I was talking about fairness. You responded to my argument about fairness. It is not unreasonable to conclude you were talking about fairness. Then you come back with, “I didn’t say it wasn’t fair. Why do you assume I did?”. :rolleyes:
Post whatever you like, wherever you like. I won’t be paying much attention.
Whoa! Did I actually spot a conservative talk bad about Bush v. Gore? Or does the whole “wizards contradicting the will of the people” schtick only work when you disagree with the wizards?
I’m reasonably certain that Bush v Gore was about the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to legislate election law and whether or not the recounts could be completed before the constitutional deadline, required by Florida law. I’m reasonably certain that gay marriage had nothing to do with it, which was the context of what you quoted, Randvek.
I’ve been recently informed that my factual reply to a statement about the progressive/regressive nature of federal taxes was so egregious that I shall be ignored from here on. Apparently, I didn’t take the context of “fairness” (from what the statement was in reply to) in consideration when I replied to the statement, that said nothing about fairness. I expect you shall be severely reprimanded, shortly, for your deliberate and gross context change.
I, on the other hand, am not nearly so petty. I simply want to point out the irrelevance of your intentionally drastic change of context.
Amartya Sen’s research is fantastic because it exposes how a nation’s wealth may not be in the interests of its citizens. How much would you reduce your lifespan or health for a pay increase?
Feel free to post correlations of crime rates in countries with high and low social expenditure or a majority Social Democratic government and authoritarian governments. It’s one way of developing a falsifiable hypothesis.
I’m referring to the one conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson, though I don’t think a single poll has shown Fox News viewers to be more informed.
I haven’t watched it, I think the onus is on the individual making the claim.
As for gay marriage, I’m a proponent of it, but I think that the majority decision should hold. I believe in the absolute power of democracy: the judiciary (like corporations) operate under a system indistinguishable from feudalism. The favoured are chosen from within the ranks, rather than elected for the people in their interests. I’d hold that view consistently: in Alabama 40% of the citizens voted to keep a law against racial miscegenation on the books. If it had been a majority, I think that decision should have held, despite being highly repressive.
No, they want to marry the consenting adult that they love (hopefully). This sort of argument has no judicial precedence since the ruling of Loving vs. Virginia. I don’t think all arguments in support of gay marriage are equal though: saying that God must love homosexuals because He created them that way is a terrible argument. Psychopaths were also most likely born without empathy, or predisposed to not having empathy which was activated by some environmental factor. Is murder and rape part of God’s plan?
So it is preferable to be married and then marched off to re-education camps and worse?
Those who don’t look much, don’t find. It’s sound in theory and probably has some decent but not compelling statistical evidence in it’s favour. Although not intuitive, it is just as rational as lowering prices when facing an elastic demand curve. Similarly, there is also a number of studies that suggest there is a “sweet spot” in terms of the size of government to maximize economic growth.
The Laffer Curve is somewhat simplistic as each individual has their own curve of this nature so trying to generalize personal preferences for millions of people becomes a bit of a mugs game. Not all taxes are created equal, and that includes things like user fees and targetted tax exemptions or credits.
It was Gore v. Bush, by the way, because it was initiated by the lliberal who wanted the robed wizards to override the decision of the elected administration in Florida as to how the will of the people, federally, would be expressed. So the answer is neither: I was not talking bad about Gore v. Bush in the result because it never should have gone to the courts in the first place.
Well, if you use the Human Development Index (which Sen helped create), Canada was number one for a good number of years. Only two countries had a meaningfully higher index: Norway and Australia. Canada, at 0.908, is tied with New Zealand and Ireland, while the USA and the Netherlands are two parts in a thousand ahead.
I’d have to look at the breakdown of the components of the HDI to comment further, but in the USA’s case, the higher rating is probably based on it’s GDP rather than the other factors.
However, it isn’t just GDP that defines “wealth” because you have to also look at the fundamentals.
What hypothesis would that be? Authoritarian governments have lower crime rates while those with a “freedom fetish” (America being the best example) have higher rates. Those are just observations.
I can tell you that income inequality corelates with homicide rates. You can use Wikipedia to find both Gini Coefficients by country and homicide rates by country. You will have to do your own regression after you cut and paste the numbers in Excel or whatever. I’ve done it; the R2 is remarkable.
I suppose the logic gets interesting:
Income inequality creates crime
Criminals support Democrats
Democrats support reducing income inequality
(note: I’m not asserting those as linear, merely interestingly connected)
However, income inequality is not allieved by policies like mandating that home ownership must be available to people who can’t afford it.
I could go on, but this is a thread on the IQ of Reds and Blues rather than an economic sociology lecture.
I’d have to look closer at the poll from “Snookie U” but I wouldn’t expect any academic to find in favour of Fox because they tend to actively or subconsciously construct studies that will “prove” their own, liberal beliefs. There seems to be some methodological problems, but I have to see the full poll and such to point them out.
I don’t see the comparison to feudalism.
[/QUOTE]
The favoured are chosen from within the ranks, rather than elected for the people in their interests.
[/QUOTE]
That certainly sounds like the way university professors get tenured, like the ones from Snookie U who lambasted Fox.
What time frame are you talking here? Granted, Alabama is a bit behind the curve in that is is illegal to sell a dildo in the state.
Again, Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with gay marriage. It affirms a real civil rights principle that people should not be arbitrarily discriminated against on the basis of race. The court acknowledges that marriage is fundamental to our survival. A homosexual union obviously doesn’t do that.
I can’t comment much on “God’s Plan” because I am not religious. I am not so daft as to be an atheist, but I certainly am not a Christian.
So you’re saying homosexuality is not a real civil rights issue?
Marriage is not fundamental to our survival, our survival is dependant on the means of subsistence. The survival of the species is likely to continue despite any governmental policy, barring nuclear annihilation or the disastrous effects of climate change (if one follows that line of reasoning). The important point is that they repudiate the notion that while marriage is a right, being able to choose whom one marries is a privilege.
This was in a 2000 referendum.
Ad institution. Feel free to address the methodology. The feudalistic aspect is precisely that they aren’t accountable to the people whom their policies affect.
That Liberals advocate crime and that a Liberal government would pursue policies that increase crime rates during their administration. I don’t think an independent source would rate the US government as being liberal though: Barack Obama ranks as authoritarian right according to politifact. Looking at the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, there may be some evidence to support such a hypothesis (though the Nationalist party is in power in Honduras atm rather than the Liberal one and the Venezuelan government may be described as authoritarian progressive rather than social democratic).
I agree. I’d rate the fundamentals as being more important than PPP, in fact.
Oh, I neglected to mention that Jesus’ conception was essentially pre-Capitalistic. Where individuals sold their labour due to lack of access to the means of production, it was usually to an individual that wasn’t part of the redundant population but rather someone that produces their own means of subsistence and wished for assistance. Surplus labour usually took the form of slavery or prostitution, rather than the endemic form of rent and wage labour.
SSM is not.
Mhmm. I hope you understand that your opinion is worth less than the opinion of those who are actually being denied the freedom in this case.
I hope you understand that is a gutter argument that simply poisons the well. It is also a fox-guarding-the-henhouse sort of argument.
So make a rational argument that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, rather than just simply declaring it.
The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll report had three knowledge questions:
(Fox was last on these two)
(Fox was second to last; MSNBC was last)
Ok, well, there’s a fourth question, but it’s not listed with the other three. It’s in a separate section on “Effect of News Sources”:
(MSNBC was best; Fox was second best)
A fifth question from the same poll was published separately in “Part Deux.” Fox tied with MSNBC for 10th (/15), though MSNBC was the only one to have a negative effect on knowing the right answer.
This one had a breakdown, not included in the other report:
Answered “Germany”
All 30%
Republican 36%
Democrat 33%
Independent 26%
(Democrats had the highest “Don’t Know” answers)
You mean like rational-rational or only those arguments that conform with liberal logic?
There have been some studies about religiosity of the parents I read a long time ago. If you ask a social worker like my ex-wife you will get some very definite answers. I volunteered in the largest homeless shelter in phoenix in the 80s and one here in Wyoming in the 90s. What my feeling on the abuse issue is that those who come out of the abuse strong are usually rather liberal and caring people. Those who don’t are often prone to be abusers themselves and their politics reflect their parents, usually conservative in the males.
It wasn’t Gore v. Bush; there was no such case. The underlying case was styled Gore v. [Florida Secretary of State] Harris.
Florida’s Secretary of State is an appointed position, not an elected one. The “administration” wasn’t elected; the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and Chief Financial Officer were. Unless, of course, you consider all actions of, say, Obama’s cabinet officers to represent “the will of the people”?
Under the Florida constitution, it was the job of the robed wizards to determine how the will of the people should be expressed in the event of a dispute or contradiction of law.
The laws were put in place by elected representatives and the person who was supposed to follow the laws was appointed by the elected representatives.
The unelected robed wizards of Florida, appointed by Gore’s predecessor and ideological traveller, found a conflict in the laws that wasn’t there. The interpretation was unreasonable. SCOTUS said so. The End, in part because the state court was mucking with the Federal Constitution.
Ah, so it really is that simple: unelected officials appointed by Republicans are expressing the will of the people, while unelected officials appointed by Democrats are not. Most people shy away from expressing hypocrisy openly, but I commend you for putting it out in the open.
Also, since you seem to be unaware: Florida Supreme Court justices are appointed by the state governor. Whoever you mean by “Gore’s predecessor” (Dan Quayle? Bill Clinton? Howard Baker?), none of them have ever been Governor of Florida. Lawton Chiles, who appointed most of the justices who heard Gore v. Harris, was not Gore’s predecessor in any sense.