• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is political debate dead?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Welfare for the needy is rational and just..
No its not. Welfare for those who deserve it is rational and just. But blankly say that everyone who needs welfare should get is the exact opposite of rational and just.

Just being born in the US does not entitle you to having other people support you. If you expect society to help you it is rational and just for society to expect you to live your life in a way that will minimize that support. If you refuse to do so tough luck.
 

Baptismbyfire

Senior member
Oct 7, 2010
330
0
0
There are several reasons why political discussions has broken down. But I will just mention one.

I believe it comes down to people no longer having a philosophy of their own or a traditional set of values they can base their lives upon.

First let me address the philosophy aspect.

People nowadays hate to think. They want simple solutions to life, and hate the anxiety that comes with accepting uncertainties in life. They want the answers to life handed to them on a silver plate, and do not want to go through the painful process of tearing down old values and raising up new ones. This is why many have given up any serious intellectual inquiry, and regurgitate information others feed them. However, critical thinking is more necessary than ever due to the bombardment of misinformation over the web and the takeover of the academia by corporations.

Now, the value aspect.

Without a philosophy of your own, you would at least need a set of values you could orient yourself with, which have been instilled in you by your parents or by your community.

The problem however is that this current generation has been taught to rebel against anything their parents stood for, and that they should ultimately strive to be "free." But what does it mean to be truly free? Does having the money to drive a BMW, living together with your girlfriend without marrying her, or taking trips around the world each year make you truly free?

I believe that people are so obsessed with just running away from their responsibilities, that they have never truly considered what it means to be free and what they are running away to. If you think for a moment, what limits our freedom is not so much our obligation to our families or our old beat-up Ford, but the spread of neofeudalism around the world today, as the gap between the rich and poor widen and laws are applied differently to the rich. In all honesty, does that trip to the Bahamas really make you free?

This breakdown of family and community values is aggravated by the fact that corporations are moving jobs abroad, which results in the uprooting and destruction of entire communities. Even for the suburban middle-class, more moms and dads are finding that they both have to work to make ends meet, which leaves the question - "Who is going to take care of little Johnny?" "Who is going to take the time to instill him the right set of values?" Families are seeing less of each other, and communication breakdowns become more frequent, as any relationship requires time and effort for it to work.

But how can you count on anyone to treat others with respect, if he cannot even treat his own family members with respect?

So where does that leave us?

It's simple really. Without a philosophy or a set of values in our lives, we are no longer different from the animals. We are driven by power, greed, or whatever happens to hit the spot at that moment. It shows even in small things, like online debates, where people won't ever admit that they're wrong, and try to learn from others. We believe ourselves to be rational creatures, but when you face the reality, we are often driven by the same crude instincts as the animals who know of no such things as compassion or love. It is only our philosophy and values that makes us human.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
No its not. Welfare for those who deserve it is rational and just. But blankly say that everyone who needs welfare should get is the exact opposite of rational and just.

Just being born in the US does not entitle you to having other people support you. If you expect society to help you it is rational and just for society to expect you to live your life in a way that will minimize that support. If you refuse to do so tough luck.
And how do we decide who's deserving? How do we decide whose children deserve to go hungry & whose don't?

Should we just tell hungry 3 year olds to get a job? In a country where more food gets thrown away than given away so as to satisfy your warped self righteousness?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And how do we decide who's deserving? How do we decide whose children deserve to go hungry & whose don't?

Should we just tell hungry 3 year olds to get a job? In a country where more food gets thrown away than given away so as to satisfy your warped self righteousness?
Maybe we should tell some people they should not be having children.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Just being born in the US does not entitle you to having other people support you. If you expect society to help you it is rational and just for society to expect you to live your life in a way that will minimize that support. If you refuse to do so tough luck.
Where is the 'tough luck' for Jamie Dimon and the bankers with their failed companies? Why do they receive welfare so they can leech their mega bonuses? Is that rational and just?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Where is the 'tough luck' for Jamie Dimon and the bankers with their failed companies? Why do they receive welfare so they can leech their mega bonuses? Is that rational and just?
You mean bailouts that they paid back with interest + stock warrants.

Oh and by the way a majority of Republicans voted against bailouts for the Banks. It was the Democrats that voted for the banks bailouts.

Financial institutions have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of self regulation. Clearly we need to limit their compensation. Perhaps hang some of the worst of the top executives and then cane the rest for good measure.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
Oh and by the way a majority of Republicans voted against bailouts for the Banks. It was the Democrats that voted for the banks bailouts.

Financial institutions have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of self regulation. Clearly we need to limit their compensation. Perhaps hang some of the worst of the top executives and then cane the rest for good measure.
Your top point is moot since the minority speaker and whip had enough votes so they let the members who had elections and serious primary challenges vote against it.

Worked out so well for Dick Lugar right?


Your second point is very valid. There should have been and still should be FINES and Jail time for board members as well as the Jamie diamond dave dimons of the world.

I want to see policemen carrying out board members on their chairs like they did to the woolworths ass a few generations ago.

Ask any real conservative about short term vs long term compensation for board members as well as CEOs.

If their compensation and jobs werent paid quarterly and yearly they would choose longer term strategies that are safer.

Who cares if you already got paid right?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Try living with nothing more than your basic needs met, then get back to us with a blog about how much fun it was and how you had no motivation to strive for more.
Way to once again not answer the question.

If the choice is hard/boring/manual work.

OR

Not working at all but getting paid by the government simple because you exist. Which choice do people make?

Whats your motivation to work?

There isn't one. Because government gave you everything you need to live.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,159
13,256
136
Way to once again not answer the question.

If the choice is hard/boring/manual work.

OR

Not working at all but getting paid by the government simple because you exist. Which choice do people make?

Whats your motivation to work?

There isn't one. Because government gave you everything you need to live.
I actually did answer your question. Most people want more than what they need to live. That is the motivation for most.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
And how do we decide who's deserving? How do we decide whose children deserve to go hungry & whose don't?

Should we just tell hungry 3 year olds to get a job? In a country where more food gets thrown away than given away so as to satisfy your warped self righteousness?
Maybe we should tell some people they should not be having children.
Maybe you're just rationalizing a general disdain for your social inferiors, attempting to refute what is with what you want it to be.

The past is immutable, unchangeable, and the fact that such children exist & likely will continue to exist spits in the eye of your attempt to deny their existence.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
Way to once again not answer the question.

If the choice is hard/boring/manual work.

OR

Not working at all but getting paid by the government simple because you exist. Which choice do people make?

Whats your motivation to work?

There isn't one. Because government gave you everything you need to live.
False dilemma, given that there aren't enough jobs to go around, not even hard/ boring/ manual ones.

No conclusion is too preposterous when based on false premises.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
And how do we decide who's deserving? How do we decide whose children deserve to go hungry & whose don't?

Should we just tell hungry 3 year olds to get a job? In a country where more food gets thrown away than given away so as to satisfy your warped self righteousness?
Local charities. Religious organizations. Community organizations. You volunteering *your* time at a soup kitchen, or at the Salvation Army.

You do not have the power to solve all hunger problems in this country, but I know for damn sure you have the power to help your community without any government legislation.


But, hey look, you've figured out there is no such thing as a perfect society, therefore other people can always be criticized! You are ever so smart!
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Maybe you're just rationalizing a general disdain for your social inferiors, attempting to refute what is with what you want it to be.

The past is immutable, unchangeable, and the fact that such children exist & likely will continue to exist spits in the eye of your attempt to deny their existence.
They will continue to exist because we allow them to continue to breed children they cannot support.

And interesting they you all them my social inferiors. So much for equality huh?

False dilemma, given that there aren't enough jobs to go around, not even hard/ boring/ manual ones.

No conclusion is too preposterous when based on false premises.
Which would obviously explain why there are millions of Mexicans in the country illegally :rolleyes:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
Local charities. Religious organizations. Community organizations. You volunteering *your* time at a soup kitchen, or at the Salvation Army.

Hey look, you've figured out there is no such thing as a perfect society, therefore other people can always be criticized! You are so smart!
You forgot to mention that such efforts are utterly inadequate for the purposes at hand, and always have been. If they were, there wouldn't be the perception of need for govt action. I'm sure that "Conservatives" said the same thing in 1931, even in the face of even more widespread misery than today.

The reason that political debate is dead is that Righties believe in whatever they believe in atm independent of whatever factual evidence exists.

Rational debate depends on facts, on reason, on being unafraid to examine one's own most cherished beliefs. Whatever bit of propaganda from a trusted source that makes Righties feel good about themselves is instantly accepted, sanctified, & held to be true, just like the virgin birth. On the Right, politics has become religion, and all that it entails. Hell, that's been obvious for some while, now confirmed by the Texas Repubs' platform decrying critical thinking. Knowledge is the enemy of Faith, so it's quite natural for them to reject knowledge, base their arguments on a lack of it. It's like Galileo arguing with the Catholic Church- facts didn't matter, and they still don't to true believers.
 

EltonL

Junior Member
Jul 2, 2012
20
0
0
Which would obviously explain why there are millions of Mexicans in the country illegally :rolleyes:
Well to be fair. We do exploit their labor. Illegals come here for a reason. To work. The living conditions here are far better. It's why people still emigrate here.

Most illegals are hardly paid at minimum wage. But it's still worth more than not being paid at all.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
They will continue to exist because we allow them to continue to breed children they cannot support.
They already exist, something you're desperate to avoid. In another thread, you argue that the State of Mississippi has the right to effectively ban abortion, regardless of the economic circumstances of the mother. Perhaps those women seek abortion for just the reasons you cite- inability to properly care for such offspring. You would deny them such choice, even as you claim it should be mandatory based on judgment other than their own. Perhaps you'd care to address that glaring inconsistency.

And interesting they you all them my social inferiors. So much for equality huh?
Excuse me for not putting that in quotes- your feelings are entirely obvious, a sense of smug superiority oozing from your every word.

Which would obviously explain why there are millions of Mexicans in the country illegally :rolleyes:
And why there are still fewer jobs than those to fill them. Obviously, facts don't matter to you, only feelings, particularly those allowing you to put on your little superior dance...
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
False dilemma, given that there aren't enough jobs to go around, not even hard/ boring/ manual ones.

No conclusion is too preposterous when based on false premises.
There are plenty, if your president would stop allowing the illegals from taking them all. And forcing the welfare to do some of that work.

But that would be soo evil and terrible in your world. Having americans do work because they need to earn money.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
They already exist, something you're desperate to avoid. In another thread, you argue that the State of Mississippi has the right to effectively ban abortion, regardless of the economic circumstances of the mother. Perhaps those women seek abortion for just the reasons you cite- inability to properly care for such offspring. You would deny them such choice, even as you claim it should be mandatory based on judgment other than their own. Perhaps you'd care to address that glaring inconsistency.
Having the right to. And should do. Are different things.

Obviously if it was mandatory then it would have to be available. As it is not mandatory and is not likely to be mandatory anytime soon... you might as well be asking what if Santa Claus was real.

Excuse me for not putting that in quotes- your feelings are entirely obvious, a sense of smug superiority oozing from your every word.
I am sorry but not impregnating multiple women with children I cannot afford does make me superior. If you do not feel you are superior to such people...

And why there are still fewer jobs than those to fill them. Obviously, facts don't matter to you, only feelings, particularly those allowing you to put on your little superior dance...
There are always unemployed people. Perhaps you should consult an economics text book.

But allowing people into the country to take jobs is clearly not the way to lower unemployment.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
There are plenty, if your president would stop allowing the illegals from taking them all. And forcing the welfare to do some of that work.

But that would be soo evil and terrible in your world. Having americans do work because they need to earn money.
Double strawman.

The Obama Admin has deported record numbers of Illegals.

I've never offered that people on welfare shouldn't work, but rather that the usual suspects have yet to offer up any sort of plan that doesn't actually raise costs, particularly considering that the majority of welfare recipients are white people living in the 'burbs & rural areas... women with small children requiring care & supervision.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Double strawman.

The Obama Admin has deported record numbers of Illegals.

I've never offered that people on welfare shouldn't work, but rather that the usual suspects have yet to offer up any sort of plan that doesn't actually raise costs, particularly considering that the majority of welfare recipients are white people living in the 'burbs & rural areas... women with small children requiring care & supervision.
I offered up a proposal.

1.) Eliminate no-fault divorce.

2.) Do not let people who cannot afford children breed.

3.) Reintroduce the stigma of having a child out of wedlock see your bolded statement.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
Having the right to. And should do. Are different things.

Obviously if it was mandatory then it would have to be available. As it is not mandatory and is not likely to be mandatory anytime soon... you might as well be asking what if Santa Claus was real.
Still embracing contradiction as if there weren't any, still taking an authoritarian stance. When Mississippi women try to make what you'd consider to be the right choice, it's fine to deny them, but you'd rather they be forced to do it whether that's what they want or not. You obviously know better what's good for them than they do.

I am sorry but not impregnating multiple women with children I cannot afford does make me superior. If you do not feel you are superior to such people...
As if that defines the majority of situations where women seek abortion, or the majority of situations where women choose to bear children outside of the holy state of Matrimony, or the reasons that the majority of welfare recipients are white suburbanites & rural dwellers.

There are always unemployed people. Perhaps you should consult an economics text book.

But allowing people into the country to take jobs is clearly not the way to lower unemployment.
Of course there are always unemployed people. When that dips below 5% or so, it's mostly frictional unemployment, people just between jobs that are available, churn in the marketplace. That's not the situation today, at all.

"allowing" people into the country to work covers a lot of situations, some legal & some not, some based on feigned inability to obtain qualified Americans, some based on the lack of a total police state, which is what it would take to stop it completely. Obviously, the idea of a police state is entirely acceptable to you, just so long as you get to keep your guns & your smug self righteousness.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Still embracing contradiction as if there weren't any, still taking an authoritarian stance. When Mississippi women try to make what you'd consider to be the right choice, it's fine to deny them, but you'd rather they be forced to do it whether that's what they want or not. You obviously know better what's good for them than they do.
So you are arguing for a "free-market" based approach. How Republican of you :p. That worked so well for financial institutions :rolleyes:

As if that defines the majority of situations where women seek abortion, or the majority of situations where women choose to bear children outside of the holy state of Matrimony, or the reasons that the majority of welfare recipients are white suburbanites & rural dwellers.
There are so many women choosing to have children of wedlock now that I am sure there are a bunch of reason. All bad.

Of course there are always unemployed people. When that dips below 5% or so, it's mostly frictional unemployment, people just between jobs that are available, churn in the marketplace. That's not the situation today, at all.

"allowing" people into the country to work covers a lot of situations, some legal & some not, some based on feigned inability to obtain qualified Americans, some based on the lack of a total police state, which is what it would take to stop it completely. Obviously, the idea of a police state is entirely acceptable to you, just so long as you get to keep your guns & your smug self righteousness.
People are idiots. Have you learned nothing from the recent financial crisis?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,346
14,567
136
I offered up a proposal.

1.) Eliminate no-fault divorce.

2.) Do not let people who cannot afford children breed.

3.) Reintroduce the stigma of having a child out of wedlock see your bolded statement.
Demonstrate that 1.) will change the divorce rate, rather than just dragging everybody's character defects & many false accusations out in public. Make it totally adversarial, as many divorces still are, rather than as amicable as possible. It'll be good for the children, huh?

2.) Invoke a police state wrt reproduction, aimed solely at women. Be sure to deny choice while we're at it, as with your defense of Mississippi. Big brother knows best.

3.)Demonstrate that such will change anything at all. We can return to the shotgun weddings of yesteryear with corresponding divorces & annulments shortly thereafter, as if that'll actually make some difference. Everybody knew they got knocked up before the wedding, anyway, changing the social stigma not in the slightest.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Demonstrate that 1.) will change the divorce rate, rather than just dragging everybody's character defects & many false accusations out in public. Make it totally adversarial, as many divorces still are, rather than as amicable as possible. It'll be good for the children, huh?
You have to reestablish a culture of divorce being wrong.


2.) Invoke a police state wrt reproduction, aimed solely at women. Be sure to deny choice while we're at it, as with your defense of Mississippi. Big brother knows best.
Is that not what you think about Wall Street. But clearly we should trust pregnant teenagers over people with MBAs and PhDs in Quantitative analysis right?

3.)Demonstrate that such will change anything at all. We can return to the shotgun weddings of yesteryear with corresponding divorces & annulments shortly thereafter, as if that'll actually make some difference. Everybody knew they got knocked up before the wedding, anyway, changing the social stigma not in the slightest.


As you pointed out how is a single mom suppose to work and take care of her kids?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY