next »

[Capntastic]

Oh god...
Well, all I am saying that given the options to get raped and to lose the job, I think women should pick losing the job.

And the safest way for a woman to prevent being assulted when there are bad signs is to quit the job. What else do you suggest her to do?

First:  You didn't cite your claim for 'most' people being totally fine with dropping their source of income at the drop of a pant.  Do that, or stop saying things like that.  Also, harassment can happen to both men and female so I'll use neutral pronouns.  Not gonna try to nail you on saying "women" explicitly, but you should be aware!

Second, wrt first line:  There shouldn't have to be a choice.  A person entering employment shouldn't have to make the choice of "lose your job or let me drink pudding out of your hair while masturbating.".  It's coercion, pure and simple.  Working for someone does not give them the right to force you into those situations.  

Third:  I'm not saying a person who is under threat of molestation or rape shouldn't try to extricate themself from the situation.  Leaving a parking lot because your boss is lurking there in a fursuit with a hole cut out around the dick is a good idea.  No one's disputing you should flee and call the police.  But to be in a situation where you're dreading going to work because your boss does that is unacceptable.  Yes, you probably don't want to work there.  Luckily, in most situations, your boss is going to be a middle manager or similar who can be fired and replaced for being A TOTALLY SHITTY PERSON.  They should be forced to leave, not you.

Again, why should it be different if Ron Paul is exposing himself to his female aides or random children on the street?  Why should him being your employer mean that it's not entirely his fault, and that if you disagree with him showing you his notoriously clean ass, it's your own fault for sticking around?  Especially when, as has been stated, people need jobs to live, doubly so under a libertarian system.

[Superb Joe]

is this pompii guy for real

[Superb Joe]

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?
The problem with liberals is that they are trying to "save everybody". You can't have 0% crime rate, you can't have 0% poverty. There are always going to be poor people. The question is, are going to run the country as if you can make everyone wealth and eradicate crime? Or are you going to run the country by looking at numbers and statistics and saying things like "Hmm, I am going to put resources to prevent rape, on account of murder. That will get an improvement of 0.5% less violent crimes. I am going to put resources into A, which will make more people poor and more people starve to death, but it will improve the economy in the long run".
I think liberals are not aware that bottom line, those are the kind of decisions people in the office face.
They deal with peoples lives ON AVERAGE, if you try to "save everyone" it's impossible.
I know it sound cold, and I want to have 0% crime and 0% poverty, but it's impossible and the next best thing you can do is to approximate and optimize.

seriously. read these words everybody.

[Capntastic]

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?

You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?  A totally 100% socialist country with literally no idea of 'personal wealth' can still produce goods and export them to the rest of the world.  And why is competing on the global market important?  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China who has both literally a billion more people and a notoriously hideous track record for pollution, human rights, worker suicide, etc.  Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs?

[PompiPompi]

lol, because people like to work hard if they get some sort of compensation. "No personal wealth" means they don't get a compensation.
What reason do I have to work hard if I am going to get the same either way?
That's for socialist.
But liberals believe they can save everybody, they even believe they can save you from yourself.

[John Sandoval]

wat

[PompiPompi]

wat

Well, liberals are too afraid you will harm yourself in numerous ways. Don't you remember with clinton, and then they did an Apple\big brother movie of her?

[John Sandoval]

that was a commercial

[Nix]

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.

[PompiPompi]

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?

You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?  A totally 100% socialist country with literally no idea of 'personal wealth' can still produce goods and export them to the rest of the world.  And why is competing on the global market important?  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China who has both literally a billion more people and a notoriously hideous track record for pollution, human rights, worker suicide, etc.  Why turn yourself into a monster just to compete with them in them?

Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs?

I didn't say people don't need a job, I said you can quit your job and not starve. Because, err, you might find another job? If you quit your job it's not like you can never work again.

[PompiPompi]

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

[Nix]

It's not about fucking compensation. There are plenty of lazy poor people, but there are many more people who work their fucking asses off from dawn to dusk but still have to rely on food stamps and struggle to pay the bills. Is that right? No it isn't. Liberals don't want to make everyone wealthy. Not everyone wants to be wealthy. In fact, most people just want enough money to live comfortably. Liberals want poor people who work their asses off to have at least a minimal standard of living above the poverty line.

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

That is what minimum wage should be for. Right now a person working two jobs full-time at minimum wage will barely have enough to get by (it will be a constant struggle with bill juggling, no money to save in case of emergency, often no health insurance) with everything welfare has to offer. That's the fucking problem.

[Capntastic]

I didn't say people don't need a job, I said you can quit your job and not starve. Because, err, you might find another job? If you quit your job it's not like you can never work again.

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead.

I'm not disputing what you said, but I'm disputing that it is simply not true.  You can't simply 'say things', making truth claims, and hope reality decides to back you up.  Especially when the a huge amount of people live hand to mouth.  Even if 99.9% of people could afford to quit their job whenever, that does not make it ethically correct.  So again, not only is your claim unfounded, it has nothing to do with the moral nature of the situation.

Now you're simply claiming 'liberals' (a broad enough term as to mean anyone you don't agree with) want to help everyone, and that's bad, or something.  Whatev'.  Since you keep cycling to different arguments (instead of providing evidence to support your previous claims, addressing how thoroughly everything you've brought up has been disproved, or admitting that you don't know what you're talking about and continuing to make broadly incorrect statements, I'm left with simply accepting your implicit concession on all of those points.  

To that end, you've yet to make any claims that haven't been proven false, and are simply continuing to do more of the same in an effort to merely say "they're bad we're good".

[Gizmonicgamer]

Isn't that what minimum wage is for? It's quite different from the utopia Capntastic was talknig about.

Have you ever questioned that, if this is still happening, even with a minimum wage, that maybe the current minimum wage - for a multitude of reasons - isn't enough?

I would seriously consider putting a little more thought into your statements, Pompii; especially your laughable tirades against "liberals", which is, presuming of course that you are libertarian (which seems to be the case thus far?), is a decidedly un-libertarian thing to do. And by that I mean putting people into groups and just making blanket statements.

[googoogjoob]

I would seriously consider putting a little more thought into your statements, Pompii; especially your laughable tirades against "liberals", which is, presuming of course that you are libertarian (which seems to be the case thus far?), is a decidedly un-libertarian thing to do. And by that I mean putting people into groups and just making blanket statements.

american libertarians are just republicans who like to smoke pot

also
7:03 PM - googoogjoob: why isn't there a flash cartoon series starring ron paul as mr magoo
7:04 PM - googoogjoob: who keeps stumbling into saying horrible racist things
7:05 PM - [BIG] John Ѯzzingford: haha
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: like he wants his restaurant painted but he isn't confident the painters will remember the color
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: so he puts a huge sign up saying WHITE ONLY
7:05 PM - googoogjoob: then makes a wacky pratfall into a ghetto
7:06 PM - [BIG] John Ѯzzingford: perfect