| NEWS BOX | ||
| Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies. |
| at least half of Americans = TRASH | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,908 Views) | |
| Jeff | Apr 13 2007, 01:18:02 PM Post #46 |
|
Unregistered
|
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. |
|
|
| Abyssal_Shrimp | Apr 13 2007, 01:18:48 PM Post #47 |
![]()
GREGOR SMASH!
![]()
|
Not here. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Apr 13 2007, 01:20:22 PM Post #48 |
|
Unregistered
|
So, they let women become priests, bishops, and the like in Quebec? |
|
|
| F3nr1L | Apr 13 2007, 01:20:35 PM Post #49 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ooh, I didn't mean to phrase it like that. Catholicism is totally not an obscure sect. My mistake. |
|
|
| Abyssal_Shrimp | Apr 13 2007, 01:29:09 PM Post #50 |
![]()
GREGOR SMASH!
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 13 2007, 03:36:26 PM Post #51 |
|
Comrade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
'cuz every charity's a for-profit publicly owned company?
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?
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.
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.
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?
You're right, too. Good thing unemployment welfare stipulates that whole "no fault of your own" thing, eh?
Sooo, out of curiosity, how long would you guess it takes a competent web designer to get steady employment around San Diego these days? |
![]() |
|
| Stone Kirby | Apr 13 2007, 05:29:48 PM Post #52 |
![]()
¢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. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 13 2007, 05:32:49 PM Post #53 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| F3nr1L | Apr 13 2007, 05:38:53 PM Post #54 |
|
Unregistered
|
Flarebringer is a monster. O_o; |
|
|
| Stone Kirby | Apr 13 2007, 05:41:40 PM Post #55 |
![]()
¢¾¢Ü!?
![]()
|
Indeed. >_>
Wait, where did I say I would respond? I might respond to part of it anyways, but eh. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 13 2007, 07:15:17 PM Post #56 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Hammer Kirby | Apr 13 2007, 08:28:38 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Go outside
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.
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.
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.
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.
It's not coercive unless they use violence against you or threaten to do so.
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.
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.
Well, it's not the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity. And... I'll answer the rest later. |
![]() |
|
| roarshock | Apr 13 2007, 08:41:14 PM Post #58 |
![]()
metalgod.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
>_> name calling is not involved here darts >__> |
| |
![]() |
|
| Abyssal_Shrimp | Apr 13 2007, 08:41:22 PM Post #59 |
![]()
GREGOR SMASH!
![]()
|
If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts.
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. |
![]() |
|
| F3nr1L | Apr 13 2007, 08:57:15 PM Post #60 |
|
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. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:57 AM Jul 11
|
Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy










![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



3:57 AM Jul 11