Total posts: 533
Posted in:
12:12 is a heavily underrated time. It's quite palindromic.
Created:
Posted in:
When I said like PF, I meant that you plan out blocks and cases before hand, but I guess any debate category is like that in the NSDA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I suppose that makes sense. It's sort of like PF. Out of curiosity, do you have formal debate experience on the high school or college circuit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
That's a bit short for a case. I'd imagine that the topics couldn't be that complex. Wouldn't a 2-3 hour round be a little better?
I guess it isn't that quick then, but I think that with such short debate rounds, it really would come down to who had the most prep offhand for such a topic.
I guess it isn't that quick then, but I think that with such short debate rounds, it really would come down to who had the most prep offhand for such a topic.
Created:
Art, in the nebulous sense, could include pornographic images. Oxford Dictionary defines art as: "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Does this apply to pornography? Well, the application of a "creative skill," i.e. photography and "acting" is necessary for porn to exist. In addition, there is emotional power to certain scenes, be it revulsion or attraction. So, by technicality, art should include pornographic images.
As far as scenes in movies are concerned, I don't see much of an issue. I have never watched Game of Thrones, but most sex scenes in television and movies crop out genitalia. It would still be considered safe under the beach standard.
In short, I don't see any alternative to the beach method. Sure, it disallows sculptures of David, but it only takes a few seconds in Microsoft paint to make it SFW anyway. If feasible, perhaps a NSFW forum category could be made if people really wanted to display NSFW content. Or, you could allow nudity but disallow criminal activity being filmed and posted on the website. Then people wouldn't be penalized for minor infractions such as posting scenes that border on adult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I told you not to say anything about that one time in the religion section! I mean... yeah, who would be into that, am I right?What if a user has a bustle fetish?
Created:
Posted in:
If this is adult content then public beaches must be the equivalent of a strip-club.
Created:
Posted in:
Did you PM the other mods that weren't targeting you? Were they all targeting you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I'm not sure on this, so I might be wrong, but it might be due to the lack of funds going to prison.
Perhaps. Although, the Bureau of Prisons budget has steadily increased over the last couple decades according to my GAO evidence. This is in part due to shifting national priorities toward defense spending, and the ever-present drug war.
They get more funds by prisoners working on things like construction projects so the prisons get more funds by selling the houses they create.
So the Bureau of Prisons will reap funding from the construction work instead of the profit being subsumed by the government coffers? It doesn't seem like the project will be worth much if the funds are only distributed to the BOP. Throwing a lot of money at something is not automatically going to make it better. If you want proof, consider the fact that over 70 million dollars was spent on the creation of Jack and Jill (2). After watching the film, if you don't immediately desire to hurl yourself in front of a stampede of elephants, then perhaps you have no soul. Hell, I might even prefer slave labor to watching the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard in movie form for what feels like 3 and a quarter eternities.
But in all seriousness, onerous parole conditions, hefty legal fees, systemic racism, and mistreatment of the mentally ill pervades the legal system along with the previously mentioned faulty prison infrastructure. No matter how much funding we get from selling houses, these social ailments will probably never be solved without significant focus on the issues of prisoner well-being in the US. If prisons are struggling to pay for adequate staff, it is reasonable to suggest that they could fix their infrastructure dilemma without a heavy dose of government subsidies? I think not.
But in all seriousness, onerous parole conditions, hefty legal fees, systemic racism, and mistreatment of the mentally ill pervades the legal system along with the previously mentioned faulty prison infrastructure. No matter how much funding we get from selling houses, these social ailments will probably never be solved without significant focus on the issues of prisoner well-being in the US. If prisons are struggling to pay for adequate staff, it is reasonable to suggest that they could fix their infrastructure dilemma without a heavy dose of government subsidies? I think not.
What is a backlog?
In this context, it is the accumulation of incomplete work. The repairs on prison infrastructure from years ago have not been completed or started, and as the prisons become decrepit with age, violent outbreaks due to vile prison conditions proliferate. We need money to fix this problem, not add money to the budget.
The inmates, especially if they are rapists, arsoners, kidnappers, murderers, or people who commit high treason don't deserve good treatment. Otherwise, jail wouldn't be much of a punishment. Staff members I think already have good treatment, although I might be wrong. The aim of my idea is to keep prisons a state owned endeavor that pays for itself and pays the government for the crimes the criminals commit.
A couple things. First off, hiring enough guards to watch over rapists, murderers, kidnappers etc. would exhaust prison budgets, causing revenue to plummet regardless of the sold product. There are hundreds of thousands of people convicted of violent crime in prison (1). How would we be able to monitor the supposedly dangerous people in these prisons from hurting their fellow inmates or themselves?
Regardless, given the previously mentioned constitutional test, this plan stands on shaky legal ground at best.
Since I have space left, I wanted to address a previous argument that you made in a different thread because it is tenuously linked to this one. Specifically, the Eugenics plan would sterilize 15% of Americans. Even if you implemented this plan "slowly," there would be a definite decline in population as a result. I mean, you even mention the possibility of sterilizing more people after the initial 15% of Americans, so I doubt that the results would take a long time to manifest anyway. Sans an explanation as to why rich people will suddenly f*** like bunnies, I can't see this tax plan working in the long term. If the population decreased, then there would be less people consuming alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc. Sin taxes would not provide enough revenue if there were no people willing to buy the products. Sure, one could make the argument that we would need less tax revenue because of the declining population. However, if the point of this new tax plan and eugenics plan is to bolster economic growth, then it is doing the opposite of what you intend as GDP constricts and productivity declines.
You might have missed it, so look at posts 144 and 145 for my full response.
In brief, I don't think Alec's Seriously Troubling Action Plan (ASTAP) will work as intended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The posts before the one you responded too may have some of the answers you are looking for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I would say construction work managed by construction workers and prison guards seems like something that can be done. It's ultimately up to the prisons to decide what work they need for their community.
Why would we burden prisons with finding jobs for these people if they barely can afford staff or to fix prison infrastructure? The GAO reports that the current backlog of prison repairs is over 200 at federal prisons alone (12). The Bureau of Prisons should focus on the well-being of their inmates and staff members, not the federal budget.
Created:
Posted in:
Insurance can cover these costs and the sheet shows how poor people can afford health insurance.
Even with insurance, the average out-of-pocket cost of a birth is nearly $2,000 (8). I don't think my parents,who were making about $70k a year, could afford this without dipping into credit.
Good point. Currently, the alcohol tax is pretty low,around 3 cents per beer I think, although I'm not sure. Doubling this small tax won't be very noticeable.
At the very least it won't be as noticeable, but I don't think the budget should depend on the solvency of the alcohol industry. If sales decline further we would just keep raising the tax until beer becomes as expensive as Hamilton tickets.
Some people would barely notice the 30 cent tax price;currently gas is taxed at around 20 cents per gallon. A 10 cent increase won't scare away too many drivers.
Even if people barely register the increase in the tax, the availability and inexpensiveness of fuel efficient cars have already pushed the average miles per gallon of vehicles higher than ever. Also, a 10 cent increase per gallon would be visible to people who routinely fill up their car with gas. I have already shown that the average car fill-up would cost 9 additional dollars. Consider the transportation of goods by trucking companies such as Amazon. Do you think that they wouldn't notice the increase and adjust their fleet of cars accordingly to save money?
That's in 2030, 10 years from now. In the meantime,gas can be taxed. When it's 2030, there would be about 320 million Carson the road, so there would still be a majority of cars still using gasoline. Gas tax can increase gradually as the percentage of gas users goes down so it doesn't scare away too many people from using gas.
The majority of the money generated by Aluminium Scented Tickle-me-Elmo and Pals (ASTAP) used to come from gasoline. Now it comes from the taxes on rape, cigarettes, and additional sales tax on everything, (presumably increasing the cost of gasoline, beer, and other goods by $1 since the sales tax is universal.) The problem with Ale Soaked Tomatoes and Pickles (ASTAP) is that is depends on the consumption of these goods remaining constant. Even with the additional $1-per-unit sales tax arbitrarily increasing the price of cigarettes by $1 on top of the $10 increase, we wouldn't generate enough revenue constantly through this method. The CDC mentions that plenty of Americans still smoke, but cigarette purchases have continued to decline rapidly for years (9). It is easy to suggest that we just raise these taxes in 10 years. However, if these industries that we would largely depend on for revenue start failing, what then? What happens if an economic recession occurs and hundreds of companies are forced to shut their doors?
For the crime that they did to the rape victim, the punishment of temporary slavery is not too cruel. It also isn't unusual,since the 13th amendment allows slavery if punished for a crime.
Due process can curtail certain rights of criminal offenders. Demanding that they pay off a million dollar tax through forced labor is not a reasonable demand. The Turner Test is used by courts to determine if a prison regulation violates the 8th amendment (10).While there are technically 4-factors that a regulation needs to meet to be deemed constitutional, it can be summarized as followed:
1) Does the regulation promote a legitimate penological interest?
2) Does the regulation create an undue burden on prison resources?
3) Are there valid alternatives that can serve the penological interest that you are trying to promote through the regulation?
The first answer is obvious. We are not promoting a penological interest at all. We are trying to fill government coffers, so deterring crime can't be a legitimate reason for passing the policy. If rape decreases, we would see an equal decline in revenue. The second one is similarly obvious. Prisons would be tasked with finding long-term employment for a convict who cannot be near areas with children. Employers aren't keen to hire rapists, and even if they were, it would take years before they can pay off the tax in its entirety. Are you going to force businesses to employ them? Nevertheless, this would definitely burden staff as they try to arrange work schedules, transportation etc. at a time when there are barely enough prison guards to the point that teachers and secretaries are filling those positions despite their complete lack of training (11). As for the last question. Well, you tell me. Are there other ways that we could tax people to fill coffers without interfering with the lives of nonviolent inmates,correctional officers, and prison budgets? The courts wouldn't hold this up.
Created:
Posted in:
What's the difference?
A cure alleviates the symptom of a medical issue completely. You can "treat" autism, but you cannot cure it completely. This applies to the STDs as well. Viral STDs cannot be completely cured whatsoever, but their symptoms can be mitigated. Bacterial STDs can be cured completely with antibiotic medication, but the overuse of antibiotics has resulted in prolonged infections worldwide. Strains of bacteria that have caused calamitous health crises have acquired antibiotic resistance because of our dependency on them (1). In other words, the treatment for bacterial STDs may not be effective in the near future.
Also, antibiotics costs money. To uninsured poorer adults, it is an unreasonable demand to pay for this sort of treatment. This is especially apparent if one is infected HIV. On average, it costs $400,000 dollars over someone's lifetime to treat HIV (2). As a result, less than half of low-income people living with HIV never get treated (2).
Only those that succeed in curing/treating(I don't know the difference) their STDs get exempt from the tax. An exception applies to HIV because you can't get treated of HIV yet. Anyone with HIV would face something worse; castration, being necessary to prevent them from wanting to have sex
People who are castrated, (where the testes or ovaries are excised from the gonads of subject,) can still engage in intercourse. This is from the Washington Post:
" Research on 900 castrated sex offenders showed that the rate of repeat offenses was low, about 5 percent. But 46 percent of the men said they continued to have intercourse" (3).
Libidos are dampened by the castration, but that doesn't mean they stop engaging in sexual behavior.
This is because if companies want to make a worker work more then they have to pay overtime.(https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/articles/employee-overtime/). Cutting this regulation and bumping the overtime threshold to 60 hours a week (12 hours on, 12 hours off) helps enable poor people to get ahead in American society as the spreadsheet confirms.
Working overtime is linked to cardiovascular disease, higher injury rate, depression, lackluster productivity, absenteeism, higher consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and a sundry of other health problems (4). The CDC uploaded an extensively researched fact sheet on the dangers of working more than 40 hours a week for a long time (5). Do these workers sound productive to you?
It is not the workers who decide the shifts. Managers are the ones' who schedule employees' shifts. Shift managers aren't going to schedule people for 60 hours if they are not necessary. For every minute that a worker is idle, the company loses money. Perhaps companies will save money that routinely pay overtime, but the firms that do so, per my previous evidence, are heavily compensated for their work (i.e. silicon valley workers.) This is not the case for minimum wage workers. There is no reason for a McDonalds to have every employee there for 60 hours a week unless another sports team is offered a free dinner by the White House.
They could tent in the shade. It's cooler there. Where this spot is is up to them to figure out.
So, tornadoes, hail, frigid temperatures, and hurricanes are all fine to experience in a tent? Even when living in the shade, this would still be concerning. In LA, temperatures were low, and the weather was wet, causing concerns of the homeless dying of hypothermia (6). There are already over 900 confirmed fatalities of homeless due to colder weather in LA alone (6). Without proper shelters, where are these people going to live in the hot or cold months of the year?
It's hard to fake a ring or photo on the spot. A ring is very expensive, and most people who are in the situation have no idea of the tax, so the odds of them buying a ring just to show that that they are, "married" is very low, most people don't have that wit on them, even if the ring is cheaper. I could make the unintended pregnancy tax $500 instead so people aren't likely to spend $1000 to save $500
I think I proved my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why is there now an allergy tax?
I thought that the concept of sin taxes were meant to 'punish' certain behaviors. For that matter, why is the government obligated to punish people who engage in adulterous behavior? Is it really under the purview of the federal government to interfere in people's personal relationships?
Also, if we only garner 2 trillion dollars, it would be a major decrease from previous years when it was over $3 trillion dollars (1).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@Alec
I'm honestly flattered. However, I started work recently. It is going to be a bit before I can join tournaments like this again.
Created:
Posted in:
Others would sink because the standards got much higher. However, it's only over a course of a generation. If your in the 16th percentile you won't be castrated, but (assuming no social mobility) your kids probably would unless you could train them to be more productive in the workforce.
So, this isn't a one time thing? Every so often we will decide the future of 15% of Americans simply because they aren't producing enough in the economy? This would definitely eliminate a large portion of consumers in the future if we are doing it numerous times. This doesn't answer my question though. If anything, you made an argument against the very system you are proposing. If there is little difference between those in the 15th and 16th percentile, then the 15% threshold is arbitrary.
In addition, what would happen in an instance of government or market failure? In the event of an economic recession on par with the 2008 housing crisis, we would see plenty of people fall into poverty for no reason of their own. If the goal of this program is to promote the spread of "good genes," whatever those are, couldn't perfectly good workers be affected despite their purportedly superior intellect and genes?
As a side note, I already have shown why there is no superior genes or intellect that rich people have. Poor people can still qualify for great schools, but are not able to pay the hefty tuition. Since scholarships are heavily skewed toward richer families, it leaves them with no choice but to accept a low-paying job or go into a less prestigious college and pay off student loans for the rest of their life.
To an extent, your right. However, in the US, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/US_states_by_GDP_per_capita_%28nominal%29.PNG shows the GDP per capita of states and https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/sw252021.png shows how much the average teacher makes. There are some urban areas, like the North East, that have both a high GDP per capita and a high teacher salary. However, there are areas like Wyoming that don't have the best education system that are pretty rich.
The per capita GDP of a state is a rough indicator of economic prowess at best. At worst, it is a misleading figure. Wyoming actually has a low GDP per capita when compared to the rest of the country (1). GDP only measures what is produced in an economy. It does not measure the quality of life of a citizenry. Other factors besides employment increase GDP including. During natural disasters, GDP could rise due to government purchases of cleanup material from private sources. Despite shedding a net 15,000 jobs, NAFTA increased the GDP of the US by about .5% (2). Hell, even automation could increase GDP at the cost of entire sectors of the market.
The evidence I provided had to do with the individual earnings of people who graduated high-school and went to college.
The 12 year old should use their own money to invest.
A 12-year old is not allowed to work. They could work under the counter, although I doubt that with studies, extracurricular activities etc. that they would have the time to do that. So yes, they would be gambling with their parent's money. Also, it is kind of weird that we disallow tweens to work, vote, or gamble, and yet we allow them to invest in businesses that could fail.
Businesses might benefit from more investment. But that is a big "if". They already have the option of depreciation write-offs, low-interest loans from the Small Business Administration, and a plethora of other tax write-offs depending on who they employ. Yet, SBA data suggests that 30% of businesses in their first year being open flop (3).
Stocks go up, stocks go down. In the long term, they go up. Teens and 12 year olds would be encouraged to diversify their investments and/or to invest in mutual funds so if one stock fails, they have backup.
In the long term, we all die. If I invested a good portion of my money into stocks and lost it all because the businesses I invested in failed, it would be no comfort to me to know that in the long term stocks go up. In the long term, markets can fix itself too. Nevertheless, we invest in Social Security and an abundance of programs to keep people healthy and decrease poverty. Not all of them work, but it is clear that we shouldn't focus entirely on increasing investment.
Also, let it be known that high-frequency trading done via computers and complex algorithms are also competing with less-than-knowledgeable 12 year-olds. I am sure that some tweens and teens can beat these complex algorithms with some of their own, but genuine work experience trounces luck on any day.
I don't know if this means that the businesses just kept the money or invested it elsewhere.
They didn't increase wages or jobs.
"Despite the surge in after-tax profits, dividend payments increased by a trivial 0.3%, with most of the extra cash just sitting on corporate balance sheets,” said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics."
Pretty clear to me.
Pretty clear to me.
2853-428=2425. It takes more then $2425 to raise a child for a year. That's less then $7 a day. What ETIC does is it encourages poor families to have kids they can't afford even with ETIC in place for them.
This is why I am in favor of raising it. Also, to apply for the program, you need to have a job. So, any additional income from the job could help you raise the child. The EITC, (not ETIC, by the way,) still decreased poverty. In 2016, over 3 million children were lifted out of poverty from the EITC alone (4).
I will work on part 1 soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If people don't have money to help their children get through college, then yes, those children will grow up to have less money (1). So, instead of implementing/supporting programs to help them find jobs (i.e. vocational rehabilitation,) we should sterilize them? The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, using 5,000 subjects, found that services provided by rehab were significant predictors of future job outcomes (2). If we can get people working, why does it matter? Not everyone will be a CEO, some are going to have to be the grunt workers until they work their way up to cushy desk jobs. Again, we cannot guarantee that in the next 50 years that robots can replace all of our workers. We need people in the workforce.While there are other sources of intelligence as what the researchers confirmed, a lot of intelligence is how well you are raised. Rich people tend to raise their kids better because they have the time for it... I would say about the top 85 percent of the US population would be fit to have kids.
4% of the US population is 13 million people. That is a lot of people who are going to have their sterility taken away for no reason. This is especially true if they make enough to live on, but cannot pay the hefty $14,000 per year. There are middle class families that are unable to pay that much without dipping into credit.That's only 4 percent of the population.
How would there be an incentive to reproduce? Just because a lot of people aren't having kids does not mean I will have kids. Also, poor parents not being able to raise successful kids is a failure of the state not giving enough support to them. There is a severe amount of mismatch in college admissions that prevent qualified, yet poor, students from attending. Georgetown University, in their study, concluded that at least 86,000 students who receive Pell grants per year are capable of attending selective universities, and can't because of the price-tag of an education (3). This pattern could be explained by the unequal distribution of student aid and scholarships toward richer families (4, 5).The poor people would leave behind a void that would help prompt the competent to reproduce. A lot of people don't reproduce to slow down overpopulation...
They wouldn't be eliminated all at once and once the competent realize this, they would reproduce more, causing the competent to spend more then what they are currently doing. Since Eugenics would apply to about 1/6 Americans and the average American is an adult for a little over 50 years, then that means every year, about .3 percent of the US population dies before reproduction, ideally with painkillers. The competent parents fill the void, they reproduce more and it basically causes the poor to get replaced by the rich, leading to a wealthier and more peaceful society.
Even if they were not eliminated all at once, having 1/6th of Americans not reproducing eliminates an entire consumer base in the future. Again, people's decision to have kids is a personal one. It is not influenced by others having or not having kids. Unless you literally want to force people to reproduce, you aren't getting results.
Poor people probably have good genes, but on average, their genes are less productive to society then the competent people.
Except, their genes are barely a factor in determining intelligence or financial success. If you are only eliminating the bottom 15% of people in the US through this process, then who is to say that others won't sink to the bottom of income earners? I mean, is there really that much difference between someone living in the 16th percentile and someone living in the 15th percentile?
There is some of this policy that I support, like requiring all people above the age of 12 to invest at least 1 share of stock in the company of their choice. If they are poor, they can buy penny stocks. If they don't know how, the government can show them how. This creates jobs. I used to support more funding for schools, but not sure if there is a significant correlation between how educated someone is and their GDP. China is very educated. Doesn't mean that they are rich on a per person basis.You mention a bunch of social programs, but I don't know what those are. I don't support or am against things that I don't know too much about.
Education is highly correlated with income per my previous evidence. I can post studies proving this link.
I don't know why you think that 12 year-olds should use their parents money to prop up businesses, especially when the market is volatile and sensitive to internal and external shocks.
Also, I wouldn't be so sure that the windfall from extra investment from preteens would do much to boost employment. After receiving a previous windfall from the recent tax cut, businesses did little else but line their pockets (6).
The other programs (the Earned-Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit,) are policy levers that boost employment and decrease poverty by significant levels since their inclusion in the tax code. There is a plethora of papers from the National Bureau of Economic Research showcasing the impact of the EITC in particular (7, 8).
Sources
3.https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/pell20/ (Infographic toward the bottom)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Eugenics, regardless of the ethical qualms associated with genetically engineering humans, is not an effective manner of increasing productivity. Intelligence, (in all of its differing interpretations based off culture and societal expectations,) is only tenuously linked to the genetic makeup of a person. Multiple studies conclude that despite the common belief that genetics can influence intelligence to a great extent, this is not the case. Looking at DNA variants of nearly a quarter-of-a-million people, researchers concluded that only 7% of the difference in intelligence between people can be attributed to DNA (1). USC researcher Daniel Benjamin, using 100,000 samples, found that the correlation between DNA makeup and intelligence is about 11%. So, even if we could forcefully only allow "smart" people to reproduce, there is no guarantee of superior intelligence.
Additionally, your plan would simply prevent poor and "stupid" people from reproducing. I'm curious as to how you would define either. The poverty rate fluctuates from anywhere between 11 and 15% in the US, suggesting that some people are able to leave poverty and care for themselves (2). Under your plan, we would be eliminating potential workers in the US, limiting GDP and economic growth even if they have the skills to pull themselves out of poverty and simply fall into some hard times.
Additionally, your plan would simply prevent poor and "stupid" people from reproducing. I'm curious as to how you would define either. The poverty rate fluctuates from anywhere between 11 and 15% in the US, suggesting that some people are able to leave poverty and care for themselves (2). Under your plan, we would be eliminating potential workers in the US, limiting GDP and economic growth even if they have the skills to pull themselves out of poverty and simply fall into some hard times.
Let's talk about economic growth and GDP. If consumption is about 70% of our GDP, (which it is, (4)) then what would happen if we eliminate a good portion of the consumer base? The entire economy would collapse. Christopher Carroll of John Hopkins and his fellow authors found that the bottom half of the income-earners in the US, (but especially the destitute,) have a high propensity to consume. This means that when this group receives new income, they are going to spend more of it compared to their richer counterparts. So, tax windfalls, transfer programs, and other changes in income that affect the poor will increase consumption significantly. In fact, the study concluded that a stimulus affecting the bottom 50% of earners would increase spending by 2-3 fold more than if the stimulus plan affected the richer 50% of earners (5). An article published on NPR basically confirms that poor people spend a greater percent of their income on basic necessities as well and devote the least money to retirement (6). They are a reliable consumer base. Say all you want about automation being a magical fix to eliminating so many jobs in the future, but if we somehow eliminate all of the poor people in the US in 20, 30, or even 50 years, there would be economic chaos. Also, can all jobs be automated? I work at a cinema as a ticket seller, occasional usher, and any other job that management wants me to do. Can a robot be programmed to do all of that? If that were feasible, cinemas would have already laid me and the rest of the staff off. A machine needs occasional repairs, no time off, and are not paid. Technological progress is strong right now, but it is hardly sensible to bet on technological progress to nullify the worker shortage that you are creating.
How would we know which ones are good and which ones are bad? About 97% of our genetic makeup is so-called "junk DNA," that until recently we had no idea influenced the regulation of genes. In fact, we still do not know about what most of this non-coding DNA does (7). Depending on how you define "stupid," a good portion of people would be subject to involuntary sterilization which could result in unintended consequences. I mean, if we don't even understand what some of the genes do, what would the result of restricting certain people from passing on possibly important genetic information? Or are you claiming that there are no "good genes" that poor people possess?
If you want to improve the quality of life of the US, how about pushing economic and educational policy? How about raising teacher salaries (especially educators helping ESE students), eliminating Common Core and No Child Left Behind, and other mandated tests that only intrude into class time? How about fixing and increasing coverage of the EITC and CTC so that children do not grow up in poverty?
Much can be done before we resort to eugenics.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
I would say 9 minutes max. If you feel you can handle twenty minutes, be my guest. I'll try to tune in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I should mention that the 10k citations given out to public campers was from one city.
Created:
Posted in:
They would in the long term. People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink. If rape rates fall, that's a good thing. People will still commit adultery. They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.
My evidence suggests that consumption of alcohol and gasoline could decrease without the excise tax. Regardless, excise taxes can have an impact on consumers if the cost is visible enough. In fact, Australia faced a significant hurdle when it tried to decrease alcohol consumption. Despite alcohol sales falling by about 30%, there was a 46% increase in hard liquor sales (3). This is likely because of its higher alcohol content which requires less units needed to get inebriated. In other words, one product was substituted for another. In the US, we would likely experience something very similar as people choose marijuana instead of alcoholic beverages. In fact, states that have legalized medical marijuana have experienced a decrease of alcohol consumption of about 15% (4) A noticeable increase of 2 dollars per unit of alcohol sold would probably contribute to this decrease as well. I am not suggesting that Budweiser is going to go bankrupt, but we probably will face budget crunches in the future if alcohol is one of the main drivers of the budget.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption. Most people would just accept the higher gas payments. We've had higher gas prices. I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying. The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon. 75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.
People don't like paying more money for things, so they will naturally buy from the multitude of cars with better fuel economies. The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2030, electric automobile purchases would rise to 125 million, which is much more then the current electric fleet today which only totals 3 million (6). Cars that aren't electric or hybrids would still see better fuel economies compared to cars from the past. I am not necessarily suggesting that we would immediately see a dip in revenue with the plan. Forecasts are often exaggerated. However, tying ourselves to volatile industries doesn't seem to be the best solution.
I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front. This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.
Um.... I don't like rapists either. I think advocating for literal slavery is a bit much. They probably will never find a decent job after the conviction, they are put on a sex-offender registry which limits where they can live, and are ostracized by society. I have little sympathy for rapists, but they still have their 8th amendment rights which prevents the state from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on them. What would this slave work entail?
There are some other points, but I am fairly certain I addressed the bulk of the arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I wouldn't think of it as a punishment. I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better. Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex. It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.
Treatment =/= cure. Would people who try to treat their STDs be exempt from the tax? Also, what of the people who are born with STDs? $200 isn't something that people can live on, but it is still a considerable chunk of money that doesn't need to be taken. Also, the link you gave me which showcased what the system would look like for poor people raises quite a few questions. Namely, it instructs poor people to live in tents. What of the extreme environments in which people live? Florida, Arizona, Texas, and other states tend to have blisteringly hot temperatures and turbulent weather conditions. Also, some municipalities banned sleeping in/camping in public. Additionally, so-called "anti-vagrancy" laws punish people who camp in public at an astonishing rate. Despite the Justice Department taking the official position that we should not criminalize homelessness through these ordinances, 10,000 citations were doled out in 2015 (1). Even with federal courts challenging these laws, there is still leeway for municipalities to punish people who camp in public if they offer some services to the public (i.e. homeless shelters regardless of their quality). San Fransisco, because it offers homeless shelters to people, can still ban camping in public.
The income earned by people on minimum wage will inevitably differ from what is shown in that link. It assumes that people on the minimum wage work 12 hours a day, or 84 hours per week. The average amount of hours worked per week is about 44-47 hours (5). Poor people would make less money and could barely scrape by under the ASTAP tax plan.
I have 2 thoughts on this:1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident. When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph. If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery. This money goes to the federal government.
So, teenagers who get pregnant would pay the tax as well? Also, a ring and a photo can be faked. A marriage certificate is easy to lose, so it is possible for a lot of people to show up with no documentation of a marriage. This is especially true if a woman is in labor and thus intense pain before arriving at the hospital. The cost of having a birth is already outrageous. The delivery, epidural, and caring for the newborn child could cost over $15,000 if done at a hospital (2).
Created:
Posted in:
It is possible for people to be born with STDs (1). Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed? Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.
The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term. We already have a gas tax which funnels money into the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, lower fuel consumption and higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles has decreased the amount of money paid into the fund (2). The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon. The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50. Multiply that times 12 to get an average fill-up of an automobile to get $30.00. 75 cents more would increase the price by 9 dollars. The EIA estimates that the average gas tax per gallon is about 30 cents (3). By more than doubling the tax, consumers are faced with a decision. Either they a) losing more money every time they fill up at the gas pump, or b) buying a more fuel efficient car that is approaching the purchasing price of cars with lower fuel standards. The prospective cars don't even need to be hybrids to decrease fuel consumption. The DOE found that 27% of new light-duty automobiles had fuel economies over 30 mpg in 2018. in 1995, the number was 4.4% (4).
Assuming that the consumption of gas doesn't decrease, there are still problems that plague the tax system because it increases the price of household fuel consumption. 1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6). Prices would increase drastically, affecting the livelihoods of lower-income Americans. The EIA study from 2015 also found that 1/5 of families in 2015, for 1-2 months, reduced or eschewed purchases of basic goods (i.e. medicine, food etc.) to pay an energy bill (5).
Alcohol sales, something the ASTAP largely depends on, might not be high enough to maintain consistent revenue streams. Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8). The legal marijuana movement is larger than ever at the moment. If legalization continues, there is no doubt that alcohol sales will decline further. A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.
The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective.
For the record, I sympathize with people who want to streamline tax law. I really do. I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.
Sources
Created:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
@oromagi
Thanks! :)
Created:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
@oromagi
Thanks! :)
Created:
-->
@Alec
I mean "args" as in arguments. I typed it on my phone.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
That's fair. I did debate in high school when we were forced to write like that or risk losing a round, so it's kind of hardwired into me whenever I debate. I am trying to be more concise though, so voters like you don't have to spend 4 hours on my arms alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Probably once every 2-3 months. Not very often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
We do so once in a while. Usually it is about 3-4 people who use the hangout.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Where specifically would you spend the money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@NoodIe
I would roast Noodle, but somebody already did:
Created:
Posted in:
There is only one book you need to read. https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Works-Thett3-Thett-Three/dp/1719940940
(I get royalties for advertising your novel, right?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Sorry about that. It seems that my memory is failing me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Sorry about that. It seems that my memory is failing me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Perhaps some explanation and examples of debate jargon would be good. It would make debates more accessible to newer members.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What would your ideal job be?
Do you often play video games? If so, do you have a favorite?
What are some of your favorite movies?
Do you listen to stand-up comedy? If so, who are your favorite comics?
You don't need to answer them all. I just wanted to ask a few since there wasn't any questions in the thread.
Do you often play video games? If so, do you have a favorite?
What are some of your favorite movies?
Do you listen to stand-up comedy? If so, who are your favorite comics?
You don't need to answer them all. I just wanted to ask a few since there wasn't any questions in the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I cannot agree more. I didn't think that this post would garner as much attention as it did. I kind of expected it to phase into obscurity with no responses at all.
Created:
Posted in:
I just discovered Bo Burhnam not too long ago. He is one of the most interesting and eccentric performers I ever saw. He put his second musical-comedy show up on YouTube.
It's kind of cringe-worthy at certain points. Still, a good watch.
Created:
Posted in:
It would be beneficial for us to tap into this pool of students to boost job growth. Even if the students are never able to hold down a highly technical job, it is better to properly educate them so they have a job that can raise their quality of life. It also benefits the US through more aggregate demand, which can mitigate the effects of recessions and boost output as more people in this "disabled pool" are able to earn actual wages and spend it on final goods in the marketplace.
5. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/12/05/shortage-of-special-educators-adds-to-classroom.html
P.S. Sorry for going off on a tangent there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The NIT does seem like a reasonable alternative to TANF and other welfare programs that have lost effectiveness in fighting poverty. From my research, (and take this with a grain of salt,) the EITC seems to be able to alleviate poverty while inspiring work in a very similar fashion to the NIT. It functions as such:
Enrollees start having a portion of their taxes covered the moment they earn their first dollar. Coverage increases steadily for a while as the enrollee accumulates more earnings. Eventually, these enrollees pass a certain threshold at which point, coverage is phased out. At the end of the process, the recipient acquired a decent job and, (hopefully,) the job is sustainable enough so that future coverage through other transfer payments is unnecessary.
Enrollees start having a portion of their taxes covered the moment they earn their first dollar. Coverage increases steadily for a while as the enrollee accumulates more earnings. Eventually, these enrollees pass a certain threshold at which point, coverage is phased out. At the end of the process, the recipient acquired a decent job and, (hopefully,) the job is sustainable enough so that future coverage through other transfer payments is unnecessary.
The National Bureau of Economic Research published a study in May of 2015 which analyzed existing research on the subject. They summarized the findings of multiple studies and consistently found an immense poverty-alleviating effect due to the EITC. This included data from the Census Bureau which projected that upwards of 9 million people, roughly half of whom are children, were lifted out of poverty due to the EITC (1). The EITC also targeted households within 75-150% of the FPL which helped target the most vulnerable families (1).
The system is not without its flaws, of course. Single people with no children do not reap as much benefit, with less coverage overall. While this makes sense from a policy perspective, as people with less children do not need additional transfer payments to accommodate them, the percentage paid is dismally low regardless. The maximum credit that a childless worker can expect to receive from the EITC is a measly $519 dollars per the Tax Policy Center (2). Additionally, payments in error plague the tax credit. A staggering 23% of EITC payments are in error, mostly due to misunderstandings as to whether a child qualifies under the EITC guidelines (2). Perhaps clearer instructions given to those who signed up for the EITC and an expansion of coverage for childless workers would be able to aid lower class people while incentivizing work.
Since you were worried about unemployment in regards to the NIT, perhaps this is a middle ground that can be reached. Tax credits would only be given to those who worked, and the expansion of such a credit could lift more people out of poverty. But of course, automation is going to kill more jobs in the short term, presenting an issue in which plenty of people are going to be looking for a job and are probably not going to be able to find one. Perhaps an addendum to the credit would be a plausible solution. As long as you can prove that you are taking steps to find employment through vocational training, education in a valid institution (as in, trade schools, universities, colleges etc.) credits could be distributed at a certain, fixed percentage until one finds a job.
Nevertheless, an NIT contingent on work might be the best solution if resources are available to aid people in finding employment. Of course, that is a big "if" and would require the collective efforts of political institutions to start doling out more student aid, improve the quality of education through more vocationally-driven classes, and create jobs through public works.
Additional steps that could be taken include actually hiring competent people to deal with children with physical, psychological, and emotional disabilities. Too often, people with severe disabilities are placed in segregated workplaces where they perform menial tasks under the pretense of "job building skills." They are often paid a sub-minimum wage, which is legal under 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (3). Pay could be as low as 40 cents an hour, and is often not heavily regulated due to a lack of investigators at the Wage and Hour division of the DOL (3) (4). Early intervention and social support could remedy many of the problems keeping disabled students back from work. Unfortunately, special education teacher employment has dropped rapidly, by over 17% in the last decade according to Education Week (5). Without enough teachers, the pool of possible candidates have shrunk for these positions. Thus, less competent teachers can receive employment in the ESE department out of virtue of not having to compete against talented teachers also vying for the position. While national averages of teachers considered "highly qualified" in special education has been relatively high, this measure tends to vary considerably by state. In Kansas, for instance, only 70% of special education teachers are considered "highly qualified" (5).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I very good reason to believe all those verses are either contradicted by other verses or have simply been abrogated by islamic law. ...their translation is disingenuous to a fault and they know it. tell me what was islam "defending" when it invaded Europe and the Caucuses and the Indian Subcontinent, your academically learned moderate muslims, they don't explain that do they?
And yours aren't? You have good reason to believe that they were erased? Why are they less valid than yours? You can read Arabic? Also, when did this atrocity happen, and was this from a representative group of Muslims? From my research this seems to have happened years ago. Is it justified to hold all Muslims accountable for what happened hundreds of years ago? Should we hold Buddhists accountable for the atrocities committed against the Rohingya? How about the Philippines for action taken against the Moro people? Also, yes. Verses tend to contradict one another. Its a thousand year old book, just like the Bible. People tend to have a double-standard when it comes to Islam. Additionally:
"We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely"
Plenty of other translations seems to validate this particular quote.
Yes. Surprising what can be achieved when a conversation is let to run uninterrupted by cries of "racist bigot" or "islamophobia" and accusations of "hate speech" or "inciting hatred" and "creating fear".
I said none of those things. I don't know what you are insinuating about my character, but it is not an accurate portrayal of a conversation I ever had in public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What do you believe has caused this sympathy and why is it do you believe has caused many to join "racist" causes and the showing of a rise in white supremacist organizations ?
No clue. Ask a social scientist. I would suggest that political polarization and fear are factors that contribute to boosted numbers for these groups.
Do, for instance ,your so called "moderate muslim" read the same Quran as the muslim extremist, or a different book altogether? Do extremist have the same god as the so called "moderate muslim"? Indeed, do the muslim extremist have a totally different ideology/ religion from the so called "moderate muslim"?
Muslims read the same Quran and associated Hadiths. The difference is that some people aren't committing violence. The moderate Muslim is likely to realize that ISIS violates the tenants of the Quran per evidence from the Letter to Baghdad.
The Westboro Baptist Church reads the same bible as others, and concluded that their contribution to God would be going to the funerals of veterans and disseminating some "interesting" theories about homosexuals. How did they reach this conclusion? Only in the minds of the brainwashed family resides the answer. It's the same with the KKK and associated white supremacist groups. Perhaps this is the same for ISIS.
Now you are getting closer to my argument. Yes, the people who actually follow the written instructions in that book.
Then do all Christians follow the bible to the exact verse? Nope. The bible condemns homosexuality if you literally interpret the Bible.Yet, 44% of Christians support gay marriage (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/views-about-same-sex-marriage/). People, when reading these texts, tend to view it not as a rule-book on how to live every single day of your life, but as a book of philosophy and ideas that can enlighten people and lead them to have better lives. Also, if every Muslim declared "jihad" to eliminate the infidels, I guarantee you, they would have already killed us all.
Yes. I was wondering when that old favourite was going to enter the conversation...
Just like in any religion, there are contradictions within the text. I am not justifying the Quran. I am simply suggesting that Muslims, (people who identify as followers of the Quran), are not all terrorists or believe that they should kill others based off of their ideology. Since, as I mentioned before, a religion is made up of more than a dusty tome, it makes sense to suggest that the religion is not the only driving force of terrorism. The signatories don't need to reconcile their beliefs of non-violence with the Quran. It is assumed in society that we don't kill each-other.
As proof of religions generally having some verses that are less than savory, I offer these:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again."
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."
Go ask a Christian if they believe these rules are fair in a modern society. As a side-note, religious violence in the US is minimal compared to the rest of the world. However, Christian doctrine has been used to support atrocities overseas. In Uganda, the Christian majority nation enlists the Death Penalty for same-sex marriage, and nearly strengthened those laws with a 2009 law if it weren't for a technicality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Uganda). A similar situation is found in the American Samoa which was remarkably tolerant of homosexuals before the influence of Christian missionaries took hold. Sodomy laws in place charge people with jail time if they deviate from the sexual norm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Samoa#cite_note-6). I would list more, bit I am running out of character space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Eh. This is a better debate than it is a forum thread. Regardless, I will respond.
Islam represents more than its minority.Yes I know. Islam represents anyone calling themselves muslim, does it not?
Yes. You may disagree with what constitutes a true Muslim or Christian, but identifying with a particular religion makes you a part of it to some degree.
I am not sure what you mean by - " should the other followers of Muslim"_ . but if you mean "all followers of islam" then I have already covered this in my earlier response. I do not believe anyone with an ounce of common sense is stupid enough to tar "all muslims" with the same brush. It is a ridiculous suggestion. Why are you making this circular? I have said, it only takes a few (the minority) to completely change the course of history. it took only a few planes and a few muslims to do just that, I don't believe the world is the same place since 9/11
The OP:
"There religion vouches for this act of terrorism, and when they do it, they are not punished.
It is not the people, but it is the Religion's."
It blames the religion on terrorism. If that were true, every Muslim should be a terrorist. They are demonstrably not. Ergo, this logical thread doesn't make too much sense.
maybe. But I can't agree, and the title " islamic State" gives this away and supports my argument. Not to mention the caption adorning the Islamic flag "“There is no god but Allah [God]. Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.” This will be the same Allah who tells his adherents:Quran 3:56 - "Asto those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."So this threat to apostates is not just in the hear and now then, but in the here after, too, simply for the reason of not believing in him.Quran 9:123 - You who have believed,fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.if these verses mean nothing or something different to what they actually DO say, why do not the muslims of Islamic State, or Al Shabab,Taliban, Sipah Sahaba,Hizb ut-Tahrir or any of the 200+ islamic groups know, but the so called "moderate muslims" do know?
I can label anything with a name and obtuse religious justification. This isn't inherent to ISIS. Sure, they are more prominent in the world when compared to the KKK and other white supremacist groups, but in the US we are seeing a rising presence of people sympathetic to that worldview. Many join these racist causes as well, as illustrated by the numbers consistently showing a rise in white supremacist organizations (see my previous evidence from FactCheck.org.)
Maybe not but can you explain what a "moderate muslim" actually is? Do, for instance ,your so called "moderate muslim" read the same Quran as the muslim extremist, or a different book altogether? Do extremist have the same god as the so called "moderate muslim"? Indeed, do the muslim extremist have a totally different ideology/ religion from the so called "moderate muslim"?
I already gave you one:
"How about a Muslim that doesn't try to kill you because of your ideology?"
Given my Pew polls and the evidence that you provided me, it seems perfectly rational to suggest that there are plenty of these moderate Muslims in the world. I earlier gave you an article listing dozens of instances in which Muslims spoke out against extremism. Here is an open letter signed by moderate Muslims who don't take their religion too far (http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/).
A religion is made up of more than just a book. It is the people. Perhaps there are interpretations of the line which are peaceful. However, given the rudimentary understanding of Islam that many recruits have (see my Brookings evidence,) it seems obvious that the group cherry picked an emotionally-laden, fiery line to boost recruitment numbers.
Here are some other quotes from the Quran
"When you hear Allah's messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk." (4:140)
"O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and do not let the hatred of a people incite you not to act with justice. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty." (5:8)
"Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly.. . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them." (60: 8,9)
http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is7.htm
http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is7.htm
Cherry picking is easy. Understanding a text as a whole is hard. So, groups that rely on people to be angry and vengeful in the name of religion will ignore these verses in favor of others. If you look at the Open Letter to Baghdad, which I also cited, it becomes obvious that ISIS violated integral parts of the Quran.
I don't think that suggesting that some people from a group are terrorists, but it seems that the OP, as well as some other people on this site, seem to condemn Muslims the same way they would condemn juggalos.
I don't think that suggesting that some people from a group are terrorists, but it seems that the OP, as well as some other people on this site, seem to condemn Muslims the same way they would condemn juggalos.
Created: