Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10274
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:30 pm UTC

Wait.
What?

Apples, Oranges and Bananas!

You people are making a Fruit Salad!
Prisons and Drug enforcement have been related.

But, but, The Problem is For Profit Prisons!
Making Big Money from Government Contracts by treating people in cages cheaply and poorly is immoral!
Yet; That's the way we do it.

And; Trump is not going to allow some outside Bureaucracy to say it is Not Right.
Do you not know what is going on? As more and more of our people end up in cages....

Well,...Do you think 'they' will never come for you or the ones you care for?
That's what the Germans thought. The Government pays, yet abdicates the responsibility.

What are the statistics?
We have more of our people in prison than any nation except Trump's new best friend Kim.

We are paying Big Money to build Concentration Camps.
'Build it and they will come' (?)

The money for those Camps and rounding up people to put in them is coming from
Disaster Relief and Recovery AND from our Coast Guard.
Fact Check Me! I'm not quite up to Fact Checking myself.

Yet; I glow with pride.
The Senator from my State was doing a boring job when he and his staff stumbled on the Transfer of Funds Documents.

Yes. There is unacceptable violence South of us.
Mobs ARE running beautiful cities like Acapulco and the Cancun area of Mexico.

It's a bloody Mess!
Changing U.S. Drug Laws might help a little.

Crap....Are we looking down the barrel of WWIII?


Please excuse me. I Ranted.
It is enough to make my Blood Boil.

I'm posting it, because I think it is True.
I think you should know, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: but building a wall won't ultimately change the incentives, even if it does make the transportation slightly more difficult via one channel. People are endlessly inventive in getting around restrictions so long as large enough incentives exist.


The point I was making though wasn't about walls and the transportation of drugs, but rather that the pervasiveness of drug cartels and the corruption of the governments have made being a 'Regular Joe' (or 'Juan' I suppose) untenable. Organized Crime and corrupt government is so rampant that the official governments are failing to do the day-to-day work, and such tasks as law enforcement are falling to more local organizations, most often criminal gangs who extort and threaten the people rather than build roads and keep the peace.

The people crossing the border and staying illegally aren't doing so to bring us in the United States various ways to get high, they're doing so to escape the likelihood of being murdered for the scraps that they scratch from their meager subsistence farms.

To say immigrants are coming to the U.S. illegally because the U.S. is wealthy and/or they're looking for a better life than they can have in their home countries is an obscene understatement.

That a politician may not have a strong stance on the issue of illegal immigration is likely a recognition that the problem isn't one that can be fixed by immigration policy alone, and probably requires the support and cooperation of multiple countries, and probably foreign intervention in more than a few, none of which are easy or sure bets. The loudmouth with the strong dogmatic opinion isn't better because he yells a simple answer over and over at volumes that drown out the more nuanced and educated.

ucim wrote:What Trump is doing instead is antagonizing and alienating our allies while aligning himself with the very dictators whose values this country stands against. Further, he is riling up discord in the country and advancing discord in the world.


This.

"America First" my pasty-white ass. Every intelligence organization in the U.S. and more than a few among our traditional allies says that Russia had been, and continues to be, engaging in a propaganda campaign through various outlets including cable TV networks and social media, but our glorious eggplant in a toupee sides with the Authoritarian in Chief of Russia.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:01 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: but building a wall won't ultimately change the incentives, even if it does make the transportation slightly more difficult via one channel. People are endlessly inventive in getting around restrictions so long as large enough incentives exist.


The point I was making though wasn't about walls and the transportation of drugs, but rather that the pervasiveness of drug cartels and the corruption of the governments have made being a 'Regular Joe' (or 'Juan' I suppose) untenable. Organized Crime and corrupt government is so rampant that the official governments are failing to do the day-to-day work, and such tasks as law enforcement are falling to more local organizations, most often criminal gangs who extort and threaten the people rather than build roads and keep the peace.

The people crossing the border and staying illegally aren't doing so to bring us in the United States various ways to get high, they're doing so to escape the likelihood of being murdered for the scraps that they scratch from their meager subsistence farms.

To say immigrants are coming to the U.S. illegally because the U.S. is wealthy and/or they're looking for a better life than they can have in their home countries is an obscene understatement.

That a politician may not have a strong stance on the issue of illegal immigration is likely a recognition that the problem isn't one that can be fixed by immigration policy alone, and probably requires the support and cooperation of multiple countries, and probably foreign intervention in more than a few, none of which are easy or sure bets. The loudmouth with the strong dogmatic opinion isn't better because he yells a simple answer over and over at volumes that drown out the more nuanced and educated.


I view that as all connected. In part, the crackdowns are justified by stopping illegal behavior that...while worthy of being stopped, probably won't be stopped entirely by enforcement crackdowns. And of course, such crackdowns always have costs that get imposed elsewhere.

Sure, the economic incentives are causing market imbalances everywhere(incentivizing the drug industry, mostly). But you can't really ever get rid of that purely by banning and enforcing. Not with a market that large in the US. Market mechanisms don't stop being powerful just because you dislike the product. It costs the US, it costs immigrants, it costs people who never come here. It's sufficiently far from optimal that it doesn't matter a great deal what methodology you use to evaluate it, the whole situation ends up looking ridiculously costly.

ucim wrote:Being nice to people is how you make friends. It's reciprocal, and generates reciprocity. Sometimes being nice costs you - like when you bring a friend to the store to help them out when their car has a flat. Do you charge them like a taxi driver? Of course not - if you did you'd run out of friends quickly. The same is true on a global scale, only far more intricately.


While I get what you're saying, global politics includes a great deal more than following the golden rule.

Concrete example, if you decide to be nice to North Korea, North Korea will probably just take advantage of you.

Not every country is North Korea, and Trump certainly pisses people off unnecessarily at times, but this view of diplomacy seems highly simplistic.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Are you sure the H1B visa program actually does have such high rates of return? From what I understand, while the H1B in theory is about bringing in foreign talent and filling in skills gaps, in practice it has been used to undercut the upper-middle and middle classes to benefit the hyper-class of tech billionaires.

That's because there's limited slots, which are given out by lottery. If you buy the most tickets, you get most of the slots. Most of potential gains are wasted because of that, leading to the complaints you listed.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/techno ... TL_Popular
My argument is that more slots in all categories of immigration would be helpful to the US. I'm cautious of cutting red tape, though that would probably help more than it hurts.

Anyone hear the opening statement from Ford? She's a powerful witness and gives smart answers.

It depends on what you mean by nice. Like torturing North Korean? Not a net benefit.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6863
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:While I get what you're saying, global politics includes a great deal more than following the golden rule.
Concrete example, if you decide to be nice to North Korea, North Korea will probably just take advantage of you.
"Who knew global politics was complicated?"

Yes, there is more to global politics than the golden rule. But there's also more to global politics than "getting the best deal". What I was saying was "it's complicated", and here's an example where taking a(n economic) loss here reaps (political) benefits there. And even playing the "nice" card is more than just "being nice". When you're dealing with friends (like Canada), it's sufficient. But when dealing with foes (like North Korea), it's a long term strategy whose payoff is uncertain, whose time frame is much longer than a presidential term, and where there are many other competing forces. But that doesn't invalidate my basic point.
Spoiler:
Heck, being nice doesn't even guarantee somebody will fall in love with you. But not being nice is pretty much a guarantee you won't be happy in whatever romantic entanglement you end up in, if any.
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

ijuin
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Umm, since when do Senators and such get a half million a year in salary and perks?

If you are referring to the second home benefit, it's not that much, and FFS do you actually think that the representative from Oregon should commute?


Sorry, I had been including travel allowances as well, which I probably shouldn’t. The amount thar Senators get to actually “pocket” is more like a quarter million.

Anyway, my point was that the official compensation pales in comparison to the under-the-table money that they get from lobbyists, donors, “speaking and consulting” fees, etc.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:40 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Being nice to people is how you make friends. It's reciprocal, and generates reciprocity.

Ideally, yes, but that's not always true. The Obama administration was pretty nice to Iran, and that had the opposite effect. They took our money and goodwill, and they used it to further support anti-American interests, terrorism, and oppression.

What Trump is doing instead is antagonizing and alienating our allies while aligning himself with the very dictators whose values this country stands against. Further, he is riling up discord in the country and advancing discord in the world.

He is antagonizing many of our allies, I'll give you that, but if it's carefully calculated, that can have a positive effect. Other members of NATO likely feel antagonized by Trump's demand that they pay the agreed upon 2% of their GDPs for the defense budget, but none of them can deny the agreement, their deficiency, of the fact the U.S. consistently exceeds that agreed upon amount by a large margin.

I don't see attempts at diplomacy and the warming of otherwise cool relations to necessarily be aligning with dictators. What the Trump administration has achieved so far in North Korea is good for the world, but it aligns South Korea with North Korea more so than it aligns the the U.S. with them.

Cooperation is what brings peace, and peace is what brings prosperity.

Just like being nice to people to make friends, cooperation does ideally bring peace, but that's not always the way it works in practice. If two countries are at war, and we choose to cooperate with one, we antagonize the other. If we support a close ally, we antagonize their enemies. Israel is a good example of that. They have traditionally been very strong allies of the U.S. The Obama administration strained that relationship immensely, and it didn't make any of Israel's enemies like us any more than they did before.

So let me ask you... before even talking about how Trump does or does not advance our global interests, what do you think our global interests are?

Well, world peace is about as cliché as you can get for a global interest, and it's not realistic, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a goal. There are three ways to achieve peace: Diplomacy (ideal), having military strength (preventative), and using military strength (proactive). I'm not advocating beating our enemies into submission so that American ideology can dominate, but I do believe a strong military and the willingness to use it can be a strong deterrent. It's also a good way to bring allies with weaker militaries closer. Diplomacy would be the preferable way to achieve peace, but when two sides are nearly-diametrically opposed or unwilling to budge on a particular point, it's nearly impossible.

I believe it's also in America's global interest to promote religious freedom and to denounce and eliminate religious persecution. If everyone in the world were free to believe or not believe as they saw fit without fear, every country would be better for it.

While supporting our allies and gaining positive influence over our enemies is admirable, our global interests should benefit the United States first and the rest of the world second. I don't mean promote the U.S. at the expense of the rest of the world, but rather, promote the U.S. so that we are in a better position to promote the interests of the global community. America should take care of its own citizens and look after its own welfare before taking care of the world.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:While I get what you're saying, global politics includes a great deal more than following the golden rule.
Concrete example, if you decide to be nice to North Korea, North Korea will probably just take advantage of you.
"Who knew global politics was complicated?"

Yes, there is more to global politics than the golden rule. But there's also more to global politics than "getting the best deal". What I was saying was "it's complicated", and here's an example where taking a(n economic) loss here reaps (political) benefits there. And even playing the "nice" card is more than just "being nice". When you're dealing with friends (like Canada), it's sufficient. But when dealing with foes (like North Korea), it's a long term strategy whose payoff is uncertain, whose time frame is much longer than a presidential term, and where there are many other competing forces. But that doesn't invalidate my basic point.
Spoiler:
Heck, being nice doesn't even guarantee somebody will fall in love with you. But not being nice is pretty much a guarantee you won't be happy in whatever romantic entanglement you end up in, if any.
Jose


Well, if we're talking tariffs, this is not universally true when talking about historical friends/trade partners. Sometimes tariffs do end up one sided and need to be renegotiated, and sometimes the other party doesn't really want to do that because they benefit from the status quo. So, being nice is not sufficient as a sole strategy even for dealing with relatively friendly powers.

As a strategy for dealing with adversaries, it's pretty rough. If you're gonna play nice either way, they have very little motivation to play nice with you. Sometimes you've got to take a confrontational approach if you want to force a change. I'm pretty confident in saying that buckling to North Korea yet again and shipping them more aid won't solve their human rights issues.

Global trade ain't romance.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:02 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Are you sure the H1B visa program actually does have such high rates of return? From what I understand, while the H1B in theory is about bringing in foreign talent and filling in skills gaps, in practice it has been used to undercut the upper-middle and middle classes to benefit the hyper-class of tech billionaires.

That's because there's limited slots, which are given out by lottery. If you buy the most tickets, you get most of the slots. Most of potential gains are wasted because of that, leading to the complaints you listed.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/techno ... TL_Popular


Uh... your link in point #2 basically confirms exactly what I said.

Such wages are "substantially less than the average wage an American worker earns in those occupations in those locations," said Hira.

A group of professors is studying how H-1B holders affect the economy, using data from the dot-com bubble between 1994 and 2001. In a working paper, they found that wages for U.S. computer scientists were lower in 2001 as a result of the influx of H-1B visa holders.



It... really needs a massive overhaul. We should definitely have a split out of the H1B for things like art, research, education, etc, which should be virtually unlimited in nature, and a minimal to moderate one for IT, medicine, etc.

Also, we definitely need an entrepreneurial version of the H1B. If you have enough money to support yourself and you are basically immigrating specifically to form a business, fuck it, welcome to America. Though what happens if the business fails, not so sure.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:He is antagonizing many of our allies, I'll give you that, but if it's carefully calculated, that can have a positive effect.
It clearly isn't.

There is no clear or specific strategy to Trump's foreign policy. It's the ramblings of your semi-polite racist ultra-nationalist grandfather put on a world stage.

You agree that Trump talks too much, but you insist on focusing on what he does rather than what he says. Diplomacy is what he says. He's created international friction with his Twitter account. That's not the behavior of a calculated diplomat; that's the behavior of a six year old child.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:30 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Right, once people don't have to associate with people who also sell harder drugs to get their weed, it'll be interesting to see how other drug usage changes.

Spoiler:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

When the drugs came, they hit all at once. It was the 80s, and by the time one in 10 people had slipped into the depths of heroin use – bankers, university students, carpenters, socialites, miners – Portugal was in a state of panic.

Álvaro Pereira was working as a family doctor in Olhão in southern Portugal. “People were injecting themselves in the street, in public squares, in gardens,” he told me. “At that time, not a day passed when there wasn’t a robbery at a local business, or a mugging.”

In 2001, nearly two decades into Pereira’s accidental specialisation in addiction, Portugal became the first country to decriminalise the possession and consumption of all illicit substances. Rather than being arrested, those caught with a personal supply might be given a warning, a small fine, or told to appear before a local commission – a doctor, a lawyer and a social worker – about treatment, harm reduction, and the support services that were available to them.

The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015.


https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/is_portugals_dr.html

Decades ago, the United States and Portugal both struggled with illicit drugs and took decisive action – in diametrically opposite directions. The US cracked down vigorously, spending billions of dollars incarcerating drug users. In contrast, Portugal undertook a monumental experiment: it decriminalised the use of all drugs in 2001, even heroin and cocaine, and unleashed a major public health campaign to tackle addiction. Ever since, in Portugal, drug addiction has been treated more as a medical challenge than as a criminal justice issue.

After more than 15 years, it’s clear which approach worked better. The US drug policy has failed spectacularly, with about as many Americans dying last year of overdoses – around 64,000 – as were killed in the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined.

In contrast, Portugal may be winning the war on drugs – by ending it. Today, the Health Ministry estimates that only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began.

Portugal’s drug mortality rate is the lowest in Western Europe – one-tenth the rate of Britain or Denmark – and about one-fiftieth of the latest number in the US. . . .


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2050324516683640

The fines from the administrative infringement proceeding are rather light going from 25€ up to the Portuguese minimum monthly wage which is 530€ as of the time of writing of this paper (Art.° 16th of the Regime Jurídico do Consumo de Estupefacientes). However, there are also additional penalties, that may be enforced instead of, or along with the fine. These may actually be more punishing than the fine itself. They range from a simple warning to go as far as banning the individual from certain professional activities and certain places (Art.° 17th of the Regime Jurídico do Consumo de Estupefacientes). The user of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is presented to a committee tasked with the mission of preventing drug addiction (comissão para a dissuasão da toxicodependência). This committee, after hearing from the drug user, inquires if they have an addiction problem. If the answer is negative, only the payment of the fine is required of the user, but if the answer is positive the committee will recommend expert medical treatment. However, the committee’s recommendation is not mandatory for the user and they must follow it of their own free will. The committee will suspend the administrative infringement proceeding if the individual does not have a problem of drug addiction and also does not have a history of usage, if the individual is in fact addicted but has no previous conviction for usage and accepts the recommendation to seek treatment. The administrative infringement proceeding may also be suspended if the individual is addicted and has a previous history of usage but accepts the recommendation to seek treatment. The administrative infringement proceeding may be suspended for a period of up to two years that may be extended following a reasoned decision by the committee. After its suspension, it shall be archived (terminated) if the individual does not repeat the infringement and has no addiction problems, or if the addicted user successfully concludes treatment.

The mission of the committee accurately reflects the spirit of the Portuguese law, the user is not a criminal but a citizen who suffers from an illness and must be helped. Therefore, the committee’s main priority is to help the user with their possible drug addiction (a health problem).

The Portuguese policy of decriminalization of the ‘consumption, acquisition, and the possession for personal use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances’ is known in the entire world as one of the most successful policies of its kind. Since it was adopted the consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances actually decreased (UK Home Office, 2014). Also the initial fear that Portugal might turn into a ‘drug-tourist’ destination did not come to pass. The number of cases of HIV and AIDS in drug users also decreased (even if it still is slightly above the EU average), and the number of deaths by drug overdose stabilized. The number of deaths by drug overdose in Portugal is actually one of the lowest in all of the European Union, at just 4.5 per million of inhabitants against the average in the EU of 19.2 (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2016).

The consumption in young adults is also remarkably low (Hughes and Stevens, 2010; Reith, 2014; Santos and Duarte, 2014). Thus, the Portuguese results are in line with the scientific studies that suggest criminalization is not an effective deterrent to drug use (Thies, 1993). The number of drugs users seeking medical treatment increased. We would argue that removing the fear of facing a prison sentence might have helped some users in their decision to seek medical treatment (Martins, 2013). The social cost of the consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances decreased 18% since the adoption of the decriminalization policy, resulting in considerable savings for a country with notorious economic problems (Gonçalves et al., 2015).

Comparing the results achieved by Portugal to the results achieved by other western countries in the ‘war on drugs’ highlights further the success of the Portuguese policy (Canadian Public Health Association Discussion Paper, 2014; Gallagher, 2015; Greenwald, 2009: 22–24; Kreit, 2010; Porto and Maciel, 2014; Woods, 2011).
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:32 pm UTC

Well, his hands are the size of a 6 year old's. The president being 3 six year olds in a trenchcoat is probably not the craziest thing going on right now.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:35 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:"America First" my pasty-white ass. Every intelligence organization in the U.S. and more than a few among our traditional allies says that Russia had been, and continues to be, engaging in a propaganda campaign through various outlets including cable TV networks and social media, but our glorious eggplant in a toupee sides with the Authoritarian in Chief of Russia.


And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right. It's the attitude of sociopaths.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why his supporters back him, actually.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:36 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It's the ramblings of your semi-polite racist ultra-nationalist grandfather put on a world stage.


Which also goes a long way towards explaining why his supporters back him. He's just like them.

Hillary Clinton's only mistake was saying "half." It's not half. It's all of them, every last one.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:39 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.


Uh... comments like that make it hard for me to take you seriously.

It's the politician's job to put their country's interests first in priorities.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:42 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right. It's the attitude of sociopaths.
While I agree "America First" is morally indefensible (as well as economically untenable, not to mention extremely dangerous to everyone's physical well being -- see "Global Warming"), I think the reasons people internalize this attitude have more to do with short-sighted tribalism than anything else.
CorruptUser wrote:It's the politician's job to put their country's interests first in priorities.
No, it's the politician's job to put their constituency's interests first. And while it sounds like those are the same thing, they actually, really, definitely, absolutely are not.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.


Uh... comments like that make it hard for me to take you seriously.

It's the politician's job to put their country's interests first in priorities.


No, it's their job to be a responsible actor with all other political actors in the world we all share.

Leovan
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Also, we definitely need an entrepreneurial version of the H1B. If you have enough money to support yourself and you are basically immigrating specifically to form a business, fuck it, welcome to America. Though what happens if the business fails, not so sure.


There is. The EB5 makes you invest 500k, or 1 million depending on what you invest in, in the US and in return you get a Green Card that allows you to shoot for citizenship in five years, at which point you can withdraw the investment (sometimes with a good return).

E2 Visas require you to invest in a business in the US and you must be here to oversee it/work for it. The investment must be approved for the Visa (usually at least 100k, you're more likely to be approved at 200k+), but once you're approved you may stay as long as the business is doing ok, usually in 5 year increments. It's a non-immigrant visa though so not a direct path to citizenship. In that respect it's similar to an H1B except you're running your own business, and H1Bs expire every three years. Once you're here there are a number of ways to citizenship.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:56 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.


Uh... comments like that make it hard for me to take you seriously.

It's the politician's job to put their country's interests first in priorities.


No, it's their job to be a responsible actor with all other political actors in the world we all share.


That seems idealistic, and probably would not well describe the real world job. Prioritizing one's country's interests first would seem to be the practical job description.

And yeah, sometimes it's just a constituency, not even the whole country. Even looking out for the well being of the whole country is optimistic at times. Looking out for the whole world? Ehhh.


As for a fast pass to citizenship for the rich...yeah. Right now, the requirements are already significantly easier for the rich. This isn't US specific, the whole world generally allows the rich and powerful far easier mobility than the huddled masses.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:02 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
ucim wrote:Being nice to people is how you make friends. It's reciprocal, and generates reciprocity.


Ideally, yes, but that's not always true. The Obama administration was pretty nice to Iran, and that had the opposite effect. They took our money and goodwill, and they used it to further support anti-American interests, terrorism, and oppression.


I'm pretty sure that the only funds that Iran received from the deal were funds that they already owned... it was just money that the United States had seized back in the Revolution period. The Iran deal did exactly what it was supposed to... it prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Attempting to normalize relations between the countries was just a bonus. The deal was incremental progress, but it was progress.

Anyway, advancing anti-American interests, terrorism and oppression has never stopped the US from working with those countries when it is convenient to do so. See: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, for example.

He is antagonizing many of our allies, I'll give you that, but if it's carefully calculated, that can have a positive effect. Other members of NATO likely feel antagonized by Trump's demand that they pay the agreed upon 2% of their GDPs for the defense budget, but none of them can deny the agreement, their deficiency, of the fact the U.S. consistently exceeds that agreed upon amount by a large margin.


Would make more sense for everyone to just agree to scale back their spending to 1% or whatever.

Just like being nice to people to make friends, cooperation does ideally bring peace, but that's not always the way it works in practice. If two countries are at war, and we choose to cooperate with one, we antagonize the other. If we support a close ally, we antagonize their enemies. Israel is a good example of that. They have traditionally been very strong allies of the U.S. The Obama administration strained that relationship immensely, and it didn't make any of Israel's enemies like us any more than they did before.


Except for said nuclear agreement and which likely prevented all-out war between Israel and Iran.

I believe it's also in America's global interest to promote religious freedom and to denounce and eliminate religious persecution. If everyone in the world were free to believe or not believe as they saw fit without fear, every country would be better for it.


This objective is unlikely to occur as long as the United States government is dominated by religious fundamentalists, but be that as it may.

While supporting our allies and gaining positive influence over our enemies is admirable, our global interests should benefit the United States first and the rest of the world second. I don't mean promote the U.S. at the expense of the rest of the world, but rather, promote the U.S. so that we are in a better position to promote the interests of the global community. America should take care of its own citizens and look after its own welfare before taking care of the world.


I think the problem with Trump's approach in particular in this regard is that everything from his point of view is zero-sum. There are winners and losers. There is no possibility of mutual benefit.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:21 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.

It's not morally indefensible. It's like paying your mortgage and bills, providing food and clothing for your spouse and children, and installing a home security system for their protection rather than letting your own family and household fall apart because you're too busy mowing your neighbors' lawns.
LaserGuy wrote:I think the problem with Trump's approach in particular in this regard is that everything from his point of view is zero-sum. There are winners and losers. There is no possibility of mutual benefit.

Okay. I can definitely see that.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:24 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think the problem with Trump's approach in particular in this regard is that everything from his point of view is zero-sum. There are winners and losers. There is no possibility of mutual benefit.
That's Trump's approach in a nutshell, yeah. Any 'gains' you see are just the short-term benefits of snatching all the cookies out of the jar and refusing to leave any for anyone else. Yes, you get more cookies right now, but people are gonna stop putting cookies in that jar real quick once they figure out what you're up to. And then? No one gets any cookies.

That's Trump's approach to everything: He abuses honor systems. He's the guy who snatches all the chips out of the display and doesn't put any cash in, then declares himself a genius for being the 'only one who could see this exploit'. He breaks norms that exist to maintain a cooperative spirit, cashing out good faith arrangements for short-term gain and ignoring the long-term consequence.

He is the embodiment of get-rich-quick schemes and "I've Got Mine, Fuck You". He is quite possibly the worst President in modern history -- particularly for the values he represents.

Anyone who supports him should take a good, long, hard look at who they are and what they value.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:27 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
While supporting our allies and gaining positive influence over our enemies is admirable, our global interests should benefit the United States first and the rest of the world second. I don't mean promote the U.S. at the expense of the rest of the world, but rather, promote the U.S. so that we are in a better position to promote the interests of the global community. America should take care of its own citizens and look after its own welfare before taking care of the world.


I think the problem with Trump's approach in particular in this regard is that everything from his point of view is zero-sum. There are winners and losers. There is no possibility of mutual benefit.


I think it's worse than that actually, that "Mutual Benefit" -is- losing. If you haven't squeezed every last penny out of the other guy in the negotiation then you've failed. I'm reminded of a piece from Frontline's "Money Power and Wall Street" where one investment banker recalls that when it came out one bank was doing questionable trades in Europe she said about the managemnt of a different bank she worked for: "Their response wasn't 'That's a horrible risk to take', their response was "You left money on the table, get over there and get our share.' "

It's a horrible mentality to have, not only for foreign relations but in general. It's the kind of mentality that makes companies stingy with wages and benefits while demanding more hours of work and more productivity from workers. It amplifies problems with power disparities, and utterly ruins old-school company loyalty. The entire exchange has to be quantified, so benefits that aren't easily quantified, like company loyalty, worker morale, health of the broader community, all get thrown to the wayside.

Yablo wrote:
Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.

It's not morally indefensible. It's like paying your mortgage and bills, providing food and clothing for your spouse and children, and installing a home security system for their protection rather than letting your own family and household fall apart because you're too busy mowing your neighbors' lawns.


The problem is that all too often it's taken as "America Only". Fixing a fence between properties benefits both properties, loaning a lawn mower to your neighbor can benefit them and you (by letting them keep their lawn manageable, keep the weeds down, and the weeds don't spread to yours). Sure you have to prioritize your own family, but there's benefits to be had from being a good neighbor and helping the community around you when and where you can.

"My Family First" is too often an excuse to do nothing to help anyone else at all.
Last edited by Dauric on Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:28 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
I believe it's also in America's global interest to promote religious freedom and to denounce and eliminate religious persecution. If everyone in the world were free to believe or not believe as they saw fit without fear, every country would be better for it.


This objective is unlikely to occur as long as the United States government is dominated by religious fundamentalists, but be that as it may.


Probably true, but a fine goal.

In practice, we maybe support religious freedom for only those religions that look close enough to our religious fundamentalists, but...at least it's something?

While supporting our allies and gaining positive influence over our enemies is admirable, our global interests should benefit the United States first and the rest of the world second. I don't mean promote the U.S. at the expense of the rest of the world, but rather, promote the U.S. so that we are in a better position to promote the interests of the global community. America should take care of its own citizens and look after its own welfare before taking care of the world.


I think the problem with Trump's approach in particular in this regard is that everything from his point of view is zero-sum. There are winners and losers. There is no possibility of mutual benefit.


That's fair. Previous diplomacy has probably focused overly on mutual benefit scenarios and neglected more zero-sum situations. Trump's doing the reverse.

But the NATO spending targets, in general...sure. I have no objection whatsoever to holding folks to their pledged level. It'd be nice if the US carried a bit less of the NATO spending burden. Maybe if everyone hit their minimum targets, we could dial back down a bit.

For perspective, we're currently at what, eight allies hitting, twenty one falling short? And even that level is a significant increase over the three hitting it in 2014. The rest of NATO does coast on the US playing world policeman while also criticizing us for same.

NATO, overall, is of mutual benefit, but there is a certain amount of zero sum involved in paying the bill.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:31 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The problem is that all too often it's taken as "America Only". Fixing a fence between properties benefits both properties, loaning a lawn mower to your neighbor can benefit them and you (by letting them keep their lawn manageable, keep the weeds down, and the weeds don't spread to yours). Sure you have to prioritize your own family, but there's benefits to be had from being a good neighbor and helping the community around you when and where you can.

"My Family First" is too often an excuse to do nothing to help anyone else at all.
Also: If you need to actually say "America First", then what you probably mean is "America Only". People don't need to be reminded to be concerned with their self-interest; policies that benefit America over other countries will always have an advantage over policies that don't. Saying "America First" is really just code-word for "Fuck This, It's Every Country For Themselves".

Which is probably the worst thing you could say right now.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2113
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:44 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.

It's not morally indefensible. It's like paying your mortgage and bills, providing food and clothing for your spouse and children, and installing a home security system for their protection rather than letting your own family and household fall apart because you're too busy mowing your neighbors' lawns.
... or not buying your own kids an ice cream because you're too busy pulling your neighbours' kids out of the canal.

Cheer for that enough and the guy who loves it when you cheer will eventually be standing on someone else in the middle of the swamp, because that's "winning."
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But the NATO spending targets, in general...sure. I have no objection whatsoever to holding folks to their pledged level. It'd be nice if the US carried a bit less of the NATO spending burden. Maybe if everyone hit their minimum targets, we could dial back down a bit.

For perspective, we're currently at what, eight allies hitting, twenty one falling short? And even that level is a significant increase over the three hitting it in 2014. The rest of NATO does coast on the US playing world policeman while also criticizing us for same.

NATO, overall, is of mutual benefit, but there is a certain amount of zero sum involved in paying the bill.


Except that there was a benefit to the U.S. for paying that bill: We effectively had control over NATO operations. And it's a relatively minor bill for the U.S. to pay given our overabundant military expenditures. If anything, the U.S. having bases all over Europe (and the world for that matter) has provided the justification for a lot of U.S. military expenditures (and the pork barrel spending congressthings have been voting for to 'provide jobs' and such to their districts).

That's not to say that the shift wasn't needed, but don't be surprised to hear that U.S. defense contractors are going to have to tighten their belts when those bases are being equipped with European Typhoons rather than U.S. Raptors.

--

The other side to that: NATO members aren't being 'held to their promises' so much as Trump's overly friendliness with Putin, and statements to the effect that NATO was obsolete and the U.S. should reexamine our participation in it while Russia was annexing strategically important neighbors (IE: Crimea) makes a lot of our NATO allies nervous that the U.S. might not be a reliable ally.

They're increasing their spending because they think the U.S. might not be there when we're needed. That's not really a good trade for "fair share spending" from our allies.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:02 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Except that there was a benefit to the U.S. for paying that bill: We effectively had control over NATO operations. And it's a relatively minor bill for the U.S. to pay given our overabundant military expenditures. If anything, the U.S. having bases all over Europe (and the world for that matter) has provided the justification for a lot of U.S. military expenditures (and the pork barrel spending congressthings have been voting for to 'provide jobs' and such to their districts).

That's not to say that the shift wasn't needed, but don't be surprised to hear that U.S. defense contractors are going to have to tighten their belts when those bases are being equipped with European Typhoons rather than U.S. Raptors.

--

The other side to that: NATO members aren't being 'held to their promises' so much as Trump's overly friendliness with Putin, and statements to the effect that NATO was obsolete and the U.S. should reexamine our participation in it while Russia was annexing strategically important neighbors (IE: Crimea) makes a lot of our NATO allies nervous that the U.S. might not be a reliable ally.

They're increasing their spending because they think the U.S. might not be there when we're needed. That's not really a good trade for "fair share spending" from our allies.


The US will, either way, have sufficient military power to mount operations apart from NATO. Even if we reduce our military budget in proportion with NATO members handling their promised spending, and EVERY member kept their word, we'd still have a significant military budget. The US ain't gonna be powerless in terms of a military.

And "justifies pork barrel spending" is not something I count as a plus.

As for the Crimea, that happened in 2014. Probably not Trump's fault.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:56 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Yablo wrote:
Euphonium wrote:And if nothing else, "America First" is just morally indefensible in its own right.

It's not morally indefensible. It's like paying your mortgage and bills, providing food and clothing for your spouse and children, and installing a home security system for their protection rather than letting your own family and household fall apart because you're too busy mowing your neighbors' lawns.


The problem is that all too often it's taken as "America Only". Fixing a fence between properties benefits both properties, loaning a lawn mower to your neighbor can benefit them and you (by letting them keep their lawn manageable, keep the weeds down, and the weeds don't spread to yours). Sure you have to prioritize your own family, but there's benefits to be had from being a good neighbor and helping the community around you when and where you can.

"My Family First" is too often an excuse to do nothing to help anyone else at all.

Oh, I'm with you there. And if we replace "America First" with "America Only," I agree with Euphonium, too. "America Only" is morally indefensible.

Sableagle wrote:... or not buying your own kids an ice cream because you're too busy pulling your neighbours' kids out of the canal.

I wholeheartedly support saving the neighbor's kid over buying mine ice cream. My point still stands though. If my family suffers or is harmed because I neglected them in favor of someone else's family, I've failed my family.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

Conservatives' entitlement mentality is on full display today in Senate Judiciary.

You can also replace "Conservatives" with "White men" and be equally accurate.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:06 pm UTC

Ok, so now that I've looked at entirely too many hours of Ford and Kavanaugh. I don't think Ford should prevent Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme Court. Ford said that there were at least five other people there, none of them remember anything like the incident in question. Memories are plastic over thirty years and there is little doubt in my mind that Ford thinks that Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her. I don't even have much doubt that she was assaulted. However, due to the other witnesses not having any memory of anything like this, I feel like Ford's testimony doesn't appear to actually reflect on Kavanaugh's character. It sucks, but I don't feel like she brought the evidence necessary to prevent Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme Court.

That said, Ford was always the weakest of the accusations. I think to wrap it up here and say 'we are done' wouldn't be right. (Not that I count on either of the major parties to do what's right.) We need to hear Rameriz and Swetnick. With what I heard, they need to bring evidence and they need to bring their A game. There is a possible fourth accuser and if they come forward with evidence, we should hear them as well. The committee should use their subpoena power to get anyone who might know about things happening but doesn't want to show up to tell us what they know anyway.

That said, the Senators seemed more concerned with throwing mud at each other than actually getting to the truth. I know politics is a sausage factory, but gee wiz can't you at least pretend? Senator Kennedy is the only one who I thought "I might not vote against him."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:49 am UTC

asoban wrote:That said, Ford was always the weakest of the accusations.


In terms of credibility or severity?

In terms of credibility, Ford was probably the strongest. AFAIK the second woman didn't have any therapist's documentation, just a claim that he put his penis on her face at a party or something. The third woman's claim is that Brett was attending a party where she had been raped but it wasn't Brett who raped her, and that she had witnessed Brett standing in a line to participate in a gang rape, which was apparently a routine thing at Georgetown Prep.

In terms of severity, the gang rape is definitely the worst if true. I don't know whether being groped and attempted rape is worse than having a penis on your face, but if you insist the face-penis is worse, I won't argue otherwise.

I'm not sure how to take the third woman's testimony. It seems kind of outlandish, but let's say it's true, and that gang rape is basically a rite of passage for guys at Georgetown Prep. I mean, aside from that school being in need of being nuked from orbit and then having the ashes nuked as well, it brings up a good ethics question for a scifi novel; does a moral failing cease to be a moral failing if it's ubiquitous?

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote: it brings up a good ethics question for a scifi novel; does a moral failing cease to be a moral failing if it's ubiquitous?


in the words of Steve Rogers:
Spoiler:
Captain America, duh

“Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.”
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:16 am UTC

Has Steve Roger's defense ever been used to justify something the typical reader would find abhorrent?

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:44 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Has Steve Roger's defense ever been used to justify something the typical reader would find abhorrent?


No, i'm saying that I'm not a relativist, that there are certain inalienable rights that all people have; and that violating them, regardless of cultural approbation, is wrong.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:13 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly support saving the neighbor's kid over buying mine ice cream. My point still stands though. If my family suffers or is harmed because I neglected them in favor of someone else's family, I've failed my family.
And that's part of the fundamental problem: We conflate our children not getting ice-cream with them suffering grievous harm.

This is the essence of American entitlement, particularly among the wealthy and privileged -- the notion that my "right" to ice-cream is of equal (or even greater) importance than your right not to drown.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:05 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly support saving the neighbor's kid over buying mine ice cream. My point still stands though. If my family suffers or is harmed because I neglected them in favor of someone else's family, I've failed my family.
And that's part of the fundamental problem: We conflate our children not getting ice-cream with them suffering grievous harm.

This is the essence of American entitlement, particularly among the wealthy and privileged -- the notion that my "right" to ice-cream is of equal (or even greater) importance than your right not to drown.


And do you give up all your ice cream money to donate to the rest of the world so they can build safety rails so they don't drown?

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:12 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly support saving the neighbor's kid over buying mine ice cream. My point still stands though. If my family suffers or is harmed because I neglected them in favor of someone else's family, I've failed my family.
And that's part of the fundamental problem: We conflate our children not getting ice-cream with them suffering grievous harm.

This is the essence of American entitlement, particularly among the wealthy and privileged -- the notion that my "right" to ice-cream is of equal (or even greater) importance than your right not to drown.


And do you give up all your ice cream money to donate to the rest of the world so they can build safety rails so they don't drown?


Hopefully. One of these things is more important than the other, after all.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:14 am UTC

You first then.

Image

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10500
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:20 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Has Steve Roger's defense ever been used to justify something the typical reader would find abhorrent?


No, i'm saying that I'm not a relativist, that there are certain inalienable rights that all people have; and that violating them, regardless of cultural approbation, is wrong.


Do you believe that a person suffering either a debilitating condition or terminal illness should be allowed to choose voluntary euthanasia? If so, "life" is not on the list of inalienable rights. Going by a less literal definition of inalienable, what if the person suffering was not fully capable of making that decision, such as a horrific accident that left them in a permanent coma; could a guardian make that decision for them?

We don't all universally agree on what are and are not rights. We don't all agree on what is and is not moral. You may be doing what you believe is right, and it may turn out to be that there really is only one truly correct moral system and you had been following it perfectly, but if people in general disagree... to them, you are wrong.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests