Let's pool our knowledge: D&D helps D&D Debate and Discuss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's pool our knowledge: D&D helps D&D Debate and Discuss

«‹›151 »

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Would the same sort of argument work for, say, fascism/anti-semitism? "Every individual camp guard may have been motivated by anti-semitism, but on the grand scale, fascism is heterogenous, the majority of Nazi party members do not murder Jews, and you can't ignore the historical and socio-economic aspects of the situation"?

I agree it's too simple to say, Islam automatically becomes the more terroristic the more islamic it becomes, but I also think we should take serious the observation that there is such a thing as Islam, and it's not simply vacuous; that Islam is not accurately described as "a religion of peace".

And if you're discussing this with your friend or forum acquittance or whatever, I'd make sure you get your goal straight. What would you consider a successful discussion - that he embraces cultural relativism? Or historical materialism? Or is it rather that you simply want him to disavow racism and militarism in favour of anti-imperialism, liberalism and cosmopolitanism?

# ? May 16, 2015 00:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 07:20

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Cingulate posted:

Would the same sort of argument work for, say, fascism/anti-semitism?

It's a question of what are Islam's global features? What features are representative of Islam everywhere? I would not include terrorism on a list of such features is where I'm coming from.

quote:

And if you're discussing this with your friend or forum acquittance or whatever, I'd make sure you get your goal straight. What would you consider a successful discussion - that he embraces cultural relativism? Or historical materialism? Or is it rather that you simply want him to disavow racism and militarism in favour of anti-imperialism, liberalism and cosmopolitanism?

I'd be happy if he displayed the same kind of savvy toward Islam that he does toeard other religions. Buddhism in Japan during WWII was used to support the war. Christianity has been used to support eugenics, racism and slavery. Yet he does not take those as representstive of those religions, or as having been caused by those religions, in the same way he sees ISIS or suicide bombing as representative of or caused by Islam. I'd be happy if he, amd others there, at least acknowledged something as basic as Saudi Arabia's contribution to this mess by exportation of salafism / wahhabism, which is particularly nasty amd not because it's just more Islam.

# ? May 16, 2015 03:08

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

One thing that might get you moving in the right direction would be to ask "Is destroying blasphemous artefacts like those found in the city of Nimurd am essential part of Islam?"
If Yes, how were they able to survive 1400 years in an Islamic country? Did they just have better things to do?
If No, then does that suggest that ISIS, in addition to Islamic beliefs, has something extra on top? Something that's definitely compatible, yet distinct from Islam.

# ? May 16, 2015 04:43

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

If you've got a mainstream religion, especially one with a relatively fractuous base filled with sects and divisions, it's possible to make it compatible with basically any idea, even if those ideas seemingly run completely contrary to the apparent core tenets of that religion.

(Reminded me of a good quote from Tommy Douglas, the major founder of socialized medicine in Canada: "[T]he Bible is like a bull fiddle...you can play almost any tune you want on it.")

Vermain fucked around with this message at 05:02 on May 16, 2015

# ? May 16, 2015 04:55

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Accretionist posted:

I'd be happy if he displayed the same kind of savvy toward Islam that he does toeard other religions. Buddhism in Japan during WWII was used to support the war. Christianity has been used to support eugenics, racism and slavery. Yet he does not take those as representstive of those religions, or as having been caused by those religions, in the same way he sees ISIS or suicide bombing as representative of or caused by Islam.

I'll just repeat what I think to be Sam Harris' point: do you think Suzuki and Harada Daiun Sogaku are as representative of (contemporary) Buddhism as the Wahhabism is of contemporary Islam? Sure, Zen at War reminds us that even in superficially non-suspicious cultural forms, violence can become supported. But what does that say about the argument that for those islamic terrorists we have, today, their violence is supported also by their islam?

Really, I think this view that religion is completely shapeless and can be used to prop up almost everything is not a good position to take here. It's fundamentally probably at least approximately true, but it doesn't really capture the situation.

I think, again, the idea that all islam always automatically leads to violence, or that all violence can be traced back to islam, is so silly that it would hardly be a position anybody will defend. But what about its more sensible neighbors?
It's easy tearing down straw men, but the positions actually held by the reactionaries are usually at least a bit more subtle.
And one must be careful with the argument, because the goal is certainly not to defend islam. Islam is poo poo. It's like Christianity, only a bit worse, and Christianity is, taken as a whole, poo poo, and then you just turn up the oppression of women and homosexuals and the sciences up a bit from there - it's really bad. (That's where I'd go if your opponent is sympathetic to the US christian right - yes of course, Islam is bad and has the potential to lead to violence and oppression, we must destroy it, much like Christianity.)

If your opponent is truly defending a position as ludicrous as "all islam always leads to violence", just ask him about any of the peaceful sects, you know them, Ahmadiyya, Sufis, etc. But I don't think that's what anybody you'd spend time arguing with will actually hold as their belief.

# ? May 16, 2015 05:37

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Basically at the moment my favourite line of argument would be a marxist one - yes, we agree, Islam is bad and must end, because it's one of many tools used to hold down and divide the poor, much like western imperialism, Christianity, the patriarchy, capitalism etc.

The reactionaries are not complaining that Muslims are manipulated into being violent. They were absolutely fine with Muslims being violent, when they were manipulated by us into being violent against our enemies, and we still do not care at all if they're being violent within themselves (as the overwhelming majority of islamic terrorism has islamic victims). Theirs is not a liberal, pacifist position. What they are upset about is that Muslims are being manipulated by their own local oppressors, and into being violent against us. Being against islamic violence and oppression is actually a progressive position, the reactionaries are only interested in how much they profit from this violence and oppression.

# ? May 16, 2015 05:44

baw: Nov 5, 2008; RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

Anyone else run into this?

quote:

"The True Black Tragedy," Walter E. Williams, May 20, 2015

Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today's black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let's look at some of it.

Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.

Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

Much of today's pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Black youth unemployment in some cities is over 50 percent. But high black youth unemployment is also new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts � 9.4 percent compared with 10.2.
During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Since the 1960s, both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of black youths have fallen to what they are today. Why? Are employers more racially discriminatory today than yesteryear? Were black youths of yesteryear more skilled than whites of yesteryear? The answer to both questions is a big fat no.

The minimum wage law and other labor regulations have cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If I must pay $7.25 an hour � plus mandated fringes, such as Social Security and workers' compensation � would it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate as to possess skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most employers view that as a losing economic proposition. Thus, the minimum wage law discriminates against the employment of low-skilled workers, who are most often youths � particularly black youths.

The little bit of money a teenager can earn through after-school, weekend and summer employment is not nearly so important as the other things he gains from early work experiences. He acquires skills and develops good work habits, such as being prompt, following orders and respecting supervisors. In addition, there are the self-respect and pride that a youngster gains from being financially semi-independent. All of these gains from early work experiences are important for any teen but are even more important for black teens. If black teens are going to learn anything that will make them a more valuable employee in the future, they aren't going to learn it from their rotten schools, their dysfunctional families or their crime-ridden neighborhoods. They must learn it on the job.

The bulk of today's problems for many blacks are a result of politicians and civil rights organizations using government in the name of helping blacks when in fact they are serving the purposes of powerful interest groups.

The author is an Ayn Rand acolyte who subs for Rush Limbaugh sometimes so I figure it's a bunch of bullshit, but the best that I can point out is that he is mixing cause and effect. The person who posted it is a friend that I usually see eye-to-eye with so I'd like to make a thorough, but diplomatic refutation. The Moynihan Report specifically mentions Jim Crow and segregation as leading to the destruction of the black father figure in the US, and urbanization further eroding the family unit. High birth rates are also pointed to as a spiralling problem, but high birth rates always go along with poverty so it's hard to blame that on the welfare state. Increased welfare spending is a symptom of poverty, not a cause of it. Same with the breakdown of the family unit

The part about minimum wage is also silly and I think linking something like this should make the point very easily.

Any other suggestions?

# ? May 21, 2015 10:02

poopinmymouth: Mar 2, 2005; PROUD 2 B AMERICAN (these colors don't run)

Looking for a quote about drug use.

The gist was that drugs are used as escapism, and that in nations with better social programs and income mobility, drugs are used more in a celebratory manner. (in fact I am nearly positive the word celebratory was used).

My google fu is failing me.

# ? May 21, 2015 10:31

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

baw posted:

... Much of today's pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. ...

This reads so strange from a European perspective. We usually have much more welfare state than in the US, and we don't have those incarceration rates, these terrible murder rates, etc. Like, what is that guy even going on about? I thought the right's talking point is that murder rates in the US are so high because of black people and if there were less black people, the US would be at civilized society/euro levels, but now black people are violent because of the welfare state - so why again are murder rates not through the roof in commie country/euroland?

Also, even within the US, I'd check how a state's welfare net compares to the living circumstances of its black population.

# ? May 21, 2015 11:42

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

poopinmymouth posted:

Looking for a quote about drug use.

The gist was that drugs are used as escapism, and that in nations with better social programs and income mobility, drugs are used more in a celebratory manner. (in fact I am nearly positive the word celebratory was used).

My google fu is failing me.

This might be sort of related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 14:02 on May 21, 2015

# ? May 21, 2015 13:54

poopinmymouth: Mar 2, 2005; PROUD 2 B AMERICAN (these colors don't run)

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

This might be sort of related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

Yeah I posted that Huffpo article about this on my facebook and wanted to followup with the quote but can't find it.

# ? May 21, 2015 14:33

Buried alive: Jun 8, 2009

baw posted:

Anyone else run into this?

The author is an Ayn Rand acolyte who subs for Rush Limbaugh sometimes so I figure it's a bunch of bullshit, but the best that I can point out is that he is mixing cause and effect. The person who posted it is a friend that I usually see eye-to-eye with so I'd like to make a thorough, but diplomatic refutation. The Moynihan Report specifically mentions Jim Crow and segregation as leading to the destruction of the black father figure in the US, and urbanization further eroding the family unit. High birth rates are also pointed to as a spiralling problem, but high birth rates always go along with poverty so it's hard to blame that on the welfare state. Increased welfare spending is a symptom of poverty, not a cause of it. Same with the breakdown of the family unit

The part about minimum wage is also silly and I think linking something like this should make the point very easily.

Any other suggestions?

That's a fairly standard libertarian take on things. Depending on how reasonable he is, you could ask which job it is that's worth a $5.00 per hour wage but not a $7.25 per hour one, especially seeing as the minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation, has remained stagnant over the past 40 years. Bringing up European systems as a counter example is a standard reply. If he's seriously gone in deep then you'll probably have to have a discussion about exactly what 'rationally self-interested' means. I'd also consider asking if he knows of any companies that measure worker productivity per hour in the manner which the article suggests. I certainly can't think of any.

# ? May 21, 2015 14:43

baw: Nov 5, 2008; RESIDENT: LAISSEZ FAIR-SNEZHNEVSKY INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

All good stuff, and I threw in some things about the war on drugs which has really caused the incarceration rate to skyrocket since the 1980s (disproportionately against black people) and which the author completely omits.

# ? May 21, 2015 16:52

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

The Tragedy of the American Military

This was posted in the military history thread over in ask/tell and I thought it might be relevant and/or useful to D&D.

# ? May 21, 2015 19:09

a podcast for cats: Jun 22, 2005; Dogs reading from an artifact buried in the ruins of our civilization, "We were assholes- " and writing solemnly, "They were assholes."; Soiled Meat

I'm running out of steam in a debate whether tax evasion by both individuals and SMEs is justified in an environment of perceived graft and/or incompetence. I've covered the following so far:

- Various iterations of two wrongs don't make a right;
- Tragedy of the commons, in combination with decrease of corruption (according to CPI, etc) in the real world country being discussed over the years;
- Greece, Greece, Greece (not the country being discussed) - both the causes and their endgame;
- Nuances between tax evasion and avoidance, as well as between political ideology, legislative agendas, lobbying and corruption

Anything else I could add to the mix, especially if the persons I'm debating with appear to be disgruntled leftists-in-denial?

edit: SME = Small or Medium Enterprise (10-250 employees).

a podcast for cats fucked around with this message at 07:11 on May 22, 2015

# ? May 22, 2015 06:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Tonton Macoute posted:

I'm running out of steam in a debate whether tax evasion by both individuals and SMEs is justified in an environment of perceived graft and/or incompetence.

What's an SME? Personally as a US citizen, I would think tax evasion is totally ethical. I do pay my taxes, because I would rather do so than face the consequences, but it isn't a moral decision.
edit:
I think there's a fair argument that by registering a business license of whatever sort you're contractually agreeing to pay whatever relevant taxes.

twodot fucked around with this message at 07:20 on May 22, 2015

# ? May 22, 2015 07:06

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

twodot posted:

What's an SME? Personally as a US citizen, I would think tax evasion is totally ethical. I do pay my taxes, because I would rather do so than face the consequences, but it isn't a moral decision.
edit:
I think there's a fair argument that by registering a business license of whatever sort you're contractually agreeing to pay whatever relevant taxes.

Small and Medium Enterprise. More or less anything smaller than Walmart, would be my definition. And yeah, I kinda figured that registering a business, and claiming whatever protection that entitles you to, also comes with an obligation to pay certain taxes.

# ? May 23, 2015 07:12

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

Tonton Macoute posted:

In so far as actual causes and consequences matter to your debate, the phrase to google for if you want to hit up a lot of academic work is "tax morale" or "taxpayer morale".

# ? May 24, 2015 06:08

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

twodot posted:

What's an SME? Personally as a US citizen, I would think tax evasion is totally ethical.

Using services and evading payment is totally ethical. Other ethical behaviors: running out on a restaurant bill, check kiting, shoplifting, counterfeiting...

# ? May 24, 2015 07:44

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

Using services and evading payment is totally ethical. Other ethical behaviors: running out on a restaurant bill, check kiting, shoplifting, counterfeiting...

Those other services actually gave you the thing you paid for though. The US charges pretty huge amounts of taxes and most of it's citizens get almost nothing from them at all, it all goes towards Lockheed Martin, the baby boomers, the military, the war on drugs, etc.

I think evading your taxes is ethically wrong in a real country that gives a poo poo about it's people, but in the US? Not really.

# ? May 24, 2015 12:38

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

ChairMaster posted:

Those other services actually gave you the thing you paid for though. The US charges pretty huge amounts of taxes and most of it's citizens get almost nothing from them at all, it all goes towards Lockheed Martin, the baby boomers, the military, the war on drugs, etc.

I think evading your taxes is ethically wrong in a real country that gives a poo poo about it's people, but in the US? Not really.

This is trivially untrue, as even the briefest look at a spending breakdown would suggest. Healthcare and social security are the two largest spending areas, adding up to ~ 1/2 of the entire budget.

Minimising tax paid in legitimate ways is ethnically acceptable but taxation is a fundamental requirement for basic functioning of society and for the provision of basic services.

The war on drugs costs gently caress all comparatively.

If you want to turn it in to a protest have the guts to say so and go down for it, but otherwise you may as well consider your tax dollars primarily spent on social services.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:49 on May 24, 2015

# ? May 24, 2015 12:46

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Disinterested posted:

This is trivially untrue, as even the briefest look at a spending breakdown would suggest. Healthcare and social security are the two largest spending areas, adding up to ~ 1/2 of the entire budget.

Minimising tax paid in legitimate ways is ethnically acceptable but taxation is a fundamental requirement for basic functioning of society and for the provision of basic services.

The war on drugs costs gently caress all comparatively.

If you want to turn it in to a protest have the guts to say so and go down for it, but otherwise you may as well consider your tax dollars primarily spent on social services.

That's what I meant by baby boomers, all that money goes to old people.

# ? May 24, 2015 12:54

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

ChairMaster posted:

That's what I meant by baby boomers, all that money goes to old people.

If you're going to get salty about pensions and healthcare then I'm not sure I'm interested in living in the same society as you anyway, so enjoy outlawry I guess.

# ? May 24, 2015 12:57

ChairMaster: Aug 22, 2009; by R. Guyovich

Disinterested posted:

If you're going to get salty about pensions and healthcare then I'm not sure I'm interested in living in the same society as you anyway, so enjoy outlawry I guess.

I'd be okay with it if those programs were gonna exist by the time anyone my age would be able to benefit from them, but that seems a foolish thing to expect.

Maybe if America had universal healthcare I'd buy that all those taxes are being used for something useful, but right now all I can see is a big sloppy blowjob being given to huge insurance companies, paid for by American taxes.

# ? May 24, 2015 13:22

Kugyou no Tenshi: Nov 8, 2005; We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?

ChairMaster posted:

I'd be okay with it if those programs were gonna exist by the time anyone my age would be able to benefit from them, but that seems a foolish thing to expect.

Maybe if America had universal healthcare I'd buy that all those taxes are being used for something useful, but right now all I can see is a big sloppy blowjob being given to huge insurance companies, paid for by American taxes.

Hey, guess which party hates universal healthcare, which party funnels money into the programs you take issue with, and which party hates taxation to the point where they'll cut taxes and then start threatening to cut social programs because they're magically "underfunded"? I'll give you a hint - it's the same loving party. Normally I wouldn't push the partisan angle, your logic is so GOP.txt ("taxes are bad because I don't like where they go, so I need less taxation to 'starve the beast' which will somehow magically not murder the programs I like") that it's laughable.

While we're at it, the US has a minuscule individual tax rate compared to other first-world nations - the US's highest nominal individual tax burden is (by my count) 6th in the world if you count combined federal, state, and local (and that only applies in the few locations where all three apply at their highest rates), and 31st if you only count federal (coming in just behind Taiwan and ahead of South Korea). Most people in that highest tax bracket pay nothing comparable to the actual tax rate for their income, because there is a large system of exemptions and loopholes that can be used to reduce your taxable income that only get easier to exploit with a higher income. Never mind that during the eras in which the social programs you claim to care about were at their peak, our tax rate was so very much higher. So go on, do tell us again how evading your taxes is "ethical" because doing so will somehow make that change. :allears:

Or don't, because your logic is on a cognitive level somewhere between Mises.org and Dick and Jane Primers.

# ? May 24, 2015 14:30

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

ChairMaster posted:

I'd be okay with it if those programs were gonna exist by the time anyone my age would be able to benefit from them, but that seems a foolish thing to expect.

Thanks for literally parroting 50 year old conservative propaganda.

# ? May 24, 2015 14:31

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Fun fact, the US population isn't growing and has actually leveled off except for immigration, so there actually is a certain amount we could pay into the social security system that would sustain it at its current level forever that isn't infinity dollars.

I mean we're not doing that because it's easier to cut it by bleeding it dry and then complaining when it's not working but the idea that it's somehow inherently unsustainable and will collapse is unfounded.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:01

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Fun fact, the US population isn't growing and has actually leveled off except for immigration, so there actually is a certain amount we could pay into the social security system that would sustain it at its current level forever that isn't infinity dollars.

I mean we're not doing that because it's easier to cut it by bleeding it dry and then complaining when it's not working but the idea that it's somehow inherently unsustainable and will collapse is unfounded.

Yeah the UK and the USA have big immigration influxes for now that are stemming the structural age problems that countries like Japan and Germany are having or will have.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:03

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Various countries' demographic policies are a pretty interesting subject

you have some countries (US, UK) that rely on immigration to do the job, some countries (russia) that try to make motherhood more attractive, some countries (france, sweden) that do a mix and then you have those countries that don't really do either

i have no idea why they think this is a good idea

# ? May 24, 2015 18:10

LLSix: Jan 20, 2010; The real power behind countless overlords

V. Illych L. posted:

Various countries' demographic policies are a pretty interesting subject

you have some countries (US, UK) that rely on immigration to do the job, some countries (russia) that try to make motherhood more attractive, some countries (france, sweden) that do a mix and then you have those countries that don't really do either

i have no idea why they think this is a good idea

It's not like US politicians want immigration either. Does any country actually have a coherent demographic policy? I don't think I've ever heard a politician talk about it in those terms.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:13

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

LLSix posted:

It's not like US politicians want immigration either. Does any country actually have a coherent demographic policy? I don't think I've ever heard a politician talk about it in those terms.

China.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:16

FISHMANPET: Mar 3, 2007; Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams

Isn't social security easier with a growing population? In theory you'd always have proportionally more workers paying in than retirees taking out.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:18

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

FISHMANPET posted:

Isn't social security easier with a growing population? In theory you'd always have proportionally more workers paying in than retirees taking out.

The thing that matters is the structure of the age groups, so big humps in growth effect the payments to outgoings ratios at different times.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

Using services and evading payment is totally ethical. Other ethical behaviors: running out on a restaurant bill, check kiting, shoplifting, counterfeiting...

You really love stupid analogies. Let's suppose going to a restaurant and working in a country are at all comparable. If I went to a restaurant to pay people money to eat food, but found out that while they were indeed giving me the food I was planning on paying for, they were also on side murdering people for no discernible ethical reason, then yes, running out on the bill would be totally ethical.
edit:
You also love failing to actually make a point.

# ? May 24, 2015 18:20

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

LLSix posted:

It's not like US politicians want immigration either. Does any country actually have a coherent demographic policy? I don't think I've ever heard a politician talk about it in those terms.

eh, you can rail against immigration without actually wanting to stop it. trump's insane wall of burning tires could become a reality if the full resources of the federal state of the USA were unleashed on the situation - or they could put the border area under martial law, or whatever. it's not a problem that can't be solved, it's a problem that US politicians don't generally want to solve

demographic issues are definitely a Thing - Russia, in particular, had an absolutely cratering fecundity during the nineties and early noughties, and took specific measures to address that which seem to have worked, sort of. france and scandinavia are both bending over backwards to accommodate their women have children, though by very different methods, with an explicit or implicit justification in demographic concerns - if it constitutes a "coherent" policy i leave to you, but it is certainly part of their thinking on these issues

# ? May 24, 2015 18:32

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

US immigration policies have traditionally been focused around two ideas:

1. Guest worker programs (specifically those where men come over but the women & children don't)

2. Not immediately evicting people who come over and their kids/grandkids are US citizens so welp

The latter program is what most people think of as pro-immigrant and is confined to the Democratic Party. The former is popular among pro-business people and has been used for quite some time (Braceros, etc).

# ? May 24, 2015 18:35

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

twodot posted:

You really love stupid analogies. Let's suppose going to a restaurant and working in a country are at all comparable. If I went to a restaurant to pay people money to eat food, but found out that while they were indeed giving me the food I was planning on paying for, they were also on side murdering people for no discernible ethical reason, then yes, running out on the bill would be totally ethical.
edit:
You also love failing to actually make a point.

This is interesting. Wal-Mart uses slave labor: okay to shoplift there?

# ? May 24, 2015 18:44

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

ChairMaster posted:

I'd be okay with it if those programs were gonna exist by the time anyone my age would be able to benefit from them, but that seems a foolish thing to expect.

Maybe if America had universal healthcare I'd buy that all those taxes are being used for something useful, but right now all I can see is a big sloppy blowjob being given to huge insurance companies, paid for by American taxes.

Conservatives are trying to gently caress up our government by slashing revenue and using that as an excuse to further gut the programs they need...and your reaction is to...agree with them that we should cut taxes?

E: and what do you mean you don't benefit from taxes? Did you get cholera from your tap water? Do you have to hike to work through the wilderness? Do uncontrolled fires rage in your neighborhood? Have you had to educate yourself by candlelight because there are no schools?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:48 on May 24, 2015

# ? May 24, 2015 18:46