Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

We Judge Others in Light of Ourselves

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 6:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In putting a greater significance on ourselves than we do for others, the very process of individuation calls for a degree of alienation. We by degree detach ourselves from the world to the extent of losing our focus on the fine nuances and idiosyncrasies of the circumstances in which others may be. We become dispassionate and in effect lose sight of detail. Like a judge far removed, we make judgements based, solely, on the evidence presented to us, while dismissing any factors not brought to our attention.

In removing ourselves from the defendant, the measure we mete out must come from that which is most familiar, namely ourselves; simply put, we judge others not clearly but through the beam that blinds our vision.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 8:40:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I believe to some degree we all do it. However, I believe those who make it a point to stress individuality at the expense of the collective do it even more so.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 8:50:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 8:40:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I believe to some degree we all do it. However, I believe those who make it a point to stress individuality at the expense of the collective do it even more so.

I wouldn't say at the expense of the collective. I think if individuals all act in their own self interest, it will generally also be best for the collective, but yes.

Other than that presupposition, you're correct. Studies have shown that cultures that put a focus on individuality do suffer from that, so it would be correct to say that it's a fault more common among strong independent minded people as well as conservatives and libertarians.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 9:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I refuse to not take you seriously.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 10:36:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 9:39:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I refuse to not take you seriously.

Thank you.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 1:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 10:36:01 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:39:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I refuse to not take you seriously.

Thank you.

Was that sarcastic?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 4:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 1:01:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 10:36:01 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/31/2015 9:39:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I refuse to not take you seriously.

Thank you.

Was that sarcastic?

No, sarcasm is the lowest form of humor and unacceptable.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:02:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wouldn't say at the expense of the collective. I think if individuals all act in their own self interest, it will generally also be best for the collective, but yes.

Other than that presupposition, you're correct. Studies have shown that cultures that put a focus on individuality do suffer from that, so it would be correct to say that it's a fault more common among strong independent minded people as well as conservatives and libertarians.

I believe acting for one's own interests is essential to the development of individuality and a healthy society encourages individual growth, but I also believe there must be a balance between meeting the needs of the individual and meeting the needs of society.

Individualism taken to its extreme leads to anarchy, and collectivism taken to the opposite extreme leads to communism. I don't believe either has proven an efficient form of government.

In the U.S., we have independent and social elements; I believe our system works best as one balances the effects of the other.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:06:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:02:37 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In the U.S., we have independent and social elements; I believe our system works best as one balances the effects of the other.

How can you tell that the US system is the best? I mean, what criteria are you using to make that judgment, and compared to what other systems?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 7:26:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:06:16 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 6/1/2015 6:02:37 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In the U.S., we have independent and social elements; I believe our system works best as one balances the effects of the other.

How can you tell that the US system is the best? I mean, what criteria are you using to make that judgment, and compared to what other systems?

Sorry. I should've said, "I believe our system works best, only, as one balances the effects of the other."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 6:02:37 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I wouldn't say at the expense of the collective. I think if individuals all act in their own self interest, it will generally also be best for the collective, but yes.



Other than that presupposition, you're correct. Studies have shown that cultures that put a focus on individuality do suffer from that, so it would be correct to say that it's a fault more common among strong independent minded people as well as conservatives and libertarians.

I believe acting for one's own interests is essential to the development of individuality and a healthy society encourages individual growth, but I also believe there must be a balance between meeting the needs of the individual and meeting the needs of society.

Individualism taken to its extreme leads to anarchy, and collectivism taken to the opposite extreme leads to communism. I don't believe either has proven an efficient form of government.

In the U.S., we have independent and social elements; I believe our system works best as one balances the effects of the other.

Well, I disagree. Working in your own self interest would require working towards some things that are collectivist at times. For example, it is in most people's self interest to pool their money together in the form of taxes to fund a fire department. Only caring about your own self interest will still lead to some forms of collectivism. The problem with throwing out your own self interest and working towards the interest of others is that you're not fit to determine the interest of others, and that's the problems you see in liberalism. They work for the self interest of various groups they see as Minorities (which incidentally is why everyone tries to be a minority), working in the interest of others as they do, harms the effect of the hidden hand which if working independent of the misguided altruistic approach will provide a better society for everyone involved.

Disregarding these altruistic tendencies will make society a safer place, a wealthier place and a much more enjoyable place. Whenever you work on anything that is not in your own self interest, you're doing something evil that harms the collective via harming the hidden hand.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 9:19:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I disagree. Working in your own self interest would require working towards some things that are collectivist at times. For example, it is in most people's self interest to pool their money together in the form of taxes to fund a fire department. Only caring about your own self interest will still lead to some forms of collectivism. The problem with throwing out your own self interest and working towards the interest of others is that you're not fit to determine the interest of others, and that's the problems you see in :liberalism. They work for the self interest of various groups they see as Minorities (which incidentally is why everyone tries to be a minority), working in the interest of others as they do, harms the effect of the hidden hand which if working independent of the misguided altruistic approach will provide a better society for everyone involved.

Disregarding these altruistic tendencies will make society a safer place, a wealthier place and a much more enjoyable place. Whenever you :work on anything that is not in your own self interest, you're doing something evil that harms the collective via harming the hidden hand.

Even though I agree, wholeheartedly, we have shared interests, I think the individualist is blinded to the extent of those shared interests and would be much more of a collectivist if he, or she, took a closer look. For instance, the problem of homelessness has been found to cost society, exponentially, more in taxpayer dollars as the root of the problem, homelessness, is ignored. The Economic Roundtable has recently ended a study in Santa Clara County, California showing the financial burden of chronic homelessness is five times greater in allowing it to persist. On average, it cost the taxpayers of Santa Clara $20, 000 to house a chronically homeless person for one year while costing the county $100, 000 per year to allow each chronically homeless person to remain homeless. The reason being is a homeless person on the street is more likely to end up in prison or in the hospital.

Ignoring the unfortunate members of society does not in anyway make them go away; society can either invest money making these people productive members of society or making them wards of the State; either way, we're going to pay; and, a productive member is a lot less costly than a ward.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 11:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 9:19:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Well, I disagree. Working in your own self interest would require working towards some things that are collectivist at times. For example, it is in most people's self interest to pool their money together in the form of taxes to fund a fire department. Only caring about your own self interest will still lead to some forms of collectivism. The problem with throwing out your own self interest and working towards the interest of others is that you're not fit to determine the interest of others, and that's the problems you see in :liberalism. They work for the self interest of various groups they see as Minorities (which incidentally is why everyone tries to be a minority), working in the interest of others as they do, harms the effect of the hidden hand which if working independent of the misguided altruistic approach will provide a better society for everyone involved.



Disregarding these altruistic tendencies will make society a safer place, a wealthier place and a much more enjoyable place. Whenever you :work on anything that is not in your own self interest, you're doing something evil that harms the collective via harming the hidden hand.

Even though I agree, wholeheartedly, we have shared interests, I think the individualist is blinded to the extent of those shared interests and would be much more of a collectivist if he, or she, took a closer look. For instance, the problem of homelessness has been found to cost society, exponentially, more in taxpayer dollars as the root of the problem, homelessness, is ignored. The Economic Roundtable has recently ended a study in Santa Clara County, California showing the financial burden of chronic homelessness is five times greater in allowing it to persist. On average, it cost the taxpayers of Santa Clara $20, 000 to house a chronically homeless person for one year while costing the county $100, 000 per year to allow each chronically homeless person to remain homeless. The reason being is a homeless person on the street is more likely to end up in prison or in the hospital.

Ignoring the unfortunate members of society does not in anyway make them go away; society can either invest money making these people productive members of society or making them wards of the State; either way, we're going to pay; and, a productive member is a lot less costly than a ward.

There is the problem with short term thinking. You actually create more homeless by not having a completely free market. I know a lot of people think throwing money at a problem will help it, but that's untrue. That's the problem with the collectivist mentality. Their heart is in the right place, but since they are short term thinkers, they don't realize they do more harm to the homeless and society in the long term.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:21:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 11:04:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:19:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Well, I disagree. Working in your own self interest would require working towards some things that are collectivist at times. For example, it is in most people's self interest to pool their money together in the form of taxes to fund a fire department. Only caring about your own self interest will still lead to some forms of collectivism. The problem with throwing out your own self interest and working towards the interest of others is that you're not fit to determine the interest of others, and that's the problems you see in :liberalism. They work for the self interest of various groups they see as Minorities (which incidentally is why everyone tries to be a minority), working in the interest of others as they do, harms the effect of the hidden hand which if working independent of the misguided altruistic approach will provide a better society for everyone involved.



Disregarding these altruistic tendencies will make society a safer place, a wealthier place and a much more enjoyable place. Whenever you :work on anything that is not in your own self interest, you're doing something evil that harms the collective via harming the hidden hand.

Even though I agree, wholeheartedly, we have shared interests, I think the individualist is blinded to the extent of those shared interests and would be much more of a collectivist if he, or she, took a closer look. For instance, the problem of homelessness has been found to cost society, exponentially, more in taxpayer dollars as the root of the problem, homelessness, is ignored. The Economic Roundtable has recently ended a study in Santa Clara County, California showing the financial burden of chronic homelessness is five times greater in allowing it to persist. On average, it cost the taxpayers of Santa Clara $20, 000 to house a chronically homeless person for one year while costing the county $100, 000 per year to allow each chronically homeless person to remain homeless. The reason being is a homeless person on the street is more likely to end up in prison or in the hospital.

Ignoring the unfortunate members of society does not in anyway make them go away; society can either invest money making these people productive members of society or making them wards of the State; either way, we're going to pay; and, a productive member is a lot less costly than a ward.

There is the problem with short term thinking. You actually create more homeless by not having a completely free market. I know a lot of people think throwing money at a problem will help it, but that's untrue. That's the problem with the collectivist mentality. Their heart is in the right place, but since they are short term thinkers, they don't realize they do more harm to the homeless and society in the long term.

Did you even read anything I wrote? According to the study, we are throwing significantly more money at the problem because of people who think like you. It seems to me, you think ignoring the problem or sweeping it under the rug will somehow make it go away. It won't. It only makes it worse.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 5:44:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 5:21:59 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:04:38 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:19:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Well, I disagree. Working in your own self interest would require working towards some things that are collectivist at times. For example, it is in most people's self interest to pool their money together in the form of taxes to fund a fire department. Only caring about your own self interest will still lead to some forms of collectivism. The problem with throwing out your own self interest and working towards the interest of others is that you're not fit to determine the interest of others, and that's the problems you see in :liberalism. They work for the self interest of various groups they see as Minorities (which incidentally is why everyone tries to be a minority), working in the interest of others as they do, harms the effect of the hidden hand which if working independent of the misguided altruistic approach will provide a better society for everyone involved.



Disregarding these altruistic tendencies will make society a safer place, a wealthier place and a much more enjoyable place. Whenever you :work on anything that is not in your own self interest, you're doing something evil that harms the collective via harming the hidden hand.

Even though I agree, wholeheartedly, we have shared interests, I think the individualist is blinded to the extent of those shared interests and would be much more of a collectivist if he, or she, took a closer look. For instance, the problem of homelessness has been found to cost society, exponentially, more in taxpayer dollars as the root of the problem, homelessness, is ignored. The Economic Roundtable has recently ended a study in Santa Clara County, California showing the financial burden of chronic homelessness is five times greater in allowing it to persist. On average, it cost the taxpayers of Santa Clara $20, 000 to house a chronically homeless person for one year while costing the county $100, 000 per year to allow each chronically homeless person to remain homeless. The reason being is a homeless person on the street is more likely to end up in prison or in the hospital.

Ignoring the unfortunate members of society does not in anyway make them go away; society can either invest money making these people productive members of society or making them wards of the State; either way, we're going to pay; and, a productive member is a lot less costly than a ward.

There is the problem with short term thinking. You actually create more homeless by not having a completely free market. I know a lot of people think throwing money at a problem will help it, but that's untrue. That's the problem with the collectivist mentality. Their heart is in the right place, but since they are short term thinkers, they don't realize they do more harm to the homeless and society in the long term.

Did you even read anything I wrote? According to the study, we are throwing significantly more money at the problem because of people who think like you. It seems to me, you think ignoring the problem or sweeping it under the rug will somehow make it go away. It won't. It only makes it worse.

Attacking the problem the way they do makes it worse in actuality. A night watch ment type state would create more opportunities for people and there would be less poverty. The size of the welfare state continues to grow and with it so does the problem of poverty, and the cycle continues. In this case doing nothing would be superior to doing something, because they merely are making the problem worse.

Liberals typically make problems worse because they ignore the root of the problem and just attack the symptom. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a broken leg it is still broken, so instead of taking ineffective actions that actually make the problem worse they should take actions which make the problem better.

The way the system is rigged is the cause of the problem. Before the government was heavy on regulation and throwing money at problems (instead of solving them), everyone could pretty much be a business owner. Everyone had their own bakery, banks were locally owned, grocery stores were all locally owned. This was what selfishness brought us, and then idiots trying to be selfless ruined it, and now it's almost impossible to be a business owner. Banks and grocery stores are now all national chains due to regulation meant for the greater good choking out small business, and you can look up my debate on welfare to see how that makes the problem worse.

People like you who are concerned about the greater good do a lot of harm, because you think throwing money at problems solved them. You guys creating the FDA which creates regulations that keep drugs that would save millions off the market for several years. Literally at least 100 million in America alone have died because of this "greater good" collective mentality. The irony is that a greater good mentality is harmful to the greater good while a selfish mentality is better for mankind as a whole
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Under F.D.R.'s New Deal, the American middle class of the 50's and 60's was born. F.D.R.'s policies help create the largest expansion of the middle class.

Under Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economics, one percent of the population has acquired ninety percent of America's wealth, the middle class is becoming smaller every year, and poverty is growing in leaps and bounds. According to Wikipedia, as the minimum wage reached its peak in 1969, at $1.35, its buying power was equivalent to $21.50 in today's economy, allowing an individual to buy or rent a home and feed himself, or herself. Now, an individual making minimum wage and working full time would not be able to live on his, or her, own without outside assistance.

As employers have found ways to decrease the cost of labor, the American taxpayers have had to pick up the slack. It's a crying shame to see people working full time jobs and still meeting the requirements for government assistance. In the state of Texas, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation while having more people making minimum wage than any other state, a wage that does not even allow an individual to take care of himself, or herself, without depending on the Government. Do you think people who can't afford to eat starve to death? No. They get food stamps paid for by the taxpayer. Most conservatives either believe in a very low minimum wage or no minimum wage, at all. Most conservatives do not believe in welfare. So, they create the poverty in America by the dismal premium they put on labor, and then complain if their taxes are increased to deal with the poverty they created in the first place.

I believe if they had their way America would be like India with a third of the population living in poverty, only making enough money to feed themselves once or twice a day, just enough to keep them alive so the rich have the labor needed to keep them rich.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Increases in minimum wage increase unemployment. When liberals raise minimum wage it's a direct attack on blacks because it has been shown to have almost I effect on white unemployment. If you completely eliminated corporate taxes, more companies would put their headquarters in the United States and bring a ton of higher paying jobs here.

Also didn't you read my premises about how regulatory agencies and taxation hurt small businesses and that's why after glass Steagull we went from having 80% of the banking done by mom and pop banks to now less than 10%, destroying a bunch of small business owners and turning them into minimum wage earners. You have the FDA who came in and before they existed, most food was bought from local farmers or grocery stores and now it's bought from minimum wage workers at Walmart.

Also Reagon was a Democrat just like FDR, even though he did better with the economy than he is given credit. Look at the number of people below the poverty level before he went in and the number of people when he left office. Let's not try to lie with stats here. In order for you to sit here and say liberal policies are good, you either aren't very informed about politics, or you are informed and support all the poverty caused by liberal policies

For God sake of you think the government is benevolent and all loving, go to a place that has more government control, like North Korea.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Increases in minimum wage increase unemployment. When liberals raise minimum wage it's a direct attack on blacks because it has been shown to have almost I effect on white unemployment. If you completely eliminated corporate taxes, more companies would put their headquarters in the United States and bring a ton of higher paying jobs here.

If that were true, the state of Washington with one of the highest minimum wages in America would have soaring unemployment rates, instead its unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country and Mississippi, a state with a minimum wage no higher than the federal mandate, would enjoy low unemployment rates but instead has one of the highest rates of unemployment and is considered the weakest economy in the country.

Theories are nice, but not having the predicted results to substantiate them classifies them as "failed theories".

Also didn't you read my premises :about how regulatory agencies and taxation hurt small businesses and :that's why after glass Steagull we went from having 80% of the banking done by mom and pop banks to now less than 10%, destroying a bunch of small business owners and turning them into minimum wage earners. You have the FDA who came in and before they existed, most food was bought from local farmers or grocery stores and now it's bought from minimum wage workers at Walmart.

Are you talking about the same deregulation that created financial institutions that were too big to fail, the financial collapse of 2008, and the need for the taxpayer bailout that cost the U.S. taxpayers 700 billion dollars?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 9:44:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Increases in minimum wage increase unemployment. When liberals raise minimum wage it's a direct attack on blacks because it has been shown to have almost I effect on white unemployment. If you completely eliminated corporate taxes, more companies would put their headquarters in the United States and bring a ton of higher paying jobs here.



If that were true, the state of Washington with one of the highest minimum wages in America would have soaring unemployment rates, instead its unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country and Mississippi, a state with a minimum wage no higher than the federal mandate, would enjoy low unemployment rates but instead has one of the highest rates of unemployment and is considered the weakest economy in the country.

Theories are nice, but not having the predicted results to substantiate them classifies them as "failed theories".

Also didn't you read my premises :about how regulatory agencies and taxation hurt small businesses and :that's why after glass Steagull we went from having 80% of the banking done by mom and pop banks to now less than 10%, destroying a bunch of small business owners and turning them into minimum wage earners. You have the FDA who came in and before they existed, most food was bought from local farmers or grocery stores and now it's bought from minimum wage workers at Walmart.

Are you talking about the same deregulation that created financial institutions that were too big to fail, the financial collapse of 2008, and the need for the taxpayer bailout that cost the U.S. taxpayers 700 billion dollars?

No the banking regulations largely came from FDR. Before Glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks, but admirer FDR got involved banks became too big to fail.

Then you seen Democrats paying off their owners by giving them billions in bail out money.

Do you honestly hate poor people so much that you'd rather satisfy your selfish need to feel like you're for a greater good than to just do the right thing?
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are your posts to this thread more of your satire, or are you explaining your actual views here?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:24:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:17:11 PM, Fly wrote:
At 5/31/2015 5:42:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
It is obvious yet others still fall for this almost all of the time. I make fun of it a lot in my satire. Yet I think others don't notice it :(

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are your posts to this thread more of your satire, or are you explaining your actual views here?

They're my actual views, but I'm getting bored with the tedium. I don't like to overly explain my positions outside of a debate setting. This stuff is pretty easy to quantify.

Liberal policies hurt the economy, which hurts poor people or creates more of them. For example things like the FDA and massive banking regulations have killed virtually all small business in those sectors, giving big businessman too much control over the market. Other sectors experience the same thing. If we eliminated those, we'd have more competition in the market place (if it isn't too late to reverse the damage). Liberals also like to heavily tax corporations, which means they put their main offices in more tax friendly countries. If we completely eliminated the corporate tax, we'd have those high paying jobs staying here as well as having many more flock over here.

Minimum wage increases the unemployment rate, causing massive harm to the poor. Welfare makes people dependent on government which forces people to stay at the lower echelons of society. All these things are true, and though the average liberal probably isn't aware of it, politicians make it their job to know these things, which really shows you how evil they are to still do them.

Many these stats can be confirmed through Google or through the Cato institute. I've listed most or not all of them in debates in the past, but I'm honestly not going to put that much effort into them here.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 9:58:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/4/2015 9:44:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Increases in minimum wage increase unemployment. When liberals raise minimum wage it's a direct attack on blacks because it has been shown to have almost I effect on white unemployment. If you completely eliminated corporate taxes, more companies would put their headquarters in the United States and bring a ton of higher paying jobs here.



If that were true, the state of Washington with one of the highest minimum wages in America would have soaring unemployment rates, instead its unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country and Mississippi, a state with a minimum wage no higher than the federal mandate, would enjoy low unemployment rates but instead has one of the highest rates of unemployment and is considered the weakest economy in the country.

Theories are nice, but not having the predicted results to substantiate them classifies them as "failed theories".

Also didn't you read my premises :about how regulatory agencies and taxation hurt small businesses and :that's why after glass Steagull we went from having 80% of the banking done by mom and pop banks to now less than 10%, destroying a bunch of small business owners and turning them into minimum wage earners. You have the FDA who came in and before they existed, most food was bought from local farmers or grocery stores and now it's bought from minimum wage workers at Walmart.

Are you talking about the same deregulation that created financial institutions that were too big to fail, the financial collapse of 2008, and the need for the taxpayer bailout that cost the U.S. taxpayers 700 billion dollars?

No the banking regulations largely came from FDR. Before Glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks, but admirer FDR got involved banks became too big to fail.

Sorry, but the financial collapse was facilitated by the real estate bubble made possible through many years of deregulation started by Ronald Reagan. F.D.R. pushed for regulations because he saw the effects a deregulated financial sector had on the economy: it was called "The Great Depression." And, Reagan, Clinton, and the most recent George Bush with the help of Congress deregulated the market, allowing for another recession.


Then you seen Democrats paying off their owners by giving them billions in bail out money.

Do you honestly hate poor people so much that you'd rather satisfy your selfish need to feel like you're for a greater good than to just do the right thing?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 10:39:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/4/2015 9:58:00 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/4/2015 9:44:22 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Increases in minimum wage increase unemployment. When liberals raise minimum wage it's a direct attack on blacks because it has been shown to have almost I effect on white unemployment. If you completely eliminated corporate taxes, more companies would put their headquarters in the United States and bring a ton of higher paying jobs here.



If that were true, the state of Washington with one of the highest minimum wages in America would have soaring unemployment rates, instead its unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country and Mississippi, a state with a minimum wage no higher than the federal mandate, would enjoy low unemployment rates but instead has one of the highest rates of unemployment and is considered the weakest economy in the country.

Theories are nice, but not having the predicted results to substantiate them classifies them as "failed theories".

Also didn't you read my premises :about how regulatory agencies and taxation hurt small businesses and :that's why after glass Steagull we went from having 80% of the banking done by mom and pop banks to now less than 10%, destroying a bunch of small business owners and turning them into minimum wage earners. You have the FDA who came in and before they existed, most food was bought from local farmers or grocery stores and now it's bought from minimum wage workers at Walmart.

Are you talking about the same deregulation that created financial institutions that were too big to fail, the financial collapse of 2008, and the need for the taxpayer bailout that cost the U.S. taxpayers 700 billion dollars?

No the banking regulations largely came from FDR. Before Glass Steagull most banking was done by small banks, but admirer FDR got involved banks became too big to fail.

Sorry, but the financial collapse was facilitated by the real estate bubble made possible through many years of deregulation started by Ronald Reagan. F.D.R. pushed for regulations because he saw the effects a deregulated financial sector had on the economy: it was called "The Great Depression." And, Reagan, Clinton, and the most recent George Bush with the help of Congress deregulated the market, allowing for another recession.


Then you seen Democrats paying off their owners by giving them billions in bail out money.

Do you honestly hate poor people so much that you'd rather satisfy your selfish need to feel like you're for a greater good than to just do the right thing?

I think you misdiagnosed the problem. We had Republicans trying to warn liberals and stop them, saying this would happen, but when Ron Paul stood in front of congress to warn them about this very position, the liberals laughed at him and said it would never happen.

This was caused by giving banks an out. FDIC insurance allows banks to take risks they shouldn't be allowed. FDIC is a liberal ideal, conservatives believe in A free market. Another problem like I said is that all the banks are big now, and for the reasons I stated. You keep completely ignoring my premises, while moving onto the next thing. If we had a bunch of mom and pop banks who couldn't afford to take risks, that wouldn't have happened. Not to mention the government was literally forcing the banks to give loans to high risk applicants at the time.

If you also look at the fact we have a fractional reserve system, that allows banks to literally loan more money than they actually have, it's a messed up thing. They're playing with our money, they can loan out $10,000 to my 100 that I put in the bank! WTF! Guess what, fractional reserve banking is a liberal policy that goes against a free market system. In a nation run by real conservatives, FDIC would be eliminated, the regulations that killed small banks would be lifted, so banks could truly compete again, and the fractional reserve system would be outlawed, meaning banks could not take as many risks with money, they'll be forced to play it safe and if they don't they won't be bailed out by liberal politicians they paid off, they'll go out of business.

Now I'm sure you won't respond to any of that and you'll try to reframe the argument so you can ignore my premises and move on, but it is what it is and instead of holding onto an ideology that is harming the poor while also creating more poor, you should do the right thing and help your fellow man by becoming more of an individualist, by that's only if you have actual empathy, if not continue on your course to harm society.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 8:27:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you misdiagnosed the problem. We had Republicans trying to warn liberals and stop them, saying this would happen, but when Ron Paul stood in front of congress to warn them about this very position, the liberals laughed at him and said it would never happen.

We had the very people who supported the deregulation of the financial institutions warning the people who supported greater scrutiny about the perils of deregulation? The bank examiners who worked for the S.E.C who dared do their jobs by informing their superiors of the financial sector's risky practices lost their jobs. Congress knew about that which was going on and still called for more deregulation and less scrutiny; many members Congress, both Democratic and Republican, were complicit in the faulty financial products that led up to the financial collapse of 2008. They weren't complicit because they called for greater scrutiny of the market but because they called for less. The subprime mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps that created the housing bubble were not facilitated by too much regulation but too little.

This was caused by giving banks an out. FDIC insurance allows banks to take risks they shouldn't be allowed. FDIC is a liberal ideal, conservatives believe in A free market. Another problem like I said is that all the banks are big now, and for the reasons I stated. You keep completely ignoring my premises, :while moving onto the next thing. If we had a bunch of mom and pop banks who couldn't afford to take risks, that wouldn't have happened. Not to mention the government was literally forcing the banks to give loans to high risk applicants at the time.

The FDIC is merely an insurance paid for by its members; its membership is voluntary, and participation mandates the mitigation of certain financial risks. Congress appropriates no public funds in support of the FDIC, and because it's member funded, members are prohibited from taken risks at the expense of each other.

If you also look at the fact we have a fractional reserve system, that allows banks to literally loan more money than they actually have, it's a messed up thing. They're playing with our money, they can loan out $10,000 to my 100 that I put in the bank! WTF! Guess what, fractional reserve banking is a liberal policy that goes against a free market system. In a nation run by real conservatives, FDIC would be eliminated, the regulations that killed small banks would be lifted, so banks could truly compete again, and the fractional reserve system would be outlawed, meaning banks could not take as many risks with money, they'll be forced to play it safe and if they don't they won't be bailed out by liberal politicians they paid off, they'll go out of business.

I don't know much about fractional-reserve banking, but the little I've read about it, I don't like.

Now I'm sure you won't respond to any of that and you'll try to reframe the argument so you can ignore my premises and move on, but it is what it is and instead of holding onto an ideology that is harming the poor while also creating more poor, you should do the right thing and help your fellow man by becoming more of an individualist, by that's only if you have actual empathy, if not continue on your course to harm society.