Jump to content

Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition


Recommended Posts

OK, now where were we before being so rudely interrupted by a four hour conference call?

 

@Ben, the other point you made that I wanted to address is the removal of religion from public. In the US we have a philosophy of "a wall of seperation between the church and the state".. It was Thomas Jefferson who first coined the term. It's rooted in the first two clauses of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" . In other words we don't compel anyone to follow any particular faith or no faith at all. And we do not stop anyone from practicing their faith whatever it is so long as no one is harmed by it (no human sacrifice or whatever).. Now I'll grant, particularly lately we have not done such a great job of following that. The former clause has been enforced with too much zeal and the latter often ignored. But in my opinion this is a model to follow. You say the state has no business being involved in religion. And I agree with that. But when the state starts to interfere with the free practice of religion in the manner you suggested (banning it in public) then it IS getting involved.The better way to go would be hands off 100%. But of course we don't even do that here. We should.

 

Now, your other point about the child in a religious school. They are free, in that when they become adults they are free to follow or reject anything they were taught as a child. If their parents chose to put them in a religious school that is a choice they are free to make. Religious schools in the US are accredited in the same way public schools are. The kids are taught the same subjects with the same requirements with the addition of the curriculum of the sponsoring faith. The difference is those kids are not costing the state any money. Those schools are private and the parents have to pay to send their kids to them.

 

@aluminiumtrioxid: In theory yes. Is the economy could continue to expand with the valuation of the currency staying ahead of the costs of goods then yes there are an infinite number of dollars. Of course that can't happen. Eventually the growth slows once the value if the currency starts to fall due to inflation. There are a lot of theories on WHY inflation happens (I tend to believe the monetarist theory that the sheer amount and availability of anything including currency eventually undermines it's value) but whatever theory you like... it happens. That leads to contraction and eventually recession. Once that happens the prices of goods starts to drop until they catch up with the devaluation of currency and the whole cycle starts over. That's the beauty of the system. It corrects itself naturally... sort of.

 

@Gorgon: OK, that is a whole other conversation. We were talking just about the effect on income tax on consumers and investors. Getting into business behavior it all comes down to one thing: what is the cost of producing one widget here as opposed to anywhere else. This is something I'd like to dive deeper into but I'm leaving for the day in a half hour and don't have time. We'll come back to this one.

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now, your other point about the child in a religious school. They are free, in that when they become adults they are free to follow or reject anything they were taught as a child. If their parents chose to put them in a religious school that is a choice they are free to make. Religious schools in the US are accredited in the same way public schools are. The kids are taught the same subjects with the same requirements with the addition of the curriculum of the sponsoring faith. The difference is those kids are not costing the state any money. Those schools are private and the parents have to pay to send their kids to them."

 

Wouldn't you agree that parents education their children to follow a certain religion is just a nice of saying that they are forcing their beliefs onto the child, before the child is old enough to decide on wether to actually follow these beliefs. And when it is, the parental influence is for a vast majority far too strong to allow an actual evaluation of belief.

So, this is not merely deciding on how much freedom to grant the parents, it's the child's freedom of spirit vs the parents freedom of expression. Especially with regards to the child's inability to reflection to extends comparable to those of the parents, protection of the child's liberty is something that emerges as central to protect. So no, no religious schools.

 

Besides, "no law regarding the establishment of a religion" is far too generous. This basically says that no religion should be legally endorsed; for example by being granted more rights than others. But it doesn't stop any politician from promoting political goals solely on the basis of religion (because my understanding is that it forbids making laws regarding religion, but it's fine to make laws based on religion, right?), which I find is a problem.

 

And don't try to evade the discussion on taxes ;)

Edited by Ben No.3

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton

For your ribbons and bows

And everybody knows

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton may have gotten away with. Disgraceful!

 

I assume you're referring to the stuff with Ukraine? That was at Paul Manafort However, I'm gonna note that there is no such crime called collusion, but there are crimes that involve collusion. Sure, a lot of what Clinton and the DNC did was shady, but did they break a law? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. What Trump and co. did rises to another level entirely. Also, the Ukraine thing was entirely on their own prerogative.

 

As for why the same standards aren't placed on Democrats, politics and partianship, unfortunately. It's the same kind of hypocrisy that Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if Clinton did the same thing Trump is doing now, and yet they aren't at Trump, a Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Children certainly have rights that bar their parents from treating them in a variety of manors. They are still minors however.

 

A parental guardians liberties supersedes a the dependents liberties is probably a better way of saying something similar. But that is sort of a modern tautology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao!

Reason is for several reasons.

1. Legally responsible for minor until a certain age.

2. Provide food, clothes, shelter, medical care for child until a certain age.

3. Children are parent's creation and responsibility to shape and teach the child to take care and interaction with the world. To teach the knowledge they've gained to better succeed in the result of child being able to survive and be happy in their life.

 

There's many more reasons. If u are responsible BY LAW moreso than moral code for spending your time and money and also held legally responsible in caring and raising your child u created and providing for it and being held responsible for the end result of the child's decisions....then yes, the parent in alot of areas (but not all) rights are above the child's rights. A parent is able to take away privileges and optional from necessary basic human rights like the right to drive, and in situations where in birth it's a life or death situation. Duh lol.

 

Tldr

Parents have the right to restrict or take away certain rights so they in those specific but very varied and common situations override the child's rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is true, but there are limits, and children have successfully sued to end parental rights in certain situations. But yes, redneckdevil is quite correct. With that power comes certain responsibilities, of course. You legally have to provide an education for your child. You can't just keep them at home and brainwash them. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how the bottom keeps falling out for the Trump family as a result of their own corrosive nature, I think this serves as a useful allegory (with the Trump family as the warrior form Xenomorph):

 

  • Like 1
Quote
"Turned wrong way round, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as 'History,' harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

 

-Philip Roth, The Plot Against America

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the comments from the cheap seats...

 

19989287_10155539763000746_2730658733846

  • Like 2

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the comments from the cheap seats...

 

19989287_10155539763000746_2730658733846

Better get rid of this then since "undocumented *workers" is misinformation.

 

EDIT: Word error, now fixed.

Edited by Namutree

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not be in an instance. Could be some of illegal TFW, perhaps.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here goes. The meme states "undocumented workers", which is really illegal immigration, and goes on to state that "misinformation" is one of the real culprits. Namutree feels that calling illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" is in fact misinformation used to change the tone, just as you described. At least I think that's Namutree's point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but how does different discriptionary words counts as misinformation? It's like saying somebody calling a bush foliage is misinforming people. He's not. A bush is foliage. Undocumented workers are illegal immigrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, and to keep some things out of the funny things thread when they're somewhat in relation to current politics:

 

19955884_10155540507840746_4499461371169

  • Like 1

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but how does different discriptionary words counts as misinformation?

Because it plays down the severity of the situation to lessen the impact of the problem. I know you have a hard radar lock on "took ur jobs" but illegal immigration in the US goes much further than that, and that's the point of saying "undocumented workers"; "we'll call it one (minor) thing and ignore all the rest".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the point is they picked only one part of the illegal immigration issue, so it's fake news by omission. But they also left out a bunch of other things that people think are destroying the US, like political correctness, pollution, coorporations, racism, sexual deviancy, godlessness, government overspending, vaccines and GMOs. So shouldn't it also be fake news by omission simply because it's a pamphlet pic that doesn't have a thousand lines of text on it? I still don't see how it's wrong information. Was this quote required to address every single facet of every single issue? I mean, yeah undocumented workers are a small part of a bigger problem. But does this need to say that?

 

*This post does not include every single issue that affects the USA. Just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...