I tend to frame popular ideas in an unpopular way

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I tend to frame popular ideas in an unpopular way.  For example, I think we should commit a full blown Halocaust against the murderer and r@pist communities because I don’t want tax dollars going to feed them.

If that turns you off, then fine.  But the majority of America agrees.

My tax cuts matter more to me than murderer lives.  My tax cuts even matter more to me than the lives of other people’s kids.  If you think that’s hate speech, it’s just fiscally conservative speech.

Some poor people will suffer if you cut taxes and government spending.  That’s just harsh reality.  Accept that or become fiscally left.

#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Your thinking is 1 dimensional and it is grating. Calling the execution of murderers and rapists is simply crude vernacular. It's the fact that you can't/refuse to understand something as simple as: It doesn't actually cost that much money to imprison people (especially with forced labor), the government makes everything expensive because it is corrupt.

You bake your narrow minded and simplistic assumptions into inane false dichotomies

Some poor people will suffer if you cut taxes and government spending.  That’s just harsh reality.  Accept that or become fiscally left.
"Agree with me or you are part of the political tribe I assign to you"

No. You're wrong, and you don't get to pick and sort people into two (and only) two buckets even if you were right. The way you phrase things requires others to contort their minds into absurd oversimplifications just to engage with your claims. Then on top of that when (every once in a long while) you come upon a matter of simple fact you refuse to be fact checked.


Just trying to let you know that the problem (with you) is not what you are claiming it is.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It doesn't actually cost that much money to imprison people (especially with forced labor)
Sentencing them to hard labor causes them to run off and it's too dangerous.

But we spend enough money (currently) taking care of murderers and r@pists to give every public school teacher in this nation an annual $8400/year raise.  And if (from the libetarian perspective) undocumented immigrants should not get free healthcare, then neither should murderers and r@pists because murderers and r@pists are worse.  From the socialist perspective, it makes sense (even if you don't agree; tax the globalists and use the money to help the poor.  The libetarian ideology of giving free healthcare to murderers but not the undocumented is a contradiction because murderers are worse.

We need to do a Halocaust on murderers and r@pists because cutting taxes matters more than their lives.  I got the balls to say this; most libetarians don't.

No. You're wrong, and you don't get to pick and sort people into two (and only) two buckets even if you were right.
Then what particular government program do libetarians want to cut to the extent where the budget gets balenced?  Our defecit to spending ratio is about 20%; meaning you are going to have to cut government spending by 20% and this means government employees (teachers, cops, soliders) are going to be worse off.  The alternative is raising taxes (something libetarians are opposed too).

Saying, "Cut taxes/government spending" is easy. 

Saying, "Cut government spending on (CGSO) education" or CGSO police or CGSO military (a 50% reduction in military spending means half of military employees get laid off and lose their jobs) or, CGSO the national parks or CGSO social security, medicare, or medicaid is something libetarians and fiscal republicans don't have the balls to say, but is necesesary to actually cut government spending.

If people as bad as murderers get free healthcare in jail no matter the cost, then America will stay a fiscally left wing country for the forseeable future and republicans may win political power, but fiscal conservative policies that cut government spending won't get implemented because cutting government spending is unpopular; increasing government spending is popular.
#4
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think we should commit a full blown Halocaust against the murderer and r@pist communities because I don’t want tax dollars going to feed them.
Executions cost more money because of all the appeals.
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Savant
So then get rid of the appeals.  You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes.  Some innocent people would die, but the money saved is a tradeoff (and the uncomfortable truth is human life does not have infinite value; if it did, then the state can force you to adopt as many children as you can afford if it saves just one more life than foster care).  If an innocent child's life does not have infinite value, then neither does an innocent adult believed to be guilty.
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Savant
I think we should commit a full blown Halocaust against the murderer and r@pist communities because I don’t want tax dollars going to feed them.
Executions cost more money because of all the appeals.
because there is no will to kill them and no sense of economy in government.


This is like saying "government should build restrooms" then upon learning that they steal $100,000 per stall per year you say "restrooms are far too expensive, it would be cheaper to just defecate on the sidewalk and have the government clean it up"

What happens next? You guessed it, government steals $200,000/year per citizen to clean up all the shit. Guess it's back to $100,000 restrooms.

Can't imprison them, can't kill them, it's all to expensive just like housing (when government is involved), education (when government is involved), medical treatment (when government is involved), trains (when government is involved), infrastructure (when government is involved), military, social safety nets (when government is involved), retirement planning (when government is involved)....

I see a pattern. There is no reason to wring our hands about prices which are determined by a corrupt artificial market such as those created by government. I don't care about how much it costs with a 1500% overhead fee for government corruption and stupidity. Hilariously Underdog seems to understand that costs might be inaccurate for executions but not for incarceration:

So then get rid of the appeals.  You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes.

Of course I know he's either playing a stupid game or has a large dent in his skull so there is very little point trying to explain anything to him.
Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because there is no will to kill them and no sense of economy in government.
Yeah, but libertarians claim to be against massive government spending, and if you don't cut spending on murderers, then it's pointless to cut it anywhere else because murderers deserve the money the least.  People that call themselves libertarians are not about that life.

This is like saying "government should build restrooms" then upon learning that they steal $100,000 per stall per year you say "restrooms are far too expensive, it would be cheaper to just defecate on the sidewalk and have the government clean it up"
Restaurants have bathrooms.  Go there if you need to.
So then get rid of the appeals.  You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes.

Of course I know he's either playing a stupid game or has a large dent in his skull so there is very little point trying to explain anything to him.
Ad homing attacks are irrelevant.  Why can't you get rid of appeals for murder charges?  Government spending must be cut according to libertarian ideology.  Believe I'm stupid if you want; but the lives of prisoners don't matter to me (as they shouldn't for any consistent libertarian).  Like, cutting government spending is uncomfortable for even most people that call themselves libertarians when they have to name a bunch of programs they would cut to balance the budget; so don't call yourself libertarians; call yourselves green party members; they are anti foreign war; they are anti drug war. 

I'm not mad at green party people or DSA or any left group like that; I'm not against you converting over to the green party or the DSA; they want free healthcare for not just murderers, but everybody in the US, and I'm not against them believing that, but just be honest about what you believe; that's all.  You more into guns?  Then socialism would be the party for you (not an insult; I respect the socialist ideology; but just be honest with what you believe; that's all).
#8
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
There's a world of difference between changing the laws so these crimes carry the death penalty and killing everyone convicted of such in the past when a different penalty applied, and including those who've already served their sentences and are free.

You're talking about the latter, which is terrifying. Because if you give the state the power to extrajudicially target US citizens because some voting majority hates them, then the same could be done to any unpopular group. Any genocide would be legal if done under the guise of democracy. This society would be virtually indistinguishable from Hell.
#9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
 the murderer and r@pist communities
Is this a thing?
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
For the person, death penalty is often less bad than life in prison.
#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Restaurants have bathrooms.  Go there if you need to.
Case in point. 1 dimensional. Can't do analogies.

Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
For the person, death penalty is often less bad than life in prison.
Irrelevant; my concern is spending money on prisoners; not their pain (from a humanist or sadistic perspective).  The death penalty when you get rid of appeals saves the US taxpayer $25.2 billion/year (which if you are libertarian, then you like this).
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You didn't address the rest of what I said.  Typical from fake libertarians, all about cutting government spending until it's time to pick a program.  Just join the DSA or something; they are more in line with your ideology.
Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes.
Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
There's a world of difference between

1. changing the laws so these crimes carry the death penalty and

2. killing everyone convicted of such in the past when a different penalty applied, and including those who've already served their sentences and are free.
I only advocate position 1 and anyone who is currently in jail for a murder/r@pe charge.  Those who already served their sentence I would not execute; it's pointless; but I would eliminate their welfare even if that leads to their deaths.  I would also clear criminal records for all crimes where the prisoner did their time; I would free all the nonviolent drug offenders; I don't see anything wrong with smoking weed or being undocumented; but murder and r@pe should carry a death sentence.  I'm high slope.