5,460 Forum Posts by "HighlyIllogical"
At 3/25/06 02:03 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Here's a question a political economist at Maryland posed to our class last semester:
"In a free economy, 20% of the population will own at least 80% of the wealth. Multinational corporations like Microsoft and GM have higher GDPs than relatively wealthy countries like Thailand. How can anyone offer a defense of such a system?"
It's a fair system and it's proven to be succeessful. No other system has.
He's written a book that lots of you socialists would like called America Beyond Capitalism. To his credit, he controls his vitriol and puts forth a plan and an argument. But my question is, "Why does capitalism need a defense?" Market economics is the only system that is proven to work. Just because a free economy thrives on inequality, what does that have to do with anything?
Capitalism works. Defenses like tariffs, you mean? Those stymie free trade, and free trade encourages growth.
The inequality is a problem, but not to the degree that socialists and communists believe it is. Sure, most people are poor, but still, they're better off than the richest people were in the 1950s. They're the poor with a color TV. Poor and rich are relative terms. Inequality is inherent in the system. We have the responsibility to ensure that it doesn't prohibit those who are not as wealthy from eventually succeeding if they work for it.
That sucks.
Still, the point stands-
This kid is not going to be psychologically harmed.
In general, yes, that's true. Except for the NY Times and the Economist (which are a newspaper and magazine respectively.)
At 3/24/06 05:37 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:At 3/24/06 05:07 PM, Captn_r wrote: So a new question arises; is it ever immoral to get a haircut?Those cells are an entirely different genetic code. It's a fake comparison. But how about you Captn, is abortion ever wrong to you?
Well, no. Hair cells are somatic cells (46 chromosome non-sex cells). Fetal cells are also somatic, but come from the joining of two gametes (each is haploid in chromosome number). Abortion can be wrong: i.e. if you are just aborting for the sake of aborting, or if it's done right before full term (like a week before predicted birth or something of that nature unless the mother's life is threatened).
At 3/24/06 09:09 PM, hrhomsar wrote:At 3/24/06 09:05 PM, AccessCode wrote:eh?Exodus 21:22
It's not taken literally, it refers to financial compensation.
At 3/24/06 04:23 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:At 3/24/06 04:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:You'll be a republican someday.At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:That's not true.At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:
Oh? Since when?
I'm saying that they are all about sentiments and not about results. They choose to ignore how the welfare state is a detriment to success and how additional funding for public school does nothing for them at all. They ignore how zealous labor unions and government interference with healthcare have skyrocketed the price of healthcare.
The "welfare state" doesn't exist. I would think that the way to summarize how republicans feel about helping others and privitization (sp sucks, I know) is this: "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."-George W. Bush. Government interference hasn't raised the price of health care, it's malpractice insurance and incidental costs caused by a lack of limits on damages.
They ignore this but they vote Democratic so they don't feel guilty for success.
I don't really see where you're going with this.
To be honest, being liberal is a sin of omission. It's saying, "I don't really care, but I'll vote like I do." It's a bandaid for real life problems that can only be solved by individuals.
You cannot prove that, therefore it's not valid.
At 3/24/06 07:37 PM, chaos_13037 wrote: As for the hidden Jewish artifacts, I can't really comment because I know nothing about the Nazi's hidding their stolen stuff in Switzerland ... I thought they all took it with them to South America....
The swiss government eventually paid reparations, but only after the US got on their asses.
Objection sustained.
115 and feelin' fine.
At 3/24/06 07:57 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Everytime I hear or read about this story, it makes my blood boil. This was like my fantasy when I was 14 years old and this boy got it and everyone keeps saying he's a victim. Fuck off.
Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. :D But seriously, he's not the victim, he may be a minor but it was essentially consensual (except for the fact that, legally, he can't consent) and I doubt that any major harm (aside from, as someone's already mentioned, repetitive motion disorder from getting high-fives) to his person or psyche will result from this.
I still say the real crime here is that I never got to fuck a 23 year old hot teacher when I was 14 and the real victims are every boy who's ever fantasized about it and never got it.
She's not really that hot.
I wouldn't abort for severe mental impairment, deafness or things that can be dealt with, but I would prefer abortion if the child would likely die in infancy or early childhood or if the child would be in great pain. Abortion is a last resort option in this sort of case.
At 3/24/06 04:56 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
He once said " A witty quote proves nothing" which, is of course a witty quote. However, if you say "Voltaire is a dirty french whore" you make a quote whining about how Voltaire ruined quotes.
Since when is he a dirty french whore? The whole concept of the dirty french whore seems relatively new.
At 3/24/06 04:03 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:At 3/23/06 09:20 PM, TheShrike wrote:
Haha, you quoted Voltaire.
and its not dirty french whore
What's so bad about Voltaire??
Let's put it really simply:
(Data from http://www.cnn.com/E..S/P/00/epolls.0.html
)
58% of whites voted for Bush, while only, obviously, just over 41% went for Kerry (and a bit went for Nader).
88% of blacks went for Kerry.
And by income: Here we go...
50% of those making under $100,000 a year went for Kerry
41% of those making OVER $100,000 a year went for Kerry.
55% of people with postgraduate study went for kerry.
The college grad vote was 49%/49% while the HS grad or less vote went 47% for Kerry.
77% of gays, lesbians and bisexuals voted for kerry....of course.
Urban voters were 54% for kerry, big city voters were 60% for kerry.
74% of Jews voted for kerry, just as an anecdote.
At 3/24/06 04:14 PM, AccessCode wrote: And the Democrats are for everyone no matter how stupid it may be, cept for white people.
Substantiate that statement, otherwise it's just ignorant.
Damn good ones. How about:
Iran-Contra (not JUST the crisis, but the backlash as well)
Jackson's impeachment
School integrations of the 1950s'
The Bill of Rights being passed
The 14th or 15th amendments
War against Mexico
The Nazi Espionage Agents that landed in the US
Battle of Midway
Defense of the Philipines
The Spanish-American War (where the US was established for the first time as a world power)
The battle between the Monitor and Virginia/Merrimac (Signalled the downfall of the wooden warship)
A Personal Favorite: The CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS!!!
Another Personal Favorite: WAKE ISLAND!!! This is a really important one!!
At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: By the way, here's an interesting website: http://www.moral-politics.com/I'm familiar with the theory (are you new, or are you Mackid?),
C'est moi, Mackid. Changed the name.
and I can say it's nonsense. Liberals either grow up in ghettos where there parents can't support them, or they are born with a large trust fund and taught to felt guilty for it.
That's not true. I'm neither of the above. I'm a fifth generation immigrant. My mom's a lawyer and my dad's a doctor. My mom's parents were a doctor and a scientist (I'm serious!) and my dad was born to an engineer (the first of his family to go to college) and a homemaker (who did other things before that which I can't recall, also went to college). My parents made themselves. I'm not a trust fund baby, far from it. I live among them, but I can't really be one. My upbringing is nothing like that.
He's a nice guy who sees some faults in his son that he had when he was my age, and is annoyed by them. Maybe someday my child will be the same.
You can make that analogy with political liberals too.
The plain truth of the matter is that most educated Democratic voters are just following their gut instinct they had as a child. They want to see everyone looked after, but they are looking for easy ways to do it. They'll rationalize this by saying, "The Democratic Party is the party of the little guy."
So you're saying that democrats are childish? Even the smart ones? Even the professors, the scientists, the doctors, the lawyers? And the democratic party is the only one that supports the little guy. The republicans are the party of apathy to everyone except rich whites.
Well he's an odd person. David Brock is the only man I've ever known to go from conservative to liberal, and he's an enigma in himself.
Point taken. I've heard of a few examples, can't think of them now lol.
At 3/24/06 10:11 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Is it ever wrong to abort your child?
Yes.
Aye, 'tis the backlash of feminism. Maybe it's because of the nature of sex itself (male penetration).
At 3/24/06 11:33 AM, omgwtfbbqsauce wrote:
Actually, the nazis are more liberal/democrat than they are conservative/republican.
Ok, I'm going to start responding to this.
Nazis were famous for burning huge piles of books that contained views that were contrary from theirs.
College liberals burn (and steal) huge piles of conservative newspapers because they contain views that were contrary from theirs.
Source? I've never heard about this, though I DO hear about conservatives censoring books and burning "immoral" books.
Hitler, the penultimate nazi, was a Vegetarian who believed in animal “rights”.
Most (if not all) vegetarian and animal “rights” activists are avowed democrats.
Coincidence, not relevant.
NAZI stands for the National “Socialist” German “Worker’s party “.
“Socialists” always vote democrat, which, incidentally, is often referred to as the “Worker’s party”.
That's just the single stupidest "connection" I've ever heard.....
The Nazis hated Jews, killed Jews and thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Liberals support Palestinians, who hate Jews, kill Jews and think they should be wiped off the face of the earth.
This is true. But not ALL liberals support the "Palestinians." I certainly don't.
The Nazis had Reni Riefenstahl to make blatant propaganda for him that masqueraded as film.
The Democrats have Michael Moore to make blatant propaganda for them that masquerades as film.
And the conservatives have Ann Coulter, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh etc.
Nazis had the “Hitler Youth” program to indoctrinate impressionable young minds.
Democrats have college professors (90% of whom consider themselves liberal) to indoctrinate young minds.
Republicans have censorship, evangelical christianity etc. Perhaps since most college professors are liberals, and most professors are relatively intelligent, there's a connection between liberalism and intelligence.
Hitler had a seething hatred for Judeo/Christian vaiues (love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek).
Most (if not all) liberals also have a seething hatred for Judeo/Christian values.
VERY VERY VERY few liberals hate religion and morality. Lots of conservatives would prefer to blow all Arabs to hell.
Hitler was a stong supporter of abortion.
Liberals are strong supporters of abortion.
I, like most liberals, SUPPORT CHOICE. Hitler suppported forced abortions and eugenics. Conservatives oppose choice.
Many of the top Nazis were homosexuals.
Homosexuals vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Again, so what?
Hitler was a strong believer in "white supremacy" and considered all other races to be inferior.
The Democrats elected Robert Byrd
The republicans had Strom Thurmond among others...
The majority of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act.
This was a long time ago, the Democrats were often from the south. It was called the solid south for a reason.
President Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) detained Japanese American citizens in prison camps.
President Andrew Jackson (Democrat) relocated thousands (if not millions) of Native Americans into "reservations".
Yeah, but at least the mistake was acknowledged. Bush and his fellows allow the detention of Muslims on suspicion of terror without access to the ICRC, a lawyer and the writ of habeas corpus.
Without a doubt, Adolf Hitler, with his anti-Israel, anti-Christian, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal.
Sure, and my name's Osama Bin Laden.
Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
Or, as vaunted conservative Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stupid things."
The thing about conservatives (social conservatives, NOT fiscal conservatives) is their hubris. That and their belief that corporations deserve welfare moreso than teenage mothers. Oh, and the little thing about opposing the right to control one's own body or to marry who you want to.
I don't see how he could be damaged by this.
At 3/24/06 11:44 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I honestly feel like whiny is synonymous with liberal. So when you take that into account, that makes a lot of sense, since the older you get, the more conservative you get. Going from whiny to conservative is just another way of saying going liberal to conservative. Self-reliance and resilience are conservative characteristics, so that baffles me.
How so? Everything I've read indicates that conservatives tend to adhere to the "strict father" family model where "discipline, authority, order, boundaries, homogenety, purity and self-interest" are primary goals. Liberals, however, follow the "nurturant parent" model, where diversity, social bonds, empathy and fairness are stressed. (Strict father quotes are from "Moral Politics," George Lakoff).
It's really about how we're raised and our morality. Here's another difference based off the same book:
Model conservative citizens have, obviously, conservative values, are self reliant and dicipllines and who believe in reward and punishment etc. Going further, this belief states that these people have been given no advantages or help by the government and that they help others by use of their own personal wealth. My question here is why conservatives tend to SUPPORT corporate welfare but OPPOSE welfare for the disadvantaged persons.
The ideal liberal, rather, says Lakoff, "helps the disadvanaged", "protects those who need protection," and is "socially responsible" while taking "care of himself [or herself] so he [or she] can do all this."
And then...we hate who we hate because of our morals:
Conservatives hate those who oppose "strict father/nuclear family" morality and this system, alopng with those who claim to "protect the public good," and those who oppose the ways that the military and criminal justice systems operate.
While liberals, like myself, tend to hate: those who "exploit the disadvantaged," those whose "activities hurt people or the environment," people who oppose public funds going to scholarships and the arts, and those who are only interested in their own self-interest and profit.
By the way, here's an interesting website: http://www.moral-politics.com/
No one ever goes from conservative to liberal unless you're gay, like David Brock.
That's a very odd statement.
At 3/24/06 11:28 AM, Proteas wrote:
Oh... so now we WANT the mentally inept to vote?
They don't anyway. Very few people vote at all. But considering that many blue collar votes go to Bush, it seems like middle america is low on the totem pole of IQ.
American and British troops need the help of all of our allies, namely the first world allies, because the primary concern now is to stabilize Iraq so that we can leave without civil war breaking out.
I had heard that he quit because of the scientology episode. Oh well, so much for my "informed" opinion :)
At 3/23/06 08:40 PM, MindControlFun wrote:
So what if (and this does happen) we are told the one-sided story that sex is bad for you
Good linked story.
At 3/23/06 08:12 PM, Begoner wrote:
So you are saying that two wrongs make a right? The Jews were persecuted so the Palestinians have to pay?
The Palestinians weren't PAYING for anything! The British had the land, they were willing to partition it to our disadvantage. We wanted a little slice, shows that piece of evidence, but the Arabs wanted it ALL so they said no. We wanted our bit of land, our TINY BIT, so when we declared our independence, they attacked. We won. The Palestinians could have had their own state, or they could move to Jordan (which has a palestinian majority). They left of their own accord.
Yes, that WAS a good insult. But it doesn't apply to ME. And butterfly ballots were inherently flawed anyway.
At 3/23/06 07:30 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote:
But if a child was raised with a gay parent from an early age i believe the outcome would be different.
Source? And why does it even matter?
In the studies they show current children living with homosexual parents.
They look to see if the parents are fit to be guardians.
That's all that matters.
"All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation. Other key findings include:
Well, that's obvious, now isn't it?
There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents...The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents."
That's all good...but what are you getting at.
This does not talk about the kids becoming gay, the studies are on if gays are good parents. It is talking about if the kids will have any disadvantages going to school, having a self esteem. Not if it effects the kids becoming gay or lesbian,.
But WHY does it matter if the kids become gay or lesbian? It's not harming you!
"There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents."
That's great. And probably true.
In my school, there is a kid with gay parents. He is made fun of everyday and has the lowest self esteem in the world. His gay dads are not married i dont think.
The kids who make fun of him should be severely punished, just as they would be if they made fun of a kid for being black, or Muslim, or Jewish.
When he was in elementary school he would slap other guys asses becuase he thought everyone did it. he learned that from his parents.
That's what we like to call anecdotal evidence. It's not representative!
The same goes for if they see 2 men together kissing. They will learn it as normal effection.
It IS normal affection.
This was talking about homosexuals adopting. The kids learn from their parents and could cause them to become gay, learn from what they do, etc.
Being gay IS NOT BAD! It does not harm anyone.
At 3/23/06 07:53 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 3/23/06 07:42 PM, TheShrike wrote: I smell publicity stuntMy policy is to not tie much credibility to anyone that religous
I'm surprised he quit. It pisses me off. He lets them make fun of everyone, which is cool, but NOT scientology. Weird.
