Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

You are aware that it's more expensive to raise a child for at least 18 years than it is to have an abortion, right? If people based their decision whether or not to have a kid based on money, they would decide to have an abortion.

I know; especially if those abortions are being paid for by others. Obviously if people want to have children, then they'll put the money into it; I'm simply saying that if you offer people abortions covered under health care, many people will take advantage of them, regardless of the mental/physical trauma they might endure.

Do you believe you should bear the responsibility of paying to put out the fire in your neighbor's house? Abortion is a legitimate medical and health related procedure; it's not cosmetic surgery.

Let me try and say it this way: if my neighbor's house burns down, and an investigation determines that it was arson (by a third party), or some unavoidable circumstance, I might be willing to offer compensation to aid in the reparations for that family. However, if the house burned down because someone left a cigarette balancing precariously on an ashtray, I would be less willing to offer my services in repairing their comfort.

Likewise, if a fourteen year old girl is raped, I can agree with the government authorizing her to draw from some pool of funds that would pay for an abortion and counseling for her. However, I'm not willing to pay for pregnancies that happen between two consenting parties; that is something within their control, and something I should not be responsible for.

Obviously I'm drawing lines that may be difficult to practically enforce; but ideally, this is how I feel. A pool of money for extreme cases such as the one I described would require much less from people than one that is designed to cover all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. That is just asinine, in my opinion.

 

[skeptik]

I know; especially if those abortions are being paid for by others. Obviously if people want to have children, then they'll put the money into it; I'm simply saying that if you offer people abortions covered under health care, many people will take advantage of them, regardless of the mental/physical trauma they might endure.

My point was that if money was the factor, then it doesn't matter if abortion was covered or not. If you are going to decide on whether to have a child or an abortion based on how much money it would cost, abortion would always be the choice. So arguing that more people would get abortions because it would be cheaper is off base, because not having the abortion is far more expensive.

Let me try and say it this way: if my neighbor's house burns down, and an investigation determines that it was arson (by a third party), or some unavoidable circumstance, I might be willing to offer compensation to aid in the reparations for that family. However, if the house burned down because someone left a cigarette balancing precariously on an ashtray, I would be less willing to offer my services in repairing their comfort.

Likewise, if a fourteen year old girl is raped, I can agree with the government authorizing her to draw from some pool of funds that would pay for an abortion and counseling for her. However, I'm not willing to pay for pregnancies that happen between two consenting parties; that is something within their control, and something I should not be responsible for.

Obviously I'm drawing lines that may be difficult to practically enforce; but ideally, this is how I feel. A pool of money for extreme cases such as the one I described would require much less from people than one that is designed to cover all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. That is just asinine, in my opinion.

Why do people bother paying their taxes and getting car and health insurance if nothing is going to be paid for unless every single possible stipulation that voids them of all possible responsibility was met? This pool of money is also in case you are in this situation, you know. People don't want to have to take advantage of fire department services because their house burned down, regardless of what caused the fire.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

But it's going to make the decision that much easier; and furthermore, plenty of pregnancies occur as the result of casual intercourse. The people (especially the males) in those situations will be freed of nearly all responsibilities if they no longer face the consequence of paying child support.

Personally, I'd rather free them of their responsibilities than perpetuate the continuation of such irresponsible behaviors into future generations by forcing them to raise their own families.

 

[AchrisK]

... I'm only concerned with the fact that I'm going to be paying into a program that's going to cover these operations. I sincerely don't believe that I should bear this responsibility.

And that is really the only point ITT. Federal tax dollars (mine and yours, indiscriminately) going to pay for something that some of us have a problem with (for whatever reason). Not just extreme cases, but every case covered under government health care.

...

Let me try and say it this way: if my neighbor's house burns down, and an investigation determines that it was arson (by a third party), or some unavoidable circumstance, I might be willing to offer compensation to aid in the reparations for that family. However, if the house burned down because someone left a cigarette balancing precariously on an ashtray, I would be less willing to offer my services in repairing their comfort.

Likewise, if a fourteen year old girl is raped, I can agree with the government authorizing her to draw from some pool of funds that would pay for an abortion and counseling for her. However, I'm not willing to pay for pregnancies that happen between two consenting parties; that is something within their control, and something I should not be responsible for.

Obviously I'm drawing lines that may be difficult to practically enforce; but ideally, this is how I feel. A pool of money for extreme cases such as the one I described would require much less from people than one that is designed to cover all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. That is just asinine, in my opinion.

well said.

 

[Cythraul]

If we would just abolish taxation we wouldn't have to talk about this shit. Problem solved.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yeah but then we can't pay for like anything at all unless we go with your incredibly crazy scheme which you still haven't fully explained which assumes everyone cooperates which doesn't work.

 

[Cythraul]

Yeah but then we can't pay for like anything at all unless we go with your incredibly crazy scheme which you still haven't fully explained which assumes everyone cooperates which doesn't work.

First of all, where does my "scheme" involve the assumption that everyone cooperates? Second of all, why exactly is the supposition that everyone cooperates necessary for my view to work? Lastly, why exactly is it necessary that there be an aggressive institution such as a government pushing people around in order for there to be general cooperation?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

edit: I feel it's better off for everyone if I just drop this tbh.

 

[Cythraul]

fucking a

I had a very long response to your post before you edited it. But judging from the post to which I wrote a response, it's clear that you have no patience with me. You and I should probably not be discussing these sorts of things.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nah probably not. I just read a lot of the stuff here and I remain very skeptical and unconvinced. I think it's more of a Locke vs. Hobbes thing for me. Perhaps you have much greater faith in people not forming states when the "actual state" is abolished than I do.

 

[genocide roach]

oh this could be fun

Woman sues zoo over splashing dolphins

CHICAGO (Reuters) – A woman is suing a Chicago-area zoo for a 2008 fall near a dolphin exhibit, accusing zookeepers of encouraging the mammals to splash water and then failing to protect spectators from wet surfaces, local media reported on Thursday.

In her suit filed earlier this week, Allecyn Edwards said she was injured while walking near an exhibit at Brookfield Zoo, where a group of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins were performing, media said.

Officials "recklessly and willfully trained and encouraged the dolphins to throw water at the spectators in the stands, making the floor wet and slippery," but failed to post warning signs or lay down protective mats or strips, the suit said, according to the reports.

Edwards is demanding more than $50,000 for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional trauma from the Chicago Zoological Society and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, which operate the zoo in Chicago's southwest suburbs.

The suit was filed in Illinois' Circuit Court of Cook County.

~gR~

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm

1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.

In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.

David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent."

“ The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV ”
David Davis MP

He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.

"The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV."

Nationwide, the government has spent £500m on CCTV cameras.

But Det Sup Michael Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, conceded more needed to be done to make the most of the investment.

He said: "CCTV, we recognise, is a really important part of investigation and prevention of crime, so how we retrieve that from the individual CCTV pods is really quite important.

"There are some concerns, and that's why we have a number of projects on-going at the moment."

Among those projects is a pilot scheme by the Met to improve the way CCTV images are used.

A spokesman for the Met said: "We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy."

Officers from 11 boroughs have formed a new unit which collects and labels footage centrally before distributing them across the force and media.

It has led to more than 1,000 identifications out of 5,260 images processed so far.

A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer"

 

[-CC-]

First of all, where does my "scheme" involve the assumption that everyone cooperates? Second of all, why exactly is the supposition that everyone cooperates necessary for my view to work? Lastly, why exactly is it necessary that there be an aggressive institution such as a government pushing people around in order for there to be general cooperation?

meh, anarchism..been there, done that...doesn't work bro

 

[mutantllama]

oh this could be fun


~gR~

Oh wow.

 

[cookiecutter]

meh, anarchism..been there, done that...doesn't work bro

Don't start this again

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Works only under very specific conditions and necessitates full faith in the actions of sovereign individual people.

 

[Cythraul]

meh, anarchism..been there, done that...doesn't work bro

wow, you've totally changed my mind, bro.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wanna be anarchy!

 

[Dak]

Senate Bill would give the president "emergency control" of the internet

Well this is complete bullshit.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Uh...yeah.