Ramshutu

Why? Do mention of race and color make you uncomfortable?

If the references being made are inaccurate (which in context this is not), or are making implicit or inherent value judgements (which it is not) - what is the problem.

Trying to sanitize conversation and dialog to prevent the inclusion or reference to race sounds a bit like eradicating Racism through Newspeak

Let’s not mention issues of race and color and we remove the ability to recognize and appreciate Racism within political dialog.

Ahh excellent; so everything she said was valid, Tucker Carlson was deliberately misrepresenting her position: your only issue is that you don’t like the way she referenced People from Central and South America, and presumably other immigrants from other cultural nations as “people of colour”.

Firstly, there is nothing about referencing communities of color as such that implies that all of them are oppressed groups, this appears to be mostly invented by yourself; perhaps because you have your own particular narrative of race politics to push and you see it everywhere.

Referring to minority communities in this way as the one most effect is largely related to the fact that they are the ones most affected red.

We could go down the road of pretending that your appeal to political correctness is sincere; by taking issue at perceived inaccuracies; but the issue is that it appears only to be you who is inferring some racial judgement. The implication being made here, is that it is typically communities of colour that suffer from these sort of problem. Not that they all do. 

That is broadly accurate implication in context, and doesn’t unfairly or inaccurately portray the scenario.

Why you seem to be leaping to inferring a value judgement here, seems to be all down to your own interpretation drawn seemingly to reject the messenger under the guise of fairness.

Given that this is a debate website, where the exchange of discussion and ideas: if you have some intelligent feedback to offer, by all means.

Simply name calling instead of addressing any of the issues is meaningless, and proves nothing other than you do not appear be willing or able to refute what is being offered.

Please explain to me where, exactly, the logical flaw in the following argument is:

P1: If your God exists, the universe we see would be the best possible universe

P2: The universe is not the best possible universe

C: Your God doesn’t exist.

I can quite happily point you in the direction of the logical error you make:

P1: God is reality.

P2: Reality exists.

C: God exists.

The error you make; is that God is not ONLY reality, he has a mind, will, powers. While we can tell reality exists, we can’t tell whether the reality has a mind, will or powers: so it doesn’t justify the conclusion that god exists.

I can rephrase your argument simply:

P1: Superpowerful Chuck Norris is Reality

P2: Reality exists.

C: Superpoweful Chuck Norris exists.

The reason Chuck Norris fails is the same as why your argument fails.

So, ignoring the practical matters here already discussed, let’s talk about basic economics.

Those on lower incomes tend to spend much of their available income on things like food, accommodation, gas, necessities, etc.

Those on higher incomes will spend but they tend to invest and save the majority of their money.

What this means, is that strangling the available income of lower and middle income families currently paying less than 12,000 dollars in tax is going to strangle income going to businesses providing goods and services. This is related to the velocity of money. $100 in the hands of the low income gets spent rapidly, the companies where they spend it tens to be low margin (eg Walmart), and have low pay employees, meaning that in a year that $100 has been spent multiple times.

$100 in the hands of a billionaire, tends to go towards buying stocks, bonds and financial instruments. While IPOs will generate cash that will get spent, investing into stock mostly just transfers money between individuals and generates economic activity much more slowly.

If stop and shops have less income from food, gas, stops as the low income users of these goods and services use them less - this means that you will have closures and layoffs due to decreased income.


This means that such a tax would be devastating for the US economy. The lack of income would mean that retail and low level service sectors in the US would contract massively. Layoffs would be substantial, completely undermining the ability to offer full employment, and eliminating the ability for the US to pay it bills.

Worse, those owning property for rent; will find their property massively dropping in value - the number of renters will fall due to lack of ability to pay. This means the potential income from a house drops as does its value. As tens of millions of individuals now cannot afford a home any longer, the number of homes vastly outweighs the number of people that can afford them and house prices collapse.

Those who own a home for rent are forced to either sell at a loss, eat bankruptcy and foreclosure; those that bought cheap may lower their rental prices but earn less and have less money to spend contracting the economy further.

The middle class that own their homes - faced with a major recession and collapsing house prices either have to eat bankruptcy also, or eat massive levels of negative equity in their homes (During the Great Recession - many simply decided to go bankrupt, and then rent - passing the cost onto the bank).

The banking sector - which still trades mortgage backed securities - collapses as current regulations and stress tests do not envisage the apocalyptic scenario of tens of millions being unable to afford their house all at once.

The stock market collapses and wipes the majority of wealth from the high income individuals.

The lack of available lending and loans, prevents small businesses from starting up or expanding, crippling the economy and preventing economic growth from resolving the issue.

The US enters a downward spiral due to deflation from falling prices, and increasing unemployment, and as a result the US government is unable to raise income from the unemployed, the US enters a second great depression.

Other countries have a more progressive tax systems are able to recover faster whilst the US languishes. Due to US deflation (caused by falling values caused by supply and demand forcing down prices), millionaires and billionaires transfer their wealth into more stable currencies and countries - causing the dollar to collapse in value. For the first time, the US experiences a brain drain of highly educated individuals leaving the Us as the overall quality of life and standard of living crater. 

The issue of Abortion is akin to the issue of consent for Transfusions, or living organ or tissue donations.

I can consent to activities and to operations to remove parts of my liver, a kidney, blood and bone marrow: I can withdraw consent at any time because it’s my body and I can chose what I do with it.

I can chose to withdraw consent to be a bone marrow donor with a needle in my arm; even though it could cause the death of the insividual that marrow was destined to treat. The same goes for partial liver or kidney transplants.

My body is my own, after all.

What is worse, and is the most utterly contemptuous hypocrisy, is that the side most vociferously supporting the unborn child, are the ones most vociferously protesting all the ways in which the situations for women and mothers can be improved. no abortion for you - but we’re also not going to give you any paid maternal leave, or cover your healthcare, or your child care, or help educate you on contraception, or allow you to take the morning after Pill, or force your employers to cover those on their insurance... we care just enough to make you give birth, but after that we don’t care any more.

So AOC pointed out that when running local environmental projects like growing fruit and veg in areas for ethnic and cultural minorities, the way it will work best is to go in with an understanding that they have their own cultural food, palette and food knowledge. Going in and expecting these minorities to grow, cook and enjoy food they’re not accustomed to, causes push back to those projects.

I know, shock horror; may as well get out the pitchforks!

AOC is pointing out a particularly mentality - a dominant culture going to an area of a cultural minority, and pushing their own foods, processes and methods without any thought or consideration that other cultures may have different preferences; is pretty much what I would consider a “colonial mindset”. It’s the implicit assumption - even though sometimes well intentioned - that their own cultural norms are better and would necessarily be acceptable to all.

She may as well be suggesting that we replace footballs with Babies, oh the outrage!

And again, while the angry rage troll Tucker Carlson wants to whip you all up into a mastabatory frenzy, by lying and misrepresenting the positions of others so that the conservatives don’t have to form opinions or weigh complex cultural issues by themselves; I find it hilarious that the right is so threatened by yet another woman.

 

I'm really torn here: either he is the most naive and clueless individual I have met in 20 years in the internet, or he is the best and most consistently in character Troll I have seen in those same 20 years. 

Firstly, I’m not talking about whether cake or ice cream are better. The idea that all judgements are subjective as you’re implying is odd, and frankly a bit illogical. The important aspect as I pointed out: I’m not using my criteria to Judge - I’m using the goals religion tells me about God. If God values fairness, justice, doesn’t want people to suffer unnecessarily- if I can imagine a more jist universe with less suffering (but still allows for sin and free wil) - that value is measured off the value the religion gives me.

What should generally happen, is with a potential universe, you shoul be able to find plausible reasons why the universe isn’t better. 

I suspect you know you wont be able to do that; hence why you’re arguing that in a universe where Hod exists, and objective morality is a thing - somehow humans are unable to make objective value judgements using Gods objective rules.

Begging the question is where the Conclusion is being assumed in the premise. That’s not what’s happening here. Assuming “better” is impossible to determine; and then conclude “you can’t show X is better than Y” is assumed in the premise you’ve taken. 

That is begging the question.

Again; I’m using Gods own goals, and own principles the value by which I’m judging the universe.

Are those “objective” values to use? Religious people like yourself seem to think so.

You could argue that it’s impossible for humans to use Gods goals to make objective value judgements. 

That destroys the objective morality argument completely - if no one can objectively quantify morality, how can you say it’s objective?

The reality of it, is pretty simple. If minimizing overall pain is a goal, while I cannot say whether a paper cut is better or worse than a stubbed toe; I can objectively tell that a flicked ear is better than a broken leg.

In the same vain: explain to me what purpose is served objectively by the existence of paedophilia, if God simply didn’t include the ability to be sexually attracted to children in humans - the same way he doesn’t include the ability to be sexually aroused by pulling your intestines out through your nose; what aspect of justice and elimination of unnecessary suffering is not made better? How is any of the red lines of God - free will, etc, affected by that?

Remember - you can’t beg the question by presuming that there must be some explanation no matter how obscure and obtuse (assumed because you conclude God exists)

So, you believe you are capable of making sense of better; yet you arbitrarily assert that I am unable to assess the same?

So: let’s ignore for the moment the nonsensical assertion that it’s not possible to have goals without God. That is a new one for me, I quite like the way you offer no explanation or logic for that claim. 

I want to run a 20 minute 5k, I don’t need god to exist in order to show that  24 minutes is better than 25.

So lets say you have your God, and you have a list of Goals you feel God has.

If God is real, then I should not be able to imagine a better universe. Even assuming your absurd “goals are because of God” is true, that means if I can think of better, then your God doesn’t exist. If I can think of an objectively better world using your Gods goals, indeed, it would demonstrate both claims about god and goals are both wrong.

Again; I don’t entirely know what planet you’re on: but the concept here is that if your God exists, I should not be able

to imagine a universe that better fulfills the goals attributed to him. If I can, that God cannot exists.

I’m not actually going to create a universe, and it doesn’t matter how much you irrationally scream that God is reality and so exists: if I can imagine better, your god isnt real.

I’m not going to go down the insane irrational Circular rabbit hole where you assert that God is reality.

Reality is reality. Whether it is God or not depends on what you can prove, not how loudly you can shout that God is reality.

Unfortunately, as your God appears unable to create a universe that is as good as mine at meeting his own goals - it is probable that yoe God cannot exist; and therefore the ultimate reality cannot be your God.

What standard do I use at judging why is better? The very standards the religious give me about God’s desires and wants. This is not operating in a vacuum driven by my opinions - that’s the point.

If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist. 

In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”. 

The beauty of the argument is that I’m not appealing to my sense of aesthetics, but to Gods.

If I can do better than your God at meeting his desires - your god doesn’t exist. Something else would be “the ultimate reality”. But kudos on the ridiculous circular argument.

You seem to be irrationally misunderstanding the nature of the argument.

I’m not saying I’m smarter than God; I’m saying that if I can imagine a better universe that better serves the properties of your God - than your God can’t exist - no matter how many times you irrationally shout at how he is the ultimate reality.

If can do better, your God can’t exist.

I’m saying that if I can think of a better universe than the Christian God can, then the Christian God cannot exist.

You’re missing a key issue.

You’re implicitly claiming that God is smarter than me, and made the perfect universe.

I can prove that this implicit claim is untrue - which means that your claimed God can not logically exist - no matter how much you emphatically shout at how true it is.

You believe in be Christian God. That has limited scope and meaning, and limited only in marrow imterpretational differences.

While there are differences in orthodoxy and regular Christianity, they’re within the same umbrella: God is loving to some degree, free will is important, suffering has a necessary purpose.

As a result, if I can make a better universe for what you think God wants; your God does not and cannot exist - no matter what other nonsense arguments you make.

If God’s the predicate for Moral realism, and we find a scenario that is objectively better - then God doesn’t exist and he isn’t the predicate for moral realism.

Well, no; most flavours of Christianity are based off various concepts of free will, suffering has some benefit to some degree. The big issues are one of God being loving, just; wanting you to believe him with faith, and a whole variety of options in between. There’s variations in hell being eternal, hell being simply death, individuals just needing belief, or needing to be good people too, At its core all flavours of Christianity have some variation of the above; and explanations for evil and suffering that are mostly identical to Ngarmis above. 

Given that your beliefs will fall under that broad umbrella - it most assuredly would be disprovable through that same umbrella.

However, of course, asking you to to come up with your own goals andandatss is more of a specific challenge to you about how much you’ve bothered to actually justify your own faith - which I suspect is very little.

You tell me.

So, you’ve actually raised three subtly different points:

1.) Bad things can happen from Good things.

2.) If free will exists, there needs to be inperfection.

3.) You need temptation and the possibly of sin to be saved.

So let’s presume that’s all true - we should presume that the universe does all of that perfectly without introducing any unnecessary suffering. Let’s take a couple of specific examples:

Loa Loa filariasis is a type of endemic parasite that lives in people’s eyes and makes them go blind, this has little to do with free will, as it’s not related to anyone’s actions. Given that it affects millions, the overall harm and suffering it presents to individuals over the centuries doesn’t appear to be commensurate to any of the positives that can be gained over eyesight loss being, say, temporary. No?

Likewise, Volcanoes - they largely just kill people who live nearby indiscriminately, while a few hero stories of people who made it out are nice: there’s not a great deal of Good that can come out an obliterated town.

Likewise Paedophilia. While people need to have free will in this Godly universe, there’s no necessity in any scenario for human adults to be sexually attracted children to the extent that they are driven to rape and murder three year olds.

If these three options are the goals: then by all means, jealous, anger, murder, assault: but those at sinful temptations enough, why bother adding drive to rape children to some individuals on top of all that? 

1.) So lets have a universe where any bad event, always have multiple individuals in a place or location to render aid or assistance; to allow humans to decide to be good, and allow all suffering to lead to a good outcome through the actions of others. Natural disasters only ever displace people, rendering them reliant on others rather than outright kill them. No pointless suffering for which there’s little objective chance of resolution.

2.) So no child rape and torture - humans kill, mame, and can still sin, no problems!

3.) The possibility of sin and free will are still there, just pointless suffering is removed.

The issue with Felix Culpa is that it’s a naive excuse and dismissive non explanation for the state of the world; in reality, humans could design better scenarios and situations.

If it helps try reading some of his posts in Gollum’s voice

What about these patterns?

Well, if you had paid attention to the last dozen or so posts, you would find that my answers to these patterns are:

1.) They are based on arbitrary units, arbitrary rounding, and are in some cases based on completely incorrect values.

2.) Using the actual real values, or rounding. there is no match for these tangents at all.

3.) In almost all of the examples the “values” selected differ depending on they’re measured, and chance over time: and you have arbitrarily asserted with no evidence that despite this the values are all as you stated

4.) If God actually gave two shits about cosmological values and their significance, then any idiot could have done a better job of indicating them.

5.) You’re cherry picking all your data, as you’re deliberately picking values that agree with you and excluding the ones that don’t.

6.) Humans find patterns in noise: finding a pattern intuitive, that fails on all the above issues means nothing.

I have been specifically dealing with your tangents throughout; that you have no intelligible answer to any of the main issues does not mean I have ignored your OP or your link.

You’re doing the equivalent of saying God exists because a bird shit in your mouth and not in your eye.

Yes: did you pay any attention to what I said about:

1.) Arbitrary cherry picking, ignoring data that doesn’t agree with it, and having arbitrary rounded values (and flat out wrong values - you keep failing to respond to that one).

2.) Why on earth do you believe God is so stupid that he sought to encode magic numbers: yet there are infinitely better ways of doing this - indicating you are arguing God is stupid

It’s not your inability to explain that is the problem: it is that the actions your claiming of God are so absurd compared to his possible actions.

Its like arguing that “God loves me so much that when a Bird pooped on me, he made it land in my mouth rather than my eye”.

The obvious answer is “well, surely if he loved you he would have made the bird not poop on you at all”.

Would you really respond the same way in that example?

Your answer here, and in this theoretical example are just as absurd - and for the same reason.

That you “feel” something intutively is meaningless, and pretty much cast iron proof it’s nothing to do with God. Humans intutively feel things that aren’t true all the time - it’s LITERALLY the cause of every problem humanity faces right now.

I think I shared this ages ago on DDO, but is worth restating here as it’s an interesting argument. Here it goes:

With the presupposition that God has the power to create the universe as he chooses, and is smarter than Humans:

1.) Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe, and inherent properties (just, loving)). If a human can postulate a better universe that better matches those properties and fulfills those goals - that God does not exist.

2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist.

And the final speculative thesis:

3.) There are no goals and properties one could speculate of god for which this universe is the most optimal solution. Therefore no Gods exist that match the listed presuppositions.

And yet you are arguing that God is acting in a stupid way.

Well no, you’re implicitly accusing the creator of being stupid.

For example, if I was the divine creator and wanted to create the universe with meaningful parameters, I would be stupid to make them arbitrary, in miles, and only some of them. That would be like being shipwrecked and trying to signal an Aeroplane by arranging rocks in random patterns.

If a divine creator wanted to make meaningful patterns, why not make Venus exactly twice the orbital radius of mercury, earth 3, mars 5, Jupiter 7, Saturn 11, Uranus 13, Neptune 17, Pluto 19, then other major rocky bodies at 23, 29, 31, etc. Why not make the orbits perfectly circular, and exact multiples of those numbers?

Mass of The planets in size order being 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31 etc (with no natural loss of mass).

That he didn’t indicate creation this way indicates you think he’s stupid.

What I don’t understand. Is why you think the divine creator is so stupid

No they aren’t.

The patterns are almost real, for some of the values.

You even got one value completely wrong.

Or you're just seeing random numbers and random patterns, and manufacturing a mystical source you want to find through cherry picking.

The diameter of the moon is 2158.8 miles

The diameter of the sun is 864,240 miles

So neither of those to values are sacred numbers.

Its not that I’m choosing not to see things; it’s that you using inaccurate values.

I can say that diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. The earth to the moon is 240,000 mile. The speed of the sun is 490,000 miles, the diameter of the sun is 860,000 miles.

I could repeat the exercise in cubits or kilometres.

None of those match your sacred numbers, and there is no reason why you can claim your approximations and selected numbers are an. More valid.

At best you can say, if you approximate the values in the right units, the half dozen parameters are within 10% of some value I’ve arbitrarily

selected as “sacred”, and none of the others are, nor are the selected ones at other times in history.

That’s obviously cherry picking.

So God uses imperial units, good job we managed to exactly guess the exact units God had in his head when designing earth! Good to know that cubits, or kilometres are the devils work.

God Also apparently works in base 10, and sometimes rounds to 3 significant figures, sometimes to 4. That God huh!

While I also find your baseless assertion that the earth was “obviously designed” to be 7920 miles in diameter, where is your evidence for that claim? I call bullsh*t. When was the earth 7920 miles in diameter. What was the distance of the moon at that point: both have changed; the latter substantially.

You’re significantly off in the speed of the sun though, nearly 10% off. Has that changed too? How do you know?

what about the diameter of the moon, the speed of the earth and the moon, the size and shape of our orbit? Where all those things holding a magic value and have changed.

No: you are speculating that the values you’ve selected are magic. They’re are inaccurate, dependent on units, and are arbitrarily selected

over hundreds of other such values that don’t have the relationship.

Now that it’s shown they are arbitrary and inaccurate, you’re now straying from facts, and now just inventing nonsense speculation, to explain why your initial statements can still be correct - even though they aren’t.

 This is just pseudoscientific nonsense.

Those “sacred numbers”, are based on inexact rounded numbers - rounded by different amounts, one of which is flat out wrong: and all of which only work if you select “miles”, as is you arbitrarily decide to use kilometres, it doesn’t work.

It’s cherry picking.

You’re deliberately excluding all values that don’t work, the units that don’t work, and selecting different rounding values to make your claims closer - but still not exact.

You’re trying to see things that aren’t really there.

Since when was “randomly selected google search results” sacred?

If you’re going for truly sacred, why are you using imperial miles? Isn’t km more sacred. How about cubits for that matter,

Picking a half dozen arbitrary properties, rounding some to 3SF Some in 4SF, some plain wrong - and all rounded in some arbitrarily selected unit and then claimed to related approximately - not exactly to some predefined values is not evidence of anything much.

What about velocity of the earth, or the diameter of the moon, or the circumference of the moon or the sun for that matter, or the radius of earth’s orbit, or the distance of earth’s orbit, or the distance of L1, L2, L3, L4 lagrangian points from the earth?

You're trying to establish a pattern, by squeezing some numbers that are close to agree with you; and ignoring all of the others. Good old fashioned cherry picking!

The numbers you’ve used aren’t accurate.

It’s actually 7917.5 miles. 

24,901

225,263 miles at its closest

252,088 at its furthest.

The average is 238,855 

Actually 196,900,000 square miles.

It all depends on what you want to show.

I think the win percentage showing the number of debates you have won is good. 

Omar’s idea, is the percentage of debates you didn’t lose (which is not the same).

I think you have two real options. Leave it alone, or make it a WLT percentage:

In your example this would show

”40% / 0% / 60%

About the same time he lived on nothing but stop and shop sandwiches, worked 12 hour days, gave up his children for adoption, and begged nearby home owners for showers.

You only need the two week option for Round 3 :)

Yes it would; it’s a fairly common forum feature in many plaves, it’s quite handy :)

the same reason he blocks everyone

So let’s cover the reality once again in detail - you don’t seem to be able to answer these other than to deny themz

1.) Mass exodus of those in poverty from their housing, creating tent cities and shanty towns which create substantial crime, gangs, drug addiction; have poor sanitation and generate substantial health problems. (This happens with favelas and slums today)

2.) The government will force low income families to give away the children they can’t afford, or force them into labor camps to work 16 hour days to pay off any government debt and expenditure. (This is your policy)

3.) Suicide and addiction levels will skyrocket due to increased stress, overwork, lost children and the impact of massive working hours on social lives. (This happens today with those under major stress and in poverty - you’d be making it work)

4.) The concurrent double whammy of increased taxes and decreased welfare will push many into extreme poverty. Those above the poverty line will be pushed downwards into extreme poverty. Those at the bottom already struggling need to cross their fingers and hope they can find more jobs.  (This is the impact of your policy)

5.) Millions who are unable to find local work, or are laid off and can’t easily find replacement work; due to not enough stop-and-shops, or the sudden millions of people in areas of high unemployment competing for thousand spots of employment, now become desperate. Students, those unable to find employment, the disabled, those with long term illnesses and those already working two jobs, together with those unwilling or unable to up their hours (work won’t allow it, too much competition for available hours, etc) are unable to pay their taxes. (This is the nature of US employment right now, the US needs to add millions of low paid job hours across the country in areas of high unemployment rather than adding them unequally in various areas).

6.) The rates of insured people plummet due to increased poverty. Infant and child malnutrition rises, health issues relating to poor malnutrition, increased addiction, and stress began decreasing the life expectancy of those below the poverty line. (This is what happens now)

7.) Illnesses such as cholera spread through slums and tent cities due to lack of adequate sanitation. Those in the cities find it hard to find work due to the stigma of living in these areas. (This is what happens in slums and favellas now)

8.) Waves is arrests of people unable to pay their taxes; taking the unemployed and those in extreme poverty. People are sent to makeshift forced labour camps; pending trial due to lack of capacity. Outcry as deaths due to overwork, torture and abuse from the hastily hired and poorly trained labour camp guards due to being unable to ramp up the prison industrial complex to cope with the number of new people. (This is what has happened in many places in the past, ramping up law enforcement and those in a position of authority often has limited over site and leads to abuses)

9.) Foster care collapses with the millions of new children and not enough willing foster parents. Orphanages and care facilities cannot hire enough trained care givers, together with a lack of available resources leads to the abuse and neglect of hundreds of thousands of children - leading to major long term mental health issues for a generation. This leads to a generation more likely to remain in the same poverty. (Health consequences are what happens now, the rest has happened in Romania in the past, and is highly likely due to there already being a shortage of foster careers, leave alone if there is a major 10-20 times uptick in children requiring it.)

10.) Prison, arrest, tracking and management of millions of new prisoners; together with falling tax income due to tens of millions being unable to pay causes instability. Barter and black market in shanty towns supplants legitimate work, lack of identification and tracability of those living in slums makes it impossible for the government to easily track down those delinquent on taxes. Government cost increases with new law enforcement, Tax shortfall from those not paying drives up the deficit. (This happens today in slums, the rest is a consequence)

Capital begin flees the US due to instability and unrest: Billionaires flee the US, hold off investing in the US. Worldwide boycotts of the us government and associated products due to the outrageous new laws begin harming the US economy, former allies sanction us government officials. (This type of thing happens today)

11.) Widespread civil unrest as individual stories of abuse and death in prison camps, sit over and above the building resentment at the forced mass arrests of the American population and the perceived unfairness of a rich ruling class breaking the backs of hard working Americans who are arrested for being poor. Protests turn violent, with armed clashes with police; shanty towns become no go zones. Popular revolt over throws the government with military support (due to low income backgrounds of many) mass arrested prison populations released; provisional government rolls backs taxes: prominent conservatives responsible for the inhumane policies are tried and convicted of terrorism against Americans and expected.(This happens repeatedly when income inequality becomes substantial - and has occurred multiple times)

Unfortunately, on the one hand, what we see happening today and in the past in similar situations tells us your ideas are stupid and would end up destroying the USA. On the other hand, you’re telling us it won’t happen because people can buy sandwiches and will happily give up their kids.

Your plan is bad, and you should feel bad

Easy there Stalin.

Parents aren’t going to pay taxes if the choice is definitely lose your home and kids - or not pay tax and maybe lose your home and kids in a year’s time. Literally anyone in that position chooses the second.

This is not even going into enforcement: you can’t arrest anyone if you don’t know where they are. You can’t incarcerate anyone if the police think the law is unfair (which given that the law is been handed down by an authoritarian psychopath who doesn’t mind destroying a generation of children, because he views other humans as parasites), you don’t have the capacity to hold them, or to give them trials, and few judges are going to demand a family in abject poverty go to jail for not paying a tax they can’t afford.

And even if you do manage to send them to jail; how are you going to ramp up prison time; forced labor camps? A Gulag where peope are forced to work 16 hour days and fed sandwiches?

Basically, your plan is to take the most vulnerable individuals in society - demanding they give up their children, work 12 hour days, abandon their homes and live in tents - otherwise the ruling regime will arrest them and send them to forced labor camps.

And no: these aren’t dropped points - you’re literally responding with nonsensical and unintelligeable clap trap that has no possibility of working.

Theres no point in me addressing every line you’re writing because none of them are answering the key points I’m making. 

The world and humans don’t work the way you claim; and I can go through each line one by one and tell you they’re dumb and people don’t work like that, but quite frankly it’s better just to point out the core fallacy that you keep refusing to address.

But quite frankly, if you don’t get that parents don’t just give up their children, there’s probably no way of fixing you’re level stupid.

I think you should ask, say, any other human on the planet whether the idea is good or not: I’m sure it will be close to unanimous.

People will always break the law of the alternative consequences to breaking the law is preferable to not breaking the law.

Not paying taxes in order to not Lose your home, your kids, and working 12 hour days 360 days a year seems a pretty preferable.

I’m finding this hilarious: are you 14? Because your understanding of human nature sort of implies you live under a rock.

This plan isn’t right wing. I don’t know what it is, as I’m pretty sure “retarded” isn’t a wing.

Every single one of your absurd explanations for how human beings are going to live appears to start with:

“They can just...”

They “could”.

What you don’t get, is that they’re not going to.

People aren’t going to voluntarily move into tents, they’re not going to give up their children. They’re not going to get a 12 hour day 360 days a year job. They’re not going to live off sandwiches.

Why?

Because they are human beings. You ridiculous idiot.

If any human being is faced with either being kicked out of their home, having to give up their children, or not paying tax - they’ll chose the latter every single time.

They “could” work 12 hours days 360 days a year, but they’re really not all going to do that because you say they will. 


People would chose to stay in their house and not pay tax; they’ll turn To cash-in-hand jobs. Perhaps crime. Forcing people into desperate situations makes them do desperate things.

The fact that the law would be enacted on an entire socio-economic group - your peer group, would mean that these people’s friends and families would likely be suffering too. And turn the government into the enemy of these people - the source of their oppression.

From there, you could either go full on dictatorship: and use tools of the state to enforce your ridiculous plan through mass incarceration, enforced family separation: but that’s basically going to end up violent revolt.

Your plan is stupid, because it is based on your own idiotic wishful thinking about what people will do and won’t do because you say the will- rather than any objective analysis of how individuals will react.

So lets list some of the actual real world examples that demonstrate why your naive wishful thinking won’t work.

1.) Almost every communist revolution, and the French Revolution was driven primarily by the poor in the country seeing the wealth disparity - and believing that the rich are intentionally oppressing the poor. (Which would indeed be the case here). 

You’re setting yourself up for violent overthrow through your oppression.

2.) Poor people could live in tents today. They don’t do it; as it is basically becoming homeless. You cannot get a bank account, and less so Job without a fixed address, lack of clean sanitation and ability to cook and clean clothes is a major health risk, and a barrier to continued employment. Your solution “just use a neighbours house”...

That works out so well right now with homeless people, the few hundred thousand people living rough are ALL able to get jobs, have frequent showers, shave and clean their clothes on a weekly basis with no problems, right? They’re all living the dream!

No. That’s not how people work. Imagine a dirty individual walking up to your house and asking to take a shower. Most people would say no.

Worse; if they say yes it is likely because they agree that they recognize they have been forced into that position by the government: that doesn’t bode well for the government...

3.) Poor people could give up their kids today for Adoption they don’t. If they aren’t doing it now, what makes you do think they’ll do it with your plan? 

4.) People could increase their hours today for more money, for food: they can move cities for better jobs; or give up these car. They can do it today - but they don’t.
 
Why not? Because in the US you need a car, cuties are too spread out, jobs are too far away. It’s physically demanding to work that long that often; people may do it for their kids, they already earn cash under the table for informal work, the idea that they won’t do it now, but will totally do it to pay the government is irrational.

5.) You need 2000 calories per day, a mix of carbs, fat, protein, and broad set of fresh fruit and vegetables for a healthy diet. Most processed and cheap foot contain little of the latter, and lots of salt and sugar for taste and preservation.

No. You can’t live of sandwiches, cheap bread has too much sugar, the fresh fruit and veg is too expensive and doesn’t keep  outside (you live in a tent remember) long. 

Don’t pretend you have any clue about nutrition, when food insecurity and poor diets is one of the major problems that come along with poverty. 

6.) So, we know child separation is mentally harmful to children, the dietary health issues relating to food insecurity related to poverty, and from chronic lack of sleep and overwork; and issues relating to lack of clean sanitation are going to devestate the health of the poor more so than it is already. 



So no; you’re entire “plan” is bad, and the only way you seem to make it work is by assuming, naively, that humans will act against their own nature.


Worse, enacting policies that separate children, and cause excessive harm, health issues and even death, is beyond immoral: it is horrifyingly inhuman - and the fact that you seem to be more interested in vilifying individuals as “parasites”, and demanding that loving, caring parents should simply “give away” their children without recognizing or empathizing with the human cost of your own policy borders on pscyhopathic.

Worse, you’re supposed to be a Christian, and it goes against almost everything Jesus said about the treatment of others.

So yeah, good luck with that!

Your days does it. Some farmers do it. Does he also live in a tent, and live off fast food, and have 5 days off a year? And have to give up his children?

You're asking 15 million people to do it with little respite in the entire year. Not for money, or out of specific immediate necessity: because somebody changed the law to make it happen.

”My dad does it”, for some limited time in some limited way is a ridiculous proposition.

The option this “plan” gives people, is to live in a tent, give up your children, and work 12 hour days, and lose your car, and eat junk food for each meal.

Im sorry but you’re an idiot if you think any reasonable parent is going to be faced with a choice between paying taxes and keeping their child, and chose taxes, the fact you don’t understand that is so unbelievably naive and ridiculous that I am certain your trolling.

Seriously, you think any reasonable human being would pay taxes if it meant giving their children away?

This isn’t a plan, as I said: it gives no practical understanding to how human beings work.

No, what you did. Is incorrectly assume people work the way you say they will. You are assuming everyone will fall into line. No one will complain. No one will riot. Everyone will hand over the kids. Etc.

At this point I don’t even really care why you’re being this naive.

You’re not a parent right? Why don’t you ask a few parents what they think about that. Parents may give up their kids because of extreme poverty, or violence.

No parent will give us their children because of their tax bill. What planet are you on? Seriously! 

It wont happen. No matter how many naive assertions where parents act the complete opposite to humans act you make.

They’d turn to barter - exchanging services for food, they wouldn’t pay their taxes, or they would turn to crime. Good luck trying

to deal with that crime wave of millions of people. Know many police offers that would arrest a single mom for not paying her taxes in order to feed her child?

Good luck enforcing that! The police will think the laws are unfair. The military will think the law is unfair. Most of the population would think the law was unfair. If it was implemented it would not be obeyed, if it was enforced it would cause revolt.

The policy destroys capitalism. While you may like it; the complete lack of disregard for human beings, and quite frankly, your psychopathic lack of empathy for the people this law would destroy is its downfall.

Few of the millions of those it affects will be able - and fewer willing to suffer the outrageous burden your forcing on them. When millions of individuals feel they are being mistreated and oppressed by an economic system: and an economic system that forces millions to give up their children and live in tents just to survive; and tens of millions more who see the first hand oppression and reject it - you will end up with revolt. It’s literally how the French Revolution and the Communists Came to power. 

So let’s assume that everyone lives within 2 miles of a stop and shop. Shop Sandwiches are almost always high in sugar, high in salt and lacking in basic nutrition. Do you understand the nutritional content an individual needs to remain healthy? I think not.

Yet another farcical attempt to naively wave away the fundamental problems with your absurd policy.

You’ve made a serious of largely nonsensical claims that ignores the basics of human nature, and reality. You’re expecting the entire population affected to simply do what you say because, well, just because. This complete inability to account for actual humans is the problem with your policy, not my feelings.

This policy isn’t serious, it’s laughable. If you think this is credible, and plausible; then I’m fairly certain that you’re going to have issues dealing with the world.