Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Understanding "privilege"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    In the USA the history of voting rights, integration, and equal rights in the work place was not supported by Conservative Right Wing of America.
    Yeah, cause everybody knows that Republicans were opposed to Civil Rights, and Democrats championed it, right?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      "If government subsidizes something, the nation gets more of it."

      Other things being equal, the more welfare programs run or supported by government for "disadvantaged" single women, the more of them. So, more children live in poverty without dads.

      Isn't progressivism wonderful? Oh, the great things it has achieved! Starry Eyes ought to stop bitching, open his eyes and marvel at all those wonders! What future accomplishments may we achieve!
      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        "If government subsidizes something, the nation gets more of it."
        Yup - if you want more of something, subsidize it.
        If you want less of something, tax it.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Yeah, cause everybody knows that Republicans were opposed to Civil Rights, and Democrats championed it, right?
          I always thought the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights were conservative (at least wrt social issues) Democrats.
          Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

          "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

          "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
            I always thought the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights were conservative (at least wrt social issues) Democrats.
            Things sure have changed... there used to be Democrats who were more conservative than Republicans. Particularly Southern Democrats.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              "If government subsidizes something, the nation gets more of it."
              So if we can successfully kill off the poor via malnutrition, poor medical services, and a lack of healthy housing, we'll have less of them? Interesting plan.

              Alternatively we could subsidize education, healthy living, job opportunities, etc and hopefully get more of those things. If you want to create wealth and success by subsidizing it, there's little point in subsidizing those people who are already wealthy and successful. Giving them incentives after-the-fact to help them achieve what they've already achieved doesn't do anyone any good. You instead have help people to travel the path to success, and ensure that the future generation has a path to success available to them and help them to walk it.

              That means ensuring that children of poor parents are growing up in well-constructed healthy homes, that the food they are getting has all the vitamins and nutrients they need for healthy brain development, that they are getting a good education and learning the skills they will need to contribute to society with and earn a good wage and that they aren't prohibited by their poor finances from going as far in education as their intelligence can take them, and that they have career options available to them when they enter into the job market. If society is not doing those things, it ensures that children born into poor families have little chance of ever succeeding, whereas the children born into richer families will have all they need to succeed.

              But conservatives instead seem to like to play games of blame-the-victim and praise-the-lucky. The child born into a poor family who doesn't succeed is told that it's a moral failing on their part, and they lack personal responsibility. Whereas the lucky who are born into better circumstances and succeed tell themselves and others how great they are and how everything they ever achieved in life is all due to themselves and their own hard work.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                So if we can successfully kill off the poor via malnutrition, poor medical services, and a lack of healthy housing, we'll have less of them? Interesting plan.

                Alternatively we could subsidize education, healthy living, job opportunities, etc and hopefully get more of those things. If you want to create wealth and success by subsidizing it, there's little point in subsidizing those people who are already wealthy and successful. Giving them incentives after-the-fact to help them achieve what they've already achieved doesn't do anyone any good. You instead have help people to travel the path to success, and ensure that the future generation has a path to success available to them and help them to walk it.

                That means ensuring that children of poor parents are growing up in well-constructed healthy homes, that the food they are getting has all the vitamins and nutrients they need for healthy brain development, that they are getting a good education and learning the skills they will need to contribute to society with and earn a good wage and that they aren't prohibited by their poor finances from going as far in education as their intelligence can take them, and that they have career options available to them when they enter into the job market. If society is not doing those things, it ensures that children born into poor families have little chance of ever succeeding, whereas the children born into richer families will have all they need to succeed.

                But conservatives instead seem to like to play games of blame-the-victim and praise-the-lucky. The child born into a poor family who doesn't succeed is told that it's a moral failing on their part, and they lack personal responsibility. Whereas the lucky who are born into better circumstances and succeed tell themselves and others how great they are and how everything they ever achieved in life is all due to themselves and their own hard work.
                So ignore the "lucky" who weren't born into better circumstances right?
                "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
                "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
                Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  If you want to create wealth and success by subsidizing it, there's little point in subsidizing those people who are already wealthy and successful. Giving them incentives after-the-fact to help them achieve what they've already achieved doesn't do anyone any good.
                  No, MUCH better to punish them for their success, forcing them to give up their earnings and give them to people who aren't as motivated.

                  Here's an idea -- how bout you get your wealthy bleeding heart liberal billionaires to VOLUNTARILY divest themselves of their own earnings, and solve poverty THAT way!
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                    I always thought the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights were conservative (at least wrt social issues) Democrats.
                    The parties switched positions over the years. Cow Poke's being deliberately deceptive on the subject, as he regularly tries to do. The social conservatives who were primarily in the south, opposed civil rights, and the social progressives who were primarily in the north, wanted them.

                    This is part of a bigger imaginatively creative reconstruction of history that many posters on this forum from Southern states subscribe to, that seeks to reinterpret themselves as not being the bad guys in the historical narratives about slavery and civil rights. They misuse the fact that the social conservatives used to belong to the Democrat party and the social progressives used to belong to the Republican party to try to draw a fake continuity between those people on the correct side of civil rights issues and themselves today.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      So how would you answer likely questions such people may ask when encountering your ideas: why should certain things be ideally equal, given that people are certainly not equal in many respects, and when society has functioned for millenia without radical Western attempts to establish égalité? Which are the inequalities that should be minimised, and why? What are the costs of correcting such inequalites (because surely there's been some reason why they exist, and not necessarily either a) tradition or b) power-gaming)?
                      For starters, if an employer is looking at job applications from two similarly-qualified job candidates, the employer shouldn't make the decision based whether the applicants have Western-sounding names. Yet we have studies indicating that people with foreign-sounding names are more likely to be rejected, and accounts from people with such names who submitted several applications and heard nothing, then changed one letter on the name to make it sound more Western and received countless callbacks. An applicant should be hired or rejected based on the work quality that he can provide, not based on whether his name's Jose or Joe. After all, one's name has nothing to do with how well one can perform a job. It costs nothing to correct this inequality.
                      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        The parties switched positions over the years. Cow Poke's being deliberately deceptive on the subject, as he regularly tries to do.
                        No, he's not.

                        Which is why I clarified...
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Things sure have changed... there used to be Democrats who were more conservative than Republicans. Particularly Southern Democrats.
                        Goofus!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Here's an idea -- how bout you get your wealthy bleeding heart liberal billionaires to VOLUNTARILY divest themselves of their own earnings, and solve poverty THAT way!
                          Relatively few billionaires are economically left wing. Big business is infamously strongly right-wing in its political views, because it doesn't like the idea of its money being redistributed.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #43

                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Relatively few billionaires are economically left wing.


                            Please tell me you didn't say that with a straight face.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cerealman View Post
                              Star why do I always find you arguing for giving black people an advantage and others a disadvantage?
                              He's not arguing in favor of disadvantaging a different group of people. He's just saying that any particular black people who might genuinely be unable to succeed because of disadvantages should be helped so that they can then succeed.


                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              It makes him feel good. It's what liberals are all about.
                              I'm sure a paragon of consistency like yourself has no objection when some skeptics accuse Christians of blindly believing their religion only because the idea of an afterlife makes them feel good.
                              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                                I'm sure a paragon of consistency like yourself has no objection when some skeptics accuse Christians of blindly believing their religion only because the idea of an afterlife makes them feel good.
                                The skeptics are entitled to be wrong. In some cases, however, they're probably right.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                249 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X