Local brewery allows employees to smoke while brewing...

[mikescooling]

OK, I've got 8 pairs of undies all bunched up my butt, and this thread offends me. We can't keep making laws endlessly, because the laws don't get archived, then even contradict each other, then everyone will be in violation of something, make all of us law abiding citizens, criminals, despite trying to do the right thing. I would suggest a documentation quality improvement plan, that is assessed by a mediator or arbitrator; who would asses each business compliance plan and time bound goals; and apon achieving or surpassing these goals, they would be rewarded or disciplined on a case by case basis. What I'm suggesting is keeping the current standards as a floor, then having levels of accreditation for each type of business, so the current and changing needs are meet by a dianamic program that evolves with changing needs and eliminates the need to archive old law/policies. So if a business feels that they were wrongly sanctioned they can take it to court, or committee for appeals.

 

[mikescooling]

And, I wonder if the OP saw the brewer eating a ham sandwich, would all this have played out as it did?

 

[kombat]

People generally won't support discrimination, like that seen in the jim-crow days. Do you really think a business would last if it posted all it's practices on it's doors? This means they'd be required to say:

We don't store our meat at the recommended temp range. We don't wash our hands. We don't serve or support people of these ethnicities.

People would run to other more innovative outlets

OK, picture a quiet little town in the deep South. There are 2 bakeries, and they both post signs on their doors saying, "We don't serve Muslims."

A Muslim couple living in the town wants to get married. Neither baker will make their cake for them.

So in your world, they'd ... what? Go to the third, non-existent bakery? Open their own bakery, finally giving an option to all the Muslims living in Backwoods, Kentucky? Or the residents of Backwoods, Kentucky would boycott both bakeries until they agreed to start serving Muslims?

Newsflash: Most of the residents would probably just say something like, "We got two decent bakeries, I like Jane's a little better than Julie's 'cause her cakes are a little bigger, but they both have an Americans-First policy, so you can't really go wrong either way."

 

[ericbw]

You're very caught up on this idea that a philosophy or viewpoint is "right" or "wrong" and specifically that mine is "wrong," maybe even more than yours being "right." They're just different. You value personal liberty, and I value the well-being of the group. I think we both value the opposite as well, but the balance leans one way for me, and another way for you. That's not right or wrong, it's just different. And as such, I don't need to prove that you're "wrong," and in fact, I'm only saying that I think a better approach to life is to be concerned for the group.

You say that the main things the government should regulate are murder, rape, and (maybe) monopolies. But in different settings or cultures, those have different definitions. In our own culture and legal system, we differentiate between murder (premeditated, with "malice aforethought"), manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligence, self-defense, etc.The definition of rape has shifted, especially in recent years. Monopolies are a natural market force, and they weren't always illegal.

All of that shifts over time and context.

You seem to think that I'm not accepting your stats and links about the evils that governments can and have committed. I agree Hitler was a bad guy and had policies that were bad for his people and the world. But at the same time, governments made laws outlawing slavery. So government can do harm, and government can do good. And mostly, government operates in the middle somewhere.

The idea that government is historically terrible is very hard to support. You have to go back to the beginning of recorded history, and then go back even more. You can show that some governments are "terrible." You can also show that some governments are not terrible. Because you can show both, then the "fact" or "truth" or "evdence" that you have to work with is NOT [government is terrible] OR [government is awesome]. You can make a strong case that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were terrible. (Of course, you know that if you are the first to mention Hitler in an online forum, you automatically lose the argument, right?)

But it's harder to show evidence that "government" per se is terrible. It can still be your philosophy or opinion, but referring to it as "truth" or "fact" is weak. Insisting that I'm "wrong" and you're going to prove it doesn't make it so. You have shown evidence that many governments, are responsible for deaths. Hitler, LBJ, Mao, etc. I never disagreed that governments can cause all kinds of evil, and they have, and they often do.

But Government X being terrible doesn't mean that government as an institution is terrible. Even Gov A, B, C, D, etc. doesn't prove that as a fact, unless you look at every government ever. If the preponderance of government activity is to cause harm, then you can say that. But your links show stats over the last couple hundred years (I didn't see any pharaohs on the list, nor did I see GW Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Trump). You have to compare it against the good that government has done - but if your perspective is that government is terrible, then you can't logically do that.

If the question is how much involvement should the government have in regulating business, I think the answer is "enough to keep the most people safe, balanced against the ability of buyers and sellers to engage in commerce."

I don't think government should regulate what you do at home. Smoke & brew (great name for a BBQ place OR a cigar and beer store), lick your spoon, don't wash your hands, etc. I think the restrictions on home distilling are too restrictive, as long as you're not endangering anyone else. I would be in favor of more lax laws on how to produce and sell food, so that I could share some of my awesome food with the world (without the crazy investment necessary to follow the rules).

But I understand why there are rules, because, like I said, I don't lick the spoon at home, and would be sanitary. But I see others do it all the time. So the only way to protect me and other consumers is to have the government make a rule for commercial food production that says "wash your hands after you smoke."

And I have to say that if you opened a restaurant that said "We don't serve {fill in the blank race, creed, color, ethnicity, gender, orientation, or identification}, you'd have whatever stripe of bigot flock to it. That would be the new anti-whatever hangout. We've worked long and hard for equality. Literally so that people of all kinds and colors can sit in the same brewery and drink beer with ashes in it.

If nothing else, I do hope you'll moderate your opinion on discrimination. Liberty, equality, and justice should go hand-in-hand.

 

[ericbw]

OK, picture a quiet little town in the deep South. There are 2 bakeries, and they both post signs on their doors saying, "We don't serve Muslims."

A Muslim couple living in the town wants to get married. Neither baker will make their cake for them.

So in your world, they'd ... what? Go to the third, non-existent bakery? Open their own bakery, finally giving an option to all the Muslims living in Backwoods, Kentucky? Or the residents of Backwoods, Kentucky would boycott both bakeries until they agreed to start serving Muslims?

Newsflash: Most of the residents would probably just say something like, "We got two decent bakeries, I like Jane's a little better than Julie's 'cause her cakes are a little bigger, but they both have an Americans-First policy, so you can't really go wrong either way."

Amen, brother (or sister, I don't know you)!

I was trying to give an example without saying something that would freak the mods out.

And that scenario played out a couple of years ago in Indiana. And you know what's funny is that a couple of years ago, I said, hey, you know, I don't like the government telling people what to do, especially when its a non-essential item like cakes.

But now, I think what's wrong with people. Yes, the Muslims in your scenario will eventually open their own bakery. But until then, we sometimes need someone to make us "do the right thing" until we can figure it on our own.

 

[ericbw]

And, I wonder if the OP saw the brewer eating a ham sandwich, would all this have played out as it did?

For my part, yes. Eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco - all the same. This isn't an anti-smoking stance. It's pro-handwashing in food production.

 

[mikescooling]

I don't think brewing, or making wine, or distilling, fall under the FDA guide lines. Don't get me wrong, I wash my hands like 50 times a day. I don't think people understand how much pest-aside or chemicals are on the produce or meat we eat from the farm to the supermarket. I used to do HVAC and some of those places were restaurants and you would not eat out anymore if you saw things like cockroaches coming out of the drains or the pest-control guy spraying the place down and I'm talking about places that have at least one guy, just cleaning, all the time. The employees should wash there hands but the sad fact is most kitchen staff are low paid, with little education. It's hard or impossible to enforce hand washing, or to stop someone from scratching their butt and going back to work. I don't eat out much.

 

[Baabaadoo]

You're very caught up on this idea that a philosophy or viewpoint is "right" or "wrong" and specifically that mine is "wrong," maybe even more than yours being "right." They're just different. You value personal liberty, and I value the well-being of the group. I think we both value the opposite as well, but the balance leans one way for me, and another way for you. That's not right or wrong, it's just different. And as such, I don't need to prove that you're "wrong," and in fact, I'm only saying that I think a better approach to life is to be concerned for the group....

If nothing else, I do hope you'll moderate your opinion on discrimination. Liberty, equality, and justice should go hand-in-hand.

This is the problem with everything you are saying:

Your concern for the group inhibits the freedom of the individual. Point blank. That's it. You're 'concern' for the group forces the majority into paying for the rest. This is the logic used to justify forcing a populace into buying health care when it's their health to risk. I'm looking at making the most enriching environment where the needs of the many will be met. The neglected few will always exist. It isn't government's responsibility to take care of them. It's ours. Go start a charity. Support one. That's what people who care do. They don't go tell the government to force others to do it.

OK, picture a quiet little town in the deep South. There are 2 bakeries, and they both post signs on their doors saying, "We don't serve Muslims."

A Muslim couple living in the town wants to get married. Neither baker will make their cake for them.

So in your world, they'd ... what? Go to the third, non-existent bakery? Open their own bakery, finally giving an option to all the Muslims living in Backwoods, Kentucky? Or the residents of Backwoods, Kentucky would boycott both bakeries until they agreed to start serving Muslims?

Newsflash: Most of the residents would probably just say something like, "We got two decent bakeries, I like Jane's a little better than Julie's 'cause her cakes are a little bigger, but they both have an Americans-First policy, so you can't really go wrong either way."

So the solution to this problem is to make a law and force the bakers with a threat of fining them into submission? And if they don't pay? Do what? Point guns at them and take them to jail? That's what laws are. Government is a hammer looking for a nail. Laws define when it's justified to en>FORCE< (hence the force) them on people.

In the market, actions like this would easily be covered by news outlets and would create a hole in the market where others could make money. The market would fill the gap in time and the 2 bakers would go out of business or be forced to change.

Injustices will exist on both fronts in different degrees. This method is better because it doesn't point a gun to people's heads to force them to follow some legislation that doesn't even work. People will be discriminatory regardless of these laws. Let's provide an environment where it doesn't flourish.

 

[kombat]

In the market, actions like this would easily be covered by news outlets and would create a hole in the market where others could make money. The market would fill the gap in time and the 2 bakers would go out of business or be forced to change.

You missed my points. There aren't enough Muslims in Backwoods, Kentucky to support a bakery exclusively for them (or whatever other service you want to allow to discriminate). And some areas of the country are more racist than you seem to think.

Nobody in Kentucky is going to organize a march to support the marginalized, misunderstood Muslims. Maybe San Francisco would, but in Virginia, that'd be a cue for the riot squad to suit up and be on alert.

 

[Baabaadoo]

You missed my points. There aren't enough Muslims in Backwoods, Kentucky to support a bakery exclusively for them (or whatever other service you want to allow to discriminate). And some areas of the country are more racist than you seem to think.

Nobody in Kentucky is going to organize a march to support the marginalized, misunderstood Muslims. Maybe San Francisco would, but in Virginia, that'd be a cue for the riot squad to suit up and be on alert.

Did you not read the last half of my post addressing this?

 

[kombat]

Did you not read the last half of my post addressing this?

Of course, but it doesn't make sense. "People will discriminate, let's provide an environment where it doesn't flourish." By LETTING people discriminate as much as they want? That's the exact OPPOSITE of discouraging it!

Forcing businesses to serve everyone normalizes diversity. Over the long term, discrimination becomes the exceptional viewpoint, rather than the popular one.

 

[Baabaadoo]

No! By letting people act as they choose instead of forcing them! That's the whole point. Choice. It's already allowed to discriminate. We don't outlaw discrimination. We outlaw the choice of choosing who you sell your product/service to, but why? That couple doesn't own the bakery. The owners do. It's their money. What gives you the right to dictate how they run their lives?

I believe it to be wrong, just as I believe healthcare to be a beneficial commodity to buy, but you don't see me forcing people to buy it.

 

[ericbw]

This is the problem with everything you are saying:

Your concern for the group inhibits the freedom of the individual. Point blank. That's it. You're 'concern' for the group forces the majority into paying for the rest. This is the logic used to justify forcing a populace into buying health care when it's their health to risk. I'm looking at making the most enriching environment where the needs of the many will be met. The neglected few will always exist. It isn't government's responsibility to take care of them. It's ours. Go start a charity. Support one. That's what people who care do. They don't go tell the government to force others to do it.



So the solution to this problem is to make a law and force the bakers with a threat of fining them into submission? And if they don't pay? Do what? Point guns at them and take them to jail? That's what laws are. Government is a hammer looking for a nail. Laws define when it's justified to en>FORCE< (hence the force) them on people.

In the market, actions like this would easily be covered by news outlets and would create a hole in the market where others could make money. The market would fill the gap in time and the 2 bakers would go out of business or be forced to change.

Injustices will exist on both fronts in different degrees. This method is better because it doesn't point a gun to people's heads to force them to follow some legislation that doesn't even work. People will be discriminatory regardless of these laws. Let's provide an environment where it doesn't flourish.

And this is the problem with "everything" you're saying: the group IS more important than the freedom of the individual. Point blank. Yes, I KNOW what my position is. It is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs (or freedom) of one person. I thought I had explained earlier that this is EXACTLY my position.

{sigh} Yes, healthcare for everyone is a cost. But it's not just your health to risk. Use vaccinations as an example. If you choose to not get vaccinated, you can then carry a disease as well. So you're a risk to yourself and anyone else that might not be vaccinated OR with a weak immune system (babies, old people, etc.).

If you choose to get injured without health insurance, eventually the "government" has to pay your bill OR a hospital has to raise costs to cover the people who don't pay their bill. Who pays for that? Me. I pay your bill because I pay taxes. The alternative is to not treat people who don't have insurance. "Let the market sort it out."

I think (my personal belief) is that we have a hard time getting "society" to take care of people, so it is then the "government's" responsibility. IN times gone by, a clan or tribe would take care of their own. Was that government or society? It was both, because they were intertwined. Now we are not like that, so some of what was society or culture or family responsibility is now partly government responsibility. (Along with charities, etc.)

So I am sure you can see that you and I have a different view of the role of government in society. That's ok with me.

And YES, the way to combat racism and bigotry is to make businesses not discriminate. As a society, we place a high value on equality. If you don't want to do business that way, then you should be ready to get fined. And if you are fined enough, you will not run a racist business OR you will not be in business.

Here's the difference. If you run a business where you display and sell ALL Christian themed items, and a Muslim or Jew comes in and is offended, that is on them. They have no right to tell you how to market your business, decorate, or run the marketing of your business. Government should stay out of private enterprise in that regard.

I'm not talking about a gun to anyone's head. I'm talking about threats that matter - fines that will make you treat others equally. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then fines that will eventually make it hard for you to do business.

Yes, I am particularly sensitive to discrimination. I would much more likely to agree with the rest of what you said, but no, I can't see how a government that condones and supports inequality is a good thing.

 

[ericbw]

No! By letting people act as they choose instead of forcing them! That's the whole point. Choice. It's already allowed to discriminate. We don't outlaw discrimination. We outlaw the choice of choosing who you sell your product/service to, but why? That couple doesn't own the bakery. The owners do. It's their money. What gives you the right to dictate how they run their lives?

I believe it to be wrong, just as I believe healthcare to be a beneficial commodity to buy, but you don't see me forcing people to buy it.

Bottom line is that when you let people act as they choose, they discriminate against others and treat people unequally. Equality is one of our cultural ideals (we're not great at it, but we know that we strive toward it).

I seriously do not know where you have been living, but we absolutely outlaw discrimination, and it is important and good that we do. You should check out Civil Rights. They had these marches, and songs, and speeches. And we decided that it's not right for businesses to discriminate against people based on a lot of things.

I think equality and justice are AT LEAST as important as liberty.

 

[ericbw]

You missed my points. There aren't enough Muslims in Backwoods, Kentucky to support a bakery exclusively for them (or whatever other service you want to allow to discriminate). And some areas of the country are more racist than you seem to think.

Nobody in Kentucky is going to organize a march to support the marginalized, misunderstood Muslims. Maybe San Francisco would, but in Virginia, that'd be a cue for the riot squad to suit up and be on alert.

Great explanation! And so in those situations, good galactic citizens have to stand up for the rights of those who may not be able to do so themselves. Even if we don't share their point of view, religion, race, etc.

 

[Baabaadoo]

And this is the problem with "everything" you're saying: the group IS more important than the freedom of the individual. Point blank. Yes, I KNOW what my position is. It is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs (or freedom) of one person. I thought I had explained earlier that this is EXACTLY my position.

This is justification for socialism.

{sigh} Yes, healthcare for everyone is a cost. But it's not just your health to risk. Use vaccinations as an example. If you choose to not get vaccinated, you can then carry a disease as well. So you're a risk to yourself and anyone else that might not be vaccinated OR with a weak immune system (babies, old people, etc.).

If you choose to get injured without health insurance, eventually the "government" has to pay your bill OR a hospital has to raise costs to cover the people who don't pay their bill. Who pays for that? Me. I pay your bill because I pay taxes. The alternative is to not treat people who don't have insurance. "Let the market sort it out."

and this is literally socialism. Forcing people against their will to pay for commodities? It's their health. If they don't buy insurance and go to the hospital, they pay for it out of pocket or they don't receive care. They need to take responsibility for themselves. Under required healthcare, the tax payers (via immoral progressive tax, the rich/wealthy) foot the majority of the bill, as with all social programs.

I think (my personal belief) is that we have a hard time getting "society" to take care of people, so it is then the "government's" responsibility. IN times gone by, a clan or tribe would take care of their own. Was that government or society? It was both, because they were intertwined. Now we are not like that, so some of what was society or culture or family responsibility is now partly government responsibility. (Along with charities, etc.)

So I am sure you can see that you and I have a different view of the role of government in society. That's ok with me.

And YES, the way to combat racism and bigotry is to make businesses not discriminate. As a society, we place a high value on equality. If you don't want to do business that way, then you should be ready to get fined. And if you are fined enough, you will not run a racist business OR you will not be in business.

Here's the difference. If you run a business where you display and sell ALL Christian themed items, and a Muslim or Jew comes in and is offended, that is on them. They have no right to tell you how to market your business, decorate, or run the marketing of your business. Government should stay out of private enterprise in that regard.

I'm not talking about a gun to anyone's head. I'm talking about threats that matter - fines that will make you treat others equally. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then fines that will eventually make it hard for you to do business.

Yes, I am particularly sensitive to discrimination. I would much more likely to agree with the rest of what you said, but no, I can't see how a government that condones and supports inequality is a good thing.

How's it equality when you force it down their throats? This philosophy pushes off responsibility to a nameless group of people and gives people the justification to leave the sick people alone. my methods/philosophy promotes personal accountability and an informed public.
By definition, law is saying do this or we will force you to follow it via fines and indirectly guns/violence. That's what it comes down to. If I don't pay my fines for laws I have not followed, I will be hunted down and jailed. That's what law is.

enforce: accomplish, administer, apply, carry out, implement, impose, invoke, prosecute, reinforce, or require

Fyi, Discriminate- to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:

Discrimination is defined individually (a person) and based on a group/class/category. You group it into this social justice definition, which completely negates the actual principal (as literally defined!) of true individual justice. You are philosophically sawing off the branch you stand on. Even the definition of the words you use are defined against your favor.

 

[Baabaadoo]

Bottom line is that when you let people act as they choose, they discriminate against others and treat people unequally. Equality is one of our cultural ideals (we're not great at it, but we know that we strive toward it).

So the only logical option is to then force them against their will to act in a certain way?

 

[jodell]

This thread rules

 

[ericbw]

So the only logical option is to then force them against their will to act in a certain way?

We're starting to understand each other. Goosebumps!

Yes. Sometimes it is necessary to force people to do good things or stop doing bad things. Like when we liberated France.

Or when we integrated schools. Or let black folks sit in the front of the bus. Or said hey, you can't not hire someone or serve someone because of their race.

Yes, sometimes compelling people to do the right thing is better than waiting generations or millennia for it to happen.

 

[Baabaadoo]

You are acting as if jim-crow law was demolished last week, but all the examples you site were historically necessary for the republican party to take on the democrats to free the slaves in the U.S. Let's continue pursuing freedom and allow people to choose where they spend their money and how.

 

[ericbw]

This is justification for socialism.







and this is literally socialism. Forcing people against their will to pay for commodities? It's their health. If they don't buy insurance and go to the hospital, they pay for it out of pocket or they don't receive care. They need to take responsibility for themselves. Under required healthcare, the tax payers (via immoral progressive tax, the rich/wealthy) foot the majority of the bill, as with all social programs.







How's it equality when you force it down their throats? This philosophy pushes off responsibility to a nameless group of people and gives people the justification to leave the sick people alone. my methods/philosophy promotes personal accountability and an informed public.

By definition, law is saying do this or we will force you to follow it via fines and indirectly guns/violence. That's what it comes down to. If I don't pay my fines for laws I have not followed, I will be hunted down and jailed. That's what law is.



enforce: accomplish, administer, apply, carry out, implement, impose, invoke, prosecute, reinforce, or require



Fyi, Discriminate- to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:



Discrimination is defined individually (a person) and based on a group/class/category. You group it into this social justice definition, which completely negates the actual principal (as literally defined!) of true individual justice. You are philosophically sawing off the branch you stand on. Even the definition of the words you use are defined against your favor.

Gasp! Not the dreaded S-word! This is where you need to understand that they may even walk among us. People have all manner of views, including socialism.

It is indeed justification for socialism. If you get sick and can't pay, we all pay for it. And we pay more because you got really sick. It's in OUR best interest to keep everyone healthy.

Don't write things off as "social justice." It makes it hard to have a serious discussion.

Discrimination: not treating you equally because of your race, creed, color, national origin, gender, or orientation. To favor or disfavor someone based on membership in a group. That's not cool, and I'm sorry you think it's ok.

You're not going to pass up social security when it's offered are you? Ever sent a letter through the US mail? Gone to public school? Driven on a public road? Called the police or fire dept? Socialist leanings aren't all bad.

I'm curious... I'm in my mid/late 40s. White guy from a middle class background. Family and kids. Raised by hippies and in church, so you can assume that colors my worldview.

Describe yourself, if you will.

 

[ericbw]

You are acting as if jim-crow law was demolished last week, but all the examples you site were historically necessary for the republican party to take on the democrats to free the slaves in the U.S. Let's continue pursuing freedom and allow people to choose where they spend their money and how.

Seriously do some reading about Civil Rights. In the 50s 60s 70s... or last year with bathrooms. It didn't end in 1865.

 

[Calichusetts]

Love armchair philosophy....I especially love when it has to face reality.

 

[ericbw]

Love armchair philosophy....I especially love when it has to face reality.

You're derailing the derailment!

 

[Baabaadoo]

Love armchair philosophy....I especially love when it has to face reality.

Me too. See pic below for a reflection on reality.

It is indeed justification for socialism.

Conversation over. Go do some research. I'm not even going to humor this
philosophical and factual immaturity.

 

[ericbw]

Me too. See pic below for a reflection on reality.



Conversation over. Go do some research. I'm not even going to humor this
philosophical and factual immaturity.

Immaturity is being afraid of world views that differ from your own. Are you shocked that people think differently? There are a lot of different ways that people organize themselves, and your view is just one in a sea of others. It's a big world.

Opinions won't hurt you. It's possible that you might even learn something.

And I have no idea what that picture is supposed to show. Is it bacteria growing from when someone brewed without washing their hands?

 

[kombat]

If they don't buy insurance and go to the hospital, they pay for it out of pocket or they don't receive care.

Are you seriously proposing that we just let people die of perfectly treatable conditions, simply because of an inability to pay?

Do you really want to live in a world where people are allowed to just literally die on the door step of a hospital because their credit card was declined? A single mom struggling to make ends meet gets creamed by a drunk driver, and you think we should let her bleed out, or die of an infection, or whatever, because she can't afford health insurance?

Wow. That's cold, man.

 

[Baabaadoo]

I know I said convo over, but it's too tempting to shut down.

@ericbw

Apparently you don't know the definition of immature. I'll educate you once again:

im·ma·ture: 1.not fully developed. 2. having or showing emotional or intellectual development appropriate to someone younger.

I'm saying you're philosophically and factually underdeveloped. I'm saying you don't even know what you believe. You don't understand the topic and I am done educating both of you.

@kombat

You are probably more emotionally manipulative than @ericbw!

This is how liberals argue. With emotion, not with fact. They pull some random scenario where the person is completely at my whim. Go to the person who's suffering and help them. Stop acting like it's now okay to steal from me because you feel bad and I should too.

I'm promoting an environment where people who make good decisions flourish and those who don't...well don't!
That's capitalism. Stop regressing. It's freedom to choose and that means choose wrongly. Simply because there's people who suffer doesn't mean you can steal from people.

Go to a charity, family, or a church. They won't be literally dying unless people let them. Are you aware that republicans/Christians statistically donate more than the opposing? You know why? because they voluntarily care, not by force. Stop forcing them to funnel their money into the hands of a government who doesn't know how to manage money (look at the debt). You're killing all legitimate conversation when you discuss politics like this. Talk about actual facts and policy, not attempting to make an example out of a minority to extrapolate you're emotions into socialistic dictatorship.

You're cold. You're the one who's pushing to en>force< (fees/guns/violence) on people how to spend their money when they are more efficient at it and are better at managing their own lives. I want my government to leave me alone!

 

[kombat]

@kombat

You are probably more emotionally manipulative than @ericbw!

This is how liberals argue. With emotion, not with fact. They pull some random scenario where the person is completely at my whim. Go to the person who's suffering and help them. Stop acting like it's now okay to steal from me because you feel bad and I should too.

I'm promoting an environment where people who make good decisions flourish and those who don't...well don't!
That's capitalism. Stop regressing. It's freedom to choose and that means choose wrongly. Simply because there's people who suffer doesn't mean you can steal from people.

Go to a charity, family, or a church. They won't be literally dying unless people let them. Are you aware that republicans/Christians statistically donate more than the opposing? You know why? because they voluntarily care, not by force. Stop forcing them to funnel their money into the hands of a government who doesn't know how to manage money (look at the debt). You're killing all legitimate conversation when you discuss politics like this. Talk about actual facts and policy, not attempting to make an example out of a minority to extrapolate you're emotions into socialistic dictatorship.

You're cold. You're the one who's pushing to en>force< (fees/guns/violence) on people how to spend their money when they are more efficient at it and are better at managing their own lives. I want my government to leave me alone!

Nice pivot.

They were "yes" or "no" questions. 3 of them.

I think you've made your answers pretty clear, but it'd still be interesting to see whether or not you have the chutzpah to actually answer them directly.

 

[Baabaadoo]

I did. You just aren't happy with my answer. My answer is to provide the most enriching environment to boost the economy and freedom (they go hand in hand). That would then reduce the volume of people in the situations you mention, as I outline in my previous post. I just sidestepped your emotional manipulation.