Thread: Gingerbread Dojo #5 - dalem & zraver Sweep Some Legs

Originally Posted by zraver

First, everything does not suggest its counter productive, in fact there is a lot that suggests it is very productive. The unproductive parts need reform or cancellation but to imply everything is a non starter.

Redistribution of wealth implies taking it from someone who makes it and giving it to someone who does not. How exactly is better wages redistribution since the workers make the product? The other problem with the term is social goods. You can't make wealth without borrowing/ leaning on social goods. Social goods are everything from public schools, roads, water treatment plants, the power grid, emergency services etc. So if a social program seeks to increase the value of a social good ie student aid for college students, or nutritional supports for grade school kids in poorer family, job training programs etc how are they redistribution since the money spent is returned with better more productive workers and tax payers?

Once of companies my family has a major interest in will take on 200-250 new young people next year: The Company will train them and give them private health insurance and pension provision. Hell if they can't read and write etc we'd do that; they are as you observe with Marx one of our 'means of production'. I believe the private companies that made the factories and railroads etc built houses and schools and all sorts for their workforce. Employers have an interest in their employees. Where does the State enter that equation?

While I recognise that the State CAN make 'infrastucture' and give basic healthcare, education etc this, in the end, is taking jobs away from your 'proliteriat'; by taxing the employers you might provide healthier employees but there is going to be less jobs because you (the Sate) 'stole' some of the profit. You of your well meaningness may believe you have helped them with healthcare but if they can't get a job after, and because, you've made them healthy what is the point?

If China doesn't give free healthcare how can our companies compete when we are over taxing them?

There are two ways to go about improving something. Add capability to an existing system or improve the capability of an existing system. Both require a hard look at what the system is designed to do and what it is actually doing. Liberal critique is far more patriotic in effect than a parade of flag wavers who accept what ever the government line is without question.

So the flag wavers are not capable of criticism?

care to support that? They often hold the huge amounts of military spending and a lot of shoot first kill em all generals in contempt, but generally not the military itself.

So when Durbin equated Gitmo guards with Nazis, or Kerry claimed his fellow Vietnam soldiers were the same as Genghis Khan, they were registered as Republicans that day?

How is it lesser? Lets use that reason thing we were talking about.

Sure thing. A homo "marriage" will never produce another American without third party intervention. Ever.

A long term monitoring study using scientific principles is not evidence? Newton would be proud...

Not of that little study that had some comments about "aggression". That's not evidence, it's a fluff piece.

how many to you is a few million? If a few million is meant to indicate widespread social acceptance of the words definition... then you have a problem 53% of Americans something like 160,000,000 people think gay marriages should be valid according to Gallup. Those opposed to gay marriage are now a minority.

Ahh, but just as men are not potatoes, people are not dictionaries. I can provide a diagram if you'd like.

States not colonies please, most of the northern colonies and all of the new northern states were anti-slave.

Why states? In any case, based on this, it looks like I count 7 states that NEVER had anti-miscegnation laws.

For now, but they often used to be Democrats

Ahh that's right - I forget that if it's bad, it came from a conservative to you. Which is strange, since you say all the liberal stuff is good, and liberals are basically commies, and Stalin was a commie. I'm sure I'll figure it some day.

Reason depends on what is, not what people prefer is to be. Sentencing imbalances have done huge amounts of damage to the African American community for a crime that is substantially no different than a white guy selling coke.

And many people would disagree that crack is the same as coke. Just as those same people would not equate meth with coke. And those same people give longer sentences for meth than coke. So again, not targeted against a subgroup of people other than "folks who use substance X", and I'm still not Stalin.

You and most conservatives favor programs that have more in common with Stalin than Stalin has in common with liberals. Though progressives conservative or liberal are the closest.

Right, you said that.

There goes reason... So a set of shared if idelaistic human morals from across 180 some cultures and peoples with many times that religions, and non-religions can reach conclusions not much different from God based morals it don't mean shit?

Right. You're talking about the same group that loved Arafat, mourns Kim Jong-il, and funds "climate change" conclusions that would embarrass the average third-grader for their idiocy and falsity. Anything they like probably sucks and anything they don't is probably awesome. Their value and relevancy to a discussions involving American principles is nil. nil -1.

God and Creator are not necessarily the same thing. But care to provide me any examples?

I pulled this about the DoI from here

They appeal to the idea that the right to declare independence from England comes directly from the "Law of Nature and Nature's God"; the notion that the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are endowed by the "Creator"; the appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"; and the closing references to the "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."

I was out of my mind about the Constitution, you were right about that one. Nothing in there referencing any deity or power.

Exactly, gender is an occupation, sex is a physical attribute.

We're never going to agree on any part of this one, you know. But that doesn't make me a Stalin either, unless the fact that I sport facial hair also makes me a Stalin.

How many examples of conservative infringing on these things would you like?

One each? How many examples of liberals infringing on such things would you like?

Then support them please, and use that reasoning. lay the argument out A to B to C....

1) you favor confiscatory taxation

You believe that equality of opportunity is not sufficient for people - you feel that equality of outcome is important as well. If Bob has $10,000 and Sam has $100,000 you feel that Sam should give some of his money to Bob. You justify this easily because you feel that Sam has enough money to be able to part with some of it.

2) you dismiss the importance of gender distinctions

Hell, we could go pages on this alone. You believe that how someone feels about their role in society is more important than the physical equipment they leave the factory with. Since you believe that almost no barriers regarding behavior are appropriate, you cherish the outliers and encourage their decisions.

3) you believe that law and morality are ultimately separable

This one is harder for me because your reasoning here is breathtakingly stupid. But. Since you feel there is no ultimate creator to source laws to, thousands of years of religious appropriation of the role of ethics and morals instructor and arbiter is void. Also, there can be no concept of "good" or "evil" in your world - all acts are judged merely on their immediate effect.

4) conclusions different than your own cannot be reached by means of reason

Rampant throughout 3 threads now. Your anger at the mere suggestion of "women and children first", dismissal of the possibility that thousands of years of tradition might be of great importance to huge swaths of people, and your transparent avoidance at every turn at real engagement shows your contempt for any view not your own.

which means one of us if off the mark. We both agree elective abortion is wrong. But when the mothers life is in danger, by extent the fetus is in danger and likely already dead anyway, as are any follow on kids who might have been born if we let mom go the way of the fetus.

Why is elective abortion wrong to you? How common is the "life of the mother in danger" case accompanied by an "already dead" fetus?

You never play devils advocate?

Sure, but I'm not a twat about it.

In theoretical models they do, but the real world has too many variables. Right now the price of flat screen TV's is collapsing- why 2 reasons market saturation and consumers without the wherewithal to buy them. The problem feeds itself.

So, prices DON'T drop in the real world, and your example of that is... a product where prices are dropping? And when the price drops low enough for people to buy them they will. Sounds like a market to me.

The dollars spent in 6 years did

in 2000 the US spent 3% of GDP on the military. In 2007 that number grew to 4% from 300 billion to about 415 billion but that is before off budget war spending which is added drives total spending in 2007 to 600 billion. That spending in dollars doubled, but % of GDP didn't with economic growth from 1q 2001 to 1q 2007 of just 1.8 trillion (14% growth in 2005 inflation adjusted dollars for the period) The same increase in military spending- ie capped to growth would yield a budget of under 500 billion.

So, in other words, MY words, the percentages didn't double. Good point. Wish I'd made it.

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

My respect for your predictive talents is growing.

Shhh! You'll give it away!

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

So the flag wavers are not capable of criticism?

Not as easily... critiquing your political beliefs is one of the hardest things to do.

So when Durbin equated Gitmo guards with Nazis, or Kerry claimed his fellow Vietnam soldiers were the same as Genghis Khan, they were registered as Republicans that day?

Grab two extremists...

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." ~ Richard M. Nixon

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.'' ~ Rep. Michelle Bachmann

Sure thing. A homo "marriage" will never produce another American without third party intervention. Ever.

major fail here, and I do mean major.

1. Marriages don't require petitioners to pass a fertility test.
2. We allow post menopausal women to marry.
3. We allow women and men who cannot reproduce marry.
4. We allow people who have had gender re-assignment surgery to marry their former sex- and if they went from man to woman they cannot reproduce.
5. marriages that do not produce issue are not dissolved by the state.

Not of that little study that had some comments about "aggression". That's not evidence, it's a fluff piece.

You might try re-reading it then.

Ahh, but just as men are not potatoes, people are not dictionaries. I can provide a diagram if you'd like.

or you cans top being flippant...

Why states? In any case, based on this, it looks like I count 7 states that NEVER had anti-miscegnation laws.

LMFAO not only are you bad at politics, but now your bad at math. NY, NY, NH, Ct, Vt, WI, MN, HI, AK, I count 9. Actually 11, since Washington didn't become a state until 1889 and so never had the law as a state. Ditto for Kansas, it was admitted as a state without those laws.

Ahh that's right - I forget that if it's bad, it came from a conservative to you. Which is strange, since you say all the liberal stuff is good, and liberals are basically commies, and Stalin was a commie. I'm sure I'll figure it some day.

Well the first part in figuring it out would be to put your brain in gear and actually reason things out- if you can.

Had enough of the with malice aforethought ad hominems?

And many people would disagree that crack is the same as coke. Just as those same people would not equate meth with coke. And those same people give longer sentences for meth than coke. So again, not targeted against a subgroup of people other than "folks who use substance X", and I'm still not Stalin.

And again instead of reason you fall back on a logical fallacy and appeal to popular sentiment which may or may not be grounded in truth and may or may not reflect actual the majority

Right. You're talking about the same group that loved Arafat, mourns Kim Jong-il, and funds "climate change" conclusions that would embarrass the average third-grader for their idiocy and falsity. Anything they like probably sucks and anything they don't is probably awesome. Their value and relevancy to a discussions involving American principles is nil. nil -1.

And you just gave our international wabbers a tour de force exhibition in why we have been titled 'stupid" by so much of the planet. I was talking things like the 4th geneva Conventions, the rights of the child, ban on chemical weapons... you know stuff our Senate ratifies or our ambassador votes on.

I pulled this about the DoI from here

In other words you can't. Going to your dictionary- a creator is one who makes something which in this case would be parents. And can you point me to the nearest church of Natures God? After all for morality to come from religion, that religion needs to exist.

I was out of my mind about the Constitution, you were right about that one. Nothing in there referencing any deity or power.

Thank you

We're never going to agree on any part of this one, you know. But that doesn't make me a Stalin either, unless the fact that I sport facial hair also makes me a Stalin.

Open up your mind a little bit please. Gender is a role and occupation. As a single custodial father, I am DAD, but I also have to be mom- a I less of a man?

One each? How many examples of liberals infringing on such things would you like?

Your the one that made the claim... I daresay I can list more by conservatives.

1) you favor confiscatory taxation

Actually I oppose it

You believe that equality of opportunity is not sufficient for people - you feel that equality of outcome is important as well. If Bob has $10,000 and Sam has $100,000 you feel that Sam should give some of his money to Bob. You justify this easily because you feel that Sam has enough money to be able to part with some of it.

Double dog dare you to find even one instance of me saying that.

I believe in as equal as reasonably possible a starting position, so that out comes reflect talent and familial wealth.

2) you dismiss the importance of gender distinctions

Again, where have I ever said that? I dismiss the notion that sex and gender are the same.

Hell, we could go pages on this alone. You believe that how someone feels about their role in society is more important than the physical equipment they leave the factory with. Since you believe that almost no barriers regarding behavior are appropriate, you cherish the outliers and encourage their decisions.

Actually we can't because strawmen don't respond... that is three in a row from you. I think American's should be free to pursue their lives in accordance with the clearly stated principles found in our constitution- in particular the 10th and 14th Amendments. If the powers of government not expressly given to government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people, and the equal application of the law is an imperative. I am neither encouraging nor cherishing anyone, but merely striving to uphold a document I find as sacred as any religious text.

3) you believe that law and morality are ultimately separable

That is 4 strawmen in a row. I feel that morality and religion are ultimately separable. However I do not think law should define morality or morality define law without context and reasoned application.

This one is harder for me because your reasoning here is breathtakingly stupid. But. Since you feel there is no ultimate creator to source laws to, thousands of years of religious appropriation of the role of ethics and morals instructor and arbiter is void. Also, there can be no concept of "good" or "evil" in your world - all acts are judged merely on their immediate effect.

5 in a row

1. I never said there was no ultimate creator source. In fact by showing casing the UN I quite clearly showed that disparate people some religious, some not can reach the same general conclusions about morality. I can also point to Chinese legalism and ancient Greece among hudreds of other examples.

4) conclusions different than your own cannot be reached by means of reason

Rampant throughout 3 threads now. Your anger at the mere suggestion of "women and children first", dismissal of the possibility that thousands of years of tradition might be of great importance to huge swaths of people, and your transparent avoidance at every turn at real engagement shows your contempt for any view not your own.

talking to yourself?

I've asked you repeatedly to use the reason your claim, but am subjected to flippancy and fallacy.

anger at women and children first- 100% BS lie, It was disagreement with grandma's first.

Thousands of years of tradition... from a nation around less than a 1/4 of an eon? Really? But lets expand it to the globe since that is the only way to encompass thousands which must be 2000 or more years. Since you don't specify lets just use all of recorded history shall we? In which case marriage should be allowed between brother and sister (Pharonic Egypt), man and beast (India, Rome), men with multiple wives (multiple instances), wives with multiple men (Canadian Inuit) adult-child, adult infant, infant-infant, arranged, love bond, marriage by inheritance (Ancient Israel), contract (fixed time) marriages, secular, religious, no divorce, no fault divorce, fault divorce, plural marriages, re-marriages, posthumous marriage.... and same sex marriage (ancient china and Rome and medieval Europe).

Real engagement, I am really asking you- what marriage tradition spanning thousands of years are you talking about?

Why is elective abortion wrong to you?

Because the fetus is fully human from conception.

How common is the "life of the mother in danger" case accompanied by an "already dead" fetus?

If the mother dies, the fetus if alive at her passing dies too so the fetus for lack of a better term is a "dead man walking".

Sure, but I'm not a twat about it.

Just sexist apparently to use the most common American definition of the word twat.

So, prices DON'T drop in the real world, and your example of that is... a product where prices are dropping? And when the price drops low enough for people to buy them they will. Sounds like a market to me.

And because people don't have the money to buy them now... that ain't a market, its a bubble.

So, in other words, MY words, the percentages didn't double. Good point. Wish I'd made it.

Spending did double in dollars and vastly outpaced GDP growth which is an explosion in spending no matter how you cut it.

Can someone post some cool video now?

Originally Posted by snapper

Once of companies my family has a major interest in will take on 200-250 new young people next year: The Company will train them and give them private health insurance and pension provision. Hell if they can't read and write etc we'd do that; they are as you observe with Marx one of our 'means of production'. I believe the private companies that made the factories and railroads etc built houses and schools and all sorts for their workforce. Employers have an interest in their employees. Where does the State enter that equation?

When those companies pay in script and inflate prices and then extend credit at usurious rates...

While I recognise that the State CAN make 'infrastucture' and give basic healthcare, education etc this, in the end, is taking jobs away from your 'proliteriat'; by taxing the employers you might provide healthier employees but there is going to be less jobs because you (the Sate) 'stole' some of the profit. You of your well meaningness may believe you have helped them with healthcare but if they can't get a job after, and because, you've made them healthy what is the point?

Care to show me a single example of unrestrained capitalism that isn't built on the bones of the poor? Just 1. Its funny how after things we take for granted today- clean water, wholesome food, mass literacy didn't become common place until capitalism was restrained from its worse excesses.

If China doesn't give free healthcare how can our companies compete when we are over taxing them?

By not over taxing them. I don't believe in corporate taxes because it kill competition. Government [general] revenues should be based on tariffs, personal taxes and state sales of things like mineral contracts, but hey thanks for ignoring what i actually write so you can make yourself feel witty and important.