This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 456 78 ... 251
151
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:24:04 PM »
Smoking is bad and the majority of medical experts can corroborate with that claim. Must be an appeal to authority fallacy too going by this shit logic.
If you're arguing that smoking is bad BECAUSE medical experts all agree, then yes, that's fallacious.
Smoking is bad because it's physiologically harmful and addictive. Not because people deem it so.
And how exactly do you think we arrived at that conclusion then?
Oh yeah, medical and scientific experts telling us so.
Not because they told us, but because of the research behind it.
And what makes you think these economists haven't conducted research of their own either?
Well different economists have reached different conclusions, so it's not exactly cut and dry.
152
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:21:07 PM »
Smoking is bad and the majority of medical experts can corroborate with that claim. Must be an appeal to authority fallacy too going by this shit logic.
If you're arguing that smoking is bad BECAUSE medical experts all agree, then yes, that's fallacious.
Smoking is bad because it's physiologically harmful and addictive. Not because people deem it so.
And how exactly do you think we arrived at that conclusion then?
Oh yeah, medical and scientific experts telling us so.
Not because they told us, but because of the research behind it.
153
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:15:02 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
The term 'benefit' being completely subjective of course.
When you're better educated, you can get better jobs. This is not subjective.
An overwhelming majority of economists who are more educated on this topic than you disagree. So yeah, it kind of is.
So your level of education is entirely unrelated to prospective employers? If you've spent 5 minutes looking for a job you'd know that's a lie.
Okay so strawman aside, the original proposition that was posited was free tuition, with the vast majority of experts concluding that it is indeed, bad. When someone who has extensively studied a field that is telling you that a certain course of action is a bad idea, perhaps you should actually listen to what they're saying and not label it "a benefit".
Except it's a bad idea because it would mean banks, schools, and government can no longer fuck over people and rake in tones of money. It's a bad decision economically because they won't bring in as much money to pad their administrator's pockets.
This is the serious board. Conspiratorial arguments aren't welcome here.
My bad, I forgot people always act in the best interests of the people, and never their pocketbooks.
154
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:14:17 PM »
Not everything needs to operate like a business. Our educations shouldn't hinge on who can afford it, nor should it exploit those who cannot.
No, but our education institutions - from pre-K through college - should be well funded and ensure the best care.
How it's being run now isn't doing that.
So we should continue the practice of charging exorbitant amounts for education, causing millions of young people to begin their adult lives under a mountain of debt, until...whatever is wrong with our education system is fixed?
And where the fuck did I say that?
Well your response had nothing to do with taxpayer subsidized public education, so I'm trying to figure out how it's linked to what we're talking about.
Because the problem that we have with colleges and tuition costs isn't entirely unrelated to education as a whole in America?
The entire system needs to be overhauled. Not just say "Hey, make college free"
Well any overhauling or increased funding will require higher taxes, even if we ignore college for the time being.
Not entirely.
Then what do you propose we do?
155
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:09:56 PM »
Not everything needs to operate like a business. Our educations shouldn't hinge on who can afford it, nor should it exploit those who cannot.
No, but our education institutions - from pre-K through college - should be well funded and ensure the best care.
How it's being run now isn't doing that.
So we should continue the practice of charging exorbitant amounts for education, causing millions of young people to begin their adult lives under a mountain of debt, until...whatever is wrong with our education system is fixed?
And where the fuck did I say that?
Well your response had nothing to do with taxpayer subsidized public education, so I'm trying to figure out how it's linked to what we're talking about.
Because the problem that we have with colleges and tuition costs isn't entirely unrelated to education as a whole in America?
The entire system needs to be overhauled. Not just say "Hey, make college free"
Well any overhauling or increased funding will require higher taxes, even if we ignore college for the time being.
156
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:06:19 PM »
Not everything needs to operate like a business. Our educations shouldn't hinge on who can afford it, nor should it exploit those who cannot.
No, but our education institutions - from pre-K through college - should be well funded and ensure the best care.
How it's being run now isn't doing that.
So we should continue the practice of charging exorbitant amounts for education, causing millions of young people to begin their adult lives under a mountain of debt, until...whatever is wrong with our education system is fixed?
And where the fuck did I say that?
Well your response had nothing to do with taxpayer subsidized public education, so I'm trying to figure out how it's linked to what we're talking about.
157
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:05:41 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
The term 'benefit' being completely subjective of course.
When you're better educated, you can get better jobs. This is not subjective.
An overwhelming majority of economists who are more educated on this topic than you disagree. So yeah, it kind of is.
So your level of education is entirely unrelated to prospective employers? If you've spent 5 minutes looking for a job you'd know that's a lie.
Okay so strawman aside, the original proposition that was posited was free tuition, with the vast majority of experts concluding that it is indeed, bad. When someone who has extensively studied a field that is telling you that a certain course of action is a bad idea, perhaps you should actually listen to what they're saying and not label it "a benefit".
Except it's a bad idea because it would mean banks, schools, and government can no longer fuck over people and rake in tones of money. It's a bad decision economically because they won't bring in as much money to pad their administrator's pockets.
158
« on: February 27, 2016, 03:03:25 PM »
Not everything needs to operate like a business. Our educations shouldn't hinge on who can afford it, nor should it exploit those who cannot.
No, but our education institutions - from pre-K through college - should be well funded and ensure the best care.
How it's being run now isn't doing that.
So we should continue the practice of charging exorbitant amounts for education, causing millions of young people to begin their adult lives under a mountain of debt, until...whatever is wrong with our education system is fixed?
160
« on: February 27, 2016, 02:56:58 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
The term 'benefit' being completely subjective of course.
When you're better educated, you can get better jobs. This is not subjective.
An overwhelming majority of economists who are more educated on this topic than you disagree. So yeah, it kind of is.
So your level of education is entirely unrelated to prospective employers? If you've spent 5 minutes looking for a job you'd know that's a lie.
161
« on: February 27, 2016, 02:55:58 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
Good hearted ideas don't always lead to good outcomes.
Or maybe taxpayer subsidized education doesn't make the government, banks, and schools money, thus it is "bad" economically.
Do we need to have Meta explain this for a....sixth? Is it sixth time?
He can explain it all he wants. I fundamentally disagree. Not everything needs to operate like a business. Our educations shouldn't hinge on who can afford it, nor should it exploit those who cannot.
162
« on: February 27, 2016, 02:53:13 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
The term 'benefit' being completely subjective of course.
When you're better educated, you can get better jobs. This is not subjective.
163
« on: February 27, 2016, 02:52:49 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
Good hearted ideas don't always lead to good outcomes.
Or maybe taxpayer subsidized education doesn't make the government, banks, and schools money, thus it is "bad" economically. Education shouldn't be profitable.
164
« on: February 27, 2016, 02:49:52 PM »
I like how anything proposed by Sanders that would actually benefit Americans in a real way was met with "bad"
165
« on: February 27, 2016, 12:40:19 PM »
Am I in /r/the_donald?
>he gpes to reddit
Where's the euthanasia when you need it?
what's wrong with Reddit?
166
« on: February 27, 2016, 01:06:13 AM »
Am I in /r/the_donald?
167
« on: February 27, 2016, 01:03:21 AM »
Important note: The state right the South fought for was the right to own another human being.
Even if they don't want to admit that, Mississippi's Declaration of Secession clearly states slavery as a reason. Second sentence of the document. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.aspOur position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world
168
« on: February 27, 2016, 12:45:52 AM »
what he did is certainly wrong if the description of the person he was trying to get nudes from was emotionally unstable and depressed. Would it not be wrong if she did it on her own will?
It's sort of a grey question.
I disagree. Taking and distributing nudes of a 13 year-old is still wrong.
I don't believe that two consenting teenagers who are "Underage" giving nudes to each other are necessarily in the wrong, honestly.
Only adults have the ability to legally give consent.
169
« on: February 26, 2016, 08:57:50 PM »
what he did is certainly wrong if the description of the person he was trying to get nudes from was emotionally unstable and depressed. Would it not be wrong if she did it on her own will?
Who would be wrong?
She would be.
170
« on: February 26, 2016, 08:53:05 PM »
what he did is certainly wrong if the description of the person he was trying to get nudes from was emotionally unstable and depressed. Would it not be wrong if she did it on her own will?
It's sort of a grey question.
I disagree. Taking and distributing nudes of a 13 year-old is still wrong.
171
« on: February 26, 2016, 08:40:32 PM »
what he did is certainly wrong if the description of the person he was trying to get nudes from was emotionally unstable and depressed. Would it not be wrong if she did it on her own will?
172
« on: February 26, 2016, 01:16:54 PM »
Based on the definition of a fetus and the definition of a child. The actual act of giving birth is the only objective method to determine the difference. None of those wishy-washy windows of weeks of development.
So a fetus, hours before birth, fully functional and capable of surviving outside of the mother, is not a person. While one at the exact same developmental stage, having been "born", is a person, by virtue of having passed through the birth canal.
Correct.
We don't issue birth certificates before people are born. You become a legally-recognized person upon birth.
That's arbitrary as fuck.
Why on earth would you an issue a BIRTH certificate if someone hasn't been BORN yet? An appeal to previous legal practice for this shit is inane.
How is a distinct act in any way arbitrary? The process of birth is the only distinct event in the pregnancy process.
173
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:53:10 PM »
Based on the definition of a fetus and the definition of a child. The actual act of giving birth is the only objective method to determine the difference. None of those wishy-washy windows of weeks of development.
So a fetus, hours before birth, fully functional and capable of surviving outside of the mother, is not a person. While one at the exact same developmental stage, having been "born", is a person, by virtue of having passed through the birth canal.
Correct. We don't issue birth certificates before people are born. You become a legally-recognized person upon birth.
174
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:48:32 PM »
I've had that cake. It's so fucking good. It's also fucking terrible for you.
175
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:46:52 PM »
Obviously a fetus is not a child,
This is not obvious at all. In fact, over all the abortion discussion I've seen here, I have not seen any clear reasoning behind this other than an appeal to biology based on the development of certain physical features.
A fetus becomes a child upon birth.
And you come to this conclusion based on what?
Based on the definition of a fetus and the definition of a child. The actual act of giving birth is the only objective method to determine the difference. None of those wishy-washy windows of weeks of development.
176
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:45:40 PM »
I wonder how much Hillary paid them to do that.
The Twitter executive is a huge Hillary supporter but you never know
Hmm, surely no conflict of interest there.
177
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:39:21 PM »
Obviously a fetus is not a child,
This is not obvious at all. In fact, over all the abortion discussion I've seen here, I have not seen any clear reasoning behind this other than an appeal to biology based on the development of certain physical features.
A fetus becomes a child upon birth.
178
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:33:53 PM »
I wonder how much Hillary paid them to do that.
179
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:32:25 PM »
Yes.
If you can't even afford to care for yourself, you cannot afford to care for an extra dependent. You're going to severely complicate your own life and the life of the child by bringing them into that kind of living environment.
This reasoning makes sense in the context of family planning.
It is retarded reasoning for abortion.
So if someone living in poverty finds themselves to be pregnant, they should carry the pregnancy? That's a great plan...
If someone living in poverty finds themselves, as a consequence of their own actions, in a situation where they can save money and stress by killing someone, they should do it?
Spoiler I use this reasoning because you have so far been using the word "child", which generally indicates that it is a person.
I use "child" because we're assuming they carry the pregnancy to term. Obviously a fetus is not a child, and abortion is not killing a person, nor is it murder. Yes, a person who cannot support a child should terminate the pregnancy. Just like you wouldn't buy a car you can't afford, or move into a house that is well above your budget.
180
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:23:00 PM »
Yes.
If you can't even afford to care for yourself, you cannot afford to care for an extra dependent. You're going to severely complicate your own life and the life of the child by bringing them into that kind of living environment.
This reasoning makes sense in the context of family planning.
It is retarded reasoning for abortion.
So if someone living in poverty finds themselves to be pregnant, they should carry the pregnancy? That's a great plan...
Pages: 1 ... 456 78 ... 251
|
Show Posts