"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:44:27 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:08:51 -0000, Ranger wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:07:30 -0000, Ranger wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0000, Ranger wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/12/15 11:08, Ranger wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2015 19:33, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:39:53 -0000, The Todal
wrote:
On 10/12/2015 16:51, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
I see floods all over the news. Why should sensible people
like
me who
didn't buy a house in a flood plain have to foot the bill
for
those
that
did? The government is paying millions to "victims" of
flood.
Don't worry, you won't be asked to foot the bill. Now you
don't
need to
worry about spending all that money on Christmas presents.
All taxpayers foot the bill, even though they don't get
flooded.
Ah, understood. Why should I help foot the bill for extra
police
security in our cities when I was firmly opposed to the Iraq
war
and
to
the proposal to bomb Syria?
Why should I foot the bill for primary education when I don't
have
children?
Because it's quite a bit cheaper to do that than to pay the much
higher cost of dealing with the dregs of country that dont
bother
to send their kids to school when it isnt free and compulsory.
Well there you go. That's essentially the same answer to the
question
"Why
should I help foot the bill for extra police security in our
cities
when
I
was firmly opposed to the Iraq war and to the proposal to bomb
Syria"
No that is a quite different question.
Because its cheaper than dealing with syria and the like by
recolonising
them and teaching them how to play nice?
That isn't even possible let alone morally acceptable.
Morality costs money.
Not necessarily.
Usually does.
I dont buy that.
For example keeping people alive who are hardened criminals instead of
the
death penalty.
That's not morality.
There's plenty examples if you think about it. All the stuff people do
because omitting it might upset someone.
That isn't really morality, more being polite.
There are plenty more serious examples where we have laws to stop you
doing things to upset folk.
Sure, but that isn't morality either.
Like having to have disabled ramps and parking spaces when none of your
employees are disabled.
But its impossible to ensure that none of the customers
or visitors ever are, and it makes it harder for the disabled
to get employed there when the place has to consider the
substantial cost of the changes needed for them to get in.
Not bombing Syria or invading Iraq actually saves a lot of money.
Pussy footing about wastes money.
Ignoring countrys that can't manage even the most
basic rule of law doesnt waste any money at all.
If we ignore them, they could take over.
Assad can't even manage to rule the roost in his own pathetic
excuse for a country, let alone take over anyone else.
Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and it made sense
to **** him over when he tried to do that. But it made
no sense what so ever to invade Iraq post 9/11 when
he was completely irrelevant to 9/11, at vast expense,
and produced ISIS is the process.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.
If we kill them, we can use their land for us civilised folk.
Have fun listing even a single place where the west
still uses the land they got after killing some of them.
Britain got kicked out of all of them, even Ireland.
Destroying the whole country would stop the nonsense.
Not even possible. Even Genghis Khan never managed that.
We have much more money and weapons.
And have never managed anything like that anywhere.
We need to stop it.
Not even possible.
Why is it not possible to stop morality?
Because some will always want to behave morally.
Some isn't a reason.
That is the reason its not possible to stop morality.
If it's a minority, we can ignore them.
They will still behave morally.
Like those who think everyone should go to church.
That's not morality.
All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.
That wouldnt stop moral behaviour.
It would stop it being a legal requirement.
Still wouldnt stop moral behaviour.
Plenty chose to not get divorced even when that was legal.
But we can now ignore the weird ones, and most of us can get on with a
divorce without a problem.
And plenty more aren't actually stupid enough
to bother with marriage in the first place.