hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2187 of 2527 FirstFirst ... 118716872087213721772184218521862187218821892190219722372287 ... LastLast
Results 43,721 to 43,740 of 50534

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #43721
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Yes because it takes zero account into changing circumstances OR the basic biological urge of the human species.
    So in your opinion, I should have had kids even when I was dirt poor, and demanded others to pay me to take care of them until such time as my circumstances changed.

    And by denying my basic biological urge, it is I who am in the wrong.

    Is that accurate?


  2. #43722
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Yes because it takes zero account into changing circumstances OR the basic biological urge of the human species.
    So in your opinion, I should have had kids even when I was dirt poor, and demanded others to pay me to take care of them until such time as my circumstances changed.

    And by denying my basic biological urge, it is I who am in the wrong.

    Is that accurate?
    Are you aware of the phenomenon of socially generated wealth and multiplier effects?

    Why are you so content to kick down those less fortunate than you instead of parasitic accumulators of social wealth?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #43723

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,632
    Oh, it's another Alistar vs. Keckers debate.


  4. #43724

    Join Date
    July 30, 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by metacannibal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    the real solution is legislation to legalize (or at the minimum decriminalize) pot.
    The REAL solution is creating a socioeconomic environment where people have a life thats so appreciable that they prefer being sober over drug influenced perception.
    Implying that wealthy, happy people don't drink or do recreational drugs, right?

    It's not my (or your) place to make moral judgement on others choice of entertainment, long as they don't hurt anyone in doing it (drunk/high driving, crimes, etc).

    if one wants to have a drink, or a smoke, who the ever living fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't?
    That's a very interesting position for you to take considering your proposals on gun laws.

    Now bad@botes

  5. #43725
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    I seem to recall something about stopping the poors from having children. That was a policy I couldn't get on board with.

    I might be wrong.
    I think it's irresponsible to have kids you cannot afford to properly care for, aye.

    I think it's doubly irresponsible to have six kids when you can't afford to take care of one.

    I'm admittedly biased, because of personal experiences on this issue. I know how kids in such situations can be hurt.

    People should be encouraged to live within their available means, even with the help social aid programs.

    Is that an unreasonable view?
    Do you think the level of CEO pay in unreasonable?

    Do you think it unreasonable to have a minimum living wage?

    Would you think it unreasonable to have a hard cap on CEO pay to support the livelihoods of children who are born into families who otherwise could not support them?
    1. Yes, I'd say CEO Pay, Pro Athlete Pay, Hollywood Actor Pay and more can all appear unreasonable, until you see the revenue they generate or materially control/are responsible for. With that said, I find CEO pay specifically to be too often focused on short term gains, and not the long term health of the corporation they serve.

    2. I have no general objection to minimum wage or universal income concepts.

    3. I do not support the Government determining private business compensation beyond setting the minimum. If wages (or better yet, investment income and other non-labor incomes!) are issues, the tax code (if a progressive tax) is best suited to handle that.


  6. #43726
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by metacannibal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    the real solution is legislation to legalize (or at the minimum decriminalize) pot.
    The REAL solution is creating a socioeconomic environment where people have a life thats so appreciable that they prefer being sober over drug influenced perception.
    Implying that wealthy, happy people don't drink or do recreational drugs, right?

    It's not my (or your) place to make moral judgement on others choice of entertainment, long as they don't hurt anyone in doing it (drunk/high driving, crimes, etc).

    if one wants to have a drink, or a smoke, who the ever living fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't?
    That's a very interesting position for you to take considering your proposals on gun laws.
    When someone mass murders 100 people with their joint, let me know.


  7. #43727
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Yes because it takes zero account into changing circumstances OR the basic biological urge of the human species.
    So in your opinion, I should have had kids even when I was dirt poor, and demanded others to pay me to take care of them until such time as my circumstances changed.

    And by denying my basic biological urge, it is I who am in the wrong.

    Is that accurate?
    No, it's not.

    Let's take a step back for a second.

    You think it's wrong for poor people to have children, and you've given reasons why. There are reasons why we need poor people to have children, not least because in most Western countries we have an ageing population that is generally somewhat resistant politically to allowing immigration, so if we wish to maintain current productivity we need to replace the workforce. Basic market economics.

    My point is, as it was the last two times - why are people, who work full time in the richest nations of the world, so poor that having children is somehow beyond them? My argument is and has always been that if there are poor people that can't afford their children, the problem isn't the children, the problem is that they are too poor.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

  8. #43728

    Join Date
    July 30, 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by metacannibal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    the real solution is legislation to legalize (or at the minimum decriminalize) pot.
    The REAL solution is creating a socioeconomic environment where people have a life thats so appreciable that they prefer being sober over drug influenced perception.
    Implying that wealthy, happy people don't drink or do recreational drugs, right?

    It's not my (or your) place to make moral judgement on others choice of entertainment, long as they don't hurt anyone in doing it (drunk/high driving, crimes, etc).

    if one wants to have a drink, or a smoke, who the ever living fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't?
    That's a very interesting position for you to take considering your proposals on gun laws.
    When someone mass murders 100 people with their joint, let me know.
    "We shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do for fun"
    -Alistair 2018

    "One guy with a gun killed a bunch of people, let's tell all the unconnected people who want to have non-destructive fun with guns that they can't"
    -Also Alistair 2018

    Now bad@botes

  9. #43729
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Yes because it takes zero account into changing circumstances OR the basic biological urge of the human species.
    So in your opinion, I should have had kids even when I was dirt poor, and demanded others to pay me to take care of them until such time as my circumstances changed.

    And by denying my basic biological urge, it is I who am in the wrong.

    Is that accurate?
    No, it's not.

    Let's take a step back for a second.

    You think it's wrong for poor people to have children, and you've given reasons why.
    Wrong? No. I think it's irresponsible. One is a moral judgement, and I am not making a moral judgement here. One is a fiscal judgement, and that is the judgement I am qualified to make.

    There are reasons why we need poor people to have children, not least because in most Western countries we have an ageing population that is generally somewhat resistant politically to allowing immigration, so if we wish to maintain current productivity we need to replace the workforce. Basic market economics.
    As stated earlier, I support legal immigration and reform to legal immigration on the macro economics scale as needed.

    The issue of an individual choosing to have children is a microeconomics issue. While I appreciate it has effects (in total) on the Macro scale, the decision is always a micro decision.

    My point is, as it was the last two times - why are people, who work full time in the richest nations of the world, so poor that having children is somehow beyond them?
    A fair concern.

    My argument is and has always been that if there are poor people that can't afford their children, the problem isn't the children, the problem is that they are too poor.
    An argument that speaks to the idea of a Basic Universal Income I'd say. if we want to talk about that, I'd be open to it as a possible solution.

    But even then, is there a line to be drawn? What if under a BUI system, someone chooses to have 6 kids. Or 8. Or 10.

    Should the BUI system simply be set up to fully fund as many as you like, no limit? Or should it allow for some but not a veritable flock?
    Last edited by Alistair; January 5 2018 at 04:41:10 PM.


  10. #43730
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by metacannibal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    the real solution is legislation to legalize (or at the minimum decriminalize) pot.
    The REAL solution is creating a socioeconomic environment where people have a life thats so appreciable that they prefer being sober over drug influenced perception.
    Implying that wealthy, happy people don't drink or do recreational drugs, right?

    It's not my (or your) place to make moral judgement on others choice of entertainment, long as they don't hurt anyone in doing it (drunk/high driving, crimes, etc).

    if one wants to have a drink, or a smoke, who the ever living fuck are you to tell them they shouldn't?
    That's a very interesting position for you to take considering your proposals on gun laws.
    When someone mass murders 100 people with their joint, let me know.
    "We shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do for fun"
    -Alistair 2018

    "One guy with a gun killed a bunch of people, let's tell all the unconnected people who want to have non-destructive fun with guns that they can't"
    -Also Alistair 2018
    Yes, I'd tell all the people that having semi-auto millitary-type high-capacity firearms and handguns should be outlawed due to public risk, while protecting the rights of non-millitary, low-capacity, sportsman and civillian use firearms.

    Sorry you don't like it. But it's nice to be attacked by the right here for a change. Keeps life interesting.


  11. #43731
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,871
    Alright, I'll spell it out for you. Take a look at the following name:

    Alistair

    Now to understand his posting, you have to ignore the Shit in the middle. To reflect that, we eliminate the S.

    Alitair

    Now he is further right politically than most of FHC, which is rather Liberal. To reflect that, let's move the L a bit to the right.

    Aitlair

    A right leaning individual is only going to post on a liberal forum if they have an open mind up front. Therefore, spread out the top of the A a bit to form an H.

    Hitlair

    This clearly demonstrates that Alistair is literally Hitler, and it is entirely justified to attribute any right wing beliefs to him. I can also prove through voter demographics that he voted for Trump.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  12. #43732
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,311
    Seems like sound reasoning

  13. #43733
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Alright, I'll spell it out for you. Take a look at the following name:

    Alistair

    Now to understand his posting, you have to ignore the Shit in the middle. To reflect that, we eliminate the S.

    Alitair

    Now he is further right politically than most of FHC, which is rather Liberal. To reflect that, let's move the L a bit to the right.

    Aitlair

    A right leaning individual is only going to post on a liberal forum if they have an open mind up front. Therefore, spread out the top of the A a bit to form an H.

    Hitlair

    This clearly demonstrates that Alistair is literally Hitler, and it is entirely justified to attribute any right wing beliefs to him. I can also prove through voter demographics that he voted for Trump.
    But what about Hitlery's ENIGMA messages!?
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  14. #43734
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    But even then, is there a line to be drawn? What if under a BUI system, someone chooses to have 6 kids. Or 8. Or 10.

    Should the BUI system simply be set up to fully fund as many as you like, no limit? Or should it allow for some but not a veritable flock?
    To a prosperous Western democracy, it shouldn't matter how many kids get supported through subsidies, welfare etc, mainly because all such societies are facing low and even negative birthrates of indigenous populations. Also, the kids get supported until they turn 18, generally. Then they generate tax revenue until they're 65-70. The benefits should outweigh the cost, unless the system is designed to work for the benefit of large companies making profits off of poor, uneducated, and incarceration prone (for a given value of intentional systemic criminalization of entire segments of the population) ethnic groups. If the system is designed to grow an educated and productive population, and profit is not put above people at any cost, you may end up with a larger share of people living in prosperity in that country, ideally. Real-world conditions and idiots may invalidate all efforts.

    e: typo


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  15. #43735
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,395
    It's stupid people that should be prevented from breeding. Having a kid should come with a comprehensive test so that you can prove you aren't going to break it's future earning potential.
    meh

  16. #43736
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,757
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    It's stupid people that should be prevented from breeding. Having a kid should come with a comprehensive test so that you can prove you aren't going to break it's future earning potential.
    He never once argued for preventing breeding, just that he felt it irresponsible to have kids, if you're not capable of supporting them yourself. I agree with the second part.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  17. #43737
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,915
    There is a German saying: dumm fickt gut - stupid fucks well.

    Low education populations have far higher birthrates than highly educated groups. To enforce your idea of only allowing people to have kids when they pass a test, you will either need forced abortions or forced adoptions or even forced sterilizations.

    Not saying it's a bad idea, but you need to be aware of the consequences of such policy ideas.
    nevar forget

  18. #43738
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    There is a German saying: dumm fickt gut - stupid fucks well.

    Low education populations have far higher birthrates than highly educated groups. To enforce your idea of only allowing people to have kids when they pass a test, you will either need forced abortions or forced adoptions or even forced sterilizations.

    Not saying it's a bad idea, but you need to be aware of the consequences of such policy ideas.
    We have a saying in Africa that the easiest solution to birth control is women's education.
    meh

  19. #43739
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica View Post
    To a prosperous Western democracy, it shouldn't matter how many kids get supported through subsidies, welfare etc, mainly because all such societies are facing low and even negative birthrates of indigenous populations.
    Is this legitimately a problem? In a world slowly being destroyed via climate change and overpopulation?

    If it is, isn't immigration a better solution to state-supported mass-reproduction of our domestic socioeconomically least productive?

    Immigration allows for added diversity, and if done correctly, an influx of the best the rest of the world has to offer.

    Also, the kids get supported until they turn 18, generally. Then they generate tax revenue until they're 65-70.
    I think you may be surprised to see exactly how many residents are generating a net zero or at best a very small net positive in tax revenues.

    The benefits should outweigh the cost, unless the system is designed to work for the benefit of large companies making profits off of poor, uneducated, and incarceration prone (for a given value of intentional systemic criminalization of entire segments of the population) ethnic groups.
    Discussion of the U.S. penal code is a whole other thing. A great start? Decriminalization of non-violent drug possession/use crimes where the only "victim" is the user.

    If the system is designed to grow an educated and productive population, and profit is not put above people at any cost, you may end up with a larger share of people living in prosperity in that country, ideally. Real-world conditions and idiots may invalidate all efforts.
    This all sounds so wonderful, if people were (as a whole) their ideal selves.

    But we live in a real world, where people are real people, and I would be concerned that the beneficiaries will not live up to your hopes, and the payees will not enjoy working as hard as they do so others can not work and have 8 kids all on the taxpayers dime.

    Human nature and all.


  20. #43740
    Movember 2012 Zekk Pacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    7,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zekk Pacus View Post
    Yes because it takes zero account into changing circumstances OR the basic biological urge of the human species.
    So in your opinion, I should have had kids even when I was dirt poor, and demanded others to pay me to take care of them until such time as my circumstances changed.

    And by denying my basic biological urge, it is I who am in the wrong.

    Is that accurate?
    No, it's not.

    Let's take a step back for a second.

    You think it's wrong for poor people to have children, and you've given reasons why.
    Wrong? No. I think it's irresponsible. One is a moral judgement, and I am not making a moral judgement here. One is a fiscal judgement, and that is the judgement I am qualified to make.

    There are reasons why we need poor people to have children, not least because in most Western countries we have an ageing population that is generally somewhat resistant politically to allowing immigration, so if we wish to maintain current productivity we need to replace the workforce. Basic market economics.
    As stated earlier, I support legal immigration and reform to legal immigration on the macro economics scale as needed.

    The issue of an individual choosing to have children is a microeconomics issue. While I appreciate it has effects (in total) on the Macro scale, the decision is always a micro decision.

    My point is, as it was the last two times - why are people, who work full time in the richest nations of the world, so poor that having children is somehow beyond them?
    A fair concern.

    My argument is and has always been that if there are poor people that can't afford their children, the problem isn't the children, the problem is that they are too poor.
    An argument that speaks to the idea of a Basic Universal Income I'd say. if we want to talk about that, I'd be open to it as a possible solution.

    But even then, is there a line to be drawn? What if under a BUI system, someone chooses to have 6 kids. Or 8. Or 10.

    Should the BUI system simply be set up to fully fund as many as you like, no limit? Or should it allow for some but not a veritable flock?
    The very basis of the social contract is that we will pay for children to get a good start in life with the understanding that they then grow up to be productive members of society who pay taxes and fund the next generation. So there should be no limit, we should provide a reasonable standard of living for each child.

    And if that doesn't float your goat, remember that children will cost money regardless unless we get into some seriously dicey stuff, and they tend to cost less and do better when they're living with parents.
    'I'm pro life. I'm a non-smoker. I'm a pro-life non-smoker. WOO, Let the party begin!'

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •