College Students Favoring Wealth Distribution Are Asked.....

Post Reply New Topic

You're saying that regarding the analogy as analogous is so ridiculous that it constitutes 'gross intellectual dishonesty', and yet if you made this tiny little tweak, it would suddenly make sense? What?

How would it even be a better analogy?

I'd just like to say, brilliant!

"The point you are defending" and "your position" are equivalent in this context. Inuyasha wasn't acting as a devil's advocate.

I also hate nitpickers who miss the meaning and point of the words due to an anal focus on the exact nature of those words. I am not a precise person when I use words, as I usually focus on the gist rather than analytic correctness. That's exactly what you were doing, as even IF Inuyasha hadn't said that, the distinction you drew had no practical application and could easily have been attributed to a lack of precision, or even simply a reading of what I wrote that had a different focus.

Calling you a fool in this context is not arbitrary. Neither in the nitpicker's sense, nor in the substantive sense is it arbitrary.

That's not a tiny tweak. That's a massive tweak.

I agree. It is a massive tweak. It changes the nature of a grade from a measure to a currency, something that can be transferred, and used for purposes beyond the reason it was given. Adding the 7.0 against the 4.0 "top" also allows there to be people who have more than they need, and thus an excess to share without as much personal harm.

Thank you for explaining what I was trying to say in another way.


Also GPA can be considered wealth, because a high GPA can help you get scholarships or a low GPA can cause you to lose scholarships. Scholarships = money.



Actually, it looks more like your argument has no merit.



If people are willing to pay money for a particular product, that is also an objective measure as to whether or not someone is successful. Say someone writes a book, what right do other people have to say they get the money you make from the book's success, when you are the one that wrote the book? (I'm not talking about the publishers whom print the book, so don't bother bringing them up).



Funny, cause I don't consider to be Ancalagon a fool, I do consider your to be a typical arrogant "academic" (and I use the term loosely), that think they know everything, while in reality the people (such as Ancalagon) they are bashing generally are better informed than they are.

@ Orwell

DW_a_mom and I usually criticize each other, and really I don't recall a time when she's ever stood up for me, granted it may have happened once or twice, but I don't recall it.


Okay to break this down here is how GPA and people getting rich is arguably the same (provided the rich person obtained their wealth legally and ethically). Both a student and this wealthy man/woman, worked hard to get their measure of success GPA/money. Students with an extremely high GPA get access to things that students with low GPAs do not, just like the wealthy individual does too.

The point in the OP's post is the fact people are essentially arguing the equivalent of taking points from one person's GPA and giving it to another person so they can have benefits that they didn't earn. When we're talking about the poor people here, okay fine they need food, a place to stay, heating and air conditioning, clothing, okay fine. However, does a poor person really need to have the latest flat screen TV, or a $4000 Alienware Computer? If they had a part time job and saved up for these things I wouldn't take issue, particularly in this economy right now (fact is they still worked for the money to pay for these products), however the point is that we shouldn't let people lay around and have essentially a vacation off of someone else's hard-earned money.

This spread the wealth around isn't about helping people survive, it's about letting them get things that they did not earn for votes. We aren't talking about stopping donations to food banks, or forcing children to live in the streets in the middle of winter, like some people here are implying (either because they are dishonest or so brainwashed by the left wing dogma that they actually believe what they are saying).

You people here want to call me an idiot, fine I really don't care. While I think some people here are fairly bright, in some areas. However, when it comes to politics, religion, etc., I think those same people (and since they named me by name I will return the favor) such as: Awesomelyglorious, number5, Orwell, Master_Pedant, and Vexcalibur; are a bunch of incompetitent morons.

I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that I am superior to anyone else here like several of you have.

Back to topic and what some more intelligent comments made by posters that I disagree with:



Okay this is a good line of reasoning except you overlooked a key issue that may make it an invalid premise.

It seems you failed to consider the fact that the Obama administration:
1. is churning out thousands of new regulations,
2. has ignored the rule of law (example: bankruptcy law where Chrysler Bailouts where he ignored the law that says bondholders that are owed money get paid first, to give money to his union supporters),
3. defied two Federal Court Orders (over the drilling moratorium in the Gulf (also his Interior Department committed plagerism by altering a report after the scientists had signed it, to make it look like they said something they didn't).
4. His national labor relations board is sueing Boeing for building a plant in South Carolina
5. The EPA is shutting down a substancial percentage of our power plants and applying new regulations retroactively (which is in direct violation of the United States Constitution)
6. The Government is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have. (Also about the only people that really can't be legitimately blamed for the mess is the Tea Party, Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan, and Newt Gingrich)
7. The Fed is printing money like it is monopoly money and not a real currency.
8. The fact there are several European Countries in dire straights
9. All the added expenses from Obamacare

I will point out that regardless of the tax rates, someone would have to be incredibly stupid to invest right now. Tax rates on returns is one factor on investments, but it is not the only factor. If the tax rates are low, but all the policies coming out of a government of a country is extremely bad, people aren't going to invest because they know they probably wouldn't get any returns to begin with so there would be nothing to tax in the first place (unless you are going to tax them for losing money).

I wouldn't invest in a market, where the government is changing the rules every five minutes, imposing regulation after regulation to the point I would need a lawyer just to screw in a damn lightbulb (exageration for effect), I would be sitting on my money and put it into precious metals where I have the physical assets, I would not be throwing my money away because the incompetitent moran leading that country is telling me to, I would not start investing or hiring again until that idiot is out of office and someone is voted in that would do away with the mountain of red tape so I can focus on doing business again.


Obama's top priority is on jobs alright, killing jobs or getting them shipped to another country that is.

Uh huh... AG, an anarcho-capitalist, is "brainwashed by the left wing dogma." And so apparently am I, even though I'm not a Democrat and have not always held left-leaning ideas at all.

Also, I am amused by the irony of misspelling the word "incompetent" while using it as an insult against others.


Well, in your case such a belief would be delusional.

You know it's kinda sad but you're rather predictible. You can't address the key points, bash people, and get upset when you get called out on it.

Btw, Awesomelyglorious if I remember correctly is a social progressive if I remember correctly. The argument you are stating that you aren't a liberal, might not be a liberal compared to Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean, but problem when compared to most Americans you are a liberal.

Okay getting back to someone that I disagree with that actually posted something intelligent:



Only reason I'm quoting myself is so people can actually see some of what I posted rather than just seeing your latest tirade, Orwell.

Inuyasha, if you think that someone on assistance is collecting enough to buy a 4,000 tv, then you've been misled. That simply isn't true. The amount they collect is barely enough for food and shelter. Do some simple math, find out what they collect and what the rent is. If they have something better, you want to ask who they bought it from for some insanely low price, and why that guy was willing to sell it.

Could vary a little by area and relative cost of living, of course. A little.

Like I said, this disconnect is the main reason we see the issue differently. I'm just glad to hear you'd be OK with some redistribution you thought it was about feeding starving people. Like I do.

I don't know how to get you to see need instead of cheating, unfortunately.

---

I don't have time to look at the Obama stuff. I will just say I'm a little tired of critical discussions about the president. He has not been the president I hoped for, but he also hasn't done anything to earn even a fraction of the accusations that get hurled at him. Everyone will decide for themselves at the next election, based on the options available, what the best choice is. That is our process, and I'm good with it. Meanwhile, I will note, even when GWB was president, and I disagreed with some pretty big decisions, I try to be in overall support of the person who is our leader. It is a crappy job, and world image demands that WE give it the person in it some respect.

---

Inuyasha, I realized, after you caught me by surprise on the parenting board, that I don't know anything about you, besides your political views. Maybe I just haven't read in the right places, or maybe I've forgotten, but we are all products of our experiences, and it would help me understand your positions if I understood you. You walk in shoes that I do not, and sometimes when I put on someone else's shoes, I do learn that I missed something that would tweak my world view. So, I'd like to know what your situation is.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 21 Aug 2011, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was exagerating for effect, the point was why should they have these luxary items? Having an older computer sure to look for jobs, but why do they need more expensive ones, and as far as TVs, get a library card and try reading books instead of rotting your brain on TV. Another example is them spending money on alcohol and drugs instead of food.



Believe it or not, with the possible exception of a people (probably none of whom are in the Republican Party, tea party, and maybe 1 person on this board whom shall remain nameless) are suggesting we let people starve in the streets. Contrary to what the left wing drive-by media and their masters in the Democrat Party would like Americans to believe, no Republican in Congress is suggesting we do anything of the sort.

That said, serious cuts have to be made to entitlements, the Government promised things that they really couldn't afford, and the politicians whom made these promises knew they would probably be dead and gone when the crisis resulting from these promises reared its ugly head. What a lot of you aren't getting is that we can't keep digging ourselves deeper into a hole, even if we cut all other spending to $0 (including defense), we would be running a deficit. We could raise taxes to 100% on the "wealthy" and it wouldn't help and just end up having them move out of the US or we just have even more people that are dirt poor.

One of the reasons why the Tea Party and Republicans will not go along with tax hikes is because the last time there was an attempt to deal with this, there ended up being tax hikes, but the spending cuts never materialized (in short only thing that happened was spending increased). Hell Bill Clinton gets praise for a balanced budget, but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Once he sat down though, he was able to put partisanship aside and actually work with Newt Gingrich to balance the budget.

Congress and the White House have to demonstrate fiscal responsibility before they have any credible reason in many people's to raise taxes. Past history has shown that whenever they get more money, they just spend more like a bunch of heroin addicts. I think we started having problems when Newt Gingrich left congress, because he at least made sure that we had fiscal responsibility in government and Bush needed to have told his own party "no" quite a bit more than he did. However, the Democrats made the situation a lot worse when they got the Congress back in the 2006 elections and the deficit spending started to explode again.

The only people in congress that we can say have demonstrated any responsible behavior is the Republicans and Tea Party members (primarily in the House of Representatives). They have passed a budget, while the Democrats in the Senate are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and calling for S&P to be investigated for actually following through on what they said, or trying to spend even more money on some new pet project. You can argue whether or not the Budget passed in the House was a good one or not, but even Bill Clinton has praised Paul Ryan for behaving responsibly and said he would be willing to talk with Ryan about some improvements. I mean seriously, right now I think if Bill Clinton were President, we would not have had this fiasco over the debt ceiling, because he would have actually behaved like an adult rather than a spoiled brat like the one we have in the White House right now. Clinton could recognize when he screwed up, and change directions, Obama acts like he doesn't know how to change course.




That's why I trust local charities to run things to help the poor a lot more than I do the government morons that seem like they don't even know how to screw in a lightbulb.

I just added some more to the post, above, btw.

And I've got to run. School event. I'll read the latest later.

Followed by:


I don't ever recall being uncivil or degrading towards you. I disagree strongly with the views you hold, but it's important to separate the views from the person. It's to your own disadvantage to stoop. Remember your own advice: two wrongs don't make a right.

I concede the fact you haven't been behaving in that way lately, and I apologize for that, and the fact you ended up caught in the middle. I think you were the only name I mentioned that was an innocent bystander.

No worries. I enjoy the heated discussions about topics, but I don't care for the personal insults that I see here from time to time. It comes from different directions and I get that people can be emotional about these topics, but it detracts from the value of one's position.

Although I must say, I think people around here are way better at keeping their cool than the general public. Just a quick glance at some other random comment sections from various mass media sources reminds me who the real morons are. (yes I know, I'm stooping)

No, I already addressed the substantive points. I (and several other posters) have clearly demonstrated that this analogy is garbage. You then merely repeat the same argument again with no real attempt at counter-refutation or actual engagement of opposing ideas.


Um... I've never heard AG described as "progressive," by himself or anyone else. If any label fits him, it would be "libertarian." But on economic issues- such as wealth redistribution- he is very pro-market and laissez-faire. More so than you.


Learn to read. I stated that I have not always held left-leaning ideas. And even now I am not uniformly left-wing, and certainly do not adopt the mindless partisanship of people like you, supporting or opposing something simply because of which party backs it. By the standards of almost any developed nation I am centrist or center-right. Even by the skewed American standards, I would be center to center-right on economic issues if you go by what people actually support. Even the knee-jerk rabidly right-wing keet looks like a freaking commie compared to me on economics.

If you mean Ed Schultz from MSNBC I'll agree with you.

If you are referring to Glenn Beck, his "crazy" theories are proving to be pretty accurate, see the stock market and hyper inflation fears.