Search results

By that logic though, the government would also legalize drugs like marijuana since the tax revenue that would bring in, plus the savings on law enforcement costs would be a huge boon to government revenue. Clearly there are other factors in play; namely the social perception of certain drugs...

Second hand smoking is quite harmful, in enclosed areas where it is already banned. The dangers of pollution from second hand smoke in open areas like public streets is statistically insignificant.

Not at all. Taxation is theft. But you can have a better system of theft. i.e. the thieves take less from you, cause less collateral damage, use less violence.

That's the direction we seem to be headed in. I think most people can see that it is impractical right now. But there seems to be a view that there is nothing morally wrong with preventing people from smoking by force. After all, we already ban other illegal drugs which are actually less...

Here's how to massively simplify the tax system, and to remove most of the perverse incentives it creates: *20% flat tax on all income and profits, for corporations and individuals alike. *Raise tax free threshold to 40 000 per year. *Replace all welfare with Negative income tax. i.e. you get...

heap of gyoza (from frozen packet) tacos from Old El Paso kit pre packaged korean cake things OJ Packaged food is so cheap, convenient and tasty. Hello early grave.

Its all in ur head bro.

So why does Rudd allow him to remain a key minister. Nice made up statistic. Its probably got some truth to it, but most Australians polled actually oppose a compulsory filter because they know it won't work.

I agree. Democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. It is an awful idea and you don't have to look too hard to see horrendous things that have been done by democratically elected governments. The only reason people love democracy is because they are taught to love it from a...

The problem here is assumption 2. You made a thread supposedly questioning societies assumptions, but based your entire argument on a particularly retarded and difficult to justify assumption.

No you don't have any evidence and your moronic comment is easily refuted by existing evidence. Sexual desires occur due to hormonal changes in humans when they reach puberty. They cannot be aroused in pre-pubescent children simply by teaching them what sex is.

The biological facts of sex are undisputed science. The emotional importance of sex is purely a matter of opinion which is often heavily influenced by archaic religious and cultural values. Therefore schools have no place lecturing children about it. It is important, but it should be...

Yes!

This is not, NOT true. Anyone can buy condoms.

Teacher, parent or other trusted adult explains how sexual reproduction works, the risks involved with unsafe sex and how those risks can be minimized.

Once again, do you have any evidence at all that merely talking about sex and having a basic understanding of it will lead to higher rates of underage sex? I can talk about war without actually going to war. Hey, turns out that applies to lots of things. We human beings have this amazing...

Provide evidence that 6-11 year olds knowing about sex leads them to actually having sex.... I encourage them knowing ABOUT sex and being able to discuss it openly. Not having sex.

Yes. What is there to handle? Sex is a perfectly normal, natural, healthy thing. The only reason people sometime feel weird or embarrassed about it is because of all the artificial taboos we have created about sex.

Yep that's a genuine concern. It's just like when I listen to rap music about killing cops, I immediately rush out to murder police officers. I never see a shred of evidence that children being exposed to sexually suggestive material is actually harmful. Why should we pretend like sexuality...

There is nothing more shameful and harmful to children than the human body.