willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Somehow I missed that chart and your proposal. The stats is even more messed up than I thought. I don't understand how anyone who isn't a corporate billionaire could argue for supply-side economics.
Is our tax system progressive enough?
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
rugged individualism and the horatio alger tales are seductive, seductive myths.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]
See this post.
[quote name='mykevermin']rugged individualism and the horatio alger tales are seductive, seductive myths.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.[/QUOTE]
myke, this has almost nothing to do with supply-side economics. If you have disagreements with both supply-siders and "rugged individualists", great, but don't pretend they're the same. As I posted earlier in the thread, supply-siders are strongly in favor of higher tax revenues and redistribution. ("Rugged individualists" are not, of course.)
I understand you have objections to both views, but you can't just lump together all groups that disagree with you, as if they agree on everything. This is what I mean about your blaming supply-siders for everything - I get the impression that, for the past few years, you've been using "supply-side economics" as a sort of catch-all for everything you disagree with. I share your opposition to supply-side economics, but that doesn't mean we get to call everybody we disagree with supply-siders.
See this post.
[quote name='mykevermin']rugged individualism and the horatio alger tales are seductive, seductive myths.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.[/QUOTE]
myke, this has almost nothing to do with supply-side economics. If you have disagreements with both supply-siders and "rugged individualists", great, but don't pretend they're the same. As I posted earlier in the thread, supply-siders are strongly in favor of higher tax revenues and redistribution. ("Rugged individualists" are not, of course.)
I understand you have objections to both views, but you can't just lump together all groups that disagree with you, as if they agree on everything. This is what I mean about your blaming supply-siders for everything - I get the impression that, for the past few years, you've been using "supply-side economics" as a sort of catch-all for everything you disagree with. I share your opposition to supply-side economics, but that doesn't mean we get to call everybody we disagree with supply-siders.
Last edited by a moderator:
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']rugged individualism and the horatio alger tales are seductive, seductive myths.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.[/QUOTE]
myke, that has almost nothing to do with supply-side economics. If you have disagreements with both supply-siders and rugged individualists, great, but don't pretend they're the same. As I posted earlier in the thread, many supply-siders are strongly in favor of higher tax revenues and redistribution.
But, like the easter bunny, still myths.[/QUOTE]
myke, that has almost nothing to do with supply-side economics. If you have disagreements with both supply-siders and rugged individualists, great, but don't pretend they're the same. As I posted earlier in the thread, many supply-siders are strongly in favor of higher tax revenues and redistribution.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I see.
I see a difference b/w handouts (the two Bush checks I mention) - the first was monies "freed" by a retroactive tax cut, the second was simply a budget addendum (money spent neither allocated in the annual budget nor collected by the government).
I see a huge difference there, in fact.
I see a difference b/w handouts (the two Bush checks I mention) - the first was monies "freed" by a retroactive tax cut, the second was simply a budget addendum (money spent neither allocated in the annual budget nor collected by the government).
I see a huge difference there, in fact.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']What you said was close enough as to make no difference.
No one expects brilliance out of you but you could at least try for honesty.[/QUOTE]
If you think "has all but been" is no different from "has been", you really shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence...or honesty, for that matter.
For everyone else, I do think there is more discrimination than Cap suggests.
No one expects brilliance out of you but you could at least try for honesty.[/QUOTE]
If you think "has all but been" is no different from "has been", you really shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence...or honesty, for that matter.
For everyone else, I do think there is more discrimination than Cap suggests.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='rickonker']If you think "has all but been" is no different from "has been", you really shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence...or honesty, for that matter.
For everyone else, I do think there is more discrimination than Cap suggests.[/quote]
If you think that "all but" is substantially different from "has been" then "you really shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence"
For everyone else, I do think there is more discrimination than Cap suggests.[/quote]
If you think that "all but" is substantially different from "has been" then "you really shouldn't be questioning anyone's intelligence"
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Note that he said "substantially".
And Msut said "close enough".
If you want to argue that it is not close enough, then go ahead. But as it stands, you just look like you're burning straw.
And Msut said "close enough".
If you want to argue that it is not close enough, then go ahead. But as it stands, you just look like you're burning straw.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
You've misunderstood, Crotch.
[quote name='The Crotch']Note that he said "substantially".[/quote]
I was pointing out the phrases he picked: "all but" and "has been". Not the right choice if he was trying to make a correction. But on to your concern:
Msut said "close enough as to make no difference". Which is silly because the point of the phrase "all but" is to highlight the difference. There's a reason Cap said, "has all but been" instead of "has been". Msut took two quotes from Cap that did not contradict each other and accused him of being dishonest for it. Unfair, even if, like me, you disagree with Cap.
[quote name='The Crotch']Note that he said "substantially".[/quote]
I was pointing out the phrases he picked: "all but" and "has been". Not the right choice if he was trying to make a correction. But on to your concern:
Msut said "close enough as to make no difference". Which is silly because the point of the phrase "all but" is to highlight the difference. There's a reason Cap said, "has all but been" instead of "has been". Msut took two quotes from Cap that did not contradict each other and accused him of being dishonest for it. Unfair, even if, like me, you disagree with Cap.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='rickonker']
Msut said "close enough as to make no difference". Which is silly because the point of the phrase "all but" is to highlight the difference. There's a reason Cap said, "has all but been" instead of "has been". Msut took two quotes from Cap that did not contradict each other and accused him of being dishonest for it. Unfair, even if, like me, you disagree with Cap.[/quote]
The odds of me being struck by lightning this year are one in seven hundred thousand (give or take depending on where I am and how much time I spend holding a large metal stick in the air during storms). That is not zero. The chance exists.
But as far as the amount of thought that I give it, it's close enough to zero as to make no difference.
... Unless I happen to be holding a large metal stick in the air
Msut said "close enough as to make no difference". Which is silly because the point of the phrase "all but" is to highlight the difference. There's a reason Cap said, "has all but been" instead of "has been". Msut took two quotes from Cap that did not contradict each other and accused him of being dishonest for it. Unfair, even if, like me, you disagree with Cap.[/quote]
The odds of me being struck by lightning this year are one in seven hundred thousand (give or take depending on where I am and how much time I spend holding a large metal stick in the air during storms). That is not zero. The chance exists.
But as far as the amount of thought that I give it, it's close enough to zero as to make no difference.
... Unless I happen to be holding a large metal stick in the air
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Crotch']The odds of me being struck by lightning this year are one in seven hundred thousand (give or take depending on where I am and how much time I spend holding a large metal stick in the air during storms). That is not zero. The chance exists.
But as far as the amount of thought that I give it, it's close enough to zero as to make no difference.
... Unless I happen to be holding a large metal stick in the air[/QUOTE]
And if someone told you about that small chance, and then told you they "never said there was NO chance of you being struck by lightning this year", would you say they were being dishonest?
Also, if it really made no difference in reality (not in the amount of thought that you give it) then it would have to be zero, not close to zero.
But as far as the amount of thought that I give it, it's close enough to zero as to make no difference.
... Unless I happen to be holding a large metal stick in the air[/QUOTE]
And if someone told you about that small chance, and then told you they "never said there was NO chance of you being struck by lightning this year", would you say they were being dishonest?
Also, if it really made no difference in reality (not in the amount of thought that you give it) then it would have to be zero, not close to zero.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='rickonker']And if someone told you about that small chance, and then told you they "never said there was NO chance of you being struck by lightning this year", would you say they were being dishonest?[/quote]Well, honestly, I wouldn't give enough of a shit to say anything, but whatever. I mean, I see your point - Cap did say "it has been really, really, really almost abolished" rather than "it has been abolished".
My point here is that in this case at least, that's a
ing pussy distinction to make.
My point here is that in this case at least, that's a
ing pussy distinction to make.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The Crotch']Well, honestly, I wouldn't give enough of a shit to say anything, but whatever. I mean, I see your point - Cap did say "it has been really, really, really almost abolished" rather than "it has been abolished".
My point here is that in this case at least, that's aing pussy distinction to make.[/QUOTE]
I see what you're saying, but I think the more important distinction here is between "it has been abolished" and "it hasn't been abolished". And at least what Cap said fits the latter.
Like I said though, I think there's a lot more discrimination than Cap suggests. But now we're talking about how much of it there is, instead of whether it even exists.
My point here is that in this case at least, that's a
ing pussy distinction to make.[/QUOTE]I see what you're saying, but I think the more important distinction here is between "it has been abolished" and "it hasn't been abolished". And at least what Cap said fits the latter.
Like I said though, I think there's a lot more discrimination than Cap suggests. But now we're talking about how much of it there is, instead of whether it even exists.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
Dishonest how so msut? By challenging you to defend your unintelligible 2-sentence verbal snipes from the past 8 pages?
You and myke have made your collectivist mindset well known to all. I oppose collectivism in all forms including racism and using someone's race as a means to make any rational judgement. You folks take the opposite stance..believing that we must institutionalize race as a means of making judgements..that we must institutionalize the practice of using skin color as a permanent factor in our thought process. Your thoughts on economic policy are just as foolhardy and harmful to social progress..but I recognize nobody's mind is being changed here. The ideas on both sides have been made clear, so there really isn't anything more to say on the subject.
You and myke have made your collectivist mindset well known to all. I oppose collectivism in all forms including racism and using someone's race as a means to make any rational judgement. You folks take the opposite stance..believing that we must institutionalize race as a means of making judgements..that we must institutionalize the practice of using skin color as a permanent factor in our thought process. Your thoughts on economic policy are just as foolhardy and harmful to social progress..but I recognize nobody's mind is being changed here. The ideas on both sides have been made clear, so there really isn't anything more to say on the subject.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I believe what I believe, and there ain't no science gonna get in the way of telling me what I believe is right!
[quote name='Capitalizt']Dishonest how so msut?[/QUOTE]
Besides the “quote” marks you put around the stats and studies you asked for and still haven’t read?
How about this?
I gave you an answer about how inequality (especially such high levels of inequality) is by definition unnatural and can only be protected by unnatural institutions some of which you even point out later in your incredible capacity for Doublethink.
According to your little cult basically everyone who isn't a sociopath is a collectivist.
Again there is no doubt you know almost literally nothing about economics.
Besides the “quote” marks you put around the stats and studies you asked for and still haven’t read?
How about this?
I gave you an answer about how inequality (especially such high levels of inequality) is by definition unnatural and can only be protected by unnatural institutions some of which you even point out later in your incredible capacity for Doublethink.
According to your little cult basically everyone who isn't a sociopath is a collectivist.
Again there is no doubt you know almost literally nothing about economics.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I believe what I believe, and there ain't no science gonna get in the way of telling me what I believe is right![/quote]
Correction, I believe what I see..and I'm quite certain I've seen more of the world than you my friend. My job requires travelling to the big ass mofo corporations to fix their network problems, and in 8 years of doing so I've seen the opposite of discrimination..widely varied workforces with if anything an overrepresentation of minorities in both gruntwork and management positions...not an underrepresentation.
[quote name='Msut77']Besides the “quote” marks you put around the stats and studies you asked for and still haven’t read?
[/quote]
I read myke's google goodness. The statistic samples seem to be from a collection of small businesses in 4 US cities..hardly representative of the world's biggest employers. I'll take what I see with my own two eyes over that, tyvm.
Is all racism gone? Nope..but it can't be extremely pervasive given the family currently sitting in the White House can it?
Correction, I believe what I see..and I'm quite certain I've seen more of the world than you my friend. My job requires travelling to the big ass mofo corporations to fix their network problems, and in 8 years of doing so I've seen the opposite of discrimination..widely varied workforces with if anything an overrepresentation of minorities in both gruntwork and management positions...not an underrepresentation.
[quote name='Msut77']Besides the “quote” marks you put around the stats and studies you asked for and still haven’t read?
[/quote]
I read myke's google goodness. The statistic samples seem to be from a collection of small businesses in 4 US cities..hardly representative of the world's biggest employers. I'll take what I see with my own two eyes over that, tyvm.
Is all racism gone? Nope..but it can't be extremely pervasive given the family currently sitting in the White House can it?
By definition unnatural? By what criteria? Show me a natural system anywhere in the universe that tends towards order and equality over time? It pains me to point out such an obvious truth msut..but if your definition of "equality" requires an artificial institution of FORCE to maintain, **hint hint**..IT IS NOT NATURAL.
No, anyone who does not respect individualism is a collectivist. That would be you.
Pot, meet kettle.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
"I work in IT, and I can verify that there's no racism because i don't see any."
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
lolbot..Once again myke, I never said there is no racism. You will never stamp out racism completely..never ever ever ever. And we certainly can't destroy it by creating institutional programs than group people according to race. The natural progress of mankind is leading us away from racism and bigotry and towards a diverse and accepting culture. The more educated people become, the less they care about physical characteristics. The best we can do is let nature take it's course...live your live on a meritocratic principle and judge everyone as an individual. Drop the groupthink and group identity mindset, encourage others to do the same, and racism will slowly die.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
WTF is "the natural progress of mankind?"
speaking of 'lol' is that meritocracy = nature claim of yours.
speaking of 'lol' is that meritocracy = nature claim of yours.
[quote name='Capitalizt']By definition unnatural?[/quote]
Yes, by definition unnatural.
A "natural" society has by definition no real social or income inequality.
Hunter-gatherers have no surplus, in a primitive society there might be a leader who has a slightly nicer hovel than the others.
It is only when you get to what is by definition a fairly advanced and unnatural society with its unnatural institutions do you see severe social and income inequality.
Not all that long ago we had a society where we had much less income inequality than we do now, that didn't happen naturally neither does much of anything else.
What do you think a market looks like in the wild? A bowerbird trading a shiny rock for sex?
I was not being a jerk when I said you never read any Adam Smith, most people never make it past his ridiculously detailed description of pin manufacturing... but you never even made it to the introduction and you don't even have to go Smith to know a lot of this stuff.
Yes, by definition unnatural.
A "natural" society has by definition no real social or income inequality.
Hunter-gatherers have no surplus, in a primitive society there might be a leader who has a slightly nicer hovel than the others.
It is only when you get to what is by definition a fairly advanced and unnatural society with its unnatural institutions do you see severe social and income inequality.
Not all that long ago we had a society where we had much less income inequality than we do now, that didn't happen naturally neither does much of anything else.
What do you think a market looks like in the wild? A bowerbird trading a shiny rock for sex?
I was not being a jerk when I said you never read any Adam Smith, most people never make it past his ridiculously detailed description of pin manufacturing... but you never even made it to the introduction and you don't even have to go Smith to know a lot of this stuff.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, with a few notable exceptions (the christian dark ages, etc), mankind has been moving away from primitivism and towards a society of reason.. Viewing people as groups rather than individuals is a TRIBE mentality..a primitive way of viewing the world. It belongs in ancient history with the cavemen..
and msut, inequality will always emerge in modern society when the rules are fixed. We have already discussed this. When people have radically different needs, desires, abilities, backgrounds, there is nothing remotely odd about inequality emerging as a result. Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.
and msut, inequality will always emerge in modern society when the rules are fixed. We have already discussed this. When people have radically different needs, desires, abilities, backgrounds, there is nothing remotely odd about inequality emerging as a result. Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']Well with a few notable exceptions (the christian dark ages, etc), mankind has been moving away from primitivism and towards a society of reason.. Viewing people as groups rather than individuals is a TRIBE mentality..a primitive way of viewing the world. It belongs in ancient history with the cavemen..[/quote]
Only if you think the other groups must be destroyed or enslaved. Realization of the inequality of human life seems to be a more advanced way of living.
Its probably the the work of those evil pre-K teachers..teaching kids to share, work in groups, and help others.
Only if you think the other groups must be destroyed or enslaved. Realization of the inequality of human life seems to be a more advanced way of living.
Its probably the the work of those evil pre-K teachers..teaching kids to share, work in groups, and help others.
Nice to know that cap knows as little about history as he knows about anything else.
If by discuss you mean I explained something to you a seventh grader should either know or have already grasped intuitively and then you later went on to blatantly lie about it... then yes we discussed it.
No one is arguing for there to be no inequality, the point if I can penetrate that useless bonebox you call a skull is relative inequality. It doesn't "always" have to be so extreme, it is neither natural, inevitable or even optimal.
If by discuss you mean I explained something to you a seventh grader should either know or have already grasped intuitively and then you later went on to blatantly lie about it... then yes we discussed it.
No one is arguing for there to be no inequality, the point if I can penetrate that useless bonebox you call a skull is relative inequality. It doesn't "always" have to be so extreme, it is neither natural, inevitable or even optimal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, with a few notable exceptions (the christian dark ages, etc), mankind has been moving away from primitivism and towards a society of reason.. Viewing people as groups rather than individuals is a TRIBE mentality..a primitive way of viewing the world. It belongs in ancient history with the cavemen..
and msut, inequality will always emerge in modern society when the rules are fixed. We have already discussed this. When people have radically different needs, desires, abilities, backgrounds, there is nothing remotely odd about inequality emerging as a result. Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.
and msut, inequality will always emerge in modern society when the rules are fixed. We have already discussed this. When people have radically different needs, desires, abilities, backgrounds, there is nothing remotely odd about inequality emerging as a result. Wealth has been more concentrated in recent years because the ability to reach larger markets is a relatively new phenomenon. Salesmen were once limited to corner shops...Now the best salesmen have access to 5 billion customers instead of 500. A larger market = larger amounts of money involved = larger degree of wealth concentration. There is nothing artificial about it.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']Only if you think the other groups must be destroyed or enslaved. Realization of the inequality of human life seems to be a more advanced way of living.
Its probably the the work of those evil pre-K teachers..teaching kids to share, work in groups, and help others.[/quote]
Actually, if you put a group of 2-3 year olds with varying nationalities in a sandbox, they tend to get along just as well as a group of all white or all black kids. Many experiments like this have been done over the years which basically prove racism is not ingrained into human consciousness at all. It's a learned behavior..not something humans are born with. That being the case, our goal should be a completely colorblind society with race neutral policies on every issue from A to Z...from birth to death. Dealing with people as individuals based entirely on merit. Will this policy stamp out all privately taught racism? Nope..but it will certainly "drain the swamp" so to speak..making it much harder for the mosquitos to breed.
Its probably the the work of those evil pre-K teachers..teaching kids to share, work in groups, and help others.[/quote]
Actually, if you put a group of 2-3 year olds with varying nationalities in a sandbox, they tend to get along just as well as a group of all white or all black kids. Many experiments like this have been done over the years which basically prove racism is not ingrained into human consciousness at all. It's a learned behavior..not something humans are born with. That being the case, our goal should be a completely colorblind society with race neutral policies on every issue from A to Z...from birth to death. Dealing with people as individuals based entirely on merit. Will this policy stamp out all privately taught racism? Nope..but it will certainly "drain the swamp" so to speak..making it much harder for the mosquitos to breed.
[quote name='Msut77']Nice to know that cap knows as little about history as he knows about anything else.
If by discuss you mean I explained something to you a seventh grader should either know or have already grasped intuitively and then you later went on to blatantly lie about it... then yes we discussed it.[/quote]
I can't wait for his book
The Natural Progress of Mankind:Leading us away from Racism
If by discuss you mean I explained something to you a seventh grader should either know or have already grasped intuitively and then you later went on to blatantly lie about it... then yes we discussed it.[/quote]
I can't wait for his book
The Natural Progress of Mankind:Leading us away from Racism
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
blah. using amorphous and demonstrably untrue if we ever get to a precise meaning concept like "natural progress of mankind," like its more popular sibling, "human nature," is yet another in a series of substituting shit we don't know a thing about for actual empirically-based conversation.
Which is ironic, since you bring up reasoned debate.
Whenever I see the phrase "human nature" pop up in a conversation, I have never seen it used properly. Every time it is used, it's little beyond a poor means of substituting a lack of knowledge for an explanation behind phenomenon. It's a less-criticized, but just as vague and unproven, maxim as "god's plan."
Seriously. Take "god's plan" and insert it into any sentence you see these trite and vapid phrase in, and you'll find the meaning hasn't changed an iota.
To wit:
Which is ironic, since you bring up reasoned debate.
Whenever I see the phrase "human nature" pop up in a conversation, I have never seen it used properly. Every time it is used, it's little beyond a poor means of substituting a lack of knowledge for an explanation behind phenomenon. It's a less-criticized, but just as vague and unproven, maxim as "god's plan."
Seriously. Take "god's plan" and insert it into any sentence you see these trite and vapid phrase in, and you'll find the meaning hasn't changed an iota.
To wit:
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
lol myke..nice try..but god's plan has nothing to do with it.. Racism is antithetical to the interests of mankind period.. It is an anti-evolutionary..anti productive philosophy. As I explained earlier, companies who practice it will lose out on valuable contacts...They will lose valuable talent and ability..giving those who don't practice it a significant competitive advantage over time.
You might not have heard of the idea but.. Link
You might not have heard of the idea but.. Link
[quote name='Capitalizt']As I explained earlier, companies who practice it will lose out on valuable contacts...They will lose valuable talent and ability..giving those who don't practice it a significant competitive advantage over time.[/QUOTE]
So if a racist company did ok that would be alright with you?
I have pointed this out before but "natural" market forces did precisely dick to end slavery.
So if a racist company did ok that would be alright with you?
I have pointed this out before but "natural" market forces did precisely dick to end slavery.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']lol myke..nice try..but god's plan has nothing to do with it.. Racism is antithetical to the interests of mankind period.. It is an anti-evolutionary..anti productive philosophy. As I explained earlier, companies who practice it will lose out on valuable contacts...They will lose valuable talent and ability..giving those who don't practice it a significant competitive advantage over time.
You might not have heard of the idea but.. Link[/QUOTE]
You and I don't speak on the same level, got that? Your philosophical musings are tired, disproven, and frankly, I'ming tired of your circles. You lie in the face of evidence to the contrary, citing your own vision and more ideological gruel as if that is a satisfactory refutation.
The closest thing you've come to evidence is this one study you think you read this one time about multiethnic children playing in a sandbox. But you didn't cite it, you alluded to something vaguely, you've proven nothing. You HAVE nothing. You're a windchime for your utopian world, oblivious to the negative consequences of the world we live in that will not disappear, or even decline, when your worldview is implemented.
Speaking of what we see with our own eyes! I'm a teacher. I see a lot of wealthy students, wit laptops, blackberries, nice automobiles, the latest fashions. So I guess, as long as we're discrediting the whole world around us, and disregarding scientific evidence in favor of self-righteous anecdotal support, I propose the following truisms about the world we live in:
1) There is no poverty.
2) There are no vegetarians.
3) There is no third world.
4) There are no people who go to religious services on Sunday.
5) There are no people who stock the shelves at the grocery store.
6) There is no store called Gamestop (actually, I'm pretty tickled I live in a town that's 45 minutes away from the closest one)
7) There is no state called "Alabama."
I could go on. But if you don't - or won't - recognize the false negatives that can be derived from judging the world by your own two eyes, and I'm sure for you it's more of the latter, then I can't help you.
You need to get divorced and annulled from your ideology in order to have a seat of discussion at the big kids table. Otherwise, off and go have a debate about the perfect communist state with a trust-fund undergraduate ISO Marxist. Y'all are like in' peas in a pod anyway.
"There's never been true unfettered laissez-faire capitalism!"
"There's never been a true attempt at imposing a communist state, either!"
"Really!"
"Really!"
"Let's get married!"
You might not have heard of the idea but.. Link[/QUOTE]
You and I don't speak on the same level, got that? Your philosophical musings are tired, disproven, and frankly, I'm
ing tired of your circles. You lie in the face of evidence to the contrary, citing your own vision and more ideological gruel as if that is a satisfactory refutation. The closest thing you've come to evidence is this one study you think you read this one time about multiethnic children playing in a sandbox. But you didn't cite it, you alluded to something vaguely, you've proven nothing. You HAVE nothing. You're a windchime for your utopian world, oblivious to the negative consequences of the world we live in that will not disappear, or even decline, when your worldview is implemented.
Speaking of what we see with our own eyes! I'm a teacher. I see a lot of wealthy students, wit laptops, blackberries, nice automobiles, the latest fashions. So I guess, as long as we're discrediting the whole world around us, and disregarding scientific evidence in favor of self-righteous anecdotal support, I propose the following truisms about the world we live in:
1) There is no poverty.
2) There are no vegetarians.
3) There is no third world.
4) There are no people who go to religious services on Sunday.
5) There are no people who stock the shelves at the grocery store.
6) There is no store called Gamestop (actually, I'm pretty tickled I live in a town that's 45 minutes away from the closest one)
7) There is no state called "Alabama."
I could go on. But if you don't - or won't - recognize the false negatives that can be derived from judging the world by your own two eyes, and I'm sure for you it's more of the latter, then I can't help you.
You need to get divorced and annulled from your ideology in order to have a seat of discussion at the big kids table. Otherwise,
off and go have a debate about the perfect communist state with a trust-fund undergraduate ISO Marxist. Y'all are like in' peas in a pod anyway."There's never been true unfettered laissez-faire capitalism!"
"There's never been a true attempt at imposing a communist state, either!"
"Really!"
"Really!"
"Let's get married!"
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
The problem with your truisms myke is that they are false...while mine are true 
And I'm quite you know it...but the problem is you've become so emotionally invested in this argument for so long..you've been defending these stale "feel good" propositions for so many years that idea of separating yourself from them is downright frightening. You are a teacher so I assume you have been educated on history and the mistakes we have made in the past..collectivist ideologies like fascism and communism came to dominate the minds of the masses. You know how flawed those ideas are yet you continue to defend their modern variations out of pure habit. Racial groupthink..class war dogma..These variations of collectivism are doing tremendous damage to America both socially and economically.. I think it's you who needs to divorce yourself from from those ideas myke...sit back and take an objective look at the world..at human behavior..at how people respond to incentives..and how they respond to being labeled and classified into groups..to being dehumanized...Take a real look at how destructive to liberty your ideas really are.
Please, do this..Get divorced and annulled from your ideology in order to have a seat of discussion at the big kids table.
Stop being a teacher and start learning for a change.
[quote name='Msut77']So if a racist company did ok that would be alright with you?
I have pointed this out before but "natural" market forces did precisely dick to end slavery.[/quote]
No, it wouldn't be ok, but I'd take comfort in knowing that bigoted companies would be quickly bankrupted by lawsuits, boycotts, and bad publicity. If racial discrimination can be proven, it should be an issue for the courts in that particular case.. That is a much more effective means of dealing with the problem than creating policies than institutionalize the consideration of skin color in decision-making.
And I'm quite you know it...but the problem is you've become so emotionally invested in this argument for so long..you've been defending these stale "feel good" propositions for so many years that idea of separating yourself from them is downright frightening. You are a teacher so I assume you have been educated on history and the mistakes we have made in the past..collectivist ideologies like fascism and communism came to dominate the minds of the masses. You know how flawed those ideas are yet you continue to defend their modern variations out of pure habit. Racial groupthink..class war dogma..These variations of collectivism are doing tremendous damage to America both socially and economically.. I think it's you who needs to divorce yourself from from those ideas myke...sit back and take an objective look at the world..at human behavior..at how people respond to incentives..and how they respond to being labeled and classified into groups..to being dehumanized...Take a real look at how destructive to liberty your ideas really are. Please, do this..Get divorced and annulled from your ideology in order to have a seat of discussion at the big kids table.
Stop being a teacher and start learning for a change.
[quote name='Msut77']So if a racist company did ok that would be alright with you?
I have pointed this out before but "natural" market forces did precisely dick to end slavery.[/quote]
No, it wouldn't be ok, but I'd take comfort in knowing that bigoted companies would be quickly bankrupted by lawsuits, boycotts, and bad publicity. If racial discrimination can be proven, it should be an issue for the courts in that particular case.. That is a much more effective means of dealing with the problem than creating policies than institutionalize the consideration of skin color in decision-making.
[quote name='Capitalizt']I'd take comfort in knowing that bigoted companies would be quickly bankrupted by lawsuits, boycotts, and bad publicity.[/QUOTE]
Well first off the entire premise of the question is based on the assumption that the company is performing quite well and either way boycotts etc. are examples of collective action having at times nothing to do with the participants economic well being.
No.
As it was pointed before the whole entire hands off approach did nothing to end slavery and little to end Jim Crow.
Well first off the entire premise of the question is based on the assumption that the company is performing quite well and either way boycotts etc. are examples of collective action having at times nothing to do with the participants economic well being.
No.
As it was pointed before the whole entire hands off approach did nothing to end slavery and little to end Jim Crow.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']I'd take comfort in knowing that bigoted companies would be quickly bankrupted by lawsuits, boycotts, and bad publicity. If racial discrimination can be proven, it should be an issue for the courts in that particular case.[/QUOTE]
It's proven in the audit studies I linked, and you still
It's proven in the audit studies I linked, and you still
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I'm amazed at how determined Myke is to get Cap to think.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke and msut, give me solutions to curing individual racist tendencies and I will be all ears. All I've heard from your side is that we need programs that make race as a measurable factor in decision making...policies that only prolong and exacerbate the problem by keeping skin color and 'us vs them' groupthink at the forefront of national consciousness.. Do you have any other alternatives? Or is that the only tactic in the playbook?
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Much like the government intervention you decry, AA is not ideal, but it's better than nothing (which you have proposed).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']myke and msut, give me solutions to curing individual racist tendencies and I will be all ears. All I've heard from your side is that we need programs that make race as a measurable factor in decision making...policies that only prolong and exacerbate the problem by keeping skin color and 'us vs them' groupthink at the forefront of national consciousness.. Do you have any other alternatives? Or is that the only tactic in the playbook?[/QUOTE]
of course not.
- redistribution of section 8 housing to avoid concentration of poverty
- increased used of Hope 6 housing projects
- more equitable funding for public education by even distribution of property taxes collected allocated towards public education to be collected and evenly distributed at the state level
- longer school years
- longer school days
- advocating programs that aim to help parents become more active in developing their children's education
- You can eat a dick, you smarmy moron
- further use of audit studies by the FHA and EEOC. SUBSTANTIAL increase of fines for companies found to be in violation of FHAA and EOE legislation. Put the feet of the corporation to the fire to avoid patterned discriminatory practices. Hire the best candidate. BE meritocratic, don't ASSUME meritocracy.
- Repeated violation of EOE laws by companies involves an involuntary delisting from the stock market. A company who does not respect society or the tenets of the free market should not be publicly tradeable
- Public advocacy campaign to inform people precisely what Affirmative Action policies are and how they work, so we don't have to suffer from uninformed opinions that are wholly inaccurate and based on a no-in'-clue-how-it-works model of AA
- Increase the "death tax."
of course not.
- redistribution of section 8 housing to avoid concentration of poverty
- increased used of Hope 6 housing projects
- more equitable funding for public education by even distribution of property taxes collected allocated towards public education to be collected and evenly distributed at the state level
- longer school years
- longer school days
- advocating programs that aim to help parents become more active in developing their children's education
- You can eat a dick, you smarmy moron
- further use of audit studies by the FHA and EEOC. SUBSTANTIAL increase of fines for companies found to be in violation of FHAA and EOE legislation. Put the feet of the corporation to the fire to avoid patterned discriminatory practices. Hire the best candidate. BE meritocratic, don't ASSUME meritocracy.
- Repeated violation of EOE laws by companies involves an involuntary delisting from the stock market. A company who does not respect society or the tenets of the free market should not be publicly tradeable
- Public advocacy campaign to inform people precisely what Affirmative Action policies are and how they work, so we don't have to suffer from uninformed opinions that are wholly inaccurate and based on a no-
in'-clue-how-it-works model of AA- Increase the "death tax."
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
AA is providing a steady stream of gasoline to group consciousness..group labeling..group stereotyping. "Nothing"..or a policy of treating everyone as an individual and dealing with discrimination on a case by case basis through the legal system would certainly be better.. Racial bias can't be cured with policies based on racial bias.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Don't you yet understand that your understanding of AA policies is accurate as arguing that pixie dust, pickles, and heroin are what one might find under the engine of a top-of-the-line NASCAR?
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
You can't "cure" racism, it's not a germ.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I love how you slipped that in halfway through myke..lol...but you really aren't doing yourself any favors by hurling personal insults. I've disagreed with your ideas but have never called you a name through this entire debate. It really weakens your position when you stoop to that level my man.of course not.
- redistribution of section 8 housing to avoid concentration of poverty
- increased used of Hope 6 housing projects
- more equitable funding for public education by even distribution of property taxes collected allocated towards public education to be collected and evenly distributed at the state level
- longer school years
- longer school days
- advocating programs that aim to help parents become more active in developing their children's education
- You can eat a dick, you smarmy moron
- further use of audit studies by the FHA and EEOC. SUBSTANTIAL increase of fines for companies found to be in violation of FHAA and EOE legislation. Put the feet of the corporation to the fire to avoid patterned discriminatory practices. Hire the best candidate. BE meritocratic, don't ASSUME meritocracy.
- Repeated violation of EOE laws by companies involves an involuntary delisting from the stock market. A company who does not respect society or the tenets of the free market should not be publicly tradeable
- Public advocacy campaign to inform people precisely what Affirmative Action policies are and how they work, so we don't have to suffer from uninformed opinions that are wholly inaccurate and based on a no-
- Increase the "death tax."
Now back on the issue..I think we're actually somewhere here because I agree with at least half of those things. We are on the same side when it comes to improving education and and focusing on economic background rather than strictly race. We would be COMPLETELY united if you would take that approach to affirmative action rather than basing it on physical characteristics. The end result would likely be the same but it would not be based on racial grouping. Giving preference to equally qualified candidates based on economic history..favoring one that came from a working poor household rather than a middle/upper class household (regardless of race) makes much more sense than giving preference based on skin color. Let's sign the bill.
[quote name='Capitalizt']I love how you slipped that in halfway through myke..lol...but you really aren't doing yourself any favors by hurling personal insults. I've disagreed with your ideas but have never called you a name through this entire debate. It really weakens your position when you stoop to that level my man.
Now back on the issue..I think we're actually somewhere here because I agree with at least half of those things. We are on the same side when it comes to improving education and and focusing on economic background rather than strictly race. We would be COMPLETELY united if you would take that approach to affirmative action rather than basing it on physical characteristics. The end result would likely be the same but it would not be based on racial grouping and wouldn't prolong tension and resentment between the races. Giving preference to equally qualified candidates based on economic history..favoring one that came from a working poor household rather than a middle/upper class household (regardless of race) makes much more sense than giving preference based on skin color. Let's sign the bill.[/quote]
now how do we pay for all this stuff? Isn't also counterproductive to the free market letting people live in income based housing? Doesn't it encourage people to work less so they can pay for less?
Now back on the issue..I think we're actually somewhere here because I agree with at least half of those things. We are on the same side when it comes to improving education and and focusing on economic background rather than strictly race. We would be COMPLETELY united if you would take that approach to affirmative action rather than basing it on physical characteristics. The end result would likely be the same but it would not be based on racial grouping and wouldn't prolong tension and resentment between the races. Giving preference to equally qualified candidates based on economic history..favoring one that came from a working poor household rather than a middle/upper class household (regardless of race) makes much more sense than giving preference based on skin color. Let's sign the bill.[/quote]
now how do we pay for all this stuff? Isn't also counterproductive to the free market letting people live in income based housing? Doesn't it encourage people to work less so they can pay for less?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT PRE-HIRING ING PREFERENCES. WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK, THICK, THICK, THICK GODDAMNED ING SKULL?
really, now. have your synapses prevented you from reading the three dozen othering times in this thread I've mentioned you have no idea what you're talking about?
ING PREFERENCES. WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK, THICK, THICK, THICK GODDAMNED ING SKULL?really, now. have your synapses prevented you from reading the three dozen other
ing times in this thread I've mentioned you have no idea what you're talking about?
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
State governments are already in charge of the vast majority of education funding, and are much better equipped to dole out welfare than the feds. Even if we keep up federal grants for housing and such, it's a drop in the bucket to the amount of money being flushed away on foreign policy and other garbage each year. Ideally government would be 90% smaller and involed in 90% fewer things but the way I see it, if we are stuck with a government as huge as ours, some of it's spending might as well be going to improve education and general living standards.
And myk..AA = taking race into account..making race a real, quantifiable FACTOR to be considered in decision making. If you want to live in a colorblind society..a society that prizes individual merit and individualism over collectivism and group consciousness, you can't institutionalize the consideration of race as a factor...for anything, anytime, anywhere. If you believe in treating everyone as individuals, race has no place on a any job or loan application. Decisions should be based entirely on personal history..personal ability..and personal merit.
And myk..AA = taking race into account..making race a real, quantifiable FACTOR to be considered in decision making. If you want to live in a colorblind society..a society that prizes individual merit and individualism over collectivism and group consciousness, you can't institutionalize the consideration of race as a factor...for anything, anytime, anywhere. If you believe in treating everyone as individuals, race has no place on a any job or loan application. Decisions should be based entirely on personal history..personal ability..and personal merit.
bread's done