Whats misleading about it?
ZahzenEclipse
joined 2 years ago
Suffering isn't pointless. It makes me and many others feel good if horrible people like Brevik suffer, its justice for the people who suffer everyday due to Breviks crimes. Governments through history have been responsible for a ton of suffering - this is one of those rare instances where it's fully justified.
But I'll admit, wanting revenge isn't great and you're right, we shouldn't setup systems to enact revenge. That being said, some people are so terrible they need to be locked up and separated from society permanently. Since enacting a death penalty is both expensive and takes a very long time if you want to have the proper checks and balances to ensure innocent people aren't being executed, that tells me life imprisonment is the only option for people that would or should be otherwise executed.
Maybe he changes his tune in 10 years and becomes a voice against the terrorism he tried to inspire. That could end up with an at least beneficial outcome for society.
"One glaring problem with allowing this program to exist for any extended period of time is that, unless it is privately funded, it would be too expensive to maintain and would require substantial tax increases across the board.
The group’s page even admits that, saying, “there’s a number of ways to pay for guaranteed income, from a sovereign wealth fund in which citizens benefit from shard national resources like the Alaska Permanent Fund, to bringing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to their 20th century historical averages.”
I think it part of it may have been related to how high taxes might have to be made and it would be damn near impossible to pass those level of taxes. It couldn't be done souly city by city I don't think otherwise wealthy would flee the city to avoid the taxes levied - at least that woulf be a concern of mine.
Maybe it was related to pandemic stuff: https://www.kqed.org/news/11946467/study-shows-limits-of-stocktons-guaranteed-income-program-during-pandemic
It's been awhile since I've looked into specifically anything UBI related so I could be misrembering.
I personally beleive the death penalty shouldn't exist for people like Brevik. The best case scenario is he suffers for the rest of his days. He can't be rehabilitated and he shouldn't be.
His acts were so evil he deserves to suffer. Laws should change to ensure people like him can suffer.
I thought instances where UBI has been tried, it's failed - is that not the case?
It looks like meat eaters might be the minority on this platform. I agree that technically there's no difference
in any animal meat trade (barring some details). Vegans got decent arguments for people who don't beleive that people should eat dogs but beleive in eating other animals. Their arguments aren't as good if you don't assign the same value to animals as you do to humans.
I got banned from a subreddit for being to aggressive when calling out people who were justifying and calling for fire bombing of churches.
I'm pretty sure that was also used against me when I got banned from the whole platform but I'll never know for sure.
Okay so centrist isn't essential relabeling of a moderate liberal - then I probably agree with that.
Do you think the majority of US citizens want higher taxes? There's alot of de-programming that has to be done. Democrats, who are generally better than Republicans when it comes to this stuff (due to the low bar they've erected) aren't necessarily full on board with tax increases.