Not added any friends yet.
No favourite stories listed.
Not following any authors
I am a smoker. I accept and respect that many people, nowadays the majority of people, are nonsmokers. As part of respecting their nonsmokerhood, I don't smoke around them unless I have received specific permission (has happend on occasion after dinner at a party). What I cannot tolerate is the existence of anti-smokers. People who insist that their personal choice is so "right" that they have both the moral and legal standing to force that choice on me. This is not the type of thing that the government is meant for in any way! Tobacco already has a higher percentage of tax levied on it than any other good in the entire country. Take my unfairly represented tax money and let me smoke in peace, lest I try to force some of my opinions on you as an unfair law.
I am solidly for the Death Penalty. The argument that frequently get used about the Death Penalty being a deterrent to crime is usually used improperly by both sides of the issue. It deters future crimes by that individual, not by criminals in general. The key element required in convictions that can receive Death as a punishment is premeditation. That is, the individual in question thought about, planned, and executed a capital crime knowing full well the weight of their decisions. That is not a person I want able to do anything to anybody. I especially don't want them in prison for life where they can further their criminal career by taking the lives of other inmates or Corrections Officers.As far as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause, I'll use an argument that usually gets used at me against gun rights. Cruel and Unusual Punishment meant to the founders being drawn and quartered instead of a quick hanging or trip in front of the firing squad. Those methods of death were acceptable to the founders, who couldn't foresee the development of painless drugs to slowly stop the heart. At the time, life in prison was cruel and unusual, because with the recent "reformatory developments" one almost invariably went insane in solitary confinement.I stand ready for rebuttal.
Does gender affect overall physical capability? Yes. Is overall physical capability the primary determining factor in who wins a team sporting event? Hands down, no. Any coach of any team sport will say that it's the way the team works together and how talented the players are. As in, the natural aptitude or special skills specific to what is required for a particular event. In any case, most women can reach a level of physical fitness that is competitive even against male athletes. It requires more work than it does for men, and smaller-framed women usually find it impossible, but when's the last time a guy who was 5'4" and 120 lbs started as a linebacker? The limitations of one's build and natural aptitudes are something we have to come to terms with as we grow up, no matter what's between our legs.I'm in favor of dropping gender segregation from all sports and implementing a weight class system. A 140 lb female athlete is going to be able to be competitive with a 140 lb male athlete, and this is true at nearly any weight. Overall weight is also the most important thing in ensuring safety. The NFL would have a lot fewer traumatic head injuries if the QB was getting tackled by another person who was ~150lbs instead of someone more than twice his weight. Are the heavyweight classes going to be dominated by men? In all likelihood, yes. But that will be from a dearth of female athletes that weigh 300+ lbs, not because the female athletes are not as good as the men. That's my opinion anyway.Oh, and far as Title IX goes, it specifically uses the phrase, "the underrepresented sex," as who it requires equality for, which in this case clearly favors the boy.
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.