Lootifer wrote:What if the majority want to do so and thus elects a governmental policy to do it?
If the majority wanted to do so, then why wouldn't you assume that the majority are already doing so?
Moderator: Community Team
Lootifer wrote:What if the majority want to do so and thus elects a governmental policy to do it?
Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.
Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?
Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.
Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.
When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.
Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.
Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?
Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.
Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.
When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.
Are you trolling me??????
Of course I spot the logic. It's the exact same giant government central planning logic I rejected in the first place....
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.
Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?
Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.
Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.
When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.
Are you trolling me??????
Of course I spot the logic. It's the exact same giant government central planning logic I rejected in the first place....
You seem to be trolling for an argument PS.
MeDeFe wrote:ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
MeDeFe wrote:Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then?
MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:What if by providing free condoms, you end up reducing the spread of STI and STDS as well as unwanted pregnancies. This then results in savings to the taxpayer as dealing with the resulting STIs, STDs unwanted pregnancies would likely end up costing more.
Go ahead and provide them then. It sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things.
The taxpayer should have nothing to do with it.
ITT Phatscotty supports wasting taxpayers' money.
Let me try to say it a different way, just for you. For people who think providing free condoms is a good idea, Phatscotty supports them using their own time and money to provide free condoms.
Oh, so you want to be a freeloader and moocher then? Reaping the benefits without making an investment?
Or perhaps you didn't immediately spot the logic behind the argument. Let me spell it out for you.
Premises
STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies cause costs for the nation and ultimately the taxpayers who have to make up for those costs.
Condoms reduce the rate of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
The cost of providing condoms paid for by taxpayers' money is more than offset by the savings from lower rates of STIs, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.
Conclusion
The nation can save money by handing out condoms at no charge.
When you say that "it sounds like a good idea and it would probably reduce all those things" but then go on to say that "the taxpayer should have nothing to do with it" (which I interpret to mean that the handing out of condoms should not be paid for through the state (and, therefore, taxes)) you are proposing that a state-run program that would lead to savings for the state not be implemented. Not implementing a program that leads to overall lowered costs is tantamount to wasting money.
"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds."
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
2dimes wrote:Because they didn't have a dad to spank them and their mom bought them everything they ever wanted because she felt bad for having three jobs instead of being with them.
2dimes wrote:Explaination ≠ Excuse.
whitestazn88 wrote:I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood.
2dimes wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood.
Because life isn't "fair."
whitestazn88 wrote:AoG's post reflect the continual downfall of our once great Christian society. Not only the detrimental habits, but also this ridiculous sense of entitlement. I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood. GROW UP. Maybe read a book, maybe read THE GOOD BOOK, and instead of asking for handouts all day, and spending all your time fornicating and intoxicating yourself with alcohol, marijuana and violent/pornographic images, you'll find that you have skills that can be put to use, and then the rewards you reap from your hard work will be justly earned and all the better. AKA the same thing I said about condoms and sexual intercourse can be applied to all facets of life.
Symmetry wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:AoG's post reflect the continual downfall of our once great Christian society. Not only the detrimental habits, but also this ridiculous sense of entitlement. I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood. GROW UP. Maybe read a book, maybe read THE GOOD BOOK, and instead of asking for handouts all day, and spending all your time fornicating and intoxicating yourself with alcohol, marijuana and violent/pornographic images, you'll find that you have skills that can be put to use, and then the rewards you reap from your hard work will be justly earned and all the better. AKA the same thing I said about condoms and sexual intercourse can be applied to all facets of life.
Hmm, a rather disturbing view of history. Have you read the Bible?
Symmetry wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:AoG's post reflect the continual downfall of our once great Christian society. Not only the detrimental habits, but also this ridiculous sense of entitlement. I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood. GROW UP. Maybe read a book, maybe read THE GOOD BOOK, and instead of asking for handouts all day, and spending all your time fornicating and intoxicating yourself with alcohol, marijuana and violent/pornographic images, you'll find that you have skills that can be put to use, and then the rewards you reap from your hard work will be justly earned and all the better. AKA the same thing I said about condoms and sexual intercourse can be applied to all facets of life.
Hmm, a rather disturbing view of history. Have you read the Bible?
whitestazn88 wrote:Symmetry wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:AoG's post reflect the continual downfall of our once great Christian society. Not only the detrimental habits, but also this ridiculous sense of entitlement. I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood. GROW UP. Maybe read a book, maybe read THE GOOD BOOK, and instead of asking for handouts all day, and spending all your time fornicating and intoxicating yourself with alcohol, marijuana and violent/pornographic images, you'll find that you have skills that can be put to use, and then the rewards you reap from your hard work will be justly earned and all the better. AKA the same thing I said about condoms and sexual intercourse can be applied to all facets of life.
Hmm, a rather disturbing view of history. Have you read the Bible?
That's possibly the silliest question I've ever been asked. Isn't it obvious that I read the bible? Not only that, but I live it every day by acknowledging God and Jesus in my heart.
Metsfanmax wrote:Symmetry wrote:whitestazn88 wrote:AoG's post reflect the continual downfall of our once great Christian society. Not only the detrimental habits, but also this ridiculous sense of entitlement. I don't get why kids these days think it's acceptable to just breeze through life, knowing of no hardships, and then acting like life isn't fair after they're left their golden palaces of childhood. GROW UP. Maybe read a book, maybe read THE GOOD BOOK, and instead of asking for handouts all day, and spending all your time fornicating and intoxicating yourself with alcohol, marijuana and violent/pornographic images, you'll find that you have skills that can be put to use, and then the rewards you reap from your hard work will be justly earned and all the better. AKA the same thing I said about condoms and sexual intercourse can be applied to all facets of life.
Hmm, a rather disturbing view of history. Have you read the Bible?
How does it feel to be trolled so hard?
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: GaryDenton, jonesthecurl