It's definitely true that police are a complicated thing.
Society does need someone doing that job, and there's times you gotta be thankful for them doing their job. There was a video on youtube of this old gangster guy going on a shootout with a pistol and the cops came in and took him out, thanks for that. There's lots of other circumstances where someone needs to go into a bad situation and be the enforcer of laws. No question. I don't want to have to walk into some domestic violence situation, that's the sort of thing most normal people will happily walk away from.
On the other hand, for every just law a cop enforces, there's 10,000 unjust laws they enforce, and they aren't supposed to have any real say in which they are enforcing. There's countless stories of cops forcing little kids to shut down their lemonade stand, or shoot up an innocent person for bullshit reasons.
Part of me things government is like a dog. You don't need 100 of them, one is fine, and keep it busy doing stuff that's actually important or it'll tear your house apart. For most people a little lapdog would be fine, you don't need a great dane running around digging up your yard.
Society does need someone doing that job, and there's times you gotta be thankful for them doing their job. There was a video on youtube of this old gangster guy going on a shootout with a pistol and the cops came in and took him out, thanks for that. There's lots of other circumstances where someone needs to go into a bad situation and be the enforcer of laws. No question. I don't want to have to walk into some domestic violence situation, that's the sort of thing most normal people will happily walk away from.
On the other hand, for every just law a cop enforces, there's 10,000 unjust laws they enforce, and they aren't supposed to have any real say in which they are enforcing. There's countless stories of cops forcing little kids to shut down their lemonade stand, or shoot up an innocent person for bullshit reasons.
Part of me things government is like a dog. You don't need 100 of them, one is fine, and keep it busy doing stuff that's actually important or it'll tear your house apart. For most people a little lapdog would be fine, you don't need a great dane running around digging up your yard.
Honestly, what it takes to do IVF such as freezing embryos kinda does change my mind...
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
The thing you need to understand about Canada is it's not reeeeally a democracy. I mean, there's members of Parliament whom are elected, but the head of the ruling party is also in charge of the executive, so there's an overwhelming amount of power in one man. That can be bad, as we've seen with Trudeau, but it can also be really good if you get a leader who is willing to do the right thing, and it does happen.
Is Poilievre the man who will do the right thing? I don't know, but I sure hope so, because I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
The one thing is that things aren't going to immediately get better. If he's doing his job things will immediately feel way worse because he needs to unbreak a lot and that process will hurt in the moment (it hurt back when Mulroney did it too after the first Trudeau), but then things start to get better in a virtuous cycle.
Is Poilievre the man who will do the right thing? I don't know, but I sure hope so, because I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
The one thing is that things aren't going to immediately get better. If he's doing his job things will immediately feel way worse because he needs to unbreak a lot and that process will hurt in the moment (it hurt back when Mulroney did it too after the first Trudeau), but then things start to get better in a virtuous cycle.
Tbf a couple Republicans wanted to take that W of overturning roe and turn it into an L by immediately trying to ban it federally after years of wanting to leave it to the states, but overall it seems like this compromise is commonly accepted at the moment.
If you're ever in a room with a bunch of people, look at their shoes. In spite of shoes being a mass produced item, virtually everyone has different shoes on. Somebody paid a human being to design all those shoes, and even for the cheapest ones the design is constantly changing.
My question for such people is: "people you like said the following untrue things. What punishment do you think your favorite people should receive?"
It always ends up being the same, they don't want to do the things that they talk about, they just want you to do the things that they talk about. Then they wonder why the common man thinks it's all a conspiracy against them.
Huh, crazy! Putting gang rapists up against a wall is also a means of venting frustration and.will also create identity a s strengthen group feeling.
Let's goooooooo
Let's goooooooo
Besides the story itself, I appreciate the connection you make with deterioration of the society and the people.
The wealth of nations isn't just stuff, and it can and will disappear in a heartbeat if that fact is neglected.
The wealth of nations isn't just stuff, and it can and will disappear in a heartbeat if that fact is neglected.
"Pantyhose being good looking on a pretty lady, the state is not allowed to kill anyone"
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
The first is a nice factoid, but really the second part of the second would be the operative part of the sentence and of course the first half would be ignored because of the way it was written.
The remark about pantyhose is incidental to the more crucial assertion that the state should not have the authority to execute anyone. Nobody would interpret the above and say "obviously it means the state is not allowed to kill anyone only when it relates to pantyhose"
It's also notable that both the left and the right obviously disregard the constitution as an absolute statement regularly. That's why strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis tests exist for laws, so that you can violate enumerated rights but only if you really want to and it's done according to the law.
Lots of Canadians have central air, and according to this map, most of Europe is warmer than most of Canada.
My first 2 vehicles were manual. I switched to automatic when I moved to the big city because the big city is set up like shit and driving a manual just doesn't make sense when you're crawling forward every 15 seconds.