What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Luke T.]

This reminds me of something I believe you and I both posted on an old thread back on the JREF community forum, maybe before the forums "split up." It was about listing your fears, and I said my biggest fear is outliving any of my children. Your post was along those same lines. That really stuck with me, because I could relate to what you were saying.

I think I remember that. I think I said that if one of my kids died, I would probably just sit down and stop breathing myself.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

I dont think intent should matter during sentencing only the effect on the victim.

These appear to directly contradict each other.



If you attempt to murder someone, but cause no harm, for example . . . .

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

I think SUV's are evil. I swear if gas goes up to $4.00 I will start slashing the tires of every civilian hummer I see.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

These appear to directly contradict each other.



If you attempt to murder someone, but cause no harm, for example . . . .

Try to use a little brain power.

 

[Mycroft]

I think SUV's are evil. I swear if gas goes up to $4.00 I will start slashing the tires of every civilian hummer I see.

My hummer uses no gas at all.

 

[peptoabysmal]

You've not been to Disneyland, then. They've got such mofo huge pretzels that some kids actually use them as play-gyms. But they do taste like salted styrofoam...

Have you tried the ones in New York, or the hot dogs?
OK I'm getting hungry now...

In California, stick to Chinese or Mexican food. We tend to screw up things like hot dogs and philly cheese steaks. Whatever you do, don't get Chinese food in the midwest... blech! Would you like those won tons smothered in gravy?

Vegetarian pizza!
That's something I have an extremist view of. What possible use is a vegetarian pizza? Every single time we have an office pizza party, someone has to order a couple of those so we don't offend any vegetarians and they always have one or two slices taken and the rest goes to waste.

 

[Sushi]

I will be hated by the end of this post.


1. I think no individual should obey the law on virtue of it being the law. Only for utilitarian reasons like not getting arrested. Otherwise, if it conflicts with what you feel is right, there is no reason to follow the law. I have no problem with tax dodgers, pot smokers, and underage smokers/drinkers, etc. I am a radical individualist that thinks people should not handicap their pleasures just because of other peoples' dogmas.

2. I am not particularly shocked by consensual sex of "underage" people. Obviously I find the idea of 5 year olds having sex to be disgusting, yadd yadda, and no, I am not a pedophile, but in most cases it's just teenagers ****ing each other. I think the biggest problem is the "sacredization" of sex instead of being seen as a biological function of organisms. My opinion on this is more complex, and basically I suppose I could say that I find statutory rape to be a misuse of the word rape. I am not comfortable with the more extreme cases, though, and I think those are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. I would very much like to find a way to make this more easier to decide on the extreme cases. If you are LukeT, you already hate me.

3. Most sentiments are troubling to pleasure and living a happy life. And by this I include attitudes in regard to sex, violence, death, humor, and even profanity.

4. I am unsure of how babies should be treated, legally. I think mental coherence is probably the best judge of legal protections, not simply being "human". Terri Schaivo, for instance, was alive and human but was no real person to speak of. If a dog is more aware than a newborn baby is, I think the dog should be afforded more protections than the baby.

5. The people (and perhaps animals like my family dog) that I am close to are more important to me than masses of other people. I would sooner save those I like if it meant that a million other people had to die. Numbers are not important to me. How I feel about you is.

6. The strangest of them all: I am almost regretful of being so personally principled. Life would be so much easier if I were a thieving, perverted person. Despite what you may think, I am loyal, honorable, completely sober, cannot even fathom stealing, am easily bullied or bothered because I don't fight back, and I am more chaste than your average catholic priest ('tho on second thought not saying much...you get the point)! It is strange, I see that there really is no objective good or evil and no real rational reason not to be thieving and perverted and yet I still hold onto my principles. A true testament to the fact that facts themselves do not necessarily influence our moral stances.

 

[Kodiak]

1. I am a Godless Conservative/Libertarian who is personally pro-life, but pro-choice in general. I believe the Second Amendment should have been the first. I am pro-gay marriage, pro-capital punishment, and anti-medical euthanasia. I am also in favor of legalizing marijuana and prostitution.

2. Cremation/burial should only occur after viable organs are harvested and any scientific/medical value in the body is expended.

3. Any person, upon reaching the age of 18, must either have a full time job, enroll in a college or vocational school, or join the military for no less than two years.

4. Right to vote granted only after passing test covering basic knowledge of local, state, and federal government.

 

[headscratcher4]

Here's another of mine: I think that White Collar criminals, college-educated criminals (involved in crimes other than those committed in the heat of passion -- like financial frauds, bribery, ponzi schemes, etc), and officials involved in crimes (bribed police officers, etc.) should be punished far harsher than other criminals...because they should know better...people who kill their wives in a drunken rage should be punished severely, but a police officer that takes a bribe completely undermines civil society.

In short, if you're smart enough to commit a financial crime or fraud, you're smart enough to figure out how to make a living without committing such a crime...so the book should be thrown at you...in fact, on those days when I approve of the death penalty, I tend to think that white collar crimes should head the list (just below mass murder, of course).

Let me add a topical example: anyone who is perpetraiting frauds as a result of the huricaine...identity theft, false fund raising, rebuilding scams, etc. All of those kinds of crimes should be punished as severely as possible...

There, my extremist view for this morning....

 

[Sushi]

4. Right to vote granted only after passing test covering basic knowledge of local, state, and federal government.

They something similar for blacks once.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Try to use a little brain power.

(not sure why I got the snippy reply, but ok -- I can go with that)


Alas. My feeble brain is not up to this task.



That is why I now ask you, O Mighty Intellect.


Your position:

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman

I dont think attempted murder or any crime should carry a lesser penalty than if you pulled it off.

I dont think intent should matter during sentencing only the effect on the victim.

If intent does not matter, then how can you give the same penalty for attempted murder as in a murder case? If the attempt fails and there is no harm to the victim (and remember, "only the effect on the victim" counts) then why would they get the exact same penalty?

This appears -- at least to us lesser beings who cannot use a little brain power -- to be directly contradictory. I was hoping you could show why I am wrong on that.


N/A

 

[Kodiak]

They something similar for blacks once.

If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

 

[John Bentley]

1. Mandatory life sentence without parole for anyone over 18 molesting a child 12 years old or younger. Mandatory death sentence if the child is killed.

2. American citizenship should be an earned privilege, not a birthright. Citizenship is earned through testing (too long to detail here), or valorous conduct in military service (sorry, no desk jobs, has to be on the front lines). Citizens have privileges such as land ownership, right to vote, social security, welfare, education, etc. Citizens also have responsibilities such as mandatory voting in elections, draft eligibility for armed services, mandatory public service for some period (either legislative, police, fire, etc.). Non-citizens can live here, but must have a job, and are charged an "infrastructure tax" to pay for public facilities, and accrue no benefits such as social security or welfare, and cannot own land or developed property on the land - they can rent.

3. No one receives welfare checks without mandatory attendance at some sort of trade school. No one can receive welfare without mandatory birth control. Welfare should be a graded curve, rather than all or none. If you have a job, but it pays less than welfare, then welfare makes up the difference, plus a little bit more, just to give an incentive to continue working.

 

[toddjh]

If you don't know about the 3 branches of government, how long your mayor's term in office is, or the difference between a Representative and a Senator, then I don't care what color you are, you shouldn't get to vote.

The point is that someone has to write the questions, and there's no guarantee that person won't be pushing an agenda. When you start performing any kind of intelligence or knowledge test for something as important as voting, there's too much potential for abuse.

I think a lot of people would like to see the uninformed and intentionally ignorant stop voting...but do you really want to trust strangers with that kind of power?

ETA: Here's an example. Suppose one question is:

14. From what source do residents of the United States derive their rights?

a) Constitutional fiat
b) Natural law
c) Christian heritage
d) All of the above

Would you have a good idea how to answer, without knowing who was in charge of writing the test?

Jeremy

 

[headscratcher4]

Second extreme view posting of the morning...

Do away with any immigration limitations. Anyone who wants to come to the US should be allowed to do so. Immigration limitations have, historically, been used as a tool of racism and should be abolished. All that should matter is ability to work and contribute to our society.

 

[toddjh]

Second extreme view posting of the morning...

Do away with any immigration limitations. Anyone who wants to come to the US should be allowed to do so. Immigration limitations have, historically, been used as a tool of racism and should be abolished. All that should matter is ability to work and contribute to our society.

Just so I understand, are you saying we should restrict immigraton based on "ability to work and contribute to our society," or have it completely unrestricted?

If the former, who decides which immigrants are more capable of contributing? And if the latter, in what sense does "ability to work and contribute to our society" matter?

ETA: This isn't meant as a "challenge." I'd like to see less restriction on immigration, too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your position actually is.

Jeremy

 

[headscratcher4]

Just so I understand, are you saying we should restrict immigraton based on "ability to work and contribute to our society," or have it completely unrestricted?

If the former, who decides which immigrants are more capable of contributing? And if the latter, in what sense does "ability to work and contribute to our society" matter?

ETA: This isn't meant as a "challenge." I'd like to see less restriction on immigration, too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your position actually is.

Jeremy

Sorry, my extreme view...changeable, of course, depending on the day of the week... is that there should be no restriction on immigration period. Anyone who wants to be an American should be one...open the borders and let anyone who wants to come here, come here.

I assume that the vast majority are coming here to improve thier lives and are more than willing to work for that dream. I assume that is a good thing for them and for America....

Open the doors!

P.S.: Luke didn't limit the expression to only extreme views that are logical, consistent or defensible. In taking my position, for example, I feel no need to figure out how you defend against terrorist infiltration or other logical reasons why immigration controls might be necessary. My position is purely abstract ...

 

[Dappadee]

What I view as animal cruelty sends me into an irrational rage. Can't stand hunting, blood sports, the fur trade and cosmetic tests on animals, but I eat tons of meat and agree with pharmaceutical testing.

 

[Orwell]

Howdy,
As you can see I have just joined this board. I think this will be a good thread to introduce
myself.
1.Public summary execution for those who confess to the crimes of murder-1 or child rape.
2.Corperal punishment in public schools.
3.The abolishment of affirmative action.
4.The withdraw of the United States of America from the United Nations.
5.Profiling.
6.The expulsion of all illegal immigrants from the USA.
7.The rights of American workers to earn a decent wage.
8.A flat 17% income tax / no sales tax.
9.Term limits on all politicians, and Judges.
10.All articles of The Bill of Rights, as written.

Just a few of the many things I believe in.

Cat

 

[Kodiak]

The point is that someone has to write the questions, and there's no guarantee that person won't be pushing an agenda. When you start performing any kind of intelligence or knowledge test for something as important as voting, there's too much potential for abuse.

I think a lot of people would like to see the uninformed and intentionally ignorant stop voting...but do you really want to trust strangers with that kind of power?

ETA: Here's an example. Suppose one question is:



Would you have a good idea how to answer, without knowing who was in charge of writing the test?

Jeremy

What 'strangers'?

We trust our elected legislators to write laws. Let a bipartisan Congressional committee create the test.

And your example is more an opinion poll than a test of basic government knowledge.

My questions would be more like these:

1. How is the Constitution changed or revised?

a. By an Executive Order.

b. By amendment as detailed in the Constitution.

c. By simple majority in a national referendum.

d. The Constitution cannot be changed or revised.



2. Each State is limited to how many Senators?

a. 1

b. 2

c. 3

d. It depends on each State's population.