Nobody should care about death rates and bullshit statistics

Printable View

09-22-2008, 01:11 PM
Serkat

Nobody should care about death rates and bullshit statistics

It seems to me that the word "freedom" must be incredibly hard to understand. Of course everybody thinks that "freedom" is super awesome but only so long as we have - security, happy cancer-free people, tapdancing squirrels inhabiting our streets and no conflicts whatsoever. I call bullshit on that.

Freedom isn't about whether people feel good, about whether they are healthy, sane or well-intentioned. It's not about whether they are more or less likely to commit crimes or kill people or whether somebody's feelings get hurt. Freedom is independent of bullshit statistics and concepts that have no relevance whatsoever.

I assume that most to all of you have experienced a close person dieing of "unnatural" causes. This is what life is like. You can't fix that by pushing a bunch of bullshit legislation. Kids getting run over by cars, men in their 40s dieing of alcohol poisoning or lung cancer, people rendered incapable of leaving their house due to obesity, a husband stabbing his wife in a fit of jealousy - these are the results of freedom. And I am fucking FINE with that and so should you. I am fucking FINE with a family member dieing because our society is a free one. I'm fine with losing a leg in a car accident because some asshole thought it would be a good idea to drive drunk. That's better than having a fucking government-controlled camera in your car analyzing your ability to drive and tracking your every move.
I don't want the government restricting everyone's freedom only so that a few scaredy-cats think it makes a fucking difference whether they cry about someone's death now or 10 years later.

Freedom and truth are values. Health and security are bullshit that can't hold a candle to these. I don't fucking care if religion makes people feel better. Nobody should fucking care. If religious belief made you invincible and gave you the ability to fly I wouldn't give two shits about that.
I don't care how many more people would die if Heroin were legal. People are dieing of Heroin right now and it's only a miniscule fraction of the amount of people dieing from alcohol or tobacco. It's like fucking less than 1% because everybody is fucking smart enough to know that you shouldn't ever take Heroin. There's absolutely no need for it to be banned. Nobody would friggin ban alcohol or tobacco just because people die of it. Nobody gives a shit, Heroin should be legal.
Nobody should fucking care if 99% of the population think Heroin should be illegal. That doesn't have any relevance at all. That's not democracy, that's mob rule with legislation based on no intelligent values whatsoever. Most people being tools isn't a good basis to run a country on.

Whatever the fuck happened to you can't have you cake and eat it too? You have to make sacrifices in this world, is that too hard to understand? If people are free then people will die, kill and kill themselves. FINE - do it. The point of having a democratic government was never to make sure that nobody dies, that's totalitarianism. Also, "democratic" doesn't mean that the majority of people can legislate what a minority can or can not do. That's not democracy, that's a fucking dictatorship. Only because most people don't like Chio chips, doesn't mean we can just ban them.

Democracy means - in my estimation - that you give power to the individual (who is part of the demos) rather than having a bullshit communist collectivist system of everybody agreeing with everybody on everything. The point of the government is to make sure that these differences can be held and aren't suppressed.

[/rage]
09-22-2008, 01:17 PM
Neruo

You are right, we should remove all freedom-restricting speed-limits. If I want to drive a car 200 miles an hour near a children playground, that is MY personal freedom. The children should simply look out. If they are blind, I guess they should use their freedom not to fucking play in front of my car.
09-22-2008, 01:33 PM
Serkat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neruo

You are right, we should remove all freedom-restricting speed-limits. If I want to drive a car 200 miles an hour near a children playground, that is MY personal freedom. The children should simply look out. If they are blind, I guess they should use their freedom not to fucking play in front of my car.

No, you are driving on a shared road on public property and should obey the rules that apply to ensure reasonable safety. The example doesn't compare to the points I was making about drugs or drunk driving. Also, notice how you are fallibly equating freedom with anarchy. Notice how I didn't say drunk driving should be legal, just that it should be possible. Similarly, it is entirely possible to run over a playground if that's your thing. That doesn't mean it would be the moral thing to do. Which is why nobody does it anyway.
09-22-2008, 02:14 PM
wendylove

Quote:

Notice how I didn't say drunk driving should be legal, just that it should be possible. Similarly, it is entirely possible to run over a playground if that's your thing. That doesn't mean it would be the moral thing to do. Which is why nobody does it anyway.

Drunk driving is possible, it just illegal. Buy a drink then drive around near kiddy playgrounds at crazy speed and you should get you're drivers license thrown away and be put in jail.

Quote:

This is what life is like. You can't fix that by pushing a bunch of bullshit legislation. Kids getting run over by cars,

So let me get this right, you're saying putting drunk drivers in jail and taking away there license is not making a difference?

Quote:

I'm fine with losing a leg in a car accident because some asshole thought it would be a good idea to drive drunk. That's better than having a fucking government-controlled camera in your car analyzing your ability to drive and tracking your every move.

Are you fine with little children dying and getting brain damage or losing limbs because of stupid drunk drivers. Hypothetically, if I had a child I would rather have lots of goverment controlled cameras and police arresting drunk drivers then my child dying a saying thats the price we pay for freedom.

Cameras make a difference, for example decreased theft and alot of crooks got caught by CCTV. Speed cameras have a effect, however some people just slow down for the cameras and then speed up.

Quote:

Which is why nobody does it anyway.

So no child has died from getting hit by car when the person is drink driving. This is not true, thats why we have cameras.

Quote:

Nobody would friggin ban alcohol or tobacco just because people die of it. Nobody gives a shit, Heroin should be legal.

Actually America tried to ban alcohol and in islamic countries it is. The problem with banning alcohol is that it doesn't work, I can go into the period where America tried it.

Quote:

The point of having a democratic government was never to make sure that nobody dies, that's totalitarianism. Also, "democratic" doesn't mean that the majority of people can legislate what a minority can or can not do. That's not democracy, that's a fucking dictatorship. Only because most people don't like Chio chips, doesn't mean we can just ban them.

The point of democracy is too vote in the people you like. I pretty sure the goal is not to try and make sure nobody dies, just that most people are protected from criminals and drunk drivers. Also, I don't see the point of Chio chips getting banned.

Quote:

that you give power to the individual (who is part of the demos) rather than having a bullshit communist collectivist system of everybody agreeing with everybody on everything. The point of the government is to make sure that these differences can be held and aren't suppressed.

Giving power to the individual is communism, lol. You know Karl Marx "power to the people, all you got to lose is you're shackles", also Lenin said something like this. I disagree I think that stuff like pedophille should be banned, does that make me a communist dictator.
09-22-2008, 02:47 PM
StonedApe

Drunk driving should stay illegal, though they really need to stop these highway patrol checkpoints. Those are fucking bullshit. If you haven't commited a crime, you shouldn'r have to stop and talk to a police officer.

Some people can drive drunk, others can't. I think serkat's point is that we need more responsiblity, not more laws and regulations. It's up to you to know your own limits.
09-22-2008, 02:54 PM
wendylove

Quote:

Those are fucking bullshit. If you haven't commited a crime, you shouldn'r have to stop and talk to a police officer.

We don't have them in the UK, although I'm 100% sure. I guess you could argue that if you're innocent then it wouldn't matter.

Quote:

Some people can drive drunk, others can't. I think serkat's point is that we need more responsiblity, not more laws and regulations. It's up to you to know your own limits.

No he doesn't. How could possibly tell if somebody can drive drunk, plus I don't see how a drunk person can know his limit. There is a limit, which after it gets really hard to drive.

Saying you need more responsibillity is just stupid, the point is that if you were responcible you would not drink and drive, even if you assumed that you could. The drink drive law is too try and stop 460 people dying a year.
09-22-2008, 02:57 PM
Serkat

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

Giving power to the individual is communism, lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

Giving power to the individual is communism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

power to the individual is communism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

individual is communism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

individual communism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

individual - commun

wut?

I will get to the rest later.
09-22-2008, 03:11 PM
wendylove

Quote:

wut?

Actually it is, if you read Lenin for example. What do you think the trade unions are for? to get the individual not the corporation to be in control. Communism, freedom and individualism are compatble. It just that its normally not.

Plus, you left out giving power to the individual. Which, is what communist is, instead of having corporation and slave workers.
09-22-2008, 03:19 PM
ClouD

Stop the quote fad, conformer in non-conformity.
09-22-2008, 06:35 PM
drewmandan

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

Plus, you left out giving power to the individual. Which, is what communist is, instead of having corporation and slave workers.

That's patently false. Communism is the exact opposite of personal liberty. Corporations don't own their customers or employees. On the other hand, communist governments do effectively own their citizens (legally they own their property and their ability to choose work, but those define being a free person).

Voting a person into power and then letting them do whatever they want is, at worst, autocracy, and at best, a republic. That is NOT democracy, using any reasonable definition. A democracy would have referendums on all matters of state, at least. And that's a very totalitarian democracy. Even more democratic would be referendums on all matters of state that can be allowed to have independent outcomes in different regions of the country that then define different policies tailored to those regions. And by regions, I'm talking about something like county level. Now please tell me how that would destroy society.
09-22-2008, 06:52 PM
Schmaven

Serkat,

I share your rage, and couldn't've put it into words any better than that.
09-22-2008, 06:55 PM
ClouD

You can't share rage.
09-23-2008, 12:15 AM
wendylove

Quote:

On the other hand, communist governments do effectively own their citizens (legally they own their property and their ability to choose work, but those define being a free person).

There are different forms of communism, even ones with capitalism. You're talking about Stalinism. People like Trotsky or Zinoviev or even Lenin had intended different plans for a communist government.

Quote:

Even more democratic would be referendums on all matters of state that can be allowed to have independent outcomes in different regions of the country that then define different policies tailored to those regions. And by regions, I'm talking about something like county level. Now please tell me how that would destroy society.

I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Serkat can you anwser my questions?
09-23-2008, 02:02 AM
drewmandan

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

There are different forms of communism, even ones with capitalism. You're talking about Stalinism. People like Trotsky or Zinoviev or even Lenin had intended different plans for a communist government.

The defining characteristics of communism are that people don't own property and work for "the good of the state", are they not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

I really don't know what you're trying to say.

I'm talking about a country *gasp* actually voting on whether or not they want to, I don't know, invade a country, or build nukes, etc. I just don't see how this would ruin society, but I'm sure you'll tell me.
09-23-2008, 04:56 PM
wendylove

Quote:

The defining characteristics of communism are that people don't own property and work for "the good of the state", are they not?

No, thats Stalinism. If you read Trotsky for example he argued that the state or government should not control people and that it should be abolished.

Quote:

I'm talking about a country *gasp* actually voting on whether or not they want to, I don't know, invade a country, or build nukes, etc. I just don't see how this would ruin society, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

Where did I say anything about voting is bad.

The only problem is when somebody is layman and what you're voting for need specilized knowledge. I'm pretty sure in America if you had a vote to teach creationism in science class, most would vote yes. However, little biologist want this to happen.
09-23-2008, 05:09 PM
drewmandan

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

No, thats Stalinism. If you read Trotsky for example he argued that the state or government should not control people and that it should be abolished.

Well Wikipedia disagrees with you. It clearly says communism is the abolishment of personal property and capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendylove

Where did I say anything about voting is bad.

The only problem is when somebody is layman and what you're voting for need specilized knowledge. I'm pretty sure in America if you had a vote to teach creationism in science class, most would vote yes. However, little biologist want this to happen.

That would never be a problem because in such a free system, there wouldn't be a public school system in the way we see it today, with standardized curricula and whatnot.

Also, I find it laughable that you think people need to have specialized knowledge to vote on things, yet the president is one man with usually no knowledge at all, and he can unilaterally dictate policy. That's so much better.