Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Government for the people. How?


  • Please log in to reply
594 replies to this topic

#21 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 09 July 2010 - 03:45 AM

money isn't happiness
  • 0

#22 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 July 2010 - 03:57 AM

I think someone should make money based off of how advanced their degree is (unless they invent something cool or something). The government should give infinite student loans (and expect them to be paid back someday, with the "forgiveness" thing Obama created if the person is legitimately unable to come up with the funds). Astrophysicists and chemical engineers should make more than teachers. Teachers should make more than basketball players. But a large part of it depends on how much demand there is for the job. Idk, I don't really think setting up wage limitations is important. Just go to school and get a good job. *shrug* The problem with determining how much someone is going to get paid means that the business in which they work is going to be government run, and I think that's way too much control in the hands of the government. If I'm a wealthy patron of the arts really into fingerpainting, and I pay toddlers $10,000 per painting because I think it's the coolest thing ever, I should be allowed to do that because it's *my* money. It seems to me privatized small businesses tend to offer their workers better wages and benefits anyway. There's no way we can tell people where to put their money.
  • 0

#23 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:06 AM

Izzy: True, but again, I think that more government control is a good thing (Not where they put their money, of course, but the business).

And yes, degrees should matter a little bit.

Now on to another issue: I don't know if someone has written about it yet but: Abortion, yes or no????
  • 0

#24 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:31 AM

Yes. Unwanted children put a strain on families and orphanages because people are not prepared to provide for them. Also, when the fetus is inside the woman, the relationship is entirely parasitic, so the survival of the "parasite" should require the woman's continuous consent. If the woman wishes to terminate the fetus at any given time, that's her right, because she shouldn't be required to sacrifice her body, and if denied this right, her bodily integrity is violated. It's not a human that's being killed, it's a potential human. ..It's a bundle of cells, like those on your finger or hair. ..It's.. meh. If you don't want one, by all means don't have one and raise your kid, and while I'd *never* personally get one, I still think they should be legal. I mean, abortions are happening all the time. I doubt any of us have been personally affected.

Also, marriage equality. Yay Massachusetts. :D

  • 0

#25 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2010 - 12:49 PM

I agree with you completely on the marriage equality thing.

On abortion...

To me, I think it should only be legal in the case of possible harm (like death) to the mother or after rape, or before a certain point in the pregnancy, because think about it: if you see a picture of it in the ninth or even eighth month, it looks like a baby. Now, I'm not one of those religious nuts that say it's evil and if you think otherwise you're going to hell, but there's a certain point that I don't think it's right. Because think about: it's not the fetus's fault that you were stupid enough to get pregnant when you didn't want to in the first place. Why should it be punished?
  • 0

#26 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:53 PM

Okay. How about first trimester only?
  • 0

#27 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 09 July 2010 - 05:34 PM

how about no abortions at all? Because if you kill it in the first trimester, it could have easily looked like a baby 5 months later. That's a terrible excuse. Izzy just because religious people think abortion is bad for another reason doesn't mean you have to think it's good. It's like murder - they think it's bad because they'll go to hell. You think it's bad because it's wrong in your moral sense. To me, it's the same with abortion. It's an act of extreme selfishness to kill your own child, even if you don't think you're ready for it- there are other people that are ready for one and can't find it. The excuse of "there are unwanted children in the world so we should do abortions" is just cruel. Would you rather be alive and unwanted, or dead? And the argument "women will just get them anyway, they'll go to more dangerous back-alley abortions" is a valid one but I think that will actually deter women from doing that unless they really are desperate enough to do that.

How about a compromise and having like a first-week-only "post facto birth control" option? But it has to come with counseling and other support. And we'll boost support for orphanages, adoption agencies, women who have to give birth, etc.
  • 0

#28 Framm 18

Framm 18

    Mafianiac (Silent Hunter)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1350 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2010 - 09:46 PM

I know that y'all are past this point, but I wanted to reply back

I also believe that people should make money based on how much they work, and that the rich should be taxed more than the middle class or poor. (I'm part socialist =)


I would still like to know why you think that the rich should be taxed more. If I am not mistaken the taxes here are based off a percentage of what you make, so even if they are making more money, they also pay more taxes. Here in the US anyways.

Framm, with the work deal, I think that's a good idea, but don't start it at 16. High school doesn't even end until you're 18, and most people tend to go to uni afterwards. If you have no intentions of going back to school, then you should get a job, but if you're family-less and getting a PhD, you shouldn't be forced to work through it. I think once you've gotten a degree you're satisfied with, you should have at least 2 years to chill, and then get a job, or attempt. ..But, what do we do with people that thought? It doesn't seem right to throw them in jail.
[/color]


I just threw numbers out there, if someone wants to get a job out there at 16 then let them. College is the same way, if they want a job, they cn have it. I am not so sure on the 2 year relaxing though, it would be kind of hard to feed yourself let alone pay for rent and stuff if they don't have a job.
They don't go to jail, just the government will not grant them any kind of welfare. They would have to give documentation that they applied for the job and give numbers for the jobs that they were given interviews for, they would only be checked after a certain time period to make sure that they are not just job hunting to stay on welfare.

Oh and I am for a mandatory 3 year Military stint, then you could stay in or remove yourself from the military. That way everyone has some military experience just in case.

This seems like a wishlist of how society should run (I may be wrong, but that is just how it seems). I am not getting into the whole abortion thing again, there is a whole thread devoted to it.
  • 0

Spoiler for Haikus


#29 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 July 2010 - 01:47 AM

Unreality: What if having the child would kill the mother? And what in the case of rape? These are times when it's OK to me. Your birth control thing is a good idea though.

Framm: I live in the US, and I remember Bush's tax cuts for the rich. NOT cool. I just don't want something like that, and I want the percentage to increase the higher you go. For ex., 25% for rich, 8% or lower for middle, nearly nil, maybe 1%, for poor. And military shouldn't be mandatory. If war is made illegal, there wouldn't be a need for a military anyway =). I still think my idea with the illegal immigrants would work; until they're legal, they have to serve. It should scare them away. I agree with you about the welfare thing; only help those who attempt to, or do, help themselves.
  • 0

#30 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 July 2010 - 02:05 AM

Woooooah. No mandatory military! Entirely optional, if it all discourage. Also, militaries should NOT be permitted to come to high schools to try to recruit students. It makes me sick to my stomach every time I see them on my campus. One of my friends registered, and I'm so scared.. =/ I don't want to live in a country that will force me to die for it. :( I'm mostly pacifist anyway, and I strongly believe EVERY situation has a diplomatic solution. :(

Unreality, but what about if the woman just *didn't* know? By your own argument, the first week is no different from the first trimester. An abortion is a serious decision, and the woman will need time to think it out. The point is it ISN'T a human, it ISN'T alive, and it DOES NOT have rights. Most pregnancy tests don't even work until a week or two after conception. By the same standards, you might as well make male masturbation illegal and female menstruation, because every time either happens a potential life is killed. There's no difference when the sperm and the egg meet, it's the same potential, but it isn't a person.

By all means, don't criminalize the morning after pill or anything, but abortions are.. I guess "good" ways of rectifying stupid mistakes. Idk.. Women will STILL get them, or women will give birth to their baby and kill it. *shrug* I think that's a lot worse.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users