- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 480
- Reaction score
- 1,470
- First Language
- Indonesia
- Primarily Uses
- RMMV
I will end the world's hunger by banning starvation.
@Tai_MT
Sorry bro but many of your statements in this thread are really dumb, you live in a fictional world apparently.
I never read so much nonsense all at once. If you're serious about all the things you state, I'm glad you don't have any sort of influence or political power because dayum, you are beyond scary.
I would make a law to ban all criminal behaviour.
So no one is able to commit any crime.
View attachment 169481
I wonder why no one thought of that yet.
Also, the amount of Hot takes in this thread are already astonishingly high.
The part that really got me was the "Yeah okay lets kill off some innocent people for the greater good."
Most of the suggestions made here are really egotistical in the sense that they would only mainly serve the people that proposed them and people in similar living conditions. And also with the mindset, that the "punishments of breaking said law" would never apply to themselves.
The problem with lawmaking is that someone always gets screwed in the long run. That is because it is very difficult to cover each and every single situation that could arise from any given law. That's of course why he have courts. But since these are led by humans, they are prone to human error.
For example; what if YOU happened to be one of the innocent people, that would get EXECUTED ON THE SPOT on false claims? I am sure that law does not sound so great anymore huh?
Another example, concerning the parenting law; Just because you raised your kid perfectly well does not mean they will never commit any crimes. The world is unpredictable, as is the human mind.
Every human has a "mental rock bottom". If your "perfect kid" reaches that point for whatever reason, they are more than capable of commiting crime in the heat of the moment. And then you'll be made responsible for another humans outburst.
Most of the suggestions made here are really egotistical in the sense that they would only mainly serve the people that proposed them and people in similar living conditions.
I can agree with the notion that the root problem is that people get convicted falsely despite being innocent. But humans are prone to making mistakes, that's why bad things will never stop happening.
It seems that you misunderstood my parenting example. I am talking about children under 18 years old that experience a traumatic situation (like being heavily bullied in school) and then in a fit of emotion decide to do something horrible. Even though that kid is otherwise raised as an angel, things like that can still happen.
Other than that, I despise laws that "tell" you how to live your life. Obviously there need to be rules, but I don't want them barging in my home to tell me "you only spent 3 hours with your kid today, even though the law is 4 hours minimum".
.......is nobody going to mind the fact that this thread was started by a random bot pulling phrases from a database?
Mod Reminder: Political discussions are not allowed and we will be monitoring this thread closely to make sure it doesn't go there. It's close.
Actually, looking at post history, we don't believe this is a bot, but will be keeping an eye on the account.
I didn't, initially.
but look how the posting changes from their three or four latest post, to the last one.
that's why I say it's probably a hijacked account.... there's a change in structure, from sound to straight up nonsensical.
Overall, I think it's quite difficult to come with many if any good suggestions since countries work differently. Economy, geography etc. can complicate things a whole lot, and some laws might not be viable everywhere (e.g. laws that strongly favour the use of electric cars wouldn't be a good idea in a country where charging stations are scarce outside cities).
There are, in fact, quite a few.there are zero legal benefits to being married.
This in, in fact...um...false. Despite what you think, next of kin cannot be designated with a will. Next of kin is important, just ask all the gay people who couldn't visit their dying lifelong partners in the hospital cause their homophobic relatives refused to allow them to visit. I mean, aside from next of kin, being married lets you sue in case of wrongful death of a spouse. Without marriage you'd have no legal path to recourse.The only legal benefits to being married are... um... taxes
They really don't, and believe it or not, marriage rates haven't meaningfully declined, people just get married later.All other benefits of being married only apply to women. Why do you think a lot of men are refusing to get married any more?
You know what's crazy? Just how many parents of school shooters or other child criminals who are textbook definition good parents and have no idea their kid is up to no good cause they don't, in fact, massively violate their kid's privacy. Your kid could tell you they're going to the library to study, and actually go do bad stuff or whatever. How're you supposed to know, except by violating their privacy? Your insistence on destroying parental-child privacy is just gonna breed a generation of abusive parents.Parents are meant to be raising their children to be responsible adults. If they did their job, they don't have to destroy their privacy.
Cool. I guarantee your parents could do the same for 10 different kids, and not get the same results every time. It's almost like there's more going on in a kid's development that just their parents.My parents gave me an extreme amount of leeway in my life and a lot of privacy. But, I never got in trouble with the law.
Parents of heavily bullied kids wish it would work this way lol. Go watch like Mean Girls or something man, most kids don't tell their parents they're being bullied.If parents are involved in the lives of their children and their children trust them, then the parents will know when this bullying is taking place.
Again, they really won't. It's almost as if kids can lie or something like that. Crazy, I know.They will know when their children are reaching breaking points as well and are then in a perfect position to actually intervene and prevent the horrible event.
Then why has no municipality, city, state, or country in the world ever implemented a system remotely like it?It's a very good idea
They don't cause, in fact, that's not how appeals work.Also, a lot of death row inmates file endless appeals in order to keep themselves from being executed.
Damn bro lemme pre-emptively appeal my appeal so when my execution date is stayed it's automatically shunted off to the next level of court. Oh wait, why would I appeal that? And again, you just fundamentally misunderstand how our courts work. An appellate or supreme court could void the original sentence and order a retrial, which can take just as long as the first trial did and resets the entire appeals sytsem. Under your system, does that reset the year? And for a crime you've been sentenced to death to under state law, you can, in fact, appeal your way through the entire state court system, and then appeal to the federal courts at a point if you feel federal law mandates you don't be executed. Transferring circuts takes a long time. What's your plan for that? No more federalism in our court system?File your appeals in a year, set your court dates, have your trials, and if you fail, executed anyway. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Our current president is doing a wonderful job of showing why there's an express lane. Hint hint, it's for time limited cases.It also wouldn't hurt to have some means of putting in an "express lane" in our court system for all other stuff.
Your system would do nothing to cut down on the number of appeals and basically all your other laws are unconstitutional which would, in fact, bog down the court system.Though, the less appeals you have going through the system, the less work there is going to be to do... so... you know, you might have an initial issue with the workload, but it would normalize once appeals started dropping and other laws went into effect.
It doesn't save money cause executions are expensive, not just from legal costs but cause the actual process is expensive.It also wouldn't hurt that this saves taxpayer dollars for better usage, either.
If the death penalty is such a good deterrent to crime then why do people still regularly commit crimes that could get them sentenced to death? It's almost like it does nothing to stop crime that jail time wouldn't and we should get rid of it cause it kills innocent people, who are often poor and racial minorities.But, the punishment law I want in place is meant to alleviate strain on an already overburdened court system, reduce recidivism of violent crimes (like murder), and to overall save lives.
Actually by that logic we should get rid of the death penalty cause it's inhumane, inneffective, and a massive waste of money. But sure, legalize murder, I guess. Ohhhh wait, you already did that to illegal immigrants!What is this weird mindset of, "It won't have a 100% efficacy rate, so it should never be implemented"? By that logic, murder shouldn't be illegal.
Hey this ties into your ****ed up views about rape accusations! A lot of times, especially in the southern United States(aka where most executions happen), black men are convicted of crimes they didn't commit by white DA's falsefying evidence to white juries. Obviously it's not nearly as common these days, but it still happens. Should the DA, or presiding attorney, and entire jury be executed? Or do you just hate women?If you're really concerned about innocent people getting executed, then perhaps you should lay more responsibility on those citizens that convicted that person?
This is like the dumbest trolley problem, cause the death penalty doesn't deter crime. It's like "is it better to kill no one cause taking a life is a bad thing" or "should we kill lots of people, innocent or otherwise, cause the state should have that power".s it better to kill a few innocents for the sake of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Or, is it better to kill no innocents in the vain hope that it is worth more than the hundreds of thousands of innocents?
Incel says what? But seriously, false rape accusations are incredibly rare. That's why all the dudes who care more about protecting rapists than the women and men who are actually raped bring up the same few. But I'll bite some more. What if, say, a woman was actually raped! And she knows exactly by whom, to boot. So she files a police report, gets a rape kit test done immediately, has witnesses to back up that both she and her rapist were where they were, and by all means has everything to prove her claims in court. Except...maybe the police don't run her kit like they do with so many thousands of rape kits every year. Or maybe they laugh her off cause this woman doesn't know what she's talking about. Or maybe the community calls her a liar cause her rapist is "a good boy" who wouldn't do something like that, so her witnesses are scared to testify cause of being ostracized. Suddenly her picture perfect case ain't so picture perfect, and you're gonna make her register as sex offender on top of that. If you can't see why this idea is bad, then well you really are a misogynist.No, it's not strange. It is the only crime that carries with it a punishment far greater than the courts carry. There mere ACCUSATION ruins the life of a man. He can be found completely innocent and the world still finds him guilty. Just the accusation is damning and damaging. It is also not as rare as society would lead a person to believe. An accusation with no proof can cause a man to be kicked out of college (happens all the time), lose his job (happens all the time), make him unhirable (happens all the time), unable to see his children (happens all the time), and drop his social status to just above pond scum (happens all the time). All of this happens before even going to court or being convicted. No other crime works like this in western society. None. It needs to be balanced in order to prevent abuse and to punish those who would abuse it with the same punishment that it causes the man.
The only people that wouldn't like this law are those that would like malicious women to continue to abuse it and ruin lives through that abuse.
Besides, women rarely get more than a slap on the wrist when it's found out they made the whole thing up. Seriously, go look it up. Even when undeniable proof is found, there are women who continue to believe the one making the accusation or worse... say the man deserved it anyway.
It's disgusting behavior and it needs punished.
Even Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher didn't believe this lmao.Poor people are poor because they've mismanaged their life.
Damn bro that's cool. Hey what if tomorrow you found out you had a very deadly form of cancer. One that requires thousands and thousands of dollars to treat, and it wipes out your ability to hold that job you're so proud of that you wrote like 4 paragraphs about. Suddenly, without savings, it would seem you're poor...through no fault of your own? Wait, that can't be possible!The only times in life I've ever been poor is due to my mismanagement of my own life or funds.
Flat taxes require massive property taxes to cover for it. Look at Colorado, or Oregon, or Wyoming, or any state with a flat income tax or no income tax. And as for an "actual budget", the wonderful thing about fiat currency is you can borrow money to spend it on improving your economic infrastructure. And, crazily enough, it's something America and West Europe have been doing for decades and it, believe it or not, works!Also, a flat tax would actually work, and would provide the government an actual budget so they aren't wasting money on stupid crap. There is currently a ton of waste in the system for no reason. I work for a state government, I can tell you that about 60% of our budget is wasted on nonsense and fraud rather than actually doing with it what is meant to be done with it.
Florida has the 15th largest economy in the world, so they're clearly doing something right.My guess is... it's Florida. It's more of a surprise if that state does something correctly.
I work for the exact same state government you do, and not only would that not happen here, it didn't happen in Florida. What they did is reimburse anyone who tested negative for illicit substances, which is what you'd want to do with this system. Turns out, again, most poor people are either not on drugs or smart enough to get around a drug test, hWhat probably happened (because I work for state government, particularly government assistance programs, and it's what would happen here) is that they found an exceptionally high number of people using the drugs and just chose to sweep it under the rug.
You legalizing crime against illegal immigrants. By making it so crimes against illegal immigrants are not investigated, and their perpetrators not charged, you are, literally, incentivizing human trafficking and legalizing it's most common use in the US(sex work, which should be decriminalized anyways). And you open up so many cans of worms with this stupid idea. Say you find a body in a ditch with stab wounds and no identification! Well, do we investigate the murder? Cause if it's an illegal immigrant, under your galaxy brained system, it would be a complete waste of money to investigate. What would end up happening is bodies that can't be identified would not be investigated, excaberating an already existing problem. And because of racial stereotypes, you would probably kill any investigations into the homicides of Latino people.What stops them from doing it now? It won't even exacerbate the problem either. Nor does it make it legal in anyway.
I don't know man, how is the government mandating you hand over your DNA for them to store not an invasion of privacy.How is it an invasion of privacy?
Gibbe DNA. Huh? It didn't work...Anyone can get anyone's DNA at any time if they want to.
Yes, there are services where I can pay to find out MY lineage using MY DNA. Little different from anyone being able to access my DNA.There are even services now where you can pay to find out someone's lineage using that DNA.
That's not how the internet works, and defeats the entire purpose of a DNA database. The FBI's DNA database is online so that, you know, forensics departements around the country can actually crosscheck DNA they have with it.You just keep the servers off the public internet to prevent hackers as another safeguard.
You know, for someone who works in a state where half our legislators and one of our senators are like actual farmers, and makes such a big deal about how you work for this state government, you seem to be pretty unaware about who actually runs it(let's just ignore the tech billionare governor-elect convicted of assault I'm sure you voted for).These are the people who already have office to begin with. What's the difference other than we're not paying them tax dollars to make them even wealthier?
It's funny cause that's not what's happening lol.It's funny that you keep making these assertions about how I'm wrong while ignoring the fact that these things are going on anyway.
Mandated by the government? Me too! Thanks Obama!I want health insurance to work the same as car insurance.
There are, in fact, quite a few.
This in, in fact...um...false. Despite what you think, next of kin cannot be designated with a will. Next of kin is important, just ask all the gay people who couldn't visit their dying lifelong partners in the hospital cause their homophobic relatives refused to allow them to visit. I mean, aside from next of kin, being married lets you sue in case of wrongful death of a spouse. Without marriage you'd have no legal path to recourse.
They really don't, and believe it or not, marriage rates haven't meaningfully declined, people just get married later.
You know what's crazy? Just how many parents of school shooters or other child criminals who are textbook definition good parents and have no idea their kid is up to no good cause they don't, in fact, massively violate their kid's privacy. Your kid could tell you they're going to the library to study, and actually go do bad stuff or whatever. How're you supposed to know, except by violating their privacy? Your insistence on destroying parental-child privacy is just gonna breed a generation of abusive parents.
Cool. I guarantee your parents could do the same for 10 different kids, and not get the same results every time. It's almost like there's more going on in a kid's development that just their parents.
Parents of heavily bullied kids wish it would work this way lol. Go watch like Mean Girls or something man, most kids don't tell their parents they're being bullied.
Again, they really won't. It's almost as if kids can lie or something like that. Crazy, I know.
Then why has no municipality, city, state, or country in the world ever implemented a system remotely like it?
They don't cause, in fact, that's not how appeals work.
Damn bro lemme pre-emptively appeal my appeal so when my execution date is stayed it's automatically shunted off to the next level of court. Oh wait, why would I appeal that? And again, you just fundamentally misunderstand how our courts work. An appellate or supreme court could void the original sentence and order a retrial, which can take just as long as the first trial did and resets the entire appeals sytsem. Under your system, does that reset the year? And for a crime you've been sentenced to death to under state law, you can, in fact, appeal your way through the entire state court system, and then appeal to the federal courts at a point if you feel federal law mandates you don't be executed. Transferring circuts takes a long time. What's your plan for that? No more federalism in our court system?
Our current president is doing a wonderful job of showing why there's an express lane. Hint hint, it's for time limited cases.
Your system would do nothing to cut down on the number of appeals and basically all your other laws are unconstitutional which would, in fact, bog down the court system.
It doesn't save money cause executions are expensive, not just from legal costs but cause the actual process is expensive.
If the death penalty is such a good deterrent to crime then why do people still regularly commit crimes that could get them sentenced to death? It's almost like it does nothing to stop crime that jail time wouldn't and we should get rid of it cause it kills innocent people, who are often poor and racial minorities.
Actually by that logic we should get rid of the death penalty cause it's inhumane, inneffective, and a massive waste of money. But sure, legalize murder, I guess. Ohhhh wait, you already did that to illegal immigrants!
Hey this ties into your ****ed up views about rape accusations! A lot of times, especially in the southern United States(aka where most executions happen), black men are convicted of crimes they didn't commit by white DA's falsefying evidence to white juries. Obviously it's not nearly as common these days, but it still happens. Should the DA, or presiding attorney, and entire jury be executed? Or do you just hate women?
This is like the dumbest trolley problem, cause the death penalty doesn't deter crime. It's like "is it better to kill no one cause taking a life is a bad thing" or "should we kill lots of people, innocent or otherwise, cause the state should have that power".
Incel says what?