User Profile: 1FreeVoice

1FreeVoice

Member Since: December 28, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 23, 2014 at 6:15am

    1. Their religion allows them to lie to unbelievers. I forget the legal term for it under Sharia.

    2. After letting them in giving them and their children citizenship how would you constitutionally revoke it?

    3. What about people who are -or claim to be- (secret) converts to other religions, or gay? If true then deportation would be a death sentence… like sending Jews to Germany during WWII.

    I am not saying that you are completely wrong. There are both practical and political problems with your proposal, and moral/ethical issues as well. keep thinking about it, you may get some other ideas.

  • October 23, 2014 at 6:03am

    tic..tic…tic..

  • October 23, 2014 at 6:00am

    MauserVonn
    What “deeply held religious observance”? It was an Islamic face veil, and NOT part of her religion. One of the books I read was written by a Muslim woman who did not wear the veil. In her country it had been out of fashion for a long time and hardly anyone wore it. She once thought the custom would become extinct as lingering adherents died off. She was surprised to see it make such a comeback, and in western countries too!

    Islam requires women and men to dress modestly. What counts as modest was not specified, but I don’t think Lady Ga Ga would make the cut and the Chipendale’s dancers are out too.

  • October 23, 2014 at 5:42am

    Actually assimilation is necessary in order to maintain social norms. Norms are necessary in order to safely predict the likely actions/reactions of others and avoid unnecessary conflict. In the same way that the traffic rules reduce accidents social norms reduce friction and misunderstanding.

    Think of the different ways that people can react to a minor traffic accident from politely exchanging insurance information, to screaming at each other or pulling out guns. Think of the different ways someone could react to someone spitting on a sidewalk, like ignoring it or thinking that they had been disrespected and… What one culture finds polite, rude, or a mortal insult may be seen differently elsewhere.

    Without social norms we could hardly have a society. We would not know what others considered polite or offensive. We would not know how to navigate through lives filled with other people without conflict. Norms can change, but that is a process.

    Clothing is generally considered a way to express individuality. There are standards, but the standards are broad unless it is a formal occasion ( Court, wedding, church… ).

    Speaking broadly, syncretism is an important part of invention and advancement. Adopting elements from other cultures that we have reason to value is not merely nice, but essential.

    That said, the action taken at the theater was perfectly correct.

  • October 23, 2014 at 5:17am

    Publicly beating them and throwing them into the street would have been “vigilante justice”. Using the same words to describe someone being politely reminded of the law and offered a choice obey the law or leave takes the sting out of the term and makes it tame.

  • October 23, 2014 at 5:10am

    The veil is not a religious symbol, it is a political one.

    Years ago the veil in middle eastern countries was worn by poor country people, and some older ones. Modern Muslim women did not wear the veil. It was a relic of the past, out of fashion and about to fall into history. Then, things changed.

    The veil has a lot of meaning. I don’t pretend to understand all that is implied but it is more than just “religious” in the way a Christian cross would be. There is no such thing as separation of church and State as we understand it in Islam. The State is the enforcer of/for the Mosque; they are part of one another.

    Islam is totalitarian in nature. The thought police are here, and armed. They can insult Christians all day, but a cartoon of the prophet can get your business burned to the ground. Thinking the wrong thing is in fact a death sentence if the wrong person finds out- believing Atheists or Christians are correct is leaving their religion and is punished by death.

  • [3] October 23, 2014 at 4:40am

    Moi
    I don’t fault your intentions, just your information. I didn’t grow up in farm country, but I know someone who did. Organic bread has a higher protein content because of all the ground up bugs in it. “Organic” doesn’t exactly mean they can’t use chemicals on the crop, it just limits the types of things they can use – and some of the substitutes are fairly nasty. There are other things to consider as well.

    Without modern farming methods we would not be able to grow enough food to feed the population of the planet. If you want everyone to go back to old farming methods, we would have to cut the world population as well by starvation, war, some sort of “ethnic cleansing” to systematically de-select types of people we don’t like… or some other method. I’m not a fan.

    I know you don’t advocate anything like that, and I think you have some points. The food supply should not be centrally controlled by a few seed banks or corporations. We need some heirloom varieties and a biologically diverse selection of seed stock. We should not close the door on the past and burn our bridges… if something unexpected happens we may need them.

    “Messing with the food supply” is not “just to increase profit”. Profit is the result of helping other people achieve their goals faster, cheaper, or better than your competition. Profit is the measure of how helpful you have been to others- either a little helpful to many or very helpful to some.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 22, 2014 at 7:57pm

    Some of these people should be exiled to someplace where they could live under their preferred form of government.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 7:56pm

    They don’t know what money is,and don’t want you to teach them. It might break some of their illusions, poor dears.

    The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises available on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Theory%20of%20Money%20and%20Credit%20by%20Ludwig%20von%20Mises%20

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 7:53pm

    Believe it or not I was once ticked off that I wasn’t allowed to work off the clock a bit. The business was afraid of getting in serious legal trouble. I own myself and my labor. If I want to donate some free labor to a charity, exchange some with a neighbor, or make a small gift of time and effort to a boss I like It’s MY business.

  • [19] October 22, 2014 at 7:50pm

    Was it Reagan who said that at a certain point in the year he stopped taking on projects because they would put him in a higher tax bracket? Better to do less work and keep more of your money than to work more and get to keep less. Less work getting done does not raise the GDP.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 7:47pm

    RJJinGadsden
    Big established businesses can always work with government somehow. Preventing nimble little startups from undercutting them or making them obsolete may be part of the point.

  • [15] October 22, 2014 at 7:42pm

    1 Other countries have done things like what they propose.
    How did it work out for them?
    2 Why do so many people want to copy ideas that have failed elsewhere?
    They claim America is not exceptional, so why do they think they are exceptional enough to make it work here?
    —–
    Think of someone who is starting a business, working night and day on computer code. He is being paid zero, as he does not yet have a product to market. Tax time, no problem. Later he makes it big, and has a ton of money. All of his earnings are credited to the newer tax period, though much of the work was done earlier. Why not credit his younger self with part of the earnings? Divided between his current and younger self the earnings could be taxed at a lower rate for both.

    Silly, right? A lot of things are silly. A flat tax would avoid the need for such tortured rationalizations. Everyone would have true equality under the law.

    Equality of outcomes should presume an equality of inputs. The universe is not uniform. Some countries have more navigable rivers and some people are natural athletes. If we have the exact same resources and information etc., what do we have to exchange? Inequality gives us the potential to use mutual inequalities to mutual advantage.

    Talking about how they wish the world works is not the same as understanding how the world really works. Ignorance is not cool; it can be deliberately cultivated stupidity. I’m no expert, but learning.

  • [3] October 22, 2014 at 5:34pm

    Style is a question of taste, there is no right or wrong… unless you are trying for a certain look and totally miss the mark. It doesn’t look that bad to me; I just wouldn’t try to do that to my hair.

    My daughter wants colored streaks (blue or pink) in her beautiful blond hair. Not my idea of beautiful, but no permanent damage. It grows out eventually. I try to save my energy for the important things.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 22, 2014 at 3:27pm

    There is a certain amount of posturing going on because of insecurity. People want to be prepared for disaster, including govt. sponsored varieties.

    Many people here have insecurity. Some, but not all, have thought things through to uncomfortable conclusions. Have they prepared enough? Are there things their preparations won’t help with?

    If the govt. comes for your guns you will be sheep. What is the alternative, really? Resist and be shot in front of your kids? Then they don’t have you and are at the mercy of whoever is in charge. Not to mention that they could be injured/killed by accident in the firefight.

    Some things you don’t plan to win, but hope to survive. We want to win, whether we survive or not…. but win what, and at what cost? What battles can be sacrificed to win the war? No one has a good answer.

    Fight/flight response leaves out “intimidate”. It is part of the male instinct set that can have the benefits of winning a fight without the risk of damage from actually fighting. Some people may be falling back on such instincts for lack of a better idea.

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 7:16pm

    Voluntary associations should not be outlawed.

  • [21] October 21, 2014 at 5:50pm

    If I like your insurance, you can keep it.
    If I like this gun, I can keep it – you can’t.

    PC =
    think whatever you want-
    just not in public where your un-approved thoughts may infect others.

    Believe in any God or moral rules you like-
    just don’t act on what you believe in your life,
    where your life touches the lives of others.
    …. unless you happen to share OUR beliefs, or those we want you to have that we don’t live by.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 5:24pm

    Everyone needs the right to choose.

    People who choose to put up something offensive are advertising their %^&** to their neighbors. In some cases it could serve as fair warning that some harmless looking ___ has less harmless ideas in his head.

    There are ways to express displeasure and enforce social norms other than legal restrictions and lawsuits. Social norm…. social. Think about human connections, not human controls.

    We are a society, not a hive mind. Each of us is a person, not one of the pod people. HOA’s are an evil to be fought door to door and voted out of existence.

    If you want to join a cult and be told what color shirt to wear and how to paint your house, no one can stop you. If you are in a cult (HOA) talk with your neighbors. If you are all that desperate for public approval, try group therapy.
    That wasn’t entirely sarcasm, it might benefit you. Be careful who you deal with though or someone might take advantage.

  • October 21, 2014 at 5:02pm

    Regulations that assume the right to tell others what they may/may not do with/on their own property are a form of eminent domain, because ownership of something is control of it. Assuming control is assuming ownership.

    If the State or another organization thinks they have a “better” way someone else’s property can be used, then they should pay for the privilege rather than assuming the benefits of the decision and pushing the costs (in the fullest sense) onto others.

    The HOA could pay a fee equal to a % of the property value, the more restrictions they want to enforce the greater the fee they must pay. The fee could give them the right to enforce their rules for 5-10 years, and then they can re-evaluate whether or not they want to amend their policies or pay again. If they want to control everything, they can buy the property and lease the homes to residents.

    The homeowner willingly moved into the HOA, and so may not have the ability to decline the offer any more than he could contest eminent domain, but he can make them pay. Correction: Should be able to, not can. I don’t think the law has fully caught up on this yet.

  • [28] October 21, 2014 at 2:06pm

    foobared
    I don’t mind them having benefits.

    I do mind having them lumped in with traditional marriage in the census and other pools of data. Combining apples and oranges disrupts the data set and the information that could be learned from it.

    I do mind forcing others to violate their beliefs- even beliefs I tend to disagree with.

    PC thought police:
    A. Think what you like but ton’t infect others by saying it in public.
    B. Think/believe what you like, but don’t act on what you think is true without our permission.

    SimpleTruths
    Who is trying to eliminate traditional marriage?
    If you re-define something like marriage to include what was not previously part of the definition, you are making marriage something it was not. Gay or not every married person or one who hopes to marry must accept a definition of what marriage is. This is an attempt by a minority to change what marriage is… for everyone.

123 To page: Go