| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: of course it's not coincidental. it is the direct stated purpose. So for someone to be bought it must be on purpose? I see. The purpose of welfare is not to buy them. Therefore they are not being bought. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:19 Feartheguru wrote: So for someone to be bought it must be on purpose? I see. The purpose of welfare is not to buy them. Therefore they are not being bought. the purpose of welfare is to provide money to a set group. the purpose of an increase in military funding is to provide more defense for every citizen. one could be called buying, the other... not so much. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: the purpose of welfare is to provide money to a set group. the purpose of an increase in military funding is to provide more defense for every citizen. The purpose of welfare is so everyone has a safety net. Since this also works for everyone, no one is being bought. | ||
Falling
Canada11369 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:19 sam!zdat wrote: aha! so hidden purpose is halal, and explicit purpose haram I think he thinks he has found a purpose, while in reality he is jumping from purpose to purpose without seeing the holes it leaves in his arguments. It is hard to take the discussion further without parking several of his mis-perceptions. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:10 Falling wrote: The desire to have children is despicable if you are poor? I'd think it's a very human thing. Even if you're poor, a person may still desire to have children despite all the sacrifices. Is that really selfish? Children is reason enough to have children. I don't think it's reasonable to say if you fall below a certain poverty line, you should just never have children. Poverty doesn't kill that desire even if it is impractical. We are not robots. We are not rational creatures, only creatures capable of rationality. (I feel like there's some comparison to art, but that feels like it downplays children.) And maybe we can do something about how to increase economic mobility instead. Rather than worrying about how many babies poor people have. I wouldn't go as far as to say poor people shouldn't have kids (though I'd be lying if I said I would be against such an initiate) I think we should remove the incentive to have children, and potentially tax (see China) anyone who has more than 1 kid. I however don't think we are at a critical stage that taxing should be needed, though it would be a card to hold onto. Is the desire to have kids, any more or less than to want the best for your child? If you know you lack the time to raise a child- why have one? If you know you lack the funds to feed a child, why have one. If you know you can't keep a roof over your head, why would you allow your-soon-to-be child to without one as well? If we simply stop encouraging the poorest and stupidest (no not all poor are stupid, but statically there is an intelligent gap there) to reproduce in excess many problems would be solved. Millions of dollars saved--it's uncalculatable. Justice system costs --Prisons/jails --judges/public attorneys --Section VIII housing --Welfare checks --Added disability checks and if you want to stretch a little bit imagine the lower carbon footprint for all the kids who wouldn't be driving--not because they were killed in a womb, but because the parents cared enough not to bring them into the world when they could not care for them. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:22 Falling wrote: This semantic argument is really weird. Honestly after I cornered him with the military thing and he responded with total nonsense I've given up trying to convince him and am trying to see how he responds to similarly illogical arguments so I can better understand him. I mean, "They're not PURPOSELY giving money to military people but they are PURPOSE giving money to the poor" Therefore, they are buying the poor but not the military people. How does one argue properly after that. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:21 Feartheguru wrote: The purpose of welfare is so everyone has a safety net. Since this also works for everyone, no one is being bought. I've never denied that you can leave out facts and make them look equivalent using clever wording. in the end, it all does hinge on the attitudes of the politicians. if the GOP is pushing for higher defense spending so that they can increase the profits of the defense industry and thus retain defense industry votes, than yes, they would be buying votes. I think that is a ridiculous assertion, but okay. if Democrats are pushing for welfare so that welfare recipients will vote for them, than they are buying votes. I think that is rather likely. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
I will never be eligible for welfare therefore it does not work for me. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:25 Feartheguru wrote: Honestly after I cornered him with the military thing and he responded with total nonsense I've given up trying to convince him and am trying to see how he responds to similarly illogical arguments so I can better understand him. You should have really given up on trying to convince anyone of anything when you got involved in an argument on the internet. + Show Spoiler + couldn't help myself going back to not posting in the thread | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:25 Feartheguru wrote: Honestly after I cornered him with the military thing and he responded with total nonsense I've given up trying to convince him and am trying to see how he responds to similarly illogical arguments so I can better understand him. you mean after you abandoned the tax argument because it was groundless, and then tried to make a false equivalency? | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: I've never denied that you can leave out facts and make them look equivalent using clever wording. But is this not what you do with all your talk of "MY money" | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:27 ZeaL. wrote: If anything, the last couple pages show that you yourself have to work on getting your message across because I see absolutely no one agreeing with you. And possibly consider that people aren't agreeing with you because of some other reason. this is a very liberal site. I'm not surprised that liberal posters generally disagree with conservative assertions. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:27 sc2superfan101 wrote: you mean after you abandoned the tax argument because it was groundless, and then tried to make a false equivalency? You mean, after I laughed at your tax argument because it's one of the funniest thing I've ever heard and cornered you on the military issue where you responded with something equally silly. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:29 Feartheguru wrote: You mean, after I laughed at your tax argument because it's one of the funniest thing I've ever heard and cornered you on the military issue where you responded with something equally silly. you didn't address the issue though... (on the military thing). I already said that if their intention is to buy military votes than they would be buying votes. (again, stop being insulting.) | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
Democrats buy poor people because they are giving them money PURPOSELY. Republicans aren't buying military related people. They are giving them money, I admit but it's not ON PURPOSE, that's just the end result. Am I wrong? I'm sorry you find what I say insulting, I find your belief that you can dismiss my arguments with random tangents insulting as well. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On November 11 2012 09:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: I believe it is mutually exclusive. So do you really not see the equivalence in tax breaks and welfare in terms of "vote buying"? its the same incentive "have more money if you vote for me!" This argument seems to be bogged down in the most ridiculous way, let's try to bring it back to what we started at. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 mouzHeroMarine StarCraft: Brood War 616White-Ra  264SteadfastSC  188IndyStarCraft  134ProTech127 UpATreeSC 119MindelVK 40PiGStarcraft8 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
GuMiho vs MaNa
herO vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
