What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Luke T.]

PART I

Rule number one: Do NOT answer the topic title question for someone else! This is a confessional, not an interrogation room.

I have started this topic because of Jas' topic on one night stands and the surprising puritanical responses from some people I would least have expected it from.

I don't know if you guys are all aware of this, but the PCE (this) forum has gotten a reputation amongst the rest of the JREF fora as being the meanest, baddest part of JREF. Sort of like Chicago during Prohibition. The tourists are afraid to visit.

So I guess some of us are a little extreme. That's the buzz anyway.

Time to fess up. What do you admit to being a little too emotional/irrational about?


PART II

If you are too cowardly to admit what you are irrational about (BAIT!), then just tell us if there is something you support or oppose that is uncharacteristic for someone on your side of the political spectrum. Don't give me some lame crap about how you are an "independent" (MORE BAIT!).

Okay. I'll go first.

Part I: I'm a rabid pro-lifer. Well, maybe not rabid, as I am currently not chained to an abortion clinic, but I think that might be something I would be willing to do. Some of you probably know the quickest way to get Luke T.'s blood up is to bring up abortion already. I didn't say this was something that had to be a secret.

Part II: I am a conservative. What I think is uncharacteristic of me is that I favor the legalization of marijuana.

Right. Your turn.

Let's not get too far off the track and start telling each other what morons we are for believing what we believe. The last thing we need is another middleeastabortionguncontrollibertarian topic.

[Manny]

I believe people should have to provide picture ID (that's not the extreme part) and proof of gun ownership (that is) to vote. OK, it's not extreme in Switzerland, but it's pretty radical here. I'm sure others will have similar things which are radical in their areas but not in other (actual, civilized) places.

I'm also open to the idea that tax increases must be approved by voters, the vote open only to people who pay some specified amount of taxes, but I don't know how such a thing would work.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'm extremely pro-choice (can't legislate women's bodies) but I am in favor of the death penalty.

Charlie (kill em before birth or when they screw up) Monoxide

[Snide]

Extreme? Hmm...I guess I'm extremely moderate. And because the right is running everything, I tend to sound more liberal because I want to see more balance. But it really depends on the issue, so...

I'll never understand why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Nope, I don't do the stuff today, but have a little in the past, and I just don't get it. It's idiotic to me. To an extreme.

[Nyarlathotep]

Part I: I really, really, really distrust religion coming anywhere near politics. For that matter, I am distrustful to the point of paranoid about religion and religious people in general.

I also tend to start with a presumption of guilt when regarding politicians. That is, I presume them to be corrupt, dishonest lying weasels until they give me reson to believe otherwise, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt until they do something wrong.

It's irrational, I admit it, but both those stances seem safer to me than their opposites.


Part II: Though I probably lean toward the left I am a big time supporter of the death penalty. Some crimes are such that their is no rehabilitation possible, and no amount of jail time is sufficient punishment.

[Dr Adequate]

I think that pretzels should be slightly larger.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think that pretzels should be slightly larger.

Hardest laugh I've had all week. :D :D :D

[AWPrime]

Part I - I think that all religous people are part wobbie.


Part II - I don't want to recieve or donate organs.

[BPSCG]

I'm not extreme. Everyone else is extreme.

Part I: Cell phone use while driving. I'll hang up on you if I even think you're DWC.

Part II: As conservative as I am, I can't think of a good reason gay marriage should be illegal.

[Beerina]

That no laws should be passed without a 9/10 supermajority. If you can't get 9 of 10 people to believe something should be illegal, then it probably shouldn't.

That all laws should have a 5 year max auto-sunset, unless renewed, again by a 9/10 supermajority. This applies retroactively.

That once humanity invents methods to resurrect people, all deceased politicians who promised big debt, and the people who voted for them, shall be put to work to pay it all off.

That the government should fund community centers where middle aged women can meet up with high school and college lads to educate them.


Ok, I give. I was just kidding about the first 3.

[aerocontrols]

I think that nearly all of Africa should be invaded and openly ruled by outsiders until its AIDS crisis is over, its locals achieve predetermined (high) levels of literacy and general education as well as predetermined (high) levels of infrastructure development and technological advancement.

That extremist enough for you? I can go further:

I would prefer that the neoliberal West ban together to accomplish this, but it would suit me just fine if China did it with the goal of establishing Communist governments in Africa.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Beerina


That all laws should have a 5 year max auto-sunset, unless renewed, again by a 9/10 supermajority. This applies retroactively.



I vaguely seem to recall one of my colege history professors saying that Thomas Jefferson had a similar idea, but his time scale was more on the order of 20 years, and everything expiring all at onece. The idea being that every generation would then start out with a clean slate to create whatever government suited them best.

[billydkid]

Well, that's kind of tough. It's like asking "what do you believe in that you don't believe in?" I am an extremist regarding personal liberty and self ownership and free expression. I believe, like Barry Goldwater did, that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. (mind you, I don't accept the premise that curtailing liberty is in any way and in any circumstance equivalent to protecting liberty, by which I mean I don't accept the notion that it is possible to curtail freedom in order to protect it - the Orwellian sense in which the term liberty is used in recent years.) Bush and co are big on talking about defending the "homeland" - as though what America really is is just a piece of real estate. What makes America distinct from most of the world are the principles on which it was founded. Somehow Bush can talk about defending the country while specifically attacking the very principles ("free speech zones" etc. and on and on and on...) which make it worth defending.

I believe absolutely in the first amendment and while I may not be courageous enough to die for your right to hold me and everything I stand for up for public ridicule, I believe absolutely in your right to do that. I believe absolutely in your right to produce art and literature and expression that I find absolutely repugnant and completely unredeeming. This is where the rub comes however. What if what you are advocating is the restriction of the right to advocate what you wish? Obviously, I would find that position incompatible with a free society. But a distinction has to be drawn between the right to advocate a position and the power to enforce it on others.

I think I am an extremist in precisely the same way the American founders were and Thomas Jefferson was. I believe the fact that the founders were not able to fully live up to their creed (something they themselves were well aware of) that in no way delegitimizes the principles behind the creed itself. Even they could not fully grasp the implications of the radical notion that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights - but they knew the principle was sound and believed we would come to live up to that creed.

I apologize for going on. I just got back from Philadelphia and visiting Independence Hall and stood in the very rooms where Jefferson and Franklin and Washington stood and where the Declaration and the Constitution were created and signed. For me it was the equivalent of a religious experience.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I) I’m obsessively pro equal rights for couples and their kids regardless of the genders involved, and am certainly in a position to be irrational about it (still, not nearly as concerned with the word “marriage� applying to gays in the law).

II) Not sure where on the political spectrum I fall. Pro choice in the 1st trimester, I get nervous around the 2nd, and pro-life in the 3rd, unless it’s to save a life. I’m a gun owner. I’d be unreservedly for the death penalty if guilt could be found without error. I’m not for hate crime laws, and don’t believe “diversity� and “tolerance� are absolute goods. I’d be fine with legalizing marijuana, but not substances like heroin or meth. I generally distrust government, want a smaller federal government, and lower taxes, but would rather pay first to lessen the burden of our national debt on the next generation. I don’t want my kids taught about sex or indoctrinated into a religion at school. If I said I was independent, that’d be lame crap. :)

[Achán hiNidráne]

OK, in no particular order:

1. Doctor-assisted infanticide should be legal as an option to parent/s up until the child has become self-aware (3-4 years old).

2. The Constitution should only be amended with the unamious consent of Congress. Ditto declarations of war and all other military actions, with the exception of when the U.S. has been directly attacked. All federal laws should only be passed with a 3/4 majority and have a sunset clause.

3. A bicameral legislature is not a sufficent legislative barrier. We need at least 4 houses.

4. The method we choose to elect our representatives leads to disenfranchisment for many. Anyone who wants to run for congressional office get's the seat provided they get the signatures of a X amount of American citizens (5,000, 10,000, etc.). No districts. No winner-take-all. If you live in New York, and you want some guy in Texas who you agree with to represent you, why shouldn't he?

5. Representatives who serve in Congress should only receive a stipend to cover basic living expenses. If they want more money, they have to get a real, private sector, job.

6. Any Representative or government employee who submits, votes, or enforces a law that is found to be unconstitutional should be stripped of office and made to serve a prison term of no less than 10 years.

7. The U.S. Armed Forces should be charged with defending the U.S. and the U.S. only. If a foreign nation wants to use U.S. forces for any reason, they must get congressional approval (see 2 above) and pay for their use.

8. State approval of marriage violates the establishment clause. Marriage should be a private contract between two (or more ;) ) people.

9. Dueling should be allowed as a means to settle civil disputes, provided that both parties agree and a judge officiates.

10. If we can't carry guns in public, can we at least carry swords?

I'll add more as I think of them.

[Mycroft]

Okay, my extreme position is I think abortion should be legal until the kid has moved out of the house and is living on his/her own.

There, I've said it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert

1. Doctor-assisted infanticide should be legal as an option to parent/s up until the child has become self-aware (3-4 years old).

Just want some clarification. Is this regarding children with birth defects, or all kids? I ask because my kids were self-aware well before 3, which is why I thought maybe you mean kids with birth defects.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Just want some clarification. Is this regarding children with birth defects, or all kids? I ask because my kids were self-aware well before 3, which is why I thought maybe you mean kids with birth defects.

OK, I'll revise that: Birth defects, severe mental handicap, or terminal illness.

[Darat]

Guns - rabidly anti-guns, it’s an emotional thing not rational.

Any child having a child is given the choice - abort or adopt.

[headscratcher4]

When not upset or condemning Bush for Iraq and how it has been mishandled and the wrong war in the wrong place...I secretly think, at times, that it might not be so bad an idea to invade and blow North Korea off the face of the earth, or possibly invade Zimbabwe in order to save it from itself.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I think being a jerk is a perfectly good reason to be banned from the politics forum.

[toddjh]

Part 1: Apart from the topic of entanglement of religion and politics (which I bet most people here are fairly extreme on), I guess my biggest extreme position is that parents should receive no special treatment of any kind from the government. No tax breaks, no censorship of "adult" material, no nanny state. If you decide to have kids, it's entirely your responsibility and no one else's. Can't afford it? Don't do it. Ignore that warning, and it's your own damn fault.

Part 2: I am, generally speaking, a fiscal conservative, and yet I support Social Security.

Jeremy

[headscratcher4]

Oh, one other extreme position for me: while I am very much pro-choice, I think Roe v. Wade is increasingly undefensible and probably should not have been decided as it was...reveresal of Roe would not necessarilly end abortion nor would it make it any harder to get than it already is in many jurisdictions. Roe is intellectually inconsistent and has been a poison in the American body politic. There, that is a secret thought...don't tell my wife I said that.

[Freakshow]

Legalization of drugs. All of them. The "War on Drugs" is over, and drugs won. Take the money that we are currently spending on enforcing drug laws, and instead direct it into research into the use of psychotropic medications to treat addiction.

Get rid of much of the social spending in this country. The government is here to help you out when you desperately need help. Not to be your mother from the cradle to the grave.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by toddjh
Part 1: ...If you decide to have kids, it's entirely your responsibility and no one else's. Can't afford it? Don't do it...

Part 2: I am, generally speaking, a fiscal conservative, and yet I support Social Security.

Jeremy

Irony: if no one's having kids, who's paying into your social security? :D

My extreme position is that FEMA should be placed under military jurisdiction. This would improve accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and maybe even remove politics to an extent (like crony appointments).

Besides, there's little difference between what FEMA is supposed to do here in the US and what our military is asked to do for the UN overseas.

[Moon-Spinner]

I believe some kind of an intelligence test must be given to anyone planning to run for the Presidency. You cannot run for President if you can't show:

1. A College level understanding of Economics

2. A High school level of History (Foreign and Domestic)

3. A High school level knowledge of Biology

4. A Basic understanding of the Scientific Method

5. The Ability to separate Fact from Fiction (I know that this one might be asking too much)



I'll probably think of some more later, but you get the idea. Also, the test cannot be administered by the Kansas Board of Education!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jocko
Irony: if no one's having kids, who's paying into your social security? :D

Double irony: As a state employee, I am exempt from paying Social Security...private accounts for me! :D

My extreme position is that FEMA should be placed under military jurisdiction. This would improve accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and maybe even remove politics to an extent (like crony appointments).

I'm forced to agree. Is that really extreme, though? I mean, the military already (in theory) responds to disasters.

Jeremy

[Luke T.]

Wow! This is turning out even better than I hoped. Great stuff. Keep going!

[rikzilla]

1.) I tried to defend my anti-Gay Marriage stance and found that I could not logically do it. Therefore I am pro-Gay Marriage..in a passive sort of way. (Thanks Silicon...I think...)

2.) I believe the Space Shuttles should all be sent to museums before they end up killing more of our brave astronauts. (I am an aviation nut...licensed pilot...and big fan of manned space travel)

3.) I went to Virginia Beach last weekend for a huge beach-side music fest. I saw Ted Nugent who's music I grew up loving...and who I'd seen in concert 8 times before...(all over 20 years ago)
The show was so over-the-top jingoistic and offensive that I could not enjoy it in the least. I ended up thinking that poor old Nuge must be insane. I am a godless neo-con.

-z

[Moon-Spinner]

Originally posted by rikzilla

2.) I believe the Space Shuttles should all be sent to museums before they end up killing more of our brave astronauts. (I am an aviation nut...licensed pilot...and big fan of manned space travel)

3.) I went to Virginia Beach last weekend for a huge beach-side music fest. I saw Ted Nugent who's music I grew up loving...and who I'd seen in concert 8 times before...(all over 20 years ago)
The show was so over-the-top jingoistic and offensive that I could not enjoy it in the least. I ended up thinking that poor old Nuge must be insane. I am a godless neo-con.

-z

I totally agree with your #2

I would love to hear some of the Ted Nugent jingoistic stories. I know of his political leanings.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by toddjh
I'm forced to agree. Is that really extreme, though? I mean, the military already (in theory) responds to disasters.

Not as a rule, it doesn't. It has to be requested. In fact, it's illegal for US troops to be deployed stateside without a specific request from the governor. Give the military FEMA's freedom to go wherever, and give FEMA a sense of military organization.

It gets extreme because it would contravene at least one item in the bill of rights.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wow! This is turning out even better than I hoped. Great stuff. Keep going!

storing it all up for retaliatory use at a later date? ;)

[Anti_Hypeman]

Originally posted by manny
I believe people should have to provide picture ID (that's not the extreme part) and proof of gun ownership (that is) to vote.

I believe people should have to be alive to vote, those zombies must have a kickin lobby more of them vote every year. How long before they elect Osiris as a write in?

I dont believe in chads if you cant figure out a punch card then your vote is not counted.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
storing it all up for retaliatory use at a later date? ;)

Please report to your neighborhood re-education center, and take your rabble-rousing smartass comments with you. :)

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

Probably my most extreme(which is to say that it is my most disagreeable) belief is that we would be equally well off if people were drafted into government service. I'm talking congress, the senate, presidency.

Blatant corruption, rampant stupidity, these are some of the things we could expect from this sort of government. Gotta tell ya, it'd be business as usual.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wow! This is turning out even better than I hoped. Great stuff. Keep going! I believe Luke T. should be banned from JREF. Passionately, fervently, with all my heart.:D

[IllegalArgument]

I believe that hedonism, is self-destuctive and self-defeating, and I find sad that it's becoming more and more common.

At the same time, I don't think people have the right to control other people's private behaviors, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
storing it all up for retaliatory use at a later date? ;)

"Here's where my 'buttons' are, now please don't push them!" :)

Naw. Part I is because I think the more we know and understand each other, the more fun PCE can be. If we know the other person knows he or she is a little nuts for believing what they believe...

Part II is to try and find some common ground.

Okay. It is really just for fun. I like your posts in this topic headscratcher. It makes you more human to me. Not that you weren't before. Just moreso now. Invade Zimbabwe! Yeah!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
I believe that hedonism, is self-destuctive and self-defeating, and I find sad that it's becoming more and more common.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "hedonism?" It can mean a few different things.

Jeremy

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by toddjh
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "hedonism?" It can mean a few different things.

Jeremy

Well, not wanting to start a derailing definational discussion...

I have to admit the following defination is a work in progress.

Hedonism:
Constant pursuit of basic pleasures as ones primary meaning and focus. Another way of saying, that one should spend their time to maximizing their pleasure.

To me simples pleasures are spices, not the whole meal. The hedonic treadmill a lot people seem to be on, is actually what is making them unhappy.

[TragicMonkey]

Dissolution of political parties. Each individual politician should stand on their own views, and not band together and spend all their time fighting the other parties. When was the last time anything before Congress was decided on its own merit, rather than some sort of battle to gain or maintain party control of the system? The whole thing's gone adversarial, which is not to the benefit of the people.

[duggie]

Congratulations Luke. What a brilliant way get people to state their provocative opinions without having to fear being flamed. Congratulations participants for not yieding to that temptation.

My own eccentric belief (I live in Canada) is a strong support for the monarchy, which my friends consider an expensive anachronistic irrelevancy. I see it as a safeguard against tyranny, since in theory a dictator can not take over without the Queen's consent. (OK forget Fiji, look at Spain).

[Seismosaurus]

I think war is fun.

Intellectually I accept that it's a horrific thing, but on a purely emotional level I love a good war. I love the weapons, the footage of things getting blown up. And emotionally, I don't really care all that much about the people on either end of the explosives.

[Jas]

I guess some of my views might be seen as extreme by some, or at least contradictory:

1. Pro-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-euthanasia
2. Very "Albertan" - Anti Kyoto, Gun Control, and Wheat Board
3. Anti-"organic" foods
4. Very fiscally conservative
5. Pro-hunting

I'm also very capitalist, which a lot of people find odd when they meet me (purple hair & piercings apparently denote a tendency towards communism).

[toddjh]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Dissolution of political parties. Each individual politician should stand on their own views, and not band together and spend all their time fighting the other parties. When was the last time anything before Congress was decided on its own merit, rather than some sort of battle to gain or maintain party control of the system? The whole thing's gone adversarial, which is not to the benefit of the people.

I agree with you in spirit, but how would you propose to abolish political parties without severely curtailing freedom of association? Even if the candidates themselves declare no party, that doesn't mean voters can't.

My solution: more parties. I'd go with five: one for each corner of the social/fiscal liberal/conservative square, and one centrist. Each would be given equal time and an advertising budget. Campaign contributions of any kind would be absolutely forbidden. Yes, it's a restriction of freedom of speech, but only for a very few people who are, after all, volunteers.

Jeremy

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Jas
I guess some of my views might be seen as extreme by some, or at least contradictory:

1. Pro-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-euthanasia
2. Very "Albertan" - Anti Kyoto, Gun Control, and Wheat Board
3. Anti-"organic" foods
4. Very fiscally conservative
5. Pro-hunting

I'm also very capitalist, which a lot of people find odd when they meet me (purple hair & piercings apparently denote a tendency towards communism).

You have all those views...PLUS you have purple hair and piercings? Ummm...what are you doing Saturday night? ;)

[Fengirl]

I guess my biggest extreme position is that parents should receive no special treatment of any kind from the government. No tax breaks, no censorship of "adult" material, no nanny state. If you decide to have kids, it's entirely your responsibility and no one else's. Can't afford it? Don't do it. Ignore that warning, and it's your own damn fault.


Yeah...that's one of mine too. And every time I observe an example of woefully-inadequate parenting, I start wondering whether we couldn't devise some kind of "test" that people should be required to pass before being allowed to breed!!

I don't often say that out loud, though. :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
I think war is fun.

That's a pretty brave thing to admit. I'm ashamed of it, but I have to agree. And not just war--any catastrophic event.

During 9/11, I felt damned excited. Of course I knew it was a tragedy, and I would've helped if there was something I could do, but at the same time I remember watching and thinking, somewhat oddly, "Finally, something is happening!" It was exhilarating.

I was also...well, inappropriately aroused for the rest of that day (and I've heard from several other people who report the same). It was extremely disappointing to me to discover that I had the machinery of a rape-and-pillage savage under my intellectual shell.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Fengirl
Yeah...that's one of mine too. And every time I observe an example of woefully-inadequate parenting, I start wondering whether we couldn't devise some kind of "test" that people should be required to pass before being allowed to breed!!

I don't often say that out loud, though. :)

My big idea is this: some kind of permanent but easily reversible birth control procedure performed at birth or early childhood. I'm thinking some kind of magical, easily reversible vasectomy or tubal ligation. When the person turns 18, he or she can get the procedure reversed at any time, with no restrictions.

The technology for that doesn't exist, of course, but it would effectively eliminate unplanned pregnancies (and, thus, abortions, too). Of course there are people who did choose to have children and are still horrible parents, but I think my idea would solve a lot of the problems.

Jeremy

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Fengirl
Yeah...that's one of mine too. And every time I observe an example of woefully-inadequate parenting, I start wondering whether we couldn't devise some kind of "test" that people should be required to pass before being allowed to breed!!

I don't often say that out loud, though. :)

I have to agree with that one. I wish there was some practical and humane way to require some display of responsibility from people before they can have kids.

[Darat]

Kids aren't the property of their parents, society has more rights over what happens to a kid then its parents. Which is slightly contradicted by the fact that most of the time I think if you want kids you pay for them.

And I’m willing to ask for a bit of abuse.

Can anyone think of views I’ve espoused here that they consider extreme (apart from the ones I’ve mentioned)?

[Cleon]

1. Anti-gun control.
2. Pro-choice, pro-assisted suicide
3. Anti-death penalty.
4. I think the State of Israel, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.
5. Anti-war on drugs. This went from a poorly conceived idea to a poorly-executed, poorly-planned, and poorly-thought-through idea, to a giant money-sucking cluster$%^&. I like what Freakshow said about it.
6. Anti-speed-limit legislation. The problem is not how fast people drive, it's whether they're capable of safely controlling their vehicles at that speed.
7. I think that the animal-rights crowd are complete wack jobs. I love my rabbits dearly, but they should not get voting rights.
8. I support universal health care, and free public education through university.
9. I think any attempt by Washington or state governments to tax or regulate Internet sales or content is a bad idea.
10. What part of "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is difficult to understand? Keep religion out of government.
11. Full rights for GLBTQ people. Including marriage.
12. Remove the embargo and travel ban to Cuba. What a stupid $%^&ing idea.
13. Bring the troops home. Now.
14. I support full amnesty for "illegal" immigrants.

And on a less-than-serious note:

15. MTV should be outlawed. It kills brain cells.
16. Ditto for "reality television." It's not reality if it's not a documentary, and sometimes not even then.
17. I think any producer of a musical "artist" or group that has been described as a "teen pop sensation" or "boy band" should be put up against the wall and shot without trial. (Some people may see this as a contradiction with #3. I see it more being in line with my support for public education.

[Darat]

On the kid's front (and it has nothing to do with the fact I've had my nephew and niece stay for a weekend - honest!), kids aren’t a right and no-one has the right to bring a child into the world knowingly they are going to suffer (e.g. disabled, abject poverty and so on) anyone doing so should be prosecuted for cruelty.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Cleon
3. Anti-death penalty.

Theoretically, or practically?

4. I think the State of Israel, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

I think a democratic, secular state in that region is not possible. If it's democratic, it won't stay secular for long, regardless of what any constitution might say.

10. What part of "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is difficult to understand? Keep religion out of government.

No argument with the sentiment, but if you insist on a strict reading of the amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law repsecting the establishment of religion." If you want to be a literalist, it says nothing about the president, other executive departments, or state governments.

Clearly a strict reading alone is not sufficient to understand the intent of the words.

Jeremy

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by toddjh
I think a democratic, secular state in that region is not possible. If it's democratic, it won't stay secular for long, regardless of what any constitution might say.

Let's not start toward the "you're a moron for believing that" road that I warned about at the beginning of this topic, okay? Please?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
When not upset or condemning Bush for Iraq and how it has been mishandled and the wrong war in the wrong place...I secretly think, at times, that it might not be so bad an idea to invade and blow North Korea off the face of the earth, or possibly invade Zimbabwe in order to save it from itself.

Oooh, good one. I'd invade Sudan, that place makes me sick.

Oh yeah, I'm for socialized health care. The health care system we have now is nuts and free market rules don't apply. Between VA, medicaid, welfare, and medicare the bulk of it is already subsidised on the public dime anyway, we may as well go the rest of the way and get the working poor access to preventative medicine.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Let's not start toward the "you're a moron for believing that" road that I warned about at the beginning of this topic, okay? Please?

Sorry, sorry. :)

In my defense, I was also commenting because I wanted to see if there's something I've missed. If there's a good idea I haven't thought of, I'd like to hear about it.

Jeremy

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
I believe that hedonism, is self-destuctive and self-defeating, and I find sad that it's becoming more and more common.
But isn't the avoidance of detriment to oneself in refraining from what you call "hedonism" in effect pursuing happiness and pleasure and thus hedonistic in and of itself? That's what I never got about attacks on hedonism. When someone says hedonism is destructive, they are trying to escape pain and be hedonistic.

I am an "ethical socialist" in the vein of George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. I hold the ideological belief that the market, by the primary rule which defines it, is immoral: It only recognizes a person's entitlement to the resources society as a whole has at its disposal so long as they are able to successfully sell their labor to others or get others to do their labor for them. This premise from which the market stems I construe as a manner of prejudice just as contemptible as one which manifests itself out of a person's skin color or nationality. It judges that the suffering—and, consequently, personhood—of an individual is mitigated and belittled, at best, by that individual's stagnancy, and, at worst, by others' simple unwillingness to find utility in the work of the individual. Even in the former case, stagnancy is something determined by the mental states governed by the immutable laws of physics and, as such, using it as a justification for mistreatment is comparable to neglecting those with more salient, pathological mental dysfunctions such as retardation.

In keeping with my principle that a person's actions should not diminish that person's right to the respect of others, I do not believe in purely punitive punishments for criminals. Criminals must be dealt with so as to lessen the chances of others from falling prey to their crimes, but a punishment should not go beyond what is required simply to maintain the safety of others.

I guess these are my main "strange" beliefs.

[Jas]

Originally posted by Freakshow
You have all those views...PLUS you have purple hair and piercings? Ummm...what are you doing Saturday night? ;)

And don't forget, apparently I give it out to everyone. You can't lose!

(although, I will admit, that the haircolour changes a fair amount)

[Jas]

Originally posted by toddjh
My big idea is this: some kind of permanent but easily reversible birth control procedure performed at birth or early childhood. I'm thinking some kind of magical, easily reversible vasectomy or tubal ligation. When the person turns 18, he or she can get the procedure reversed at any time, with no restrictions.


I've often thought this (shoudl have put it in my original post).

I think birth control should be mandatory for everyone under 25. There are several methods - the most effective and easily enforceable would probably be the Depo-Provera shot every three months. I would say Norplant, but apparently there have been some issues with them being removed.

Not that people under 25 make bad parents, but if you absolutely cannot wait until 25 - well, I can't vouch for your mental or emotional stability.

I also think that teen mothers should get free/subsidized childcare to help them finish school, if they decide to keep the kid, in the event that state-sponsored birth control should fail. If they drop out of school (beyond what would be considered 'mat leave'), then the kid goes to social services. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort to get an education, what's that teaching your child?

[Jas]

Originally posted by Cleon
6. Anti-speed-limit legislation. The problem is not how fast people drive, it's whether they're capable of safely controlling their vehicles at that speed.

Agreed. However, I would still impose speed limits in residential/high pedestrian traffic areas, and school zones. But for the most part, speed limits are a cash cow, especially with multinova.

[luchog]

Anyone caught seriously using terms like "proactive", "implementize", "core competencies", or "rearrange paradigms", without a shred of detectable irony, should be hauled out into the streets and summarily executed as an example to all.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by toddjh
Theoretically, or practically?


To an extent, both. Hard to put into words without writing an entire essay, which I really don't have time for at the moment. :)


I think a democratic, secular state in that region is not possible. If it's democratic, it won't stay secular for long, regardless of what any constitution might say.


If that's the case, Israel is doomed anyway. At least with my way, there would be much less bloodshed.


No argument with the sentiment, but if you insist on a strict reading of the amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law repsecting the establishment of religion." If you want to be a literalist, it says nothing about the president, other executive departments, or state governments.

Clearly a strict reading alone is not sufficient to understand the intent of the words.



Point taken, but the Constitution explicitely applies those amendments to the states, if memory serves.

The point I was trying to make is that all of the drives to put prayer in schools, remove evolution from science curriculums, keep "under God" in the Pledge, etc., is a direct violation of the establishment clause. Trying to pretend it isn't is like trying to pretend water isn't wet.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by luchog
Anyone caught seriously using terms like "proactive", "implementize", "core competencies", or "rearrange paradigms", without a shred of detectable irony, should be hauled out into the streets and summarily executed as an example to all.

At my last job, we once got a CEO who used this sentence at an all-employee meeting:

"We must proactively focus our synergy into a new paradigm."

With a straight face. And no, I'm not making that up. I'm not that creative.

(The managers, of course, all nodded thoughtfully as they digested the wise words. Inexplicably, however, the entire IT department started shaking uncontrollably as we all tried to keep from bursting out laughing.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by luchog
Anyone caught seriously using terms like "proactive", "implementize", "core competencies", or "rearrange paradigms", without a shred of detectable irony, should be hauled out into the streets and summarily executed as an example to all.

Unless playing boardroom bingo of course.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cleon
At my last job, we once got a CEO who used this sentence at an all-employee meeting:

"We must proactively focus our synergy into a new paradigm."

With a straight face. And no, I'm not making that up. I'm not that creative.

(The managers, of course, all nodded thoughtfully as they digested the wise words. Inexplicably, however, the entire IT department started shaking uncontrollably as we all tried to keep from bursting out laughing.)

When I was doing internal presentations and my team was present I would see how many I could slip in before the first one of them burst out laughing - sometimes some of us do know what we are saying...

[New Ager]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think that pretzels should be slightly larger.

President Bush thinks they should be smaller. ;)

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
But isn't the avoidance of detriment to oneself in refraining from what you call "hedonism" in effect pursuing happiness and pleasure and thus hedonistic in and of itself? That's what I never got about attacks on hedonism. When someone says hedonism is destructive, they are trying to escape pain and be hedonistic.


Yes, but I think that leads them right back into pain, hence the term, hedonic treadmill.

No one starts drinking with the goal of an alcoholic, but it happens because of habituation, which to escape that pain of withdrawl or try and recreate that memory of pleasure, a person must drink more, which leads to...

Now, hedonism in my book, doesn't just include addictive substances like drugs. Consumerism, is another example.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Fengirl
Yeah...that's one of mine too. And every time I observe an example of woefully-inadequate parenting, I start wondering whether we couldn't devise some kind of "test" that people should be required to pass before being allowed to breed!!

I don't often say that out loud, though. :) You should, though. I've often asked* why do you have to have a license to have a car, a license to have a dog, but nothing more than a cooperating sperm and egg to have a kid?

* ...usually when I see some stupendously incompetent parenting...

[Luke T.]

We're wandering into challenges again. Let's just stick to your own personal beliefs that you know you have more than the average emotional attachment to.

Since people are already opening up and being honest about things they get a little sweaty over, it is counterproductive to turn up the heat even more.

Questions directed at clarification are fine. Disagreeing with someone's definition or predicted outcome of their secret wishes falls more into a challenge.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Darat
Can anyone think of views I’ve espoused here that they consider extreme (apart from the ones I’ve mentioned)? Practically every view you espouse is extreme, Darat, so all anyone has to do is sift randomly through your posts...:D

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by toddjh
That's a pretty brave thing to admit. I'm ashamed of it, but I have to agree. And not just war--any catastrophic event.

I spent a good five minutes hesitating before hitting the submit button on that one...

Yeah, I'm kinda ashamed of it a bit too, when I think about it. But I feel how I feel, I don't have a dial that switches my emotions to what they are supposed to be.

I still remember the night Gulf War I kicked off. I spent from midnight to three in the morning on the phone with a friend whilst watching the coverage. I felt like a kid on christmas.

Ever notice that all that footage of smart bombs was absent from Gulf War II? It's those new GPS guided bombs they use. No laser designation, so you don't get gunsight footage of the bomb hitting. I hate those new bombs.

During 9/11, I felt damned excited. Of course I knew it was a tragedy, and I would've helped if there was something I could do, but at the same time I remember watching and thinking, somewhat oddly, "Finally, something is happening!" It was exhilarating.

I was also...well, inappropriately aroused for the rest of that day (and I've heard from several other people who report the same). It was extremely disappointing to me to discover that I had the machinery of a rape-and-pillage savage under my intellectual shell.

Jeremy

9/11 I watched on happening live on TV since I happened to be home off work that day. I didn't really get the same buzz off of that - I was pretty detached about the whole thing really. I do remember being very surprised that the buildings came down, to the extent that I didn't actually believe the first one had fallen until maybe ten minutes later. I know how strong steel buildings are, so it was really amazing to see that happen.

One thing that stood out - the BBC showed a really close up view from a helicopter camera that was tracking a guy who had jumped off. I'll never forget seeing him just tumble and tumble and tumble like he was never going to hit the ground. For all the documentaries I've seen since, I've never once seen that repeated.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Yes, but I think that leads them right back into pain, hence the term, hedonic treadmill.

No one starts drinking with the goal of an alcoholic, but it happens because of habituation, which to escape that pain of withdrawl or try and recreate that memory of pleasure, a person must drink more, which leads to...

Now, hedonism in my book, doesn't just include addictive substances like drugs. Consumerism, is another example.
I guess this is just a semantic difference, but I feel that you're really just objecting to a miscalculation of strategies with the aim of achieving happiness rather than the actual pursuit of happiness. Hedonism, when not tamed by a rigorous logic to guide the compulsion to experience pleasure, can be dangerous; however, this danger is arguably not the fault of hedonism but instead the methods chosen to satiate the ethic. You could be hedonistic and conclude that since getting drunk can feel good temporarily, you should drink. Conversely, you could be hedonistic and examine the situation and realize that the emotional burdens of excessive drinking will eventually outweigh the emotional benefits and decide not to drink.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Oh, one other extreme position for me: while I am very much pro-choice, I think Roe v. Wade is increasingly undefensible and probably should not have been decided as it was...

Shhh. Pro-choice but anti-roe v. wade is an intellectual position the masses can't understand and apparently neither can the Senate judiciary committee. Its heresy of the highest order. Its not extreme, just too smart for the humanoids.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
4. I think the State of Israel, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.I think the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

I think the mullahcracy of Iran, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

I think the kleptocracy of Syria, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

And so on...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft

Oh yeah, I'm for socialized health care. The health care system we have now is nuts and free market rules don't apply. Between VA, medicaid, welfare, and medicare the bulk of it is already subsidised on the public dime anyway, we may as well go the rest of the way and get the working poor access to preventative medicine.

Am I allowed to take the opposite of the "you're a moron for believing that" in this thread and instead say:

:r: :th: :wow2: :bowl:

Or would that be just as bad?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Oh yeah, I'm for socialized health care. The health care system we have now is nuts and free market rules don't apply. Between VA, medicaid, welfare, and medicare the bulk of it is already subsidised on the public dime anyway, we may as well go the rest of the way and get the working poor access to preventative medicine. Yeah, socialized medicine is a great idea. The poorest drug-and-booze addled street person can stagger into any hospital emergency room and get his face stitched up from his encounter with the sidewalk. He won't get the same quality of care as a paying patient would, but the Democrats want to change that. Someday, if the Dems have their way, we'll all get the same quality of care as the booze hound.

Which is still better than he'd get in that island country just south of Florida with the great socialist health-care system.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by corplinx
Shhh. Pro-choice but anti-roe v. wade is an intellectual position the masses can't understand and apparently neither can the Senate judiciary committee. Its heresy of the highest order. Its not extreme, just too smart for the humanoids.

But it is just the thing I am looking for in this topic. :)

So corplinx, now that you are here, what gets you foaming at the mouth? (avatar reference)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I think the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

I think the mullahcracy of Iran, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

I think the kleptocracy of Syria, as we know it, should disappear and be replaced with a democratic, secular state for all residents, with no special benefit or penalty based on religion or ethnicity.

And so on...

I don't disagree with any of the above.

However, mine is considered an "extreme" position, while yours are not. Odd how that works.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome
Am I allowed to take the opposite of the "you're a moron for believing that" in this thread and instead say:

:r: :th: :wow2: :bowl:

Or would that be just as bad?

No, that's fine! Maybe somebody will admit to a crazy idea that somebody else never thought of and that somebody else will find they like. And it is always nice to know you are not alone in thinking what you think.

[corplinx]

I'm all for revising the "three strikes" law several states have from prescribing mandatory life sentences to mandatory summary executions with no appeals.

I also think the following should be made illegal qualifying offenses:
Having a cellphone with an obnoxious ringtone go off during a broadway show.
Wearing a ballcap at an angle as opposed to forwards or backwards.
Producing or buying "spinner" style rims.
Producing car audio equipment with more than 45 watts of power.
Taking young children or babies out with you to a bar and grill or rated R movie.
Hounding after a flight attendant for a first class upgrade as if bugging the shiznite out of her will help.
Peeing on the roll of toilet paper in a public john.
Taking a violent foaming dump in an airplane john and leaving a pungent miasma that reeks five rows away on a short flight.
Taking a violent foaming dump at work and not washing your wands.
Greenlighting a reality TV show or any film based on a video game.

[gnome]

-I believe that cigarettes should be banned under consumer product safety laws, just for consistency... there are plenty of less dangerous products that have a blanket ban on them.

-I also understand this will never happen and have no interest in pushing it as an agenda.

-I believe there should be some kind of qualifying exam for the presidency, with emphasis on reasoning skills. I'd love to test their ability to understand others' basic motivations, if there is a test for that.

-I'd rather have a smart, logical, practical President/Congressman/Governor/Boss/authority figure than one who agrees with me but lacks those qualities.

-I believe there are significant numbers on the extreme left and right that are secretly totalitarian. I worry that those totalitarians on the right are more likely to get support from voters.

-I fear that Americans would embrace a totalitarian government if sufficiently frightened.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I guess this is just a semantic difference, but I feel that you're really just objecting to a miscalculation of strategies with the aim of achieving happiness rather than the actual pursuit of happiness. Hedonism, when not tamed by a rigorous logic to guide the compulsion to experience pleasure, can be dangerous; however, this danger is arguably not the fault of hedonism but instead the methods chosen to satiate the ethic. You could be hedonistic and conclude that since getting drunk can feel good temporarily, you should drink. Conversely, you could be hedonistic and examine the situation and realize that the emotional burdens of excessive drinking will eventually outweigh the emotional benefits and decide not to drink.

Yes, it seems were are probably arguing semantics. You could say I'm against, irrational hedonism, but it's very hard to be rational over the long term about pleasure.

Hedonism, to me, implies that your life should be focused on maximizing pleasure. Most people can't be rational about it, like most people can't avoid be addicted to crack. So, promoting it is dangerous, this is of course my opinion.

I'm not against pleasure, but as a side effect of your actions, not the primary goal. I would suggestion looking into "flow" states, as an alternative to hedoism, it underlies much of the positive psychology material I have been reading over the years.

I appreciate your comments.

[Jas]

I believe that's where you wanted the sentence to end.

Originally posted by corplinx

Having a cellphone with an obnoxious ringtone. :p

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I don't think I have any extreme views. I think I prefer things the way they are:

I think we should continue paying huge amounts of money in military foreign aid. Spending tax payer's money to arm another country's military is smart because we make them spend it on our countries private defense industry. Sure it would be more efficient to just send the tax payers money straight to the military industrial complex, but by introducing a foreign middle man we spend even more money by having a war later. Absolutely brilliant.

I think we should continue enforcing our pyramid retirement scheme (social security) on the poor at gunpoint. Why reform social security when it works so well? The payroll cap on social security tax is $88,000 (last time I looked). This way a family with a combined income of $89,000 a year pays more social security tax than someone who makes $500,000,000 a year. Taxing the poor to pay for the poor makes sure they stay poor.

We should continue to protect the status quo by copying the methods used in paying out the Federal death benefits to the relatives of the 9-11 victims. Payment was based on your potential income (which is based on your current income at the time of your death). The result was a clear message that a wealthy person's life is worth many times as much as a poor person's life. We must insure that none of the untermensch accidentally become wealthy because of the death of a loved one.

We should continue to fund education based on the income of the neighborhood the school is in, instead of giving poor children the same opportunities as the wealthy. If we were to offer children an equal education, some mendicant might actually rise up and ask for a fair shake.

I’m also in favor of the current “Cult of the Child�. Any and all civil rights and/or liberties should be surrendered because their existence might be somehow detrimental to a child somewhere.

LLH

[Cat217]

Howdy,
As you can see I have just joined this board. I think this will be a good thread to introduce
myself.
1.Public summary execution for those who confess to the crimes of murder-1 or child rape.
2.Corperal punishment in public schools.
3.The abolishment of affirmative action.
4.The withdraw of the United States of America from the United Nations.
5.Profiling.
6.The expulsion of all illegal immigrants from the USA.
7.The rights of American workers to earn a decent wage.
8.A flat 17% income tax / no sales tax.
9.Term limits on all politicians, and Judges.
10.All articles of The Bill of Rights, as written.

Just a few of the many things I believe in.

Cat

[Luke T.]

Welcome to the board, Cat217!

Oh, here's one for you guys. Cat reminded me.

Pedophilia.

Sure, sure, everybody gets worked up about pedophilia. So that doesn't put me in the extreme. But I mean that I cannot talk rationally about the subject at all.

For instance, sometimes someone will raise the point that not all kids who consensually submit to a pedophile necessarily end up suffering trauma from the incident(s). Way, way down inside somewhere, I know this is a good point for discussion. But a red film descends over my vision and I just can't do it. I know I will end up losing it.

People who raise this discussion point probably are scared someone is going to think they are a defender of pedophiles or a pedophile themselves. I imagine it takes some courage to raise the issue.

But still. I know I will freaking lose it. I tried to participate once and I did lose it. Lost all control of my temper.

So I avoid those topics. Like the plague. Because I know sooner or later I will say something really, really ugly to somebody and any and all future conversations I have with that person will be colored by it. It would be a seed of enmity.

For those of you who have raised such a topic, don't worry. I honestly do not remember who you were. So you are safe. :)

Maybe it is because I am a dad. I was not sexually mishandled in any way as a child.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Oh, here's one for you guys. Cat reminded me.

Pedophilia

Working in the UK videogames industry, I knew Ken Lockley (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/760521.stm). I feel your pain :(

The thing is, some paedophiles (no idea about Lockley) were abused themselves, and the trauma they suffered is what tipped them over the edge and turned them into perverts. Do you feel sorry for these people as victims, or hate them as perpetrators? Damned if I have an answer... :(

[Dredred]

I think child rapists should be castrated.

I don't like the idea of gay couples adopting children, because I think young children really need a mother. (This opinion might not be extremist in the US, but in Holland it's a politically uncorrect thing to say.)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think that pretzels should be slightly larger. You've not been to Disneyland, then. They've got such mofo huge pretzels that some kids actually use them as play-gyms. But they do taste like salted styrofoam...

[Snide]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Welcome to the board, Cat217!

Oh, here's one for you guys. Cat reminded me.

Pedophilia.

Sure, sure, everybody gets worked up about pedophilia. So that doesn't put me in the extreme. But I mean that I cannot talk rationally about the subject at all.

For instance, sometimes someone will raise the point that not all kids who consensually submit to a pedophile necessarily end up suffering trauma from the incident(s). Way, way down inside somewhere, I know this is a good point for discussion. But a red film descends over my vision and I just can't do it. I know I will end up losing it.

People who raise this discussion point probably are scared someone is going to think they are a defender of pedophiles or a pedophile themselves. I imagine it takes some courage to raise the issue.

But still. I know I will freaking lose it. I tried to participate once and I did lose it. Lost all control of my temper.

So I avoid those topics. Like the plague. Because I know sooner or later I will say something really, really ugly to somebody and any and all future conversations I have with that person will be colored by it. It would be a seed of enmity.

For those of you who have raised such a topic, don't worry. I honestly do not remember who you were. So you are safe. :)

Maybe it is because I am a dad. I was not sexually mishandled in any way as a child. This reminds me of something I believe you and I both posted on an old thread back on the JREF community forum, maybe before the forums "split up." It was about listing your fears, and I said my biggest fear is outliving any of my children. Your post was along those same lines. That really stuck with me, because I could relate to what you were saying.

Not sure how this adds to the discussion of "extreme" or "irrational," except I guess it affects my parenting skills.

Oh, and that reminds me. I hate how our planet is becoming overpopulated and worry about how we can't allow ourselves to become the bugs eating the frog in the plastic box in school. We keep having babies and babies and we talk about world hunger and the need to feed all these people and cure poverty and disease and such and I think, "But we have too many people already! Is anyone paying attention!?!?"

...and I eagerly await the birth of my fourth child next month! :o Yep, on that I am a hypocrite.

(If you don't know what I mean about the frog, in 7th grade we saw how bugs multiplied and thrived in this box with a frog carcus to eat, but eventually the bugs died out when the food was gone.)

typo

[Snide]

Originally posted by Dredred
I think child rapists should be castrated.

I don't like the idea of gay couples adopting children, because I think young children really need a mother. (This opinion might not be extremist in the US, but in Holland it's a politically uncorrect thing to say.) Your avatar is giving me an extreme headache! :D

[Anti_Hypeman]

Originally posted by luchog
Anyone caught seriously using terms like "proactive", "implementize", "core competencies", or "rearrange paradigms", without a shred of detectable irony, should be hauled out into the streets and summarily executed as an example to all.

I add synergy to the list and any mention of "the box".

[Snide]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I add synergy to the list and any mention of "the box". I'm getting sick of "deliverables" myself.

[LibraryLady]

I believe that you all should return your library books on time. This means you. I'll wait while you go check under your bed.



...........


I believe that women over fifty are extremely sexy and attractive.

Budgies rule!

Hugh Laurie is the sexiest man on television at the present time.


And on the serious side.

Child abuse of any way shape or kind. I become speechless. (and for me that's extreme). The thought of intentionally injuring a child who is too little to fight back in any way just sends me completely over the edge. I've witnessed it in my work and in two cases, I think I actually helped the situation, but usually I can't do a damned thing.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

I dont think intent should matter during sentencing only the effect on the victim.

That being said I think all drunk drivers should be charged with murder. I have a drunk in my family that has been through the revolving door for years. He will kill someone before they stop him I would rather see him in jail.

I dont believe in sex offender registration. If they are still dangerous then keep them in jail. I realize the recovery rate is about zero and I have no problem with giving all sex offenders the death penalty on the first offense. Sacrificing innocents to rehab a few of them is a no go. Thats real sex crimes and not some guy that pee'd in an alley or pulled a Pee Wee Herman.

Prisions should not be allowed to operate businesses that compete with the private sector.

Prisoners should not get a free college education.

I dont think anyone should get early release for any reason, you serve your time. Parole should be mandatory for 5 years after release.

A HS degree should be required for jury duty.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Originally posted by LibraryLady
[B]I believe that you all should return your library books on time. This means you. I'll wait while you go check under your bed.

I still have a book about plumbing from my high school library and I dont feel bad about it at all.

[LibraryLady]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I still have a book about plumbing from my high school library and I dont feel bad about it at all.

You're on the list.

[Khalid01]

1. I'm strongly anti-censorship. I wouldn't mind if the FCC suddenly evaporated along with all the laws that they enforce. I'd only keep the laws regarding speech that incites violence and the "yelling 'fire' in a theater" type.
2. Legalize all drugs, and regulate them like other vices.
3. Legalize prostitution, distribute free condoms and demand all prostitutes be tested bimonthly, or be thrown in jail for being a public health hazard.
4. I'd like sport hunting to be done away with, I find it to be a useless activity. I have irrational sympathy for animals and think it is "unfair" to kill them for entertainment, it's almost disgusting, really.
5. Population control, starting with doctor-assisted suicides and abortions, and stretching to mandatory euthanasia (I plan to do myself in at 75) and reproductive limits. Couples interested in becoming parents should be required to take (and pass with a C or better) a course in child/adolescent psychology, they're eye-opening.
6. Legalize gay marriage and polygamy.

7. I want the "Department of Homeland Security" to be renamed because... because the word "homeland" just sounds stupid, jingoistic, and childish to me. Ach, kill it with fire!

8. The mandatory sentence for sexual abuse and rape should at least include a daily kick in the nuts (or ovaries?). And maybe some kind of psychological trauma, I hate, hate, hate, hate sexual abusers. :mad:

9. I'll admit there's some sort of emotional comfort, a sort of warmth of having a big government. I'm kind of scared of having a small government, yet I know rationally there are laws and portions of the government I could do away with and a small government has its upside.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Jas
And don't forget, apparently I give it out to everyone. You can't lose!
Yeah, well...I wasn't gonna mention that other thread. ;) Did you like my suggestion in that thread, BTW? I'm sure it would work!


(although, I will admit, that the haircolour changes a fair amount)
I can identify with that. Not too long ago, my hair was dyed black, with occasional temporary blue in the spikes. It is now back to its natural color, which is far from being either black or blue. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide
This reminds me of something I believe you and I both posted on an old thread back on the JREF community forum, maybe before the forums "split up." It was about listing your fears, and I said my biggest fear is outliving any of my children. Your post was along those same lines. That really stuck with me, because I could relate to what you were saying.


I think I remember that. I think I said that if one of my kids died, I would probably just sit down and stop breathing myself.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

I dont think intent should matter during sentencing only the effect on the victim.




These appear to directly contradict each other.



If you attempt to murder someone, but cause no harm, for example . . . .

[Anti_Hypeman]

I think SUV's are evil. I swear if gas goes up to $4.00 I will start slashing the tires of every civilian hummer I see.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
These appear to directly contradict each other.



If you attempt to murder someone, but cause no harm, for example . . . .

Try to use a little brain power.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I think SUV's are evil. I swear if gas goes up to $4.00 I will start slashing the tires of every civilian hummer I see.

My hummer uses no gas at all. :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Zep
You've not been to Disneyland, then. They've got such mofo huge pretzels that some kids actually use them as play-gyms. But they do taste like salted styrofoam...

Have you tried the ones in New York, or the hot dogs?
OK I'm getting hungry now...

In California, stick to Chinese or Mexican food. We tend to screw up things like hot dogs and philly cheese steaks. Whatever you do, don't get Chinese food in the midwest... blech! Would you like those won tons smothered in gravy?

Vegetarian pizza!
That's something I have an extremist view of. What possible use is a vegetarian pizza? Every single time we have an office pizza party, someone has to order a couple of those so we don't offend any vegetarians and they always have one or two slices taken and the rest goes to waste.

[Sushi]

I will be hated by the end of this post.


1. I think no individual should obey the law on virtue of it being the law. Only for utilitarian reasons like not getting arrested. Otherwise, if it conflicts with what you feel is right, there is no reason to follow the law. I have no problem with tax dodgers, pot smokers, and underage smokers/drinkers, etc. I am a radical individualist that thinks people should not handicap their pleasures just because of other peoples' dogmas.

2. I am not particularly shocked by consensual sex of "underage" people. Obviously I find the idea of 5 year olds having sex to be disgusting, yadd yadda, and no, I am not a pedophile, but in most cases it's just teenagers *********** each other. I think the biggest problem is the "sacredization" of sex instead of being seen as a biological function of organisms. My opinion on this is more complex, and basically I suppose I could say that I find statutory rape to be a misuse of the word rape. I am not comfortable with the more extreme cases, though, and I think those are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. I would very much like to find a way to make this more easier to decide on the extreme cases. If you are LukeT, you already hate me.

3. Most sentiments are troubling to pleasure and living a happy life. And by this I include attitudes in regard to sex, violence, death, humor, and even profanity.

4. I am unsure of how babies should be treated, legally. I think mental coherence is probably the best judge of legal protections, not simply being "human". Terri Schaivo, for instance, was alive and human but was no real person to speak of. If a dog is more aware than a newborn baby is, I think the dog should be afforded more protections than the baby.

5. The people (and perhaps animals like my family dog) that I am close to are more important to me than masses of other people. I would sooner save those I like if it meant that a million other people had to die. Numbers are not important to me. How I feel about you is.

6. The strangest of them all: I am almost regretful of being so personally principled. Life would be so much easier if I were a thieving, perverted person. Despite what you may think, I am loyal, honorable, completely sober, cannot even fathom stealing, am easily bullied or bothered because I don't fight back, and I am more chaste than your average catholic priest ('tho on second thought not saying much...you get the point)! It is strange, I see that there really is no objective good or evil and no real rational reason not to be thieving and perverted and yet I still hold onto my principles. A true testament to the fact that facts themselves do not necessarily influence our moral stances.

[Kodiak]

1. I am a Godless Conservative/Libertarian who is personally pro-life, but pro-choice in general. I believe the Second Amendment should have been the first. I am pro-gay marriage, pro-capital punishment, and anti-medical euthanasia. I am also in favor of legalizing marijuana and prostitution.

2. Cremation/burial should only occur after viable organs are harvested and any scientific/medical value in the body is expended.

3. Any person, upon reaching the age of 18, must either have a full time job, enroll in a college or vocational school, or join the military for no less than two years.

4. Right to vote granted only after passing test covering basic knowledge of local, state, and federal government.

[headscratcher4]

Here's another of mine: I think that White Collar criminals, college-educated criminals (involved in crimes other than those committed in the heat of passion -- like financial frauds, bribery, ponzi schemes, etc), and officials involved in crimes (bribed police officers, etc.) should be punished far harsher than other criminals...because they should know better...people who kill their wives in a drunken rage should be punished severely, but a police officer that takes a bribe completely undermines civil society.

In short, if you're smart enough to commit a financial crime or fraud, you're smart enough to figure out how to make a living without committing such a crime...so the book should be thrown at you...in fact, on those days when I approve of the death penalty, I tend to think that white collar crimes should head the list (just below mass murder, of course).

Let me add a topical example: anyone who is perpetraiting frauds as a result of the huricaine...identity theft, false fund raising, rebuilding scams, etc. All of those kinds of crimes should be punished as severely as possible...

There, my extremist view for this morning....:)

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kodiak

4. Right to vote granted only after passing test covering basic knowledge of local, state, and federal government.

They something similar for blacks once.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
Try to use a little brain power.

(not sure why I got the snippy reply, but ok -- I can go with that)


Alas. My feeble brain is not up to this task.



That is why I now ask you, O Mighty Intellect.


Your position:Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman

I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

I dont think intent should matter during sentencing only the effect on the victim.


If intent does not matter, then how can you give the same penalty for attempted murder as in a murder case? If the attempt fails and there is no harm to the victim (and remember, "only the effect on the victim" counts) then why would they get the exact same penalty?

This appears -- at least to us lesser beings who cannot use a little brain power -- to be directly contradictory. I was hoping you could show why I am wrong on that.


N/A

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sushi
They something similar for blacks once.

If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

[John Bentley]

1. Mandatory life sentence without parole for anyone over 18 molesting a child 12 years old or younger. Mandatory death sentence if the child is killed.

2. American citizenship should be an earned privilege, not a birthright. Citizenship is earned through testing (too long to detail here), or valorous conduct in military service (sorry, no desk jobs, has to be on the front lines). Citizens have privileges such as land ownership, right to vote, social security, welfare, education, etc. Citizens also have responsibilities such as mandatory voting in elections, draft eligibility for armed services, mandatory public service for some period (either legislative, police, fire, etc.). Non-citizens can live here, but must have a job, and are charged an "infrastructure tax" to pay for public facilities, and accrue no benefits such as social security or welfare, and cannot own land or developed property on the land - they can rent.

3. No one receives welfare checks without mandatory attendance at some sort of trade school. No one can receive welfare without mandatory birth control. Welfare should be a graded curve, rather than all or none. If you have a job, but it pays less than welfare, then welfare makes up the difference, plus a little bit more, just to give an incentive to continue working.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Kodiak
If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

The point is that someone has to write the questions, and there's no guarantee that person won't be pushing an agenda. When you start performing any kind of intelligence or knowledge test for something as important as voting, there's too much potential for abuse.

I think a lot of people would like to see the uninformed and intentionally ignorant stop voting...but do you really want to trust strangers with that kind of power?

ETA: Here's an example. Suppose one question is:

14. From what source do residents of the United States derive their rights?

a) Constitutional fiat
b) Natural law
c) Christian heritage
d) All of the above

Would you have a good idea how to answer, without knowing who was in charge of writing the test?

Jeremy

[headscratcher4]

Second extreme view posting of the morning...

Do away with any immigration limitations. Anyone who wants to come to the US should be allowed to do so. Immigration limitations have, historically, been used as a tool of racism and should be abolished. All that should matter is ability to work and contribute to our society.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Second extreme view posting of the morning...

Do away with any immigration limitations. Anyone who wants to come to the US should be allowed to do so. Immigration limitations have, historically, been used as a tool of racism and should be abolished. All that should matter is ability to work and contribute to our society.

Just so I understand, are you saying we should restrict immigraton based on "ability to work and contribute to our society," or have it completely unrestricted?

If the former, who decides which immigrants are more capable of contributing? And if the latter, in what sense does "ability to work and contribute to our society" matter?

ETA: This isn't meant as a "challenge." I'd like to see less restriction on immigration, too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your position actually is.

Jeremy

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by toddjh
Just so I understand, are you saying we should restrict immigraton based on "ability to work and contribute to our society," or have it completely unrestricted?

If the former, who decides which immigrants are more capable of contributing? And if the latter, in what sense does "ability to work and contribute to our society" matter?

ETA: This isn't meant as a "challenge." I'd like to see less restriction on immigration, too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your position actually is.

Jeremy

Sorry, my extreme view...changeable, of course, depending on the day of the week... is that there should be no restriction on immigration period. Anyone who wants to be an American should be one...open the borders and let anyone who wants to come here, come here.

I assume that the vast majority are coming here to improve thier lives and are more than willing to work for that dream. I assume that is a good thing for them and for America....

Open the doors!

P.S.: Luke didn't limit the expression to only extreme views that are logical, consistent or defensible. In taking my position, for example, I feel no need to figure out how you defend against terrorist infiltration or other logical reasons why immigration controls might be necessary. My position is purely abstract ...:)

[Dappadee]

What I view as animal cruelty sends me into an irrational rage. Can't stand hunting, blood sports, the fur trade and cosmetic tests on animals, but I eat tons of meat and agree with pharmaceutical testing.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Cat217
Howdy,
As you can see I have just joined this board. I think this will be a good thread to introduce
myself.
1.Public summary execution for those who confess to the crimes of murder-1 or child rape.
2.Corperal punishment in public schools.
3.The abolishment of affirmative action.
4.The withdraw of the United States of America from the United Nations.
5.Profiling.
6.The expulsion of all illegal immigrants from the USA.
7.The rights of American workers to earn a decent wage.
8.A flat 17% income tax / no sales tax.
9.Term limits on all politicians, and Judges.
10.All articles of The Bill of Rights, as written.

Just a few of the many things I believe in.

Cat

:jaw:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by toddjh
The point is that someone has to write the questions, and there's no guarantee that person won't be pushing an agenda. When you start performing any kind of intelligence or knowledge test for something as important as voting, there's too much potential for abuse.

I think a lot of people would like to see the uninformed and intentionally ignorant stop voting...but do you really want to trust strangers with that kind of power?

ETA: Here's an example. Suppose one question is:



Would you have a good idea how to answer, without knowing who was in charge of writing the test?

Jeremy

What 'strangers'?

We trust our elected legislators to write laws. Let a bipartisan Congressional committee create the test.

And your example is more an opinion poll than a test of basic government knowledge.

My questions would be more like these:

1. How is the Constitution changed or revised?

a. By an Executive Order.

b. By amendment as detailed in the Constitution.

c. By simple majority in a national referendum.

d. The Constitution cannot be changed or revised.



2. Each State is limited to how many Senators?

a. 1

b. 2

c. 3

d. It depends on each State's population.

[Orwell]

I think I have extremist views regarding religion and spirituality: the best way to get me interminably rant is to bring up the subject of church/state separation, the abuses of faith, New Agey bunkum or religious cults. I refuse to shake hands with priests, and I can't talk with very religious or "spiritual" people without somehow eventually mocking them... :o

Also, I don't like automobiles... In fact, I think I hate them with a passion. I think they're generally ugly, smelly and unnecessary at least half of the time. All those single drivers stuck in traffic make me fume with rage. I like spitting on luxury vehicles, making fun of old guys in red sports cars, flipping the bird at SUVs and generally being a nuisance to drivers. "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells"

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Kodiak
What 'strangers'?

We trust our elected legislators to write laws. Let a bipartisan Congressional committee create the test.

And when the bipartisan Congressional committee has an agenda? Sure, it's easy to come up with a lot of good questions. That doesn't mean they couldn't also come up with bad ones designed (either intentionally or subconsciously) to disenfranchise a certain group of people.

Given all the flag-waving and "God bless Americas" we see today, I can easily imagine a situation where this bipartisan Congressional committee introduces -- out of Pure Patriotism, mind you -- additional questions to make sure voters know what Americna really stands for.

Plus, the last thing you want to do is let elected officials mess with the voters. Look at the huge mess that redistricting has caused...and gerrymandering has nothing on disenfranchisement.

Jeremy

[Jon the Geek]

My "extremist" views, in no particular order:

* Third parties are a bad thing. The person who is elected to an office should get more than half of the votes. As a corollary, primaries should be looked at as a bigger deal, should be easier to get into, and should all occur on the same day for national elections. A series of run-off primaries should be held to determine the national candidate for that party. This would allow for the "vetting" of the candidate that takes place during our current goofy primary season, but people in Iowa and New Hampshire would have as much effect on the election as people in later-primary states.

* Everyone should be required to pass a citizenship course in order to become a citizen of the US, whether they're born here or not. Immigrants who become citizens are required to know something about America. Why aren't those who were born here through no fault of their own?

* There is no reason that I am aware of for anyone to believe in any deities or other supernatural things. I know that's not extremist here, but it's extremist compared to the rest of society. Children should be taught skepticism in school, without shying away from skepticism about religion. However, I wouldn't ever advocate it in that way outside a skeptic-heavy forum, because I realize most Americans would be against it.

* The only time it is acceptable to kill a self-aware human being is when they must be killed to protect another self-aware human being. If it is possible to protect the individual without killing the aggressor, killing is wrong. No matter what they've done (short of heavy self-mutilation resulting in them becoming no longer self aware, of course), criminals are still self-aware human beings. I'm fuzzier on when someone becomes a self-aware human being, but it's definitely after the second trimester, so I have no problem with abortion. Where I get extremist: I can imagine myself being convinced that it's ok for parents to kill infants up to a certain point, provided those infants are not self aware. I don't think I could be convinced that it's ok for others to do so, but it's more because of the effect on the parents than the effect on the infant.

* If my brain still works but I'm in constant, excrutiating pain, I want to live. If my brain doesn't work but my body is perfectly healthy, I am no longer alive, and my organs should be harvested. Once my brain dies, as far as I know I no longer exist. I want to continue to exist as long as possible, because pain is more enjoyable than non-existance.

* Funerals and burial rights are for the peace of mind of the living, not the dead, and there's no reason for the "wishes of the deceased" to be taken into account at all. That said, when I die, I'd like for any parts of my body that can't be used directly in helping people (organ transplants, etc) to be fed to something, used as fuel, or otherwise used in some useful manner. Spending money/energy to burn my carcass or wasting land to burry my carcass is an enormous waste. That hunk of meat is no longer me. If I could convince my living family members that it was the right thing to do, I'd like to treat the corpses of my family members the same way when they die.

* All human beings are entitled to a certain standard of food, shelter, and clean water, if it is possible to provide that to all human beings (which I'm pretty sure it is). No human being should live above that standard until all human beings live at least at that standard. However, I'm not sure what I'd be willing to do to make that a reality. Note I'm not exactly advocating pure communism here; I think there should be a safety net to keep people at least at that level, but hard work should allow you to rise above it.

[Fengirl]

What I view as animal cruelty sends me into an irrational rage. Can't stand hunting, blood sports, the fur trade and cosmetic tests on animals, but I eat tons of meat and agree with pharmaceutical testing.


I struggle with my own lack of consistency in this area. I am horrified and upset by films of what actually goes on on farms and in slaughter-houses …and yet not horrified enough to give up eating meat.

I condemn groups like PETA who engage in intimidation and terrorism in the name of animal rights…and yet I suspect that I would be capable of killing someone who intentionally hurt one of my own dogs. (In fact, my husband once had to physically restrain me from attacking someone who kicked my dog in a public park – I completely lost it.)

As far as hunting is concerned, my rule is: unless you killed that animal in self-defence or for genuine pest control reasons, you damned well better be prepared to eat it. I actually feel less conflicted about skinning, cleaning and cooking the rabbits my husband occasionally shoots than I do about buying meat from the supermarket. But I still buy it. And eat it. And love it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by toddjh
And when the bipartisan Congressional committee has an agenda? Sure, it's easy to come up with a lot of good questions. That doesn't mean they couldn't also come up with bad ones designed (either intentionally or subconsciously) to disenfranchise a certain group of people.

Given all the flag-waving and "God bless Americas" we see today, I can easily imagine a situation where this bipartisan Congressional committee introduces -- out of Pure Patriotism, mind you -- additional questions to make sure voters know what Americna really stands for.

Plus, the last thing you want to do is let elected officials mess with the voters. Look at the huge mess that redistricting has caused...and gerrymandering has nothing on disenfranchisement.

Jeremy

In that case, why don't we just get rid of politicians and government all together?

Sorry toddjh, but we require classes that end in pass/fails tests before people get their driver's license, their CCW permits, and even their citizenship...that's it!!....make everyone pass a modified test based on the one taken by immigrants who apply for U.S. citizenship before they are allowed to vote.

[Kerberos]

I'm extremely wishy-washy. I don't think there's any trully objective basis for any moral posistion, and with a few exceptions, I tend to be uncomftable with discussions that are based on moral issues. I'd much rather discuss what's true than what's right.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Fengirl
I struggle with my own lack of consistency in this area. I am horrified and upset by films of what actually goes on on farms and in slaughter-houses …and yet not horrified enough to give up eating meat.

I condemn groups like PETA who engage in intimidation and terrorism in the name of animal rights…and yet I suspect that I would be capable of killing someone who intentionally hurt one of my own dogs. (In fact, my husband once had to physically restrain me from attacking someone who kicked my dog in a public park – I completely lost it.)

As far as hunting is concerned, my rule is: unless you killed that animal in self-defence or for genuine pest control reasons, you damned well better be prepared to eat it. I actually feel less conflicted about skinning, cleaning and cooking the rabbits my husband occasionally shoots than I do about buying meat from the supermarket. But I still buy it. And eat it. And love it.

Part of the problem is this insistence on pinning people into one corner or another. You either advocate animal torture or you think it should be a crime to step on an ant. I do not have a problem with meat eating. Most primates were designed to eat both flora and fauna. I do think people are to far removed from the suffering involved to get them their bacon. I hate animal cruelty and I think all domesticated animals should be treated ethically and humanely. I think it should be a serious crime to wantonly hurt animals. I do, however, think it is appropriate to use domesticated animals for food. I think hunting is fine. I don't like the inhumanity of factory farming. I think food animals should be treated humanely and slaughtered humanely. It is possibly to slaughter animals without putting them through hell. But yes, cruelty to animals and children is one of those things that keeps me up at night. I couldn't possibly watch those animal cruelty films - I would not sleep for months. It is like being poisoned mentally as with watching, say, a snuff film or a child porn film would be. Like they said in that movie 8mm - there are some things you can't unsee.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
I believe that hedonism, is self-destuctive and self-defeating, and I find sad that it's becoming more and more common.

At the same time, I don't think people have the right to control other people's private behaviors, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I seriously doubt that hedonism, per se', is any more or less prevalent than it has been throughout all of human history. And I am not clear what you mean. Is it the love of pleasure that you find troublesome? One could argue that whatever one does would be hedonism is as much as one does what gives one the most satisfaction. For example, if you find satisfaction in puritanical self denial, then that is your hedonism. In fact, I would argue that pleasure is THE good thing. It is pleasure that drives us even in our most altruistic moments. My greatest pleasure, for example, is seeing my son joyous - hearing him laugh when he finds something truly funny. has nothing to do with sensual gratification on my part, but a great source of joy and pleasure. I can't help but think this whole "hedonism" thing has its roots in a distorted puritanical mindset. In some cultures the notion of hedonism is entirely meaningless - and yet these are caring, compassionate and rich cultures.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by billydkid
I seriously doubt that hedonism, per se', is any more or less prevalent than it has been throughout all of human history. And I am not clear what you mean. Is it the love of pleasure that you find troublesome? One could argue that whatever one does would be hedonism is as much as one does what gives one the most satisfaction. For example, if you find satisfaction in puritanical self denial, then that is your hedonism. In fact, I would argue that pleasure is THE good thing. It is pleasure that drives us even in our most altruistic moments. My greatest pleasure, for example, is seeing my son joyous - hearing him laugh when he finds something truly funny. has nothing to do with sensual gratification on my part, but a great source of joy and pleasure. I can't help but think this whole "hedonism" thing has its roots in a distorted puritanical mindset. In some cultures the notion of hedonism is entirely meaningless - and yet these are caring, compassionate and rich cultures.

Yes, I'm always going have trouble with definitions, on this subject. Again, I'm not against pleasure, definate not against pleasure, but pleasure as your primary goal is what I'm talking about. The lack of pleasure, doesn't imply pain in my thinking.

Let me try and explain it this way, some work because it is engaging, some people work to just to pay for their pleasures and neccesities.

Now, in the research I have read, refering back to "flow" and positive psychology, easy to google. People in flow states don't have a sense of feeling or self, they are totally engaged in the moment, feeling only comes after the event and ask about the event. Pleasure, is not the goal, but after product of being engaged.

I'll have to write more later, busy day.

[Magyar]

I have 3 actually.

1) People should have to get a license to be parents.
I mean you have to have a dog license for crist sake, but you can
bring any number of serial killers into the world

2) Punishment for all child molesters is that they become the
the property of a randomly selected victim untill that victim deems fit.


3) First a general coment. I have no understanding what-so-ever why Americans insist on, and believe, the myth that experienced or educated (by which I mean formally trained like lawyer or doctor or an engineer) politicians are a bad thing.

No one I've ever heard of said "Oh, give me the new guy " just before going under the knife, but it seems we collectively insist that somehow the new guy will know better when it comes to politics. Now comes the extreme part.
Any politician caught taking bribes or controled or cattered to special interest groups should receive the death penalty.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Magyar

No one I've ever heard of said "Oh, give me the new guy " just before going under the knife, but it seems we collectively insist that somehow the new guy will know better when it comes to politics.


Because the existing ones suck donkey balls, but few people have the C.O. Jones to actually vote for third-party candidates or others that actually say what they mean.


Now comes the extreme part.
Any politician caught taking bribes or controled or cattered to special interest groups should receive the death penalty.

It would've taken less time to just say, "kill everyone in Congress."

[rikzilla]

Oh, just thought some more extra controversial thoughts...

No battlefield prisoners should be taken in Iraq or Afghanistan unless deemed necessary for intel. Death for Allah; or a 1-way ticket on "Air Torture" to Cairo...no more Mr. Nice Guy @ GITMO.
Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.

[Seismosaurus]

* No adult should be eligable for citizenship unless they are fluent in the national language. Nobody, no matter where they were born or how long they've lived there. Similarly, no government office or service should make any effort to accomodate foreign languages when dealing with its own citizens; no forms in foreign languages, no translators provided, nothing.

(Unless we're talking about braille for blind people, sign language for deaf people or the like.)

* Abortion should be legal on demand for every woman, of any age, for any reason, at any time during pregnancy. It should be impossible to legislate against this in any way shape or form.

* Suicide should be legal and easily available to all adults.

* Sex offender registers should be abolished. You serve your time, you're done.

* The death penalty serves no useful purpose and should be abolished.

* All dead bodies should be used for transplants and/or medical experiments unless the person is carrying a card at the time of death forbidding it. Wishes of the relatives should be irrelevant, and anybody who forgets their card doesn't care enough to have their opinion count.

* Cruelty to animals should be treated as being about as severe as cruelty to children.

* Judges should be appointed, not elected, and should serve a life term unless they choose to resign.

* I really don't see a lot of point in sending aid to Africa until the people there come up with a way to stop it being stolen, and to stop making things worse for themselves.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Oh, just thought some more extra controversial thoughts...

No battlefield prisoners should be taken in Iraq or Afghanistan unless deemed necessary for intel. Death for Allah; or a 1-way ticket on "Air Torture" to Cairo...no more Mr. Nice Guy @ GITMO.

Why, they're all necessary for intel!


Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.


Yes, fair and impartial military tribunals.

[seayakin]

This may get some screams in certain circles but I often wonder if a true eugenics program wouldn't be bad. Maybe, I liked "Dune" too much.

-Establish eugenics orginizations

I do not mean based on the pseudo-science of racists but to breed humans for specific tasks like we do dogs. I was thinking more along the lines of the Bene Gesserit and Choam from the Dune series where they are trying to emphasize certain qualities.


-Voting test (of course such a test would have to be created in such a way to avoid Jim Crow type laws)


All in all, I can't say I'm passionate about any of this (except maybe in agreement that child molestors should receive capital punishment).

[Rolfe]

Extremist?

I'm a fully-paid-up, card-carrying Scottish Nationalist.

Some people around here seem to think that's extremism. (Brian Wilson, for a start, until you dig into his own past....)

Rolfe.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I believe we should allow all foreigners into the United States. Assuming they speak our native language...... Apache (or any other American Indian language).

My apologies to Steve Martin

LLH

[Darat]

I was thinking, the next time we get someone who accuses "all you sKeptics" of being alike and "you all believe the same thing" this will be a very good thread to point them to.

I've not seen so much foaming at the mouths since Dawn of the Dead.

[gnome]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.

Not arguing against your point (in this thread :) ) but I just wanted to note that if they got a tribunal it's not a summary execution.

[Czarzy]

All parents should have to pay a set percentage of their income for their child's education, because what is "free" is not valued by them, and this is reflected in their children's behaviors.

(It's "free" to them, but a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, with little benefit).

Funding for schools not based on how many bodies are in attendance. (As it currently stands, going to any expense to get students who do not want to be in school to be there).

Those parents who are jobless required to work at the school in return for matriculation of their child. If the parent will not, his/her child who tries will still be able to matriculate.

Those children who prevent (by continuous, willful, disruptive behavior) the education of other children in a classroom be babysitted in a separate setting.

Schools being the settings for academics only, not running sports programs (where for example, only a few male students get to play the games, for which the taxpayer must fund not only the lights, heat, and insurance, but the personnel on security, the clean-up, the coaches' salaries, etc). As it is now, the tickets paid by the fans do not even begin to pay for all the expenses.

Instead, let the parents of interested students volunteer to be coaches, let them entirely fund the sports programs with their "booster club" activities, and then let them contractually rent the facilities, so that the taxpayer does not have to fund these activities.

In other words, do not keep milking the public cow when ever more milk is demanded by the few, who do not appreciate the cow.

If people get something for nothing, that expensive-to-others means little to them.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Orwell
I think I have extremist views regarding religion and spirituality: the best way to get me interminably rant is to bring up the subject of church/state separation, the abuses of faith, New Agey bunkum or religious cults. I refuse to shake hands with priests, and I can't talk with very religious or "spiritual" people without somehow eventually mocking them... :o

Also, I don't like automobiles... In fact, I think I hate them with a passion. I think they're generally ugly, smelly and unnecessary at least half of the time. All those single drivers stuck in traffic make me fume with rage. I like spitting on luxury vehicles, making fun of old guys in red sports cars, flipping the bird at SUVs and generally being a nuisance to drivers. "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871021133#post1871021133
:D

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Darat
I was thinking, the next time we get someone who accuses "all you sKeptics" of being alike and "you all believe the same thing" this will be a very good thread to point them to.
I'm not entirelly sure that would be wise....

BTW. I'll join the war is fun, and pro-euthanasia extremists.

[American]

"Left" and "right" are terms maliciously used to confine ideas and force a false sense of balance among the ever-festering masses. As if Coke or Pepsi are "reasonable" options, while "my-money-belongs-to-me" is something radical. Way to frame the issue....

As of today, for example, "center" and "fringe" would be more accurate language to describe American politics, of course replacing "Right" and Left" respectively.

And yet, there is no single issue that I particularly care about. None. My opinions are generally INTJ-derived, and I wouldn't care to debate any person who isn't so inclined to this mode of living. (Superficially, I am so far right that I have more in common with my leftist enemies than I do with any mainstream party.)

Analysis and developing doctrine are far more interesting than petty political wins, all of which are temporary. Like life.

[Bruce]

I believe people who have extremists views should be put to death immediately.




No, wait......:eek:

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Darat
I was thinking, the next time we get someone who accuses "all you sKeptics" of being alike and "you all believe the same thing" this will be a very good thread to point them to.

I've not seen so much foaming at the mouths since Dawn of the Dead.

I don't know how many of the forum's members actually qualify as "true sceptics"...

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Freakshow
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871021133#post1871021133
:D

Why you... (Shakes fist southwards) :j2: :jedi:

;)

[Tmy]

Id remove party designations from all govt ballots/publications.

You should vote for a person you like, not a party.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Id remove party designations from all govt ballots/publications.

You should vote for a person you like, not a party.

What if you care more about a certain position on a political issue than about individual candidates?

What does a Feminazi, Environmental Extremist, or Moral Majority Whack-Job care about any given individual?

[Magyar]

Originally posted by Cleon


It would've taken less time to just say, "kill everyone in Congress."


Well that was a GIVEN :D
I just didn't want to write that with homeland security and all that ;)


My suggestion would apply to the new crop.

[seayakin]

Originally posted by American
"Left" and "right" are terms maliciously used to confine ideas and force a false sense of balance among the ever-festering masses. As if Coke or Pepsi are "reasonable" options, while "my-money-belongs-to-me" is something radical. Way to frame the issue....

As of today, for example, "center" and "fringe" would be more accurate language to describe American politics, of course replacing "Right" and Left" respectively.

And yet, there is no single issue that I particularly care about. None. My opinions are generally INTJ-derived, and I wouldn't care to debate any person who isn't so inclined to this mode of living. (Superficially, I am so far right that I have more in common with my leftist enemies than I do with any mainstream party.)

Analysis and developing doctrine are far more interesting than petty political wins, all of which are temporary. Like life.

What is "INTJ-derived"

[Darat]

Originally posted by seayakin
What is "INTJ-derived"

Perhaps this: http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
* No adult should be eligable for citizenship unless they are fluent in the national language. Nobody, no matter where they were born or how long they've lived there. Similarly, no government office or service should make any effort to accomodate foreign languages when dealing with its own citizens; no forms in foreign languages, no translators provided, nothing.

(Unless we're talking about braille for blind people, sign language for deaf people or the like.)

And what about countries like Switzerland, with FOUR national languages? (German, French, Italian and Reto-Romanic)
Is everybody supposed to be fluent in all four languages?




That said, my own extremist view:

In my not-so-humble opinion, ANY form of religion that goes beyond what a persons thinks and does by himself (with no-one else involved) should be illegal. Religion has been a breeding gorund for hatred, intolerance and bigotry, and caused untold death and suffering - there is no reason to let it continue to do so.

In my even-less-humble opinion, nationalism and patriotism - indeed all forms of national identity - should be abolished. Like religion, they have been the cause of untold evil.


And what is unusual about me? I am German, but I am neither a Nazi nor a warmonger. :D And I can´t stand Sauerkraut. :(

[geni]

I'm opposed to the existance of the nation state.

I don't accept that so called rights have any logical basis

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Moon-Spinner
I believe some kind of an intelligence test must be given to anyone planning to run for the Presidency. You cannot run for President if you can't show:

1. A College level understanding of Economics

2. A High school level of History (Foreign and Domestic)

3. A High school level knowledge of Biology

4. A Basic understanding of the Scientific Method

5. The Ability to separate Fact from Fiction (I know that this one might be asking too much)



I'll probably think of some more later, but you get the idea. Also, the test cannot be administered by the Kansas Board of Education!

I'm trying to think of a president in the past 40 years who would pass all these. Most, except Reagan, can't even get past #1.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Chaos
And what about countries like Switzerland, with FOUR national languages? (German, French, Italian and Reto-Romanic)
Is everybody supposed to be fluent in all four languages?

Personally I think it's nonsensical to have more than one official language. They should pick one and go with it.

Failing that, I'd say you should have to be fluent in at least one.

[Jas]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Yeah, well...I wasn't gonna mention that other thread. ;) Did you like my suggestion in that thread, BTW? I'm sure it would work!


I thought I had responded to that, but I guess not. There were a lot of replies.

I think it would be more effective if followed by the sentence:

"I told them to tell me when they were going to..."

(on second thought, let's not go there:p )

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Personally I think it's nonsensical to have more than one official language. They should pick one and go with it.


It's perfectly sensible in a country that. historically, has large numbers of those speakers--otherwise, you create an imbalance that favors one linguistic group over another. (Which leads to economic disparity, bigotry, supression of "non-official" languages, etc.)

Which is why I'm opposed to "official languagism."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome
Not arguing against your point (in this thread :) ) but I just wanted to note that if they got a tribunal it's not a summary execution.

Noted...'sides I wouldn't want to try to defend that position hence it's in this thread.... :D ....extremist views sure are fun to espouse! Maybe that's why there are so many friggin' extremists??

-z

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Personally I think it's nonsensical to have more than one official language. They should pick one and go with it.

Failing that, I'd say you should have to be fluent in at least one.

That are these peoples´ native languages, Seismosaurus. They already spoke different languages when their state were combined into one country.

BTW, I don´t know how that problem is solved in Switzerland; however I have noticed that Swiss postage stamps have Latin writing - usually no more than "Helvetia" (Switzerland). IIRC (it´s been a long time since I was there) the coins also carry Latin inscriptions, but the notes are written in all four languages.

[epepke]

Well, I consider myself pretty liberal and a bit leftist at times. Nevertheless:

1) I am for the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment big-time.

2) I like to go to Disneyworld.

3) I don't think that Muslims qua Muslims are angelic superhuman creatures who never go to the toilet and whose farts smell like cinnamon buns.

[Phrost]

Hate jumping in a thread this late.

1. I believe in the Heinlein model that you have to "earn" your citizenship through government/public service and aren't just given it because your parents spawned you in a certain geographic location.

2. I support mandatory birth control and drug screening for anyone recieving public assistance.

3. I think the legal driving age should be 18.

[Tony]

Late arrival here.

*The military draft should be illegal under all circumstances except in the event of a direct invasion by a foreign power.

* The poor and middle classes should pay no income tax and minimal property and sales tax. The rich and upper classes should pay most of the taxes. No taxes on businesses making under a million $ a year profits.

*Education should be compulsory, but skipping school should not be a crime or a punishable offense.

*Legalize all recreational drugs.

*Abolish the executive order.

*Children/minors are not the property of their parents.

*Resisting arrest, dis-obeying a cop, and defending yourself against the police should not be a crime.

*Absolute personal sovereignty.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Tony

*Education should be compulsory, but skipping school should not be a crime or a punishable offense.
What do you mean by that? I don't see how something can be compulsory, if you can ignore it without consequence.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony
*snip*

*Education should be compulsory, but skipping school should not be a crime or a punishable offense.

I second Kerberos´ question - how is it compulsory if not doing it is not punished?

*snip*

*Children/minors are not the property of their parents.


They aren´t, right now, in the US (and all other countries I know of.


*Resisting arrest, dis-obeying a cop, and defending yourself against the police should not be a crime.


That would mean that someone who is about to be arrested for some minor crime (say, shoplifting) could try to shoot the cops chasing him, because that wouldn´t get him any deeper into trouble if it fails, and would allow him to escape if it succeeds.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's late in this thread, so most of my extreme views are already taken. :)

Let's see, what's left...

We need a global government, with a standing army and a mandate to intervene when local civilisation collapses. The global government should regulate international tragedy-of-the-commons problems like greenhouse gas emissions, overfishing in international waters and the arms trade.

We also need a world court and a world Interpol-like organisation empowered to arrest anyone, anywhere, given publicly available evidence that they are responsible for international violence or domestic crimes against humanity.

Every government should have a blanket freedom of information law that says every government document becomes public domain on its twentieth birthday, no exceptions whatsoever, no shredding of documents either.

Corporations should have a three strikes law. Three cases of serious misconduct causing public harm by a given corporation or significantly overlapping entity should be cause to strip the company's assets for separate auction, and a ban on all senior management staff from holding any responsible position for the rest of their lives.

Politicians caught engaging in corrupt practises should also be stripped of all assets and banned from engaging in any remunerative enterprise except minimum-wage McJobs for the rest of their lives.

All people and objects involved in the production of Mudoch-owned "news" products should be assembled into a roughly conical pile and set on fire.

(Okay, I'm being silly with that last one).

(A pyramidal pile would would do).

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Tony

* The poor and middle classes should pay no income tax and minimal property and sales tax. The rich and upper classes should pay most of the taxes. No taxes on businesses making under a million $ a year profits.


That's a great way to stimulate the economy! Penalize success and reward failure. Wow, I wonder why I never thought of that before, especially considering the number of blows to the head I've taken over the years.

Ugh. Spoken like someone who realizes they'll never join the upper classes through lack of ability or motivation.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Phrost
That's a great way to stimulate the economy! Penalize success and reward failure. Wow, I wonder why I never thought of that before, especially considering the number of blows to the head I've taken over the years.

Ugh. Spoken like someone who realizes they'll never join the upper classes through lack of ability or motivation.

A very inventive way of saying "you're a moron for believing that."

:p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It's late in this thread, so most of my extreme views are already taken. :)

Let's see, what's left...

We need a global government, with a standing army and a mandate to intervene when local civilisation collapses. The global government should regulate international tragedy-of-the-commons problems like greenhouse gas emissions, overfishing in international waters and the arms trade.

We also need a world court and a world Interpol-like organisation empowered to arrest anyone, anywhere, given publicly available evidence that they are responsible for international violence or domestic crimes against humanity.

Every government should have a blanket freedom of information law that says every government document becomes public domain on its twentieth birthday, no exceptions whatsoever, no shredding of documents either.

Corporations should have a three strikes law. Three cases of serious misconduct causing public harm by a given corporation or significantly overlapping entity should be cause to strip the company's assets for separate auction, and a ban on all senior management staff from holding any responsible position for the rest of their lives.

Politicians caught engaging in corrupt practises should also be stripped of all assets and banned from engaging in any remunerative enterprise except minimum-wage McJobs for the rest of their lives.

All people and objects involved in the production of Mudoch-owned "news" products should be assembled into a roughly conical pile and set on fire.

(Okay, I'm being silly with that last one).

(A pyramidal pile would would do).

None of which will ever happen.... because in America we're building these for the express purpose that none of that stuff gets to happen here!

http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/images/F22.jpg

:D

-z

[Luke T.]

Page 5, and we've not heard a word out of the Middle East...

[Jas]

Originally posted by Phrost
That's a great way to stimulate the economy! Penalize success and reward failure. Wow, I wonder why I never thought of that before, especially considering the number of blows to the head I've taken over the years.


You mean kind of like the 'progressive" tax system?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Page 5, and we've not heard a word out of the Middle East...
Cleo said something about Israel, but if it makes you happy, I sometimes wish the entire subcontinent was hit by a metheor.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
I second Kerberos´ question - how is it compulsory if not doing it is not punished?

Compulsory might be the wrong word. But I think forcing a person to go to school with the threat of jail or fine is wrong, at the same time, I recognize the importance of an educated population.

They aren´t, right now, in the US.

They are in the US. Children have almost no rights. Their parents can control what they do, what they see, what they learn, can inflict violence upon them for not doing what the parent wants.

That would mean that someone who is about to be arrested for some minor crime (say, shoplifting) could try to shoot the cops chasing him, because that wouldn´t get him any deeper into trouble if it fails, and would allow him to escape if it succeeds.

Yes, it would. That situation is still preferable to a situation where the police have absolute authority over an individual. Currently, the police have too much power to abuse.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Phrost
That's a great way to stimulate the economy!

It is a great way. It gives more people and businesses a chance at making it big and becoming established by shifting the burden to those that already have. I can see that the extent to which you've given this "thought" doesn't reach beyond Rush Limbaugh scripture.

Penalize success and reward failure.

(how cute, another Rush Limbaugh platitude.)

As opposed to the current system of penalizing entrepreneurs, and new businesses while protecting the rackets of the elite?

Wow, I wonder why I never thought of that before, especially considering the number of blows to the head I've taken over the years.

You haven't thought of this subject before. You're just reciting Rush Limbaugh slogans, something I grew out of when I was 15.

Spoken like someone who realizes they'll never join the upper classes through lack of ability or motivation.

LOL Speak of the devil.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
(how cute, another Rush Limbaugh platitude.)

Speaking of platitudes...

How about for every "Rush Limbaugh" crack you make about your critics, I make a "Marx" or "Stalin" crack about your views?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Speaking of platitudes...

How about for every "Rush Limbaugh" crack you make about your critics, I make a "Marx" or "Stalin" crack about your views? Only Nazies compare other people to Stalin (die thread DIEEE!!! :p).

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Speaking of platitudes...

How about for every "Rush Limbaugh" crack you make about your critics, I make a "Marx" or "Stalin" crack about your views?

About Tony's views?

:dl:

[IllegalArgument]

Luke started a great thread, I don't care who fired the first shot, but please stop with the personal attacks.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Just want some clarification. Is this regarding children with birth defects, or all kids? I ask because my kids were self-aware well before 3, which is why I thought maybe you mean kids with birth defects. Most children become self-aware at 17-24 months. Before which I am in favour of infanticide.

There is no intrinsic value to human life.

I believe the best reason to outlaw murder is to remove the fear of being attacked from society.

Moral relativism isn't an ideal, but it's a fact.

I would be in favour of the death penalty for recidivists of specific crimes if "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" weren't still so tied up in wrongheaded ideas like eyewitness identification.

Maybe I'm feeling slightly nihilistic this morning.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
About Tony's views?

:dl:

Since when do Ad Hominem cracks require a foundation of truthfulness or accuracy?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Since when do Ad Hominem cracks require a foundation of truthfulness or accuracy?

You think calling your statement a "Rush Limbaugh plattitude" is an ad hominem? Interesting. I'd disagree, myself--I'd consider it snide, condescending, borderline insulting, but not necessarily ad hominem. Though I suppose one could argue that associating you with Limbaugh is a bit of poisoning the well.

But I think you'd have to agree that associating your views on the matter with Limbaugh is a bit more realistic than associating Tony's views with Stalin.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
You think calling your statement a "Rush Limbaugh plattitude" is an ad hominem? Interesting. I'd disagree, myself--I'd consider it snide, condescending, borderline insulting, but not necessarily ad hominem. Though I suppose one could argue that associating you with Limbaugh is a bit of poisoning the well.

But I think you'd have to agree that associating your views on the matter with Limbaugh is a bit more realistic than associating Tony's views with Stalin.

Sorry, by using the term 'Ad Hominem' I meant 'personal', not the logical fallacy.

I think the actual fallacy Tony used was "Guilt by Association".

Besides, I was actually coming to the defense of Phrost, who was the actual butt of Tony's repeated "Rush Limbaugh" cracks...

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.


In theory, yes, but then there's the issue that dead men tell no tales. If you're gonna be executed (or spend life in jail) anyway, well, might as well make sure...

For that reason alone, it should have a lesser penalty. Not a light one, to be sure, but a lesser one.


Edited: Dead men tell no tales. Tales, not tails!

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Kodiak
If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.

Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way. Corporate welfare, personal welfare, social security, etc. And no, the government couldn't mandate you taking social security or anything else.

Reason? Conflict of interest. This applies to everyone from the above mentioned to someone working for a construction company doing roadwork.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Beerina
Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.


On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.


Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way. Corporate welfare, personal welfare, social security, etc. And no, the government couldn't mandate you taking social security or anything else.

Reason? Conflict of interest. This applies to everyone from the above mentioned to someone working for a construction company doing roadwork.

So, anyone who takes any money from the government--whether via social security, contracting, employment, or even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

The end result of your restrictions is that you have about 1% of the population making decisions for the other 99%. That's not healthy, and certainly not "free" in any real sense of the word.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Beerina
Robert Heinlein goes one step further. If you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run.

It's hard to argue against that point.
Actually it's dreadfully easy, for one thing many countries have no need for that big a military, in fact many western countries are under no military threat at all. Why should anybody who wishes a full set of right be compelled to waste 2 years of their life on something that simply isn’t needed? Also lots of people are deemed unsuited for military service because of physical disabilities, should they be disenfranchised or would they get automatic right to vote? Either is blatantly unfair.

[Luke T.]

"Extremist views", by definition, mean there are going to be people (often a majority) who disagree with that position.

So taking free shots at someone in a topic where people are admitting their views are extreme is really pointless.

Folks aren't saying these are workable positions, or even right, or rational.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Cleon
On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.



So, anyone who takes any money from the government--whether via social security, contracting, employment, or even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

The end result of your restrictions is that you have about 1% of the population making decisions for the other 99%. That's not healthy, and certainly not "free" in any real sense of the word.
Amen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleon
On the contrary, it's quite easy.

If you're forced to join the military in order to "earn" the right to vote, it's not a free society. And thus, one could argue, not worth defending.


Not only that, but it is fundamentally fallacious in that being in the military is equated with defending the free society. Furthermore, I'd say that a society where being in the military is required isn't a free society.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Chaos
That are these peoples´ native languages, Seismosaurus. They already spoke different languages when their state were combined into one country.

Then they shouldn't have combined!

Either that, or part of the process of combining should have been picking a common language and teaching it to everybody.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
So, anyone who takes any money from the government...even frikking tax refunds, shouldn't get the right to vote?

Not to nit pick, but tax refunds are not a government handout...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Then they shouldn't have combined!

Either that, or part of the process of combining should have been picking a common language and teaching it to everybody.

Why? As Switzerland (as an example) clearly shows, a unifying language is not a prerequisite to form a country.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Not to nit pick, but tax refunds are not a government handout...
In many cases it could very well be. There is not that much diference between giving a tax refund to fx families with children, and giving them a handout. Of course tax refound do require an income and taxation greater than the handout, which is of course a factor, but otherwise it's basically the same.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kerberos
In many cases it could very well be. There is not that much diference between giving a tax refund to fx families with children, and giving them a handout. Of course tax refound do require an income and taxation greater than the handout, which is of course a factor, but otherwise it's basically the same.

Let me get this straight.

Hypothetical: A family with children, over the course of a year pays $10,000 in income taxes. Tax time rolls around, and when they fill out their tax forms, they discover that they only owed $7,000.

How is the $3,000 that family is going to be refunded a government handout?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Let me get this straight.

Hypothetical: A family with children, over the course of a year pays $10,000 in income taxes. Tax time rolls around, and when they fill out their tax forms, they discover that they only owed $7,000.

How is the $3,000 that family is going to be refunded a government handout?
Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

The US tax system is the legal equivalent of 25,000,000 lines of spaghetti code. At this point, I'd be willing to concede the point to Kodiak if for no better reason than to avoid having to think about it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry, I was under the impression that tax refounds eesentially political decisions to give people some of the money they paid in taxes back (I believe Bush did this). I then undestod tax refound to mean for exampel that people would get fx 3000$ of their taxes back for each kid, which would be much the same as a handout. Obviously it's something entirelly different, if it's simply a case of having paid to much and getting that back.

The first example you cite is called a tax cut, and the second example is called an income tax credit.

Your third example is indeed a tax refund.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
...I'd be willing to concede the point to Kodiak...

That's just damn good advice in general!!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The first example you cite is called a tax cut, and the second example is called an income tax credit.

Your third example is indeed a tax refund.
OK thanks, I guess I'm just not uptodate on US tax-terminology.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by Tony
It is a great way. It gives more people and businesses a chance at making it big and becoming established by shifting the burden to those that already have. I can see that the extent to which you've given this "thought" doesn't reach beyond Rush Limbaugh scripture.

If that's what you can "see", then I expect walls and doors around the world shiver in fear at your approach.

Such a system explicitly rewards failure and penalizes success. And no amount of quibbling or invoking idiotic radio personalities changes this, much I imagine, to your chagrin.


(how cute, another Rush Limbaugh platitude.)


How cute, another waste of 42 bytes of bandwidth instead of addressing the issue on its merits.


As opposed to the current system of penalizing entrepreneurs, and new businesses while protecting the rackets of the elite?

Again, spoken like someone who realizes he'll never join said "elite". How is it possible for a supposed "Skeptic" to acknowledge Natural Selection as an evolutionary process but yet deny it as an economic one?

I don't support corporate welfare any more than I support individual welfare. Don't confuse me for a devout Republican of any sort.


You haven't thought of this subject before. You're just reciting Rush Limbaugh slogans, something I grew out of when I was 15.

You don't know me, schmuck. Don't insult me by pretending to. My economics are Libertarian, with some practical Objectivism tossed in. This is tempered with actual life experiences including going from growing up in a house that had holes in the floor that let the rats in, to owning a 4400 square foot house through naught but my own effort, talent, and ability.

I realize it's much easier to lump people and their views into nice, pre-made categories instead of actually considering the views on their own merits. That'd require some depth of thought and a slightly broader understanding of the various approaches to economics.

But you, like most Americans, are caught up in the mindless false dichotomy that is our political system where you're either waving a flag as you barbecue a steak with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or are shaking your fist in the air, raging against the machine with Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.

Grow up, economically. Life's not supposed to be fair, and it's not Government's job to make it so through the use of a threat of force. Government's job is to provide for the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on their own merits.

And some people have more merits than others. Natural Selection at work, eh "Skeptic"?

Edit: I'm adding an "extremist" view to the list after typing that. I now fully support the implementation of retroactive abortion for serious cases of cognitive disfunction in which an individual can't distinguish between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major who overcame poverty.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Phrost


Such a system explicitly rewards failure and penalizes success.


How? How does making it to where the poor, the whole middle class, including those who make $150,000 a year, and small business pay no income taxes reward failure?

And no amount of quibbling or invoking idiotic radio personalities changes this, much I imagine, to your chagrin.

I agree. All it does is recognize it for the Limbaughist economic dogma it is. I noticed you didn't even try to support your claim.

How is it possible for a supposed "Skeptic" to acknowledge Natural Selection as an evolutionary process but yet deny it as an economic one?

That's not natural selection, that social Darwinism. Is lionizing that ideal the only the you have in common with Nazis?

Don't confuse me for a devout Republican of any sort.

Then don't regurgitate republican dogma.

Again, spoken like someone who realizes he'll never join said "elite".

You don't know me, schmuck. Don't insult me by pretending to. I can see that you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

My economics are Libertarian, with some practical Objectivism tossed in. This is tempered with actual life experiences including going from growing up in a house that had holes in the floor that let the rats in, to owning a 4400 square foot house through naught but my own effort, talent, and ability.

Uh huh, so what? My idea has absolutely no bearing on your situation or circumstances.

I realize it's much easier to lump people and their views into nice, pre-made categories instead of actually considering the views on their own merits. That'd require some depth of thought and a slightly broader understanding of the various approaches to economics.

But you, like most Americans, are caught up in the mindless false dichotomy that is our political system where you're either waving a flag as you barbecue a steak with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or are shaking your fist in the air, raging against the machine with Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.

Bwahahahahahahah.

You realize it's much easier to lump people and their views into nice, pre-made categories instead of actually considering the views on their own merits.

But then continue to do THE EXACT SAME THING you accused me of.

Not to mentioned the fact that you did the same thing in your first response to my post. Like I said, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Life's not supposed to be fair

It's not? Says who? Can you support this claim?

Government's job is to provide for the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail on their own merits.

I agree. And that's exactly what my idea would do. It would facilitate upward mobility by allowing the individual and small businesses to have a small tax burden, thus more money for investment, and savings. They would succeed or fail on their own merits. Not because they got a hand out from government, and not because they were overburdened with taxes.


Edit: I'm adding an "extremist" view to the list after typing that. I now fully support the implementation of retroactive abortion for serious cases of cognitive disfunction in which an individual can't distinguish between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major who overcame poverty.

LOL you're funny. More hypocricy.

The reason recognition can't be made between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major (yeah right), is because your views, as expressed, ARE THE EXACT SAME. Perhaps if you stopped taking blows to the head you could stop this onset of retardation you seem to be experiencing.

[Phrost]

Yay, quote tag. My least favorite forum game.

Originally posted by Tony
How? How does making it to where the poor, the whole middle class, including those who make $150,000 a year, and small business pay no income taxes reward failure?

Because their lack of economic success frees them from the obligation to pay for the public services they use to a greater degree than the upper class.

It's not that complicated.


I agree. All it does is recognize it for the Limbaughist economic dogma it is. I noticed you didn't even try to support your claim.


You're obsessed with the fat, Oxycontin addict, aren't you? Content deleted: Heated exchanges are expected but your comment was not appropriate for this forum


That's not natural selection, that social Darwinism. Is lionizing that ideal the only the you have in common with Nazis?

Godwin's law. You lose.


Then don't regurgitate republican dogma.


You should admonish the Republicans to stop insincerely regurgitating Libertarian economics instead.


You don't know me, schmuck. Don't insult me by pretending to. I can see that you can dish it out, but you can't take it.


You made the ridiculous assumptions about the basis for my understanding of economics. You acted like you knew me, don't try to flip this around.


Uh huh, so what? My idea has absolutely no bearing on your situation or circumstances.

You're not one for understanding context, are you? I pulled myself out of poverty through my own effort, ability, and smart decisions. And I didn't need any breaks to do it either.



Bwahahahahahahah.

You realize it's much easier to lump people and their views into nice, pre-made categories instead of actually considering the views on their own merits.

But then continue to do THE EXACT SAME THING you accused me of.

Not to mentioned the fact that you did the same thing in your first response to my post. Like I said, you can dish it out but you can't take it.


That response was directed at your asinine suggestion that an idiot radio talkshow host is the source of my views on economics.

You, however, by making that suggestion lumped yourself into that false dichotomy, not me. You demonstrated an ignorance of the possibility that someone could hold fiscally conservative views without being a ditto-head Republican.

You inserted the shoe into your own mouth. Don't blame me for coming along and helping it further down your throat.


It's not? Says who? Can you support this claim?


Natural Selection, "I don't understand theme or context" boy.


I agree. And that's exactly what my idea would do. It would facilitate upward mobility by allowing the individual and small businesses to have a small tax burden, thus more money for investment, and savings. They would succeed or fail on their own merits. Not because they got a hand out from government, and not because they were overburdened with taxes.


That's a steaming pile of BS. Your version of leveling the playing field involves hamstringing the running backs of the team that has better players.

I, however, support a flat tax in which everyone pays an equal share of their income, despite the fact that the poor generally consume more public resources.

That's the difference between leveling the playing field, and putting the crappy team on a downhill slope.


The reason recognition can't be made between the views of a Republican radio shill and a Libertarian business major (yeah right), is because your views, as expressed, ARE THE EXACT SAME. Perhaps if you stopped taking blows to the head you could stop this onset of retardation you seem to be experiencing.

And I'm somehow misrepresenting you as not falling into the idiotic false dichotomy of "Liberal vs. Conservative" in this country? You do all the representing yourself, especially considering you just can't compute the difference between a major party who pays lip service to conservative fiscal policy while providing welfare to corporations, and sincere support of such policy.

Do you even understand how ignorant you're coming off as here? Hell, it's 4 in the morning where I am and I'm half awake and it's still as clear as the nose on my face.

So to recap because you have issues with understanding context and retaining what you've read:

1. Goverment's job is not to make your life "fair", it's to ensure your freedom to succeed, or fall on your face based on how you chose to live your life.

2. Making a certain group of people pay exclusively for the cost of government simply because they are more successful is a punitive action.

3. NOT making a certain group of people pay for ANY of the cost of government is a reward.

4. Leveling the playing field is not the same as putting the better team at the bottom of a steep hill.

5. Take an Economics class or two before you engage in discussions on the subject, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself on a web page that will undoubtedly be preserved in several archive databases for posterity. Your unborn great grandchildren are already laughing at you.

[gnome]

Just wanted to step in here in favor of the OP's original request--why not take debate to another thread? This one's for confessions, not arguments--you want room 12A, Just along the corridor. :)

stupid git

[sackett]

I want a square shake for organized labor. Nowadays that makes me a dangerous radical.

[Phrost]

Yeah, that bit was over the top. Sorry Darat.

[Ducky]

Also, I admit to the extreme political view that Pat Robertson needs to be locked in a cage with a pack of rabid circus monkeys who have just eaten alot of metamucil.



(Edited to remove my extreme political views on the miniskirt and the inherent hotness of no underwear as that subject is far too inflammatory for this forum.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I admit to the very extreme political view that women not wearing underwear under their miniskirt is hot.

Also, I admit to the extreme political view that Pat Robertson needs to be locked in a cage with a pack of wild rabid circus monkeys who have just eaten alot of metamucil.

Disqualified. Neither of those positions is extreme.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Disqualified. Neither of those positions is extreme.


Curses. Always a bridesmaid...


Okay how about this one:


I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Curses. Always a bridesmaid...


Okay how about this one:


I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

How about the "Freakshow Hotness Scale", in which women that aren't already dressing like strippers or porn stars aren't going to get over an 8, anyway? ;)

(That was a joke, of course. I find ALL SORTS of women to be gorgeous.) :)

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Beerina
Barring that, I'd only let people vote if they were not getting money from the government in any way.
Sorry, Luke, for the derail, but I have to question this.

Beerina, this means no person employed by the government can vote. Or any person or corporation that gets tax breaks.

Your voting criterion means that no one can vote.

[SezMe]

My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by fowlsound

I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.
Hear! Hear! Also any woman who scores below 4 should be forbidden too (shudder!)

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Hear! Hear! Also any woman who scores below 4 should be forbidden too (shudder!)

There was a Bloom County cartoon once where Opus called 911 to report an excessively large woman wearing something in public that was a bit too tight and revealing. Was pretty funny. :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Freakshow
There was a Bloom County cartoon once where Opus called 911 to report an excessively large woman wearing something in public that was a bit too tight and revealing. Was pretty funny. :)




I love Bloom County.

[Fengirl]

OK then, you guys...this goes both ways.

Fat men with hairy backs should be banned from appearing shirtless in public. Unless you have a physique to be proud of, keep your damned clothes on in public!

It should be lawful for women to respond to wolf-whistles and obscene gestures with Thelma-and-Louise-style retribution.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Fengirl
OK then, you guys...this goes both ways.

Fat men with hairy backs should be banned from appearing shirtless in public. Unless you have a physique to be proud of, keep your damned clothes on in public!

It should be lawful for women to respond to wolf-whistles and obscene gestures with Thelma-and-Louise-style retribution.

I agree on both counts. :)

[Phrost]

Originally posted by SezMe
My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

It's progressive, no doubt. This is why I support the idea of a breeding license. (Did I mention that in my first post?)

I know of absolutely no way to enforce it without resorting to tyranny, but it should be EXPENSIVE to bring a child in to this world, because it is much more expensive to see them through to adulthood

That and the poorest/least educated people tend to have the most children as it is, and will require the most government assistance.

[epepke]

Originally posted by SezMe
My blind spot: Overpopulation is THE single most important problem facing mankind. China's "one kid" policy is the most forward-looking governmental policy on the planet. I'd like to see it enforced world-wide until the homo sapien population is down to 1-2 billion.

:con2: I'd like to see the population down to at most 3 billion. That's what it was in the 50's, and things weren't so bad then.

But it's easier and cheaper to do it by educating women, so they have something to do other than popping out kids as early as possible. One-child policies are a lot more expensive to implement.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by epepke
:con2: I'd like to see the population down to at most 3 billion. That's what it was in the 50's, and things weren't so bad then.

Er..."Weren't so bad" in what sense?

If you happened to be Black, gay, female, or Jewish, to say nothing if your politics were remotely left of center, the 1950s sucked. (Granted, none of these things were directly related to population size/density. But I wonder what you mean by "things weren't so bad then.")

[Beerina]

Originally posted by SezMe
Sorry, Luke, for the derail, but I have to question this.

Beerina, this means no person employed by the government can vote. Or any person or corporation that gets tax breaks.

Your voting criterion means that no one can vote.

Well, tax breaks are just the government letting you keep money you have already earned. Hence they aren't giving you anything, technically, although politicians do try to portray it as such for rhetorical purposes. And yes, I also acknowledge giving tax breaks is loaded with smarmy politics. But for the purpose of this question, a tax break isn't a handout.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by fowlsound

I hold the extreme political view that all women judged on the "Fowlsound Hotness Scale" to be over an 8 (out of 10) should be required by law to dress like strippers and porn stars.

You would force them to wear clothes? What an intrusive, statist government you would have! Communist! =)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Cleon
Er...[1950's] "Weren't so bad" in what sense?

... to say nothing if your politics were remotely left of center

I'll bet the vast majority of them were limousine liberals. Hence, the 1950's was an awesome decade for them.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Beerina
You would force them to wear clothes? What an intrusive, statist government you would have! Communist! =)
Stripers and porn stars always wear clothing? You must have lived a sheltered life. :p

[bigred]

1 - You should have to pass some kind of a test to become a parent, or have some kind or "resume" or background checks...or SOMETHING. It should NOT be an automatic "right."

2 - If convicted of the following beyond any doubt (ie via DNA testing, caught on tape, etc) and no due cause (self-defense etc) is proven, the following punishments are automatic:

Murder: you're killed. No lengthy appeals either.
Rape: you're castrated.
Maiming: you're maimed similarly.
Beat someone up: you're beat up similarly.
Torture: you're tortured.
Theft/fraud/embezzlement/extortion: for extreme cases, you're forcibly bankrupted and all your possessions are taken away (save for perhaps a few clothes and enough money for the dollar menu at McD's). For smaller ones, a monetary amount double to what you took is taken from you. If you don't have it (via money or possessions) then your wages are garnished. If you're unemployed, you work it off/are jailed in hard labor for X amt per day until it's considered paid off. Say $1/hr maybe. Don't like it? Don't steal. PS these people do not go to jail unless their actions were responsible for someone getting hurt beyond monetarily. Yes I know this can get dicey. But this would help with our jail overcrowding thing.

3 - Teachers are given back true authority in the classroom, to include (gasp) corporal punishment for the younger little bra...errr tots...in extreme cases. This of couse does not mean teachers should be given free reign though.

4 - Massive crackdown on frivilous lawsuits, to include legal action taken against those proven to be doing so. This would help #3 a lot I think.

5 - If a person is proven to have falsely accused someone of a crime (eg a woman taking a guy to trial for rape), they receive whatever punishment the accused would have received if found guilty. This will help with #4.

6 - Real crackdown on discrimination of ALL races. eg more documented evidence/proof of why someone is hired, perhaps to include videotaping interviews, etc. Evidence/proof of any extreme deviation from demographic norms will be required...eg a company in an area with 20% blacks but only 2% blacks work there, or a company in an area with only 2% blacks but 20% of the company is black. Obviously this would be very hard/dicey to implement....but we weren't talking about something with a realistic chance of happening were we :cool:

7 - Profiling, given just cause (eg profiling Middle Eastern folks, esp. admitted Muslims), is enacted at places like airports, stadiums, military bases, etc (ie obvious prime terrorist targets).

8 - Flag-burning is against the law with more than a token fine for breaking it (not saying a ridiculous amount tho either - no specific number jumps to mind). Spare me the "freedom of expression" BS. Too many people far better than the ones doing this gave their lives and it's like spitting on their graves. There are many other (and much more effective) ways to express one's displeasure with the gov't/country.

9 - Abortion, if permitted, must have consent of BOTH PARENTS. I'm sick to death of the sexist "it's my body" BS by women. This isn't a kidney or gallstone we're talking about. That child is as much the man's as it is the women's. How can his opinion not count?? The exceptions would be rape, incest, or if her life was in danger; then it's her call.

10 - Cameras are installed on all major highways and as many public places as reasonably possible (excluding stuff like parks, neighborhood roads, inside work areas, etc). We can catch/prevent a lot of crimes this way and spare me the "big brother" bit. They have these in malls and other public places already and nobody cares; it should be no BFD unless you're paranoid.

11 - Litterers are given much stiffer fines and more money is devoted to catching these unthinking pigs.

12 - "Noise polluters" are cracked down on one HELLUVA lot more. You do not have the right to be obnoxious. eg cops will no longer hesitate to pull car music blasters over and ticket them, and the tickets will carry very stiff fines. Further, repeat offenders automatically lose the offending equipment. Further still, parents who are unable/unwilling to teach their childen to behave in public are forced into "How to be a Parent" classes - if they still do not comply, they are banned from public places such as restuarants, theaters, etc (where they never should have been allowed in the first place). Maybe something like the ol Scarlet Letter idea; bring it on.

13 - When you vote for someone, you have to give a reason why. In order not to bring the voting booths to a crawl, however (they're bad enough already), you must have this prepared on a form and bring it with you. You don't bring it, you don't vote. Further, "I'm voting for this person because they are or aren't a Democrat/Republican/liberal/conservative" will not qualify. Enough of this growing black-and-white mindless gibberish where people vote as a symbol of their social status. I mean actual reasons, like how you agree with their policy on this or that.

14 - Mandatory military service - at least a year or 2. And as Robert Heinlein said (pardon the plagiarism :) ), "if you don't serve 2 years in the military, you don't get to vote. Because if you refuse to defend a free society, you should have no say in how it is run." Right on. Freedoms aren't free and since everyone expects to enjoy them as a "right," it's high time everyone also EARNED them, at least a little.

[Kerberos]

*snip*
Congratulations, that's gotta be the most on-topic post yet.

[Roboramma]

1. I think that being in the same room as a 90 year old sleeping indian man will not in any way affect how well I contort my body.
2. I don't believe that when someone physically pushes me into a position and in turn causes an injury that it was somehow my fault for not "surrendering", or that the injury is somehow a good thing.
3. I feel that teaching millenias old science as though it were fact, and being unwilling to even talk about the evidence for it would be laughable if it weren't so reprehensible. This includes things like chakras, chi, meridians, astrology, the "five elements", etc.
4. I think that just because someone can't do this: http://mysore.ashtanga.info/foto-gallerie/Sheshadri/02__Yoganirdasana.html, doesn't mean that doing this: http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/689_1.cfm is dangerous.
5. Research into genetic engineering is a good thing.

That might not make me very extreme around here, but believe me, it does amoung a lot of the people I associate with. There are good things to teaching yoga, but there are bad ones as well, like being professionaly looked down upon for not kissing an old man's feet.

More generally:

5. Euthanasia is completely acceptable.
6. Ditto abortion. Now I get really extreme - I have no moral objection to infanticide at a very young age. Don't ask me what that age should be. Child abuse? Yes, infanticide, no.
7. I too felt exhillaration when watching 9/11 on TV, and exasperation at the reporters wondering where this "explosion" (the first one) had come from when you clearly saw a plane fly into the building. I get excited at most natural disasters, especially when you can't actually see the human suffering. Doesn't mean I feel good about it, though.
8. I actually agree that if done scientifically there might be some forms of eugenics (based on the real world and not people's made up rasict notions of it) that might make sense. For example a program to erradicate certain genetic diseases, if it could work, I might support that.
9. I think it's obvious by now that I don't think having children is a right. I agree with others about licensing parenthood.
10. I think I will live for ever. I don't know why exactly, and it's entirely illogical, but I just like to think that, so I go right on doing so. Oh, I try to give myself reasons to believe it - perhaps Erik Dressler was right; maybe life expectancy will continue to increase at a rate of more than 1year/year, as medical science advances; maybe if I don't think about dying it just won't ever happen; ect.
Deep down I know it's totally irrational, but even knowing so hasn't changed that. I guess I'm still young and haven't had to face the horrible signs of my own mortality too much yet. Thank god. On the other hand there are a lot of topics that are informed by my knowledge of my and everyone's mortality. Ain't contradiction great?
11. Oh, yeah, sign me up for the death penalty too.. hmm, bad way to phrase that. I don't think there's anything sacred or all that special about human life. Just mine and the people I care about. But I think I'd rather be executed than spend even 5 years in prison.
12. On the other hand I love dogs and think they are the greatest!

More later.

And I genuinely try to confront my irrational beliefs! :P

[Roboramma]

Oh, and, 13. I genuinely believe everyone should learn to speak english because it would make things easier for me. I live in China and don't speak chinese but get annoyed by the people who don't speak english.

[Cleopatra]

1. I believe that PETA violates the hate laws.

2. I believe that Religious Institutions,Religious buildings, religious demonstrations,rituals,signs of religion should be prohibited in public places.Practicing or discussing about religion should be allowed only in the privacy of one's home. Those who violated the Law and attempted to talk about Religion in public should be imprisoned. Those who attempted to impose their religious beliefs on others should go in jail for lifetime.In my opinion this is the only way to combat extremism without violating human rights.

2. Anti-abortion BUT after providing an alternative to the mother and the kid.

3. Legalization of all the drugs in order to unblock the legal system, combat the corruption of cops and judges and clean the jails.

4. Make Germans declare in public and in writing that they have finally realized that Europe doesn't belong to them. Make the British declare in public and in writing that they have understood that Britain is not the 52th State.

5.Imprison for life those who sugar coat crimes in order to hide their shame. For example pedophilia.

6. Give nazi groups unlimited time in the Media to analyze their ideas. The same stands for Israel haters,those who believe that Israel should be disappear,antisemites and the rest of the zoo. Give the room to talk, pass them the mic but don't protect them. Throw them in the arena of the political system and of the political debate.

7.Vegetarians should be asked politely but in an official fashion to think before they talk.

8. Owners of restaurants who sell junk food should be sentenced to be fed ( them and their kids) with what the serve to other people.( Maybe you don't know it but rarely restaurant owners eat in their own restaurant).

9.NYorkers should be forced to admit that NYork is just ok in comparison to London and that the ability to build tall buildings and buy expensive Art that was produced in Europe doesn't make you civilized.

10. Americans should admit that they might be cool but they have centuries ahead of them in order to arrive to the point that they are able to see just the back of Europe and I am thinking that every American should be forced to wash his hands before typing the word Europe but I am not ready yet to adopt such an extremist view.

[Kerberos]

4. Make Germans declare in public and in writing that they have finally realized that Europe doesn't belong to them.
Yes it does, they bought (http://fire.pppl.gov/eu_budget_061605.pdf) it fair and square. :-)

On a slightly more sereous note, I personally think the demand would be more appropriate for France

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's see...

Income tax should be divided into two portions: (1) a flat per-person services fee; (2) an income-redistribution tax.

Criminals should be required to repay their victims.

There should be a stiff tax imposed on clothing that contains advertisements for manufacturers.

Meat eaters should be asked politely but in an official fashion to think before they talk.


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Those who violated the Law and attempted to talk about Religion in public should be imprisoned.
Say what?!?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

9. I think it's obvious by now that I don't think having children is a right. I agree with others about licensing parenthood. Who thinks this stuff up?

~~ Paul

[Diamond]

You *really* don't want to know what my extreme views are.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, we do.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geez, folks. Let's implement all these ridiculous laws. We need a nice totalitarian regime around here. No wonder Shanek gets so much crap.

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Geez, folks. Let's implement all these ridiculous laws. We need a nice totalitarian regime around here. No wonder Shanek gets so much crap.

~~ Paul
ridiculous = disagreeing with you?

Perhaps you missed the premise of the thread--these are self-described "extremist" views. Even the people reporting them see them as extremist.

My extremist views:

1) We have a right to keep our political views private--that is why there is a curtain on the voting booth.

2) See #1.

3) There is no free will.

4) "Mind" as a causal entity is an illusion.

5) Food bigots are deserving of pity.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

ridiculous = disagreeing with you? No, ridiculous as in undefinable and unenforcable and clearly slippery-sloped.

Perhaps you missed the premise of the thread--these are self-described "extremist" views. Even the people reporting them see them as extremist. Indeed, and I'm agreeing that they are extreme. I presume people really hold these views, and aren't just making them up to be extra double extremist-sounding. :D

~~ Paul

[IllegalArgument]

3) There is no free will.

4) "Mind" as a causal entity is an illusion.




Strangely, I don't consider those extremist, but I guess most people would.

Ditto on no free will and consciousness is an illusion.

[epepke]

Er..."Weren't so bad" in what sense?

In a load-on-resources sense. Decent nitrogen-fixing fertilizers had just been introduced, but then the world population exploded.

Industrial pollution was bad, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it got later.

[Cleopatra]

No, ridiculous as in undefinable and unenforcable.

Think about Mercutio's proposal. If you ever need somebody to lobby for you and turn your belief according to which calling somebody a woo the way you keep doing all the time, constitutes civil behavior let me know because I have guts strong enough to include it in mylist.

Indeed, and I'm agreeing that they are extreme. I presume people really hold these views, and aren't just making them up to be extra double extremist-sounding. :D

Again they are extreme when compared to some current beliefs and ideas. 50 years ago asking for women to vote was considered THE extreme idea.

[Kerberos]

No, ridiculous as in undefinable and unenforcable.

Indeed, and I'm agreeing that they are extreme. I presume people really hold these views, and aren't just making them up to be extra double extremist-sounding. :D

~~ Paul
You presume incorrectly (in my singularly un-humble opinion), it's pretty clear that some of these suggestions are not views the posters really hold, but more like things they'd sometimes like to do, but know perfectly well are impossible and/or idiotic for a hundred different reasons.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My apologies for not getting into the spirit of this extreme thing. I'm obviously taking the suggestions too seriously.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness is not an illusion. It's a name for a subset of brain functions. Take back the word from the woos!


Think about Mercutio's proposal. If you ever need somebody to lobby for you and turn your belief according to which calling somebody a woo the way you keep doing all the time, constitutes civil behavior let me know because I have guts strong enough to include it in mylist. I never claimed it was civil behavior. However, the idea that we should outlaw public discussion of supposedly uncivil topics is absurd. Define religion.

So here is another of my extreme views:

The marketplace of ideas should not be restricted according to the desires of various upset people.


You presume incorrectly (in my singularly un-humble opinion), it's pretty clear that some of these suggestions are not views the posters really hold, but more like things they'd sometimes like to do, but know perfectly well are impossible and/or idiotic for a hundred different reasons. Oh, okay, then I feel much better.

~~ Paul

[IllegalArgument]

Consciousness is not an illusion. It's a name for a subset of brain functions. Take back the word from the woos!

Oh, okay, then I feel much better.

~~ Paul


Paul, sorry but the word has been so hopelessly corrupted, might as well toss it.

Who is this "I" that makes you feel beterr? ;) I kid, I kid.

[Mercutio]

Consciousness is not an illusion. It's a name for a subset of brain functions. Take back the word from the woos!
~~ Paul
"Illusion" is what we call something that is not, in actuality, what it seems at first glance. The "moon illusion", for instance does not mean that the moon does not exist, but simply that it appears to be larger on the horizon than overhead, while it takes up exactly the same retinal angle (i.e., is the same size). Consciousness does not feel to us like a subset of brain functions (even here, I would quibble--no brain has ever acted alone, so I would call it a subset of bodily functions, where the body--as most do--includes the brain), and so if it is indeed "a name for a subset of brain functions", it is by definition an illusion.

[Ed]

I believe that symmetry is a misguided ploy put over on humanity by an evil group of people who are evil.

I think that Marlyn Mason epitomizes what I am talking about (see Freakshow's avatar).

writing symmetrical
I

t
h
i n k bogus
is
taht

See how liberating my philosophy is?

I am making no headway with the masses, however.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But then every single thing we think and feel is an illusion, so the purpose of calling consciousness an illusion is lost.

Consciousness is a perfectly good word. Neurophysiologists are using it while trying to understand it. You just gotta be careful with it.

~~ Paul

Gah! I've hijacked this thread and turned it into an Interesting Ian discussion. Further profuse apologies.

[Mercutio]

But then every single thing we think and feel is an illusion, so the purpose of calling consciousness an illusion is lost.

Consciousness is a perfectly good word. Neurophysiologists are using it while trying to understand it. You just gotta be careful with it.

~~ Paul

Gah! I've hijacked this thread and turned it into an Interesting Ian discussion. Further profuse apologies.Consciousness is a terrible word. It reifies a process, treats it as a mental entity to be possessed or lost, and perpetuates a prescientific view of human nature.

It is, like "sunrise", a perfectly good word for colloquial speech. It has too much baggage to be useful in science. Yes, Neurophysiologists are using it--and because they are, we get books like Searle's "The Mystery of Consciousness", collecting half a dozen different attempts at explaining consciousness as it introspectively appears. Because "consciousness" is defined dualistically, all attempts to discuss it appear incomplete. It is as if we are having to explain how it is that the sun climbs and falls through the sky, and are not yet at the point where we can say that the earth turns.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, I give up. We'll dump consciousness. What will we replace it with?

I guess that's why Domasio called his book The Feeling of What Happens and Ramachandran Phantoms in the Brain. Someone inform Christof Koch! Someone fix those 19,379 PubMed entries!

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Okay, I give up. We'll dump consciousness. What will we replace it with?

I guess that's why Domasio called his book The Feeling of What Happens and Ramachandran Phantoms in the Brain. Someone inform Christof Koch! Someone fix those 19,379 PubMed entries!

~~ PaulI blame cognitive psychologists. Corey has a quote somewhere about cognition being to psychology what creationism is to biology...

[Roboramma]

My apologies for not getting into the spirit of this extreme thing. I'm obviously taking the suggestions too seriously.

~~ Paul
For my own part I'd say I certainly meant what I said, but only as far as it goes. I think most of the posters know that a lot of these suggestions would be very difficult to impliment, and don't claim to know how it could be done. But what's being said is more along the lines of "I think this is something worth pursuing". At least that's how I took it. Still extreme, I think, but not claiming to have all the answers.