|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42967 Posts
On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 22 2017 00:53 KwarK wrote:
I can't help feeling like maybe black families would have done better had Nixon not locked up all the men. Obligatory "if the Dems and lib republicans had not replaced them with the welfare state" You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it? At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse.
The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism.
Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so.
|
That NR article is a pretty good example of mischaracterizing arguments.
"which the Left is now determined to tear up and destroy"
Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and sundry activists who gathered to do battle in Charlottesville that day believe that there are no intrinsic human virtues, only politics and power"
"they see America as the Evil Empire"
"just one more means to their Marxist end"
"transforming America by effacing and defacing every aspect of its history"
"even as they seek to destroy everything else"
|
On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Obligatory "if the Dems and lib republicans had not replaced them with the welfare state" You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it? At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse. The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism. Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so.
You are doing it again. The point is unrelated to the topic of welfare. The point is that your way of arguing is shit and destructive to the productive/informative discussion. Plansix has understood my point. I'll leave it at this, because getting through to you is apparently impossible.
|
It would be better if we just responded with "can you please elaborate on teh point you are trying to make?" when someone posts something that is obtuse. Through we used to do that and it was beyond tiresome.
|
On August 22 2017 02:00 Doodsmack wrote:
That NR article is a pretty good example of mischaracterizing arguments.
"which the Left is now determined to tear up and destroy"
Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and sundry activists who gathered to do battle in Charlottesville that day believe that there are no intrinsic human virtues, only politics and power"
"they see America as the Evil Empire"
"just one more means to their Marxist end"
"transforming America by effacing and defacing every aspect of its history"
"even as they seek to destroy everything else"
They have to spin that hard because the other side's story is so simple.
The Nazis had #MAGA hats on and one of them mounted a #CarJihad attack.
EDIT: and then the #MAGA President equivocated and spun to defend the Nazis/Confederates/Ethnostaters
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 22 2017 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it? At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse. The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism. Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so. You are doing it again. The point is unrelated to the topic of welfare. The point is that your way of arguing is shit and destructive to the productive/informative discussion. Plansix has understood my point. I'll leave it at this, because getting through to you is apparently impossible.
i'm pretty sure kwark understands your point fine; he's just a) a jerk; and b) disputing some of the merits of your interjection in this instance; and he does have some decent points in so doing.
|
On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 22 2017 00:53 KwarK wrote:
I can't help feeling like maybe black families would have done better had Nixon not locked up all the men. Obligatory "if the Dems and lib republicans had not replaced them with the welfare state" You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it? At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative.
What issues do you side with Republicans over Democrats on?
|
United States42967 Posts
Ghostcom went with "I don't wanna discuss welfare, also you're ignorant of conservative beliefs" and then got mad when I didn't discuss welfare with him but objected to being called ignorant. When the discussion turns to economically conservative areas xDaunt and I have agreed a number of times before, anyone familiar with this topic ought to know that.
|
Can everyone right now just enjoy the moment that our national media is focusing on the eclipse and science news. Amazing, enjoy while it lasts.
|
On August 22 2017 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Ghostcom went with "I don't wanna discuss welfare, also you're ignorant of conservative beliefs" and then got mad when I didn't discuss welfare with him but objected to being called ignorant. When the discussion turns to economically conservative areas xDaunt and I have agreed a number of times before, anyone familiar with this topic ought to know that.
A) Not what actually happened
B) I'm completely calm
C) Nice try
On August 22 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse. The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism. Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so. You are doing it again. The point is unrelated to the topic of welfare. The point is that your way of arguing is shit and destructive to the productive/informative discussion. Plansix has understood my point. I'll leave it at this, because getting through to you is apparently impossible. i'm pretty sure kwark understands your point fine; he's just a) a jerk; and b) disputing some of the merits of your interjection in this instance; and he does have some decent points in so doing.
He obviously doesn't.
|
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments.
|
United States42967 Posts
On August 22 2017 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:On August 22 2017 00:53 KwarK wrote:
I can't help feeling like maybe black families would have done better had Nixon not locked up all the men. Obligatory "if the Dems and lib republicans had not replaced them with the welfare state" You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it? At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread. Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. What issues do you side with Republicans over Democrats on?
You'd have to break it down by policy issue, and even then there are multiple policy proposals within each party. But broadly speaking I'm socially liberal, I agree with basically nothing in the Republican platform regarding religion, women's rights, civil rights, all that stuff.
When it comes to economic issues I'm pretty conservative. I don't like the Republican moves towards privatizing social security (even though they would benefit me personally) but I think that logically it will need to be cut, which is the Republican response to the shortfall. I think the Democrat response of keeping the payouts flat and raising taxes ignores the reality of the situation and that they will need to eventually compromise on it, as Clinton did the last time. I like 401ks, HSAs, and all the other tax advantaged self managed options the Republicans propose as free market alternatives to government care. I think they should exist above a socialized minimum, exactly as 401ks and social security work, but I like all that stuff. I'm pretty free market capitalist, my view is that regulations should exist to correct the function of the free market for externalities that cannot be properly accounted for without regulation etc. When GH and I clash it's over economic issues, likewise when xDaunt and I agree it's on economic issues. Broadly speaking I think lower taxes are better and I'm fine with inequality of outcomes. I'm not a huge fan of intergenerational wealth but I think that that's in line with free market American Dream conservatism and that if it weren't for the donor class most conservatives would rather income taxes be lower and estate taxes be higher. Merit, rather than the birth lottery, ought to decide outcomes. I'm more of an old fashioned free trade, make friends around the world with mutual dependence through profit, economic 19th C liberal (back when liberal used to mean what people call conservative now) on trade. Fine with NAFTA, pretty unnerved by Trump's attacks on trade agreements and his protectionist rhetoric, as any economic conservative ought to be.
For what it's worth I don't care either way on guns. I wouldn't want guns in the UK but I don't think you're fixing the gun issues in the US anytime soon no matter what you do.
|
On August 22 2017 02:22 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Ghostcom went with "I don't wanna discuss welfare, also you're ignorant of conservative beliefs" and then got mad when I didn't discuss welfare with him but objected to being called ignorant. When the discussion turns to economically conservative areas xDaunt and I have agreed a number of times before, anyone familiar with this topic ought to know that. A) Not what actually happened B) I'm completely calm C) Nice try Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:On August 22 2017 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare. No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need. I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse. The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism. Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so. You are doing it again. The point is unrelated to the topic of welfare. The point is that your way of arguing is shit and destructive to the productive/informative discussion. Plansix has understood my point. I'll leave it at this, because getting through to you is apparently impossible. i'm pretty sure kwark understands your point fine; he's just a) a jerk; and b) disputing some of the merits of your interjection in this instance; and he does have some decent points in so doing. He obviously doesn't.
I disagree, and feel that your claim that he doesn't understand your point at all needs more substantiation; and that you should look more at the flaws in your own arguments and approach; since you are to a lesser extent doing the same things you accuse him of.
|
On August 22 2017 02:26 IgnE wrote:
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments.
IgnE and I agree on something, let us mark this moment by blotting out the sun.
Seriously, I am so bummed this thing is not going to pass over me. One of my co-workers is flying to Nevada to watch it, because he is a huge space nerd on a level I can't even being to understand. I sort of envy him right now.
|
On August 22 2017 02:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:22 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Ghostcom went with "I don't wanna discuss welfare, also you're ignorant of conservative beliefs" and then got mad when I didn't discuss welfare with him but objected to being called ignorant. When the discussion turns to economically conservative areas xDaunt and I have agreed a number of times before, anyone familiar with this topic ought to know that. A) Not what actually happened B) I'm completely calm C) Nice try On August 22 2017 02:14 zlefin wrote:On August 22 2017 02:02 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need.
I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument. What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative. I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post. I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative. Is this the point where: 1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative 2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse. The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism. Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so. You are doing it again. The point is unrelated to the topic of welfare. The point is that your way of arguing is shit and destructive to the productive/informative discussion. Plansix has understood my point. I'll leave it at this, because getting through to you is apparently impossible. i'm pretty sure kwark understands your point fine; he's just a) a jerk; and b) disputing some of the merits of your interjection in this instance; and he does have some decent points in so doing. He obviously doesn't. I disagree, and feel that your claim that he doesn't understand your point at all needs more substantiation; and that you should look more at the flaws in your own arguments and approach; since you are to a lesser extent doing the same things you accuse him of.
On August 22 2017 01:28 Ghostcom wrote:
The NR article is without a doubt terrible, but even you will have to admit there is a pattern of gross mischaracterization of the opposing side's arguments. And perhaps not understanding what Danglars meant should prompt you to ask him to clarify rather than giving a usual quip mischaracterizing what he said and thus launching us into another 10-50 page discussion where all meaning is lost and everyone is declared either a fascist, racist, nazi, ANTIFA, alt-right, alt-left, or something similar. It's a repeating cycle in this thread.
Or if one doesn't want clarification at least have the decency to simply ignore it and move on. Would also save us from the 10-50 page nonsens and namecalling.
I just want to point out how ironic it is how you wanted to avoid name calling and the decency for people to simply ignore and move on,
Edit: what he said..
The entire exchange was obtuse and snarky, but you only felt the need to criticize certain people for mischaracterization. That seems like mischaracterization too.. :thinking emoji:
|
On August 22 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:26 IgnE wrote:
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments. IgnE and I agree on something, let us mark this moment by blotting out the sun. Seriously, I am so bummed this thing is not going to pass over me. One of my co-workers is flying to Nevada to watch it, because he is a huge space nerd on a level I can't even being to understand. I sort of envy him right now.
i mean you'll still get like 75% coverage up there.
|
On August 22 2017 02:35 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 22 2017 02:26 IgnE wrote:
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments. IgnE and I agree on something, let us mark this moment by blotting out the sun. Seriously, I am so bummed this thing is not going to pass over me. One of my co-workers is flying to Nevada to watch it, because he is a huge space nerd on a level I can't even being to understand. I sort of envy him right now. i mean you'll still get like 75% coverage up there.
Not even close to the same. with 75% you wont see coronal mass ejections (without the sunglasses) and it just looks like a cloudy day. with 100% you see the mass ejections and it looks light night time. I havent had the pleasure of getting 100%, but I have heard its a totally different ballgame.
|
On August 22 2017 02:35 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 22 2017 02:26 IgnE wrote:
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments. IgnE and I agree on something, let us mark this moment by blotting out the sun. Seriously, I am so bummed this thing is not going to pass over me. One of my co-workers is flying to Nevada to watch it, because he is a huge space nerd on a level I can't even being to understand. I sort of envy him right now. i mean you'll still get like 75% coverage up there.
It will still be cool, but one could already dream of 100 %.
|
yea i'm sure day time darkness would be fun. i'm only looking forward to something in the neighborhood of 80-85 here in DC but it's pretty exciting. went out to take a peek while it's just starting, looks like we're about halfway to peak eclipse down here already.
and then as soon as the moon has finished it's transit it's supposed to start raining, bless the rain for waiting.
edit2: it's getting darker outside!
|
Norway28689 Posts
we have daytime darkness every winter here. It's not really that great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHO-hOZXgAE29ot.jpg)
