Is our tax system progressive enough?
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I happen to believe that in a diverse society with many unequal factors, there is no reason for equality of outcome to exist. The universe is full of randomness. It's not a blandly smooth and equal place. So when it comes to the tiny speck of existence that is humanity, economic inequality doesn't need to be justified. It's not a bad or evil thing. It's simply a reflection of nature.
Last edited by a moderator:
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I happen to believe that in a diverse society with many unequal factors, there is no reason for equality of outcome to exist. The universe is full of randomness. It's not a blandly smooth and equal place. So when it comes to the tiny speck of existence that is humanity, inequality doesn't need to be justified. It's not a bad or evil thing. It's simply a reflection of nature.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Funny how you argue that you support "unequal outcomes," as if anyone here has argued that they do not - yet you cite equality as a moral reason for a flat tax rate.
I might as well argue that I support the use of shoes.
I might as well argue that I support the use of shoes.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I don't support unequal outcomes myke. I accept them. Accusing me of supporting inequality is like accusing me of "supporting evolution". There is nothing to support. It's simply the way things are.
Equality of outcome is the unnatural idea, because it requires artificial forces (government coercion) to achieve.
Equality of outcome is the unnatural idea, because it requires artificial forces (government coercion) to achieve.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Yet you still embrace a flat percentage tax due to "equality."
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Yet you still embrace a flat percentage tax due to "equality."[/quote]
You are trying to equate two completely different concepts myke. An equal (percentage-wise) tax burden is not the same thing as trying to equalize outcomes. It's the opposite in fact. Demanding a proportional sacrifice from everyone regardless of what they make means NO favoritism..no changing the rules to suit one particular class...no additional subsidies for some or penalties for others. In short, it means equality under the law.
To achieve equality of outcome requires INEQUALITY under the law.
You are trying to equate two completely different concepts myke. An equal (percentage-wise) tax burden is not the same thing as trying to equalize outcomes. It's the opposite in fact. Demanding a proportional sacrifice from everyone regardless of what they make means NO favoritism..no changing the rules to suit one particular class...no additional subsidies for some or penalties for others. In short, it means equality under the law.
To achieve equality of outcome requires INEQUALITY under the law.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
That's an artificial argument unless you want to start pricing commodities based on a flat percentage of one's income, so one's $1.50 gallon of milk becomes a % that adjusts based on income.
Now, that would negate the very idea of income and be absurd...but absurdity hasn't stopped your arguments yet.
And for the record, your opposition to affirmative action mentioned a few pages back shows that you're not interested in equality under the law - or that you don't really take an issue with equality as much as you would like to think.
You're allowed to think what you like, but the ideas of "fairness" and "equality" coming from you are neither noble nor believable seeing as how you're constantly waffling back and forth as to whether equality or fairness are important in deciding policies. You have shown that you support inequality when it suits your ideology, and you support equality when it suits your ideology. You are, indeed, a slave to your own political platform.
Now, that would negate the very idea of income and be absurd...but absurdity hasn't stopped your arguments yet.
And for the record, your opposition to affirmative action mentioned a few pages back shows that you're not interested in equality under the law - or that you don't really take an issue with equality as much as you would like to think.
You're allowed to think what you like, but the ideas of "fairness" and "equality" coming from you are neither noble nor believable seeing as how you're constantly waffling back and forth as to whether equality or fairness are important in deciding policies. You have shown that you support inequality when it suits your ideology, and you support equality when it suits your ideology. You are, indeed, a slave to your own political platform.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']That's an artificial argument unless you want to start pricing commodities based on a flat percentage of one's income, so one's $1.50 gallon of milk becomes a % that adjusts based on income.
[/quote]
I wasn't sure before myke, but now I realize you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. The argument you are making is completely nonsensical. We were talking about funding government..a single organization called the I.R.S. And you are trying to branch this discussion into the into the prices we pay for things at the supermarket? Those prices are determined by supply and demand with thousands of individuals involved. Screw your head on straight before you post again.
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.
[/quote]
I wasn't sure before myke, but now I realize you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. The argument you are making is completely nonsensical. We were talking about funding government..a single organization called the I.R.S. And you are trying to branch this discussion into the into the prices we pay for things at the supermarket? Those prices are determined by supply and demand with thousands of individuals involved. Screw your head on straight before you post again.
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We fund the government?
...
...
...
oh, shit. that changed everything I said. I take it all back. I thought that the government was funded by Keebler Elves.
...
...
...
oh, shit. that changed everything I said. I take it all back. I thought that the government was funded by Keebler Elves.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']That's an artificial argument unless you want to start pricing commodities based on a flat percentage of one's income, so one's $1.50 gallon of milk becomes a % that adjusts based on income.
[/quote]
I wasn't sure before myke, but now I realize you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. The argument you are making is completely nonsensical. We were talking about funding government..a single organization called the I.R.S. And you are trying to branch this discussion into the into the prices we pay for things at the supermarket? Those prices are determined by supply and demand with thousands of individuals involved. Screw your head on straight before you post again.
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.
[/quote]
I wasn't sure before myke, but now I realize you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. The argument you are making is completely nonsensical. We were talking about funding government..a single organization called the I.R.S. And you are trying to branch this discussion into the into the prices we pay for things at the supermarket? Those prices are determined by supply and demand with thousands of individuals involved. Screw your head on straight before you post again.
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']I wasn't sure before myke, but now I realize you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. The argument you are making is completely nonsensical. We were talking about funding government..a single organization called the I.R.S. And you are trying to branch this discussion into the into the prices we pay for things at the supermarket? Those prices are determined by supply and demand with thousands of individuals involved. Screw your head on straight before you post again.
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.[/quote]
Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?
And for the record, I support equality under the law, always. Equality under the law means an objective sense of justice (or fairness). It means putting down a set of rules, and allowing the game to be played without regard to the consequences. This means treating everyone equally as an individual rather than as a member of a particular social class. This definition of justice obviously differs radically from your wishy washy definition of "social justice"..which generally means changing the rules mid-game..tinkering with things..offering political favoritism to different groups..rewarding and penalizing different players, and treating people UNEQUALLY to achieve a desired social outcome. Your definitions of justice and equality require INEQUALITY under the law to achieve. Just embrace it stop pretending otherwise.[/quote]
Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?
[quote name='Capitalizt']I happen to believe that in a diverse society with many unequal factors, there is no reason for equality of outcome to exist.[/QUOTE]
No one here is arguing for outcomes to be exactly equal.
It can be a very bad thing.
Shows what you know.
No one here is arguing for outcomes to be exactly equal.
It can be a very bad thing.
Shows what you know.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']
Shows what you know.[/quote]
Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.
[quote name='willardhaven']Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?[/quote]
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a Constitutional size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.
Shows what you know.[/quote]
Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.
[quote name='willardhaven']Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?[/quote]
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a Constitutional size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']
Shows what you know.[/quote]
Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.
[quote name='willardhaven']Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?[/quote]
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a reasonable size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.
Shows what you know.[/quote]
Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.
[quote name='willardhaven']Blindly following any predetermined set of rules rather than thinking is a great idea. Political favoritism for the rich/corporate (complex tax codes, tax breaks for wealthy, abused business statistics, lax enforcement of current laws) and penalties for the poor and less fortunate (broken justice system, racism/prejudice, understaffed and underfunded social programs) are already in place, so you agree social and judicial reform are necessary?[/quote]
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a reasonable size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.
[quote name='Capitalizt']Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.[/QUOTE]
Coming from the expert...
It is not "natural" it takes a somewhat sophisticated society for there to even be a surplus worth speaking of. What allows for there to be such concentrations of wealth is an unending list of "unnatural" institutions. This is like the introduction to Wealth of Nations stuff.
Coming from the expert...
It is not "natural" it takes a somewhat sophisticated society for there to even be a surplus worth speaking of. What allows for there to be such concentrations of wealth is an unending list of "unnatural" institutions. This is like the introduction to Wealth of Nations stuff.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']Once again an non-answer answer. Give me a rebuttal.
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a reasonable size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.[/QUOTE]
How do you propose we end race/age/gender discrimination in the workplace?
Yes, I agree. Our system is horribly corrupt. All political favoritism and corporate welfare needs to end..but I don't think it can be fixed by applying bandaids here and there. Reform of what we have now is impossible. We need to cut off the blood supply and kill the beast..then we can rebuild with a stronger foundation later.
Blame for the corruption you speak of needs to placed where it is due (Washington), rather than the market system. Our problem is not that greedy corporations are attempting to buy politicians (this will always be the case). It's that the politicians CAN be bought.
If we could get government down to a reasonable size, politicians would be stripped of their powers to grant favors to special interest groups and the problem would solve itself.[/QUOTE]
How do you propose we end race/age/gender discrimination in the workplace?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']How do you propose we end race/age/gender discrimination in the workplace?[/quote]
You're never going to abolish all racist attitudes myke, but you certainly aren't helping matters by creating institutional raced-based programs like AA to keep drawing people's eyes to skin color. It's completely unnecessary. Widespread discrimination has all but been abolished in corporate America 2009. You need to remember that corporations are in the business of PROFIT. It is in their self interest to hire those able to perform the job best. This means judging people as individuals based on individual MERIT and ABILITY rather than sex or skin color. Refusing an applicant who can add value and increase profitability based on physical characteristics is economic suicide in today's competitive environment...It goes contrary to the main mission statement of most companies which is to recruit the best talent and make the most money.
Any company backwards enough to practice discrimination will quickly lose the best talent to their competitors and it won't take very long for them to face Darwinian extinction in the marketplace.. If a truly racist company did emerge of course, I'm sure their demise would be helped along by a negative PR campaign and public boycotts. Information is shared very quickly in the internet age, and given that most Americans frown on discrimination it wouldn't take long to bankrupt a racist company. No need for the government to get involved.
You're never going to abolish all racist attitudes myke, but you certainly aren't helping matters by creating institutional raced-based programs like AA to keep drawing people's eyes to skin color. It's completely unnecessary. Widespread discrimination has all but been abolished in corporate America 2009. You need to remember that corporations are in the business of PROFIT. It is in their self interest to hire those able to perform the job best. This means judging people as individuals based on individual MERIT and ABILITY rather than sex or skin color. Refusing an applicant who can add value and increase profitability based on physical characteristics is economic suicide in today's competitive environment...It goes contrary to the main mission statement of most companies which is to recruit the best talent and make the most money.
Any company backwards enough to practice discrimination will quickly lose the best talent to their competitors and it won't take very long for them to face Darwinian extinction in the marketplace.. If a truly racist company did emerge of course, I'm sure their demise would be helped along by a negative PR campaign and public boycotts. Information is shared very quickly in the internet age, and given that most Americans frown on discrimination it wouldn't take long to bankrupt a racist company. No need for the government to get involved.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']Widespread discrimination has all but been abolished in corporate America 2009.[/QUOTE]
woah der.
you couldn't be any more wrong.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the ideal universe exists in your brain (a pure meritocracy where discriminatory industries flounder by failing to hire the best and brightest) and the way the real world works.
If you really think that (1) discrimination (and I said discrimination based on race/age/gender, not just race) is dead in the US market and (2) we're actually an ideally functioning meritocracy, or have the potential to be, then you're not worth talking to.
You're the kind of person I could hand a candy cane to and tell you it's a T-Bone steak if you're that
ing deluded.
You have NO IDEA how the world works, or how the economy works, and your embracing that our market is both an ideal meritocracy and a non-discriminatory one is as accurate as calling our government despotic.
You're hopelessly lost in the world of post-hoc rationalisation and naive idealism of what you want to believe.
woah der.
you couldn't be any more wrong.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the ideal universe exists in your brain (a pure meritocracy where discriminatory industries flounder by failing to hire the best and brightest) and the way the real world works.
If you really think that (1) discrimination (and I said discrimination based on race/age/gender, not just race) is dead in the US market and (2) we're actually an ideally functioning meritocracy, or have the potential to be, then you're not worth talking to.
You're the kind of person I could hand a candy cane to and tell you it's a T-Bone steak if you're that
ing deluded.You have NO IDEA how the world works, or how the economy works, and your embracing that our market is both an ideal meritocracy and a non-discriminatory one is as accurate as calling our government despotic.
You're hopelessly lost in the world of post-hoc rationalisation and naive idealism of what you want to believe.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']You're never going to abolish all racist attitudes myke, but you certainly aren't helping matters by creating institutional raced-based programs like AA to keep drawing people's eyes to skin color. It's completely unnecessary. Widespread discrimination has all but been abolished in corporate America 2009. You need to remember that corporations are in the business of PROFIT. It is in their self interest to hire those able to perform the job best. This means judging people as individuals based on individual MERIT and ABILITY rather than sex or skin color. Refusing an applicant who can add value and increase profitability based on physical characteristics is economic suicide in today's competitive environment...It goes contrary to the main mission statement of most companies which is to recruit the best talent and make the most money.
Any company backwards enough to practice discrimination will quickly lose the best talent to their competitors and it won't take very long for them to face Darwinian extinction in the marketplace.. If a truly racist company did emerge of course, I'm sure their demise would be helped along by a negative PR campaign and public boycotts. Information is shared very quickly in the internet age, and given that most Americans frown on discrimination it wouldn't take long to bankrupt a racist company. No need for the government to get involved.[/quote]
White protestant men are just naturally the best!
Any company backwards enough to practice discrimination will quickly lose the best talent to their competitors and it won't take very long for them to face Darwinian extinction in the marketplace.. If a truly racist company did emerge of course, I'm sure their demise would be helped along by a negative PR campaign and public boycotts. Information is shared very quickly in the internet age, and given that most Americans frown on discrimination it wouldn't take long to bankrupt a racist company. No need for the government to get involved.[/quote]
White protestant men are just naturally the best!
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, do you have any proof that the majority of companies in America practice racism/sexism? I highly doubt it.. And I'm not talking about ridiculous stats usually given as "evidence" in these debates showing that the number blacks/hispanics/women who are engineers/doctors/garbagemen aren't proportional to their numbers in the general population. To assume unequal representation in various careers is proof of discrimination is laughable at best. Anyway...it strikes me that you and your fellow social justice crusaders are the ones with the racist mindset my man..continuing to preach about group identity and the need for racial preferences. This sort of nonsense is actually maintaining residual racist attitudes that would otherwise have faded away in recent years. ffs, we have a black president named OBAMA for God's sake.. The country can't be THAT racist.
And I never said we are an "ideally functioning" meritocracy.. Nothing is completely ideal but we can always strive for that. And my other point stands, it IS economic suicide to be a racist/sexist employer in a competitive environment. Racism is a collectivist mindset...and collectivism is decidedly ANTI-meritocratic..anti capitalistic..and anti profit.. It is contrary to the goal of profit maximization, and any companies foolish enough to practice it will quickly drown in their own stupidity.
And I never said we are an "ideally functioning" meritocracy.. Nothing is completely ideal but we can always strive for that. And my other point stands, it IS economic suicide to be a racist/sexist employer in a competitive environment. Racism is a collectivist mindset...and collectivism is decidedly ANTI-meritocratic..anti capitalistic..and anti profit.. It is contrary to the goal of profit maximization, and any companies foolish enough to practice it will quickly drown in their own stupidity.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']I don't mind a minimum safety net for people who truly can't support themselves and have noone to fall back on. Nobody wants to see disabled and mentally handicapped people dying in the streets. There is a place for minimal government in that area IMO, but those sorts of problems are almost always handled more effectively on a state/city/local level. My main concern is restricting the federal monster that has it's tentacles wrapped around everything. Welfare on a state level is fine.. There are plenty of other necessary functions for state governments too...roads, courts, street lights, police/fire/ems, maybe a few parks and libraries..things that are unprofitable for private enterprise but benefit everyone in society for a relatively tiny cost. Local government isn't the problem. The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about.[/quote]
But you have no problem with a "normal" guy dying in the streets because he got laid off?
I am sorry but you say all these things like "local government isn't the problem" or "The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about" but you don't example why or give any kind of evidence towards your assumptions.
But you have no problem with a "normal" guy dying in the streets because he got laid off?
I am sorry but you say all these things like "local government isn't the problem" or "The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about" but you don't example why or give any kind of evidence towards your assumptions.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, do you have any proof that the majority of companies in America practice racism/sexism? I highly doubt it.. And I'm not talking about ridiculous stats usually given as "evidence" in these debates showing that the number blacks/hispanics/women who are engineers/doctors/garbagemen aren't proportional to their numbers in the general population. To assume unequal representation in various careers is proof of discrimination is laughable at best. Anyway...it strikes me that you and your fellow social justice crusaders are the ones with the racist mindset my man..continuing to preach about group identity and the need for racial preferences. This sort of nonsense is actually maintaining residual racist attitudes that would otherwise have faded away in recent years.
And I never said we are an ideally functioning meritocracy.. Nothing is completely ideal but we can always strive for that. And my other point stands, it IS economic suicide to be a racist/sexist employer in a competitive environment. Racism is a collectivist mindset...and collectivism is decidedly ANTI-meritocratic..anti capitalistic..and anti profit.. It is contrary to the goal of profit maximization, and any companies foolish enough to practice it will quickly drown in their own stupidity.
And I never said we are an ideally functioning meritocracy.. Nothing is completely ideal but we can always strive for that. And my other point stands, it IS economic suicide to be a racist/sexist employer in a competitive environment. Racism is a collectivist mindset...and collectivism is decidedly ANTI-meritocratic..anti capitalistic..and anti profit.. It is contrary to the goal of profit maximization, and any companies foolish enough to practice it will quickly drown in their own stupidity.
[quote name='gareman']But you have no problem with a "normal" guy dying in the streets because he got laid off?
I am sorry but you say all these things like "local government isn't the problem" or "The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about" but you don't example why or give any kind of evidence towards your assumptions.[/QUOTE]
Cap cannot answer a single thing that isn't already on his little cults script.
Notice how he asks for "proof" while attempting to poison the well complaining about "ridiculous stats".
I am sorry but you say all these things like "local government isn't the problem" or "The 3.6 trillion dollar beast in Washington is what we need to worry about" but you don't example why or give any kind of evidence towards your assumptions.[/QUOTE]
Cap cannot answer a single thing that isn't already on his little cults script.
Notice how he asks for "proof" while attempting to poison the well complaining about "ridiculous stats".
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Msut, are you honestly telling me you buy the proportional representation argument...the nonsense that says because blacks are 12% of the population, they should also comprise 12% of the engineers in the country..12% of the fashion models..12% of the programmers..12% of waiters/waitresses, 12% of lifeguards, 12% of dance instructors, etc..and that any underrepresentation in those industries is proof of racism? Orly?
[quote name='gareman']But you have no problem with a "normal" guy dying in the streets because he got laid off? [/quote]
I don't want to see anyone dying in the streets. My point was that state and city governments are much better to equipped to care for the homeless in their cities. Welfare should be dispensed on a local level. The federal government is too immense and far too inefficient to deal with those things.
[quote name='gareman']But you have no problem with a "normal" guy dying in the streets because he got laid off? [/quote]
I don't want to see anyone dying in the streets. My point was that state and city governments are much better to equipped to care for the homeless in their cities. Welfare should be dispensed on a local level. The federal government is too immense and far too inefficient to deal with those things.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
You can claim AA is "all about" whatever you want msut, but in reality, it certainly works towards proportional representation. It drops individualism and puts race/gender on a pedestal equal to talent...turning sex and skin color into factors seriously to be considered in a hiring decision. If you believe in a true meritocracy and the sentiment expressed in MLK's "I have a dream" speech, the idea should be repellent to you.
[quote name='Capitalizt']You can claim AA is "all about" whatever you want msut, but in reality[/QUOTE]
There is little doubt that I know more on the subject than you, there is no doubt that myke does.
By "in reality" you are referring to your own little world only tenuously connected to everyone elses.
Good.
I would love to see how you quantify talent or how you seem to ignore the fact that a whole raft of things gets factored into hiring (or admissions) decisions. Things like wearing a suit instead of sweatpants or where your parents went to college and how much they donate.
I believe in a true meritocracy and I am assuming when you type it there should be quote marks or an asterisk. MLK certainly supported AA-style programs and he wanted to achieve actual equality instead of the very lovely sounding theoretical equality.
There is little doubt that I know more on the subject than you, there is no doubt that myke does.
By "in reality" you are referring to your own little world only tenuously connected to everyone elses.
Good.
I would love to see how you quantify talent or how you seem to ignore the fact that a whole raft of things gets factored into hiring (or admissions) decisions. Things like wearing a suit instead of sweatpants or where your parents went to college and how much they donate.
I believe in a true meritocracy and I am assuming when you type it there should be quote marks or an asterisk. MLK certainly supported AA-style programs and he wanted to achieve actual equality instead of the very lovely sounding theoretical equality.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']
I believe in a true meritocracy[/quote]
If you believe race/sex should be ANY factor at all in any economic decision, you don't.
and around the circle we go..
I believe in a true meritocracy[/quote]
If you believe race/sex should be ANY factor at all in any economic decision, you don't.
AA programs are incompatible with judging people entirely on merit..or judging them "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" as he put it. MLK fought to end institutional racism.. Ending segregation and Jim Crow laws were fine steps towards equality under the law. The new crowd of "civil rights" leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton however have taken his fight wayyy beyond equality under the law and into equality of outcome.
and around the circle we go..
[quote name='Capitalizt']If you believe race/sex should be ANY factor at all in any economic decision, you don't.[/QUOTE]
Horse Manure.
Martin Luther King wrote many things aside from the few lines which for all I know are all you have read from the man. He recognized that many steps had to be taken to make equality a reality instead of something theoretical, that would be one of the main themes of Why We Can't Wait.
Horse Manure.
Martin Luther King wrote many things aside from the few lines which for all I know are all you have read from the man. He recognized that many steps had to be taken to make equality a reality instead of something theoretical, that would be one of the main themes of Why We Can't Wait.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']I happen to believe that in a diverse society with many unequal factors, there is no reason for equality of outcome to exist. The universe is full of randomness. It's not a blandly smooth and equal place. So when it comes to the tiny speck of existence that is humanity, inequality doesn't need to be justified. It's not a bad or evil thing. It's simply a reflection of nature.[/quote]
I know that the thread has moved on quite a bit from this post, but in a quick skim, I didn't see anyone really address this. So let me address this.
Bullmotheringshit.
Cold and uncaring universe? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. But that has no bearing what-so-god-damn-ever on what we should do. "Reflecting nature" isn't morality. It's nothing but rationalization done to justifying dickishness. The universe ain't sentient, man, and it ain't an excuse for those of us who are.
I know that the thread has moved on quite a bit from this post, but in a quick skim, I didn't see anyone really address this. So let me address this.
Bullmother
ingshit.Cold and uncaring universe? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. But that has no bearing what-so-god-damn-ever on what we should do. "Reflecting nature" isn't morality. It's nothing but rationalization done to justifying dickishness. The universe ain't sentient, man, and it ain't an excuse for those of us who are.
[quote name='Capitalizt']
I don't want to see anyone dying in the streets. My point was that state and city governments are much better to equipped to care for the homeless in their cities. Welfare should be dispensed on a local level. The federal government is too immense and far too inefficient to deal with those things.[/quote]
Why do you argue for the importance of an objective rule based social and economic reality then when its questioned beyond two lines argument you interject subjective exceptions? Such as mentally ill people but not single mothers, library but not this or that. It so arbitrary and the fact that on an online forum you can't stick to your philosophies without change this or that or making this exception...how do expect a government to be run so objectively?
I don't want to see anyone dying in the streets. My point was that state and city governments are much better to equipped to care for the homeless in their cities. Welfare should be dispensed on a local level. The federal government is too immense and far too inefficient to deal with those things.[/quote]
Why do you argue for the importance of an objective rule based social and economic reality then when its questioned beyond two lines argument you interject subjective exceptions? Such as mentally ill people but not single mothers, library but not this or that. It so arbitrary and the fact that on an online forum you can't stick to your philosophies without change this or that or making this exception...how do expect a government to be run so objectively?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']You can claim AA is "all about" whatever you want msut, but in reality, it certainly works towards proportional representation. It drops individualism and puts race/gender on a pedestal equal to talent...turning sex and skin color into factors seriously to be considered in a hiring decision. If you believe in a true meritocracy and the sentiment expressed in MLK's "I have a dream" speech, the idea should be repellent to you.[/QUOTE]
THERE'S NOING INDIVIDUALISM YOU IDEALISTIC .
Here's
your
mother
ing
anti
racist
economic
structure.
Again. Let me tell you. You're living in aing candyland if you think there's no discrimination out there.
There's your gauntlet. Why don't you find me just ONE piece of peer-reviewed research that shows American firms do not discriminate? We won't be even by any stretch, but I merely doubt your ability to do anything to validate your political perspective as being rooted in reality.
You're so convinced about these ideal market structures, a proper meritocracy, and the lack of discrimination in the workplace that you fail to admit still exist in this day and age, and will not be remedied by allowing the market to police itself.
It took the government, and not the free market, to let black folks sit at the lunch counter. That wasn't Adam Smith, that was the Civil Rights Act. And you want to denounce those effective social forces in favor of the social forces that caused problems to begin with.
THERE'S NO
ING INDIVIDUALISM YOU IDEALISTIC .Here's
your
mother
inganti
racist
economic
structure.
Again. Let me tell you. You're living in a
ing candyland if you think there's no discrimination out there. There's your gauntlet. Why don't you find me just ONE piece of peer-reviewed research that shows American firms do not discriminate? We won't be even by any stretch, but I merely doubt your ability to do anything to validate your political perspective as being rooted in reality.
You're so convinced about these ideal market structures, a proper meritocracy, and the lack of discrimination in the workplace that you fail to admit still exist in this day and age, and will not be remedied by allowing the market to police itself.
It took the government, and not the free market, to let black folks sit at the lunch counter. That wasn't Adam Smith, that was the Civil Rights Act. And you want to denounce those effective social forces in favor of the social forces that caused problems to begin with.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']THERE'S NO ING INDIVIDUALISM YOU IDEALISTIC .
[/quote]
LOLOLOL!!! It finally happened..little myke cracked...SUCCESS!
First myke, I never said there was NO discrimination out there. My first statement on the topic was that you will never be able to wipe out all racist/sexist attitudes. And since you've brought nothing new to the discussion, let me repeat myself on the other points as well: One injustice can't be corrected by another. Institutionalizing racism with AA is a sure path to maintaining racist attitudes among those who would otherwise be race-neutral. Imposing policies like AA that demand skin color or sex be a factor when hiring is decidedly anti-meritocratic, anti-capitalistic, and poor for profit. Hiring employees based on physical characteristics rather than the value they bring to the company is against the self interest of shareholders. Policies of discrimination ensure that non-discriminating competitors will gain best talent and dominate in the marketplace. All of these are facts you refuse to accept.
There should always be a bare minimum safety net for those who fall through the cracks..but again, the federal government has no authority in this area. That power should be left in the hands of those most capable of managing social welfare programs (city and state governments).
There are some insane folks who favor a Mad Max approach to civilization, a complete abolition of welfare on state/city/local levels..privatized education, privatized roads, etc. I disagree with them so I guess I don't have a "pure" libertarian philosophy..but I have no problem in not being a purist. Everything in life is a matter of degree, and I just think we've moved much too far down the road towards a totalitarian state. Lets step on the brakes and take a few steps back towards liberty before we go bankrupt shall we?
[quote name='The Crotch']
Cold and uncaring universe? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. But that has no bearing what-so-god-damn-ever on what we should do. "Reflecting nature" isn't morality. It's nothing but rationalization done to justifying dickishness. The universe ain't sentient, man, and it ain't an excuse for those of us who are.[/quote]
"dickishness"..lol, that one isn't in the dictionary.
I was trying to get these fellas to explain why we should expect equality of outcome to be a natural result since that seemed to be their assumption earlier in the thread. I still haven't gotten an answer so I assume they have accepted that inequality is a natural part of life. They might see this as a bad thing and perhaps there are evils associated with it, but I think the greater evil is the cost we must bear to achieve EQUALITY of outcome. We live in a diverse world where inequality occurs naturally for countless reasons. It is an AMORAL phenomenon. There should be no moral stigma attached to it. It's just the way things are. Equality of outcome however occurs UNNATURALLY because it can only be created through government coercion and suppression of liberty. For this reason it is an IMMORAL phenomenon in by book. To achieve equality of outcome requires that freedom be suppressed. It requires the use of violence (or the threat of violence) forcibly imposing political decisions on people as though they are a herd of cattle...penalizing some, rewarding others, enslaving most for several months a year to achieve a desired result..
Economic freedom and equality of outcome are incompatible ideas. I prefer more freedom and less equality. You prefer more equality and less freedom. So be it.
ING INDIVIDUALISM YOU IDEALISTIC .[/quote]
LOLOLOL!!! It finally happened..little myke cracked...SUCCESS!
First myke, I never said there was NO discrimination out there. My first statement on the topic was that you will never be able to wipe out all racist/sexist attitudes. And since you've brought nothing new to the discussion, let me repeat myself on the other points as well: One injustice can't be corrected by another. Institutionalizing racism with AA is a sure path to maintaining racist attitudes among those who would otherwise be race-neutral. Imposing policies like AA that demand skin color or sex be a factor when hiring is decidedly anti-meritocratic, anti-capitalistic, and poor for profit. Hiring employees based on physical characteristics rather than the value they bring to the company is against the self interest of shareholders. Policies of discrimination ensure that non-discriminating competitors will gain best talent and dominate in the marketplace. All of these are facts you refuse to accept.
My big beef as I have explained time and again in this thread and others is with the federal government. I believe the federal government is the greatest threat to liberty on the planet and has no business doing 90% of what it's doing today. The primary role of government (state and federal) should be to protect people from theft and violence. I'm not a complete wacked out anarchist who believes in no government however, and I do realize there is a benefit in providing the other services I mentioned earlier (roads, courts, street lights etc).
There should always be a bare minimum safety net for those who fall through the cracks..but again, the federal government has no authority in this area. That power should be left in the hands of those most capable of managing social welfare programs (city and state governments).
There are some insane folks who favor a Mad Max approach to civilization, a complete abolition of welfare on state/city/local levels..privatized education, privatized roads, etc. I disagree with them so I guess I don't have a "pure" libertarian philosophy..but I have no problem in not being a purist. Everything in life is a matter of degree, and I just think we've moved much too far down the road towards a totalitarian state. Lets step on the brakes and take a few steps back towards liberty before we go bankrupt shall we?
[quote name='The Crotch']
Cold and uncaring universe? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. But that has no bearing what-so-god-damn-ever on what we should do. "Reflecting nature" isn't morality. It's nothing but rationalization done to justifying dickishness. The universe ain't sentient, man, and it ain't an excuse for those of us who are.[/quote]
"dickishness"..lol, that one isn't in the dictionary.
I was trying to get these fellas to explain why we should expect equality of outcome to be a natural result since that seemed to be their assumption earlier in the thread. I still haven't gotten an answer so I assume they have accepted that inequality is a natural part of life. They might see this as a bad thing and perhaps there are evils associated with it, but I think the greater evil is the cost we must bear to achieve EQUALITY of outcome. We live in a diverse world where inequality occurs naturally for countless reasons. It is an AMORAL phenomenon. There should be no moral stigma attached to it. It's just the way things are. Equality of outcome however occurs UNNATURALLY because it can only be created through government coercion and suppression of liberty. For this reason it is an IMMORAL phenomenon in by book. To achieve equality of outcome requires that freedom be suppressed. It requires the use of violence (or the threat of violence) forcibly imposing political decisions on people as though they are a herd of cattle...penalizing some, rewarding others, enslaving most for several months a year to achieve a desired result..
Economic freedom and equality of outcome are incompatible ideas. I prefer more freedom and less equality. You prefer more equality and less freedom. So be it.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
You've read those articles awfully quickly.
But, since you've read them, let me ask you: how do you still misunderstand how AA policies work?
It's not a small mistake, either. It's akin to claiming, time and time again, that a basketball player, midgame, just scored a home run.
But, since you've read them, let me ask you: how do you still misunderstand how AA policies work?
It's not a small mistake, either. It's akin to claiming, time and time again, that a basketball player, midgame, just scored a home run.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Cap, nobody is arguing for equality of outcome... so what are you talking about?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, I read something about a dude travelling the country with a Chinese woman in the 30s and then read the one about employers being reluctant to hire blacks without doing background checks but much more likely to hire them with background checks (well duh).. There is no devastating data there, but even if racism could be proved on in survey sample I don't think it can be reasonably extrapolated it to the 9000 companies listed on the stock market..and countless more who aren't. Most human beings tend to practice rational self interest, and it is beyond illogical for employers to turn down talented workers based on trivialities like race. I believe most people are rational and that if discrimination does happen it is not pervasive...It certainly hasn't been in my experience (on my past 4 jobs, 2 bosses have been black guys and 2 have been women..lol).
Anyway...even if we ignore that most fortune 500 companies have "diversity" programs..ignore the fact that the majority of the country voted for a black president with Kenyan ancestry and a middle name of HUSSEIN...even if we assume that every employer in the country is a bigoted redneck and that racism is still a HUGE problem, I stand by my earlier points. You can't remedy injustice with another injustice. It doesn't matter how noble the intentions of AA were in the beginning, negative attitudes towards minorities are only exacerbated and institutionalized by it.
Anyway...even if we ignore that most fortune 500 companies have "diversity" programs..ignore the fact that the majority of the country voted for a black president with Kenyan ancestry and a middle name of HUSSEIN...even if we assume that every employer in the country is a bigoted redneck and that racism is still a HUGE problem, I stand by my earlier points. You can't remedy injustice with another injustice. It doesn't matter how noble the intentions of AA were in the beginning, negative attitudes towards minorities are only exacerbated and institutionalized by it.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
hey! cognitive dissonance! long time no see!
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']hey! cognitive dissonance! long time no see![/quote]
hey.
hey.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
at least you can come out and admit you're not interested in evidence, only in your ideology.
that's the very least you should do, instead of moving the marker, denying scientific evidence of widespread and consistent social patterns, and offering nothing of substance in return.
but then you wouldn't be you, would you?
that's the very least you should do, instead of moving the marker, denying scientific evidence of widespread and consistent social patterns, and offering nothing of substance in return.
but then you wouldn't be you, would you?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I offer simple observations of reality myke.. And from what I glanced, your "studies" make no good arguments for imposing racial preferences. Not surprising since there are no good arguments for them. When we look at affirmative action, economic subsidies, wealth confiscation and redistribution..everything you have defended in this thread...all of the ideas you love and cherish require INEQUALITY under the law. Your philosophy devalues the individual, pits one group against another, requires the imposition of force, and is completely antithetical to the concept of merit. Those ideas may be sick and rotten to the core, but I'm still glad we had this discussion.
As Dennis Prager says, "Clarity is more important than agreement."
As Dennis Prager says, "Clarity is more important than agreement."
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
skim eight words in an abstract, offer nothing of substance as a form of critique other than to think that your ideology is doomed if you agree with science, and then cite a radio talk host as a means of counterargument?
what did I do in my former life to deserve such pisspoor intellects to argue ideas with?
what did I do in my former life to deserve such pisspoor intellects to argue ideas with?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome (this was awesome)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (Cap you seem to fall into all of Orwell's categories when arguing)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (Cap you seem to fall into all of Orwell's categories when arguing)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndromehttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (Cap you seem to fall into all of Orwell's categories when arguing)[/quote]
I once argued with an English Literature professor that Kate Chopin's The Awakening was crap based on the persistent use of French words to flavor the text. The professor stated, "Orwell was propaganda. He wasn't a real writer." I didn't do well in her class.
I once argued with an English Literature professor that Kate Chopin's The Awakening was crap based on the persistent use of French words to flavor the text. The professor stated, "Orwell was propaganda. He wasn't a real writer." I didn't do well in her class.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I once argued with an English Literature professor that Kate Chopin's The Awakening was crap based on the persistent use of French words to flavor the text. The professor stated, "Orwell was propaganda. He wasn't a real writer." I didn't do well in her class.[/quote]
My intelligent response would have been "you're propaganda and you're not a real professor"
Not to get off subject...but I am going to
Why is it that my English professors have either been my favorite teachers or my most hated?
My intelligent response would have been "you're propaganda and you're not a real professor"
Not to get off subject...but I am going to
Why is it that my English professors have either been my favorite teachers or my most hated?
rickonker
CAGiversary!
After reading both myke's and Cap's posts, I think they are each right about some things and wrong about others...and each of them has noticed some flaws in the other's posts (and/or is repulsed by the other's ideas) and dismissed their entire argument in response. That is, they've both thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Oh, and I have a feeling Orwell would be very upset with the state of academia today.
BTW myke, any more thoughts on the similarities between the views you blame for everything and the views you favor?
Oh, and I have a feeling Orwell would be very upset with the state of academia today.
BTW myke, any more thoughts on the similarities between the views you blame for everything and the views you favor?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']
"dickishness"..lol, that one isn't in the dictionary.[/quote]Your dictionary is obviously horribly flawed.
[quote name='Capitalizt'] I was trying to get these fellas to explain why we should expect equality of outcome to be a natural result since that seemed to be their assumption earlier in the thread. I still haven't gotten an answer so I assume they have accepted that inequality is a natural part of life.[/quote]I sure as hell am not reading back to see what you're talking about, but that seems... odd. As in, contrary to what they're arguing now. And have always argued.
Butwhatever.
"dickishness"..lol, that one isn't in the dictionary.[/quote]Your dictionary is obviously horribly flawed.
[quote name='Capitalizt'] I was trying to get these fellas to explain why we should expect equality of outcome to be a natural result since that seemed to be their assumption earlier in the thread. I still haven't gotten an answer so I assume they have accepted that inequality is a natural part of life.[/quote]I sure as hell am not reading back to see what you're talking about, but that seems... odd. As in, contrary to what they're arguing now. And have always argued.
But
whatever.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Crotch']Your dictionary is obviously horribly flawed.
I sure as hell am not reading back to see what you're talking about, but that seems... odd. As in, contrary to what they're arguing now. And have always argued.
Butwhatever.[/QUOTE]
I think Cap's point is that inequality of outcome is not sufficient proof of racism, sexism, etc.
However, that doesn't mean racism and sexism aren't very common.
I sure as hell am not reading back to see what you're talking about, but that seems... odd. As in, contrary to what they're arguing now. And have always argued.
But
whatever.[/QUOTE]I think Cap's point is that inequality of outcome is not sufficient proof of racism, sexism, etc.
However, that doesn't mean racism and sexism aren't very common.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='rickonker']BTW myke, any more thoughts on the similarities between the views you blame for everything and the views you favor?[/QUOTE]
Go back a few pages, look at the shrinking gap in the portion of income paid into taxes over time. Look at the gap on the left side. That's what I favor. How is that similar to the the views I blame things for?
Go back a few pages, look at the shrinking gap in the portion of income paid into taxes over time. Look at the gap on the left side. That's what I favor. How is that similar to the the views I blame things for?
bread's done