BF2S Forums And cunt of the week goes to...

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

The reason they are at those camps is cause the parents sent them.

But that the parents want them to share the same belief system is totally not brainwashing.

Totally.

Again, what data set are you basing that claim upon? I've known hundreds of people in my life who have attended a religious camp as a kid. None of them went unwillingly. Many of them had to convince their parents to let them go. None of them are zombified evangelicals today, nor were they then.

Uninformed generalizations and shit-poor analogies ftl.

Well I don't think it's much of a leap to assume that the kids attending those camps, had parents who were of the same religion.

Or am I wrong on that assumption?

AussieReaper wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

If you're talking about how the world actually works, this is just realistic.

If you're talking about how you should be treated by the world, yeah, I agree.

I'd rather they promote the idea of how you should be treated. That all men (and some women) are created equal.

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather they promote the idea of how you should be treated. That all men (and some women) are created equal.

But we're not. Some are smarter, some are faster, some work harder, some are born into wealthy families etc. Are we, and should we all be given equal rights? Absolutely. But to assume that we're all created equal at birth is rather childish. To then spend effort trying to equalize the outcomes for something that can't be controlled is just... laughable.

Here, read this short story by Kurt Vonnegut: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I don't think you understand what the "equal" was reffering to when written in the Declaration of Independence.

Unless you believe in the Devine right of Kings?

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather they promote the idea of how you should be treated. That all men (and some women) are created equal.

Yeah true, as something you teach it's better to be aiming for ideals. People can figure out cynicism on their own

There's nothing about that that promotes not treating people equally, or that all men and women were not created equal. In fact, its intent is exactly the opposite of that. To not guarantee equal results means everyone is responsible for themselves and their own success in life. Everyone is afforded an equal opportunity...not an equal outcome from that opportunity.

Jaekus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Yeah true, as something you teach it's better to be aiming for ideals. People can figure out cynicism on their own

There's nothing about that that promotes not treating people equally, or that all men and women were not created equal. In fact, its intent is exactly the opposite of that. To not guarantee equal results means everyone is responsible for themselves and their own success in life. Everyone is afforded an equal opportunity...not an equal outcome from that opportunity.

Yeah, that's why I think it's realistic.

To teach it as an ideal is more to teach the attitude that everyone should be treated equally, as in basic human rights and decency to your fellow man/woman.

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Well if that's the way you feel why should genetics be a factor in how equal you are to the next person? And what should that imbalance change?

What? This is clearly going over your head.

Look, we're not all equal. We have equal rights, yes, but some of us are just better than others at the things we do. Someone like Spark can run mathematical rings around me. Someone like Kmar knows far more about astronomy and rockets than I ever will. Someone like lowing is far more pigheaded and stubborn than I could ever possibly be. This is the way the world works. If Spark invented a room temperature superconductor and became fantastically wealthy because of it, why should he be saddled with a higher tax rate because of it?

This is what we mean when we talk about the lefts attempts to equalize outcomes:

School district doing poorly? Throw more money and resources at it so it can artificially compete with the neighboring school district that kicks its ass every year with equal assets.

Minorities not doing so well in the business world? Force universities and companies to take a disproportionate amount of minorities in order to 'fix it'.

Someone becomes fantastically wealthy through his own hard work and good fortune? Tax the shit out of him so he becomes financially more 'equal'.

These are all wrong Aussie. Instead of fixing problems, they create more problems.
If you screw the good school district there will be a flight to private schools and that school district will fail.
If you emphasize giving people unequal opportunity in the job and university markets you reward undeserving people and deny deserving people, based solely on the fact that they are a minority. You are rewarding them for being born a minority.
If you tax the wealthy, you give them reasons to move or not work nearly as hard. You are punishing success.

These are all very simple concepts which you seem unable to understand. This is the lot you threw your hat in with. I never said, nor will I ever say that people shouldn't have equal access to the law, because that's all that was intended by the 'all men are created equal' line. Everyone gets to vote. Everyone gets to go to public school. Everyone gets to stand before a jury of their peers and plead their case. We're all equal in that regard.

Stingray24 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I take considerable objections to

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

You prefer the government to have more influence over your family than you do?  Mmmkay.

AussieReaper wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I take considerable objections to

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

You prefer the government to have more influence over your family than you do?  Mmmkay.

So the parents can act outside of the law created by Government, such as child abuse?

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You've taken the concept of "All men are created equal" to somehow mean that "all men should stay equal" and are just running off on your tangent anti-liberal rant.

No, I haven't. As I've said repeatedly, everyone should have equal access to the law. Beyond that, what they do with their life is on them. If they suck at life and fail, they should suffer the consequences. If they're really good at life, and win, they should be left to enjoy what they've earned. That is equality in my book. Equal access to success or failure based on one's own merit without a government handicapper helping or hindering you along the path.

So life is a game, with "winners" and "losers"?  No middle ground or grey area?

Don't get me wrong, competition in the markets is good but isn't there a point where the wealth becomes self-concentrating and out of control?  Of course the government cannot guarantee any outcome for anyone but isnt it unrealistic to just toss aside basic opportunity and a basic standard of living?

Jay wrote:

It is a bit... disturbing. If you're gonna brainwash people, I guess you gotta get 'em young.

Jenspm wrote:

I actually partly agree with Jay on this one. I've never been a fan of "taxing the hell out of the rich" just for the sake of taxing them. As you touched upon, Jay, I believe in the government doing its best to create equal opportunity in the path to success, and by that I mean attempting to eliminate factors that you don't have control of - like, say, the wealth and success of your parents.

That is why I am against private schools, and want free state schools for everyone up to and including high school. That is why I want universities that are cheap, if not free, and a government handing out cheap loans, so that going to university, and where you are going, is never a question of how much your parents earn, or how much your parents are willing to pay, or where they're willing to send you.

In addition to this, I also believe that there are a handful of services you should have the right to access, no matter who you are. An example of this is the access to medical help. I do not believe that you should be able to pay your way to better doctors, better facilities or pay to cut in front of others in the waiting line. So I'm against private hospitals.

And finally, there are some goods that I believe the government should sponsor/subsidize for the sake of 'the common good'. This can be environmental issues by subsidizing public transport and taxing fuel, for example.

There are a lot of things I want to be government-supported, and this obviously has to be paid for. I think that the taxes paying for this have to be based on how much you're able to pay, and that means higher percentages for the more wealthy. 50% is a lot more for someone on $40k pr. year than it is for someone on $1mill.

So yes, I'd tax the rich more and the poor less, but that is for the sake of equal opportunity, rather than equal wealth. It is not an effort to drag down or punish the rich (which seems to be an idea that's far more prevalent in the UK), but rather building a common base to work from and supporting the society as a whole.


So yeah, there's my personal political philosophy in a nutshell, I guess. Off-topic? Nah.