|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 18:41:40 GMT -5
Buncha fatties.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2011 18:42:44 GMT -5
Anyone have a truffle shuffle gif? lol
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 18:53:21 GMT -5
I have the Picard one.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 19, 2011 18:54:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 18:55:11 GMT -5
So fatty food makes you bullet proof? Can I have three double cheeseburgers, please?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 18:57:19 GMT -5
So fatty food makes you bullet proof? Can I have three double cheeseburgers, please? What is even more impressive is that they make you Picard proof.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2011 18:57:59 GMT -5
So fatty food makes you bullet proof? Can I have three double cheeseburgers, please? In America, it's mandatory to have one per hour. Otherwise, you get 5 years in jail. And you won't like the "double cheeseburgers" you get in there.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 18:59:20 GMT -5
Naturally, fast food is his one weakness. The only known antidote is Earl Grey tea.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 19:01:30 GMT -5
So fatty food makes you bullet proof? Can I have three double cheeseburgers, please? In America, it's mandatory to have one per hour. Otherwise, you get 5 years in jail. And you won't like the "double cheeseburgers" you get in there. In Soviet Russia, cheeseburger eats you!
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 19, 2011 19:47:24 GMT -5
Agreed. But I most certainly do not think it is right that the government will reach into my shirt pocket and squeeze my nipple until it turns purple just to provide for others. You want to improve a standard of living, there are options available other than taking from individuals. You could lower the cost of living. That would seem more logical anyway given the runaway cost of living as it is, at least in the states. That way, these so-called underpaid workers (not as many categories fit into this as you might think in America) would actually be able to comfortably survive. If you read all my posts again, you will see that all costs of living will be reexamined. However even with this accomplished. I will have a strongly regulated and controlled system of taxes and subsidies. Such will be based on income and general history. Poorer people will not get free passes to not pay their due to the state however, unlike in America and other countries now. I will not burden the lower and middle classes with the costs of the state. Nor will I give free passes to rich people. I will support a strong governmental funding system where everyone is to pay his part fairly. It will necessarily mean a tax increase in some places and some redistribution of government spending. But this is because it's a world government. And I am to fix all third world nations and developing countries where the work force is commonly exploited and where basic human needs are not met for everyone. I agree with this as well. But not at the expense of other individuals. This is Robin Hood on a global scale. I believe that a rich person who earned their wealth is entitled to it no matter how well beyond their basic needs they may live. But even those that did not earn it, say a lottery winner. That individual does not deserve to have their money taken back from them just because they did not work their asses off for it. I still believe if you want to improve standards of living, it starts be lowering the cost of living, not taking away from Mr. Dotcom millionaire or Dr. Decadesofeducationandhardwork. Bringing those costs down will negate the need to take from individuals as it would be viable to live on and support a family on actual minimum wage again. Costs of living is not the only problem on a global scale. On a global scale their is also the absence of infrastructure as well as exploitative business models that allow no actual long term improvement of life in third world countries. Such problems need to be addressed and will be. Millionaires will have taxes based on income and status like everyone else. However as mentioned before the State will provide reward and encouragement to corporations that encourage development and bring meaningful investment. Such money gotten from taxes and government program will serve to fund and put into place the new infrastructure where the total renovation and reorganization of the workforce will be done where necessary. Sounds good. What about countries that have little to nothing to export? Some countries currently export fossil fuels and that is just about it. Since under your government system, the need to fossil fuels would be obsolete (and I fully support that), how would these such countries become productive? Such countries and regions have a vital resource. They have citizens of the state, a ready workforce. With my keeping and reorganizing of the government such countries will be actively invited and the setting for government programs into pan-national government positions. Like the army and civic officials. Furthermore corporations who hire in such countries will and provide meaningful investment and employment will be actively rewarded and encouraged by the government. Interesting idea. One that I look at in a positive light. What would be your take on vigilantism? Vigilantism will be illegal, because they state is the repository of the law and one who is empowered to apply it. However citizens who are serious about helping their fellow citizens and doing good will be directed to either the army, law enforcement or government positions. As well I would institute massive programs of citizen support against crime. essentially vigilantism would be unnecessary and only disruptive.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 19, 2011 19:54:27 GMT -5
I agree with your stance on the death-penalty and the reasons behind it. You said before that alcohol and smoking would be regulated. I would impose severe penalties to drunken behavior and any crimes or conduct resulting from alcohol abuse. As for smoking, clear areas will be marked for smokers in public areas, supported by strong air filtration systems. Beyond this when it comes to outside, I will demand common sense and mutual respect. How exactly would this be done? And why would you allow the sale of lethal product? Because alcohol and smoking are not necessarily lethal if not abused. A person can consume these products and be healthy. Since I will support education and knowledge of the effects of these products. Citizens who would use these products will know exactly what they are getting into. As I support responsible free will. I will not prevent citizens from using them and will take no bullshit from either side of the issue. Smokers can respect none smokers and vice-versa. I have already gone on lenght on this issue in your thread. I will apply such in my world. Responsibility does not require one to take away every little thing that could potentially be bad for you. I'm not making the nancy boy future we saw in Demolition man.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 20:08:18 GMT -5
I was not really thinking Demolition Man. I was more thinking of Star Trek, where the idea that people willingly poison themselves seems insane.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 19, 2011 20:13:38 GMT -5
I was not really thinking Demolition Man. I was more thinking of Star Trek, where the idea that people willingly poison themselves seems insane. Except if you take the "something bad for you should be illegal" stance to it's logical conclusion. It leads to to the pansy robe wearing, emasculating future of demolition man. I won't have that. Regardless of if you find smoking insane or why you do. I enjoy the taste and smell of a good cigar and alcoholic beverages. I further based on experience and long observation have seen for my eyes both the destructive effects abuse of these substances can have but also that responsible use will not prevent one to have a healthy life even if they enjoy those things. Instead of simply taking away everything, I will support strong regulation, education in responsible behavior and respect along with common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 20:17:46 GMT -5
You should make coke legal too as long as people are responsible about it.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 19, 2011 20:26:25 GMT -5
You should make coke legal too as long as people are responsible about it. There is a big difference between the effects of coke and that of responsible use of alcohol. And furthermore, again the slippery slope of banning everything potentially bad for you leads to a society where just about everything can be justified to be banned, even swearing and most sports. There is a line to be drawn somewhere if we are to have common sense and personal freedom versus control in the best interest of everyone. This is where I draw mine. What is considered illegal drugs now will remain illegal and be even more actively combated. When it comes to alcohol and smoking. I've stated what I will and won't allow. From there, the world is big enough that everyone can live well as long as common sense and mutual respect are applied.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 20:40:51 GMT -5
There is not a huge difference between illegal drugs and smoking. It is just an issue with the severity and acuity of the negative effects. It is not like American Legacy Foundation gives doctors a check for every time they tell a patient smoking is detrimental to health. They do not have any money. They have facts.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 19, 2011 20:47:54 GMT -5
This will be my final post addressing this matter because last time we pushed this discussion further, it ended with personal attack. I won't go there again. And I've already stated at lenght my opinion on the matter. I would instead move to other topics I have posted... There is not a huge difference between illegal drugs and smoking. It is just an issue with the severity and acuity of the negative effects. The issue of severity and acuity is one I consider important. There is a big difference between cocaine and responsible alcohol use. The severity, acuity and type of effects are dividing factors between acceptable and legal or not. Otherwise it leads to the slope I've stated above. It is not like American Legacy Foundation gives doctors a check for every time they tell a patient smoking is detrimental to health. They do not have any money. They have facts. No, but there is a general level of ass-hatery on both sides of the smoking and alcohol issue. The south park episode made a great comment on this. We know the effects smoking and alcohol can have. We also know that if they are not abused, a person can be healthy and still consume these products. I draw my line there, that is all.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 21:03:15 GMT -5
Sorry. I meant the immediate severity. The long term severity is the same regardless; death.
I like how I was talking about smoking specifically and you tried to shift to alcohol.
A person cannot be healthy and be a smoker at the same time. It is a logic fail. You would not ever say that an alcoholic is healthy or is a prime candidate as a liver donor. Nor would you say that a regular steroid user would be a great candidate as a heart donor. Likewise a smoker's lungs would be immediately tossed in the trash if he/she were a donor.
Granted, there is a big difference between a girl who only smokes after sex once per year and someone like yourself who is a regular smoker but the same thing can be said of the coke addict and the casual user.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock Laforet on Sept 20, 2011 22:32:44 GMT -5
Man Erik you are always hatin on the same thing in every one of these lol
Personally i dont think illegalizing smoking will help the problem.As a matter of fact i think it will make it much worse.I started smoking when i was 15.Reason why i started was because it was cool to be a smoker at that age not because i liked it but because my friends did.If you were to illegalize it more people would do it just because its illegal.its like pot most people(Kids especially) only do it because it is in fact illegal.
On the fast food issue,FAT IS NOT BAD FOR YOU!As a matter of fact its just the opposite.Real fats are good for you and essential to healthy living.The stuff you want to stay away from is the trans fat.That stuff is horrible and that is what all fast food places use because it can be mass produced and is therefore cheaper.If you want to ban something then ban trans fat and while your at it ban Corn syrup.
1 more thing Crom for your education thing i think you should add basic agriculture to it.If you want to stop people from eating Fast and processed food then you should teach them how to grow their own.its like the saying goes "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 20, 2011 23:15:14 GMT -5
1 more thing Crom for your education thing i think you should add basic agriculture to it.If you want to stop people from eating Fast and processed food then you should teach them how to grow their own.its like the saying goes "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" most people will neither have the time nor the inclination to grow their own foods. And the food markets sell all the products one needs to eat healthy and do so on a good budget. Instead I will institute mandatory health classes in education. People will be taught all they need to know about proper eating, exercise, etc. Afterward, if people choose to smoke, drink and eat fast food. I will leave them the freedom to do so, and the state will only intervene if necessary, like in the case of abuses.
|
|