Quote by Ironic
That's true. Why expect the poorer part of society to carry a disproportionate share of the burden?
Oh? So, the poor are the biggest spenders?
The burden of school taxes is currently on home owners, so renters are not paying school taxes for children. Only a few home owners are rich. The burden should be more fairly distributed. Sales tax is an excellent way to do it.
Quote by Dani
In theory this works, sure, but not in reality. In cases where parents are aware that their children are a threat to society, but they do nothing about it, then yeah, this is feasible. That's why when criminal charges against parents are pursued in this regard, it's successful. But blanketing it in the way you're presenting removes nuance, and once that happens, it runs the risk of it all being done away with, even when it's appropriate. And feeling as if your child is a threat, either to you as the parent or society as a whole, doesn't grant parents any protections from their child, only responsibility when things go awry.
There exists countless cases of parents (mostly mothers) being severely physically assaulted by their teenaged children, and having them arrested and pressing charges and everything, only to be called from the police station and told "Your child is being released. Don't really care if they're a threat to you, but if you don't come get them, you'll be arrested for neglect and/or child abandonment." And in such cases when parents are battered by their own children, the parents face legal repercussions of they defend themselves. It's a no-win situation.
The way I see it, when it's a clear case of overlooking on the parents' part when their children commit violent crimes, including mass shootings, there already exists a precedent for holding parents accountable. But there is no precedent for protecting parents from their violent children. And btw, it's a very outdated way of thinking that parents are the creator of these "mothnsters." Don't get me wrong, they often are when it comes to abuse/neglect, enabling, and otherwise lack of accountability, but even when these things aren't present and parents do what they're supposed to do, children still end up being whoever they want to be, and making the choices they make.
Those are very good points, Dani. District Attorneys should make any decision to prosecute only on strong evidence of severe neglect, wilful neglect, or parents that encourage violence, promote it, or raised the kid in a violent household, etc
Quote by Ironic
I can't agree with you about that. 17-year-olds who have been arrested for assault and battery or breaking and entering or assault with a dangerous weapon are obviously not under the control of their parent or guardian.
If the parent can't control the 17 year old minor, they raised them badly. But they should let law enforcement know the kid is out of control and they can no longer be responsible for them.
If the 17 year old child possesses guns, the parents need to inform police. If they know and do not, they should be held responsible.
By far most 17 year olds still answer to their parents. They are still minors until 18.
Defunding the IRS is a silly idea. They need their funding to secure the taxes owed the federal government, so that the government and its' programs, and national defense is funded. They need to make tax cheats pay their fair share.
Protecting schools should come from local sales taxes. That way, everyone helps fund school safety.
Quote by Ironic
If the child isn't under the control of the parent or guardian, then no. There are 17-year-olds here that have been arrested for robbery, assault and B&E. They're in no way "under the control" of their parents. If it's a situation like the one where the boy in Virginia shot his teacher, then yes, since she was irresponsible and left it where her son could get to it.
No! The 17 year old is still a minor under the parents supervision. Parents should do their job or pay the consequences with the child that is violent against other people and a criminal.
The names and pictures of mass killers and shooters should never be released. They should stay anonymous. Never give them the sick glory and fame they seek.
What are other ideas you all have to decrease or stop these mass killers.
Better control of who can own a gun.
Militarized ammunition should not be sold to the public.
Parents of underage shooter-killers should also be held responsible and prosecuted. The minor is their responsibility.
Let the FBI control the nationwide database of guns owned, registered, etc.
Gin shows must be held to the same standard as gun shops.
Make any gun not made of metal illegal. With serious prison time for possessing one.
Let's hear your ideas.
Most teachers are incapable of handling loaded guns. Some of them are just as likely to go on a shooting spree. I'd want them to be thoroughly trained in gun safety and usage, and pass a very thorough psychological exam before they could be licensed to have a gun at school. And the gun would need to be highly secured.
Allowing teachers to have guns in school is not a good idea.
Armed security ar schools would need to be highly trained police, who specialize in dealing with school children. They'd need to be extremely vetted, and thoroughly trained for that particular job.
But no doubt, schools need much more security than they have now. Unfortunately, our society is de-evolving into a violent mess.
Quote by IMPURETHOUGHTS
I purposely break check mustangs aka mistakes and little turtle cars that make a lot of noise but are still beside you.
And recently, I've been having fun cutting in on big ass trucks.
You may soon be attending your own funeral. I'd suggest safe, courteous, sensible driving. 😇
Or get a NASCAR.
Quote by Magical_felix
You just know the hooker was hot as fuck, the meal was delicious and the alcohol was weak... but plentiful.
Since when have Republicans actually cut the debt? Truthfully, the GOP only wants to cut Democrat supported programs and add that spending to GOP supported programs.
The GOP is not willing to cut spending that supports and provides jobs in their representative districts and states. The GOP is incredibly hypocritical on spending.
So, good post, Jack, showing this Republican example of empty rhetoric.
Pharmaceutical companies make huge profits. They especially are making a killing off Americans, who pay way more for prescription drugs than any other nation.
Purdue Pharma has been chewing Americans up profit-wise. They are part of a lobby group that owns the congress and senate.
I don't see them getting financially punished. The system is corrupt in their favor.
I admit I've invested heavily in pharmaceutical stocks, and they've very highly enriched my retirement fund. But, yes, l know they're scumbags.
Quote by Ironic
The Durham report documents the whole Trump-Russia Collusion story was a hoax. A lie.
Media should give Biden 'Trump treatment' during GOP investigation (usatoday.com)
John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe | CNN Politics
Trump-era special counsel's final report sharply criticizes FBI's Russia probe : NPR
The FBI knew RussiaGate was a lie — but hid that truth (nypost.com)
You didn't get taken in by it too, did you?
It reads more like an opinion. Where are the facts?
Quote by Ironic
Yes. Sex is about reproduction. There's sexual and asexual reproduction. Humans reproduce sexually.
The world is grossly over populated. Too many humans are putting an enormous strain on the earth's resources. The planet is in peril because of overpopulation.
Sex is just as much about recreation as reproduction, and with gross over population it should be a lot more about recreation than reproduction.
Quote by Chryses
As you have chosen not to respond to my question of what idea you think is absurd, both of the ideas above may be what you consider absurd.
As you are notorious for not responding to questions, I think TTT readers may get a chuckle out if you're response to Noll.
But go ahead. I wouldn't want to silence you.
Any Republican that is moderate, or uses common sense, reason, ethics, and truth, is now labeled a RlNO by the large extremist right-wing element of the party.
But of course, besides the propaganda they sell to the public, they are still pro-rich, pro-megacorporations and big business, as opposed to small business and working people.
Is free speech really in peril at Oxford?
And should there be a limit on free speech at a university?
Should free speech that endangers life or the physical well being of people be limited?
Who all encompasses trans row at Oxford? And in what way are the engulfing Oxford University?
