At Oberlin, a Tipping Point

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,968
6,693
1,743
Yukon, OK
#61
Yikes.

I'm being totally serious. I think that you should have to take an immersive driving test every 7 years to prove that you aren't an idiot. Should be easier to lose a license too. Too many idiots on the road.

And yes... I understand the hardships this would place on underprivileged communities.

Same with making it tougher to have a kid... I get that there's "eugenics" implications with that and some personal liberty taken away... but if you don't have the means to raise a child then you shouldn't have one.
I agree with the sentiment but I'd just like to point out that taking their license away doesn't even remotely guarantee to keep them off the road... You're not allowed to drive a vehicle without insurance either and we all know how THAT goes...
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,605
3,655
743
49
#62
LOL, I feel the same way. This board will make a fairly normal dude feel like a left wing loony pretty quick. One thing I'd like to ask though, on your second amendment stance. When you say you are "firmly pro", does that mean anything goes?? Because I feel I'm pro second amendment too, until I start to talk about it on this board. Then I realize when I feel there should be some limitations, I'm suddenly General Mao.
I'm for background checks and making it a bit more of a pain in the ass to obtain a weapon. I'm also not for open carry.

But I think there needs to be a very, very defined set of rules in place that are not open to any interpretation... and I worry that giving an inch will result in me losing my rights, which would not be ok. People with mental instability and past violence issues should not own guns... but I worry that if you set the parameters on that too loosely, then we will all suffer.

I also feel that it should be much, much more difficult to get a drivers license and have a kid.
Where do you stand on this?

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1143578752670027776?s=19


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,345
47,037
1,743
Dallas, TX
#65
Where do you stand on this?

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1143578752670027776?s=19




Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Well... it looks like it's an email chain between two individuals within Google, who are entitled to their opinions. Doesn't look like an official stance from Google.

Also, Google has the freedom to act as they see fit within their business model. I don't think that the government should interfere with what they're doing within their realm.

I actually enjoy Prager and Peterson's common sense stances... and I don't feel that my job is at risk if I state that.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,345
47,037
1,743
Dallas, TX
#67
On this we agree. But, then, I didn't see anyone here calling for government intervention.
Just getting ahead of it.

I do agree with Google banning people like Alex Jones from their platforms. Or actual hate groups like the KKK. I think it would probably be a good idea to ban anti-vax and flat earth content too. I think pretty much everything I listed here is anti-intellectualism at it's finest.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,776
1,409
1,743
#68
Also, Google has the freedom to act as they see fit within their business model. I don't think that the government should interfere with what they're doing within their realm.
.
Agree.

But do you feel the same in the case of the Colorado baker who was sued three times and the govt initially fined him when he refused to bake a cake with a message he disagreed. That he has the freedom to act as he sees fit and that the govt should not interfere.
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,345
47,037
1,743
Dallas, TX
#69
Agree.

But do you feel the same in the case of the Colorado baker who was sued three times and the govt initially fined him when he refused to bake a cake with a message he disagreed. That he has the freedom to act as he sees fit and that the govt should not interfere.
Absolutely. That case really wasn't as complicated as it was made to seem... and I believe that the US Supreme Court made the right decision by siding in favor of the baker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

However... If a black person had walked in and the baker refused to bake him a cake specifically because he's black, I would've had a problem with it... I guess that's kind of gray, but I don't feel that it is?

I'm pro-gay marriage and all of that, but that couple had the right to go to another bakery.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,183
6,249
743
Gondor
#70
Well... it looks like it's an email chain between two individuals within Google, who are entitled to their opinions. Doesn't look like an official stance from Google.

Also, Google has the freedom to act as they see fit within their business model. I don't think that the government should interfere with what they're doing within their realm.

I actually enjoy Prager and Peterson's common sense stances... and I don't feel that my job is at risk if I state that.
Wow...you seriously think Goolag is going to take an official position like this. There is overwhelming evidence on its face that this mirrors their collective position as a company.

Once again, you insult everyone's intelligence.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,605
3,655
743
49
#74
Where do you stand on this?

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1143578752670027776?s=19





Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Well... it looks like it's an email chain between two individuals within Google, who are entitled to their opinions. Doesn't look like an official stance from Google.

Also, Google has the freedom to act as they see fit within their business model. I don't think that the government should interfere with what they're doing within their realm.

I actually enjoy Prager and Peterson's common sense stances... and I don't feel that my job is at risk if I state that.
Actually, it is people within Google that have the ability to make policy decisions that are spoken if in the email. And they do it with the blessing of management. And when Google sought protections as an information "platform" not a publisher, they said they don't control the content just allow others to present it in the public square. This and the video released by project veritas prove otherwise.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CTeamPoke

Legendary Cowboy
Jun 18, 2008
44,345
47,037
1,743
Dallas, TX
#75
Ah, eugenics. Congrats, now you're pretty far left, a "progressive".
Yeah I understand the issue with this...

But it's not from a racial purity or from an only getting superior genetics standpoint... it's from recognizing that absolutely awful things happen to children throughout this country every day because they have parents that are not fit to be so or do not love their children. If the child does survive those awful events, then they are statistically unlikely to become productive members of society... often inflicting similar pain on their future children that they had inflicted upon them.

So... yeah... I recognize that making it more difficult for people to have children is problematic... but it's not from the same place as the sterilization acts of the 1920s.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,843
21,625
1,743
#76
Yeah I understand the issue with this...

But it's not from a racial purity or from an only getting superior genetics standpoint... it's from recognizing that absolutely awful things happen to children throughout this country every day because they have parents that are not fit to be so or do not love their children. If the child does survive those awful events, then they are statistically unlikely to become productive members of society... often inflicting similar pain on their future children that they had inflicted upon them.

So... yeah... I recognize that making it more difficult for people to have children is problematic... but it's not from the same place as the sterilization acts of the 1920s.
This.....

Eugenics has been given racial connotations but that's really not it..... We are doing it with essentially every animal we interact with but not with ourselves. Secratariat wasn't bred to some sway backed nag.....but often our choice of breeding partners is decided because both parties were drunk and held up their lighters at the same time during Freebird
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,936
49,883
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#77
Yeah I understand the issue with this...

But it's not from a racial purity or from an only getting superior genetics standpoint... it's from recognizing that absolutely awful things happen to children throughout this country every day because they have parents that are not fit to be so or do not love their children. If the child does survive those awful events, then they are statistically unlikely to become productive members of society... often inflicting similar pain on their future children that they had inflicted upon them.

So... yeah... I recognize that making it more difficult for people to have children is problematic... but it's not from the same place as the sterilization acts of the 1920s.
You can wrap it with a different bow, but it is still the same thing.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,936
49,883
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#78
This.....

Eugenics has been given racial connotations but that's really not it..... We are doing it with essentially every animal we interact with but not with ourselves. Secratariat wasn't bred to some sway backed nag.....but often our choice of breeding partners is decided because both parties were drunk and held up their lighters at the same time during Freebird
The thing that I find fascinating is that when people start talking about limiting reproductive rights they always assume they would be in the class that would get to reproduce.

People who are concerned about there being too many people on the planet never offer to personally depopulate.

People who are concerned there are too many idiots never offer to raise the collective IQ by eliminating theirs.

So, tell me donny, exactly what groups would you target for elimination?