What do you think is really going on? Let's get a little political here.

I assume you've all heard of the recent Vermont power grid "hacking" story. A few days ago a Vermont utility company found a russian virus on some guy's computer and (part of) the press extrapolated the fact, turning it into a so-called proof of a Russian conspiracy to hack the US power grid... That title was a fucking clickbait, and I just knew it. But not just your average buzzshit clickbait, a serious fucking one this time. When you read the article it became clear: pure bullshit. No evidence whatsoever, all that happened is that they found a regular virus on a random guy's computer, which happens a million times a day everywhere in the world. A few hours later they retracted, a lot of other sites and agencies stated that there was no such thing as a power grid hack attempt. Those media outlets jumped to conclusions to serve their own agenda, it seems.

Now regarding the "hacking" of the US election. Several US government agencies are claiming it's real. Are we being lied to? Are the FBI and homeland security and others all following orders of a higher instance or do they have actual evidence?
So far, they haven't shared much with the general public. Last week they released a document, which I read, but if you read it too you will find that it's absolutely empty of evidence. All it states is "we found some IP addresses in the logs" and "we found a bit of code that was used before". That amounts to nothing at all.

So why do they keep going on about this?
Do you think these agencies have insights they cant share with the public? could they have informants within the russian goverment? that's one of the few things I can think of that they would never be able to reveal. Or maybe it is just more political bullshit... but what's the point? Trump will take office soon and all this Russia crap isn't working. Apparently Trump has something to say on the subject that he will reveal on tuesday or wednesday. I wonder what that may be.

 

[Pluupy]

I think there are too many coincidences for Russia to not be involved in some way.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion. I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing seeeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.

Unless I've been dramatically misunderstanding what's going on, this is the opposite of what you've just been saying...

I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with an proclivity towards bureaucracy.

I would certainly rather be able to contribute on an individual basis, but sadly that's not the most efficient way of helping everyone. Unless you have a centralized agency that knows who makes what amount of money for a certain amount of work they put in per week and therefore what should be dispensed out of the available funds, there are always going to be the people who unfairly will fall through the cracks and won't be able to receive aid that might literally save their (or their dependents') lives

 

[Lacius]

If you're going to call me disingenuous each time you disagree with me on something, we're not going to have a level-headed discussion.

I'm not calling you disingenuous because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here and have never once called them disingenuous. Each time I've called you disingenuous, I've explained why. Among other things, you've misrepresented an article, you've misrepresented my past positions, and you've misrepresented history. Considering the times I've corrected you and you've ignored me, I have to assume you purposely spouted misinformation in a misguided attempt to win an argument, which I consider to be disingenuous.

I'm as genuine as it gets - I always speak my mind, which often gets me in trouble, but that's just the way I am. If I made a mistake, you can just point it out - I will happily concede it provided the evidence supports what you're saying, which in this case it does.

I've pointed out numerous inaccuracies and contradictions of yours in the past, and this is the only time I remember you conceding anything. That's another reason I've called you disingenuous.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral College either, just so we're clear, however! Since the states have been stripped off most of their power by implementing seeeping federal-level legislature, the Electoral College is the last vestige of said power which is necessary until the power to self-determine is restored to the states where it belongs. A good example here are the Marihuana laws. The drug became legal in numerous states as of late, a great victory from both a Democratic and Libertarian standpoints alike, which is unprecedented. It is, however, still illegal on a federal level. What this basically means is that if I want to become a weed farmer conforming with all the legal requirements of such a business, start employing people to tend to my plants and distribute them in accordance to all health and safety regulations, I must ask for a permit from the state, at which point I have no guarantee that the DEA won't put me in jail and the FDA won't shut me down since, technically, I'm a criminal, except I'm not, except I am. I would wholeheartedly support the idea of dismantling the Electoral College and I'd march towards Washington chanting the same slogans with you side-by-side if only the Federal government didn't intervene in the lives of private citizens and supersede whatever rules they wanted to live by, enacted by their representatives. The difference between a state government and the federal government is that one can very easily move states should the legislation in a state become unpalatable to one's taste, the same cannot be said about moving out of the country. The United States protect freedom of movement within the Union, moving out of the Union is an international affair. That's a whole different can of worms though, not really relevant in the context of the Russian narrative.

We can both acknowledge problems with state vs. federal law, particularly where they conflict. However, whether or not you like the amount of control states have over their own governments is irrelevant to whether or not the Electoral College is fair. You seem to have pulled a 180.

I'm not against public roads - I will happily pay for any service I use as long as you don't ask me to pay for it at gunpoint. Helping your fellow man is a virtue - do so through charity, don't force others to do so at the threat of violence. Forced charity isn't charity at all - it's theft. We go back to the ten thieves argument. Just because ten thieves democratically decided to steal from you doesn't mean they're not thieves, they're just thieves with a proclivity towards bureaucracy. If you don't think it's under the threat of violence and at gunpoint, you should try not paying taxes - government agents will soon knock on your door, and they have better guns. As for healthcare, I wouldn't let my employer choose what toppings I get on my pizza, why on earth would I want them to choose my healthcare plan? That's ridiculous in and out of itself and not at all what I'm advocating for - that's as anti-free market as it can possibly be.

If you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent, you can vote, advocate for policy, and even run for office. However, if those three things don't yield your desired results, you only have two options: deal with it or leave. There's no better system I'm aware of.

 

[Foxi4]

Unless I've been dramatically misunderstanding what's going on, this is the opposite of what you've just been saying...

I would certainly rather be able to contribute on an individual basis, but sadly that's not the most efficient way of helping everyone. Unless you have a centralized agency that knows who makes what amount of money for a certain amount of work they put in per week and therefore what should be dispensed out of the available funds, there are always going to be the people who unfairly will fall through the cracks and won't be able to receive aid that might literally save their (or their dependents') lives

Understanding why the Electoral College is still necessary and opposing its existence are two different things. I don't like brushing my teeth, but I don't like tooth rot more than I don't like brushing them. As for charity, state-sponsored welfare is many times less efficient than privately ran charities, money is drowned in bureaucratic structures before it ever reaches the intended recipients. If it wasn't midnight here, I would've posted some studies on that, but hey - you can look them up yourself.

I'm not calling you disingenuous because I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here and have never once called them disingenuous. Each time I've called you disingenuous, I've explained why. Among other things, you've misrepresented an article, you've misrepresented my past positions, and you've misrepresented history. Considering the times I've corrected you and you've ignored me, I have to assume you purposely spouted misinformation in a misguided attempt to win an argument, which I consider to be disingenuous.

I've pointed out numerous inaccuracies and contradictions of yours in the past, and this is the only time I remember you conceding anything. That's another reason I've called you disingenuous.

We can both acknowledge problems with state vs. federal law, particularly where they conflict. However, whether or not you like the amount of control states have over their own governments is irrelevant to whether or not the Electoral College is fair. You seem to have pulled a 180.

If you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent, you can vote, advocate for policy, and even run for office. However, if those three things don't yield your desired results, you only have two options: deal with it or leave. There's no better system I'm aware of.

You grossly overestimate my level of engagement - if I wanted to prove you wrong, I would with stats, figures and sources rather than replying on my mobile for the sake of a conversation. I have nothing to gain or lose here as I'm not even an American, so I don't know why you'd presume any form of wrong-doing on my part as if I was a Russian spy of some sort. I haven't conceded in the past because you haven't proven anything in the past, to my knowledge - my concessions are expensive, you need to work hard to get one, or I have to slip up due to my innate laziness and casual approach to the subject. As for the supposed 180, I started this conversation by saying that the Electoral College is necessary in order to protect state's rights and ended it by saying that the Electoral College is necessary to protect state's rights, I don't see the change you're trying to point out, besides different wording of the same idea, perhaps.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not going to rehash old arguments we've had. Since legal marriage does exist, should people have equal access to it? Saying "nobody should have it" doesn't answer the question.


What about when people are disadvantaged relative to you due to an immutable characteristic? In other words, if a person can't rise and fall the same as you despite equal work and equal merit, what should be done (if anything)? If nothing, what can be said about the type of society that you want to live in?

Edit: Pardon the edit, but I do hope I've helped you to see the contradiction between your belief and your view on policy. If you can't find it, please let me know.

Completely missed your edit, so I'll address it late. As far as marriage is concerned, it depends on how you choose to define marriage. If you're asking specifically about access, "nobody should have access to it" is an entirely valid answer - it's obsolete in the modern age. If you want to get married, go to your church.

As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's good at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government is just screwing with people. The lesson shouldn't be that "you can be anything you want" - surprise, you can't. You can, however, discover something you're good at, at which point you should start doing it. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.

Now please, point out the inconsistency - I'm curious.

 

[Reploid]

Its kinda well known fact that we did it among our folk, no secret at all. It is as commonly known as the fact that USSR saved europe in WWII

 

[Foxi4]

Its kinda well known fact that we did it among our folk, no secret at all. It is as commonly known as the fact that USSR saved europe in WWII

Define "saved". If you mean enslaving half of it under totalitarian, communist rule then I'm not sure that's the kind of saving Europe needed. Just so we're clear, Stalin went after Hitler only after the third reich prodded the big communist bear, he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. Bad weather saved Europe, coupled with the inability of German engineers to prepare their tanks for cold temperatures. I will happily thank grease for freezing, I will never thank the Soviets for "saving" me.

 

[Reploid]

Define "saved". If you mean enslaving half of it under totalitarian, communist rule then I'm not sure that's the kind of saving Europe needed. Just so we're clear, Stalin went after Hitler only after the third reich prodded the big communist bear, he didn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. Bad weather saved Europe, coupled with the inability of German engineers to prepare their tanks for cold temperatures. I will happily thank grease for freezing, I will never thank the Soviets for "saving" me.

Does history knows any other saves?

 

[Foxi4]

Does history knows any other saves?

I suppose you're right, but I prefer ones that don't entail mass genocide. People are quick to forget, but history never does - Stalinism murdered more people than Nazism.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's great at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government prevents people from fulfilling their potentials. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.

Financial aid is hardly "trying to force a square peg into [a] round hole." It's trying to force a money-shaped peg into a money-shaped hole. And yes, while I understand that disabilities are not necessarily detrimental to employment status, there are definitely other factors that contribute to extreme poverty that would benefit from government assistance. For instance, during the Reagan administration, our middle class essentially got absolutely fucked over, which means there's a significant disparity between the people who have "more than enough to get by" and "are taking out loans to pay off their loans." I know that you live in Poland, so I have no idea if the situation is significantly different over there than it is here. But here, if you're born into poverty, it's basically guaranteed that unless you can pull of a miracle with your grades (which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons if you're living in a lower-class district) and get a bunch of scholarships on top of advanced financial aid, the highest academic grade level you're going to achieve is a senior in high school. Because of this, any work you're going to get is either going to be manual labor (which, don't get me wrong, pays very well, but isn't for everyone) or a minimum-wage job, which, here in the US, is not enough to actually live by if you pay rent and have to buy your own groceries. So, to get by those first few years before you get a pay raise, you're going to rake up a bunch of credit card debt, which annihilates your credit score, making it difficult to look for future housing/vehicle options. You also may be at increased risk of illness, which your low end job most likely won't cover if you're admitted into the hospital for anything that doesn't occur on-site, thus putting you in further debt. Then the cycle continues.

I get that the narrative of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is poetic and all, but I honestly think that anyone who advocates for either hasn't had it as bad as the people they're referring to, or has never had to do it themselves, period.

 

[Lacius]

Completely missed your edit, so I'll address it late. As far as marriage is concerned, it depends on how you choose to define marriage. If you're asking specifically about access, "nobody should have access to it" is an entirely valid answer - it's obsolete in the modern age. If you want to get married, go to your church.

You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.

As far as immutable disadvantages are concerned, I don't think the government should intervene at all, neither on the state nor on the federal level. I'm sorry if you were born with some form of disadvantage, but that's not my fault - I'm not liable for it and shouldn't be burdened by it. Equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity to prosper, but never equal outcome - outcome is up to the individual and how said individual uses their strong points. I like cartoonish examples, so I will use one right now - if you were born a dwarf, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "a little person", I hate to break it to ya, but you won't make a good NBA player, and the state shouldn't step in and browbeat the NBA into making you one. That being said, your small posture doesn't mean that you don't have a large heart full of entrepreneurship. Start the National Dwarf Basketball League - I guarantee people will bust through windows to watch that. I personally know a head of a dwarf wrestling federation, people love it. As a less cartoonish example I can mention my numerous colleagues who are disabled, one of whom has high-functioning autism. He's great at his job, and he didn't get it because the government compelled the company to hire him - they hired him because he's good at what he does. Every individual is different and by trying to force square pegs into round holes the government is just screwing with people. The lesson shouldn't be that "you can be anything you want" - surprise, you can't. You can, however, discover something you're good at, at which point you should start doing it. You don't get a strong society by slowing everyone down to an equal pace, you get one by pushing your best and brightest forward. The law needs to be structured to reward effort, not to stifle it by lowering standards to lowest common denominators. Call me heartless if you want, I'll still tell you to start a GoFundMe. We live in the Internet age, you can start a business out of a basement, disabilities have never been less detrimental to success.

Now please, point out the inconsistency - I'm curious.

If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.

In other words, you've expressed a particular worldview, but you're against the policy that is conducive to that worldview. That's the contradiction. You can't say "I don't want people to get special treatment" while doing nothing about the special treatment people are getting.

 

[hobbledehoy899]

I'll just leave this here for you fine folks...

 

[the_randomizer]

I'll just leave this here for you fine folks...

Why do people defend those CNN losers? And there's a word that I want to say that starts with C, but I'm sure people can guess. Because this guy is just a class act cretin.

 

[Foxi4]

Financial aid is hardly "trying to force a square peg into [a] round hole." It's trying to force a money-shaped peg into a money-shaped hole. And yes, while I understand that disabilities are not necessarily detrimental to employment status, there are definitely other factors that contribute to extreme poverty that would benefit from government assistance. For instance, during the Reagan administration, our middle class essentially got absolutely fucked over, which means there's a significant disparity between the people who have "more than enough to get by" and "are taking out loans to pay off their loans." I know that you live in Poland, so I have no idea if the situation is significantly different over there than it is here. But here, if you're born into poverty, it's basically guaranteed that unless you can pull of a miracle with your grades (which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons if you're living in a lower-class district) and get a bunch of scholarships on top of advanced financial aid, the highest academic grade level you're going to achieve is a senior in high school. Because of this, any work you're going to get is either going to be manual labor (which, don't get me wrong, pays very well, but isn't for everyone) or a minimum-wage job, which, here in the US, is not enough to actually live by if you pay rent and have to buy your own groceries. So, to get by those first few years before you get a pay raise, you're going to rake up a bunch of credit card debt, which annihilates your credit score, making it difficult to look for future housing/vehicle options. You also may be at increased risk of illness, which your low end job most likely won't cover if you're admitted into the hospital for anything that doesn't occur on-site, thus putting you in further debt. Then the cycle continues.

I get that the narrative of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is poetic and all, but I honestly think that anyone who advocates for either hasn't had it as bad as the people they're referring to, or has never had to do it themselves, period.

I don't live in Poland. I legally emigrated on my own dime and found employment relatively quickly. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.

And you're asking me a gotcha question. The fact that we have the institution of marriage around is irrelevant to the question of whether people should have equal access to it. If you're asking a stupid question when you already know my position, don't be surprised to get a stupid answer. I'll make this easier for you - if you ask me "should everyone have equal access to it?" I'll say yes, by which I mean the legal institution of marriage shouldn't exist, thus nobody should have access to it. That's technically equal access - no access at all, equally across the board. If you want to ask the cartoonish question of whether homosexuals should have access to it just to fuck with me, I'll say "No", because nobody should ever get married, homosexual or otherwise, period. If you're asking for the requirements of marriage then first we need to define the purposes of the union, and then the requirements will form themselves before your eyes.

If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.

In other words, you've expressed a particular worldview, but you're against the policy that is conducive to that worldview. That's the contradiction. You can't say "I don't want people to get special treatment" while doing nothing about the special treatment people are getting.

People have an equal opportunity of success *under the law* and should not be discriminated *by the state*, the only contradiction you're seeing is rooted in the idea that equality should be enforced with a gun to everyone's temple - an idea I do not share. You *have* equal opportunities *today*. Protections against people not going along with eachother shouldn't exist and you can't force one group to actually embrace another - you're only building resentment. Forcing me to pretend to like someone I can't stomach or else, whatever the reason may be, is punishing me for wrong-think, which is totalitarian. If I'm an employer, I have freedom of choosing who to employ in *my* establishment - you can judge if you want, but you can't punish me. If you don't like the way I run my business, don't do business with me.

I contest the idea that Affirmative Action is there to nullify preferential treatment that'd otherwise exist. The government has no right to be selective in how to treat citizens as we're all supposed to be equal under the law. A private citizen can, which doesn't make it not frowned upon. If you're the Dean of Harvard and you have three SAT score sheets, you should treat them equally - the higher the better, and may the best win. If you dock the score of the Asian kid, keep the white kid's score intact and add a couple of points to the black kid's score, you are a fucking racist, I don't care why you're doing it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

America is having an extremely hard time understanding that you can't fix racism with more racism - "reverse racism" isn't a thing, it's just racism. If you give someone preferential treatment because they're a little browner than everybody else and thus they'll be a good addition to your diverse team, you're playing the identity politics game and you've become exactly what you purport to hate, you just dressed it up nicely.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I don't live in Poland. I legally emigrated on my own dime and found employment relatively quickly. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

??? Where do you live, then? You've given the impression that you don't live in the US, and your (changeable) flag says Poland

 

[Foxi4]

??? Where do you live, then? You've given the impression that you don't live in the US, and your (changeable) flag says Poland

That's because I'm Polish and I don't live in the U.S.? My nationality didn't change just because I moved. I live in the UK, I moved to Wales a few years back.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

That's because I'm Polish and I don't live in the U.S.? My nationality didn't change just because I moved. I live in the UK, I moved to Wales a few years back.

Ah, I see. Sorry, I was just a bit confused lol

Either way though, my point still stands. Just replace "Poland" with "Wales"

 

[Foxi4]

Ah, I see. Sorry, I was just a bit confused lol

Either way though, my point still stands. Just replace "Poland" with "Wales"

It doesn't, because I don't buy such excuses. The government, or society as a whole, has no obligation to prop you up. The government has an obligation to create a level legal playing field, but besides that your success is in your hands. You have to use your strong points to your advantage and prop *yourself* up. There's nothing unfair about some people being wealthier than others - they, or their ancestors, worked to get that money. It doesn't belong to you or to the government and nobody is entitled to redistribute it to "make things equal" - that's theft. You having different circumstances doesn't restrict your capacity to be successful. Nobody says that everyone should be an astronaut - attainable goals are an important part of planning.

 

[Foxi4]

After rethinking the argument I'm having with @TotalInsanity4 (who is still salvageable, we'll make people out of him with some luck) I noticed that I may have come off as a tad unfeeling or unfair and that my position needed some clarification. As I said, I lean on the side of equal opportunity, however I don't believe that Affirmative Action is a reasonable solution to the various problems facing minorities. If we consider blacks as an example specifically, to make my position clearer, the reason why their scores are generally lower and their prospects on the job market without such policies are markedly worse as a result is because they overwhelmingly live in areas of perpetual poverty, in neighbourhoods riddled with crime, they're brought up in broken up, single-parent households and attend terrible public schools with high drop-out rates. Pretending that their performance is better than it really is relative to another person is idiotic - that doesn't solve the root cause of the issue. Besides, those issues don't just affect black people - white, asian or native poor kids perform just as poorly in their future lives. The solution here is better funding for urban development, a stronger police presence to ensure safety, better public education with a stronger curriculum, an increased, not decreased level of requirements for college education and an overall higher level of education in terms of quality. The reason why a college degree has become what a high school diploma used to be isn't because the standards of the job market increased, it's because the standards of public schooling decreased and college degrees started being handed out willy-nilly, ultimately lowering the degree's value. If everyone finishes college then it just doesn't matter - it's just a piece of paper. It is the government's job to address the issues of the public sector and invest in areas of relative poverty, it is not the government's job to treat people unequally based on their colour of skin, sex or other characteristics under the premise that that'll somehow rub off on the rest of their community - it won't. Even with all of those issues addressed by the government, such areas cannot escape the grasp of poverty if the communities themselves do not trigger a change in their culture, which is probably the most important factor here. If the community wholeheartedly believes that it is being persecuted, it will never rise above that. This is not something a government can wave a wand at and fix - families need to instill certain values, children need to be taught to believe in themselves, to believe that they are equal, to believe that they are protected just like everybody else and to believe that their success is in their hands, and it needs to happen at a young age. The United States of America is one of the only countries on Earth that was established with the rights of an individual, not a collective, in mind. It is, and always has been, the Mecca for individuals who want to make their dreams come true through hard work, dedication and entrepreneurship. If you take that cult of the individual away and replace it with various labels translating to "bonus points", you are chipping away the very foundation of the country. The government should create, or at least attempt to create equal opportunities, the government has a responsibility to modernise and invest in run-down areas to catch them up with more prosperous ones, but it should not force an equal outcome upon its citizens - the outcome is up to the individual, always.

 

[RevPokemon]

You still didn't answer my question. Once again, you're being... dare I say it... disingenuous.


If you want people to have equal opportunity and to be rewarded proportionally to the quality and quantity of the work they put in, you can't simultaneously advocate against policy that would, for example, criminalize discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic. You say you don't want to give certain groups of people advantages, you don't want people to be given special treatment, etc., but in a hypothetical world where you're able to get a business loan but a black man cannot solely because he's black, you're getting special treatment. You don't seem to realize that barring discrimination, for example, isn't favoring one group over another or giving anyone special treatment; it's getting rid of the special treatment that would otherwise exist.

In other words, you've expressed a particular worldview, but you're against the policy that is conducive to that worldview. That's the contradiction. You can't say "I don't want people to get special treatment" while doing nothing about the special treatment people are getting.

I feel like you are being pretty disingenuous in terms of your argumentation with regards here.

It is completely valid to personally advocate for a certain ideal system yet also be against such policy that would enact such a thing in a certain way or period. To say otherwise is simply foolish. This is because there are countless questions that must be asked such as is such a bill ethical, Constitutionally sound, or productive? It can have the intent of providing a framework such as to end discrimination but it may not pass the other tests.

Now I must say I have no problem with race, gender, or sexuality being used to discriminate in terms of whether it comes to private people and organizations acting in business from a legal or ethical standpoint. Why? Because criteria is purely subjective and people should be free to set it up however they want to as the only opinion that matters is that of the business owner who initiates the steps of the process. This is not to say I agree with such processes but is thier right to do so.