Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
After thinking about your point (which I will quote) is below:
We are going to have a large segment of the population replaced by computers.
When automation comes, everyone is going to be unemployed. But if society assumes this, we wouldn’t go to college or even try in school (because what’s the point of studying for jobs machines are going to take)? If it is a bad idea to slack off in school based on the idea try at machines are going to take our jobs, we should plan for things at least until automation comes as if automation isn’t going to come.
When automation comes, the wealth generated from automation would spread out to the world (because the internet is global) so we wouldn’t have immigration basically since from the perspective of migrants, why move to a completely different area if you are rich in your home country due to automation making everything free?
But for the time being, we live in a pre automation time, so we should have a pre automation immigration policy (open borders for blue counties).
Created:
-->
@cristo71
You do that. But I don’t think people should get angry at people for believing blacks are oppressed.
Created:
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
People who voted for Trump should be deported.
No human being is illegal, not even Trump supporters.
And where would you send them too? Europe won't take them; they are too right wing for Europe. Africa won't take them; they aren't black.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you went to court they would say the zygotes aren't dependents (after all I'm sure they don't let you write off kids you had in Gambia and left there)
This is because you are not paying for your kids in Africa if you do that. If you do that, your a deadbeat and should get a mandatory vasectomy, but I digress.
The system is rigged. Information is controlled. Ballots are harvested and probably forged.
If you REALLY believe the election is rigged, don't vote in it. Why vote in an election where they will take some of your votes and turn them into democrat votes? You would be helping the democrat party if that happens.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know why conservatives are so pro electoral college. The electoral college is Affirmative action to states that can't attract as many people. If you want more voting power in your state, then your state needs to find a way to attract more people.
If your worried about democrats coming into power, what you might want to do is abolish political parties and force every politician to run as an independent so there are no parties. But the thing to first do is rank choice voting, 5 candidates, each of whom must have up to 10 policy agendas that they fight for and between 3 to 7 of them have to be left wing ideas and between 3 to 7 of them have to be right wing ideas. This way, voters are selecting somebody that they agree with at least 80% of the time instead of at least 50% of the time.
If this happens, there is no need for the electoral college because every vote would be equal, just like it is in all 50 states; it's not like in Nevada, where the vast majority of the population of that state lives in Clark County, it's not like Nevada has an electoral college where counties with less population are given more votes. This is true for every other state in the union. So why not for the country at large? And get rid of the senate; it represents Wyoming and Vermont per capita way more than California or Texas.
Created:
If one believes the election is rigged, then they don't vote in it. If you think the voting machines are going to switch your pro Trump votes to pro Biden ones, then what's the point in voting if the elites decided who the winner is going to be?
You vote because you trust the electoral process. Otherwise, don't vote in the elections that you think are going to be rigged against you.
Created:
-->
@Athias
First, why'd you qualify it with "SUPER"? Second, do the indoctrinated ever know that they're indoctrinated?
When I was in high school, I was a super pro Trump guy and there was maybe 2 instances of professors teaching their opinions to the class.
Do you pay in order to listen to their political speech?
Fair point, but with classes like History (where the politics was brought up), history tends to be political, especially on racial issues, so the professor needs some sort of opinion that they state to the class. Some think racism is over in America and others disagree.
Again, is that what you pay to read or listen to? (I'm being a bit facetious here since I'm sure we're well aware that we don't get to decide how taxes are allocated.)
This was when there was no class time and I think the rest of the school went on a field trip, so there was really no point in having us learn anything useful. The alternative was a field trip.
This should be considered before having children.
What if the fertility rate plummets because parents don't want to have kids anymore because they are going to have to pay for private school for the kids? It sounds very much like how many African countries operate (and they aren't good places to live or raise a family).
A no tax policy is not pragmatic.Why not?
Because if it weren't for taxes, we would have no public schools, and if it weren't for public schools, many parents aren't going to educate their kids and then you end up with a stupid generation since they never got ANY education.
It wasn't,Exactly my point. The military budget hasn't been reduced. So what makes you think that the elector has a choice in how taxes are doled out?
The elector votes in the president. Then our politicians make laws that state where funding goes towards. Public education is needed.
What is the function difference between "the government" and the mafia?
The mafia is usually a black market military. The military is part of the government. Cut the military budget and use it to help our teachers.
No one I've known who has seen their pay checks garnished by taxes have characterized it as "paying little in taxes."
I work a job and I don't even notice the taxes coming out of my paycheck that much.
so having those people pay for education directly is going to make education unaffordable for themI can almost assure you that they'll pay less for private instruction.
How much does private school cost vs what the government spends per student in education?
NOT EDUCATED BY THE STATE =/= IDIOCY.
This is correct, but for some students, getting educated by the state is their only option.
Not if we get rid of child-labor laws. Learning a trade can be far more useful to some than spending one's mornings and afternoons in some public school facility.
I think it's okay for kids to work on the weekends, but not during the school week. Kids need to focus on their future. I am pro trade, but if everyone did trades, the trade market would be overflowed. You need a balance between trade and non trade jobs.
Without public school, America becomes a 3rd world countryThat's an exaggeration.
How so? What else made the 3rd world a bad place to live and America a good place to live?
And yet, in my experience, many of their children have fared better in the classroom than even some of the nationals. What does that indicate?
What's a national?
Receiving private instruction doesn't necessitate going to school. One can hire a private tutor. (And I happen to be one.)
Yeah, but some parents don't have the money or the connections for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What rock have you been hiding under? They didn't even answer questions forty years ago. Now they'll say your racist or fake news just for asking.
If politicians don't answer questions like how people can use frozen embryos to avoid taxes, then they end up losing a lot of independent voters next election. The job of journalists is to ask questions from leaders and to hold them accountable.
and if that's a good enough excuse for the law to treat people differently, why wouldn't the fact that your kids living expenses are $5/year in cooling mean your tax write off is $5/year?
Currently, the tax write off from kids is not equal to how much it costs to raise kids; it costs way more to raise kids than what the tax write off provides. It costs $15,000 a year to raise kids and it saves you about $5000 a year on taxes per kid. It's not worth the money to raise a kid. But it costs about $500 a year to put a zygote in a freezer. So if the tax benefit is worth it, it makes sense to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The law doesn't answer questions.
The people making the laws would have too.
Then they can say a fetus is a person so murder is illegal but only children you are actually raising entitle you to a tax credit.
But what does it mean to raise a child? I define raising a kid as paying for the kid's living expenses.
Why provide some people food stamps but not others? Inconsistency is built into laws.
Because they are poor. Unless your saying the only people that get tax credits for kids are poor families, but I'm not sure if this is true.
No it wouldn't, it would only require that you cannot make more zygotes until you incubated the others and that you can never make more than 1-2 zygotes at a time.
They might be able to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
If a muslim says that they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right (I think) would want that muslim prosecuted for hate speech. I mean, many right wing states banned BDS protests (which being pro BDS agree with it or not is not the same thing as being anti Jewish people) and the right never screams about, "free speech" when it benefits Palestinains
But if a white christain Trump supporter says they want to run Jewish people over with their car, the right views it as, "hate speech is free speech".
The left is consistent with both. No matter if it was Christain or Muslim, they would claim it's hate speech that should get prosecuted. I can at least respect that.
But I'm a free speech absolutist, so for me, it wouldn't matter if the person that said it is Christain or Muslim, I think it's protected speech. Now if they act on it and murder Jewish people, I'd want the murderer put to death with a public beheading. But if it's just all talk, I think prosecuting someone for speech is too authoritarian. This is whether Christian or Muslim.
The reason why I'm a free speech absolutist is I'm going to say 3 statements I may or may not agree with (this means I agree with it, this means I don't)
1) Death to murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
2) Death to J walkers, baseball players, and singers. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
3) Death to Jews, blacks, people that have gay sex, and people that cut off their dicks. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.
The left thinks that groups 1 and 2 are free speech that should be legal to say, whereas #3 is hate speech that should be banned. I think they are all free speech (and hate speech, because it is speech where you are hating someone and all of these claims hate SOME group of people). But I think hate speech is free speech.
The only sort of alternative view I could see is thinking #1 should be legal whereas 2 and 3 are banned because nothing is wrong (in most people's views) with being in 2 or 3, but there is something wrong with being in 1. But I really think saying anything in #2 should be legal, so I have to treat #3 the same way.
I wonder if someone said, "Death to women that get 8 week abortions. They are horrible people. I can't wait to cut their heads off.", where that would fly under. Some people think it's as bad as murder, so it would be #1, but others think it's #3 because they don't see it as murder. I don't know how you can objectively determine where such a statement would fall under, but I have a feeling the left would want that statement banned under hate speech, just like they would for the other items in #3.
Created:
Posted in:
They should spend money on training Americans to protect themselves rather than rely on the police to protect them. When your house or business is being robbed, when your 8 year old daughter is being raped, don't rely on the police. The police are minutes away when you need protection within seconds.
Introducing: The 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The amendment greater than all the others (including the first), because it PROTECTS all of the others. All of the amendments are worth keeping except for #16; the state should not be entitled to the fruits of my labor.
With this amendment, you can protect yourself within seconds rather than rely on the government that take minutes.
But a 2nd amendment is no good if people don't have guns. This is why I call for cutting funding for police significantly; if someone is robbing you or raping you, you are expected to know how to use a shotgun, a glock, an AR 15, or pepper spray to protect your home or body from the criminal. Who needs the cops; we got guns! If you don't know how to shoot well enough to protect your home, that's on you. Learn to protect yourself rather than rely on the inefficient government police force.
Shall Not Be Infringed! The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants, and a rapist is a tyrant for forcing his will upon a victim in an unjustified context.
More power to we the people, and less power to the government!
Created:
Posted in:
Open borders presentation - Google Slides. Anyone that disagrees with the ideas stated here should check out this presentation; I think I addressed everything.
Hopefully DART doesn't censor MA FREE SPEECH!!
Feel free to like if you agree.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Anthropomorphic life shouldn't make it human.
Do you have any examples of Anthropomorphic life? If it's monkeys since they are bipedal, 5 year olds can tell the difference between human beings and monkeys.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you are going to define a human being, by how it looks, then you are going to have to account for all the disformed humans and amputees, and every human that doesn't look like a human in some way shape or form.
You can still tell they are human beings, and a 5 year old would be able to tell that a disformed person or an amputee is a human. They would claim those are humans, but not zygotes. 5 year olds aren't the brightest, but they at least have no political biases. Unfortunately, the older you get (at least from 5 to 20), the more likely your politics defines your beliefs instead of you own mind. Like if the GOP was pro choice and the democrats were pro life (while still holding onto their current beliefs regarding immigration, war in Ukraine, income tax, socialism, UHC, weed, etc), I have a feeling most people are going to switch their views on abortion not because THEY were the ones that changed their minds, but because their party changed their minds.
Like can you name one left wing belief you have? Probably not; because your under the illusion that you think for yourself, but in reality, the GOP think tanks form all your beliefs (same with the democrats).
At least 5 year olds don't know what political parties are, so their perspective is going to be less biased.
Created:
The only definition I can think of to define a human being is based on the definition I would use to define a woman, a man, or an ear of corn.
When defining nouns, I think it’s okay to show people pictures of what a human, woman, man, or ear of corn look like, and expect people to figure out what is a human, woman, man, or war of corn.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/interactive-pregnancy-tool-fetal-development?week=8 shows the pictures of human development in the pregnancy. At conception, the pregnancy doesn’t look like it contains a human being. I just don’t think it does. 8 weeks is a different story. At 8 weeks, that looks pretty human to me, so I wouldn’t legalize killing an 8 week pregnancy. Basically, I think abortion should be legal up until 8 weeks into pregnancy and banned beyond this point. You find out you’re pregnant at 6 weeks, so you still have time to abort under this model. Make this the federal standard.
I don’t believe bodily autonomy arguments are good, and if anyone believe that bodily autonomy is a good argument, let me know and we will see if bodily autonomy is a good argument. But here is kind of why I do think bodily autonomy is a good argument:
Let’s say that there are these 2 people in a relationship (a man and a woman). Let’s say the woman is being a total asshole to the man, the worst asshole you can imagine, and she causes the man so much emotional stress from the relationship. Let’s also say the man cannot do the following things:
1) Tell her she is being annoying while expecting it to reduce stress, because this would be like a pregnant female telling her fetus to stop being annoying. She can do it, but don’t expect it to deliver results because fetuses don’t speak English.
2) Break up with her, because this would be like the pregnant female breaking up with the fetus. If she does this, the fetus is aborted. If breaking up with your girlfriend resulted in her death, people wouldn’t let you brake up with a girlfriend you chose to get into a relationship with.
His only 2 options are:
1) Suck it up; deal with the stress for 9 months.
2) Kill his mentally abusive girlfriend through painless methods. A gunshot to the back of the head does this.
Should he be allowed to pick the 2nd option? Absolutely not; suck up the mental pain because your temporary pain is not worth your girlfriend’s life. You chose to get into this relationship knowing the hypothetical consequences, so you deal with the girlfriend for 9 months.
Now you know why I don’t believe bodily autonomy is a good argument.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
90,000 $ a year means a person doesnt have to work for the rest of his life.On the other hand, it could cause a person to invest the money in companies and as such, help the economy.
Stocks and cash must be earned, not given by a government that steals it from someone else. The money won’t be invested; it will be used to make the person lazy. The vast majority of Americans would quit their jobs if they were paid $90,000 a year since people work because they have too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Just because a scientific discovery is old doesn't mean that it is out-dated and needs to be re-discovered.
Possible, but I have a hard time trusting sources older than I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I said, you're already beyond legality because the law can simultaneously ban abortion and not consider a zygote a child.
Why would you ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a child?
They know what they're trying to do: it's to help families. If you try to cheat their intentions they'll just close any loophole they may have missed.
The only way they can close the loophole is by not calling a zygote a child. Why provide a tax credit for some children and not others? It’s an inconsistent application of the law.
People who do think there is a duty to zygotes will probably consider your behavior immoral and try to make it illegal.
This would require banning IVF. But only a few states do that, and most of them voted for Biden. In Texas, IVF is legal and no politician there has advocated banning IVF.
Legally - You have no case, judge would just say abortion statutes have nothing to do with tax policy; maybe you could get a symbolic victory by getting him/her to admit that a zygote is not a legal dependent but they would almost certainly just say you aren't supporting the child and call protective services
Legally, I have a case. I would have dependents in the freezer and I can collect a tax credit because of that. I’m supporting the child by paying the smaller fee for them being in the freezer than property tax.
If they ban IVF, I don’t know what you’re going to do with the zygotes already created. If they kill them, in their view, that is genocide. They would have to find women willing to be pregnant with tens of millions of zygotes (and I don’t think you will find too many willing to do that).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
They might do it if it means no property taxes for the rest of their life.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They also want to pay yearly income in the amount of 90,000 dollars.I am guessing the 5 million will not pass, but the basic income might.
Neither idea should pass. The only people who should get government money are those with government jobs.
Socialism is a recipe for failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
There are no current vaccine mandates in NYC, the last to be removed were City Emplyees and school staff, removed early February, all others were removed more than a year ago.
Oh; if the mandates are gone, victory.
There are very few vaccine mandates in effect nationally, and they are almost all for health care workers only.
I don’t think someone who spends nearly a decade in post secondary education should be fired from their job over not wanting to be vaccinated. Especially since over 99% of the people that get COVID survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@DavidAZ
A parents has to give their kid what they need to survive. If that’s food, you feed them. If it’s shelter, you house them. If it’s freezing them, you freeze them.
If a zygote is a human being, if a zygote is a child, then I get to freeze 100 embryos and claim 100 dependents on my taxes. Why ban abortion if you don’t believe a zygote is a human being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think NYC has a vacciene mandate, but that's the biggest place that does (except maybe NY state).
Created:
Posted in:
Texas law states that if you have 10 kids, you don't have to pay property tax.
They also banned abortion because the Texas government claimed a zygote is a kid.
So what am I going to do? I want to move to Texas, and If I'm able to own multiple houses, I want to freeze 10 zygotes in a freezer, pay at most $7000 for freezer fees, and (if I own dozens of properties), save $tens of thousands on property taxes. And I'm able to do all of this because the Texas government believes that a zygote is a human being that should be treated exactly like a baby.
Now lets say your pro choice, but you never want to be the parent of an aborted baby. Well, if you move to Texas, you have a vested interest in Texas keeping abortion banned so you can freeze zygotes in a freezer to avoid paying property tax. If Texas decides to legalize abortion, you may feel good about it since your pro choice, but you also are going to have to pay a lot of property tax money to Texas, so you may want abortion banned in the state just so Texas classifies a zygote as a human being so you can keep your property tax savings. I mean, if your pro choice but never want to be the parent of an aborted baby, then the abortion laws don't effect you. Now, if you get a girl pregnant accidentally and you want to abort, then that's a different story; you go to a state that will legalize abortion, you abort, and you come back. But you still live in Texas (and you would vote for pro life republicans so you can keep you can avoid paying property tax,keeping abortion banned in Texas). You can pay for the travelling fees with the money you saved from property tax.
Now, if everyone in Texas took advantage of this, your going to have a lot of embryos stored in freezers and no property tax coming into the Texas'es state treasury. So then Texas might do at least one of the 2 things that they don't want to do:
1) Don't classify a zygote as a human, so legalize abortion so they can collect property tax money. This is going to lead to potentially hundreds of millions of zygotes being killed, but if they aren't people, this is legal.
2) Impose an income tax on it's residents (because property tax no longer generates any revenue if every person took advantage of this).
They might increase the sales tax, but the sales tax only raises so much revenue. But they need to raise taxes to generate revenue instead of the property tax, or they could not count zygotes as human beings so they can have no income and sales tax and rely on the property tax.
Not only this, but ANY state where abortion is banned because of the belief that it kills a human being, the residents there can use a similar hack and avoid paying federal taxes (and maybe state taxes as well because the state may have child tax beneftis) because the federal government provides an average of about $5000 per child that is a dependent of the family as a tax cut and if zygotes are human beings, no matter how pro choice you are, you have a vested interest in your state banning abortion so you can freeze a zygote and collect the tax savings that resulted from that zygote being dependent on you. If you ever decide to get an abortion, you can head over to a blue state for one. The federal government is going to have to do something similar to Texas, where they either legalize abortion nationwide or eliminate the child tax credit, but if they eliminate the child tax credit, then all the families that have zygotes stored in freezers are going to kill their zygotes illegally (unless the federal government legalizes abortion nationwide) if they live in red states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I hope the mandates are gone, but plenty of people online have wanted there to still be a vacciene mandate on Quora, so I'd figure I don't want people losing their jobs over not being vaccinated.
I live in the Northeast, and no restaurant or anyplace else is asking for vaccines to enter anywhere at this point.
I live in the northeast as well, and most northeast places don't have a mandate, but NYC does and a few smaller cities do as well. NYC's unemployment rate could be a lot lower if they don't force people to get vaccinated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
People 65 and older make up the group that is both the most likely to be vaccinated (and boosted) and the most likely to die of COVID.
Fair point I think. Your smart and I respect that.
So I'm pro vaccine and pro promoting the vaccine, but against firing people from their jobs over not getting the vacciene.
Created:
-->
@Athias
A lot of kids aren't getting educated with which to begin. They're being indoctrinated.
I've been through public school recently, I haven't been SUPER indoctrinated. They said political things here and there, but that's free speech. The only things I can remember is when they were trying to be more pro LGBT and when they were trying to pain the GOP as racist. Now, their arguments weren't that good; they tried comparing low taxes to racism somehow, but if you can't tolerate it, homeschool your kid. I am pro homeschooling. But some parents can't. Other that that, I don't think the class went political. It's just a few times here and there.
So you intend to finance the salaries of some individuals by siphoning it from the salaries of other individuals?
A no tax policy is not pragmatic.
When was the last time the military budget was reduced?
When was the last time the military budget was reduced?
It wasn't, and it should be cut to 1% of the GDP.
Would you let the mafia or any criminal syndicate regulate and disseminate the education your children receive?
No, but the government isn't the mafia. A no tax policy isn't pragmatic.
Well, they can afford to pay taxes, correct? I promise you'll pay less for typical private instruction than you would in taxes.
The amount of their tax bill that goes to education is less than how much education actually costs. And some people pay little in taxes, so having those people pay for education directly is going to make education unaffordable for them, so their kids don't get ANY education (private or homeschooling) and the kids become idiots when they are adults.
First, you're suggesting that because some individuals at best had meager plans when having children, other individuals are financially responsible.
There are SOME parents who can pay for their kid's education. But other parents can't, so if they don't get help, their kids become uneducated and this increases the welfare state down the line and reduces the amount of tax revenue the government can collect since salaries would be much lower. Without public school, America becomes a 3rd world country, because many 3rd world countries don't offer public school to their people.
Second, NOT RECEIVING A STATE EDUCATION =/= STUPID.
This is true, but you have to recieve some sort of education to not be stupid. And some children can't get homeschooled or private schooled. So they have to be public schooled.
Created:
-->
@Athias
By getting rid of the AMA, you'll get rid of the inflated costs.
But then we get less effective drugs. Companies cal sell placebos that don't really work in the long run to make a profit.
By getting rid of patents, the market will allow for cheaper generics, which will bid down the prices for already overpriced drugs.
Patents only last 20 years, and Mark Cuban has cheaper versions of the same drugs on his website.
The FDA's regulation on the dissemination of drugs naturally creates a shortage of available drugs.
We would get worse quality drugs if the FDA didn't exist.
Created:
-->
@Athias
As they currently function? Yes, I would get rid of the public school system.
But then a lot of kids aren't going to be educated and this makes America less prosperous in the long term.
So you intend to finance the salaries of some individuals by siphoning it from the salaries of other individuals?
It's like that for every government employee.
Does the electorate have a say in how taxes are doled out?
Yes; and the electorate is pro public schools.
As far as the proliferation of armament, yes. As it concerns military personnel, not so much.
We should have less troops because soldiers kill people.
And you would have these goons and their managers regulate your children's education?
Politicians are individuals. Bernie Sanders is not pro war and this is his idea. Ron DeSantis is not pro war in Ukraine. Mike Pence and Joe Biden are. You can be against the government going to war while also wanting them to educate our kids.
If this is the case, then I'm sure there will be a market for their services in the private sector.
What if the parents can't afford to educate their kid? Is the kid to be uneducated? That's a bad recipe for society.
Public school teachers, in my opinion, are grossly overrated.
How so? They educate the kids whom the parents can't educate. I am more pro homeschool than I am pro public school (and if I had kids, they are getting homeschooled), but some parents can't homeschool their kids, so the kids should get educated by the state with your tax dollars as the alternative is kids being stupid when they grow up.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The article was using the right wing definition for woke. That's not the official definition though.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Or get rid of the American Medical Association
Why?
Get rid of pharmaceutical patents
If that happens, no private entity is going to make patents and I think if you create something, you should own it unless you sell it (with exceptions like a child).
Get rid of the FDA.
Why?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I've assumed woke to be "anti (sensitive college kid with purple hair)".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Why would it not be reliable?
Scientific discoveries tend to change a lot as time goes on. 50 years ago, we thought the ICE age was coming back. Now some people say the opposite (with the climate change that people want OTHERS to get renewable energy for, but not them personally).
Should history or consistency provide input to the accuracy of a given claim?
Can you rephrase?
Created:
Posted in:
People claim vaccine mandates are in the name of public health. I'm just curious as to how far does the, "public health" argument go? Like would you mandate boosters for example?
Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now? | KFF claims that the majority of dead people from COVID are vaccinated people (60%) while COVID vaccination rates - Search (bing.com) states that less than 2/3 of the US population is fully vaxxed or more.
In other words, being vaccinated alone barely prevents you from dying of COVID.
To be fair, the article calls for getting people to get boosters. But only about 1 in 3 Americans have the booster. Are you REALLY going to mandate something that less than a third of the country has for every job out there and to enter restaurants?
Comparing vaccine mandates to the Holocaust as what MTG did; horrible comparison; really, that's just pathetic.
But vaccine mandates nonetheless aren't worth keeping around because excluding the majority of society from public life over a vaccine that not taking it makes you less than 1 pt more likely to die of COVID than without the vacciene.
There are but 2 non arbitrary positions you can take with regard to vacciene mandates, don't mandate any shots or mandate the updated booster. Mandating the updated booster excludes the vast majority of America (Less than 4% of U.S. adults have gotten updated Covid booster shots (nbcnews.com)).
So the only consistent option is no vacciene mandates.
If 99.9% of the US population got their boosters, then you could conceive of mandating the booster; but when it's about 1/3 of the country, it's not pragmatic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke states the definition of woke is the left wing definition.
Created:
I’ve noticed that the word, “woke” is defined very differently by the left and right
The left defines woke as being aware of racial struggles. The right defines it as political correctness and sensitive outrage against people for opinions.
The dictionary definitions, like most definitions, lets the left have their way because the left makes up the majority of America’s population. But I think DeSantis viewed the term in the right wing definition, which is pink haired college kid who gets offended when Ben Shapiro talks about his ideas.
I don’t think DeSantis should have said Florida is where woke goes to die if the left is correct on what it means to be woke. But there needs to be a new term to describe the pink haired gender studies major who gets offended at everything right wingers and their supporters say. Whatever that term is, “call it snowflake”, or DeSantis said Florida is where snowflakes go to melt, would it still be offensive? Surely we can all be against snowflakes.
When I refer to snowflakes, I do not refer to BLM supporters, Medicare for all supporters, or supporters of any left wing cause. I refer to people that block over political disagreement and people that are unwilling to hear opinions they dislike, whether left or right. Some of the biggest snowflakes I have met are on the right. I got kicked out of a GOP club for being anti war and anti ICE and leaning into these talking points under the justification of small government (now they all oppose the war in Ukraine, but still want to fund our military a lot for no reason other than a false sense of safety). Those people are snowflakes, and Florida should be where they go to melt too. But there are many people on the left that are snowflakes and they should ALSO be called out on it.
Love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter if they are right wing, left wing, LGBT, unvaccinated, undocumented, pro life, pro choice, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man. As long as they are a good person that doesn’t harm anyone else and that treats others well, you do the same.
The left defines woke as being aware of racial struggles. The right defines it as political correctness and sensitive outrage against people for opinions.
The dictionary definitions, like most definitions, lets the left have their way because the left makes up the majority of America’s population. But I think DeSantis viewed the term in the right wing definition, which is pink haired college kid who gets offended when Ben Shapiro talks about his ideas.
I don’t think DeSantis should have said Florida is where woke goes to die if the left is correct on what it means to be woke. But there needs to be a new term to describe the pink haired gender studies major who gets offended at everything right wingers and their supporters say. Whatever that term is, “call it snowflake”, or DeSantis said Florida is where snowflakes go to melt, would it still be offensive? Surely we can all be against snowflakes.
When I refer to snowflakes, I do not refer to BLM supporters, Medicare for all supporters, or supporters of any left wing cause. I refer to people that block over political disagreement and people that are unwilling to hear opinions they dislike, whether left or right. Some of the biggest snowflakes I have met are on the right. I got kicked out of a GOP club for being anti war and anti ICE and leaning into these talking points under the justification of small government (now they all oppose the war in Ukraine, but still want to fund our military a lot for no reason other than a false sense of safety). Those people are snowflakes, and Florida should be where they go to melt too. But there are many people on the left that are snowflakes and they should ALSO be called out on it.
Love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter if they are right wing, left wing, LGBT, unvaccinated, undocumented, pro life, pro choice, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man. As long as they are a good person that doesn’t harm anyone else and that treats others well, you do the same.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, it was about time.
Paying every black person in the US (40 million African Americans * 5 million dollars per person) is about $200 TRILLION. For reference, the entire US federal budget in 2023 is about $6 trillion. So you’re proposing giving black people 33x the federal budget? This makes literally no sense.
And the usual argument is that the blacks are descended from slaves. I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. Women until the 1970s were legally raped by their husbands. This is a much more recent trauma than slavery. Should we steal $5 million from every man and give it to women? If so, I don’t know what drug your on; every independent looks at that with such stupidity. You can want Medicare for all and free college and think giving black people millions of dollars is ludicrous.
If nothing, they will prove that wealth redistribution works.
No; it’s going to create a lot of debt.
And hold on; YOUR religion is the pro slavery one. The Bible tells slaves to obey their masters. If you want to be a Bible literalist, you would be PRO slavery. Being pro slavery and pro reperations makes no sense whatsoever.
Shrug.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Teacher's salaries should be determined by the market for the services. If you're suggesting that they should be paid $60k when the commerce they generate is significantly less, then I must ask: who foots the bill?
The only way teacher salaries are exclusively determined by the market is if we abolish public schools. Do you support this?
The taxpayer foots the bill, but it’s paid for by cutting the military budget 5%.
We take better care of the military (which the US military is responsible for 17x more civilian deaths than ISIS in the Middle East), than we do the teachers that enable innovation for the future. Stop declaring a war on teachers!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Their definition was at conception. But this was written in the 20th century, so I don’t think an article older than I am is reliable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You won't find any left-tribers willing to "trade" a meaningless declaration for what they see as unjust aggression.
It’s possible the majority of leftists wouldn’t agree to the trade.
In case anyone wonders if force has been used, yes it has; people have been arrested in anglophone countries with insufficient protection of free speech.
Hopefully that doesn’t happen in America. But we got guns incase it does. The elites don’t want a civil war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If they didn't change their minds about that there would have been war.
That's why you need compromise.
One exception is sufficient to disprove a rule.
If there was only one main issue of the day (like in the 1860s with slavery) there won't be a long term compromise. But when there are many issues of the day that are divisive (like our time), you can come up with compromises.
In trade, part of the trade is the abandonment of the claim of property over the item you previously considered yours.
Right now, one property the right has is there is no definition for woman that includes transwomen and something similar for men. One property the left has is abortion being legal in most states. Let them trade.
I can't, I can't trade my beliefs either. No matter how helpful it would be I cannot (honestly) offer to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
You don't have too. They are official party positions. If the trans issue is big enough for you, you will never call Caitlyn Jenner a man, and the GOP leadership accepts transwomen as women so they can ban abortion, like minded people can start their own party. Similarly, someone who is pro choice and doesn't like the democrat party giving the right what they want in exchange for transgenderism can start their own party.
The 2 party system is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is who defines words today: people who use them. Why would we make an exception for these two words?
People can't agree on a definition.
I literally do not care at all, it doesn't have any affect on me, and my decision to comply with your wishes or disregard them, on something this personal, depends only on how much I respect your right to decide for yourself. It has absolutely zero impact on my life. I don't think "Wait, what's the dictionary say?"
The thing is though, definitions are important; just like if you decide to be Korean when your a white guy, it doesn't matter how many surgeries you do to look Korean, your not Korean. I care about facts. You can decide to sleep with them if your into Korean looking people, but acknowledge he's not Korean.
Just like how I can think transwomen who did their surgery are hot while acknowledging they are biological men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
On the many levels of ignorance this displays, the one that sticks out most is the difference between hereditary and acquired, and therefore not comparable.
If I was born with HIV, it would still be bad. If I got black hair from someone else, it wouldn't be bad. Having HIV is worse than having black hair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Resources and territory are not moral disputes.
Michigan morally thought Toledo was theirs.
If I say you must drink 50g of arsenic per day and you say you won't, what compromise must there be?
Why would you want me to drink poison though? It's not like you have a reason that is even comparable to the right's desire to ban abortion.
If the road forks, what compromise is there between left and right? Only smashing into the divider.
Possible, but if there is a road that is in a grid format, you can take some lefts and some rights to end up at a new location.
Nothing, compromise is orthogonal to (doesn't address) the problem.
It doesn't address the problem, but the left wants the right to call transwomen women and the right wants the left to ban abortion, so if both of these things are done, you got a compromise. Provided the left values transgenderism more (which I think they do on average) and provided the right values abortion over transgenderism (which they do), then you can make a deal and both parties are better off.
Just like I may value $10 and a steak, while I own just the $10 and a steak maker values both items (but owns just the steak), if I value the steak over $10 and he values the $10 over the steak, we trade, and we are both better off.
Replace $10 with abortion rights, replace the steak with calling transwomen women and trans men men by the government definition of women and men, lets say I'm on the left and the steak maker is on the right. We both trade, and we are both better off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It's not clear what this means, or why it's important. Are you saying the government is the final authority on what words mean, and would therefore issue some sort of government approved dictionary?
Who else is? Should we let the private sector define words? Because they haven't been able to define woman in a way that the left is fine with.
The bold is the current situation.
The current situation contains this, but Blaire White and Caitlyn Jenner want to be referred to as women, so they need a new definition that includes them.
Your example is more compelling if you tie it to gun rights instead of free speech. Try it that way.
The right might have to restrict gun rights, but would specifically be reduced? Would you do universal background checks for example? Would you ban AR 15s nationwide? How about requiring all states to double their background checks in exchange for a national abortion ban?
I personally am way more pro 2A than I am pro life, so I wouldn't agree to this deal. But maybe some conservatives would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Anyone who thinks compromises should be made regarding rights doesn't understand rights. Rights are immutable.
The right to an abortion is absolutely mutable (many states took it away) and transgenders right now don't have the definition on their side to be called by their preferred gender.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You do know that money goes into everything right?So even if we were to kill murderers and rapists (all of them) it would cost a lot of money and a lot of paperwork to do that.
It's cheaper to kill murderers and rapists after one trial (which they would get even if innocent) than it does to spend millions of dollars a year taking care of 1 false convict and 24 guilty ones.
Just because the government makes prisons doesn't mean it wants harm.
Our government should stop incentivizing murder by paying for the living expenses of prisoners. Find alternative sentences for crimes.
It's funny that you use the homeless for your advantage in the argument when it comes to murderers and rapists, but not with the border crisis.There are many American citizens that matter more than immigrants that are not American.Shouldn't American dollars go to American people and not immigrants?
This is because even undocumented immigrants deserve taxpayer funds more than murderers and rapists because being a murderer or rapist is worse than being undocumented.
My ideal (if I could snap my fingers and make this happen) is I don't want tax dollars going to help ANY of the following groups:
1) Murderers (citizenship status is irrelevant)
2) Rapists (citizenship status is irrelevent)
3) Corporations
4) Undocumented homeless people
5) US Citizen homeless people
But I would rather have them go to #5 than #4, #4 than #3, and so on, because American homeless people deserve better protection than undocumented homeless people since they are American citizens, and being undocumented is less serious than being a murderer or rapist.
But I don't want tax dollars going to help ANY of these groups.
Created: