View Poll Results: If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Option A

    19 43.18%
  • Option B

    8 18.18%
  • Option C

    16 36.36%
  • Option D

    1 2.27%
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 175

Thread: The Future of The USA

  1. #161
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    You are-you want others to have their property confiscated to pay for your grandiose dreams
    I have to hand it to you TurtleDude, you are very classy with the way you twist and turn arguments... but I'm not buying what you're selling either

    I think it says something when 53% of the people responding to the OP chose either option B or C, which says that those 53% are at least open to the idea of leveling the playing filed to weed out the unnatural advantages and disadvantages that occur at birth in the U.S. If 53% are open to the idea, its not that grandiose now is it? I know you were trying to use the word grandiose in a negative way, but whats so bad about having grandiose goals for the US so long as we know that we will never attain perfection, but we can always work towards it?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    sorry not buying it. you want your kid to have advantages such as top schools or top coaching, pay for it yourself and stop hiding your desires for the wealth of others in flowery social justice facades.
    I am arguing a theoretical argument that concerns the general public more than it does me. But something tells me that your desire to personalize arguments, i.e. making accusations and using the word "you" excessively, points to the probability that you are likely very personally attached to the arguments you post here at Debate Politics. For example, it is likely that you want the best for your children too (if you have them). But, who doesn't want the best for their children? There are of course differing levels of emotional attachment to one's argument from debater to debater. How close are you to yours?

    But enough of that... perhaps you are saying "pay for it yourself" to the hypothetical stereotyped poor people who desperately want to steal your money so so bad. ... well enough of that too

    I really want to know why you feel so adamant about disallowing progress toward a more natural society? ?

  2. #162
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    I have to hand it to you TurtleDude, you are very classy with the way you twist and turn arguments... but I'm not buying what you're selling either

    I think it says something when 53% of the people responding to the OP chose either option B or C, which says that those 53% are at least open to the idea of leveling the playing filed to weed out the unnatural advantages and disadvantages that occur at birth in the U.S. If 53% are open to the idea, its not that grandiose now is it? I know you were trying to use the word grandiose in a negative way, but whats so bad about having grandiose goals for the US so long as we know that we will never attain perfection, but we can always work towards it?



    I am arguing a theoretical argument that concerns the general public more than it does me. But something tells me that your desire to personalize arguments, i.e. making accusations and using the word "you" excessively, points to the probability that you are likely very personally attached to the arguments you post here at Debate Politics. For example, it is likely that you want the best for your children too (if you have them). But, who doesn't want the best for their children? There are of course differing levels of emotional attachment to one's argument from debater to debater. How close are you to yours?

    But enough of that... perhaps you are saying "pay for it yourself" to the hypothetical stereotyped poor people who desperately want to steal your money so so bad. ... well enough of that too

    I really want to know why you feel so adamant about disallowing progress toward a more natural society? ?
    because I support freedom and oppose parasites And most of those who want that crap arent the ones paying for it.

    you cavalierly demand that others have their wealth taken from them for your pie in the sky ideals

    doesn't work that way. lots of us aren't going to roll over and put up with that crap.



  3. #163
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Sometimes delusional rants are harsh too.
    Lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Agree, except... victim?
    Yes, its not their fault the system is the way it is and thus its not completely their fault that they think the way they do. Nor is it their fault that they are as lonely as they are, or as greedy as they are. It's natural for this to happen. It's lonely at the top.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I understand some have a philosophical objection to inheritance, but we inherit lots of things from our parents and not all are financial. Some inherit more "assets" than "liabilities," some more "liabilities" than "assets," if you will. Philosophically speaking, why fixate only on financial forms of inheritance, if "fairness" is the name of the game?
    Do we not want our beloved sports to be played in a fair manner? Why wouldn't we? Of course everyone wants things to be fair. So don't try to pretend that you don't either. We all know life isn't fair, but we all also want it to be.

    As far as non-financial related inheritances are concerned... why mess with them? They are natural and that is the goal in my mind. That is, create a society that is as natural as possible, but with as little bloodshed and suffering as possible. I suppose you could call it a less gruesome version of nature. Does that clear things up in terms of why we ought not to fixate on natural inheritances?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    So parents would theoretically be prohibited from privately paying other individuals to teach their children things?
    Not at all, so long as that financial ability was given to that child's peers

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You just said going to better schools is prohibited!
    I did? Where? Perhaps I worded it wrong? This is the tricky part.... there still needs to be competition right? Or at least that is what I believe, unless we can come up with some other, equally potent motivator. So, schools could still compete, but admission schools could be decided not by finances, but by parents choice and the child's ability to perform at that school's level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    None of this makes much sense, compared to your comment about the rich being prohibited from educational advantages. How do you let people home-school while disallowing them from paying others to teach their children things?
    I don't believe I said that they couldn't pay for others to teach their children things... I just said the money spend would have to be equal to their peers - if I didn't say that specifically, I must have made a mistake and my apologies if that is the case

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You're right, and that ultimately includes your own proposals too.
    So says Neomalthusian... do explain ... ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Equality of opportunity is just as impossible as equality of outcome. Every species on Earth naturally produces exceptionally strong specimens and defectively weak ones. It simply cannot be controlled. And the mission to prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage is not only irrational and immoral, it defies nature and reality.
    Except that it is not (at least not in the sense I am talking about). If you think some perfect equality of opportunity is achievable, then you are wrong; it is not. But we can get darn close, at least with the unnatural inheritances. Also remember that it was never a stated goal to [I]"prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage"[/I (to use your words). In fact, I am proposing the opposite. I am proposing that all parents have the monetary ability to give their children a competitive advantage. The money would be redistributed to allow for that, so that we would have droves of well informed citizens (remember these people will eventually vote and fight for causes). So, its best to invest in all, not a select few.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    In Prometheus' case a few posts back, certainly no more than a grain.
    Lol... I'll let that one go

  4. #164
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    because I support freedom and oppose parasites And most of those who want that crap arent the ones paying for it.

    you cavalierly demand that others have their wealth taken from them for your pie in the sky ideals

    doesn't work that way. lots of us aren't going to roll over and put up with that crap.

    LMAO - you sound scared

    But in all seriousness, there is nothing to be scared about. This would actually produce a better society, with better citizens; why wouldn't you want that?

    No one is demanding anything; instead, simply allowing the natural order of things to present itself again

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Yes, its not their fault the system is the way it is and thus its not completely their fault that they think the way they do.
    Why does that necessarily make them victims?

    Nor is it their fault that they are as lonely as they are, or as greedy as they are. It's natural for this to happen. It's lonely at the top.
    How do you know (or demonstrate) this is true in general?

    Do we not want our beloved sports to be played in a fair manner? Why wouldn't we? Of course everyone wants things to be fair. So don't try to pretend that you don't either. We all know life isn't fair, but we all also want it to be.
    Sports are played fair even though it is acknowledged some players are simply better than others. It's fair if fouls are called fairly and rules are enforced evenly. It's not fair to tie Lebron James' shoelaces together just because Mike Bibby is guarding him this play, or because he's been performing too well lately. Fairness is equal enforcement of laws, not government redistribution of resources.

    As far as non-financial related inheritances are concerned... why mess with them? They are natural and that is the goal in my mind. That is, create a society that is as natural as possible, but with as little bloodshed and suffering as possible. I suppose you could call it a less gruesome version of nature. Does that clear things up in terms of why we ought not to fixate on natural inheritances?
    It didn't need clearing up because I wasn't actually proposing that. I was asking why we are fixating on financial inheritance as a means of inhibiting parents from trying to set their children up for success, when that is only one of many many types of ways parents naturally try to do that.

    Father A is a derivatives trader who at one point was worth $30 million but, through a series of bad investments, loses most of it, squanders the rest, and leaves his son with a childhood history of emotional abuse and neglect, a proclivity toward alcoholism, and $2.3 million in inheritance.

    Father B makes a very modest salary over the course of his career, teaches his child many valuable skills, gives him plenty of attention, engages him in productive tasks and fosters critical thinking abilities and cultivates a desire to learn, but Father B spends all of his money in end-of-life care, leaving his son with $0.00 of inheritance.

    Who really is given the unfair advantage? Why are you so bothered about people inheriting money?

    Not at all, so long as that financial ability was given to that child's peers
    You're not making any sense. I asked why parents couldn't pay people to teach things to their children. It has nothing to do with "giving financial ability" to others.

    I did? Where? Perhaps I worded it wrong? This is the tricky part.... there still needs to be competition right? Or at least that is what I believe, unless we can come up with some other, equally potent motivator. So, schools could still compete, but admission schools could be decided not by finances, but by parents choice and the child's ability to perform at that school's level.
    You haven't really thought this through. 1) If parents with money can pay qualified others to teach their children, those children are going to tend to be more competitive to have their pick of the best schools. 2) If funding is equal, what are schools really competing for? 3) If the smartest kids can go to the "best" schools, how is it fair to those who are left to go to the worst?

    Your idea isn't making any sense.

    I don't believe I said that they couldn't pay for others to teach their children things... I just said the money spend would have to be equal to their peers
    In no way is this idea enforceable.

  6. #166
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Why does that necessarily make them victims?
    They are victims because of any irrational, unrealistic and unethical thinking etc. they may develop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    How do you know (or demonstrate) this is true in general?
    For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share details, but trust me, its not all its cracked up to be at the top and one is always trying to find ways to fill the emptiness, usually with money. Of course this is not the case with everyone, but many suffer from this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Sports are played fair even though it is acknowledged some players are simply better than others. It's fair if fouls are called fairly and rules are enforced evenly. It's not fair to tie Lebron James' shoelaces together just because Mike Bibby is guarding him this play, or because he's been performing too well lately.
    How does the above statement involving Lebron James etc. have anything to do with the following statement? When did we start talking about doing anything to natural inheritances? I believe that is the connection you are trying to make?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Fairness is equal enforcement of laws, not government redistribution of resources.
    First of all, in the US, resources are currently redistributed in a somewhat fair manner. But we are not talking about that right now. We are talking about a pool of inherited money that is evenly divided between all new generations, in a manner that allows for equal opportunity to investments, education etc. By definition, that would be fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It didn't need clearing up because I wasn't actually proposing that. I was asking why we are fixating on financial inheritance as a means of inhibiting parents from trying to set their children up for success, when that is only one of many many types of ways parents naturally try to do that.
    I put the area you are not understanding in bold. We are actually doing the opposite of that. We are enabling all parents to set up their children for success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Father A is a derivatives trader who at one point was worth $30 million but, through a series of bad investments, loses most of it, squanders the rest, and leaves his son with a childhood history of emotional abuse and neglect, a proclivity toward alcoholism, and $2.3 million in inheritance.

    Father B makes a very modest salary over the course of his career, teaches his child many valuable skills, gives him plenty of attention, engages him in productive tasks and fosters critical thinking abilities and cultivates a desire to learn, but Father B spends all of his money in end-of-life care, leaving his son with $0.00 of inheritance.

    Who really is given the unfair advantage? Why are you so bothered about people inheriting money?
    Your scenario is touching and say volumes about the value of natural inheritance. However, your scenario is not an argument against equal opportunity. This movement I am proposing is not one that attempts to even out the parenting children receive that is not influenced by money (e.g. emotional abuse and neglect versus giving attention and sharing good values). It is one that, as I've mentioned before, levels the playing field in terms of financial inheritance and or advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You're not making any sense. I asked why parents couldn't pay people to teach things to their children. It has nothing to do with "giving financial ability" to others.
    I never said parents couldn't pay to teach their children things. This movement is about granting things, not taking them away. We grant all parents the ability to have their children taught whatever their allotment from the pool of equal opportunity inheritance allows. This way all children have an equal opportunity to succeed, via equal monetary investment in education. Does it make sense to you now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You haven't really thought this through. 1) If parents with money can pay qualified others to teach their children, those children are going to tend to be more competitive to have their pick of the best schools.
    The only thing that would make them competitive would be their natural inheritances, because all the other children would have access to the same level of competitive schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    2) If funding is equal, what are schools really competing for?
    This is actually an area that I could use some help in working out the details.

    The way I see it, schools would be competing for enrollment (remember inheritance money from each child would be equal). Thus, the more students they enroll, the more money the teachers receive. Of course, each school would have their base allotment from the government. The teachers would have to use their creativity to use that base funding to deliver the service to the children. A certain percentage of the money would go to the teachers and a certain percentage would go back to the government to increase the base payment if needed. It would work something like this. Again, any help in working out these details is appreciated. I am coming up with this part off the top of my head and this part I haven't completely thought through (the specifics of the financial arrangements of the schools). My main initial objective was just focusing on the equalization of monetary inheritance. Again, I would love help working out the other details!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    3) If the smartest kids can go to the "best" schools, how is it fair to those who are left to go to the worst?
    Again, I haven't completely worked out the scholastic part of this. I think this aspect may be good for a new thread. But I am thinking one of two things... 1.) allow the children to try out a school and if they perform well, allow them to continue. 2.) allow the children to go to whatever school they and their parents choose and allow to fail if they can't keep up with the work. Can you think of a third option? Or fourth etc. ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Your idea isn't making any sense.
    Well admittedly, I haven't completely thought the schooling aspect of the idea through yet, but I am sure with teamwork it could be worked out. However, I am very confident in the level the playing field approach and objective. I believe it is the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    In no way is this idea enforceable.
    Why wouldn't it be? I would think there are plenty of ways to enforce it, especially if creative minds came together to help. Most people get scared, insecure etc. when a new idea comes along... but every once in a while someone steps up to the plate and contributes

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    They are victims because of any irrational, unrealistic and unethical thinking etc. they may develop.
    Again, that does not make them victims, and who says they developed any such cognition?

    For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share details, but trust me, its not all its cracked up to be at the top and one is always trying to find ways to fill the emptiness, usually with money. Of course this is not the case with everyone, but many suffer from this.
    Claims like this beg citation.

    How does the above statement involving Lebron James etc. have anything to do with the following statement? When did we start talking about doing anything to natural inheritances? I believe that is the connection you are trying to make?
    You brought up sports, and fairness in sports is about even application of rules, not making sure each team is equally good at the sport before the game starts. We started talking about non-financial inheritance because I suspected you would recognize that it doesn't make sense to try to undermine people who inherit non-financial advantages from their parents. Unfortunately you're still fixated on undermining financial advantages some parents give to their children. If you don't want some kids to have an advantage over others, why fixate on only the cash advantages?

  8. #168
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Again, that does not make them victims, and who says they developed any such cognition?
    Its just what happens. Its not a bad thing, its just reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Claims like this beg citation.
    Perhaps when I have time, I will dig up some old research papers that show this, but for now I am just talking from experience

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You brought up sports, and fairness in sports is about even application of rules, not making sure each team is equally good at the sport before the game starts.
    This is true. Indeed, I have no intention of making sure everyone is equal in terms of natural inheritance; not only would that be counterproductive, it would also be impossible (unless we start making clones of course, lol!!). I'll say it again, the focus here is on leveling the playing field as it relates to monetary influence. My analogy was meant to reflect the following: when we watch people race in the Olympics, for example, we wouldn't want the racers to start at different starting lines right? But of course we can't, nor shouldn't do anything about their natural inheritance/advantages, i.e. being faster than other racers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    We started talking about non-financial inheritance because I suspected you would recognize that it doesn't make sense to try to undermine people who inherit non-financial advantages from their parents.
    That's right and we agree that natural inheritance (or non-financial inheritance as it seems you've chosen to call it) shouldn't nor could not be made equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Unfortunately you're still fixated on undermining financial advantages some parents give to their children. If you don't want some kids to have an advantage over others, why fixate on only the cash advantages?
    LOL!! Like a dog on a bone. You remind me of me!! Its not fixating my friend... its just the nature of the movement... its the fair thing to do; this point is illuminated in the above racing analogy.

    Not interested in helping to work out the bugs associated with schools? Or are we in agreement that that would be best saved for another post?

  9. #169
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: The Future of The USA

    I voted for option A.

    It basically says that USA is leading superpower, votes are leaned towards the rich that mostly contribute with taxes, and limits access to education and access to healthcare to the ones that have not. Basically to hell with the people as long as the rich stay rich and USA is no 1 (how this can stand in itself is a question, but moving on).

    Now I am not saying that I voted for this because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because I am not an American (thereby the disadvantages do not strike me, I continue having access to healthcare and education, while you do not). What I am saying is that the disadvantages could be mitigated for Americans could find free access to healthcare and especially education here in Europe instead.

    I hear that public university in Deutchland is free and some Americans study there. This while if they had chosen to study in Suomiland they would pay Americans to study there instead. Thus you would have the best of both worlds and what is best the two USA & EU would get to commune more with its people.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  10. #170
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    LMAO - you sound scared

    But in all seriousness, there is nothing to be scared about. This would actually produce a better society, with better citizens; why wouldn't you want that?

    No one is demanding anything; instead, simply allowing the natural order of things to present itself again
    Ah, no. That is, in fact, rather the opposite of what you are seeking here. The natural order of things is for competition to create winners and losers, and for winners to pass on advantage to their offspring. You are trying to mitigate or obviate the "natural order of things".

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •