Let's go through this point by point:
"While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes."
All of those sacrifices are carried by women, plus the danger and pain of child-birth. In most cases where only one parent is raising the child it is usually the woman, not the man.
"Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid.
Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years."
There is a huge amount of B.S. in that, especially the last sentence. Child support is proportional to the man's income; if a man makes minimum wage that will be factored into the child support payments affixed by the judge. The whole "80 hour weeks for years" thing is something wholly made up by you, I have no idea why you decided to make stuff up but I would suggest making it a little less obvious next time.
In fact, it is usually women who have to work extra hours on top of taking care of the kids because of father who skip out on their parental responsibilities.
Anyways, this whole argument seems to lean towards the man not wanting the child but the woman wanting it. Are you telling me you think men should be able to force women to have abortions?
No matter how unstable the man is; I don't think he should be able to force a woman to have an abortion simply because he implanted his sperm in her. He will have to pay child support if she decides to keep it; it was his choice to have sex with a woman unprotected.
However, men frequently dodge child support successfully (my own biological father did just that. He owes child support to my mother, the mother of my half-brother and who knows who else. He hasn't paid a cent in a decade).
"Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens?"
Let's see, so because this "religious man" impregnated a woman who doesn't share his values this "religious man" gets to decide for the woman whether the child is to be born or not? Let's not even get started the irony of this occurring between two people not even married; but if they are married (which seems rather unlikely if they both share radically different religious views) it still doesn't give the man the right to take control over the woman's body.
The man has no say, he shouldn't have a say, and if his values are so different from the woman or girl he got pregnant he should look for another one.
What you and those on your side don't seem to recognize is that you cannot have two people having an equal say in a particular matter to begin with. There are only two outcomes in any decision-making process two people engage in: a total consensus or an equal split. A vote of 0 to 2 or 1 to 1.
What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all.
I don't understand why you don't see this; it is only one or the other, or the courts which get to decide. But in any case in which your policy gets implemented the woman is the one who gets her voice silences and her body taken away from her.
It's ridiculous, it really is.
That .13% is 31,000 women a YEAR. Over the course of ten years that is 310,000 women (larger than many cities in this country).
I guess if 31,000 women a year aren't important to you, that's your problem. The fact that 31,000 women a year die from pregnancy and a total of 0 men do also doesn't seem to matter to you. Oh well, no big deal, those women shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want their lives to be decided by men.
"i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn."
I don't see how this gives a man the right to decide her fate and essentially control her uterus. You could just as easily say that if the dude didn't want to have his fetus aborted he shouldn't have gotten a woman pregnant who didn't want children.
The only thing that tips the scales is the fact that 0.0% of men are at risk from birth and go through none of the inherent pain while .13% of women could die, all of them have to go through the massive pain of child birth, and all women have their health impacted in some way due to it.
You may be pro-abortion, but you are decidedly anti-woman.
There are some major problems with that line of thinking:
First of all, that whole situation would be unconstitutional. You would have to amend the constitution to give the power of denying abortions to the courts.
Secondly, you are now advocating the ability of both the man and the legal system to have power over a woman's body and her very life. That, in itself, is disturbing. Courts make mistakes all of the time; in this case there isn't even a crime being committed, why put a woman's life in hands other than her own?
Lastly, health complications can arise without notice, without warning, without foreknowledge. Birth is always risky, there are always mild impacts on women's health, but anything could happen that would endanger the woman's long-term health, well-being, and life. Complications could arise weeks before the birth, what then? Would you have this woman, while in the throws of late pregnancy and all of its problems, get her lawyer to petition to court for the ability to abort? What if it is too late to protect her? How long would it take for the court to decide?
But besides that, again, you've decided that the people who get to decide whether the woman's life is worth being put at risk is not the woman herself but her husband and male-dominated courts. That's rather oppressive, rather disturbing, and unbelievably simplistic and cold.
Could you explain what is wrong with a man being a militant feminist? I mean, I know that women being as powerful and violent as men would be the most terrible thing in the world. I know that women being equal would result in the forced emasculation of all men on earth, but honestly, what's wrong with me being for that?
I don't know why I "need a hug" when talking about other people standing up for their rights and against abuse. Your cliche'd response is rather underwhelming, your humor is dated by about twenty years.
I guess I could be equally cliche' and point out that you are nearly thirty and single; explaining your immature position (and your immaturity) as a result of your inability to land a female companion. That, of course, would be sinking to your level.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I don't know what the joke is supposed to be here.
Am I supposed to be a woman angry at men who abused me?
A man who is angry at women who abused him?
A gay man angry at straight men abusing him so he encourages women to emasculate them for his own sick amusement? (I mean, this one is at least close to the truth, but I don't know if this was your intended meaning).
If you are going to crack jokes could you at least make a good one, one that makes a small amount of sense? I think that's a rather small request, really.
There are only two "says" possible: Either the man can voice his opinion and the women "has" to consider it, but the choice is ultimately up to her or the man has the final say and can veto the woman's choice to have an abortion.
Your choices, then, are two: The men has no real say or the man has control over a woman's uterus once she has been impregnated.
"There is so much testing available to ascertain whether or not the child will be born healthy it's truly amazing."
Be that as it may, what do you propose if the child should be discovered to have mental retardation, Cerebral Paulsey, Down Syndrome or a number of other debilitating diseases. What if the father still wants the child but the mother doesn't? Is there going to be a point system, who gets to make the final decision , a judge? One of the parents?
As for the danger to the mother; it isn't always known until the complications arise during the pregnancy that the mother's life is in danger. Sometimes it is too late to make the decision. sometimes death occurs after the birth has already taken place.
As of 2007 (I found some more statistics) one in every 4800 women in the United States die of complications resulting from pregnancy. That's over 31,000 women a year in the United States.
All you can offer pregnant women is a bland and optimistic view that everything is gonna be okay, things are so nice and easy, they aren't in much danger..etc..etc. You also have extremely vague ideas about who gets to decide things; you talk about the man "making a case", involving courts, having it "resolved between the two parties". Do you not realize you need to actually have a law in place for courts to decide on?
Unless the parents actually create some kind of contract where the woman must have the consent of the man or state law dictates that the man must also consent to the abortion there would be nothing for the courts to decide, it is her choice.
Do you have anything beyond vague ideas of what should happen and excuses about how "complicated" the issue is? Your whole "solution" is both redundant and provenly impossible to implement fully. It is basically the old child-support system plus the ability of the father to choose whether or not the child can be aborted. In other words, a flawed system plus further control of the woman to the man with an increased risk and responsibility to the woman.
It is even less fair than what we have now with our growing number of single women and their dead-beat child's fathers. I don't see how you can so glowingly advocate what would be a massive chain being wrapped around a woman's uterus, with a lock whose key is firmly held by a man.
And will you go to jail for manslaughter if the pregnancy results in her death? What if there are health complications, are you responsible for that, will you be forced to pay-out?
Sweetheart, men, by law, must either raise the child with the mother or pay child support. The courts are too tied up to deal with this already existing legal obligation. Men constantly skip out on their duties; leave town, refuse to pay child support, and, sometimes, earn too little for it to even matter.
"My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body! It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy."
Really now? Even if both consented to sex, the condom did not break or the birth control didn't work, how do you justify allowing the man to have control over the woman's body? Why does the man, who is under no risk from pregnancy and its many and possibly deadly complications, have equal say with regards to the birth?
Men do not go through any of the suffering and pain of child-birth, none of the danger, why are they allowed absolute power over the woman's body? In the end, the man has the power; if they both agree to abort or give birth it is fine, but if the woman does not want the child but the man does the man is the one who gets to make the decision.
Are you bloody kidding me? There is extreme pain, physical and mortal danger, and the ability (and likely-hood) of the man simply dropping his responsibilities and leaving the mother to raise the child.
Even if the man was serious about rearing the child; he is not going to go through the pain and danger of child-birth. The rate (2004) of "Maternal Mortality" (Death by pregnancy) is 13 out of 100,000 thousand. It isn't likely, but it is certainly a problem.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.
Even if the pregnancy didn't result in death there are a number of common and likely health impacts that range from near-term, long-term, and permanent damage.
Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing.
Men do not have a say; men do not get to control how women use their bodies; especially when the woman's life is at stake. Unless men are under the same risks the fact that they blissfully ejaculated into a woman does not entitle them to control over her uterus, her health, and in some cases her life.
"You're moving the goal post. You were asking why they hadn't had a productivity boom since the reforms, when they have."
Excuse me? I asked why their living standards hadn't risen above the Soviet levels; nor why they havn't risen as quickly and as sharply as the Soviet Union managed to do. It is strange that the Capitalist system hasn't been able to overcome most Soviet living standards even though the problems it has faced are minuscule in comparison with the Soviet dilemmas.
Increases in productivity do not translate directly into increases in living standards.
First off; you are taking the context of the data from Schroeder and Edwards paper and hurling it about randomly.
This statement is rather telling:
"It's pretty sad when a Soviet success is getting a few kids to grow fully."
First off; this is an indirect measurement of well-being; fully grown humans means well-fed, and well taken care of humans. It isn't as if Soviet technicians managed to tweak children into developing higher.
Secondly; you seem to not have read the paper properly, as you are taking some of what was written wildly out of context. Did you bother reading the conclusion section? Do you know how to read a scientific paper? Even though the conclusion technically agreed with you in principle, it undermines you (well, and itself, actually).
From the conclusion:
"Four different measures of population health show a
consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth
weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These
four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some
deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was
rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline.
The significant improvements in population well-being before 1970 may in part be
related to the expansion of the national health care system, public education, and improved
caloric and protein supply during this period. Moreover, these improvements occurred during a
period of rapid industrialization, indicating that the Soviet Union managed to avoid the decline in
adult stature that occurred in some other countries during their industrialization phases."
The paper gave as an example of one viewpoint the idea that child growth was in parity with the U.S. in some regions but its conclusion indicated the discrepancy was small and that child height merely stagnated (and in a few cases dropped) across the regions of the Soviet Union.
In other words: the Soviet system until 1969 nearly matched the U.S. (in a couple cases it matched it, and for certain periods of time). It also took the historically unprecedented path of increasing height during a period of industrialization. It, also, achieved this from a horribly backwards position and through major calamities.
For all its faults, and I admit there are plenty, it certainly wasn't as horrible as you hysterical partisans like to make it out to be. I can criticize the Soviet Union just as much as I can praise it, but I won't stand for hypocrisy, scapegoating, and exaggeration.
For one, there are some massive differences between the European Union and NAFTA:
1. The EU is a transnational government whose policies are enforced onto its constituent Republics.
2. The EU allows almost free mobilization of the populations within it. Immigration and Emigration are allowed freely.
3. NAFTA is a simple free-trade agreement; one policy. The EU is a government that produces policies.
4. The EU has a single currency; NAFTA does not unify currencies.
5. The EU acts as a socializing agency, it uses government money to fund programs, give grants, and aid economic development; NAFTA simply allows Capitalists free reign to invest and industrialize.
NAFTA is going to collapse; the benefits it promised have not been realized and a wave of sympathy and guilt has been spreading among the middle classes. It is no longer okay for American companies to ship jobs away from adult working-class Americans to Caribbean and Mexican children; from union industries to places where workers are abused, silenced, paid pennies on the dollar, and murdered so our shoes can cost a few dollars less (Or, in the case of designer goods, the same high price anyways).
Secondly; NAFTA, if it survives, will never be able to bring about the mobility the European Union has provided. The United States is obsessed with security, protecting its culture, and has an acute distrust, dislike, even hatred of Mexicans. Few Americans want an open border with Mexico; no Democrat has suggested it and most liberals would rather see a relaxation of security, not a free-for-all.
There will never be a single currency for the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean. None of the members would benefit; the dollar is too weak, the peso is worthless, and the Canadians are already fed up with the results of the current Free Trade zone's failures to benefit their citizens in any appreciable way.
"A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty."
That is not in context, it does not compare with what the poverty rates were prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You are, in fact, telling me that 50 million people were raised out of poverty but not how many people were put into poverty after the collapse. From the data that I provided, it looks as though poverty has dropped but not far enough to have increased living standards above the Soviet level for the average person.
In other words, you are being intellectually dishonest. Only if the poverty rate is lower than it was under the Soviet era would you have met my arguments and successfully countered them.
"From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period......."
The infant mortality rate was higher than the west's, that's true, but, as with the adult rate, after WWII it was at the Median, that is what the 50 percentile is; the median percentile. You, apparently, don't know what a percentile is. That paper was telling you how well the Soviets did, it talked about major developments in children's health after WWII.
You've made a very large number of claims and have not backed any of them up with direct, contextual evidence. I am still waiting for the facts to back up your confidence. Is that really all you have? Work a little harder next time.
The Soviet Union managed massive gains in health and living standards while in the midst of invasions, civil wars, major disease outbreaks, a famine, a global depression..etc, in the span of decades. Why is it this new economy hasn't managed to do the same in the same time period? It's had nearly 20 years and it still lags behind its "stagnant", socialist, "totalitarian" past.
If anything, this situation should be a breeze. The breaking up of a huge country into a slightly smaller country, and the disruption in production and services, should be a rather easy thing to deal with compared with its past problems. Whole cities and towns were demolished in WWII, millions upon millions of people died while its standard of living continued to rise. How many millions died during the economic transition? Hmmm?
""They were behind the United States and many other western nations..."
This is all I wanted to hear."
Again, they were behind by a very small amount (and Czechoslovakia and East Germany had closed the gap). I've also shown that Cuba, a Socialist nation, outdoes the United States in health care despite its size and resources. They were also behind the United States by about the same amount the United States is behind the top nations of today.
But, again, declare your hallow victory; I wouldn't want you to feel insecure.
"All additional information you can find in previous posts."
Really? You have backed up your claims at some point? That, again, is a lie. I have yet to see any information backing up your claims that the average Russian lives better than they did in the Soviet era. They eat less, they are dramatically less healthy, and their pay is actually less in real terms.
None of what you have stated has been born out by the facts, none, yet you have decided you've won. You've been shown to be extremely far away from reality; while I have been shown to be slightly incorrect.
But let's not let trivial facts get in the way of your arrogant, presumptive stance.
Go on and down-vote this as well, it's all you have left it seems. You don't have anything intellectually to stand on; you won't accept where you've been wrong.
For one, I've spent hours, days, looking up information for this debate. I don't appreciate you down-voting it just because you don't like what I am saying. If I am consistently incapable of meeting your standards for debate kindly refrain from debating with me instead of down-voting every single argument I make regardless of quality. I haven't down-voted any of yours out of respect.
Anyways, you have succeeded in showing that the Soviet Union was not up to the standards of most western nations. They, however, were not that far behind at even the lowest points. They are, in fact, worse-off as far as health now, but you are obviously wrong in your assumptions that Russian health now is down due to vodka.
Russia's alcoholism has been a major problem since before Soviet times. If you want to blame the current situation on alcohol I can certainly do the same for the past. If you could kindly show a sharp increase in alcoholism consistent with the sharp decrease in health then I might believe you. Otherwise you are guilty of the same rhetoric you accuse me of.
"I showed conclusively that you were mistaking growth for living standards, and that in every respect they were worse off than the west (whether you blame it on collectivism, totalitarianism, war, or all of the above)."
Well, again, you are dead-wrong. Living standards rose massively; every unbiased historian (either pro or anti-communist) will tell you that the Russians enjoyed a higher standard of living then they ever have. They were behind the United States and many other western nations, but even if you leave out the historic problems they've had due to war, their past extreme backwardness, and political upheavals the Soviets lived close, if not behind, their western counterparts.
It's the difference between living well and living very well. Especially in the Khrushchev era. Both my sources and your sources confirm, and you have admitted, fabulous gains in living standards in an extremely short time-span and during some of the worst calamities to befall any nation, much less Russia itself.
As for rhetoric, you rarely back up any of your statements with facts or figures, especially from unbiased sources. I have used way more than you (in some cases to my own detriment); so to comment as you do is silly. Don't throw stones in a glass house. Noone else may be reading these debates but it is bad form nonetheless.
Russia's GDP has risen very high, as has its poverty rate. GDP, and GDP per capita do not a healthier or more prosperous population make. Just as having the most MRIs, hospitals, or most advanced equipment on earth does not make your population more healthy.
Instead of a population that was relatively equal and had plenty to eat; free healthcare, education, housing, ammenities..etc.., that may not have been as great as the average U.S. household they still lived well. Now, there is a small number of people who live extremely well, a small number of people who live fairly well, and a huge number of people who live in abject poverty.
Here's an interesting example:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/
Scroll down below, there is a table that shows that Russians could buy 77% of the food in 1988 with their money in 2001.
Food consumption has gone down since the 1980s and all of the statistics I've seen havn't shown them going up.
I don't know what your definition of prosperity is; money sitting in the banks of the extremely wealthy while millions suffer isn't exactly prosperity, no matter how high it pushes up the GDP.
It's probably best described as a Democratic Republic; simply calling it a Republic does not confer the totality of the concept we are operating under.
Most Republics of the past, including the original United States, did not enfranchise the entire population (neither did the first Democracies). A true popular vote never existed in Rome, Revolutionary France, Apartheid South Africa, Soviet Union, early America etc...etc...
There were always groups of adults left out; whether it be women, blacks, opposing political ideologies, members of certain classes or castes, non-natural born citizens and others who didn't hold the same status and the politically privileged classes.
Today, everyone 18 and over, who are legal citizens of the United States can vote in any jurisdiction they are a member of. (The only group left out, in some states, are convicted felons). In addition to the ability to cast your vote for someone you favor to accept or reject legislation there are always statutes (at the state and local level) that allow you to establish and vote in pure Democratic referendums.
Of course, for the most part, indirect representation through elected legislatures, some judges, and the executives of the State and Federal government is the way in which our nation's laws and policies are shaped. Because of that, we are a Republic primarily, not a Democracy.
We're also shifted a little away from Democracy due to the indirect way our presidents are chosen, through the electoral college. Of course, this is the only person in the country elected in such a way (I think), and the only position that can be elected without over 50% of the vote.
Otherwise, though, the popular vote of the totally enfranchised population I think allows us to prefix our Republic with the term "Democratic", it allows us to know that we are mostly a Republic, but we have plenty of Democratic aspects.
Your senator is going to have to start some pretty unpopular initiatives if he seriously wants the looming gas crisis averted.
Your state needs to go with a carrot and stick approach to responding to the petroleum problem:
1. You need to invest heavily in mass transit. Buses, trolley's (bring 'em back; they're fun, cheap, effective, and pretty), light rail...etc..
2. In your major towns and cities you need to provide sufficient bike-lanes and legal protections to keep vehicle owners from harassing and harming your bicyclists.
3. Tax gas; raise the price further. You need to get people out of their cars slowly but surely before a major price shift hits. Instead of a slow 1-2 dollar increase in prices over a few years, leaving people plenty of time to adapt, a sudden shock could boost the price five or so dollars in weeks.
4. Get people off the highways, stop expanding highways, and reduce the ability of people to use their cars in downtown areas. Many cities in Europe are turning vehicle roads into pedestrian-only roads; making people walk, bike, or use mass transit instead. Tolls could help in this respect in addition to zoning and taxes.
5. Zone out massive parking lots in suburban areas, increase state property taxes in non-city zones, and make it more difficult for people to choose to live miles and miles from where they work, entertain themselves, and buy food. Increasing state parks should also help, completely eliminating some areas for development purposes.
6. Create tax incentives and start grant programs for upward expansion of real estate (making places taller and close together instead of wider and further apart). Start purchasing bikes for children and teens, maybe even adults.
What's interesting to me is that you are finding yourself in a rather bad position; you've found out and have admitted that the Soviet Union made impressive advancements. Not only that, you've found yourself flatly wrong on a few of your statements, main points in a couple of cases. Yet, for some odd reason, your tone has become increasingly arrogant.
Let me say that if my overstatements of Soviet capabilities were criminal your understatements would warrant a far more severe penalty than my own.
You have to admit the Soviet Union weathered problems that few other nations have had to deal with (and didn't have rich and powerful friends help them out). While the bombed-out France, West Germany, and Japan received huge amounts of money (and in the case of Japan, no longer had to worry about paying for a military) the Soviet Union had to recover from the highest amount of civilian and military war-dead in WWII.
It recovered, and its people saw more prosperity than they have had in the history of their nation (and, again, even now the life expectancy has not gone back to Soviet levels). Even though it didn't reach the highest peaks, it was still a life comparable to the United State's. In life expectancy, the difference was only about 5-10 years lower than in the U.S. (less in East Germany and Czechoslovakia). Which, oddly enough, is how far behind the United States trails the top life expectancies today.
To pretend, as you do, that the Soviets lived in abject, terrible poverty is an exaggeration far worse than mine. In my case, if I were to literally manipulate statistics to my own advantage, I would only need to fudge the numbers a little bit. You, however, need to take a sledge hammer to the facts to maintain your misconceptions.
Have I been proved wrong (or not completely correct), of course. Have you? Of course. Welcome to debate my Libertarian friend, we find out that we aren't always correct. I wouldn't be so cocky, though.
Now, let's take on that first link you posted:
The first laughable "evidence" of yours comes from a zone so far out of context that I'd wager it's origins lie in Mars. I mean really, Hammy, data from a largely rural Soviet Union still recovering from civil war compared with a largely Urban England?
Still; you've decided to take the Soviet Union from its lowest development point and compared it to a nation in a completely different situation. That isn't exactly a scientific analysis; it doesn't isolate issues that arise from the systems from those that arise from external conditions unrelated to the prevailing ideology.
I do like how you took the info from a Communist site. Clever, cheeky, but it doesn't impress me when analysis falls short. However true the statistics are (assuming they are true) they are not compared properly. (By the way, Marxists.org is a good source of historical documents, not a scientific source I respect or use in debates).
Millions of Russians died in WWI (A decade earlier), additional millions died during the civil war (a few years earlier); the nation was still recovering from those massive conflicts; a global depression that began sweeping the whole world, and the war dead of the previously mentioned didn't include the millions of people who died of Typhus (which springs up during such conflicts). We then add all of those problems the issue of a society still reconstituting itself; a society still largely rural but quickly becoming urban; we can then see why the USSR was so far behind the other great powers (in 1929, it closed the gap and ended up in the top tier, though not the top, later on).
To repeat, you took a worn-torn agrarian society in transition and compared it to an industrial society whose troubles couldn't come close to comparing. Then you use that data to conclude a nation's track record on health was horrific. The health situation in 1929 was radically different than the health situation in 1979; that you must know.
I mean, really, the malaria comparison is also quite misleading. While the U.K. didn't have malaria the United States certainly did (as it has a much higher rural population): 4,000 or so in 1929. Not a million, of course, but the U.S. didn't have the problems the Soviet did (and the U.S. was more industrial as well).
Not only that, but the statistics you mention are talking about "acute" illness, not deaths from. That is a pretty big difference. I know 4,000 people died of Malaria in the U.S., but I am having trouble finding the number of "acute cases", which will certainly be higher.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/
Additionally, I am having quite the time finding additional studies confirming what the source from Marxists.org writes; and the only source it mentions is a League of Nations piece I am unable to get ahold of. I suspect the quality of information, I again, repeat that the website is not a scientific source, no matter how much it "supports" my ideology.
Anyways, the Russia of today isn't exactly what you are making it out to be. Life expectancy hasn't been this low (in 2008) since the late 1950s.
This link not only shows you that the Soviets had higher life expectancies but also shows the difference between the Soviet life expectancy and the U.S. was small, even after the falls in the late 70s.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/
Current life expectancy according to the CIA world factbook:
65.94
https://www.cia.
Life expectancy in 1980:
67.2
Life expectancy in 1958:
65.55
Congratulations Federated, Capitalist Russia...you've surpassed the 1950s in healthcare by a fraction of a percent.
"What ever you think of socialized medicine, even those countries with it (like my country, Canada) are behind America when it comes to existant resources and equipment, the US having more MIRs per person, for example, than any other industrial nation"
I'll leave a full discussion on Socialized medicine to its own debate. However, this quote is perhaps the most hilarious thing you have ever stated. The sheer bravery you must have to say such a thing is commendable in itself. The United States could have ten billion MRIs, one hundred million doctors, and a pharmacy for every person but it still wouldn't make it (automatically) any healthier than other industrialized nations. Your favorite propaganda outlet serves you terribly in this case.
Would you kindly look up every health indicator statistic you can find? Life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates..etc..etc. Now, come on sweetheart, how does the U.S. fair next to government controlled and/or heavily regulated universal healthcare systems of Europe, Canada, and Japan? How could you not turn red in the face for your blatant intellectual dishonesty? As I said before, even Cuba makes higher marks than the United States.
So much more to talk about; to refute, but this should do for now. Consumption, goods and services, will have to be addressed later after sufficient research is undertaken, of course.
Your main point is inconsequential to me as I am not the person you were directly debating with. I'll let him sort out your main point if he sees fit to do so. I, however, am mostly concerned with the contentions I denounced.
Alot of the poverty malarky; the idea that the average Soviet citizen was considerably poorer than the poor of the United States; derives from one of the worst contextual misinterpretations of wages I have seen. It is common for anti-Communist theoreticians to look at wages, including real wages, and see that; for example; the
average wage in the USSR is 2.00 an hour while the average wage in the USA is 10.00 (they do the same for Cuba). This, of course, ignores all of the free goods and services provided to the general population. Given to all Soviet citizens but never included in the standard of living calculations are free health-care, free post-secondary education, free psychiatric care, among other public services.
Also, the differences between a Socialist economy and a Capitalist economy with regards to what wages actually mean is never factored in. Lately, however, we have seen a rise in a new form of standard of living calculations that considers more than wages and GDP per capita.
According to the papers I so lovingly googled for you; the standard of living in the USSR averaged rather well up to the era of Khrushchev. However, taking in only the
Stalin years we see a dramatic rise in the standard of living; this includes the continued social upheaval that marked the slow end of the civil war, the famine years, and WWII.
http://64.233.167.104/
nion+comparison+standard+of+living&hl;=
http://64.233.167.104/
2007/Spring/
clnk&cd;=3≷=us&client;=firefox-a
Have a read, sweetheart; interesting stuff.
"o begin, the Soviet Union's living standards didn't begin to improve until the
"Khrushchev Thaw", essentially a liberalization reform which gave the dramatically more freedom to move and trade, and a host of other things like the uncensoring of books and integration into the international community."
According to the papers published that is outrightly false. The standard of living in
the USSR began under Stalin, increased under Stalin, and then increased even further under Khrushchev. The "liberalization" policies you mentioned were certainly helpful and necessary. Of course; the term "liberalization" is certainly misnomer if you are thinking of the current usage, meaning a drive towards Capitalism and Free Markets.
Khrushchev simply transferred economic power from the central government to regional and local governments; or from a centralized Socialist system to a slightly decentralized Socialist system. A good idea; certainly, and nothing outside the boundaries of Communist theory.
Of course, the papers talk about the stagnation in living standards after Khrushchev. Oddly enough, this stagnation was not confined to the Soviet Union but broadly felt by the United States, Britain, and most of the other developed nations. Economic downturns were affecting most of the developed world; partly because of the energy crisis but also due to a number of traditional economic problems.
Some of my information on living standards comes from offline books and atlases so I am still researching Soviet living standards online. Since you wanted this short I will just deal with one of the most glaring falsehoods you put out. I'll do Venezuela later as well; perhaps that's another debate entirely. It's irritating how easily a simple debate can turn into many debates in such a short time.
When you can no longer justify your position; name-call using "smart words" so you don't seem immature.
Apparently I didn't address the argument? I wonder how; as I specifically addressed it in a number of paragraphs. I addressed each of your points directly and thoroughly, using multiple examples and explanations to avoid confusion.
But I guess it is too much for you to back up what you're saying. Perhaps, if you're so inclined, you could point out what points I missed? It really doesn't matter, of course, it isn't as if, when faced with actual logic, you can face it with intellectual honesty. You've proven as much.
You remind me too much of a Libertarian I went to college with. He too would use ad hominem and other stolen words improperly, arrogantly. Though, he at least had the dignity to not use Wikipedia as a source.
You are right that there are women in places of power and authority, but they do not have nearly as many of those positions as their numbers in the general population.
For example; the U.S. congress:
Women hold 17% of the seats in congress. They are 51% of the population. That's an extreme discrepancy; especially given the fact that congress is one of the highest seats of power in the United States. They hold 23% of state elected positions, again an extreme discrepancy. Women used to hold two seats on the Supreme Court, there is now one. One out of nine, or 11%.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Congress_CurrentFacts.php
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Statewide-CurrentFacts.php
As for economic power; these are the number of women CEOs:
8 women are the head of a Fortune 500 company, and in all of the Fortune 500s women make up 14% of the boards of directors.
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1292.html
In society, even the female-dominated career of teaching, men do better than women:
Women, though they have achieved administrative control, still earn 100 dollars less than men, median.
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/factsheets/ fs_2007_school_administrators.htm
In medicine, women are still behind men:
33% of doctors will be women, by 2010. By what time will you make up half? 2020? 2050?
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4197
The following research indicates that women lag in math scores due to negative stereotypes:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_August/ ai_95514611
Of course, the military is still thoroughly male. They make up 15% of the armed forces.
Also, I think you misinterpreted my remarks; I didn't mean that every single woman wasn't exerting her strength to the fullest, just that on average women do not. Exceptions are always going to be around, of course. Women have made excellent strides, mostly because they have been taking what is rightfully theirs. However, they are still not powerful enough to become equal; and until 50% of them are in the military, the economic control rooms, the high government offices, they will remain second class citizens.
I mean, what other population would you not call second class which doesn't have even close to its numbers represented in government? What's funny is that in Apartheid South Africa, the oppressed African Americans had more representation in their parliament than women do in ours:
Their legislature held: 178 white, 85 black, and 45 indian legislators. Giving the blacks 28% (compared to women receiving 17% of our congressional seats). Not only that, but blacks made up 33% of their population while women make up 50% of ours! Tell me that isn't bizarre!
What's interesting is that I never actually rejected what the Heritage Foundation wrote specifically because it was the Heritage Foundation; I never said the information was invalid or anything of the kind. I did, however, place doubt on the information and noted that it came from a biased source.
You, of course, decided to twist this into an outright rejection of the information because it came from the Heritage Foundation. Of course, I rejected the information because I knew there is information contradicting its claims.
I said the information was demonstrably false, and it is; but while I looked up the sources of the information I decided to let the people following the debate know where you were getting the info; specifically that where you were getting it was not from an un-biased scientific agency. That was all I said; in addition to the info itself being false. (We never did complete the debate, but we can always start it back up and I can finish researching.)
You, of course, take offense to my unmasking your source of "information". It isn't a red herring, if I were to post excerpts from Noam Chomsky's books or works from explicitly leftist organizations you would question the information I provided and would say as much as I did. Lord, I could use speeches by Joseph Stalin himself as a valid source of information if what you said holds true. As if you wouldn't immediately call into question what a totalitarian dictator said. But let's not get bogged down by obvious and predictable hypocrisy.
In debates it is perfectly acceptable to call into question the validity of certain sources of information and point out obvious biases. This is done in any scientific research, policy discussions, and educational debates. It is always factored in; especially if you are working in professional circles, all data is taken with a grain of salt, even in so-called un-biased organizations.
"If you don't agree with what I wrote above, than try this on for size. You're wrong. The reasons you think that it ISN'T an ad hom. are illegitimate because of have a clear bias against the term."
This is a certain logical collapse on your part. Perhaps I am wrong if I only reference my own opinion without referral to outside sources of information, that might work with your logical twists.
However, what I am saying only extends to people who are actually citing me when looking for a definition of ad hominem. If they were to utilize me in an attack on your definition of ad hominem you could easily point out my bias as my definition serves my own purposes and is against your own.
I am not a dictionary, nor am I an expert in philosophy, linguistics, or anything relating to the professional understanding of ad hominem. I cannot be cited in a paper without the person doing the citation losing credibility. I am not a credible source.
However, in our own personal debate I am not wrong because I am biased against my own opinion because I am able to utilize outside resources such as dictionaries as well as logical and philosophical constructs not of my own doing. I, then, can reference things if you were to challenge my definition of ad hominem, I can use independent philosophical and linguistic resources and professionals.
That's the difference; I am not citing myself, I am stating an opinion. You, however, are using outside information as a resource, information you regard as legitimate and reputable. I, however, am in full rights to call into question the legitimacy and reputation of the source of information without it being deemed an "ad hominem".
Let me put it extremely simply:
Your "logic" only works if I said the following:
"Ad hominem is X because I say so".
But, of course, that would make sense. We can't have any of that, now can we?
Pointing out bias, apparently, is an ad hominem attack. As is anything that points out possible faults in information provided. I will go ahead and call up all the scientific agencies and tell them they've been committing logical fallacies without even knowing it! Someone get the bloody APA on the line, we've got a logical crisis on our hands!
Jesus "Ham and Cheese", I think you've saved the entire scientific community from certain fallacy!
It is really fun being a white liberal sometimes. Because of my color other white people think it is perfectly okay to say racist things about other groups of people in my presence. Members of my own family, friends, people in my college classes, people I overheard in restaurants when I lived in a 99.9% white community would say some horribly racist things.
I don't need any statistics (though they point towards my assumptions being correct); I get to see racism first hand, on the ground floor.
One of my grandparents pointed to a rapper on television and asked why she didn't have a bone in her nose. My step-father caught me watching "In Living Color" and called the dancers a bunch of monkeys. One of my other grandparents asked "where are all of these black people coming from" when we were eating at a local buffet. I once played "Sweet Home Alabama" at a Denny's jukebox and heard a group of boys yell at me to turn off this "niger music". (I know that doesn't make any sense, seeing as all of the members of the band are white, I believe).
God knows when the Metrolink (Saint Louis's light rail system) was being proposed in Saint Charles (a nearby suburb) people were up in arms about "those people" coming over and stealing all of our televisions and breaking into our cars.
Saint Louis, my city, is rife with racism. Needless to say; I myself harbor racist tendencies and thoughts which come directly from my background. I try my best to get rid of them, but the us vs. them mentality, the "differences" that both whites and blacks recognize between us are well-known. We "know" we aren't like one another; culturally at least.
That cultural difference is very real, of course; caused by physical segregation of the past. It's hard to communicate with people of the other races; we really don't understand one another.
Women are not equal to men; their representation in government, economic institutions, and social institutions (as leaders) are not prominent given their numerical parity with their opposite gender.
Women are underpaid, overworked, and are rarely in positions of power and authority. This, though changing, still leaves them at a disadvantage to men.
The reason for this; though, is not any biological differences (by all accounts women are actually stronger and healthier than men). The difference is accounted for in the women's perceptions of themselves, what they feel their place is, their unwillingness to engage in economic, social, or even violent conflict. This stems from social indoctrination, familial indoctrination, and their own inability to break free from these influences and knock down the structures that oppress them.
If women are going to become equal to men they are first going to have to become as ruthless, cutthroat, strong, courageous, and aggressive as men. Women are going to have to show themselves to be the strong creatures that they are; women are going to have to take their rightful place as masters of their own destiny, by any means necessary.
Women can't be victims anymore; they must train themselves to fight, they must teach their daughters to fight (not just with Karate classes but showing them to stand up for themselves in a number of ways). Every woman should know how to defend herself; legally, physically, economically, socially; they must make men know they cannot be taken advantage of.
Every culture, every nation, every class, every religion, every ethnicity, each gender; sexuality; the only way they achieved equality, dominion, freedom, and security is through their ability to defend themselves and maintain their status as free and independent beings. If women are to break free of their chains they must do so in kind.
The whole point of this debate is that people are not using the term properly. In every single instance in which I have seen the term used it has been wielded by someone who didn't understand the actual meaning of the word.
