|
|
Post by packerconvert on Sept 25, 2009 11:12:16 GMT -5
I believe you spank children when they are naughty, and people should understand that they have a moral/legal obligation to be part of a social contract with others that guarantees them equal opportunity, and rights. If that's wrong, I'm guilty!  I don't think you should be advocating child abuse. Not only would you be wrong, you would be a felon Sir. I love government intrusion on how you discipline your children don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by 50poundhead on Sept 25, 2009 14:27:43 GMT -5
packerconvert, the social contract doesn't dictate social engineering. I don't know where you get that. The notion of the social contract is that security is ensured by the surrendering of some individual rights.
As in, I don't have the "liberty" to break into your house, threaten you with a gun, and take your television set simply because I "can." Instead, there is a law against, breaking in, simple assault, and stealing with a commonly-provided police force to enforce that law.
I don't see the social engineering in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 25, 2009 15:25:09 GMT -5
It isn't social engineering, but it is a violation of the anarchist's right to do any damned thing they want, to anyone, at any time, if they deem they've violated their personal rights under zapinsky law.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Sept 25, 2009 17:07:38 GMT -5
Ahh...so social contract is the new Christianity aye? I remember studying howthe Church would stand beside their Monarchs as the people were heavily taxed and preached to the masses that it was Godly to be impoverished. Obama = Monarchs Liberals = New Church  Social contract to me used to mean I pay my taxes so stay out of my business. But the new church of liberalism would have us believe that the meek shall inherit the earth by giving up what we have earned to give to those who have not earned. By giving up what we earn, we can show we care for our fellow man:  That is lame thinking in my opinion because it involves the government in our lives to show we care. It is also the same type of thinking that if you disagree with Obama you must be racist. "Oh, you don't want newer taxes, so you don't care about your fellow man huh?"  "Oh, you don't want to give up your great healthcare so we all can have mediocre care. You must be greedy."  50 I disagree. Breaking into your house to steal is merely against the law and not a contract. It would be a contract, based on all that has been stated thus far, if you would give me a TV so I don't have to break into your house to steal one. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 25, 2009 17:21:58 GMT -5
You're missing the point completely. Use a sharp pencil, not a paint brush. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Sept 25, 2009 17:27:15 GMT -5
Until you give me a sharp pencil...I don't think you really care TW.  |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Sept 26, 2009 11:17:44 GMT -5
You're missing the point completely. Use a sharp pencil, not a paint brush.  8-)ROFLMAO |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Sept 26, 2009 12:12:11 GMT -5
A shared and common purpose is fine and I wish each program funded had that premise before expenditures moved forward. Counting cow farts I do not believe is a shared and common purpose. Packerconvert, if no one is counting cow farts, then how does the census keep track of folks like you. Actually, I think it was the global warming deniers who want cow farts counted. Zinger! Nice! Keep up the good work. Now GM wants me to feel guilty cause I eat Angus Burgers at McDonalds. Another quip to shame lifestyles in America. When are we going after diabetics who eat sugar filled foods? |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 26, 2009 14:53:43 GMT -5
Actually the push started to modify food intake when they removed candy, gum, and soda machines from schools.
Now, since I know two people who had diabetes, and beat it, by modifying their diets, and losing weight, I can say I'd understand "why" there would be those admonishing others for not eating right, and protecting themselves from something like diabetes.
It fits into the issues that right-wingers find essential. Cutting insurance costs by needing less medical assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Sept 27, 2009 0:05:14 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is admonishing someone for eating right.
The pulling of the candy and gum was to stop lazy ass kids from getting more fat.
What I don't understand is anyone admonisthing/penalizing anyone for lifestyle choices.
The whole banning of trans fats in New York restaurants still amazes me. I see nothing wrong with restaurants being required to post notices that they cook foods with trans fats, but to actually ban it for the "public good" is a tad bit freaky.
I find it horribly ironic that a party that hated judgement of alternative lifestyles would be so openly and willing to judge the lifestyles of others...even to the point of wanting to tax lifestyle to social engineer behavior.
I can only imagine government passing a tax on gays for the social/medical cost of AIDS not to mention the mental anguish placed upon those contemplating having sex with the sleeper down the block.
|
|
