| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 09 2017 03:00 Adreme wrote: You don't have to wait, we had an assault weapons ban for years, if they are "reintroducing" it then its those exact same weapons. More like exact same easy classifications of features, rather than weapons. They’d be fools to go through with this. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23908 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 09 2017 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean I know the interest of citizens is not even on the top 10 of reasons this would happen, but I'd be perfectly fine if the message was "News media shouldn't be mouthpieces of supercorps". I would prefer we just go back to the old rule that say they could only own one. Period. One news network nationwide. You own the Fox News and that is it. CNN and they can’t invest in any other media that traffics in the news or politics. Then the news corps are all mouth pieces of different corporate overlords and I have options. | ||
KwarK
United States43960 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23908 Posts
On November 09 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Someone is taking last night well... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/928325667556548608 Everything about Trump's new twitter banner creeps me out. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On November 09 2017 03:44 mozoku wrote: Because taxes are based on percentages? If you want to stay counting taxes by absolute dollar amounts contributions stratified by income, your position gets immensely weaker so I don't know why you're even going there. The guy making $10M per year generally makes many times the economic contribution than the guy making $10k. Given that, why should the guy making $10M pay more in taxes? The cost to the government of support to each is probably comparable. Why are we charging the people who make us rich more money to live here, when their cost to us is the same? The answer is that a progressive tax has little philosophical justification if you acknowledge that someone should pay his what he costs to his/her government and no more. Granted, there are plenty of utilitarian reasons to argue for a progressive tax system (which is why we have one), but the moral argument that's typically invoked in politics (and is being bandied about here) is intellectually bankrupt from a moral perspective. Unless you're willing to argue that you're morally entitled to essentially steal/shakedown high earners people to increase your own happiness. You can sort of try to sidestep this reality by assuming a "fair" tax system is one that's based on percentages. Which is the default assumption in our society (probably because of what's above), though I've never heard a compelling moral or philosophical argument for why that is. Utilitarianism IS a moral argument. But beside that, saying that taxation is 'essentially' stealing is breathtakingly ignorant of the relationship between individuals and society. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 09 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: More like exact same easy classifications of features, rather than weapons. They’d be fools to go through with this. And they changed it. Banned weapons by name and high capacity magazines in attention to the stupid “military characteristics” stuff they got last time. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 09 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Everything about Trump's new twitter banner creeps me out. I'm just impressed by the ratio on that tweet. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
(1) Dress up like cultural whites with guns, cowboy hats, barns, tractors, and talk with a white identity accent in an effort to win back whitebutthurt rurals. (2) Push bills that women want because they are the ones that vote for Democrats. (1) has its place, like Tester in Montana or Manchin in WV. But (2) is how Dems win the suburbs. This board is rife with youngish single white males who play video games filled with guns. Most of us are probably gun owners. Many of my suburban white male peers are hardcore gun ideologues. But outside of our demographic, there is a real demand for gun regulation. The VA election has me rethinking Schumer's 'don't ever talk about guns' strategy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On November 09 2017 05:05 kollin wrote: Utilitarianism IS a moral argument. But beside that, saying that taxation is 'essentially' stealing is breathtakingly ignorant of the relationship between individuals and society. Absolute utilitarianism is also a thoroughly and nearly universally rejected moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is except to be annoyingly anal. I said taxation beyond an individual's cost to the government is morally unjustifiable without invoking (to clarify, some degree of) utilitarianism. There's nothing unreasonable or ignorant about that. To make utilitarian calculations with someone else's money necessarily means you're imposing your values onto them. Granted, this can be justified but it can only rationally and morally be justified when consciously weighed against the value of the infringement on their values/agency as an individual. Of course, as a Democratic politician, it make sense to ignore all that and brainwash your base into believing that the rich have somehow cheated you to get their money and that you're actually entitled to it as much of it as you want. Notice there's no moral consideration even involved in the process. It's a political/electoral consideration in the interest of the politician. Much as the same as "white nationalism" is for a faction of the GOP, and just as morally/intellectually bankrupt. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On November 09 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote: I don’t see a lot of point with new guns laws restricting fire arms when the current gun laws are barely enforced. Democrats should just double down on enforcing existing guns laws and funding agencies that are supposed to maintain data bases. Considering domestic violence is such a common factor in these mass shootings: an outstanding charge or conviction a reason to be denied a gun seems like a perfect solution. I can't see how you increase enforcement without some kind of legislation. And whatever increased enforcement is almost certainly going to have law changes. EDIT: look I also think increased enforcement is the way to go, but I don't think splitting that line is actually viable at a political sales level. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On November 09 2017 05:39 mozoku wrote: Absolute utilitarianism is also a thoroughly and nearly universally rejected moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is except to be annoyingly anal. I said taxation beyond an individual's cost to the government is morally unjustifiable without invoking (to clarify, some degree of) utilitarianism. There's nothing unreasonable or ignorant about that. To make utilitarian calculations with someone else's money necessarily means you're imposing your values onto them. Granted, this can be justified but it can only rationally and morally be justified when consciously weighed against the value of the infringement on their values/agency as an individual. Of course, as a Democratic politician, it make sense to ignore all that and brainwash your base into believing that the rich have somehow cheated you to get their money and that you're actually entitled to it as much of it as you want. Notice there's no moral consideration even involved in the process. It's a political/electoral consideration in the interest of the politician. Much as the same as "white nationalism" is for a faction of the GOP, and just as morally/intellectually bankrupt. Whats the problem with invoking a degree of utilitarian justification? Of course taxation is somewhat utilitarian by nature, but that doesn't make it morally bankrupt. The results of taxation to fund a larger social security system are generally lower child poverty, higher educational attainment in kids, improved health, improved mental health, reduced crime, reduced public disruption and so on so forth. The moral justification for these advantages are just as self-evident as the moral justification for individual liberty. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 09 2017 05:55 Wulfey_LA wrote: I can't see how you increase enforcement without some kind of legislation. And whatever increased enforcement is almost certainly going to have law changes. EDIT: look I also think increased enforcement is the way to go, but I don't think splitting that line is actually viable at a political sales level. maybe if you play it as more funding for law enforcement (ATF) you could get enough support? just a random thought. it doesn't play well politically with any of the major entrenched groups, but the non-entrenched people may be moveable enough to get something done. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs YSC
GSL
Rogue vs Percival
Zoun vs Solar
Replay Cast
GSL
Cure vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Bunny
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
