I don't have a strong opinion on abortion one way or the other?

What do you think/do/not do that seems to put you on an island by yourself?

I have zero sympathy for most peoples situations

posted by Spock

I have zero sympathy for most peoples situations

So Glad you teach children!

posted by SportsAndLady

So Glad you teach children!

lol 

posted by Spock

I have zero sympathy for most peoples situations

Big shocker here! And yes, it makes you pretty terrible. 

I don’t give 2 fucks about your kid (and no, I won’t pester you with mine).

Not so much a bad person, just abnormal for my life and how it played out. But I was adopted at birth (mom was a 15 year old and dad is unknown)...yet I still believe women should be allowed to abort their pregnancy.

posted by Laley23

I don’t give 2 fucks about your kid (and no, I won’t pester you with mine).

Not so much a bad person, just abnormal for my life and how it played out. But I was adopted at birth (mom was a 15 year old and dad is unknown)...yet I still believe women should be allowed to abort their pregnancy.

just curious--have you met, or even have the desire to meet, your birth mother?

posted by vball10set

just curious--have you met, or even have the desire to meet, your birth mother?

Most common question I get. And no, never have and doubt I ever will. My parents are my parents and I’ve just never felt any different or the need.

I did formally request to have my parents ethnicity relayed to me. Mom is 100% Lithuanian, dad is unknown. Best guess is Macedonian because I look like a lot of my cousins (who also were born in Fort Wayne and are Macedonian) in terms of skin tone and arm/leg hair with a very full beard (but no ankle/foot hair or back hair). And Fort Wayne is where I was born, which has a huge Macedonian population. But that’s completely speculative. Only know I am at least 50% Lithuanian.

I think funerals are creepy AF and will not go to one.

I don't think being an organ donor should be optional.

All graveyards should be dug up and sold. Complete waste of land and resource.

posted by Commander of Awesome

I don't think being an organ donor should be optional.

Why does anyone have a right to your body without your consent, even if you're dead?  Don't get me wrong, I think all people should be donors, but how can you mandate something like that?

posted by ernest_t_bass

Why does anyone have a right to your body without your consent, even if you're dead?  Don't get me wrong, I think all people should be donors, but how can you mandate something like that?

Because the need of many outweighs your stupidity. (Not necessarily you, but you = the individual).

posted by Commander of Awesome

I think funerals are creepy AF and will not go to one.

I don't think being an organ donor should be optional.

All graveyards should be dug up and sold. Complete waste of land and resource.

I don't think these make you a bad person, but I completely disagree with 2.5 of them.

-I wouldn't say creepy, but funerals are very uncomfortable and I don't think many people here would say they are a good time. 

-I am all for organ donating, but no way would I ever advocate for a law mandating it.  You or the state has 0 right to tell me what I should do with my body.  Not to mention I would have my family members make that decision for my dead body well before anyone else.

-Same logic as above plus sprinkle in property rights.  If I am the property owner, it's none of your business.  End of story.  I also don't have a problem with people finding a way to mourn their deceased family or friends.  

posted by like_that

I don't think these make you a bad person, but I completely disagree with 2.5 of them.

-I wouldn't say creepy, but funerals are very uncomfortable and I don't think many people here would say they are a good time. 

-I am all for organ donating, but no way would I ever advocate for a law mandating it.  You or the state has 0 right to tell me what I should do with my body.  Not to mention I would have my family members make that decision for my dead body well before anyone else.

-Same logic as above plus sprinkle in property rights.  If I am the property owner, it's none of your business.  End of story.  I also don't have a problem with people finding a way to mourn their deceased family or friends.  

Nor do I, but land resources are becoming a larger and larger issue. I think the practice of mourning has to adapt and doesn't necessitate shitty living conditions or wasted resources. Look up data on how often cemeteries are visited by families, most are not. If a family wants to have a grave site to visit, it should be on their land.

posted by Commander of Awesome

Because the need of many outweighs your stupidity. (Not necessarily you, but you = the individual).

People don't have rights, persons do, including the right of ultimate selfishness.

posted by Commander of Awesome

I don't think being an organ donor should be optional.

100% agree

posted by Commander of Awesome

Nor do I, but land resources are becoming a larger and larger issue. I think the practice of mourning has to adapt and doesn't necessitate shitty living conditions or wasted resources. Look up data on how often cemeteries are visited by families, most are not. If a family wants to have a grave site to visit, it should be on their land.

It goes back to private property.  If it is private land nobody has a right to tell the owner what to do with it.  I could see your argument if we were talking about state or federally owned land. 

posted by like_that

It goes back to private property.  If it is private land nobody has a right to tell the owner what to do with it.  I could see your argument if we were talking about state or federally owned land. 

How do you feel about churches then? Churches have tons of land that are used for cemeteries that are exempt from property taxes.

To your point about Gov. land cemeteries, it gets tricky IMO. Arlington Cemetery for example is also a national landmark/monument. Does the goverment also own/operate cemeteries outside of this? I honestly do not know.

posted by Commander of Awesome

How do you feel about churches then? Churches have tons of land that are used for cemeteries that are exempt from property taxes.

To your point about Gov. land cemeteries, it gets tricky IMO. Arlington Cemetery for example is also a national landmark/monument. Does the goverment also own/operate cemeteries outside of this? I honestly do not know.

 

I don't know about the federal government, but the cemetery in the town I grew up in was owned and operated by the city. I imagine that's pretty common.

posted by Commander of Awesome

How do you feel about churches then? Churches have tons of land that are used for cemeteries that are exempt from property taxes.

To your point about Gov. land cemeteries, it gets tricky IMO. Arlington Cemetery for example is also a national landmark/monument. Does the goverment also own/operate cemeteries outside of this? I honestly do not know.

 

I am pretty agnostic, but I don't really care if people choose to have faith in their religion if it stays the fuck out of my business.  Therefore, I don't really get rattled by churches that own land and considering I hate taxes, I don't mind that they don't pay property taxes.  There isn't a wide epidemic of churches taking over our country and our land.  I am not sure what you think will happen if cemeteries are banned and that property is seized for other "resources."  It surely isn't going to make the housing prices in California drop lol.  I am more concerned about how much land our federal government is seizing than churches building cemeteries on their own land.  Not to mention the tax exemption is protected by the first amendment in the constitution.  Good luck making an amendment to that.  

To be clear, I get what you are saying.  I just can't get behind property owners being forced to give up or sell their property.  I'd meet you in the middle if you were down with a business person or non profit buying these properties from churches to use the property for other purposes. 

posted by like_that

I am pretty agnostic, but I don't really care if people choose to have faith in their religion if it stays the fuck out of my business.  Therefore, I don't really get rattled by churches that own land and considering I hate taxes, I don't mind that they don't pay property taxes.  There isn't a wide epidemic of churches taking over our country and our land.  I am not sure what you think will happen if cemeteries are banned and that property is seized for other "resources."  It surely isn't going to make the housing prices in California drop lol.  I am more concerned about how much land our federal government is seizing than churches building cemeteries on their own land.  Not to mention the tax exemption is protected by the first amendment in the constitution.  Good luck making an amendment to that. 

I get why that was important in 1776, but damn if it's no longer applicable in today's America. Non profit/religious tax exception is a plague on the US and consistently abused. You're right though, would be very challenging to change today. I think it would be interesting to see how many religious institutions would survive a change in the tax code.

To be clear, I get what you are saying.  I just can't get behind property owners being forced to give up or sell their property.  I'd meet you in the middle if you were down with a business person or non profit buying these properties from churches to use the property for other purposes. 

Or how about lifetime limits on them? IE once the current owner dies, or land changes ownership land renovation has to take place.

posted by Commander of Awesome

I get why that was important in 1776, but damn if it's no longer applicable in today's America. Non profit/religious tax exception is a plague on the US and consistently abused. You're right though, would be very challenging to change today. I think it would be interesting to see how many religious institutions would survive a change in the tax code.

Agreed. It's a joke churches don't pay taxes.

posted by Commander of Awesome

I get why that was important in 1776, but damn if it's no longer applicable in today's America. Non profit/religious tax exception is a plague on the US and consistently abused. You're right though, would be very challenging to change today. I think it would be interesting to see how many religious institutions would survive a change in the tax code.

To be clear, I get what you are saying.  I just can't get behind property owners being forced to give up or sell their property.  I'd meet you in the middle if you were down with a business person or non profit buying these properties from churches to use the property for other purposes. 

Or how about lifetime limits on them? IE once the current owner dies, or land changes ownership land renovation has to take place.

I am fine with separation of church and state.  I think it still applies today even if more people are questioning religion in this day and age.  All religions deserves their criticisms, but they also do a lot of good imo.   In your scenario, I don't think many churches would survive, because they aren't businesses, but I don't think religions would die.  I am a bit conflicted when I think about it though.  On one end fuck taxes, on the other end it is obnoxious to see some of these churches with state of the art facilities and procuring shit when they otherwise could be using it to help those in need. 

As for your other question.  No, I am only meeting you where a non profit, business, or individual buys the property from the church.  At that point it's up to the new owner what he/she/they want to do with the property.  In the case of a business or non profit buying the property it doesn't matter who dies, because it remains property of that business/non profit.  If an individual owner dies it goes to a family member or whoever they have on their will. 

posted by like_that

I am fine with separation of church and state.  I think it still applies today even if more people are questioning religion in this day and age.  All religions deserves their criticisms, but they also do a lot of good imo.   In your scenario, I don't think many churches would survive, because they aren't businesses, but I don't think religions would die.  I am a bit conflicted when I think about it though.  On one end fuck taxes, on the other end it is obnoxious to see some of these churches with state of the art facilities and procuring shit when they otherwise could be using it to help those in need. 

Yep, hypocrisy in plain sight.

As for your other question.  No, I am only meeting you where a non profit, business, or individual buys the property from the church.  At that point it's up to the new owner what he/she/they want to do with the property.  In the case of a business or non profit buying the property it doesn't matter who dies, because it remains property of that business/non profit.  If an individual owner dies it goes to a family member or whoever they have on their will. 

In my new era of the US though, having a cemetery or a burial plot for money (either for or non - profit business) would be illegal. I'm meeting in the middle by not fucking the current land owners. There are numerous examples of this in the US such as families that own property on land that became a national park for instance. Another way to think about, lets say the US banned alcohol making, the owners of said brewery/wine maker/etc... would be able to operate on their land until they die. Then the land has to be used for something else.

posted by Commander of Awesome

Yep, hypocrisy in plain sight.

As for your other question.  No, I am only meeting you where a non profit, business, or individual buys the property from the church.  At that point it's up to the new owner what he/she/they want to do with the property.  In the case of a business or non profit buying the property it doesn't matter who dies, because it remains property of that business/non profit.  If an individual owner dies it goes to a family member or whoever they have on their will. 

In my new era of the US though, having a cemetery or a burial plot for money (either for or non - profit business) would be illegal. I'm meeting in the middle by not fucking the current land owners. There are numerous examples of this in the US such as families that own property on land that became a national park for instance. Another way to think about, lets say the US banned alcohol making, the owners of said brewery/wine maker/etc... would be able to operate on their land until they die. Then the land has to be used for something else.

COA's Manifesto sounds very much like communism decorated in glitter to make it look nice.  I will pass.

posted by like_that

COA's Manifesto sounds very much like communism decorated in glitter to make it look nice.  I will pass.

lol manifesto huh? Reach much? Wanting an even tax playing field and better land use now = communism. Heard it all now.

posted by Commander of Awesome

lol manifesto huh? Reach much? Wanting an even tax playing field and better land use now = communism. Heard it all now.

I was more referring to the state "allowing" you to use your land for a specific reason, but  must be given up for whatever the state deems appropriate at the time of your death.

Or in your particular example the state deems an entire industry/sector/practice/activity illegal (even though it doesn't harm others), allowing the property to continue as usual, but then the property is either seized and/or must be used for something else deemed appropriate by the state.  

I was busting your balls with the COA Manifesto, but your new age USA doesn't sound like freedom to me.