CreateDebate


Debate Info

172
171
True Wait..., what..., no!
Debate Score:343
Arguments:194
Total Votes:401
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (109)
 
 Wait..., what..., no! (85)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37631) pic



Proof that liberals are illogical

Liberals want everyone to have a great life.  For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care.  If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare.  The list goes on and on but you get the idea. 

So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money.  But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people.  So why bother? 

Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people.  So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.  Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax.  But liberals are for abortion!!!  But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.

Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed.  But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?

It just doesn't make any sense.  But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.

 

True

Side Score: 172
VS.

Wait..., what..., no!

Side Score: 171
4 points

True. But, then again, all political ideologies are profoundly illogical.

Side: True

In order for liberal ideas to work, someone has to be forced to fund their programs...., and if you noticed, the word fund begins with the letters F U!!! Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?

Side: True
3 points

This man, Joecavalry is a champ he used this argument twice, and it rings true both times. "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -That crazy bastard Winston Churchill.

Side: True
2 points

Good argument. (:

This isn't socialism, this is America. ;D

Side: True
smh62(39) Disputed
2 points

Wrong. The litany of factual errors and errors of reasoning disqualify the argument from the good category.

The argument stumbles around at every stage and eventually decides to simply stop rather than actually getting anywhere for it's trouble. Even if one agreed that "liberals are illogical", no one in their right mind could agree that the argument is "Proof that liberals are illogical". If I asked my kid brother to start a debate under the same title then I'd be embarrassed if he couldn't do a better job. Fact.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

This is true. I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism. Whenever I questioned such things, I would always be pounded into the very core of the earth with retorts such as: "Glenn Beck is just a big idiot!" or "Sarah Palin is SO stupid!" or "Everything is Bush's fault!" or "Obama will fix everything!" or "Fox News is not a reliable source!" or "Gays are people too!" or- I digress.........

Side: True
6 points

I would be happy to debate you on any number of topics, go ahead and pick one. You are generalizing far too much. There are illogical liberals and logical ones, just as there are illogical conservatives and logical ones. Basing someone's intelligence on political views is...well, illogical I guess.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism.

Quick counterpoise: while watching this year's CPAC convention, I saw conservative, Republican women who were planning to vote participate in the ridiculing of progressivism. If you can't figure out the disconnect there, I can understand precisely why you also don't see the logic in liberalism.

Side: Yawn
1 point

Mahollinder, I think you might be expecting too much, mate. Some people really do need the disconnect spelt out for them. I'll do it:

Women ridiculing progressivism

... and ...

same women planning to vote.

Women having the right to vote IS thanks to progressivism.

I saw that CPAC convention and wondered how these women would vote if presented with a bill to repeal women's right to vote.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

Both sides are illogical. What do you recommend we do, allow capitalism to run rampant. We've done that before and all that happens is a concentration of wealth which allows people to make the system unfair for everyone else. Robber barons of the late 19th early 20th century for example. When there are monopoly's the public and the industry loses. The industry involved has no reason to innovate and they can charge whatever they want if its a inelastic item like oil or electricity. I am not a supporter of liberalism by any means but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a middle ground. Any economist will tell you a strong middle class is the key to a healthy economy. Ours is melting away. A CEO today makes on average 500 times more than the average worker in his employ. 50 years ago it was 20 to 1. Capitalism is by far the best system we have because it plays on our most basic instincts for self improvement but every system needs regulation. Unfortunately in this country the middle ground is being created when there is a rare case of the radicals from both parties pulling on the rope with the same amount of force. We need to get some people in Washington that still think rationally and don't keep pulling so hard they end up as a repersentative of either the ACLU or the Tea Party.

Side: True

Believing in liberal ideas is like believing in Santa ;)

Side: True
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
4 points

What! There is not a Santa. Thanks Joe for wrecking my entire belief system. I hope your happy.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

Your economics logic sucks. If more people meant less good jobs, then right now we'd be the poorest people on earth. More people means we produce more. How much the jobs pay is determined mostly by the amount produced.

More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.

I could go on about other inconsistencies but I think at this point we know who's really illogical.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!

I would rather die than watch America be turned into a socialist country.

Side: True
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

Under Republican attitudes on health reform... you probably will.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
2 points

When a Republican wants health care he shops around for it, or gets a job that provides it.

When a democrat wants health care, he demands that everybody should pay for his.

Side: True
1 point

Were you really trying to find logic in a specific political stance?

Side: True
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

If you're arguing that political stances are not a matter of logic but of political values then I guess you're right. But most people have essentially the same needs yet they pursue the wildly different values in trying to satisfy those same needs. Some of those values if adopted actually would satisfy the person's needs while other values would not be as effective.

So I argue that it is reasonable to check logic in advocacy for a political stance because some political stances really do serve the supporters and are argued logically while others actually harm their own supporters and are argued in what's sometimes referred to as 'batshit crazy' ways.

Think religious and political extremism.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1 point

Yes, but this applies to todays liberals, if you were in, say, the early 1800's and a liberal you would stand for democracy, separation of church and state, etc.

But i do agree with you that their thinking is somewhat backwards.

Side: True

firstly this is an INTERNATIONAL website so this doesn't really work ;)

p.s. where i came from out PM for LABOR got kicked out. and your saying liberal is illogical.'

Either way its IRRELEVANT

Side: True
1 point

Liberal policies are very illogical and will lead to nothing but bad things . Let me use some examples

Gun Control : here is a scenario , if someone breaks into my house I can go into the back of my house and boom , threat over . But with gun control , someone breaks in , I call the cops , it takes them at least 5 minutes to get to my house , I'm most likely dead or wounded because I had to try to fight off an armed robber with my bare hands . And under gun control , cops are the only ones with guns . Have you seen the stupid stuff they do with their guns . Good job Obama . If a person wants to commit a crime they can get a gun to do it , their already going to commit a crime so what's the harm in buying an illegal weapon and make sure you succeed because you'll be stealing from a law abiding citizen without a gun . If you really want to stop school shootings give the guards a gun and tell them to shoot anyone with a gun on sight . At some high schools the guard has a tazer and are told to say "drop your weapon". If your not gonna give them a gun , at least don't allow the shooter to plead insanity . If I have learned anything , it's that giving the government more control is bad .

Health Care : the way universal health care works is money is taken from those who earned it and give it to those who are poor ( most of them through their own bad choices ) . See this is flawed when you think " there are more rich people than poor people so the poor aren't going to get that much while the rich are going to lose a good bit ." The premise of universal health care is that is you don't work free money . This supports not working in a economy that can not afford to have a lack of jobs.

Also , do you know how Hitler rose to power and became one of the world's worst dictators ? He gave the people universal health care , and took away their guns .

Side: True
-3 points
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

No, you don't get a point for this.

Write an actual response, not a series of dots.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
10 points

But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?

I don't follow your logic here. If you divided it evenly how can some people have more than others? Obviously you haven't divided it evenly if that's the case.

Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.

The top 10% own 90% of the nation's wealth.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!

I don't follow your logic here.

If you divided ALL the money in the world equally among everybody, eventually (as times progresses) stupid people would end up losing money to the smarter people and thus we would end up with a group of rich, smart, people and a group of poor, stupid, people.

Side: True
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
9 points

While this is entirely true, that some people have more isn't the problem. The problem is that a lot of people don't have enough. That some people have no home and others have multiple homes that sit empty most of the time, is kind of a sad reflection on our society. Now, I'm not suggesting that we just take away their belongings, not at all. I'm just pointing out that the system we have in place is designed to benefit the wealthy, because for the most part it's the wealthy that created many of these systems in the first place.

This has always been the nature of things, those in power tend do things that keep them in power, but it doesn't have to be that way. If we were to create a system in which power is more evenly distributed then we would see a drop in corruption. We've heard the old adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1 point

The top 10% own 90% of the nation's wealth.

Accept it and get over it.

Why do you feel as you owe something to society?

Side: True
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
9 points

No, I will not "get over it". A man who sees grave injustices and says nothing, is a traitor to his people. He has sealed his own fate should those injustices come his way.

I owe something to society because it has given me so many wonderful things. Among them, an education, modern medicine, clean water to drink, food to eat. You should never forsake a bearer of gifts.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
6 points

In a country as incredibly wealthy as the United States of America, should people be left without the basic essentials needed for life?

Say a guy gets fired from his minimum wage job. If it weren't for unemployment, he wouldn't be able to pay rent and would probably become homeless. Does that sound fair to you?

Say a woman can't afford health insurance. She gets really sick but doesn't get treatment because it will bankrupt her. When she finally ends up in the emergency room they find she has cancer and it has progressed too far to be treated. She dies. Is that the way life should be?

the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages

That's not necessarily true. Life is not a zero sum game. The mentality that for you to win someone else has to lose is wrong and destructive. Wealth can be created. People can trade fairly. Everyone can win.

But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?

What handouts are you referring to? Stuff like unemployment is strictly short term and comes with the requirement that people look for a job. It seems like no matter how many times I say this, you don't hear me. Could it be that you're just looking for someone to hate?

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
Cicero(239) Disputed
3 points

Say a guy gets fired from his minimum wage job

If we didn't have minimum wage there would be more jobs to go around and he probably wouldn't have lost his job. Also you said fired not laid off, so someone could do his job better than he could. Maybe he should have tried harder. And the unemployment. Why should I have to involuntarily pay for someone's life, if they have no incentive to get a job?

Side: True
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

I actually agree with you that minimum wage laws are harmful, but have serious doubts that getting rid of them would be politically feasible. We live in a democracy, after all, and that means dumb ideas can win if they are popular enough.

I didn't realize there was a difference between "fired" and "laid off". I should have said laid off, because that's what I meant. If the guy loses his job through no fault of his own, he ought not be forced into homelessness.

Why do you say he has no incentive to get a job? Unemployment benefits are strictly temporary. They only provide the minimum needed to survive. He will be motivated to get a job in order to increase his standard of living. And if that's not enough motivation, then he will be cut off after a certain period of time.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
2 points

If we didn't have minimum wage there would be more jobs to go around and he probably wouldn't have lost his job.

So living off a dollar a day is better? The people are still going to be on some type of welfare program...ultimately more people, any job that's in the private sector. The reason why we have a minimum wage is because the cost of living is so high.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!

Does that sound fair to you?

Life is not fair.

My mentality is NOT that "In order for me to win someone else has to lose." My mentality is that "In order for me to win, people have got to stop taking MY MONEY!!!!"

I'm not looking for someone to hate. I'm looking for someone I can get fired up ;)

Side: True
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

Why isn't life fair? Should we try to make it more fair?

What percentage of your salary do you pay in taxes? If you didn't pay any taxes would your life be substantially different?

Funny how you never try to get conservatives fired up. Seems to me like you just want to bitch. The "fired up" thing is just a cover, an excuse for engaging in selfish behavior.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1 point

"My mentality is NOT that "In order for me to win someone else has to lose." My mentality is that "In order for me to win, people have got to stop taking MY MONEY!!!!""

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: True
1 point

And unemployment benefits are calculated using the wage you had when you did have a job. The unemployed are people who WERE employed and are now not employed through no fault of their own.

Welfare & food stamps are another matter entirely though. Still far better for the economy than tax cuts for the wealthiest few, though.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

To your first point, I agree. These things certainly are not fair. But that is the way of life, and we cannot change that. If we did make it "fair" for them, it would only come at the expense of someone else forced to pay for welfare "charity". Taxing citizens for services they do not benefit from or going dangerously far into debt is not fair for the taxpayer, or the government. You cannot remove an injustice by substituting it with another injustice.

Side: True
4 points

Proof may be defined as "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it" (Wordnet). Colloquially, it is a set of statements which demonstrate the truth of a conclusion by logical steps from premises known or uncontroversially held to be true. Nothing of the sort has been provided here. Instead, a lot of claims have been made without evidence.

It is illogical to believe that a lot of random and false claims strung together constitute a proof that liberals are illogical.

It simply isn't true that all liberals believe someone else should pay anytime anybody needs money to pay bills. Whether or not some liberals do have such a stupid thought, not all do and it's not a necessary aspect of liberalism.

It simply isn't true that there is no way to pay for social entitlements (such as the US already pays). Most governments of developed countries levy taxes effectively, and when the markets they are taxing are huge (like US GDP) the revenue is enormous. This is why the US government is the most powerful organization on Earth for some time now - it effectively taxes the biggest market on Earth. Of course, there are limits even to what the US Government can do, but entitlements vary and the US does provide expansive entitlements as is (e.g. Medicare).

It is implied that there is no possible purpose in redistributing wealth except to create a situation where everyone has the same wealth, but no evidence is provided for this. For example, it may be cheaper and better to pay for some basic benefits than to deal with rioting or revolution (as becomes more likely when people are dying in the streets).

It is asserted that liberals are for abortion. I have never heard this position articulated by anybody. Many liberals believe that it should be the choice of the mother but I have never personally heard anybody saying that children should always be aborted, or even that abortion is a small matter.

It is implied that no one will work when handouts are available. However, living on food stamps is not enjoyable and makes a lot of Americans ashamed enough to get off of them. Everyone prefers to be wealthy or at least have middle-class luxuries rather than living on government cheese. Moreover, social welfare programs in the US generally have limits to prevent people from using them forever.

It is asserted that liberals act like intellectuals, and that non-liberals are rednecks. Some people believe this, but many liberals are not as described. Moreover, there are conservatives who believe the same thing - that all liberals are stupid (or even irrational, illogical or evil).

Given the foregoing, I question whether the poster really knows any liberals; or, alternatively, whether they are honestly representing what they actually see.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

Now that's an argument which does meet the standard I was hoping for. Will readers please compare and contrast the above argument with the argument made in the main description of the debate. Take particular note of standards of logical coherency and factual correctness.

I'm less concerned by whether someone agrees or disagrees with me than I am about whether they're able to give sensible reasons for taking whatever position they've taken.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

Liberals want everyone to have a great life.

Pretty much.

For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care.

If by someone you mean the state then you appear to be describing a state which is realistic about the fact that the population it serves can get sick and that the most prudent thing to do is to insure against disease on a national scale with vaccination programs and immediate good quality treatment for disease and trauma. ("... of the people, by the people, for the people ...". Remember?)

If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare.

Again by someone you mean the state. If the state recognises that even from a hypothetical situation of full employment the number of workers needed in each kind of role will vary over time as a society develops (i.e. full employment cannot be maintained as excess workers are made redundant due to shrinking demand for the role) then the state should act on that. If a worker is not well resourced enough to maintain themselves at all then they have few options other than crime. If a worker is only resourced enough to maintain themselves for a certain period then the state would have to hope that the worker's skills are in demand again within that time frame since at that point they will have few options other than crime. An even better situation is where the worker is well resourced enough to both maintain themselves and retrain for a role which is in demand. This leads to the most versatile population able to adapt to it's own societal development.

So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money.

Wrong. There are many ways to pay for the above but I'll give one example for each case taking the second case first.

A worker is made redundant as his skills are no longer in high demand. The state maintains and retrains the worker and a company wishes to purchase the worker's newly gained skills. The company pays the worker for his time and effort and the company also pays the state for having made the worker employable again. It's called income tax.

In the case of healthcare then we have a service which may be required by anyone at any time. One way to pay for that is to have everyone contribute from their income to maintain the service whether they are presently a service user or not. That's called national insurance.

But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?

In you're reply to Bohemian, you clarified what you mean by this in the following way: If you divided ALL the money in the world equally among everybody, eventually (as times progresses) stupid people would end up losing money to the smarter people and thus we would end up with a group of rich, smart, people and a group of poor, stupid, people.

I've encountered the words smart and stupid before and they seem to have different meanings in different contexts. In some contexts they correspond well to intelligent and unintelligent. In this context however, we can determine the meaning of the terms empirically as you've basically outlined an experiment which can and has been performed. Perhaps you've even done the experiment yourself without realising it.

In a game of poker where all players start with the same number of chips, the chips get passed around and eventually a few players end up with vastly more chips than the rest. They achieve this by being skilled at deceiving other players into positions where they are able to exploit them for their own gain. So here smart means skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends. By extention, stupid means the lack of one or more of these traits. Certainly, a society which makes no attempt to curb the exploits of those with sociopathic tendencies will ultimately find itself ruled by such like.

Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.

Yes. They're called tax brackets.

Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax. But liberals are for abortion!!!

No. It's not the population you want to increase but the tax you're able to raise. Forcing a teenage girl to have a child which will probably end her hopes of leading a better life will increase the population but will also increase the welfare demand in the present and decrease the taxes raised in the future as she will inevitably be a less skilled worker having had to spend time on childcare while studying.

But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.

Wrong. You appear to have overlooked the fact that it is people who generate demand for goods and services by existing. The more people there are the more demand there is for goods and services. Demand for goods and services raises the supply of jobs. Low wages arise when the supply of a skill set in the population outstrips the number of roles requiring that skill set. Also, as previously argued, the more rational thing to do is to retrain the worker with a skill set which is currently in higher demand but poorly represented in the population.

Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed. But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?

I find this comment very telling of your attitude to work and your lack of understanding that most people do not share this attitude. It is true that no one likes drudgery and no one likes being overwhelmed and either case impacts productivity. However, there is a sweet spot where challenge is matched to competency. This is when someone loves their job and are quite surprised that others are willing to pay them to do it.

It just doesn't make any sense.

In writing this contribution, I've come to understand why it doesn't make sense to you. You are labouring under a number of false notions and where you have the facts right you're messing up the logic.

But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.

True and false. Initially, intellectuals come from all sides of a debate. Over time as the facts are verified and putative 'facts' are discredited and as the logic of the competing arguments have been scrutinised, one perspective or a few related perspectives get the lion's share of the intellectuals. Now, having the lion's share of the intellectuals does not mean a perspective has the lion's share of the population. This is because intellectuals, being characterised by an uncommon intellectual aptitude, are always in the minority and on some questions the perspectives adopted by the intellectuals may be too nuanced to comprehend by common sense alone. Common sense is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for a good education and reasoning logically from physical evidence.

I get the distinct impression that I've spent substantially more time thinking about this 'proof' than you have. There may be a good argument for liberals being illogical but this isn't it.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
3 points

1)Why does the state have to insure against diseases? Would not the most prudent thing to do be that an individual insure against disease?

2)Why should the state insure against un-employment? Again,would not the most prudent thing to do be for the individual to insure against this which would eliminate alot of goverment waste by having administrations upon administrations doing this? Think of the savings.

3)" It's called income tax." Companies don't pay income tax(technically).Companies take their portion from what they would have paid you and send it to the goverment.If there was no income tax,YOU would receive higher pay from your company from two sources,what you pay in income tax and also from what they take from you for their portion.The money you say is paid by companies is actually taking away from what you would be paid.

" That's called national insurance."- Again,would it not be more prudent for me to insure myself and less costly (beuracracy). It is proven that an individual will spend their own money more prudent than others would.

4)" end up with vastly more chips than the rest" Life is not a zero sum game, trade and cooperation are mutually beneficial to all parties despite differences among them in terms of capacity and talent.Everyone is made wealthier through cooperation and market economy leads to the benefit of everyone.

5) And the war on poverty has been going on for how long while the same percentage of people remain poor.

Side: True
smh62(39) Disputed
2 points

States don't have to do anything. State governments are, in the end, umbrella companies governing all other companies and individuals within a nation. They both regulate and facilitate companies' and individuals' conduct and opportunities. Some things are better handled by such an umbrella organisation precisely because the individual case is less relevant than the group condition.

1) In epidemiology, the key factor is not individual immunity but herd immunity. A vaccine is of little value to a society without a sensible vaccination programme. Individuals can vaccinate themselves against a disease but can do little to vaccinate themselves against the social unrest caused in their society if all others go unvaccinated.

2) Because the state would ideally be "... of the people, by the people, for the people ..." Governments used not to concern themselves much with such issues but that was hundreds of years ago when hardly anyone had a vote. Individuals can and do attempt to insure against unemployment by holding down a job. The state steps in when Plan A fails. Why should the state step in? Because it is responsible for the rule of law and should take measures to see to it that none are put in a position where their very survival depends on their willingness to act contrary to the laws.

3) When it comes to income tax, you need only consider the following hypothetical scenario: if a government decided one year that income tax should be 0% for all workers then how much of the money saved would companies pass on to the employees? I would expect different answers for different nations. In the UK, I would expect something near or around 50%. In the US, I would expect something much closer to 0%. Once you understand that you see that, despite the usual sense that it is you who is paying income tax, the fact is it's money you don't see in practice and, in the US, wouldn't ever see even in principle. However, it is money spent by the companies. So your income tax is being paid by your employer and if income tax didn't exist then you would still be paid just the same. No passing on of savings. Sorry to have to break it to you.

" That's called national insurance."- Again,would it not be more prudent for me to insure myself and less costly (beuracracy). It is proven that an individual will spend their own money more prudent than others would.

Yes, and individuals do insure against disease by purchasing a wide array of cleaning products and exercising good hygiene practices. The point is that it would be prudent of a state to have a plan B in place in case individual precautions fail.

Are you using 'proven' in the same sense as used in the title of this debate? Does 'proven' actually mean your firmly held opinion lacking any actual evidence? How thoughtfully a government spends it's budget comes down to a number of factors including it's level of corruption and it's decision making efficiency and accuracy. But these are factors you have to contend with whenever you hire a plumber to do a big plumbing job. Unless you're an expert plumber, it's not something you could do yourself. My advice then is that if you're concerned about irresponsible handling of funds then you shouldn't vote in crooks and incompetents just as you wouldn't hire a dishonest plumber.

4) Yes. That's correct in the larger picture. However, there are those who, despite the opportunity for mutually advantageous cooperation, prefer to play for substantially greater personal gains irrespective of the human cost. A poorly conceived market which favours those adopting this kind of strategy finds itself dominated by this strategy.

5) And the war on poverty has been going on for how long while the same percentage of people remain poor.

Really? What percentage would that be and how long has it remained the same? If a plumber is plumbing away endlessly and yet I can see no useful results after a substantial period then I hire a new plumber. I don't suddenly decide that I don't need running water any more.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!

"So here smart means skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends. By extension, stupid means the lack of one or more of these traits."

That's right. And you end by implying that being "skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends" is a "sociopathic tendency" .... which "by extension" means that animals are sociopaths.

Now you can claim that there are altruistic animals but it can be shown that even the most altruistic animal has some selfish tendencies.

You can also claim that humans are somehow better than animals (or that they should at least try to lift themselves up above the animals) but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that given human history. You can argue that just because the current human condition is so abysmal doesn't mean that we should stop trying but I would argue that we should just accept human nature for what it is and stop banging our head against the wall. I mean, it's 2010, for crying out loud. If we haven't gotten there yet by now, how much longer do you want to keep trying?

A good education is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for good old fashion common sense given years of physical evidence. ;)

Side: True
smh62(39) Disputed
1 point

And you end by implying that being "skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends" is a "sociopathic tendency" .... which "by extension" means that animals are sociopaths.

Animals? Kind of a broad category you have there. Sociopathy is a meaningful term in the context of social species i.e. species which depend on cooperation amongst individuals in order to get on with the business of survival. In all other cases, the animal is simply surviving.

Now you can claim that there are altruistic animals but it can be shown that even the most altruistic animal has some selfish tendencies.

Yes. An animal acting in it's pack's interest doesn't simply set aside it's own individual needs. If an individual is not particularly altruistic then it doesn't often do things for the benefit of the group or other members of the group. But that's still not selfish. To be selfish, an individual would need to show a persistent pattern of serving their own interests despite the substantial cost to the group and other members of that group.

You can also claim that humans are somehow better than animals (or that they should at least try to lift themselves up above the animals) but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that given human history. You can argue that just because the current human condition is so abysmal doesn't mean that we should stop trying but I would argue that we should just accept human nature for what it is and stop banging our head against the wall. I mean, it's 2010, for crying out loud. If we haven't gotten there yet by now, how much longer do you want to keep trying?

Humans are animals. Humans can no more lift themselves above the animals than it is possible for Los Angeles to be north of California. Current human conditions aren't abysmal precisely because generation before us have strived to improve things regardless of the time and effort involved. Things are as they are today precisely because someone kept banging the rocks together instead of simply accepting the cold and wet darkness as the natural order of things. It's called progress.

A good education is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for good old fashion common sense given years of physical evidence.

Where to start? Personal impressions aren't physical evidence. Roughly 300,000 years of all humans relying on personal impressions have proved puny compared to 300 years of a few scientists attending to actual physical evidence. Similarly, an education attending to physical evidence is more than a thousand times (and probably more than a million times) more effective than widely held personal impressions (i.e. common sense).

;)

Just keep banging the rocks together, not your heads.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

IRRELEVANT TOPIC THIS WWEBSITE IS INTERNATIONAL ;)

HOW EVER WHERE I COME FROM: labor kinda sucks..

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
2 points

This piece is written with illogical assumptions about liberal beliefs- like absolutes. Open your mind to a wider margin of thinking for a moment and you'll find that most liberals don't believe "someone should pay for" everything. Liberals believe it is the duty of the state to help its people. What else does it exist for? If it was defense alone, it would be a military rule. Sure Conservatives tend to lower taxes, but they still come in. Collected taxes, no matter how small, is a lot of money. Where does the money go if not to social programs focused on helping the people?

Side: Wait..., what..., no!

ummm a political stance or party is just a set of political ideals, not everyone of that political ideals, or stance are part of it for illogical reason. secondly not all liberals share the EXACT same political opinions, they can end agreing with the conservative political ideals once in a while. what makes a liberal a liberal is the majority of thier political opinions being apart of the liberal stance not all this that your projecting onto us. liberal/democrat, conservative/republican are all just labels for political opinions that tend to go togethor.

Side: Wait..., what..., no!
1 point

In Australia, the Liberal party is equivalent to the U.S. Republican party (conservative). Luckily, we are not given to the extreme conservatism of the U.S. Both parties have supported national health care together with strong private health care for those who can afford it. The U.S. is the only western country that believes only those with money deserve health care.

On a side note, the extremes of both are illogical:

- Left wingers want to control business but not your personal life.

- Right wingers want to control your personal life but not business.

Side: Both illogical