- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 5,058
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Location
- East Waboo USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
none of the above.
Oh, OK, sorry, I didn't realize that. I think I pick option C, however I would most like something that is a mix between option b and c. It just seems to be the most ethical to me. I believe wealth and power are under rated if you have the right allies. I believe that it is hard to compete with certain other immoral countries, e.g. china. However, I believe that if enough like minded countries banded together we could see option C realized while still keeping a lot of wealth and power.
Yes I agree with you roflpublican, ambiguous statements like these are nauseating and non-committal.
I guess you just dont get it. It doesnt matter that much it just means you'll hit a lot of none of the aboves (or people just not voting) & you'll end up with a meaningless results.
I was only trying to help you
Lame set of choices.
none of the above.
Cop out answer IMO, especially since everyone who has said this could have just ignored the post. Not ignoring it means it struck something that made you want to reply. But rather than facing the hard hypothetical decision, people use a variety of ego protecting vices to avoid it.
Yes, seriously. If you're saying this OP is an abstract hypothetical dilemma that has little connection to reality, then I agree. I wasn't shaken to my core; I was unimpressed. I am not unwilling to answer hard questions, I'm unwilling to be bound by false dichotomies. I don't lack experience with these issues, I apparently have more experience with them than you because I can recognize when I'm being presented with an unrealistic set of options.
I decline to let other people define my options for me, particularly when those options are not realistic.
:lamo You don't know me bud. I'm not some college freshman, I'm an ex-cop. I'm a middle aged blue collar single father with a teenage son and a mortgage: I make hard decisions every day. You talking down to me is pretty damn funny.
If one person doesn't like your poll, maybe the fault lies in that one person.
If NOBODY likes your poll.... maybe you should consider that the fault is in the poll.... ya think? :mrgreen:
The question is why do so many people find this poll aversive? I have a hunch that it is related to the fact that it is a dilemma. Have you ever heard of the life boat ethical decision? Its another example of an exercise in ethics.
Lets not get defensive now
The unfortunate thing is, our allies are underwater. the EU consists of most of NATO, and they're all spiraling down the same trap Hoover jammed us into 80+ years ago. We are morally obligated to maintain our position as #1, until a viable #2 emerges that can be accepted. China is a dictatorship, so is Russia, heres to the rise of democratic republican brazil because until then we need more carriers, more nukes, and more delta force platoons.
How we got here may be a debate for another time. Its something to learn from in order to avoid making the same mistake(s) again. What matters most is the path forward.
So I ask, what do you think would happen if we weren't #1? What if we were #2? Then, if we went further down, what if we were #3? And so on? What would happen? What is your forecast? What are your fears?
Also, why more carriers? Why more nukes? Why more delta forces? What will happen if we don't get more of those things? What are you afraid would happen? Fear is probably the most poisonous enemy we have and it is self induced. IMO. It limits creativity and our ability to allow change. It has its survival benefits, but fear unregulated is poisonous and very dangerous.
Yes, I know about ethical dilemmas and the lifeboat question and game theory and all that.
... said the pot to the kettle....
I think the issue many are taking with the poll is that it seems to have an overall negative outlook of our future. IE: we have to give up something critically important. I don't think the US has to do that, we're an incredibly well endowed nation with energy, minerals, educated people, infrastructure, military, economy, masters of our hemisphere in all but name, etc. We can have it all, if we do it right. I think making the thread a little more open-ended, without specific scenarios, and instead challenging people with a 'what would you do, provide details/specifics or don't post' would make the discussion smoother.
Yes, I am very afraid of what a dictatorship like China would do to a weak America. Are you not?
OK, so what of the lifeboat? Did you refuse to engage in that too?
I can see where what I said may have offended you and for that I apologize; however, I believe there is some truth to what I am saying. That is, what I am asking is a difficult question to answer. There isn't much precedence to rely on; one must rely on their own hard-set values and then rationalize those in a manner that is socially acceptable. Its complicated.
....take it out of the realm of reality and make it an abstract hypothetical....
It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.
Yes, that you gave us a poor set of choices.Not ignoring it means it struck something that made you want to reply.
....take it out of the realm of reality and make it an abstract hypothetical....
It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.
Put up a better set of options and we may get somewhere.
Yes, that you gave us a poor set of choices.
That's fine if you don't want to engage in a hypothetical conversation. Please don't believe that I am convinced that these are our exact options. Instead, look at it as a way to respond to a problem. That is, to decide what you would do if these were the only options. Its just a starting point; that's all.
None of the above but of the options you gave, D is the worst and would justify armed rebellion. C is unworkable because if the USA is merely in the top half in the world there is not going to be the finances necessary to pay for the stuff you have for the poor. A or B might be tolerable
I like the voting in proportion to taxes paid but its not ever going to happen. That leaves B
I believe the presumptions of the poll are exactly wrong.
To be MOST charitable to our own people, we also must be as wealthy a nation as possible.
Increased charity/welfare by declining economic national wealthy is an impossibility.