Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
at least half of Americans = TRASH
Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,908 Views)
Jeff
Unregistered

F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 13:03:07
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 13 2007, 10:28:12
F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 01:35:21
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
Darts
Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?

hahaha, no.

I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic.

However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men.

If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books).

The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better".

Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.

Well you've had sucky preachers, because of the several I've seen, none ever promoted such a thing. >_>

Quite possibly. I forgot to put it in, but these are only Protestant preachers. I can't vouch for Catholicism or other obscure sects.

Catholicism is hardly an obscure sect. However, I went to a Catholic school and church for several years, and I can attest to the fact that Catholicism places a greater importance upon men.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

Not here. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

So, they let women become priests, bishops, and the like in Quebec?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Jeff
Apr 13 2007, 11:18:02
F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 13:03:07
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 13 2007, 10:28:12
F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 01:35:21
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
Darts
Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?

hahaha, no.

I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic.

However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men.

If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books).

The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better".

Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.

Well you've had sucky preachers, because of the several I've seen, none ever promoted such a thing. >_>

Quite possibly. I forgot to put it in, but these are only Protestant preachers. I can't vouch for Catholicism or other obscure sects.

Catholicism is hardly an obscure sect. However, I went to a Catholic school and church for several years, and I can attest to the fact that Catholicism places a greater importance upon men.

Ooh, I didn't mean to phrase it like that. Catholicism is totally not an obscure sect. My mistake.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

Jeff
Apr 13 2007, 14:20:22
So, they let women become priests, bishops, and the like in Quebec?

If you mean it like that, then yeah, of course they still can't here, but that's not my point. What I'm saying is that the preachers do not promote the kind of treatment of women Fen described the preachers he saw did.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
However, government taking people's money and giving it to others is coercive - not paying your taxes (the source of welfare, this case) can result in jailing. Now, how ethical and moral is to tell someone that they must support another person simply because others want to?


A) Stack two arguments upon that. In the first case, government by definition requires some kind of coercion. The fact that the government is taking one thing from you, money, in order to give you something else, freedom is obviously true and derived from the social contract. Now, yes, you could argue that freedom > all. However, empirically, in democracies, people haven't elected libertarians to government. If, as you say, freedom and the lack of coercion is the ultimate thing in life, then people have been exercising their freedom to not have utter freedom. Paradox, lawl?

B) 'cuz. you know, we all have a right to benefit from all the benefits of a government (national defense, physical infrastructure, judiciary, education, etc.) without paying anything in return.

C) Because the Salvation Army's sitting there saying "wow, if you don't give us money you're a horrible person" isn'y coercive. At least you can pack up and move out of the States to your liberterian dream la-la land. Oh, wait, one doesn't exist? Well, gee, maybe there's a reason for that! Wait...naw...

D) Why is it that whenever private corporations do something, it's awesome, but when the government emulates it, it sucks? I mean, honestly, paying the government for it to perform societal services? Never! Four legs good, two legs baaaaadddddd.

Quote:
 
You are also forgetting that Welfare hardly provides enough to live on - my mother, brother, and I had to stay with an emotionally abusive man simply because we had no other recourse, despite her receiving assistance from the government. Even after we moved out, into a subsidized apartment, there was still not quite enough money, forcing her to take up a job. In my personal experience, this utility you speak of is an illusion. Let us not forget the number of seniors (your vaunted Social Security in action) who do not have enough to live on - perhaps they might have had enough, had they been forced to plan for their own retirements, rather than being assured that SS would support them, only to find inadequate support.


Nonunique argument. You haven't adressed my points that private charity have less resources and reach, so any problems associated with welfare not giving enough money are furthered on your side in any case. Besides, welfare isn't meant to be a substitute for a career in life, it's meant to help one stay on one's feet until they actually get a job.

Quote:
 
Translation: The most effective support is self-support.


A) Faulty. Individual people do not always act in their own rational self-interest. Your claim assumes that people will never do dumb, dumb things in their lives. Worse, under a society in which welfare--including PUBLIC EDUCATION--is ditched, people get really bad at doing what's in their rational self-interest.

B) 'cuz, you know, every mass economic movement and most of the Nobels in economics assigned since 1800-something was an illusion.

Quote:
 
A private charity can not truly waste anyone's money, because these people willingly gave their money to the charity. Dart is not advocating private welfare - he is advocating self-support.


Wait...what? If I go and give some money to my best friend for the school charity drive and he goes out and blows it on crack, is it any less wasted than if the government had done the same thing to me?

Quote:
 
Furthermore, you must consider how often people who squander money are actually voted out of office. Don Young, Alaska's representative, earmarked $223,000,000 for a bridge to an island of 50 people - the island was already serviced by a ferry that ran in 3-7 minutes every half hour. This was in 2005, and although the measure was eventually taken down, Young was still elected. This is hardly the only case of its kind, either.


At least there are methods through law by which the random corrupt people can be removed. Sure, you can bring up random examples in which the system didn't work, but I can bring up examples in which the system did work (Gray Davis over here in California), so that's moot. The important thing is that there at least is public oversight.

Quote:
 
Meanwhile, whenever a company becomes unprofitable, those in charge are usually removed by the shareholders.


'cuz every charity's a for-profit publicly owned company?

Quote:
 
The public is apathetic, and at large doesn't really seem to care what happens to its money, as evidenced by our voting habits. However, a charity would likely be directed by a group of passionate people who do not want to see its money wasted.


Contradiction. You're telling us that individual freedom is paramount, and you're also telling us that the public is apathetic and stupid? Doesn't that mean that under your scenario of a liberterian world, the public has absolute freedom to be stupid? Care to explain?

Quote:
 
There are numerous national charities - they may be forced to work a bit harder and deal with poor living conditions for a time, but ultimately, it is not the government's responsibility to protect people from every threat possible.


It's the government's responsibility to maximize utility towards its citizens while minimizing detriments. I contend that it is the government's duty to protect its citizens against threats, as long as the protection doesn't cause more problems that it solves. And remember, the government's not entirely concerned with that happens to a single person who's being coecered and not moving out, it's concerned with the societal welfare of its entire population.

Quote:
 
There is risk inherent in life - no amount of social support and good intentions will change that.


We can minimize it, though. Using that as an argument against welfare is like saying "All people eventually die, there's no point in helping that gunshot victim over there." Just because the negatives will never entirely go away doesn't mean we can't help to the best of our ability.

Quote:
 
The veil of ignorance is hardly the only philosophy on government's duties. There is also Libertarianism, which states that it is government's job to give everyone a fair chance in life, as opposed to a fair lot in life.


Then explain why A) people who support liberterianism tend to be exactly the same sort of people who have benefited from the random chance that they espouse, B) the world's healthiest, most prosperous economies tend to be the most heavily regulated while the ones in which government has lost control of the economy tend to have tanked, C) free market economies have invariably needed government control in depressed times, and D) you're spreading your message through something-the Internet-that was, y'know, developed via the government.

And again, if freedom and liberty and no coercion is so awesome, why has no libertarian government ever been elected in any free democracy?

Quote:
 
On the whole, most of the people on welfare are capable of supporting themselves - they have been given a chance to educate themselves, and have functional bodies. If they turned down the chance to work or educate themselves, both of which the government provides through public schooling and anti-discrimination policies, then is it fair for them to expect the support of others? I would contend that it is not.


You're right, too. Good thing unemployment welfare stipulates that whole "no fault of your own" thing, eh?

Quote:
 
Given the rate of turnover in the job market, it is unreasonable to think that a skilled person will remain unemployed for very long.


Sooo, out of curiosity, how long would you guess it takes a competent web designer to get steady employment around San Diego these days?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

I would respond to some of that, except I'm feeling way too lazy to reply to all of THAT, and it was addressed to Jeff. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
Great. Three-way debate. I suggest you shelve your response for a while, since I'm leaving for Science Olympiad state in a few hours, and I won't be back till Sunday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Flarebringer is a monster. O_o;
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 17:38:53
Flarebringer is a monster. O_o;

Indeed. >_>

Quote:
 
Flarebringer  Posted on Apr 13 2007, 17:32:49
  Great. Three-way debate.


Wait, where did I say I would respond? I might respond to part of it anyways, but eh. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
This is my element, really. LD's topics are mostly governmental and deontological and stuff, so I do better at serious-serious discussions than most internet debates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hammer Kirby
Member Avatar
Go outside
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.

Quote:
 
A) Stack two arguments upon that. In the first case, government by definition requires some kind of coercion. The fact that the government is taking one thing from you, money, in order to give you something else, freedom is obviously true and derived from the social contract.

Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.

Quote:
 
Now, yes, you could argue that freedom > all. However, empirically, in democracies, people haven't elected libertarians to government. If, as you say, freedom and the lack of coercion is the ultimate thing in life, then people have been exercising their freedom to not have utter freedom. Paradox, lawl?

That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.

Quote:
 
B) 'cuz. you know, we all have a right to benefit from all the benefits of a government (national defense, physical infrastructure, judiciary, education, etc.) without paying anything in return.

Yes, we should have to pay for what we benefit from. However, no one should have to pay for anything that he/she does not directly benefit from, which is why I reject government welfare programs.

Quote:
 
C) Because the Salvation Army's sitting there saying "wow, if you don't give us money you're a horrible person" isn'y coercive.

It's not coercive unless they use violence against you or threaten to do so.

Quote:
 
At least you can pack up and move out of the States to your liberterian dream la-la land. Oh, wait, one doesn't exist? Well, gee, maybe there's a reason for that! Wait...naw...

It's not a la-la land. It's what the Founders were working toward before quasi-socialists like Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR screwed it up, essentially.

Quote:
 
D) Why is it that whenever private corporations do something, it's awesome, but when the government emulates it, it sucks? I mean, honestly, paying the government for it to perform societal services? Never! Four legs good, two legs baaaaadddddd.

You seem to not be grasping the subtle distinction between corporations and government. Corporations give you a choice of whether or not to buy their products; they don't resort to coercion. Government, on the other hand, takes away your freedom if you don't pay for whatever the hell it wants you to pay for. I wouldn't say that government emulates privates corporations at all; as Murray Rothbard once said, government is more like a criminal gang.

Quote:
 
A) Faulty. Individual people do not always act in their own rational self-interest. Your claim assumes that people will never do dumb, dumb things in their lives. Worse, under a society in which welfare--including PUBLIC EDUCATION--is ditched, people get really bad at doing what's in their rational self-interest.

Well, it's not the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity.

And... I'll answer the rest later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
roarshock
Member Avatar
metalgod.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
>_> name calling is not involved here darts >__>
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

Quote:
 
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.


If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts.

Quote:
 
Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.

Quote:
 
That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.


Both those points do not have any sort of backup. You do not get to decide alone of what is moral or not, so just saying it's immoral doesn't give meaning to your argument any weight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Morals are relative, Dart. Alternatively, morals don't exist and society has just forced us into thinking they are, so that we can have organized society.

Now that I think about it, I like morals. Without morals we wouldn't have the internet.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ