|
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. |
On September 20 2017 07:44 Danglars wrote:Pretty clickbait title, but a thought-provoking story. The Washington Post already filed a story in protest. I've seen his perspective validated in my own observations as well. The media likes talking about filters on news, and here's what should be the "ultimate filter" of sorts. But read the article first if you want to really understand his logic and debate the topic.
For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all.
|
On September 20 2017 08:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 07:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 20 2017 07:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 07:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 20 2017 07:35 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 07:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 20 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
More money spent on the military puts more money into the hands of the people who work on important advanced research projects - which includes those who work from the hallowed halls of academia.
More money into education generally leads to construction of endless university infrastructure projects, real estate of little worth, dorms for exorbitant prices, and so on. There is not a lack of money being spent on education, just a lack of proportionate results.
Healthcare is similar.
Infrastructure lol.
Two of the above three problems could adequately be solved with communism. I am pretty sure most of the money doesn't go to advanced research. Otherwise we should ave already had laser equipped dolphins and/or sharks. Nowhere near all of it of course, but definitely enough to matter. I don't disagree that a lot of it goes into stuff that is pointless to build. But a hefty budget is definitely a good thing for sonic dolphins and mind controlled giant squids. We live in a country where throwing around money on expensive engineering projects is 40x more acceptable if it's for the military than for civilian purposes. Your last point is what we are against. We understand the need to outspend, but not the amount we have been doing. A lot of money goes to the countries we are based out of, transporting troops and materiel, and paying the DoD employees that make it all run. But there is still a lot being wasted on things that will never see the light of day, among other black listed activities. That I don't disagree with. But I know my own projects, among other advanced engineering work, tends to get better funded when the military isn't losing its shit over budget cuts. If there's a better way to deal with it that would be a lot better. Unless you could figure it out, though, it seems we are at something of a standstill. The thing is to stop funding higher education altogether except public schools/CCs. For profit or Private schools don't need aid. They'll get their money if they're up to snuff and competitive enough. K-12 is the area that needs to be severely improved if we are to make any progress whatsoever. That is the foundation upon which a child's future is built upon. If you start them off on a shaky foundation, it is inevitable that it will crumble or they will be stuck because access to higher is no longer available. If you make them smarter going in, then they should be prepared for higher education. This I pretty much all agree with. Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 07:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Spending money on education and infrastructure should be priority. HC is secondary to those efforts. This I think is a little dubious. Why does healthcare rank lower? It's a necessity for stability that all citizens can get the healthcare they need, that they have what they need to stay in good health, and that it never breaks the bank. I know too many people for whom bad things happened from lack of money for healthcare and it wouldn't have even been that expensive to treat them if they had taken preventative testing more seriously (which is cheap for the govt to cover, but expensive enough that most people think twice about going to the doctor).
That's where education comes in. If you are taught healthy living early on and you are taught about making informed decisions, then you can at least circumvent a lot of the problems that arise. Obesity is a leading cause to a lot of diseases and that could be snipped in the bud early on in life. Plus, with more education, your "worth" increases and you should be able to afford your own healthcare. Of course, there are those who won't be able to. That's another topic at the moment.
|
On September 20 2017 07:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 07:47 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 07:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 07:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
More money spent on the military puts more money into the hands of the people who work on important advanced research projects - which includes those who work from the hallowed halls of academia.
More money into education generally leads to construction of endless university infrastructure projects, real estate of little worth, dorms for exorbitant prices, and so on. There is not a lack of money being spent on education, just a lack of proportionate results.
Healthcare is similar.
Infrastructure lol.
Two of the above three problems could adequately be solved with communism. I disagree with how you look at where the money goes in education. If you give schools an extra X dollars your entirely correct but when your removing tuition fees to lower the barrier of entry for education your not adding more money, your replacing one source with another. And the government has better control over the cost then currently where schools can just keep raising tuition fees to feed off government aid since the school will not longer get to set the rate. We spend more than enough money in education in the US. The problem is that much of it is spent on stuff not at all related to schooling. For example, are you familiar with the scam that is for-profit education? Again your talking about something completely different. This conversation was about spending the 80 billion for the military on something else, like removing tuition fees from colleges. That has nothing to do with the way money is spend in the US education system (which is indeed bad). Its not about giving schools more money. Its about allowing poor people to not worry about the cost of education so they can try to get out of poverty trap. That's something of a false dichotomy. The government already covers a fairly hefty fraction of tuition, and in a sane country that money alone would be sufficient to pay tuition for students. But the incentives are such that increasing tuition is encouraged to soak up more money not really relevant to the main task. Enough money is being allotted, it's just not being spent well. We don't need to pull $80b to education, we can just spend it elsewhere and get better education results by better use of the funds already available. Specifically, spending on better education in underprivileged areas would have a large positive effect and wouldn't even be that expensive. Again your not getting it. This would be the government saying 'you get X per student and you can't charge them, make it work'. There is no increasing the money going in. Yes there are other ways to Education sector could spend its money, yes it could lower tuition rates and be perfectly fine. We aren't talking about that. The story was about money that was said not to exist for lowering the barrier of education while the military got billions they didn't even ask for.
That model has failed at controlling costs (or improving outcomes) in K-12, and most of those local governments have much more constrained budgets than the feds.
|
I will say that part of this may be because women are more likely to be liberal and men are more likely to be conservative.
|
The original point was that tuition free college shouldn't be objected to over it's cost and I think that's agreed upon by everyone.
It's the cost of going to a university in general, regardless of whether it's tuition free or not. If we wanted them to be tuition free (even at the inflated costs) we could easily afford it and it would be worth more to society than the military losing track of it and a few trillion more.
EDIT: I'd agree that k-12 needs drastic overhaul and wouldn't mind that coming before funding tuition free college but they should really be reworked together so that so many kids with 3.0+ GPA's aren't graduating unprepared for college or trade schools or not graduating at all.
|
On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all.
That debate seems kind of side-on to the actual issue. Dating is not the problem. Interaction in general is the problem.
It makes plenty of sense for superlibs to avoid dating supercons. It's okay to look at each other at the beginning of a relationship, see features or views that are fundamentally incompatible, and decide to call it off because the differences would be too hard to work through.
The problem is that there's a fine line between not dating someone because you're pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with them, and not dating someone because you view them as a monster or an idiot.
It's reasonable for libs to not date cons. What's problematic is when libs won't even be friends with cons, and vice-versa.
|
that can indeed be problematic; though again it depends on the degree to which the friendship is sustainable adn enjoyable given the political differences; if i'ts unworkable it's unworkable.
The general trends toward stratification are a problem indeed; with few good solutions (and noone sensible enough to seriously work on them)
|
On September 20 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
The original point was that tuition free college shouldn't be objected to over it's cost and I think that's agreed upon by everyone.
It's the cost of going to a university in general, regardless of whether it's tuition free or not. If we wanted them to be tuition free (even at the inflated costs) we could easily afford it and it would be worth more to society than the military losing track of it and a few trillion more.
EDIT: I'd agree that k-12 needs drastic overhaul and wouldn't mind that coming before funding tuition free college but they should really be reworked together so that so many kids with 3.0+ GPA's aren't graduating unprepared for college or trade schools or not graduating at all.
The problems with K-12 and college are different. In K-12, the problem is that schools and school districts are not all that influential in student outcomes. They are like an oven, and, yes, some ovens are terrible and will burn your cake, but its more about the cake ingredients and chef (kids and parents) being good.
In college, the problem is that college is not all that much about learning, and is primarily a signaling mechanism (since employers can't put much stake in High School Grades, and asking for applicants to take the ACT/SAT is all but illegal). The government would be better off if they just paid for all high school seniors to take the ASVAB, and let employers ask for ASVAB results as part of applications.
|
|
|
On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all.
I've seen the range of pro-choice from a default dont-care to militant "It's my body you asshole" types. I don't think your characterization that women of that opinion must feel its "utterly fucked up" is representative of the spectrum of opinions and strength with which they're held on the topic.
|
On September 20 2017 08:29 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. That debate seems kind of side-on to the actual issue. Dating is not the problem. Interaction in general is the problem. It makes plenty of sense for superlibs to avoid dating supercons. It's okay to look at each other at the beginning of a relationship, see features or views that are fundamentally incompatible, and decide to call it off because the differences would be too hard to work through. The problem is that there's a fine line between not dating someone because you're pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with them, and not dating someone because you view them as a monster or an idiot. It's reasonable for libs to not date cons. What's problematic is when libs won't even be friends with cons, and vice-versa.
I only know a few people who won't have conservative friends. They are basically antifa trash. I say "know", as in they are on my Facebook, but hardly friends. Some very liberal friends of mine have totally conservative friends.
Personally, I'd love to grab a beer with danglars, xdaunt, oblade, introvert, kwark and other conservatives on this board. As I'm sure many of you can tell, I downright get off on exchange of ideas and I can't get enough of it.
On September 20 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. I've seen the range of pro-choice from a default dont-care to militant "It's my body you asshole" types. I don't think your characterization that women of that opinion must feel its "utterly fucked up" is representative of the spectrum of opinions and strength with which they're held on the topic.
True, but in my experience in hyper liberal northern Oregon, women who are otherwise not very liberal are very commonly extremely strong believers in abortion and can't stomach the idea of men forcing them to give birth. You are right, the opinions vary, but on this issue, women take a very personal stance.
|
Conservatives whining about progressive women not dating them is hilarious. It really turned my day around.
|
On September 20 2017 08:29 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. That debate seems kind of side-on to the actual issue. Dating is not the problem. Interaction in general is the problem. It makes plenty of sense for superlibs to avoid dating supercons. It's okay to look at each other at the beginning of a relationship, see features or views that are fundamentally incompatible, and decide to call it off because the differences would be too hard to work through. The problem is that there's a fine line between not dating someone because you're pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with them, and not dating someone because you view them as a monster or an idiot. It's reasonable for libs to not date cons. What's problematic is when libs won't even be friends with cons, and vice-versa.
It's hard enough to find love that I don't find that reasonable if you're not, as you term, a superlib or supercon. Love, social circle, and the rearing of children work for too many of my friends. They generally don't debate politics at home and it's confined to just "Why do libs/cons believe this? Oh." sort of dialogue. The article was thought-provoking on the broader societal effects. And I know so many people that came in with this list and thought politics was super important, and then didn't care. Both from conservative and liberal circles.
|
I dated pretty much anyone (ideologically speaking) back in the day, but there was no way in hell that I'd have put a ring on any chick that espoused SJW-type BS. Raising kids with that person simply wouldn't have worked.
|
On September 20 2017 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:29 Belisarius wrote:On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. That debate seems kind of side-on to the actual issue. Dating is not the problem. Interaction in general is the problem. It makes plenty of sense for superlibs to avoid dating supercons. It's okay to look at each other at the beginning of a relationship, see features or views that are fundamentally incompatible, and decide to call it off because the differences would be too hard to work through. The problem is that there's a fine line between not dating someone because you're pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with them, and not dating someone because you view them as a monster or an idiot. It's reasonable for libs to not date cons. What's problematic is when libs won't even be friends with cons, and vice-versa. I only know a few people who won't have conservative friends. They are basically antifa trash. I say "know", as in they are on my Facebook, but hardly friends. Some very liberal friends of mine have totally conservative friends. Personally, I'd love to grab a beer with danglars, xdaunt, oblade, introvert, kwark and other conservatives on this board. As I'm sure many of you can tell, I downright get off on exchange of ideas and I can't get enough of it. Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. I've seen the range of pro-choice from a default dont-care to militant "It's my body you asshole" types. I don't think your characterization that women of that opinion must feel its "utterly fucked up" is representative of the spectrum of opinions and strength with which they're held on the topic. True, but in my experience in hyper liberal northern Oregon, women who are otherwise not very liberal are very commonly extremely strong believers in abortion and can't stomach the idea of men forcing them to give birth. You are right, the opinions vary, but on this issue, women take a very personal stance.
You're a better person than I am. I think xD and KwarK would be the only ones from this thread I would tolerate in person. Especially after the booze starts to flow.
|
On September 20 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:
I dated pretty much anyone (ideologically speaking) back in the day, but there was no way in hell that I'd have put a ring on any chick that espoused SJW-type BS. Raising kids with that person simply wouldn't have worked.
Yeah superlib militant feminist SJWs aren't good dating material. They need to find someone equally woke or wait until reality sets in on their viewpoints, if ever. Their political positions are just too much of a core part of their identity.
|
On September 20 2017 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:29 Belisarius wrote:On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. That debate seems kind of side-on to the actual issue. Dating is not the problem. Interaction in general is the problem. It makes plenty of sense for superlibs to avoid dating supercons. It's okay to look at each other at the beginning of a relationship, see features or views that are fundamentally incompatible, and decide to call it off because the differences would be too hard to work through. The problem is that there's a fine line between not dating someone because you're pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with them, and not dating someone because you view them as a monster or an idiot. It's reasonable for libs to not date cons. What's problematic is when libs won't even be friends with cons, and vice-versa. I only know a few people who won't have conservative friends. They are basically antifa trash. I say "know", as in they are on my Facebook, but hardly friends. Some very liberal friends of mine have totally conservative friends. Personally, I'd love to grab a beer with danglars, xdaunt, oblade, introvert, kwark and other conservatives on this board. As I'm sure many of you can tell, I downright get off on exchange of ideas and I can't get enough of it. Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:49 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2017 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:For a woman who sees abortion and contraceptive as "what I get to do with my own body" the fact that someone disagrees with them is utterly fucked up to that woman. Many women I know feel legitimately shaken by the fact that some men would deny them freedom over their own body. It's not a comparable situation at all. I've seen the range of pro-choice from a default dont-care to militant "It's my body you asshole" types. I don't think your characterization that women of that opinion must feel its "utterly fucked up" is representative of the spectrum of opinions and strength with which they're held on the topic. True, but in my experience in hyper liberal northern Oregon, women who are otherwise not very liberal are very commonly extremely strong believers in abortion and can't stomach the idea of men forcing them to give birth. You are right, the opinions vary, but on this issue, women take a very personal stance.
I also only have access to SoCal/LA opinions, and can't comment on your experience. Interesting to know, though.
|
On September 20 2017 09:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:
I dated pretty much anyone (ideologically speaking) back in the day, but there was no way in hell that I'd have put a ring on any chick that espoused SJW-type BS. Raising kids with that person simply wouldn't have worked. Yeah superlib militant feminist SJWs aren't good dating material. They need to find someone equally woke or wait until reality sets in on their viewpoints, if ever. Their political positions are just too much of a core part of their identity.
Lol, as if they'd trust you anyway, you god damn male. On that topic, anyone else notice how these women tend to date extremely submissive men?
|
|
|
On September 20 2017 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 09:03 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:
I dated pretty much anyone (ideologically speaking) back in the day, but there was no way in hell that I'd have put a ring on any chick that espoused SJW-type BS. Raising kids with that person simply wouldn't have worked. Yeah superlib militant feminist SJWs aren't good dating material. They need to find someone equally woke or wait until reality sets in on their viewpoints, if ever. Their political positions are just too much of a core part of their identity. Lol, as if they'd trust you anyway, you god damn male. On that topic, anyone else notice how these women tend to date extremely submissive men?
It's pretty common the "other way", meaning chauvinists dating submissive women. Pretty sure there's a stereo-type about white men seeking out Asian women for this specific purpose. Considering where I'm at, I suspect there's others that could speak more to that.
But it makes sense that those women would be interested in dating men that would be deemed by society to be submissive. Remember, this country elected a guy who said he grabs women by the pussy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
