10 Questions Why?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them?

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly?

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world?

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety?

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence?

Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?

Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric?

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?

Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?

[Darth Executor]

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them?

I'm not surprised. While I'm not a racial minority, I'm still a minority and me and my peers have been fed crap about how failure is everybody's fault but my own, and minorities buy it because humans in general don't like to take responsibility. Why it upsets me is fairly obvious. I don't like racist people.

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly?Probably because they have to give more money than everyone else. Some rich people don't actually produce anything useful, they just take advantage of the system. Other worked harder and sacrificed more than anybody else and likely deserve everything they have.

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world?Because people need to blame their problems on the other guy.

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety?You're the liberal, you tell me.

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence?It doesn't. It means the elimination and suppression of anything that doesn't fall in step with liberal values.

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?Because torture is a nebulous term that means different things to different people. When people think of torture, they refer to punishment or extracting information using methods they find "icky".

Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric?You'd have to be pretty stupid to ask a question like this.

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?Because when two things are separated, it is implied that one is not in the other.

Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?Because liberals are incapable of achieving the latter. In fact, they'll make it worse, which is why the rest of us don't want them to do it.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I notice that you missed this one:

"Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?"

Reason?

[Em7add11]

I notice that you missed this one:

"Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?"

Reason?

Perhaps it's a desire to keep things from changing more than they already have?

I'd be interested in knowing the point of this question. Who cares what name you call yourself as part of finding like-minded people to associate with?

Conservative and liberal are hardly used except for political spectrum labeling these days, anyway.

[Darth Executor]

I notice that you missed this one:

"Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?"

Reason?

1. I'm not conservative.
2. I don't want to keep things as they are.

I believe that because of these two facts I am not qualified to answer the question.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I'm not surprised. While I'm not a racial minority, I'm still a minority and me and my peers have been fed crap about how failure is everybody's fault but my own, and minorities buy it because humans in general don't like to take responsibility. Why it upsets me is fairly obvious. I don't like racist people.

This is not an answer to the question asked. The question was why are white Americans surprised that non-white Americans hate them?

You have answered a different question namely : Why do minorities hate me and mine? and then you answered it as you would like to believe.

Probably because they have to give more money than everyone else. Some rich people don't actually produce anything useful, they just take advantage of the system. Other worked harder and sacrificed more than anybody else and likely deserve everything they have.

So basically, what you appear to be saying is that people who have much more than everyone else have a right to feel entitled, even if they do nothing productive or worthwhile, because the supposedly pay more in taxes?

But since a billionaire could pay 70% of his income in taxes and not even feel it, whereas a person below the poverty line suffers when required to give up even 10% of their pay in taxes, your point seems absurd.

Even more so, is your claim that some of the wealthy "deserve everything they have" because they worked hard. Firstly, nobody can work so hard that they are deserving of having millions - let alone billions - of dollars of personal wealth and secondly, the hardest working people are most likely to be the poorest. Most people living in poverty work extremely hard, often at two or more jobs just to make ends meet. The absurdity of your claim is all the more apparent when it is observed that the vast majority of the wealthy do not actually "work" for the income they have. Rather, they gain income on return of investments which they pay someone else to manage for them. There is no actual "work" involved

Because people need to blame their problems on the other guy.

The people who are doing the blaming are the other guy.

You're the liberal, you tell me.

Firstly, I am not a liberal - I am a Socialist, there is a difference. Secondly, the question has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

It doesn't. It means the elimination and suppression of anything that doesn't fall in step with liberal values.

I have not noticed any tolerance on the part of conservatives either. The question is: why, when we find something offensive, is the attempt at suppressing it hidden behind the claim that we are attempting to suppress intolerance when what we are actually doing is expressing an intolerance for views we find offensive.

What you seem to be implying in your reply is that conservatives, while being as intolerant as liberals, do not make the attempt at concealing their intolerance.

Because torture is a nebulous term that means different things to different people. When people think of torture, they refer to punishment or extracting information using methods they find "icky".

"Inflicting physical pain or discomfort to elicit information or a confession." Nothing very nebulous there. Further the laws are pretty clear on what can and can not be done during an interrogation.

But even if your reply is accepted at face value you still haven't answered the question; Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing punishment or extracting information using methods they find "icky"?

You'd have to be pretty stupid to ask a question like this.

I forgive you for calling me stupid.

And you still haven't answered the question: If torture can be justifed by us why is it objectionable when used by them?

Because when two things are separated, it is implied that one is not in the other.

Your reply does not make sense in the context of the question.

I'll rephrase: How does the separation of church and state justify the prohibition of expressing religious sentiments in public forums?

Because liberals are incapable of achieving the latter. In fact, they'll make it worse, which is why the rest of us don't want them to do it.

Firstly; you make a declarative statement - "in fact, they'll make it [poverty and hunger] worse" - that is patently false. Poverty and hunger are reduced when programs, social changes and inititives are enacted to eliminate them. They are not made worse.

Secondly; if the reason the "rest of us" (non-liberals, I assume) do not want poverty elimination programs is because they will "make it worse" and as this claim is false, doesn't it logically follow that "the rest of us" have no legitimate objection to poverty elimination programs?

Thirdly; Are you claiming - as seems to be implied - that government programs against abortion and gay marriage are successes? Again, history proves you wrong. Abortions still take place even where completely outlawed and gays still "marry". Such restrictions have been shown to actually "make it worse" (abortion mills, coat hanger abortions, gay "free sex", gay bashing, etc). Therefore, it would have to be concluded - using your own logic - that "the rest of us" don't want "non-liberals" do it (restrict abortion, deny legal recogntion of gay marriage) either.

[Darth Executor]

This is not an answer to the question asked. The question was why are white Americans surprised that non-white Americans hate them?

You have answered a different question namely : Why do minorities hate me and mine? and then you answered it as you would like to believe.

"mine" are white americans. "What I like to believe" is reality. Your delusions lead you to believe it's because white people have set up minorities to fail so they can reap off all their work.



So basically, what you appear to be saying is that people who have much more than everyone else have a right to feel entitled, even if they do nothing productive or worthwhile, because the supposedly pay more in taxes?No. What I am saying is that if person X has to give a certain ammount of money and person Y has to give a larger ammount of money, person Y has a reason to feel it is unjust. This system is inherently unjust as it assumes person Y doesn't deserve that money. The rest was my personal opinion on how things should be: I don't care about rich people who make loads of money and do nothing for society. On the other hand, rich people who got there through hard work and have brought great achievements for society deserve every cent they have.

But since a billionaire could pay 70% of his income in taxes and not even feel it,Anybody will feel losing 70% of their income. This is absurd.

whereas a person below the poverty line suffers when required to give up even 10% of their pay in taxes, your point seems absurd. If the billionaire deserves that money because he contributes to the good of society through his work and the person below the poverty line is a lazy bum that contributes nothing, I'd tax the bum 100% and the billionaire 0. This is a fair system. Taking people's money just because they make more of it is not just.


Even more so, is your claim that some of the wealthy "deserve everything they have" because they worked hard. Firstly, nobody can work so hard that they are deserving of having millions - let alone billions - of dollars of personal wealth andSure they can. If you invented the steam engine, or the combustion engine, or the electric engine, you pretty much multiplied a portion of a nation's productivity and deserve so much money that you could make Bill Gates your valet if you wish. One thing I'll say, and you'll likely agree, that we have far too many millionaires and billionaires who likely don't deserve it. However, as neither of us have done any study to see who does and who doesn't making claims like:

secondly, the hardest working people are most likely to be the poorest.baseless speculation.

Most people living in poverty work extremely hard, often at two or more jobs just to make ends meet.Please give me a detailed report of every person below the poverty line so that I may verify your claims for myself.

The absurdity of your claim is all the more apparent when it is observed that the vast majority of the wealthy do not actually "work" for the income they have. Rather, they gain income on return of investments which they pay someone else to manage for them. There is no actual "work" involvedThe money they contribute to certain businesses lead to developments that improve society as a whole. They also have to get money that they invest from somewhere. Usually by working.

The people who are doing the blaming are the other guy.This is an absurd claim that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you either did not read or failed to grasp my point.

Firstly, I am not a liberal - I am a Socialist, there is a difference. Secondly, the question has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.Socialists are just more extreme liberals. It makes you worse, not better. Secondly, the question has plenty to do with liberalism or conservatism. I don't see people walking through a redneck town in texas with signs that say "We are Hizbullah".



I have not noticed any tolerance on the part of conservatives either. Of course not, because conservatives don't want people to fall in step with liberal values.

The question is: why, when we find something offensive, is the attempt at suppressing it hidden behind the claim that we are attempting to suppress intolerance when what we are actually doing is expressing an intolerance for views we find offensive. I'm afraid you'll have to ask a liberal.


What you seem to be implying in your reply is that conservatives, while being as intolerant as liberals, do not make the attempt at concealing their intolerance.Given the joke that the word "tolerant" is nowadays, yeah, that's pretty accurate. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't abuse someone whose views difer from yours (I decide what abuse means in a situation, and it doesn't have to be physical abuse), you tolerate them. Since most liberals and conservatives don't go out cutting gay/soldier/atheist/Christian throats, I'd say most are tolerant.


"Inflicting physical pain or discomfort to elicit information or a confession." Nothing very nebulous there. Further the laws are pretty clear on what can and can not be done during an interrogation. Laws are irrelevant. Sitting in a prison cell is considered "discomfort" by some. Reading the treads you've been starting everytime you drop by here in the last year or so are considered to be "discomfort" by some. And your definition allows me to slowly cut someone up with a butter knife and not call it torture as long as I'm not trying to get information out of them.

But even if your reply is accepted at face value you still haven't answered the question; Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing punishment or extracting information using methods they find "icky"?Because unless you're a pacifist, you will agree that sometimes you will have to do unpleasant things to your enemies to achieve an objective. The reason why people struggle with this is because deep inside they know that dunking someone's head in a bucket of water until they answer your questions is not as bad as having your guts spilled all over the ground in a battlefield. And when someone truly thinks it through, they finally realise that our armies do things that are far worse than putting a bunch of people in a nude pile, or having a woman laugh at your genitals. At this point, the options are simple:

A) Become a pacifist, and not just any kind of pacifist, but one that avoids harming anybody in any way, including verbally or mentally. No mocking people, not challenging people who do harm in any way in an effort to avoid making them feel "discomfort".
B) Realise that not all "torture" is that bad and sometimes it is better both for your own side and the enemy if he's having his face shoved in a toilet instead of picking up his guts off a baghdad street.


I forgive you for calling me stupid.

And you still haven't answered the question: If torture can be justifed by us why is it objectionable when used by them?Because we're doing it to obtain information that will help our good cause while they're doing it to obtain information for their cause. As a general idea, if your group is fighting another group, your group believes it is the good guy and the enemy is bad, and anythign that helps the enemy or harms you is bad.

Allow me to rephrase your question and change a couple of words:
If use of force can be justifed by us why is it objectionable when used by them?
If use of force can be justified by the police, why is it objectionable when it is used by a child molester?
If use of force can be justified by a woman who is about to get gang raped by six men, why is it objectionable when it is used by the six men to rape the woman?

Get the idea?



Your reply does not make sense in the context of the question.There was no contex. There was a simple question and I answered it.

I'll rephrase: How does the separation of church and state justify the prohibition of expressing religious sentiments in public forums?It doesn't. Of course, I don't believe in "separation of church and state" so maybe I'm the wrong person to answer.



Firstly; you make a declarative statement - "in fact, they'll make it [poverty and hunger] worse" - that is patently false. Poverty and hunger are reduced when programs, social changes and inititives are enacted to eliminate them. They are not made worse."Social changes and initiatives" breed laziness because they're extremely easy to abuse and liberals have no idea how to stop them. I don't have a problem with "social initiatives" as long as they are well thought out. Under my ideal government, nobody would be out on the streets, but their life would be so uncomfortable that they'll beg for jobs. If you don't have lots of money in the bank and don't have a job, all your property is confiscated and you are moved into a government owned room no bigger than a prison cell, with nothing but a bed and a toilet in it. You are also given help getting a job and limited computer access to make/print resumes and look for jobs. Since my government would own a large chunk of the economy, the government could easily give them jobs as soon as they become available. When they get a job their old apartment (if they had one) and property is returned to them and they're allowed to leave their temporary residence. Handicapped people, students and the like would be excluded, of course.

If liberals could come up with a system that weeds out abuses of the system in their social programs I'd be behind them all the way. I don't mind paying taxes if the money is put to good use. If they do what they did in Canada and just throw money at every idiot who comes asking for it, then hell no. I went to a fairly "ghetto" high school. The vast majority of it will likely end up, poor, and it's not because "the man" is keep them down. Instead of studying to get a better future, they just skip school to smoke weed, have sex and get arrested. 10 years from now they'll be demanding help from the government where a smiling gullible social assistance rep will be more than happy to give them more cash so they can be irresponsible parents whose children end up like them.

Secondly; if the reason the "rest of us" (non-liberals, I assume) do not want poverty elimination programs is because they will "make it worse" and as this claim is false, doesn't it logically follow that "the rest of us" have no legitimate objection to poverty elimination programs?If the claim is false, yes. But it isn't.

Thirdly; Are you claiming - as seems to be implied - that government programs against abortion and gay marriage are successes?Yes.

Again, history proves you wrong. Abortions still take place even where completely outlawed and gays still "marry".So do murders. Let's disband the police. :ahem:

Such restrictions have been shown to actually "make it worse" (abortion mills, coat hanger abortions, gay "free sex", gay bashing, etc).I have no idea what gay "free sex" is and I don't care about gay marriage (but oppose it anyway to piss off liberals) but the abortion mill/coat hanger abortion is exagerated crap. If the punishment for murder (because that's what it is) of the unborn is spending the rest of your life as a slave mining uranium in Alaska and abortionists caught "on the job" are shot on sight, I guarantee that the number of abortions will be drastically reduced. Add that to carefully controlled government education against abortion and the formation of a huge social stigma against it and abortions will be reduced to zero. I have no tolerance for murderers and neither should you. If you do, be consistend and allow ALL murder to be made legal.

[Lucy]

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them?
Because the people who hate us, based solely on our skin color, are the ones complaining about racism and inequality. We (by which I mean "I" because I cannot speak for anyone but myself) are merely surprised at such a blatant show of contradiction and moral inconsistancy.

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly?
Because they ARE. It is an all-too-common belief that because they are rich, they should be giving away money to the less fortunate. Guess what? It is THEIR money. Not mine. Not yours. Not the homeless man's. Not the Katrina victim's. Giving the rich a higher tax rate--penalizing them BECAUSE they are rich--is discriminatory. It is punishment of the good for being good.

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world?
OK, compare this to your last question. Before you were saying that the rich should not complain about being treated "unfairly" when they have their money taken from them to help the "needy" (at least I assume, based on future posts, that this was your meaning). But now when you are dealing with a wealthy NATION, you think they should not be held accountable for others? Here's that moral inconsistancy I mentioned earlier.

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety?
Again, take a look at your stance on wealthy individuals. Altruism at its finest, right here.

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence?
Stupidity. Or, more acurately, a lack of reason.

Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?
Good question.

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?
Because torture is not uncivilized--showing mercy for evil is. Not using ever means necessary to make a known terrorist give up information that could protect innocent lives is. "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent"~ Terry Goodkind.

Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric?
I only condemn the torture of innocents. I will not lose sleep over the suffering of a murderer or rapist, no matter what race, religion, or nationality.

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?
How could you SEPERATE them without taking one out of the other?

Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?
I agree with you, though probably not in the same way. I find it reprehensible that the government would dare impede the rights of individuals to marry or have abortions (a woman DOES have the right to HER body, no matter WHAT). I also think the the only role government should play in the economy is to protect the rights of the individual.

Also, how do you propose the government help eliminate poverty? Where would they get the money? The government is not a business--it does not generate revenue. The American government is in debt up to their ears--so where does the money come from? Taxes! Ok, so who pays the taxes? Oh yeah, ME. So when you say the government should intervene, what you REALLY mean is that taxes should increase on the working individuals (or anyone with money, for that matter) to pay for everyone else.

[FirstSunday33ad]

"mine" are white Americans. "What I like to believe" is reality. Your delusions lead you to believe it's because white people have set up minorities to fail so they can reap off all their work.

You still haven't answered the original question; why are white Americans upset when they discover non-white Americans hate them?

You clearly feel victimized as a white American male. Perhaps you can understand then why your non-white brother feels towards you as you apparently feel towards him?


No. What I am saying is that if person X has to give a certain ammount of money and person Y has to give a larger ammount of money, person Y has a reason to feel it is unjust. This system is inherently unjust as it assumes person Y doesn't deserve that money. The rest was my personal opinion on how things should be: I don't care about rich people who make loads of money and do nothing for society. On the other hand, rich people who got there through hard work and have brought great achievements for society deserve every cent they have.

Except person Y, because of his money gets better police protection, legal representation, government attention, services, goods and more freedom. Person Y is not expected to fight in a war or to suffer being drafted into a service not of his/her choosing. Person Y gets to go to an Ivy League school even without the necessary academic credentials, will get a better job even if not fully qualified and will enjoy far more opportunities than person X.

Assuming your initial argument is correct though, that it is not fair for person Y to have to pay more towards society than person X, isn't it also unfair for person Y to enjoy more and better services from society than person X. If not, then it is perfectly fair for person Y to pay more since he/she enjoys more.

Anybody will feel losing 70% of their income. This is absurd.

Gross pay - $10,000,000. Tax at 70% - take home pay $3,000,000.
You don't suffer on 3 million a year.

If the billionaire deserves that money because he contributes to the good of society through his work and the person below the poverty line is a lazy bum that contributes nothing, I'd tax the bum 100% and the billionaire 0. This is a fair system. Taking people's money just because they make more of it is not just.

What if the billionaire is a lazy bum who contributes nothing and the poor person contributes to the good of society? Tax the billionaire at 100%? That description is closer to the truth of the situation.


Sure they can. If you invented the steam engine, or the combustion engine, or the electric engine, you pretty much multiplied a portion of a nation's productivity and deserve so much money that you could make Bill Gates your valet if you wish. One thing I'll say, and you'll likely agree, that we have far too many millionaires and billionaires who likely don't deserve it. However, as neither of us have done any study to see who does and who doesn't making claims like:

Even if I discovered the cure for cancer, I would not deserve a billion dollars. I could get a billion dollars, but I would not have earned a billion. Besides, those who gained wealth through "inventions" are extremely few. Most inventors receive a fraction of the money that their inventions actually earn. The company that they worked for or that bought the invention and marketed it took the profits that followed.

baseless speculation.

Please give me a detailed report of every person below the poverty line so that I may verify your claims for myself.

Specious reasoning is not deserving of an answer and is a poor excuse for argument. Clearly you no nothing about the lives and struggles of the poor and before you can decide what is best for people, you should do more to learn about people.

The money they contribute to certain businesses lead to developments that improve society as a whole. They also have to get money that they invest from somewhere. Usually by working.

Actually, most of their money is inherited. It may have been "worked for" at some time, but not by the people holding it today. The "contributions" (ie, investments) that they make towards businesses are in the form of stocks and bonds. You cannot separate that money from the profit the companies make through sales and business practices such as using semi-slave labor in China and Mexico combined with free trade to fatten the bottom line.

This is an absurd claim that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you either did not read or failed to grasp my point.

Maybe. What was your point?

Socialists are just more extreme liberals. It makes you worse, not better. Secondly, the question has plenty to do with liberalism or conservatism. I don't see people walking through a redneck town in texas with signs that say "We are Hizbullah".

Which proves only that you know nothing about Socialism or liberalism, but since it would take too long to explain, I will skip the lesson? Suffice it to say, Socialism has more to do with economics and liberalism has more to do with individual behaviour. Many Socialists are quite conservative and many liberals are anti-socialists.

And you still haven't answered the original question.

Of course not, because conservatives don't want people to fall in step with liberal values.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask a liberal.


Given the joke that the word "tolerant" is nowadays, yeah, that's pretty accurate. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't abuse someone whose views difer from yours (I decide what abuse means in a situation, and it doesn't have to be physical abuse), you tolerate them. Since most liberals and conservatives don't go out cutting gay/soldier/atheist/Christian throats, I'd say most are tolerant.

Translation: You have no idea what "tolerance" means. That’s okay; neither apparently does anyone else now-a-days.


Laws are irrelevant. Sitting in a prison cell is considered "discomfort" by some. Reading the treads you've been starting everytime you drop by here in the last year or so are considered to be "discomfort" by some. And your definition allows me to slowly cut someone up with a butter knife and not call it torture as long as I'm not trying to get information out of them.

Because unless you're a pacifist, you will agree that sometimes you will have to do unpleasant things to your enemies to achieve an objective. The reason why people struggle with this is because deep inside they know that dunking someone's head in a bucket of water until they answer your questions is not as bad as having your guts spilled all over the ground in a battlefield. And when someone truly thinks it through, they finally realise that our armies do things that are far worse than putting a bunch of people in a nude pile, or having a woman laugh at your genitals. At this point, the options are simple:

A) Become a pacifist, and not just any kind of pacifist, but one that avoids harming anybody in any way, including verbally or mentally. No mocking people, not challenging people who do harm in any way in an effort to avoid making them feel "discomfort".
B) Realise that not all "torture" is that bad and sometimes it is better both for your own side and the enemy if he's having his face shoved in a toilet instead of picking up his guts off a baghdad street.

Firstly, you present a false dilemma: either be an extreme pacifist or accept torture as being justified. There is a middle ground. Fighting an enemy who possesses an equal ability to inflict injury on you is not the same as grabbing a suspect off a street and beating the soles of their feet until they say what you want to hear. Regardless of the motive, torturing a person to obtain information reveals only that the regime in question is illegitimate and without moral foundation. Such a regime will eventually fall because it has no credibility under the law.

Secondly, to have to resort to extremely narrow definitions of "discomfort" in order to make your point only reveals its weakness. Physical discomfort is not sitting in a cell or reading a thread. It is however, being placed in a freezing cell or having your eyelids taped open and being made to view the same images repeatedly. The difference is in having the power to stop what you are doing. Torture is about dehumanizing your victim and taking power away from them. A man is a cell still has some power; a man on a rack has none.

Because we're doing it to obtain information that will help our good cause while they're doing it to obtain information for their cause. As a general idea, if your group is fighting another group, your group believes it is the good guy and the enemy is bad, and anythign that helps the enemy or harms you is bad.

Which is ignorance and delusion. I may believe my cause is "good" but if I employ methods that I condemn when practiced by others, I am either legitimizing my opponent or proving myself to be a liar. If I am "good", what is it that makes me good? What is it that separates me from my enemy? If it is simply the color of my uniform, than I am a liar and am no better than my enemy. If I am no different than my enemy, than why should others support me and oppose him?

Allow me to rephrase your question and change a couple of words:
If use of force can be justifed by us why is it objectionable when used by them?
If use of force can be justified by the police, why is it objectionable when it is used by a child molester?
If use of force can be justified by a woman who is about to get gang raped by six men, why is it objectionable when it is used by the six men to rape the woman?

Get the idea?

Yes, but your logic is faulty.

You ignore an important factor in each question, allow me to provide it:

If the use of force can be justified by us why is it objectionable when used by them? (motive - what is our goal in using force? What is theirs?)
If the use of force can be justified by the police, why is it objectionable when used by a child molester? (motive - why are the police using force? Why is the child molester?)
If use of force can be justified by a woman who is about to get gang raped by six men, why is it objectionable when it is used by the six men to rape the woman? (motive - why is the woman using force? Why are the men?)

Get the idea?

There was no contex. There was a simple question and I answered it.


It doesn't. Of course, I don't believe in "separation of church and state" so maybe I'm the wrong person to answer.

Fair enough.

"Social changes and initiatives" breed laziness because they're extremely easy to abuse and liberals have no idea how to stop them. I don't have a problem with "social initiatives" as long as they are well thought out. Under my ideal government, nobody would be out on the streets, but their life would be so uncomfortable that they'll beg for jobs. If you don't have lots of money in the bank and don't have a job, all your property is confiscated and you are moved into a government owned room no bigger than a prison cell, with nothing but a bed and a toilet in it. You are also given help getting a job and limited computer access to make/print resumes and look for jobs. Since my government would own a large chunk of the economy, the government could easily give them jobs as soon as they become available. When they get a job their old apartment (if they had one) and property is returned to them and they're allowed to leave their temporary residence. Handicapped people, students and the like would be excluded, of course.

Question: Does that include your millionaires and billionaires who "work" in name only (see George Bush)?

If liberals could come up with a system that weeds out abuses of the system in their social programs I'd be behind them all the way. I don't mind paying taxes if the money is put to good use. If they do what they did in Canada and just throw money at every idiot who comes asking for it, then hell no. I went to a fairly "ghetto" high school. The vast majority of it will likely end up, poor, and it's not because "the man" is keep them down. Instead of studying to get a better future, they just skip school to smoke weed, have sex and get arrested. 10 years from now they'll be demanding help from the government where a smiling gullible social assistance rep will be more than happy to give them more cash so they can be irresponsible parents whose children end up like them.

I went to a fairly "higher class" high school - the kids drove to school in new cars that they got for their birthdays and went to Europe and Disneyland during summer break. Do you know what they did? Skipped school, smoked weed, had sex, got arrested (of course no problem there, Mom & Pop always had bail). The difference is because of their financial circumstances; these kids weren't flushed out onto the streets like so much garbage and forgotten. They got tutors and extra curricular help and went on to university. They didn't need help from the government, (but they got that too).

But the biggest difference was with those students who applied themselves, got good marks, stayed out of trouble. They did even better. Some of these kids ran for government, became doctors, lawyers or joined the corporate hierarchy.

I suspect if you checked you would find your classmates who did likewise weren't so lucky.

If the claim is false, yes. But it isn't.

It is, so you need to change your view.

Yes.

They aren't, so you need to change your view.

So do murders. Let's disband the police. :ahem:

That is actually your logic not mine. You are opposed to poverty elimination because it does not eliminate poverty - remember. Hence the contradiction; laws against abortion do not eliminate abortions so you should oppose them as well to be consistent.

If you are now saying that the objection is absurd, then drop your objection to poverty elimination for the same reason.

I have no idea what gay "free sex" is and I don't care about gay marriage (but oppose it anyway to piss off liberals) but the abortion mill/coat hanger abortion is exagerated crap. If the punishment for murder (because that's what it is) of the unborn is spending the rest of your life as a slave mining uranium in Alaska and abortionists caught "on the job" are shot on sight, I guarantee that the number of abortions will be drastically reduced. Add that to carefully controlled government education against abortion and the formation of a huge social stigma against it and abortions will be reduced to zero. I have no tolerance for murderers and neither should you. If you do, be consistend and allow ALL murder to be made legal.

First off I find the dichotomy here very interesting: for the living; slave labor, shot on site, rooms the size of cells; but for the unborn; overflowing compassion. So you care about humanity up to the point that they are born, then they can work as slaves for all you care. Interesting.

That aside, even with all of your draconian laws, you still would be unable to prevent abortions. Do you know why? For the same reason that prohibition did not work; what do you do when the people you hire to enforce the law are the ones breaking the law? Make abortions a desperately needed service that can not be provided legally and your police will become paid agents of abortionists.

Your law would fail.

Finally, to equate an abortion of a fetus in the first trimester with the murder of a living breathing person is again specious logic. Under your definition, if a pregnant woman trips and miscarries as a result of her fall, she is guilty of manslaughter but if a woman does drugs during her pregnancy and delivers a baby addicted to narcotics, she is guilty only of drug abuse. Under this reasoning, removing a fetus because it threatens the life of the mother is akin to killing a child because the home has too many mouths to feed and the mother is going hungry.

It is an immoral position to take. Until a fetus can survive outside of the womb without artificial means, it is not a viable human being, no more than a brain dead person being kept alive on a respirator can be considered a viable life. That abortion should be considered as an option of last resort and should only be undertaken after all other possible solutions have been explored goes without question; and yes, sex education and birth control need to be part of the solution. But prohibition - no matter how draconian - is doomed to fail and would cause more problems and tragedies than it prevented. Labeling woman who have had abortions, murderers is obscene.

[Darth Executor]

You still haven't answered the original question; why are white Americans upset when they discover non-white Americans hate them?

Because people don't like to be hated for no good reason?

You clearly feel victimized as a white American male. Perhaps you can understand then why your non-white brother feels towards you as you apparently feel towards himI don't feel "victimized". If racial minorities feel victimized by me it's because they're either racist or ignorant. In fact, nearly all of my friends are racial minorities and none of them feel victimized.

Except person Y, because of his money gets better police protection, legal representation, government attention, services, goods and more freedom.- not legally
- So?
- not sure what you mean
- So?
- So?
- All are equal under the law. If law enforcement isn't doing it's job then it's corrupt and socialism isn't gonna stop that. In fact, in socialism you'll just end up with government officials giving attention and jobs to family members and create another imbalance. I have a solution to the human problem of greed, but you'll likely believe it to be "draconic"

Person Y is not expected to fight in a war or to suffer being drafted into a service not of his/her choosing.Neither is person X.

Person Y gets to go to an Ivy League school even without the necessary academic credentials, will get a better job even if not fully qualified and will enjoy far more opportunities than person X.No, person Y's child will do that. Person Y might also get cancer and die before he hits 20 while person X lives a long and fulfilling life. Why not execute everybody as soon as they are conceived to ensure equality? The only way you can ensure total equality is by nuking the entire planet.

Assuming your initial argument is correct though, that it is not fair for person Y to have to pay more towards society than person X, isn't it also unfair for person Y to enjoy more and better services from society than person X. If not, then it is perfectly fair for person Y to pay more since he/she enjoys more.Some of the services you listed are bought with person Y's money: IE they are paid for already. Person Y already pays for the services society offers in various forms. Person X also pays for these services.

Gross pay - $10,000,000. Tax at 70% - take home pay $3,000,000.
You don't suffer on 3 million a year.First it was "not even feel", now it's "suffer". What next? "You don't die on 3 million a year." :lol:



What if the billionaire is a lazy bum who contributes nothing and the poor person contributes to the good of society? Tax the billionaire at 100%? That description is closer to the truth of the situation.Actually in my ideal society that billionaire would not exist because his means of making money would be illegal and unlike you I am very serious about law enforcement.


Even if I discovered the cure for cancer, I would not deserve a billion dollars.No, you'd probably deserve a lot more.

I could get a billion dollars, but I would not have earned a billion. Besides, those who gained wealth through "inventions" are extremely few. Most inventors receive a fraction of the money that their inventions actually earn. The company that they worked for or that bought the invention and marketed it took the profits that followed.Life ain't fair. As I said, I bet most millionaires don't actually deserve their money. But I'm not the one who wants a blanket tax on all rich people, you are.


Specious reasoning is not deserving of an answer and is a poor excuse for argument. Clearly you no nothing about the lives and struggles of the poor and before you can decide what is best for people, you should do more to learn about people.I lived in a crap east european country for 13 years with days when I did not have anything to eat. I can "thank" the socialist commies who brought my country and the economy of many other countries to ruin with their idiocy, so don't tell me what I know about the lives and struggles of the poor.

Actually, most of their money is inherited. Please provide a detailed report of every millionaire and billionaire bla bla bla.

It may have been "worked for" at some time, but not by the people holding it today. The "contributions" (ie, investments) that they make towards businesses are in the form of stocks and bonds. You cannot separate that money from the profit the companies make through sales and business practices such as using semi-slave labor in China and Mexico combined with free trade to fatten the bottom line.The happiness of one's child is happiness for the parent bought with the parent's money. What do you care? And "Slave labor" is the reason why china and mexico aren't going through famines anymore and the reason why you live a comfortable life. Don't like it? Make me emperor of the known world and I'll fix it.



Maybe. What was your point?That people need to blame someone else for their problems.



Which proves only that you know nothing about Socialism or liberalism, but since it would take too long to explain, I will skip the lesson? Suffice it to say, Socialism has more to do with economics and liberalism has more to do with individual behaviour. Many Socialists are quite conservative and many liberals are anti-socialists.We're in america. You're right about socialism but liberalism is about both individual behaviour and economics. However, since the nation is so polarised you will never see the two separated. Given that you are socially liberal I'm not sure what your objection is.

And you still haven't answered the original question.What was it again? This is a long thread and I don't have time to read all the posts all over againt to see if I did answer it or not.


Translation: You have no idea what "tolerance" means. That’s okay; neither apparently does anyone else now-a-days.Good thing we have you as a guiding light. :ahem:


Firstly, you present a false dilemma: either be an extreme pacifist or accept torture as being justified. It's not false. Logically, you must choose one.

There is a middle ground.For those suffering of cognitive dissonance or those who haven't thought their position through.

Fighting an enemy who possesses an equal ability to inflict injury on you is not the same as grabbing a suspect off a street and beating the soles of their feet until they say what you want to hear.Nobody said you have to do that. :ahem:

Regardless of the motive, torturing a person to obtain information reveals only that the regime in question is illegitimate and without moral foundation. Such a regime will eventually fall because it has no credibility under the law.Prove it. Oh wait, you can't, because it's just personal opinion.

Secondly, to have to resort to extremely narrow definitions of "discomfort" in order to make your point only reveals its weakness.On the contrary, I am using a very broad definition of "discomfort"

Physical discomfort is not sitting in a cell or reading a thread.Physical discomfort is subjective. I can stand narrow tunnels. A claustrophobic would go ape crap.

It is however, being placed in a freezing cell or having your eyelids taped open and being made to view the same images repeatedly. The difference is in having the power to stop what you are doing. Torture is about dehumanizing your victim and taking power away from them. A man is a cell still has some power; a man on a rack has none.A man in a cell has no more power to get out than a man on a rack, nor am I concerned about giving an enemy any more power than he needs to have. The only difference is that the man in the cell has a bit more freedom, which leads us to the question of "how much loss of freedom" is too much.

Which is ignorance and delusion.In some cases it is. It depends.

I may believe my cause is "good" but if I employ methods that I condemn when practiced by others, I am either legitimizing my opponent or proving myself to be a liar. If I am "good", what is it that makes me good? What is it that separates me from my enemy? If it is simply the color of my uniform, than I am a liar and am no better than my enemy. If I am no different than my enemy, than why should others support me and oppose him?What separates you from your enemy is that you do it out of necessity for a greater goal while he does it out of malice or necessity for an evil goal. Replace "torture" with shoot and you are brought back to the original dillema: become a pacifist or torture.

Yes, but your logic is faulty.

You ignore an important factor in each question, allow me to provide it:

If the use of force can be justified by us why is it objectionable when used by them? (motive - what is our goal in using force? What is theirs?)
If the use of force can be justified by the police, why is it objectionable when used by a child molester? (motive - why are the police using force? Why is the child molester?)
If use of force can be justified by a woman who is about to get gang raped by six men, why is it objectionable when it is used by the six men to rape the woman? (motive - why is the woman using force? Why are the men?)

Get the idea?I didn't ignore it at all, it is simply irrelevant. You are simply setting up an imaginary goal between using force and using torture. I'm not suggesting that we use torture for fun. The enemy (say, an islamic terrorist) may torture for a number of reasons: get information about military positions, get you to convert, because you're an infidel, etc. Our own forces may torture to get information about possible terrorist attacks and prevent the deaths of innocent people at the expense of the well being of a man who could have avoided the unpleasant situation if he wasn't a terrorist. Apply your own standard here too: motive. One does it to further an evil agenda. The other does it to further a good agenda.



Question: Does that include your millionaires and billionaires who "work" in name only (see George Bush)?[]/quote]

My ideal society would not have those billionaires to begin with.



[quote]I went to a fairly "higher class" high school - the kids drove to school in new cars that they got for their birthdays and went to Europe and Disneyland during summer break. Do you know what they did? Skipped school, smoked weed, had sex, got arrested (of course no problem there, Mom & Pop always had bail). The difference is because of their financial circumstances; these kids weren't flushed out onto the streets like so much garbage and forgotten. They got tutors and extra curricular help and went on to university. They didn't need help from the government, (but they got that too). My school teachers broke their back overtime trying to help failing kids. Most of them refused. They simply didn't care. If your school's kids got their act together and accepted help from tutors and extra curricular help then good on them. Mine didn't. I have asian and african friends in a variety of top notch Candian universities preparing for jobs that will give six digit payouts (at least). My point is that if someone is not willing to improve their situation giving them money won't help (did it help your rich kids?). Making them understand WHY they need to do well in school is far more important, and constant reminders that they were oppressed by the man does not help. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

But the biggest difference was with those students who applied themselves, got good marks, stayed out of trouble. They did even better. Some of these kids ran for government, became doctors, lawyers or joined the corporate hierarchy.

I suspect if you checked you would find your classmates who did likewise weren't so lucky.As I said above, yes they did. Last I talked to my best friend from High School he was doing well at one of the best universities on the continent and had a well paying co-op job in accounting on the side. They won't be struggling with poverty, that's for sure.



It is, so you need to change your view.

They aren't, so you need to change your view.You have to convince me first. Nothing personal, but I don't know you well enough to just take your word for it.



That is actually your logic not mine. You are opposed to poverty elimination because it does not eliminate poverty - remember. Hence the contradiction; laws against abortion do not eliminate abortions so you should oppose them as well to be consistent. No, I am not opposed to poverty elimination, that's a straw man (if not an outright lie). I'm opposed to your poverty elimination solutions because not only don't they work, but make things worse. Laws against abortions would eliminate the overwhelming majority of abortions. In my society, the law would terminate ALL abortions permanently.

First off I find the dichotomy here very interesting: for the living; slave labor, shot on site, rooms the size of cells;Do you work for the Associated Press? "The living" = murderers (in the first 2 cases) and people who can work but refuse to (in the last case). I have plenty of compassion for those who want help.

but for the unborn; overflowing compassion. So you care about humanity up to the point that they are born, then they can work as slaves for all you care. Interesting.No, and it takes an extremely distorted view of what I said to come to this conclusion. I have overflowing compassion for the unborn because they are innocent. I care about humanity until they are in their grave. The slave labor was for murderers, not everybody.

That aside, even with all of your draconian laws, you still would be unable to prevent abortions. Do you know why? For the same reason that prohibition did not work; what do you do when the people you hire to enforce the law are the ones breaking the law? Make abortions a desperately needed service that can not be provided legally and your police will become paid agents of abortionists.Not gonna work. I didn't quite explain how my government would work so let me quickly go through it:

Society will be divided into several groups. The government will be made up of the Elite. Every member of the elite, from the emperor himself to the security forces and the janitor will be raised not by their parents but by other elites who are to ensure the education of future generations of elites. Until they reach a certain age they will have no private property and no need for money. Once they are released from service they will just become normal citizens. Since there is real money and the "bank" is government controlled, and elites don't have bank accounts, they're impossible to bribe. Of course, that won't be an issue because the government controlled public schools (there is no homeschooling or private schools) will ensure every citizen knows full well that murder is unnaceptable.

"But people could still give the elites stuff, even if it's not money."

I suppose they could, if they could find them. Since the government operates in as much secrecy as possible, potential godfather wannabes would be incapable of bribing anybody because they don't know who to bribe, where to find them, etc. The low ranking security officers who are in charge with busting abortion operations do not have this information either, so trying to cut a deal while one of them is pointing a gun at you is not only bad for your health but a waste of time.

Finally, to equate an abortion of a fetus in the first trimester with the murder of a living breathing person is again specious logic.Why?

Under your definition, if a pregnant woman trips and miscarries as a result of her fall, she is guilty of manslaughterAccidental killing would not be punished in my society because it's retarded.

but if a woman does drugs during her pregnancy and delivers a baby addicted to narcotics, she is guilty only of drug abuse.She would also be guilty of serious child abuse.

A Under this reasoning, removing a fetus because it threatens the life of the mother is akin to killing a child because the home has too many mouths to feed and the mother is going hungry.There is no such thing as "too many mouths to feed" in my society and even if they was they're not threatening the life of anybody. You have to be pretty stupid to starve to death in america. And I'm not against removing a fetus because it threatens the life of the mother anymore than I'd be against shooting down a hijacked plane full of explosives if it threatens to kill even more innocent lives.

It is an immoral position to take. Until a fetus can survive outside of the womb without artificial means, it is not a viable human being, no more than a brain dead person being kept alive on a respirator can be considered a viable life. A brain dead person will never get up, making your analogy stupid. It is also irrelevant whether a fetus an survive outside the womb to whether it should have its life protected. Unless you think It's ok to murder anyone hooked up to a machine...

That abortion should be considered as an option of last resort and should only be undertaken after all other possible solutions have been explored goes without question; and yes, sex education and birth control need to be part of the solution. But prohibition - no matter how draconian - is doomed to fail and would cause more problems and tragedies than it prevented. Labeling woman who have had abortions, murderers is obscene.Why should it be "an option of last resort" if you think the fetus should not have the same rights as any other human beings? What do you care?

[norwegen]

If I were a billionaire, I would invest my money, let it generate more money, and sit on my fat can every day.

ETA: well, I suppose I might travel or something once in a while.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Because people don't like to be hated for no good reason?

I don't feel "victimized". If racial minorities feel victimized by me it's because they're either racist or ignorant. In fact, nearly all of my friends are racial minorities and none of them feel victimized.

If you don't feel victimized, then why the anger? I would suggest a quick history of non-whites in America would enlighten you as to why white Americans are hated; there is a good reason.

- not legally
- So?
- not sure what you mean
- So?
- So?
- All are equal under the law. If law enforcement isn't doing it's job then it's corrupt and socialism isn't gonna stop that. In fact, in socialism you'll just end up with government officials giving attention and jobs to family members and create another imbalance. I have a solution to the human problem of greed, but you'll likely believe it to be "draconic"

As Stalin said - death solves all problems.

Neither is person X.

No, person Y's child will do that. Person Y might also get cancer and die before he hits 20 while person X lives a long and fulfilling life. Why not execute everybody as soon as they are conceived to ensure equality? The only way you can ensure total equality is by nuking the entire planet.

Some of the services you listed are bought with person Y's money: IE they are paid for already. Person Y already pays for the services society offers in various forms. Person X also pays for these services.

First it was "not even feel", now it's "suffer". What next? "You don't die on 3 million a year." :lol:

Again you are nit-picking the details, revealing only the weakness of your position. Much else of what you write lacks sense.

Actually in my ideal society that billionaire would not exist because his means of making money would be illegal and unlike you I am very serious about law enforcement.


No, you'd probably deserve a lot more.

Contradiction - supposedly in your ideal society I would not deserve more and would not even get the billion I was given.

Life ain't fair. As I said, I bet most millionaires don't actually deserve their money. But I'm not the one who wants a blanket tax on all rich people, you are.

There is already a blanket tax on all people. The difference is the system is set up to favour the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, the working poor and the poor.

[/quote]I lived in a crap east european country for 13 years with days when I did not have anything to eat. I can "thank" the socialist commies who brought my country and the economy of many other countries to ruin with their idiocy, so don't tell me what I know about the lives and struggles of the poor.[/quote]

I lived in a crap North American country for 25 years with days when I did not have anything to eat. I can "thank" the capitalist conservatives who brought my country and the economy of many other countries to ruin with their idiocy.

Perspective is everything. Do you think everybody in your country hated the bureaucratic technocrates who ran your country? There were a minority who lived very well - just as they did in my country. The only difference between your state and mine is you were called "communist" and mine was called "capitalist"

Engineering an economy so that it favours a minority at the expense of the majority may be the typical way of doing things, but it is not the best way. Your "commies" and my "capitalists" were only doing what came naturally. We are to blame for letting them do it.

Please provide a detailed report of every millionaire and billionaire bla bla bla.

The happiness of one's child is happiness for the parent bought with the parent's money. What do you care? And "Slave labor" is the reason why china and mexico aren't going through famines anymore and the reason why you live a comfortable life. Don't like it? Make me emperor of the known world and I'll fix it.

Right now the children of Mexico and China are saying "I live in a crap country whose idiotic rulers have ruined"

I doubt you would be so forgiving or tolerant of this situation if the West were the ones exploiting your crap east european country for those 13 years.

That people need to blame someone else for their problems.



We're in america. You're right about socialism but liberalism is about both individual behaviour and economics. However, since the nation is so polarised you will never see the two separated. Given that you are socially liberal I'm not sure what your objection is.

What was it again? This is a long thread and I don't have time to read all the posts all over againt to see if I did answer it or not.


Good thing we have you as a guiding light. :ahem:


It's not false. Logically, you must choose one.

For those suffering of cognitive dissonance or those who haven't thought their position through.

Nobody said you have to do that. :ahem:

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't, because it's just personal opinion.

On the contrary, I am using a very broad definition of "discomfort"

Physical discomfort is subjective. I can stand narrow tunnels. A claustrophobic would go ape crap.

A man in a cell has no more power to get out than a man on a rack, nor am I concerned about giving an enemy any more power than he needs to have. The only difference is that the man in the cell has a bit more freedom, which leads us to the question of "how much loss of freedom" is too much.

In some cases it is. It depends.

What separates you from your enemy is that you do it out of necessity for a greater goal while he does it out of malice or necessity for an evil goal. Replace "torture" with shoot and you are brought back to the original dillema: become a pacifist or torture.

I didn't ignore it at all, it is simply irrelevant. You are simply setting up an imaginary goal between using force and using torture. I'm not suggesting that we use torture for fun. The enemy (say, an islamic terrorist) may torture for a number of reasons: get information about military positions, get you to convert, because you're an infidel, etc. Our own forces may torture to get information about possible terrorist attacks and prevent the deaths of innocent people at the expense of the well being of a man who could have avoided the unpleasant situation if he wasn't a terrorist. Apply your own standard here too: motive. One does it to further an evil agenda. The other does it to further a good agenda.



[quote]Question: Does that include your millionaires and billionaires who "work" in name only (see George Bush)?[]/quote]

My ideal society would not have those billionaires to begin with.



My school teachers broke their back overtime trying to help failing kids. Most of them refused. They simply didn't care. If your school's kids got their act together and accepted help from tutors and extra curricular help then good on them. Mine didn't. I have asian and african friends in a variety of top notch Candian universities preparing for jobs that will give six digit payouts (at least). My point is that if someone is not willing to improve their situation giving them money won't help (did it help your rich kids?). Making them understand WHY they need to do well in school is far more important, and constant reminders that they were oppressed by the man does not help. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

As I said above, yes they did. Last I talked to my best friend from High School he was doing well at one of the best universities on the continent and had a well paying co-op job in accounting on the side. They won't be struggling with poverty, that's for sure.



You have to convince me first. Nothing personal, but I don't know you well enough to just take your word for it.



No, I am not opposed to poverty elimination, that's a straw man (if not an outright lie). I'm opposed to your poverty elimination solutions because not only don't they work, but make things worse. Laws against abortions would eliminate the overwhelming majority of abortions. In my society, the law would terminate ALL abortions permanently.

Do you work for the Associated Press? "The living" = murderers (in the first 2 cases) and people who can work but refuse to (in the last case). I have plenty of compassion for those who want help.

No, and it takes an extremely distorted view of what I said to come to this conclusion. I have overflowing compassion for the unborn because they are innocent. I care about humanity until they are in their grave. The slave labor was for murderers, not everybody.

Not gonna work. I didn't quite explain how my government would work so let me quickly go through it:

Society will be divided into several groups. The government will be made up of the Elite. Every member of the elite, from the emperor himself to the security forces and the janitor will be raised not by their parents but by other elites who are to ensure the education of future generations of elites. Until they reach a certain age they will have no private property and no need for money. Once they are released from service they will just become normal citizens. Since there is real money and the "bank" is government controlled, and elites don't have bank accounts, they're impossible to bribe. Of course, that won't be an issue because the government controlled public schools (there is no homeschooling or private schools) will ensure every citizen knows full well that murder is unnaceptable.

"But people could still give the elites stuff, even if it's not money."

I suppose they could, if they could find them. Since the government operates in as much secrecy as possible, potential godfather wannabes would be incapable of bribing anybody because they don't know who to bribe, where to find them, etc. The low ranking security officers who are in charge with busting abortion operations do not have this information either, so trying to cut a deal while one of them is pointing a gun at you is not only bad for your health but a waste of time.

Why?

Accidental killing would not be punished in my society because it's retarded.

She would also be guilty of serious child abuse.

There is no such thing as "too many mouths to feed" in my society and even if they was they're not threatening the life of anybody. You have to be pretty stupid to starve to death in america. And I'm not against removing a fetus because it threatens the life of the mother anymore than I'd be against shooting down a hijacked plane full of explosives if it threatens to kill even more innocent lives.

A brain dead person will never get up, making your analogy stupid. It is also irrelevant whether a fetus an survive outside the womb to whether it should have its life protected. Unless you think It's ok to murder anyone hooked up to a machine...

Why should it be "an option of last resort" if you think the fetus should not have the same rights as any other human beings? What do you care?


Got to go, but will finish this later

[FirstSunday33ad]

We're in america. You're right about socialism but liberalism is about both individual behaviour and economics. However, since the nation is so polarised you will never see the two separated. Given that you are socially liberal I'm not sure what your objection is.

I am not socially liberal - in fact in many areas I am a hard nosed conservative.

What was it again? This is a long thread and I don't have time to read all the posts all over againt to see if I did answer it or not.


Good thing we have you as a guiding light. :ahem:


It's not false. Logically, you must choose one.

For those suffering of cognitive dissonance or those who haven't thought their position through.

Nobody said you have to do that. :ahem:

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't, because it's just personal opinion.

On the contrary, I am using a very broad definition of "discomfort"

Physical discomfort is subjective. I can stand narrow tunnels. A claustrophobic would go ape crap.

A man in a cell has no more power to get out than a man on a rack, nor am I concerned about giving an enemy any more power than he needs to have. The only difference is that the man in the cell has a bit more freedom, which leads us to the question of "how much loss of freedom" is too much.

In some cases it is. It depends.

What separates you from your enemy is that you do it out of necessity for a greater goal while he does it out of malice or necessity for an evil goal. Replace "torture" with shoot and you are brought back to the original dillema: become a pacifist or torture.

Obviously, it will be impossible to define the term "torture" with you as the basis of your argument lies in keeping this as ambiguous a term as possible.

Therefore I will save the attempt and ask you this instead; is it acceptable for all groups or people to practise torture provided they each have similar motives for doing so?

I didn't ignore it at all, it is simply irrelevant. You are simply setting up an imaginary goal between using force and using torture. I'm not suggesting that we use torture for fun. The enemy (say, an islamic terrorist) may torture for a number of reasons: get information about military positions, get you to convert, because you're an infidel, etc. Our own forces may torture to get information about possible terrorist attacks and prevent the deaths of innocent people at the expense of the well being of a man who could have avoided the unpleasant situation if he wasn't a terrorist. Apply your own standard here too: motive. One does it to further an evil agenda. The other does it to further a good agenda.

The Islamic terrorist can make the same claim. Here is his argument: This is my country. The Americans came here, bombed our homes, killed our people, occupied our land. They will not leave, they want our oil, they defile our faith, they call us names and treat us with disrepect. I decided to take up arms and fight against them. They call me a terrorist for doing this. They kidnapped my brother - who is no terrroist, who is not fighting them - they tortured him, they beat him and degraded him to make him talk and tell them about me and how to find me. So I planted bombs at the side of the roads and blow up thier convoys, I kill their citizens wherever I find them, I seek every way possible to hurt them. I am doing this to free my country and my people. I am doing this for Allah and Islam.

As far as the Islamist is concerned - his is the good agenda.

[Ryokan]

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them? Because we personally haven't done anything to them, and because we were not raised in a culture where all economic and cultural disparities have been blamed on racism.

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly? Most of them worked very hard to maintain that quality of life, even if their parents did in fact give them seed money and a good example/expectations that allowed them to work hard in such a lucrative way.

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world? The same reasons rich people in the first world are blamed for poor first worlders problems, history and political/economic frameworks.

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety? The first is so much stronger its hard to justify extreme brutality as necessary. So in a first world first worlds engagement human rights is on the first worlds mind, while in first world on first world fight, (WW2 carpet bombing, for instance) not so much.

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence? People like power and will use any excuse to wield it.

Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are? Conservative means different things in different places and times.

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?
Fear.
Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric? Fear.

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?
That's a Canadian thing.
Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?
Because the person speaking is a conservative and sees interfering with private property as not a governmental role but maintaining public morality as one. (though the abortion this is a bad example as it can be seen in a property rights framework.)

[mentored1]

Well met...

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them?

Those that are will likely qualify as a minority in themselves. People hate, there's no intellectual reduction of gut-wrenching emotion involved. History has an ugly face, and some can't - or won't - let go.

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly?

Greed is an appetite. It is habitual. Perhaps they believe they are treated unfairly when the basis for their self-image is threatened (e.g. wealth). Anyone whose foundation is undermined reacts with indignation.

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world?

It's comparative. If the 3rd world never had interaction with the 1st world the issue never surfaces. What happened when an isolated group of starving people didn't have any media attention or other interaction with the 1st world?

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety?

Because they are safe, relatively. People become accustomed to their environment, they adapt. We no longer (speaking as an American) have to struggle to survive, so we assume most -if not all - people should live as we do. Folly.

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence?

Intolerance cannot be tolerated. One of those funny contradictions that cuts right to the heart of reality.

Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?

"as they are" is relative to the person percieving the situation. Throw in a healthy dose of terminology (e.g. "Conservative Christian") and a stew of ingorant babble rises to froth.

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?

Because being "good" and "civilized" in some countries means supporting the evil and barbaric regime that is in power. Another of those funny contradictions.

Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric?

It's always easier to cause pain to someone who doesn't look like you. Foreign cultures and foreign faces appear "alien" until someone makes the effort to understand.

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?

Because personal religious belief undermines the religion of statehood. Nationalism competes for affection with religion - but who has the guns?

Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?

The natural purpose of the state is to establish laws and maintain order. This naturally feeds the human appetite for power and control. The true problems of suffering won't be addressed until the problems of human greed are addressed. Good luck.

Take care - great inquiry.

[Lady Macbeth]

Why are white Americans so surprised and upset when they discover that non-white Americans hate them?

Why do rich people believe they are treated unfairly?

Why are the people of the first world, who seem to care more for the safety and welfare of the people of the third world than the people of the third world care themselves – blamed for the suffering of the third world?

Why do the people of the first world seem to care more about their enemy’s safety than their enemy seems to care about their own safety?

Why is the definition of “tolerance” in action mean the elimination and suppression of anything that can cause offence?

Why do so many conservative Christians complain about the state of the world when being “conservative” means wanting to keep things as they are?

Why do so many “good” and “civilized” people struggle with the notion of outlawing torture?

Why are these same people so quick to condemn the torture of their own as barbaric?

Why does “separation of church and state” mean the elimination of the church in the state?

Why is acceptable for the government to intervene in personal affairs such as restricting abortion and denying legal recognition to gay marriages but not acceptable for it to intervene in the national economy in order to eliminate poverty and hunger?

I'll answer all of your questions with one answer - the society that begets these questions is a power-over patriarchal society that does its utmost to absolve individuals of personal responsibility. It's far easier to govern people when they answer to another person, know the identity of that person (or at least what to call them when referencing them) and they are absolved from having to put time and effort into thought instead of production of goods and services.