pay us money on an annual basis or we'll slap you with a ticket should we catch you at whatever abysmal rate that happens to be, see video above.
More serious crimes, incarceration is probably an option, but certainly not as it's done in the United States. I think the notion of letting various models operating to try and find a better solution, is a good one. Looking internationally to countries with low recidivism rates, and low crime rates would probably be a decent start. But let's also not be stupid, there's no fucking way Norwegian prison would work for society's purposes with members of MS-13. But locking up people for an ounce of pot is basically shooting yourself in the dick. And that accounts for a LARGE number/percentage of federal inmates. State's prisons tend to be filled with actually violent offenders, which are another matter to address.
Basically, spend some money in an intelligent fashion. Find some keen minds and motivated individuals to work on the problem, how do we reform criminals and/or sort out ones that will not be reformed. Furthermore the largest factors for crime are two fold, urbanized population density and poverty. While we can only do so much about that first one, we certainly can make attempts to deal with the later. We shouldn't be surprised that areas without meaningful and legitimate work, high birth rates, and pretty fucked up standards of living; have massive crime problems. Legalizing drugs and eliminating them as a stream of income to finance organized crime and violence, probably wouldn't hurt either. And if nothing else, you can put some people to work who have expertise with drugs, selling them.
-
This is fantastic stuff.
-
-
Yeah well, millions of dead unborn since 1973 don't lie neither.
It's something hilarious to bring up with virtue signal cucks, because ACTUAL white supremacists and such support abortion rights as it categorically impacts black replacement rate more than it does the white replacement rate.
-
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
>Misattributed
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
- Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
- Omits words from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger proposing the "Negro Project", where Sanger wrote: "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
- The quote was similarly misused in "Women, Race, & Class" (12 February 1983) by Angela Davis, where it is implied that that Sanger was organizing an extermination campaign and the minister would be the main propaganda milling machine.
So what she said was -> "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
And that's supposed to nullify the misattributed quote's meaning?
:thinking emoji:
- Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
-
What are you gay?
-
Why would you put the toasted half of the bread, facing inside?
-
-
-
-
24th place on WoTReplays for most damage done in a T49, didn't even Ace.
http://i.imgur.com/wgH9psS.png
-
-
-
This thread is entirely too old.
-
Time for another political quiz review.
Answers are all in the form of: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral/Unsure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.
#1. Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments. - Neutral
Kind of a loaded question, they're both bad. But the obvious implication is if you disagree, you're some Capitalistic ideologue, and if you agree, you're socialist/whatever. Oppression of the nation's people by anyone/anything is bad. Doesn't matter what's raping you, it's the raping you're concerned with. I would imagine, but sometimes I start to wonder.
#2. It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers. - Agree
While this is another loaded question, like pretty much all of these, it's an obvious yeah sometimes buddy. Things like outlawing lead, asbestos, etc. are objectively good ideas. The problem is Government has a really hard time with, doing what needs to be done, and stopping there. It's one of those, oh look a new avenue to shekel for votes and take public money and garner favor.
#3. The freer the markets, the freer the people. - Agree
Kinda hard not to agree, if you can't do what you want economically as an individual, kinda limits your freedom. Not to mention history pretty much backs this up 100% t. Milton Friedman.
#4. It is better to maintain a balanced budget than to ensure welfare for all citizens. - Disagree
Economically speaking, you want the Government to generally run a deficit, you do want to keep it under control, but running surplus = Government is taking money out of the economy. Furthermore the welfare of your nation's citizenry comes first and foremost. Salus populi suprema lex esto, fam.
#5. Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market. - Neutral
It's not really a matter of where the money comes from, it's a matter of how it's distributed. The American system of grant allocation is p shitty, as we give a lot of money to a handful of groups/individuals, when we ought to be giving a little bit of money to a lot of people. Canada has been doing this better than us, however comma space, they're moving towards a system like ours.
#6. International trade is beneficial. - Agree
Hard to disagree with, different countries have different resources, trade is largely going to always have a force for bettering both parties involved with the trading. But currently it's a pretty disgusting selling out of the American public by American corporations and government. Doesn't change my answer, however comma space.
#7. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - Disagree
First half is fine, second half is retarded. You can create needs artificially, and we accept this from people. What is to stop someone with fuck all skills, aka zero ability and therefore no input; from having 20-30 children, aka a fuckton of needs? Nothing, the problem with this retardation is basically this. The whole reason we reward ability is to incentivize people to garner ability to satisfy their needs, and furthermore their wants; which is something this Marxian meme completely ignores.
#8. It would be best if social programs were abolished in favor of private charity. - Disagree
Charities are great and should be encouraged, but also monitored so people know who's wasting how much money and the 'market' can weed out douchebags. But some social programs are simply too important to let off the hook that way, and others are just better executed by the state. I'm not going to get into this one, but these principal judgements are pretty goddamn retarded
#9. Taxes should be increased on the rich to provide for the poor. - Neutral
Taxes are increased on the rich, to provide for the poor. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income taxes. Now until we get a better economic system with regards to minimizing our catastrophic income disparity, a progressive tax system is definitely called for. Ideally we could have a flat tax, there still would be wealth inequality, but people would be on the individual level be able to move up and also down the ladder based on their abilities. There's some more meta-memes in economics like financial turnover rates that you'd probably wanna look into as well.
#10. Inheritance is a legitimate form of wealth. - Agree
Doesn't mean we can't tax it, but it is legitimate. The connotations of saying inheritance is illegitimate are pretty baffling. Basically you might as well tell kids they can't use fucking highways until they pay their taxes.
#11. Public utilities like roads and electricity should be publicly owned. - Agree
Roads are, but yeah this is one I can get behind. That doesn't mean the services are government operated, per say. I think it would be better if for example, companies competed for portions of handling public roads. The companies that can do it for less, keep the contracts, the ones that waste money lose the contracts. Use capitalism for the public good, so to speak. But I also think the Government is/ought to be in the business of building them.
#12. Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy. - Strongly Agree
Oh how I could pontificate on this one. But I won't, just gonna say end all subsidies.
#13. Those with a greater ability to pay should receive better healthcare. - Agree
There's no point in disagreeing, they are going to any which way, unless you want totalitarian healthcare.
#14. Quality education is a right of all people. - Strongly Agree
Abso-fucking-lutely, this is probably my 2nd most important maxim for good governance. Numero uno being public welfare as a whole, second being sure the next generation gets the best possible education both in the sense of investing in our nations' future, but also making sure the individuals have all the opportunity and tools to make their lives better.
#15. The means of production should belong to the workers who use them. - Disagree
Basically, if I spend the dosh to open a business, buy the equipment, pay the workers, pay the electric bill; why the fuck should the schlubs who say make drinks and mop the floors own it? At the same stroke, businesses that adopt this model, more or less, say like WinCo are p gud. So I'm not going to stop someone from doing that. But I think it's folly to make people do that.
#16. The United Nations should be abolished. - Disagree
Maybe as it is, sure. But functionally something like the United Nations ought to exist, as an international forum for diplomacy. I think it needs some changes, bigly, however comma space.
#17. Military action by our nation is often necessary to protect it. - Neutral
I won't say it's often, but I'm not going to disagree. We should look to have the strongest military possible, within limits of reasonable government spending, but also try to use it as little as possible. Not only because war is bad, but because it seems that where outside military force is used, generally speaking chaos follows. So let's try and do as little of that as possible.
#18. I support regional unions, such as the European Union. - Disagree
EU sucks dicks, fuck off m80.
#19. It is important to maintain our national sovereignty. - Strongly Agree
"We will no longer surrender this country to the false song of globalism"
#20. A united world government would be beneficial to mankind. - Strongly Disagree
Double question, no points awarded.
#21. It is more important to retain peaceful relations than to further our strength. - Neutral
Sort of a dumb question. If it means maintaining peaceful relations with a powerful nation vs like getting some pointless "furthering our strength" obviously that's a bad trade. If it annoys Andorra and makes us stronger, it's worth it. Silly fucking principal questions.
#22. Wars do not need to be justified to other countries. - Agree
There's no requirement for any country to justify itself to any other country to declare war. But I also think what we're during currently is war without declaration, and is therefore wrong.
#23. Military spending is a waste of money. - Strongly Disagree
There's waste, but a military is very necessary.
#24. International aid is a waste of money. - Agree
Teach a man to fish > give a man a fish.
#25. My nation is great. - Strongly Agree
MURIKA FUCK YEAH
#26. Research should be conducted on an international scale. - Strongly Agree
Hell yeah science.
#27. Governments should be accountable to the international community. - Neutral
This is something I'll have to make a post about onto itself along with a couple other questions. But basically accountability is a matter of might = right, so if you can do what you want, it's the right thing; that's always been the case, and will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
#28. Even when protesting an authoritarian government, violence is not acceptable. - Disagree
Violence works, it's just less effective in peaceful means can work in their stead. Sometimes tho, knowing is half the battle, the other half is violence.
#29. My religious values should be spread as much as possible. - Disagree
I'd probably say strongly disagree, but I just don't. But I also don't think I have religious values, inb4 LS spergs on about this.
#30. Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible. - Agree
But by example, not by force. Organic change = the only change that's gonna stick, the only change worth having.
#31. It is very important to maintain law and order. - Strongly Agree
Gotta do it
#32. The general populace makes poor decisions. - Strongly Agree
If it ain't obvious, I can do nothing for ya son.
#33. Victimless crimes (such as drug use) should not be crimes at all. - Agree
Obviously drinking and driving isn't victimless, but yeah the true spirit of that statement is true. Suicide should be legal if doesn't pose a direct danger to anyone. Yadda yadda
#34. The sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism. - Strongly Disagree
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
#35. Government surveillance is necessary in the modern world. - Strongly Disagree
See above.
#36. The very existence of the state is a threat to our liberty. - Agree
Such is the nature of power.
#37. Regardless of political opinions, it is important to side with your country. - Agree
There's time for discussion, dissent, disagreement, and such; there's also time to shut the fuck up and toe the line. In what I believe is the sense of this question, war or something like it. That is correct.
#38. No authority should be left unquestioned. - Stronly Agree
Authoritarian systems are bound to fail.
#39. A hierarchical state is best. - Agree
This is about the most pointless question possible, as there's no such thing as a state that isn't hierarchical; despite LS's protestations to the contrary. He don't think it be like it is, but it do.
#40. It is important that the government follows the majority opinion, even if it is wrong. - Disagree
Democracy sucks, it just tends to suck less than most other forms of governance. People are wholesale fallible.
#41. The stronger the leadership, the better. - Agree
It's a double-edged sword, but nobody wants weak leadership.
#42. Democracy is more than a decision-making process. - Disagree
As much as some people want it to be, it's not.
#43. Environmental regulations are essential. - Strongly Agree
Ain't gonna last long if you're busy shitting where you eat and/or sleep.
#44. A better world will come from automation, science, and technology. - Strongly Agree
I dunno if we're ready for it, but it's gonna happen. Fuck yeah science.
#45. Children should be educated in religious or traditional values. - Agree
More for lack of a religious set of values worth teaching. Tradition, however comma space, does serve purpose; not in material or literal tradition, but spiritual traditions of say advancing oneself and thereby mankind, seeking truth and justice, being righteous. The good shit. Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.
#46. Traditions are of no value on their own. - Disagree
Traditions are many things, and many valuable things. If nothing else you need something to structure a framework of thinking in our memetic world, otherwise you're just gonna bungle around like some dopey nihilist. And that's no good, to quite Doc Peterson.
#47. Religion should play a role in government. - Strongly Disagree
Seperation of church and state.
#48. Churches should be taxed the same way other institutions are taxed. - Stronly Agree
All are equal under the law.
#49. Climate change is currently one of the greatest threats to our way of life. - Neutral
Could be, might not be, we don't really know. It is definitely worth investigating, and funding said investigation vigorously but also diligently.
#50. It is important that we work as a united world to combat climate change. - Agree
I'll give like a half point of agreement from #49 and this one to make this an agree. If it's something that needs to be worked on, it's gotta be on a global level. Kinda retarded otherwise.
#51. Society was better many years ago than it is now. - Strongly Agree
By basically any objective metric it is, (((we))) sow most of our own problems out of lack of legitimate ones now.
#52. It is important that we maintain the traditions of our past. - Agree
Kinda already did this one, no points awared.
#53. It is important that we think in the long term, beyond our lifespans. - Strongly Agree
Short-sighted, drunk, fat, and stupid are no way to go thru life son.
#54. Reason is more important than maintaining our culture. - Unsure
I don't even understand the meaning of this question, aside from it just being (((asked))). Our culture and reason ought to be fairly similar, or at least our culture values reason to the point that reason ought never to threaten our culture. Merchants of ill reason aside.
#55. Drug use should be legalized or decriminalized. - Agree
Same caveats as from before, no smoking crack and driving cars, etc.. etc..
#56. Same-sex marriage should be legal. - Agree
So much as I typically argue this one, I'm gonna just say agree. Everyone kinda knows my stance at this point.
#57. No cultures are superior to others. - Strongly Disagree
Basically a full retard statement. There's definitely better and worse cultures. Cultural relativism is a meme of echo-y origins.
#58. Sex outside marriage is immoral. - Disagree
I wouldn't say it's immoral, studies might show it's increases risks of negative outcomes, but that's not really a moral question.
#59. If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture. - Strongly Agree
>(((Multiculturalism)))
#60. Abortion should be prohibited in most or all cases. - Disagree
Abortion should be combated by fighting the demand, not the supply. Roe v. Wade was a step in the right direction.
#61. Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason. - Strongly Disagree
Shall not be infringed.
#62. I support single-payer, universal healthcare. - Strongly Agree
With caveats a plenty for sure, but healthcare is an investment in the health and strength of our people and our nation. Fuck yeah make sure they're happy and healthy and thereby productive.
#63. Prostitution should be illegal. - Disagree
Regulated, but not illegal, most human relations are just a convoluted form of prostitution anyhow.
#64. Maintaining family values is essential. - Strongly Agree
I think the majority of Americans would disagree with me on what those values are, but oh well, families ought to be strong, and values are pretty goddamn crucial to that aim.
#65. To chase progress at all costs is dangerous. - Strongly Agree
Batman Begins fight on ice, footing > killing stroke.
#66. Genetic modification is a force for good, even on humans. - Strongly Agree
How many fuck yeah science question are there?
#67. We should open our borders to immigration. - Stronly Disagree
Fuck off, we're full.
#68. Governments should be as concerned about foreign citizens as they are about those within their borders. - Neutral
Government(s) should be concerned about people who pose threats, not everyone by virtue of being alive.
#69. All people - regardless of factors like culture or sexuality - should be treated equally. - Disagree
People are unequal to pretend they're not is like trying to navigate the ocean with the doodles of a retarded child for a map.
#70. It is important that we further my group's goals above all others. - Agree
First of all, human nature. Secondly to do otherwise is self-destructive. Finally, my "group" is more accurately groups, because nobody belongs but to one label.
http://i.imgur.com/z82GDXo.png
I'll give it 8/10.
-
World of Tanks
in Games
Posted