- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Again, when you add into my posts things that I did not actually write, you misunderstand me.
You responded to my remarks concerning a viable unborn Baby's right to life and our Constitution
No. I responded to only one sentence in your post, and I copied that one sentence into my post and bolded it. That was the signal that it was the sentence to which I was responding. Had I been responding to one of your other sentences, I would have copied that sentence, bolded it, and then responded to it. (The sentence of yours that I bolded and responded to was, "The constitution says that all people have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.")
You chose to shoot down the notion that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution would have an impact on any court's future decision.
No, the US Constitution absolutely impacts every US court's decision (or at least it should) because the Constitution is a law. In fact it is the foundational law with which EVERY other law in the nation must agree.
By contrast, because US courts rule on the application of US laws, and the Declaration of Independence is not a law, that document has no legal standing in US courts. Thomas Payne's treatise Common Sense articulated the same principles as the Declaration of Independence, yet it also has no standing in a US court of law because it is a court of law, not a court of very good ideas.
You need to read what I wrote, without pretending I wrote more. I was making a very simple point with a VERY narrow scope.
For you to split hairs on these things, to excuse abortions, makes you sound like an activist Democrat denying any viable baby their rights.
I wasn't referring to abortion at all.
I was just pointing out that the Declaration of Independence has no LEGAL authority. As I told you that I believe the principles it articulates are extraordinarily beneficial to all. However, being beneficial does not magically make it into a law. It is not "splitting hairs" to draw a clear distinction between something that is a law, and something that is not.
Are you disputing that declaration and do you believe only certain people deserves those right's?
Neither. I was merely stating relevant facts.
The Declaration of Independence is a phenomenal piece of rhetoric that articulates in clear historical context the philosophy of citizen-government relations that is responsible for the improvement of more lives than any other thing except the invention of soap and the spread of free market capitalism.
That does not change the fact that there are innumerable laws that diminish our liberty, thus making it "alienable." There is no law that grants the right to "the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence is of no relevance in a court of law, and offers no legal protections of any kind.
Let's do term limits while we're at it.
Two terms (or partial terms) for The Senate.
Three terms (or partial terms) for the House of Representatives.
There are other things I think would be useful.
- No political fundraising or campaigning for any candidate or office while holding any Federal office or otherwise being employed by the Federal government. Under the current system, there is too much room for conflict of interest.
- You cannot run for one office while holding another. Your term is over the minute you announce candidacy (or sign up to be on the ballot) for any office (federal, state, or local) other than your current office. Again, conflict of interest.
- Institute strict limits on taxpayer-funded travel.
- - I think one round trip to your home district per year for Congressional office holder only (no wives or families) is sufficient.
- - AND no using Air Force One, Marine Corps One, etc. to do anything that is not critical to the business of the country: No using it to take family vacations in Africa. No using it to go to hold rallies or give speeches. That is what TV is for. The US taxpayers should not be funding a gold-plated taxi service. If the President wants to go to Camp David, etc. for vacation, he/she can feel free to pay the bill, including the cost of the the military jet escort.
The US taxpayers should not be funding a gold-plated taxi service.
What did Kavanaugh MEAN when he looked the left wing Senators in the eye, and told them that "what goes around, comes around"???
Immediately prior to that statement, Kavanaugh discussed how unjust and disastrous is the tactic of character assassination through vague and uncorroborated and unsubstantiated accusations.
In that context, "What goes around, comes around" means that the tactic those particular Democrats were employing is likely to be used against them as some later date.
I agree. It is not like either party cornered the market on unscrupulous behavior in support of political goals.
There is a very big problem with giving credence to accusations that are not supported by physical evidence, corroborating witnesses, or even relevant details. It makes it possible to torpedo ANY candidate or nominee for anything, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION, and ruin their future opportunities with nothing more than a vague story set far enough in the past that it is impossible to reliably investigate.
If allowed to be effective, such a tactic would ultimately mean the end of the ability for the republic to function.
For the record, sitting on Garland's nomination is another instance where "what goes around, come around" applies in the sense Kavanaugh said it. Sitting on the letter for six weeks, delaying the secondary hearings, pushing for unlimited FBI investigation, etc. were all about delaying the vote until after the midterms so the Democrats (assuming they won a Senate majority) could do to Kavanaugh what the Republican Senate did to Garland.
ALL Americans deserve better from both sides. (There is a valid reason Congress' approval rating is generally in single digits, and usually lower than that of herpes.)
ALL Americans benefit from high standards for justice and fair play.
ALL Americans deserve to be safe from the effects of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations.
Kavanaugh is correct, if we let mere accusations be enough to destroy one guy's life, rest assured that what goes around will come around.
For ALL of us.
I think most of what you said is unfounded paranoia, BUT I very much agree with you on the essence of your most important point.
We ALL also have another "right"! The right to VOTE, WITHOUT it being gerrymandered...
I am with you in that I think gerrymandering is an abomination, and subverts representational government.
But you know damned well it is not just Republicans who gerrymander. I live in a district that was specifically gerrymandered to favor Democrats.
I am not sure that there is a sure-fire way to eliminate stacking the deck by the unscrupulous bastards that run both parties. However, I could make peace if the rule were that districts had to be rectangles
- Exactly 4 sides
- Exactly 4 ninety-degree corners
- - Except on state borders
- - - A single continuous and contiguous section of border would complete the district
- - - Without adding any extra sides or angles to connect to the border.
This would help representative government actually start to represent the citizens instead of the leadership of both parties.
Usually you do better than to parrot unsubstantiated or poorly supported talking points from politically biased folks on DNCNN or MSDNC.
Roe is toast.
In Kavanaugh's discussions of philosophy and method during the hearings, he explicitly stated he uses Constitutional text and precedent to guide his determination of constitutionality. That leaves Roe v Wade as settled law, and outside what he says is his purview of decision.
True, while campaigning, Trump said he would choose justices who would overturn, Roe v Wade, but he also said he would make the US government function efficiently. (Dream on!) Both the decisions of Constitutional conservatives and government waste are very far outside the ability of the executive to control, or even influence.
The advantage (particularly to whichever parties are out of power) of putting Constitutional conservatives on the bench is that they do not change things much. A politically conservative version of activist judges like Ginsberg or Soto-Mayor is what you should be worried about, but that is not Kavanaugh.
Gay marriage is finished.
Remember, the word conservative means something completely different when it follows the adverb Constitutionally than it does when following the words politically or socially. It is possible to be a political or social liberal, and still be a Constitutional conservative. In fact, any libertarian will tell you that Constitutional conservatism is the best way to protect social liberals. If the Constitution and precedent do not explicitly give government the right to intrude on citizens' private lives (sexual preference, drug use, etc.) then a Constitutionally conservative justice will uphold the freedom of the citizen.
Caring for patients with pre-existing conditions is OVER.
Not at all true. Preexisting conditions were already covered before Obamacare. That was one of the many things Obama and Congress (and poorly informed late night talk show hosts with sick kids) did not understand or lied about.
HIPAA already protected people from that on the group health insurance market (Company plans, association groups, etc..) Under HIPAA, so long as you have continuous coverage (no lapses in coverage of over 45 days) you could switch insurance companies (like when you change jobs, or lost a job and switched to COBRA), and preexisting conditions are covered. If your coverage lapses for over 45 days, you have to wait a single year before the condition is covered by the insurance company, but after that year, it is in fact covered.
All Congress had to do was extend HIPAA to the individual health insurance market, and if they wanted, extend dependent status to age 26.
Government-run "universal" health care is a foolish idea because GOVERNMENT IS BAD AT DOING EVERYTHING. We ALL do better if we limit what government does because that limits the number of things government will screw up. Conservatives are against universal health care because we do actually want people to have access to good health care. The minute government takes over, it will get even more expensive, and the quality will plummet for everybody.
Absolutely there are multiple factors, I was merely calling attention to two that were ignored, and that are necessary to illuminate the article.
As for luck, it is the residue of hard work.
As for prejudice, that definitely plays a part. The most impactful prejudices are people's expectations about how they will be limited before they even try. Self-fulfilling prophecies are pretty damned effective in creating both failure and success.
The close second is prejudice against fat and ugly people on the one hand, and prejudice in favor of pretty people on the other hand.
Of course logical behavior would be nice, but as you indicate, that is far too much to expect.
You are missing two main factors if you think that average wages staying stagnant means that personal wealth/power outcomes are not a function of whether one behaves in accordance with the cultural rules and system of laws and requirements that are part of the landscape that limit everybody.
1 - That the stagnant purchasing power of AVERAGE wages for all American workers does not mean that individuals do not experience increased income.
Personal wage increase is a function of promotion, not increase in wage rates for staying in the same job.
Promotion and getting higher paying jobs over the course of your life is a function of personal behavior.
Because of how I behave (how I do my job, the education and experience I have gained, the jobs to which I have applied) my income has doubled in the past eight years, but the cost of living has not increased by even 25%.
When I was 30, I was in the bottom 10% of American earners, but a couple decades later, I am in the top 25% of earners.
2 - Wages are not the main path to wealth and power.
The main behaviors in our society that lead to wealth and power are getting an education or learning a skillset, continuing to learn all your life, taking risks, innovating, reinvesting profits, creating and maintaining advantageous relationships, learning from failure, trying again after repeated failures, and working 70-80 hours per week.
It would be nicer to know what percentage of the advantage stay advantaged and what percentage of the disadvantaged stay disadvantaged. ;)
Percentage of individuals, or families?
Percentage of people who waste money, or live thriftily?
Percentage of people who are industrious, or just diddle about?
Percentage of people who take advantage of the system of laws, cultural norms, and societal requirements, or people who disregard preexisting requirements.
I am not so sure that statistics are particularly useful, particularly because we are looking at people who are relatively rare. The presupposition of statistics is that individual differences (and combinations of personal behaviors) are not the key. To get at those we are dependent on anecdotes.
Again, my point was that in the US people can, do, and always have been able to move into the top 1% of income.
Consider that the threshold for the top 1% is only an income of about a quarter to a third of a million dollars per year (depending on region, year, and whether the criterion is gross or net income.) My plumber in San Diego (who was his own business--just him and a part-time helper) made that in the early 2000s. He charged $1000 to replace and replumb a bath tub. It took him less than 4 hours, and he was the cheapest I could find. I paid him at a higher hourly rate than my lawyer!
True, there is a difference between top 1% of income and top 1% of assets, but the categories overlap. Read The Millionaire Next Door by by T. Stanley & W. Danko. In large part, it addresses how working class people, primarily small business owners move into the top 1% of income, and then into the top 1% of assets. It is the work of a lifetime, but it happens more than many people think. The key is a lifetime of hard work, thrift, and savings. Cheap living (small house, used car) and savings/reinvestment are how wealth is built from nothing over the course of decades.
Sometimes, as in the case of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Hiltons, and Trumps, the kids and grandkids do not dissipate the wealth built by their working class parents and grandparents, but build on it to increase fortune and power.
The evidence demonstrates that advantage of family wealth is not a guarantee of personal success, nor is the lack of family wealth and its advantages an insurmountable barrier to joining the top 1% of income or assets.
As in all things, the usefulness of the advantage depends entirely on application of personal abilities, and whether or not one behaves in accordance with preset/preexisting societal norms and cultural requirements.
The same is true of the bottom 1% of income/assets. In order to keep from being permanently poor in the US, one must graduate high school, get a job (any job), and marry BEFORE becoming a parent. 98% of those who do these three things become middle class by the end of their lives. Those who refuse to get in line with these three simple requirements are MUCH more likely to remain poor.
Personal outcomes of wealth and power are not so much a function of where one starts, but whether one behaves in accordance with the cultural rules and system of laws and requirements that are part of the landscape that limit everybody.
Yet the Rockefeller family has defied all of that. Now entering its seventh generation with as many as 170 heirs, the Rockefeller family has maintained substantial wealth — they had an $11 billion fortune in 2016, according to Forbes.
I apologize for being unclear.
I meant only the John D. Rockefeller (born 1837) who founded Standard Oil, and the Andrew Carnegie (born 1835) who founded US Steel.
Family wealth IS success. If your family is wealthy then you are "successful" without even doing anything, aka Paris Hilton.
Again, The Millionaire Next Door addresses how this works in practice. Thrift, savings, and working class values made it possible for one generation to amass substantial wealth, but the subsequent two generations usually divide and dissipate the assets, and do not live as thriftily as the working class generation that amassed the assets.
The kids & grandkids become professionals, often with incomes that put them in the top 1% of income, but are not as parsimonious as is required to be in the top 1% of assets. By assets, they are often in the top 10% or 25%. This demonstrates the mobility going both ways.
Do you believe in rich privilege? ;)
Not in privilege, but definitely advantage.
People lose that advantage all the time. Family wealth is hardly a guarantee of success, and is useless in the face of laziness and unwillingness to work within societal norms.
The top 1% is a statistical point on a distribution, not a single group of people whose progeny all stay at the same point in the distribution.
Consider that the richest people in the US did not start out that way. Rockefeller and Carnegie both grew up poor, and each took a turn as among the richest men in the world.
Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerburg are self-made.
There is tremendous class mobility in the US, going both from rich downward, and from poor upward.
The Vanderbilt fortune is gone, and at one point, Cornelius Vanderbilt was the richest man in the US.
Ben Carson is a multimillionaire ($30), and he started out very poor. He worked hard, learned and applied considerable skills, and made lots of money. Significantly, he learned to speak and write correct English, dress professionally, and comport himself in accordance with the norms required for professional success.
My folks started off poor, and ended up middle class. My dad started off with the disadvantage of not even speaking English when he started kindergarten, and he had to learn and adopt the behaviors and manners required for acceptance and success in American society.
The problem with this argument is that it does not account for the fact that most people who own property or wealth in the US, or have positions of any sort of power are not descended from the people who established the original laws, or initially settled the land.
People in those positions got there by getting with the program.
We are ALL born into an environment governed by laws and customs we did not make. Success of any kind is dependent on how well one adapts to the society we are in.
We ALL have to swallow the same crap if we want to succeed, and it does not taste any better to white people than it does to black or brown people.
I am not a fan of the societal or corporate cultures that dictate we project a particular image in order to get and keep a job. It rankles that I have to behave a particular way to get and keep what I have.
HOWEVER, I jumped through the necessary hoops, took the necessary steps, and continue to make the sacrifices and do the work require to succeed. The manners I display, and the behaviors I engage in do not come naturally or easily to me or anybody else, but I suck it up.
Anybody who does the same gets the same results.
Only a racist would think that it is easier or happier or more comfortable for white people to pretend to fit with cultural norms and societal mandates than it is for anybody else.
Only a racist would think that white people alive now have any more responsibility than anybody else of any race in creating the set of rules we all inherited, and to which we all are subject if we want to be successful.
School admin didn’t believe me and I got detention.
Don't kid yourself, it probably was irrelevant whether they believed you.
It is okay to be biased against heterosexuals, men, whites, Christians, conservatives, and successful people for being in those categories, but not acceptable for being in any other category. This is because the basic assumption is that if you are not in one of these unprotected categories, you must be completely incapable of adult reactions to your own feelings, and therefore need to be protected.
ok, since you are blonde and you didn't get the joke, I will try to explain (maybe even prove by example) why he couldn't just explain it once. Ready?
Are you blonde?
My post was a blond joke, which is why I, a supposed blond, suggested such a convoluted way for the blind guy to help the blondes get his joke.
Go dye your hair, then come back and read my post again. You will understand it once you are a brunette.
So, this redhead is working at the returns counter at a drug store when a brunette comes to the counter asking to return a package of brown hair dye.
The woman at the counter said, "I cannot give you a refund because the box is empty."
The brunette replied, "I know, that is why I want the refund. The hair dye is defective."
The clerk compared the picture of the model's hair on the package with the hair on the customer. "It looks like your hair is the color on the box."
"I know, but it didn't work!"
"Your hair is brown," said the clerk. "What color was it before?"
"Then of course the hair dye worked. You are a brunette, now."
"I know," said the customer, but I am still dumb!"
"...Oh," said the clerk, unsure of how to proceed . "Let me call my manager."
When the brown haired manager got to the returns desk, the clerk explained the situation.
"Give the lady a refund," said the manager. "I bought the same stuff last month. It did not work for me, either.
A blind man was going to tell a blonde joke at this bar but three blonde, butch, women walked up to him and told him that they were blonde and capable of kicking his ass. They then asked him if he still wanted to proceed and tell his joke and he said, "Not if I'll have to explain it 3 times." ;)
1) I am blond. (Well, I used to be.)
2) I don't think that joke is funny.
3) I don't understand why he had to explain it three times.
Couldn't he have explained it to one of them, had her explain it to the second one, and then had the second blonde explain it to the third one? ;)
U, my friend,
I am worried about you. I want you to have a happy life.
1) The first, and possibly most necessary such step to a happy life is to accept that there is nothing we can do to change the fact that some people are unkind, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes not. The world is full of assholes of various types and flavors.
Unfortunately this does not change after high school, despite the fact that we hope people grow, and learn empathy, and come to understand the staggering power of smiles and small kindnesses.
2) The second step is to realize that only the listeners (you, in this case) have power over whether unkind or thoughtless words are able to hurt them. Offense is not given; it is taken.
What people say about you and to you indicate nothing about you, but a lot about them. How you think about what they say is what gives it the power to hurt you or not.
When my students would come to me and say, "So-and-so called me a ," my response was always, "Is it true?" That is the important question.
Consider, "if somebody said, "2+2=3" you would not get angry, you would simply brush it off as he or she is a dumbass, or possibly trying to piss you off. It is no different if they say something stupid or untrue about you.
This is where a sense of irony, and even better, a sense of humor are so important to YOUR mental and emotional health. (My earlier posts on this should model how to do this.) You wrote, I k ow somethings are just jokes, but they are bad jokes to tell. Just like blond jokes.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, "There is no such thing as a moral joke or an immoral joke. Jokes are funny or not. That is all." A joke that is funny justifies itself. A joke that is not funny embarrasses the teller, just like saying, "2+2=3."
The minute you laugh at a funny joke at your expense, or dismiss an unfunny one as the product of an idiot, and then ignore it, you nullify the joke's power to hurt you.
3) The third step is to identify what your problem really is.
- Ginger jokes are NOT your problem.
- People saying unkind things is NOT your problem.
- Your problem is that you are lonely, and want to be liked by these people.
The things you said you do in response to all of the name-calling will only continue to make your problem worse.
Hurting people who say things you don't like does not demonstrate that other people are horrible, only that you have an underdeveloped sense of humor, and may be a horrible person yourself. This makes it unlikely any of these people will like you or be kind to you.
Hurting others also makes you a preferred target for unkindness.
You wrote, I am feared in my class because of my violent actions, but also the most bullies.* (I assume you mean "bullied") I guarantee that the others in your class would identify you as the main bully, and would probably say they crack jokes at your expense in retaliation to your violence.
It is hard to say which of those will isolate you more, but both lead to a very lonely and unhappy life.
I do not believe that there is any such thing as a soul. However, if the soul does exist, you have to be kind and forgiving if you want people to see it in you.
Take care of yourself, and laugh more, especially at your own expense.
I do feel sad for you, but that is largely because you seem to aim at taking offense rather than developing a sense of humor that could protect you from feeling offended.
Soul-The spiritual or immaterial part of a human.
You realize, I hope, that this does not actually provide enough information to tell me anything about what you think it is.
For somebody who is obviously truly hurt by being joked with about not having a soul, you seem to have difficulty providing details about the thing.
Put aside your knee-jerk emotions, and just think about what the "soulless ginger" and "Satan's Spawn" silliness really mean. These are jokes based on fiction and unexamined superstition.
Regarding calling you ugly, that is blatantly and needlessly unkind. That likely has nothing to do with how people generally feel about gingers in my experience. Lots of us find redheads extraordinarily attractive, exotic, etc.. (My wife swears that red hair is even sexier than playing hockey or playing bass guitar. Even so, she makes ginger jokes sometimes.)
Imagine that everyone thought you were a which or the devil. Imagine that no one trusted you because you are a ginger.
Regarding calling you a witch or the devil, they don't exist.
Regarding calling you evil, or not trusting you, you may want to look to your own actions and responses. You previously mentioned that you twist people's arms for saying things you dislike. That indicates that what you are dealing with is at least partly based in your own actions and responses.
Based on the content of your previous posts, I gather that you are still in high school/secondary school. (If I am incorrect, please forgive me.) Don't confuse how things are in high school with how things are in the real world.
In addition to being an ex-teenager, I am also an ex-teacher. Trust me, EVERYBODY is teased and tortured in high school. It is just that they are all picked on for different reasons. So they tease you for being a ginger, whereas others are teased for being smart or stupid or tall or short or...etc., ad infinitum.
All I am saying is that just because I am a ginger doesn't mean anything. I am like the rest of you all. Just with something unique about myself. I am like everyone else. I am just the same. I can do every thing you all can. I have a soul.
I agree with all of this statement but the last sentence, because I see no reason to believe the soul exists.
Relax, and ignore the BS, or laugh.
It is unfair for gingers to be judged like that.
Do you really think anybody actually believes that gingers are different?
NOBODY actually cares. They are just jokes. The fact that you choose to take them personally and react violently are likely to have a lot to do with people continuing the joke.
There is no reason for you to feel bad about any of this. Judging by the fact that you say you react violently to some of this, I think I am actually more on your side than you are.
First, I would assume one has such knowledge to know that I too have a soul. It's is offensive towards me to be called soulless because I also want to be treated like everyone else that doesn't have red hair.
What do you mean by a soul? Can you articulate it clearly? (Most people are even less able to articulate the definition and qualities of soul than those of god.)
I mean seriously, what empirical evidence do you have that there is any such thing? I know of no such evidence.
Because the soul is a figment of the cultural imagination. It is at best a metaphor for self-aware identity, and a sign of our fear of death and our yearning for immortality of some sort.
It is pretty obvious to me that the "soulless ginger" jokes are (marginally) funny because they boil down to saying gingers don't show evidence of having something that nobody else shows evidence of having, yet people pretend exists.
The joke is less about gingers than about souls and the ridiculousness of believing in them.
Second, do you have a brain? Weird question is it not? Would you not assume that I would think you have a brain, as I thought one would be smart enough to think I have a soul.
There is empirical evidence for the existence of brains, mine and yours included, but
none for the existence of souls, even in people who are not gingers.
Third, I do not care about my incorrect grammar. Do not have a care in the world. One, indeed, can be offended. While on can be offensive.
My comments were not about grammar, but about usage and diction, and more to the point, about the fact that an individual's feelings do not imbue anything, including a statement, with any intrinsic quality, especially not any obligation on the part of others.
That point was the core of my post.
There are hordes of people who use the term offensive to misrepresent their feelings about some term or statement as being universal or morally authoritative. They use offensive in an attempt to hide the reality that people feel differently about things, and nobody's feelings count more than anybody else's.
Some people like certain words, statements, or jokes , and think they are apt or funny.
Other people dislike the same words, statements, or jokes, and feel offended by them.
By characterizing the jokes as offensive, people who feel offended are attempting to discount the feelings and views of people with whom they disagree, and far too often to justify banning statements they dislike.