Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:08:12 -0000, The Brain the
wrote:
Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:16:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:


"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 don't 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 don't 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.

Don't interrupt.

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.

There are not that many disabled folk about, it's stupid to have
every place of employment equipped for them.
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 doesn't 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.

Best not to take chances. Kill them all.

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.

If we'd killed every last one, there would be no ISIS. That's the
problem with morality, all this "don't kill civilians" ****. They're the
enemy, kill all of them.
The most completely stupid thing the west did apart from Vietnam.

I agree on Vietnam, what danger did they pose?

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.

Because we didn't do it properly.

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.

Because of morality.

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.

But not force the rest of us to.

Like those who think everyone should go to church.

That's not morality.

It is in their minds.

All we need is a decent government that ignores the dogooders.

That wouldn't stop moral behaviour.

It would stop it being a legal requirement.

Still wouldn't 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.

Sensible people just get a certificate at a registry office. Same
idea, just no religious bull****.


1) A person needs to find a person to marry.

Yes.

2) You can't because no woman will entertain a poverty unemployable
smelly ****** such as you are.

Or I haven't found anyone worthy.

PMSL.
41 year old unemployed failure.
41 years of age and without a female companion.
Think about that.
What a ******.
Please reply and keep your **** take active.
It's cold outside and we need to be entertained by the Usenet clown.