PNWI Community Thread version 3.0 (KEEP REFRIGERATED AT ALL TIMES)

[Aklerc]

Night guys, I'm off to bed. A whole day of drinking and having general fun has taken it's toll :wave:

[Mr. Ron]

night.

[samariah]

the guy running our school was really into art.. Which was cool most of the time, because it made the environment a little more interesting

but then one day, there was this artist seance thing where this middle aged woman came to our school and started chanting and dancing while pouring paint and jam and what else she could find in her kitchen over herself and rolling around naked on a carpet

and after that, the walls were plastered with these foul photos from this seance.. A naked middleaged woman covered in jam.. And in the middle of it all hang the carpet she did this one.. Reeking of something not so nice
so you couldn't go to the cafeteria without losing your appetite.

so after getting 70 % of the students to sign a petition to get them removed, without anything being done about it, 10 of us snuck up to the school at night, (we had gotten some keys from a teacher who was in on it) and we taped plastic bags over all the images

So now all art for the school has to be approved by a council of students

oh my

[Mr. Ron]

oh yes

[Knifeboy]

oh my


oh your

[The Stig]

Okey dokey:
-It's moving from the town centre to join with a college based in a residential area out of town (there are more points to this I'll get in later)
How far?
-The town centre will lose loads of business and some will have to shut down[/quote
How much of the town's business is only college students? Also, if the distance is only a couple of km or miles, it shouldn't affect the businesses if they are worth going to.
-There is no other example of co-location working with a college of our reputation
Irrelevance
-We have lurvly buildings and the area we are in is great for spreading outside the college into social areas like the quarry (a big park)
Seems like a small problem and again slightly irrelevant.
-The traffic on London Road (where it's going) is awful and dangerous as it is, without an extra 1500 students going there.
I could see a point here.
-There isn't enough parking spaces for all of the staff, let alone any students.
Mass transit? Walk?
-Enough social space for 300 students, when there will be over 3000 students every day.
But will that be 3000 at a time or throughout the day?
-Trying to get there will be really hard. I only live 20 minutes out of town and I'd have to get up about 5:30 to spend £4-£5 making two separate bus journeys into town then the campus. So anyone even further out won't even have the choice of going to SSFC because they can't get there.
By the same logic, some of the people who live further in the direction the school is moving would now be able to go there. Plus, you sound a bit overcrowded anyhow.
-Choice. People chose to go to Sixth Form not just for the courses but the place. It's a great location to be at. Take away that choice and what are you left with. One goddamn campus in an awful location.
Sounds like they will have a choice of the same school but a different location. Explain what you mean here a bit more.
-The ONLY reason they've given funding for this is because they haven't been presented with another option. They'd be happy to give the college money to extend the campus where it is.
Inadmissable as evidence as that is speculation.
-Our college (whic gets seriously good results and in general is a brilliant institution) will actually result in getting less space than before. The planned drama and music department (whic at the moment consists of two classrooms, one studio and two practice rooms with other space) was going to be one classroom.
Will that be carried through the whole school or just one (admittedly unimportant) department?
-We will lose teachers. Up to 30% from both SSFC and SCAT. This alone is a good enough reason not to move.
You guys sound crowded. Less teachers = less CO2.
-3000-7000 (the added 4000 are those that could be part time, there will be 3000 full time students) people in a college with no where to go during frees/lunch in a residential area is not good.
Pack your lunch.
-The extra transport needed to get to the new site with raise CO2 emissions, which is something the world needs to cut down on. Especially with a project that is not necessary.
Oh dear.



I would have no problem with it if it was logical to co-locate. We will lose teachers, the journey is dangerous, the location is stupid and illogical and our college will not be as good as it is where it is now.

Don't worry, I've done my research. 'Tis something I feel quite strongly about.

There has to be a reason for the switch. Streamlining perhaps?

[Aaron]

I like sandwiches.

[Dr Hooch]

Hell they probably did, but they were there to support and made up the numbers, which is what we were worried about. 97% students don't want co-location so they were there because of that, even if initially they think it's cool. But tbh, the group of us that organised it are really against it and we're willing to do as much as we can to stop it, so if the supports there, I'll damn well use it.

The first one was pretty unpopular and we were scared it was going to happen with this one too since our Principal threatened us with suspension/expulsion. Loads of people couldn't be bothered either. It was last period on the Friday we broke up, so people had the option of going home if they wanted to. But they made the choice to stay and be listened to for once because our college has done nothing but ignore us. So I guess that counts for something.

This alone justifies doing it. But...

Sounds like the local government want to save money, you feel it will negatively affect your education and quality of life, as well as damage the local area, and you haven't been given a proper arena to air your grievances, so you took to the street, got media attention for your cause and showed the college you were willing to act on your beliefs.

Seems to me it was a perfectly mature and reasonable response to young people being ignored.

[The Stig]

Dr. Hooch -- I'm just trying to get an argument going more than anything. I don't think it's possible to intelligently debate the topic without hearing the council's side of the decision as to why they are merging the campuses.

My first three comments were meant to be taken seriously as was the comment about the traffic and the speculation charge, but I'll admit some of the other stuff became trolling. But I can't know if Herbert here is making valid points or not, as I'm only hearing one person's argument about the situation, and that one person is vehemently opposed to the said action. If I can get her to prove her points by showing the other side's views and proving why they are wrong, I'd be more likely to be sympathetic towards her side of the story.

[Reaganista]

a good friend from uni was brought up in a pretty sheltered way and still believed in santa age 14.

Her parents told her the year after and she cried.

i think i was 8 when my parents told me i cried ive never trusted anyone since then

[Amit]

it's true i saw it on youtube

[Iskandar]

I suspected there was no Santa from the get-go, so one year I hid behind the couch.

Yep, my dad came out.

[Reaganista]

How far?

How much of the town's business is only college students? Also, if the distance is only a couple of km or miles, it shouldn't affect the businesses if they are worth going to.

Irrelevance

Seems like a small problem and again slightly irrelevant.

I could see a point here.

Mass transit? Walk?

But will that be 3000 at a time or throughout the day?

By the same logic, some of the people who live further in the direction the school is moving would now be able to go there. Plus, you sound a bit overcrowded anyhow.

Sounds like they will have a choice of the same school but a different location. Explain what you mean here a bit more.

Inadmissable as evidence as that is speculation.

Will that be carried through the whole school or just one (admittedly unimportant) department?

You guys sound crowded. Less teachers = less CO2.

Pack your lunch.

Oh dear.





There has to be a reason for the switch. Streamlining perhaps?
lol toolbox

[Iskandar]

Paul hates the poor. He wants the rich to have more electoral power than the poor.

[Amit]

electric*

[Dr Hooch]

Dr. Hooch -- I'm just trying to get an argument going more than anything. I don't think it's possible to intelligently debate the topic without hearing the council's side of the decision as to why they are merging the campuses.

My first three comments were meant to be taken seriously as was the comment about the traffic and the speculation charge, but I'll admit some of the other stuff became trolling. But I can't know if Herbert here is making valid points or not, as I'm only hearing one person's argument about the situation, and that one person is vehemently opposed to the said action. If I can get her to prove her points by showing the other side's views and proving why they are wrong, I'd be more likely to be sympathetic towards her side of the story.

fairgame

[Iscariot]

powar*

[Futue te Ipsum]

if the poor didn't want to be starving they'd feed themselves

[Reaganista]

Paul hates the poor. He wants the rich to have more electoral power than the poor.

that's not wat makes him a toolbox why dont u get this

[Iskandar]

if the poor didn't want to be starving they'd feed themselveswhat are you even talking about

[PerpetualBurn]

He's saying, in absolutely all seriousness, that poor people enjoy being poor.

[Aklerc]

How far?
Usual journey- 10 minutes.
Rush hour- 20 minutes or more.

How much of the town's business is only college students? Also, if the distance is only a couple of km or miles, it shouldn't affect the businesses if they are worth going to.
We have loads of shops aimed at students during the week like Subs, Greggs, Subway etc. Students use the town centre LOADS during the week and businesses will lose out, since some businesses, obviously, have been built because of the students. It makes sense to exploit a large number of people going into town multiple times a day.

Irrelevance
Well why should we be guinea pigs? It is unnecessary.

Seems like a small problem and again slightly irrelevant.
Not considering ther will be nowhere for students to go out into during lunch/frees.

Mass transit? Walk?
1. Clog up the traffic even more than it's already going to be if we move?
2. Not everyone can walk. That'll only be the people that live in Shrewsbury, and even then that's about 3k, which I'm sure some people would be willing to walk, but the majority won't. When I went a meeting about this the other week a guy did a really good map to show the impracticalities of it. I may try and do it again.

But will that be 3000 at a time or throughout the day?
At lunch and break it will be all at once.

By the same logic, some of the people who live further in the direction the school is moving would now be able to go there. Plus, you sound a bit overcrowded anyhow.
But the ones that chose to go to SSFC, because it's a good college and because it's easy to get to will be simply unable to get there practically. I mean it's already a 12 hour day for my friend and she'd have to add maybe another 2-3 hours on that.

Yes it is overcrowded, but we don't need to co-locate. We can extend our campus where it is.

Sounds like they will have a choice of the same school but a different location. Explain what you mean here a bit more.
It's not a choice if you can't get there. It's like choosing a uni- you choose it for it's location and what the city/town is like as well as the course. It's on a smaller scale at college because chances are you're still living at home, but there is still choice that's been taken away.

Inadmissable as evidence as that is speculation.
No, it's evidence. At the meeting it is the point that our MP stressed the most. The LSC who are funding the move have definitely said they will consider alternatives, but our college and the college we are co-locating with haven't given them that choice.

Will that be carried through the whole school or just one (admittedly unimportant) department?
It's the only example I can give. But we will always get second choice with only 40% of the space. Our teachers have had to fight for more space.

You guys sound crowded. Less teachers = less CO2.
Less teachers + more students = bad teaching. Yes, we are crowded, which is why something has to be done. But we should use the money to extend where we are now.

Pack your lunch.
Still have to go somewhere.

There has to be a reason for the switch. Streamlining perhaps?
The reason is because we are crowded. The reason they want to co-locate is because SCAT will get lovely new resources and basically have a great college. Our principal is also coincidentally retiring at the end of the year and won't have to deal with all the problems once it gets going. SCAT is going to get money.

They're not considering other options because they aren't as simple (our college is a listed building, but we have unused carparks which is college property to build on and a street that has been offered to us) but they're better. We should just build around the campus we have.

Sounds like the local government want to save money, you feel it will negatively affect your education and quality of life, as well as damage the local area, and you haven't been given a proper arena to air your grievances, so you took to the street, got media attention for your cause and showed the college you were willing to act on your beliefs.
Shwing!

[guitrguy]

if the poor didn't want to be starving they'd feed themselves

I lol'd

[Knifeboy]

what are you even talking about

humour

[The Stig]

Paul hates the poor. He wants the rich to have more electoral power than the poor.

If you pay no income taxes you do not support the federal government. Likewise, if you are in a tax bracket that pays 50% of your income to taxes you support the federal government much more. People should be able to have more of a voice the more income tax they pay and have a say at what their investment does. Cap it at something like 5 votes for the highest tax brackets so an outlier like Bill Gates won't run the entire show.

Also, this (assuming rich people take voting seriously) encourages them to stop putting all of their money offshore to evade taxes.

[Dr Hooch]

Yeah but a) does anyone take voting seriously and b) you can contribute to society in more ways than financial ones

[The Stig]

Well, I take it pretty seriously.

And the people I have a problem with are the genuine welfare system moochers. If someone has a genuine problem that doesn't enable them to work, I think you have to have a minimal safety net for them. But if people who are perfectly capable of working choose not to do so, I don't think they should receive any government assistance.

With that said, I fell the main way people contribute to society in a quantified way is through financial means (taxes). If people choose not to contribute through being able to work but not doing so, I don't feel they should be able to have a say in how the government is run. Again, the genuinely disabled/unable to work people should have a say, as it isn't entirely their fault they contribute less. But in the vast majority of the cases, this would not be the case.

Thank you FDR for helping set up this mess of an income tax and welfare system.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because what we want is rich people to be able to vote in policies that ensure they remain rich.

It's all about polarising the classes.

[Hababi]

If you pay no income taxes you do not support the federal government. Likewise, if you are in a tax bracket that pays 50% of your income to taxes you support the federal government much more. People should be able to have more of a voice the more income tax they pay and have a say at what their investment does. Cap it at something like 5 votes for the highest tax brackets so an outlier like Bill Gates won't run the entire show.


You're forgetting that the social security tax tops out at around $80,000 taxable income. So, the rich pay scarcely any social security tax relative to the working class. Thus, can the poor get to make all the decisions about social security?

You don't seem to believe in social responsibility. Those who prosper from the system have a responsibility to the society that has allowed them to be so prosperous.

[ringworm]

It's all about polarising the classes.
lol

its funny, i always hear about wanting "equality", but it always invloves making sure someone ISNT treated equally to get there, in this case, just because they have been successful, they are enviously targeted by everyone below their yearly income. You cant make everyone equal by treating specific groups differently.

Do I have a better solution? No
Am I trying to start an argument, No

but it just tickles me to hear how polarized things are and how much some want to fix it, but it usually involves using the same tactics they despise, but it doesnt hurt as much when its used on certain people.

[Iskandar]

its funny, i always hear about wanting "equality", but it always invloves making sure someone ISNT treated equally to get there, in this case, just because they have been successful, they are enviously targeted by everyone below their yearly income. You cant make everyone equal by treating specific groups differently.I don't think you understand how this works.

[PerpetualBurn]

When he's talking about giving rich people 5x the voting power of poor people it's not enviously targeting the rich.

[The Stig]

If you work harder and give more support to the federal government, you deserve more of a say in how it is run. You don't see someone with one piece of stock in a company have the same say as a majority shareholder, no?

And Steve, there are more federal taxes than Social Security taxes. And no, I don't really believe in a social responsibility.

[Hababi]

If you work harder


Annual income is rarely tied to effort. Some of the hardest working people don't make $50,000 a year.


and give more support to the federal government,


Low income jobs prop up the economy, on the macro level, just as much as higher income level jobs.


You don't see someone with one piece of stock in a company have the same say as a majority shareholder, no?


That person has much less of a stake in the company than a majority shareholder. We all have equal stake in the government.


And Steve, there are more federal taxes than Social Security taxes.


Yes, and many are flat or regressive. Income tax is about the only progressive one, and even that has been scaled back in the last 30 years.


And no, I don't really believe in a social responsibility.

Then what does the national identity consist of?

[PerpetualBurn]

If you work harder and give more support to the federal government, you deserve more of a say in how it is run. You don't see someone with one piece of stock in a company have the same say as a majority shareholder, no?

Well it's a massively stupid thing to assume that richer people work harder than poorer people do.

You're talking about creating a plutocracy, and that's obviously a bad thing for massive sections of society.

[Hababi]

Not to derail this, but I feel that in the Christmas spirit, this needs posting: http://break.com/index/angry-grandpa-ruins-christmas.html

[The Stig]

Annual income is rarely tied to effort. Some of the hardest working people don't make $50,000 a year.

To get a really good, well-paying job usually requires a college or post-graduate degree. Almost anybody can do physical labor. Compare that with being a lawyer, airline pilot, or doctor.

Low income jobs prop up the economy, on the macro level, just as much as higher income level jobs.

I'm talking about the amount of tax revenue from each person. Someone who earns $150,000 a year puts more into federal tax money than someone who makes $29,000 a year.

That person has much less of a stake in the company than a majority shareholder. We all have equal stake in the government.

Yes, that's the current situation. I see that as a gross injustice.

Yes, and many are flat or regressive. Income tax is about the only progressive one, and even that has been scaled back in the last 30 years.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Your social security tax is not the only federal income tax you pay.

Then what does the national identity consist of?

I don't understand your meaning here. Explain further?

[Hababi]

To get a really good, well-paying job usually requires a college or post-graduate degree. Almost anybody can do physical labor. Compare that with being a lawyer, airline pilot, or doctor.

Ah, but this is different. It's not who necessarily works harder, but who gets a better education. But even that's insufficient. Lots of people with high school diplomas make more than lots of social workers with masters and even doctorates. The average salary for a college professor isn't that much more than an RN, a position requiring no more than an associate's degree.

So it's not education level, either. It's based on the career path you choose and the value society places on that career path. Society.

But even dealing with education level, you oppose federal funding for higher education grants. This means that higher education would be reserved for the wealthy. So, the wealthy would preserve their wealth, and you would have a pure aristocracy.

Democracy is based on the idea that all people are equal. Regardless of income level, race, etc., all people have the same rights. And voting is a right, is it not? If you believe in equal rights, then you must believe in equal voting rights. You can no more believe that the wealthy have a greater right to assemble or speak than vote.

PS there are lots of relatively low paying fields that require a great deal of work, and that not many people could do. The emergency medical technology field is one of them.



I'm talking about the amount of tax revenue from each person. Someone who earns $150,000 a year puts more into federal tax money than someone who makes $29,000 a year.


Yes, but they often pay a lower percentage of their income to the government.


Yes, that's the current situation. I see that as a gross injustice.

I don't think you followed my point--if the company goes bankrupt, the person with only a small bit of stock in it loses only a small bit. But if the government goes under, we all lose equally. Because a private company is not the same as the public institution.



I think you misunderstood what I meant. Your social security tax is not the only federal income tax you pay.

Yes, but it is one of them, and it is one that is grossly unfair to the working class.



I don't understand your meaning here. Explain further?

I mean that the loss of social responsibility is the loss of national identity. National identity is predicated on a sense of social community and responsibility. Why did people volunteer to fight against the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor? Social responsibility. People who suffered no loss never the less identified with their fellow countrymen and joined the army to fight those who attacked us.

[The Stig]

Ah, but this is different. It's not who necessarily works harder, but who gets a better education. But even that's insufficient. Lots of people with high school diplomas make more than lots of social workers with masters and even doctorates. The average salary for a college professor isn't that much more than an RN, a position requiring no more than an associate's degree.

So it's not education level, either. It's based on the career path you choose and the value society places on that career path. Society.

But even dealing with education level, you oppose federal funding for higher education grants. This means that higher education would be reserved for the wealthy. So, the wealthy would preserve their wealth, and you would have a pure aristocracy.

Democracy is based on the idea that all people are equal. Regardless of income level, race, etc., all people have the same rights. And voting is a right, is it not? If you believe in equal rights, then you must believe in equal voting rights. You can no more believe that the wealthy have a greater right to assemble or speak than vote.

PS there are lots of relatively low paying fields that require a great deal of work, and that not many people could do. The emergency medical technology field is one of them.

A couple points here. First, I equate getting a good education with hard work. It isn't a cakewalk to go through and get your degree. You work hard to get an education and through that work and application, you get better job skills and are able to get a better paying job if you want. And in general, people with higher level degrees earn more than those without. There are going to be some high school level people who will earn more (usually through work at something where they excel), and there are college educated people who choose a career path that pays less.

Let's say I earn a law degree. I could become a multimillionaire ax attorney or I could be a public defender earning $40,000 a year. If I make the choice to go to a lower paying job either because I feel I have to do duty for society or because I slacked off and barely passed, it's a conscious decision to go down a career path that pays lower. The same goes for your social worker with a masters degree who still earns less money. When they went into that field, they knew what they were getting into. As such, they chose to forgo the money they could otherwise earn with another college degree. So though society and the market places a different value on these career paths, people make the conscious choice to follow them.

Just because I oppose federal funding does not mean I think education should be a luxury for only the wealthy. There are plenty of scholarship and loan opportunities available from the private sector. In addition, my main beef with federal funding for college comes from the fact I think states should have more of a say in education.

Look in the Constitution carefully. There actually is no right for every citizen to vote. People are not allowed to be barred by a poll tax, race, or sex, but the right to vote in elections, in and of itself is not present in the US Constitution. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional for the voting priviledges of convicted felons to be revoked as they are. You also need to realize again that we are not a democracy. And I don't think zero income tax people should be barred from voting. I just think that if you put more money into the federal government through taxes you should have more a say in how it is run.

Yes, but they often pay a lower percentage of their income to the government.

The lowest tax brackets pay 0% in income taxes; the highest pay close to 50%. How is that less percentage of income paid to the government?

I don't think you followed my point--if the company goes bankrupt, the person with only a small bit of stock in it loses only a small bit. But if the government goes under, we all lose equally. Because a private company is not the same as the public institution.

This one is a bit of a stretch, but a lot of times, the upper crust if the government fails and, say, a revolution occurs. The bourgiose (or however the hell you spell it) in Russia and Cambodia, The aristocracy in revolutionary France, and the rich in China during the Cultural Revolution all suffered. Generally, people who are higher profile and of a higher social/economic class do take more of the hit when a government fails.

Yes, but it is one of them, and it is one that is grossly unfair to the working class.

It's grossly unfair to everyone. I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding this one; explain how it's unfair to the working class.

I mean that the loss of social responsibility is the loss of national identity. National identity is predicated on a sense of social community and responsibility. Why did people volunteer to fight against the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor? Social responsibility. People who suffered no loss never the less identified with their fellow countrymen and joined the army to fight those who attacked us.

I don't think national identity and social responsibility are the same thing. Social responsibility implies that it is necessary to do what society deems one to do in respect to what is the greater good. I don't believe in that, as it tarnishes the perception that the individual is paramount in your decision making. If, in my personal value system, I would find it more important to do something like fight in a war than to sit at home (in order to preserve a decent, if very imperfect republic), I see that as a moral and correct choice. However, doing it out of a sense of social responsibility is an illogical and asinine decision. People seem to forget that the individual is the backbone of society. Without individuals there would be no society.

[Hababi]

A couple points here. First, I equate getting a good education with hard work. It isn't a cakewalk to go through and get your degree. You work hard to get an education and through that work and application, you get better job skills and are able to get a better paying job if you want. And in general, people with higher level degrees earn more than those without. There are going to be some high school level people who will earn more (usually through work at something where they excel), and there are college educated people who choose a career path that pays less.

Let's say I earn a law degree. I could become a multimillionaire ax attorney or I could be a public defender earning $40,000 a year. If I make the choice to go to a lower paying job either because I feel I have to do duty for society or because I slacked off and barely passed, it's a conscious decision to go down a career path that pays lower. The same goes for your social worker with a masters degree who still earns less money. When they went into that field, they knew what they were getting into. As such, they chose to forgo the money they could otherwise earn with another college degree. So though society and the market places a different value on these career paths, people make the conscious choice to follow them.


I don't disagree with any of this, but this reflects that the amount of money one makes isn't tied into the amount of work so they have done in preparation, or the education level they have attained, so much as it is their decision to pursue those careers that pay better. Thus, your reward system doesn't encourage people to work harder, it only encourages them to take positions whose rewards are measured in financial terms.

Who, then, would take the position as the social worker, or the elementary school teacher? Why would any apt person take a position not only of inferior financial return but also of an inferior level of political rights? You'd have a partially elective caste system, essentially.

You also must deal with the fact that even in most careers, advancement is as often the result of internal politics, nepotism and the such as it is actual skill. Who gets hired at better schools? The children of current teachers, or the (rich) graduates of more expensive colleges. Once again, your system would not only perpetuate the economic inequality, but create an actual real political inequality.




Just because I oppose federal funding does not mean I think education should be a luxury for only the wealthy. There are plenty of scholarship and loan opportunities available from the private sector. In addition, my main beef with federal funding for college comes from the fact I think states should have more of a say in education.


All you need to do is look at what higher education was like before the era of subsidized loans. Or, what it is like today in countries lacking subsidized loans. The empirical data shows that private sector loans does not provide sufficient funding for the non-privelaged to attain higher education. Heck, the government scarcely does--many people still can not attend college, due to the insane amount of loans they must take out. I know a girl who just graduated from Pitt, with $45,000 debt. Luckily for her, she's a finance major, and will likely have little trouble paying it off. But what if she were an elementary education major, or a social work major?

Do you see what your system would do? It would intensify the already existing discouragement from choosing less financially rewarding career choices. Do you really want your school teachers to be the worst students to somehow graduate from college?



Look in the Constitution carefully. There actually is no right for every citizen to vote. People are not allowed to be barred by a poll tax, race, or sex, but the right to vote in elections, in and of itself is not present in the US Constitution. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional for the voting priviledges of convicted felons to be revoked as they are. You also need to realize again that we are not a democracy. And I don't think zero income tax people should be barred from voting. I just think that if you put more money into the federal government through taxes you should have more a say in how it is run.


I think that felons should gain back the right to vote, anyway. But while in one sense you're right, there is a clear spirit of a right to vote in the Constitution, the same way there is an implicit right to privacy.

Slavery is not banned in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. The Founding Fathers set up a system out of rebellion against a nation whose system was preserving power in the hands of a few--you mean to tell me that it is in the spirit of them to then assign disproportionate political power in the hands of the privelaged few? In the early days, they put into place laws on voting rights no better than laws governing slavery. If one can assign disproportionate rights based on economic position, then why not sex or race? After all, most CEOs are white males. Were the laws limiting voting rights to land owning white males Constitutional, then?



The lowest tax brackets pay 0% in income taxes; the highest pay close to 50%. How is that less percentage of income paid to the government?
[QUOTE]

You're looking only at one tax.

[QUOTE]

This one is a bit of a stretch, but a lot of times, the upper crust if the government fails and, say, a revolution occurs. The bourgiose (or however the hell you spell it) in Russia and Cambodia, The aristocracy in revolutionary France, and the rich in China during the Cultural Revolution all suffered. Generally, people who are higher profile and of a higher social/economic class do take more of the hit when a government fails.


Depends entirely the situation. When Lumumba's government collapsed and Mobutu came to power, many preexisting wealthy elites prospered more while the less fortunate suffered and died. You'll see similar occurances in many instances in Africa and South America.


It's grossly unfair to everyone. I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding this one; explain how it's unfair to the working class.


Because a person making $40,000 pays social security tax on every cent they make. A person making $800,000 pays tax on 10% of what they earn. Note the discrepency.


I don't think national identity and social responsibility are the same thing. Social responsibility implies that it is necessary to do what society deems one to do in respect to what is the greater good. I don't believe in that, as it tarnishes the perception that the individual is paramount in your decision making. If, in my personal value system, I would find it more important to do something like fight in a war than to sit at home (in order to preserve a decent, if very imperfect republic), I see that as a moral and correct choice. However, doing it out of a sense of social responsibility is an illogical and asinine decision. People seem to forget that the individual is the backbone of society. Without individuals there would be no society.


That sounds anarchistic. I'll remind you, man is not an island. Every major action you make has repercussions not just for you but for those around you.

Say I am in a boat out in a lake, and I see someone drowning. I am a mediocre swimmer. Actually I can't swim, but that's beyond the point. So, I jump in and, through risking my life, save theirs. That action made absolutely no sense, on a self survival level. If that person drowned, it'd make no difference to me on a measurable level. But I risked their lives. And most people would. And we deem that the responsible thing to do. Thus social responsibility. Without a national sense of one, we're much worse off.

What is it to be an american? How is it not to have an allegiance to your fellow citizens?

[The Stig]

I think we are going nowhere here and it's mostly ideological differences between us running the show. Thought I'd show you this little section of the Constitution, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

[Hababi]

I think we are going nowhere here and it's mostly ideological differences between us running the show. Thought I'd show you this little section of the Constitution, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

But that's an amendment. There was an amendment banning alcohol. Passing an amendment doesn't make it Constitutional.

[The Stig]

Wait what? The only reason there is no prohibition amendment is because it was repealed by another amendment. By that argument, free speech, right to bear arms, non consential peacetime quartering of troops, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, protection against self-incrimination, right to a speedy and public trial, right to trial by jury, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to do make laws on the state and local level (as long as they aren't prohibited by the Constitution), due process, protection from prevention of voting solely due to race, color, or previous slavery, income tax, direct election of US senators (a bad idea, but that's another argument), protection from prevention of voting based solely on sex, two-term presidential limits, permission for DC to select electors for elections, protection from a poll tax, prevention of voting due to age if over eighteen, and prevention of midterm congressional pay raises are also unconstitutional.

Amendments are a large part of the Constitution. Passing an Amendment does make it Constitutional. that's sort of the point of an Amendment.

[Hababi]

Wait what? The only reason there is no prohibition amendment is because it was repealed by another amendment. By that argument, free speech, right to bear arms, non consential peacetime quartering of troops, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, protection against self-incrimination, right to a speedy and public trial, right to trial by jury, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to do make laws on the state and local level (as long as they aren't prohibited by the Constitution), due process, protection from prevention of voting solely due to race, color, or previous slavery, income tax, direct election of US senators (a bad idea, but that's another argument), protection from prevention of voting based solely on sex, two-term presidential limits, permission for DC to select electors for elections, protection from a poll tax, prevention of voting due to age if over eighteen, and prevention of midterm congressional pay raises are also unconstitutional.

Amendments are a large part of the Constitution. Passing an Amendment does make it Constitutional. that's sort of the point of an Amendment.

So if 2/3 of state conventions passed an amendment saying that there is no right to practice Islam, it'd be Constitutionally sound?

[The Stig]

As per Article V, if both houses of legislature from 2/3 of the states passed it, then yes, it would be constitutionally sound. I'm not saying that that would be right, but past sections of the Constitution have been edited or excised due to amendments being passed (namely presidential election and succession processes as well as Prohibition). When the courts go through checking constitutionality of something, it is a piece of legislation or seeing if someone's rights as outlined in the Constitution were violated in some way.

An Amendment is a full bona fide part of the Constitution.

[Iskandar]

You don't see someone with one piece of stock in a company have the same say as a majority shareholder, no?The government isn't a corporation and operates differently, thankfully.

It's more akin to a co-operative, where each member does have the same voting power.
Annual income is rarely tied to effort. Some of the hardest working people don't make $50,000 a year.You're sounding like a left-winger.:eek:

[The Stig]

I really think that notwithstanding Israel and religion Steve is pretty much left wing.

[Russell]

I really think that notwithstanding Israel and religion Steve is pretty much left wing.

and ethics

[Iskandar]

I really think that notwithstanding Israel and religion Steve is pretty much left wing.Not really. He's all for capitalism, just a regulated, socially responsible kind. And that's all right.

There is a middle ground, you know.

[Hababi]

Not really. He's all for capitalism, just a regulated, socially responsible kind. And that's all right.

There is a middle ground, you know.

See even Dropper agrees that I'm a centrist :D

[The Stig]

I think his ethics are tied in with his religious views.

[Russell]

Economically speaking.


Paul: true... I'm a bit tired.

[Iskandar]

See even Dropper agrees that I'm a centrist :DEconomically, yeah. Socially you're definitely conservative. Not Tom Tancredo or anything but still conservative.

A good ideology for you would be Christian Democracy ... but there isn't a CD party in the US. There is in Germany, if I recall, and many Latin American nations.

[Russell]

lol, there is. Its called the republican party, in some cases anyways.

[Iskandar]

lol, there is. Its called the republican party, in some cases anyways.They're not Christian Democrats, they're neoconservatives, mostly.

Christian Democracy isn't opposed to capitalism, exactly, but they put a strong emphasis on what they call social justice.

[The Stig]

The Republican party irritates me nowadays. They curb civil liberties left and right and are drifting farther left economically.

[Russell]

I should probably go to bed. :(

[The Stig]

Man you go to bed early

[Russell]

Man, I gots the work. I'm probably going to stick it out for a little bit longer, so I can get my sleep back on schedule.

[Hababi]

The Republican party irritates me nowadays. They curb civil liberties left and right and are drifting farther left economically.

Not outside of Huckabee.

Economically, yeah. Socially you're definitely conservative. Not Tom Tancredo or anything but still conservative.

A good ideology for you would be Christian Democracy ... but there isn't a CD party in the US. There is in Germany, if I recall, and many Latin American nations.

Yeah, that likely comes closest to my views. I like some Latin American governments and some aspects of their societies.


I think his ethics are tied in with his religious views.

How could they not be? I think Huckabee had a good quote regarding this, but I forget it.

[The Stig]

I have no ethics, so...

<_<

[Iskandar]

The Republican party irritates me nowadays. They curb civil liberties left and right and are drifting farther left economically.No they're not. And even if they did, they'd still be a big capitalist party.

[Russell]

I have no ethics, so...

<_<

:hi5:


The only problem I have with religious ethics are how forceful and inane they can be.

[Hababi]

:hi5:


The only problem I have with religious ethics are how forceful and inane they can be.

I think that Paul still is religious. He just divorces his religious beliefs from his political philosophy, which seems a bit odd to me.

[PerpetualBurn]

I've been listening to Funkadelic for a few hours now.

All I can think is that everything is intrisically groovy.

Except the Tories.

[Iskandar]

I think that Paul still is religious. He just divorces his religious beliefs from his political philosophy, which seems a bit odd to me.No, I'm pretty sure he's an agnostic now.

[Hababi]

No, I'm pretty sure he's an agnostic now.

That'd explain the borderline-Nietzsche vibe.

[The Stig]

I'm pretty much agnostic to non militant athiest I guess. I'm not religious, but I don't try to convert other people away from it (hence I try to stay out of religion threads here), and there's still some doubt as to the fact there may be some sort of higher power from making me say I'm an atheist. I guess nonreligious is the best way to say it.

But at the same time I don't get my panties in a wad every time a public official says grace before lunch or asks people to pray for rain.

[Hababi]

I'm pretty much agnostic to non militant athiest I guess. I'm not religious, but I don't try to convert other people away from it (hence I try to stay out of religion threads here), and there's still some doubt as to the fact there may be some sort of higher power from making me say I'm an atheist. I guess nonreligious is the best way to say it.

But at the same time I don't get my panties in a wad every time a public official says grace before lunch or asks people to pray for rain.

When did you become a non-Christian?

[Iskandar]

When he converted to Objectivism.

[The Stig]

I didn't really suddenly become one; it just happened. Probably started around junior year of high school or so (2003-ish). I tried to believe, but I never felt anything from praying or adoration or anything like that. I'll still go through the motions to keep my parents happy and so my brother won't ask awkward questions (he's only 10). I guess I just never felt god whenever I went to church.

[Reaganista]

hay wats goin on in this thread

[Iskandar]

I was never really a gung-ho Christian in the first place. My family attended church pretty much out of tradition. Now none of us can be bothered.

[PerpetualBurn]

hay wats goin on in this thread

I'm kicking up a powerful groove and Serenity's killing it by mentioning God all the time.

[Iskandar]

Him and his Christianity! Tch!

[The Stig]

I think my sister is pretty religious, and my mom is the strict Catholic. My dad converted in 1995, so I don't know how strong his beliefs are, but he's still got the typical Christian mindset. My little brother is still a little too young to make a rational decision I think.

[PerpetualBurn]

My family are better than to be religious.

[Hababi]

My family are better than to be religious.

Apparently they're not good enough to teach standard grammar usage :o
Fanatical atheists are quasi-fascists.

[Russell]

My father, as conservative as he is, is pretty non-religious(hes stil a theist though). He is pretty cool with the fact that my brother and I are atheists.

[PerpetualBurn]

That was entirely acceptable grammar given context.

I thought you studied language or something.

[Reaganista]

Fanatical atheists are quasi-fascists.
the only fascist are people who nothing about fascism and go around talking about it

[Iskandar]

It wasn't incorrect, unless you want to be a pedant.
Fanatical atheists are quasi-fascists.All fanatics are as bad as the next, regardless of ideology.

[Hababi]

That was entirely acceptable grammar given context.

I thought you studied language or something.

I was a linguistics major for a brief period of time. But you're talking about family in the cohesive sense, the same way you would talk about a football team. Thus you have a singular identity, 'family'.


unless you want to be a pedant.

I do.

[PerpetualBurn]

You could've stopped typing after "It wasn't incorrect".

I was a linguistics major for a brief period of time. But you're talking about family in the cohesive sense, the same way you would talk about a football team. Thus you have a singular identity, 'family'.

Nope. None of that's relevant.

[Hababi]

All fanatics are as bad as the next, regardless of ideology.

Atheist fanatics are the worst type of fanatics, in part because they're the most hypocritical.

the only fascist are people who nothing about fascism and go around talking about it

Shouldn't you go back to talking about wanting to fornicate with sheep and stuff.

[Iskandar]

I do.Why would anyone want to be a pedant?
Atheist fanatics are the worst type of fanatics, in part because they're the most hypocritical. I don't see how they're any worse than Neo-Nazis or Maoist guerillas or whatever.

In fact, they're not nearly as bad.

[Hababi]

Why would anyone want to be a pedant?

Because it's a good way of dealing with posters like PB.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except you were entirely wrong.

[Reaganista]

All fanatics are as bad as the next, regardless of ideology
no that's retarded
Shouldn't you go back to talking about wanting to fornicate with sheep and stuff.
uh ive never talked about that but i might start why are you into that

[Iskandar]

Because it's a good way of dealing with posters like PB.No it's not. It only makes matters worse.

[Reaganista]

'makes matters worse' how are matters bad to begin with

[Hababi]

Except you were entirely wrong.

Don't flaunt your ignorance. Family is a singular classification. Singular classifications get singular verbs.

[Russell]

Atheist fanatics are the worst type of fanatics, in part because they're the most hypocritical.

The amorality of atheists makes that a hard statement to make.

[PerpetualBurn]

Don't flaunt your ignorance. Family is a singular classification. Singular classifications get singular verbs.

Dialect.

[Iskandar]

The amorality of atheists makes that a hard statement to make.Opposed to objective morality (like religious morality), not subjective morality.

[The Stig]

My family are* better than to be religious.

*is

Or maybe you could say, "My family members are..."

[Hababi]

Dialect.

Mmmm hmmmm.

Yous is wrong.

[Reaganista]

Don't flaunt your ignorance. Family is a singular classification. Singular classifications get singular verbs.

language is arbitrary

[PerpetualBurn]

Mmmm hmmmm.

Yous is wrong.

Do you not understand the English language or something?

Scouse people use the word "yous" all the time.

[The Stig]

Do you not understand the English language or something?

Scouse people use the word "yous" all the time.

So do Philadelphians (more like yis) and New Yorkers. It isn't proper.

[Hababi]

Do you not understand the English language or something?

It appears that you are the one who does not understand the (proper) English language.

[PerpetualBurn]

So do Philadelphians (more like yis) and New Yorkers. It isn't proper.Of course it is.

So do Philadelphians (more like yis) and New Yorkers. It isn't proper.

Even if there were some official form of English the conversational context would make it irrelevant.

You can't seriously know this little.

[Russell]

Opposed to objective morality (like religious morality), not subjective morality.

being that amorality is generally collective subjective morality, idk.

If I say something a little bit off, just excuse it for tonight.

[Reaganista]

It isn't proper.
language is arbitrary

[Amit]

umm what is proper english

like tway has been saying

language is arbitrary

[PerpetualBurn]

Amit is bringing my funk back on after Serenity's massive groove kill.

[Iskandar]

"Correct" English is defined by current use. Don't be reactionary about language.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It appears that you are the one who does not understand the (proper) English language.
I say yous and I am super intelligent.

[Iskandar]

Saying "yous" just sounds stupid, though, so I must admit I fail to see why anyone would say it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They probably say it to annoy you >_>

[The Stig]

Dialect. I say the more Philadelphiaized version at times (yus/yis). Doesn't mean it's proper but around friends it's acceptable.

[Iskandar]

Colloquialisms.

[Russell]

I say you guys...

[Iskandar]

I say the plural "you."

[Russell]

I say it to specify more than anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

Dialect. I say the more Philadelphiaized version at times (yus/yis). Doesn't mean it's proper but around friends it's acceptable.

It's as "proper" as any other form of English.

Why are you too stupid to understand this?

[Reaganista]

Saying "yous" just sounds stupid, though, so I must admit I fail to see why anyone would say it.

because there's more than one you are you seriously this stupid

[The Stig]

Try using it in a formal paper.

[Amit]

Try using it in a formal paper.

formal and proper are quite different things though

[PerpetualBurn]

Try using it in a formal paper.

That's formal context.

Try using formal American English at an English University...

Doesn't mean one's better than the other.

[Amit]

i bet paul only refers to himself in third person

[The Stig]

Nope. Formal English utilizes proper grammar and rules; the official version if you will.

Paul isn't an illeist the last he's heard.

[PerpetualBurn]

So which is proper? British standard English or American standard English?

English has no official version.

[Iskandar]

because there's more than one you are you seriously this stupidyou can be plural

are you seriously this stupid

are you [sing.] coming
are you [plur.] coming

addressing a group

[The Stig]

In America it's American Standard English.

In Britain it's British Standard English.

For all your self-purported knowledge you are being pretty thick.

[Amit]

Paul isn't an illeist the last he's heard.

huh

[PerpetualBurn]

Now explain why those two forms are better than Yorkshire dialects.

[The Stig]

Because it's not the official version.

If I'm Czech and learning English they aren't going to teach me to improperly conjugate the verb to be like you did above, nor will they teach me to say yous. It is a very simple concept.

[PerpetualBurn]

There is no official version of English.

Read some Chaucer or something.

[Reaganista]

are you [sing.] coming
are you [plur.] coming
there's no way for me to tell if you mean one of us or all of us this is completely deficient
thus
yous was invented and the english language was better for it

[Iskandar]

huhA person who refers to himself in the third person.

[Iskandar]

there's no way for me to tell if you mean one of us or all of us this is completely deficient
thus
yous was invented and the english language was better for itsorry it's obvious by context

are you stupid

obviously singular since i am talking to you

[PerpetualBurn]

there's no way for me to tell if you mean one of us or all of us this is completely deficient
thus
yous was invented and the english language was better for it

Scouse people say yous when talking to a single person.

Scouse people are funny.

[The Stig]

Sticks to the neurosciences in your Amit educate school

[Amit]

umm cognitive neuroscience is huge at my school

[PerpetualBurn]

Please respond to the fact that there is no such thing as "official English" and you just made the concept up.

[Iskandar]

There is no One Correct Version of English, although that doesn't mean standards don't exist.

[The Stig]

I know I was using nonstandard English to get my point across because there are no rules in
English and you didn't know what an illeist was.

[Reaganista]

sorry it's obvious by context

are you stupid

obviously singular since i am talking to you

except for times when it isnt obvious by context

[PerpetualBurn]

Standard formal English is derived from convention.

But there is no official form and no official body that so much as attempts to prescribe one.

[Reaganista]

why are you still arguing about this

[Iskandar]

I know I was using nonstandard English to get my point across because there are no rules in
English and you didn't know what an illeist was.I knew!

except for times when it isnt obvious by contextoh how silly of me excuse me ahem

are you coming, alex?
Standard formal English is derived from convention.

But there is no official form and no official body that so much as attempts to prescribe one.Yeah, I know. I prefer it that way, because English is such a widely spoken language with many disparate dialects that any attempt to regulate it would probably be disastrous. But nevertheless standards are standards, even informal ones.

otherwise we would
all just type like
tway in our term papers

[The Stig]

because pb is a ****ing tard who can't conjugate the third person singular of to be
Yeah that was aimed at Amit there alex

[PerpetualBurn]

Except when I did.

Please tell me the body which prescribes the rules of formal English.

otherwise we would
all just type like
tway in our term papers

We conform to a contextually appropriate style.

[Iskandar]

Except when I did.

Please tell me the body which prescribes the rules of formal English.None does. It's self-regulating.

[The Stig]

It has none, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules.

[Reaganista]

oh how silly of me excuse me ahem

are you coming, alex?
that doesn't clear up the situation at all i dont think u have any understanding of the usage of yous

[PerpetualBurn]

It has none, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules.It means there are conventions.

And that if there is no official form

then

you cannot tell me my form was the wrong one.

[The Stig]

yous wills never saw an textbooks wif yous in it's content

[PerpetualBurn]

Because that's a completely different context

and in that context

it would be inappropriate to use a Yorkshire or Manchunian dialect.

[The Stig]

Yeah because standard English has rules to follow.

[PerpetualBurn]

No. Standard English has conventions to follow.

Inappropriate does not mean incorrect.

[The Stig]

Then why do higher learning institutions treat them as inflexible rules.

Or's me could just writes any ways i's feel like and say its just convention

[PerpetualBurn]

Because it's appropriate to use it.

[The Stig]

or......


proper

[Reaganista]

there's a lot of contexts where formal language is completely inappropriate
such as
the community thread

[The Stig]

I can't think of any.

[Iskandar]

Let's just all agree that Scouse sounds retarded.

[The Stig]

Yeah I'm done playing tennis with the wall.

[PerpetualBurn]

Formal English has conventions which allow for greater accuracy in conveyance and inference of a message. So it is appropriate for higher learning institutions, legal institutions etc etc to use it.

It doesn't in any way make Yorkshire dialect wrong.

Which you tried to tell me it did.

Presumably because you're a moron.

Let's just all agree that Scouse sounds retarded.

I really like a Scouse accent on a girl.

[Reaganista]

I can't think of any.

here's a hint
everywhere outside of your termpaper and certain professional writing you might do

[The Stig]

Trust me, I'm far from a moron.

And I almost always use proper English when speaking.

[PerpetualBurn]

Only a moron would not realise when it's appropriate to be informal.

[Reaganista]

Trust me, I'm far from a moron.

And I almost always use proper English when speaking.
that's inappropriate

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

tway is this about that post i read a long time ago where you said ebonics is perfect or someting? if so everyone opposing you is wrong

[The Stig]

Only a moron would not realise when it's appropriate to be informal.

Only a moron would see that I said I don't know where it is inappropriate to be formal. As far as I know, you can never be too formal. Meanwhile, I know when I can be informal if I wanted to be.

[PerpetualBurn]

Only a moron would see that I said I don't know where it is inappropriate to be formal.

Except this whole argument spawned from you and Serenity not understanding dialect in informal context.

[Reaganista]

Only a moron would see that I said I don't know where it is inappropriate to be formal. As far as I know, you can never be too formal. Meanwhile, I know when I can be informal if I wanted to be.
it's an issue of feedback
if youre too informal in a formal setting you get a bad grade or your boss gives you ****
if youre too formal in an informal setting people think youre really uptight and probably wont like you
but it's unlikely that they'd tell you about it directly
that doesn't mean you arent wrong
it means you dont know youre wrong

[Iskandar]

Serenity just doesn't understand language.

He considers the Queen's English to be "superior" and Ebonics to be a degraded form of English.

[Reaganista]

ebonics is so evocative

[Amit]

it is!

[Dr Hooch]

In America it's American Standard English.

In Britain it's British Standard English.

For all your self-purported knowledge you are being pretty thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English

In school they teach you conventions in order to use english in a way to make yourself most easily and clearly understood

[ringworm]

I don't think you understand how this works.
i was just addressing taxes and this, not voting percentages
You don't seem to believe in social responsibility. Those who prosper from the system have a responsibility to the society that has allowed them to be so prosperous.
i dont feel they have any responsibility, it would nice if they did share, and many do, not enough to many, but when its your money, you do as you please
We all have equal stake in the government.
so the lazy slack employee who is late, never does work and has everyone else take up his/her slack deserves the same quarterly bonus?
i disagree there, people who dont contribute dont have the right to influence where everyone elses taxes are distributed and spent

[PerpetualBurn]

so the lazy slack employee who is late, never does work and has everyone else take up his/her slack deserves the same quarterly bonus?

We all have equal stake in the government.

[ringworm]

i agree but disagree at the same time, we do all have the same stake, but legislation that favors one over the other isnt fair and only creates more people to abuse the people that do properly contribute

and i am addressing the whole taxing the rich more than the poor or raising everyones taxes to support those below said income or lack thereof.

welfare only creates more welfare

we used to have a perfectly fine welfare institution that couldnt be abused, it was called prison :)

[PerpetualBurn]

legislation that favors one over the other isnt fair

Yeah...that's why we all get one vote each.

and i am addressing the whole taxing the rich more than the poor or raising everyones taxes to support those below said income or lack thereof.

They pay more because it makes sense proportionately.

welfare only creates more welfare

No.

[ringworm]

They pay more because it makes sense proportionately.
well, of course someone who makes $20k yearly would feel envious towards someone making $300k and feel that higher taxes wouldnt hurt them, cause heck, they make enough to piss away anyway :/
No.
yes, its pretty obvious

[PerpetualBurn]

well, of course someone who makes $20k yearly would feel envious towards someone making $300k and feel that higher taxes wouldnt hurt them, cause heck, they make enough to piss away anyway :/

It's in proportion to the value of their income.

yes, its pretty obvious

Nope.

[Iskandar]

Progressive income tax remedies flaws in the distribution of wealth.

[The Stig]

There are no flaws in the distribution of wealth that need remedied.

[Iskandar]

There are no flaws in the distribution of wealth that need remedied.Lol.

[The Stig]

People earn what they put forth.

[Iskandar]

People earn what they put forth.I disagree, but there's no changing your mind.

[Hababi]

People earn what they put forth.

Do you really believe that? I consider myself pro-capitalist, but I wouldn't make such a blanket statement.

[The Stig]

In general terms, yes. There are always some exceptions, but as a rule I would say yes.

Speaking of tht, though, I have to go toil at my just above minimum wage job.

[ringworm]

It's in proportion to the value of their income.
rofl
man, what a weird concept

lets just make everyones income the same, that way a CEO makes the same as a HS drop out janitor

Nope.
yup, no one can deny that our abused welfare system hasnt created even more people dependant on it
Progressive income tax remedies flaws in the distribution of wealth.
lol, and you call Zero crazy

i am a flawed person because i went to school and make good money, now take more from me so i feel all the hard work i did meant nothing
People earn what they put forth.
this

[Iskandar]

Speaking of tht, though, I have to go toil at my just above minimum wage job.But if the government would just back off and abolish minimum wage, you'd be a billionaire.

lets just make everyones income the same, that way a CEO makes the same as a HS drop out janitor
Strawman. Nobody wants that.
lol, and you call Zero crazyProgressive tax is a well-established concept. Most Western nations have one. It's not a new or radical idea.

[ringworm]

Strawman. Nobody wants that.
thats exactly what you're referring to though, you can use all the fancy schmacy terms you want to debunk what you dont want to hear
It's not a new or radical idea.
or a good OR fair one

you only want to play fair when it suits your agenda

[spitfirejunky]

He never said that everyone's income should be the same...

[Reaganista]

you would have to be completely retarded to think progressive income tax isnt a good idea

and fairness is irrelevant i cant stand people constantly wanting to unmake our society in the name of fairness it's ridiculous

[ringworm]

He never said that everyone's income should be the same...
ugh, i didnt mean that either, it was just an example of what proportionate taxes resembles
People earn what they put forth.
i'll quote this again
and fairness is irrelevant i cant stand people constantly wanting to unmake our society in the name of fairness it's ridiculous
unmake? unmaking is what is going to happen in '08 my friend

[Iskandar]

People really don't earn what they put forth.

[Russell]

This^

I mean construction workers and such would be at the top of the earnings if thats the case.

[Iskandar]

This^

I mean construction workers and such would be at the top of the earnings if thats the case.Your wealth is definitely not proportionate to your contribution to society. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would have just about enough to feed her rat-dog, if she's lucky.

[Reaganista]

employees couldn't possibly make what they put forth
this is really basic guys
unmake? unmaking is what is going to happen in '08 my friend
what
only if ron paul or guiliani get elected would there be any chance of the election instituting real regressive change
but you want to revert over 100 of history because you think the present isnt 'fair' it's idiotic stop it

[Reaganista]

This^

I mean construction workers and such would be at the top of the earnings if thats the case.
what
are you drunk

Your wealth is definitely not proportionate to your contribution to society. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would have just about enough to feed her rat-dog, if she's lucky.
entertainment is a contribution to society

[Russell]

Your wealth is definitely not proportionate to your contribution to society. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would have just about enough to feed her rat-dog, if she's lucky.

I just saw an article saying her G-pa is giving 97% of his wealth to charity.


Tway gtfo

[Iskandar]

I just saw an article saying her G-pa is giving 97% of his wealth to charity.:eek:

[Reaganista]

I just saw an article saying her G-pa is giving 97% of his wealth to charity.


Tway gtfo
this is my thread you fag

[Iskandar]

So who likes coffee?

[Russell]

I have at least a cup every morning.


this is my thread you fag

your point?

[Iskandar]

Ahem. I said, who likes coffee?

[Russell]

lol paul missed his cue.

[Reaganista]

your point?
so i will not be gtfoing any time soon

[Iskandar]

lol paul missed his cue.I not understand

[Russell]

it was worth a try.

[Iskandar]

My dad just called me and it was kinda awkward because the last time he saw me was when I was still drunk on Christmas morning.

[Russell]

is it legal for you to be drunk?

[Iskandar]

is it legal for you to be drunk?
No, but he doesn't care about that. It's only two months until my birthday anyway. It's just awkward to be hungover on Christmas.

[Reaganista]

wat

[Iskandar]

Angkor Wat.

[Russell]

Kilowatt

[Reaganista]

i was trying to wat the other guy not you but ty for this

[Reaganista]

dammit stop posting while im typing

[Russell]

wat

[Iskandar]

Qahwat al-khamr

[spitfirejunky]

The strengths of liquor?

[Reaganista]

wat da fuk

[ringworm]

but you want to revert over 100 of history because you think the present isnt 'fair' it's idiotic stop it
lol, never did i say today isnt fair, that is Dropper & PB

[Iskandar]

The strengths of liquor?
I meant قهوة الخمر, which I believe was an old term for coffee. Nowadays it's just called قهوة of course.

lol, never did i say today isnt fair, that is Dropper & PBOf course today isn't fair. But it's fairer than it was in like 1910.

[Russell]

Yeah I know exactly what you are talking about.

[spitfirejunky]

I meant قهوة الخمر, which I believe was an old term for coffee. Nowadays it's just called قهوة of course.

lol at vowel ambiguity. ;)

[Iskandar]

lol at vowel ambiguity. ;)Curse you Semites and your lack of vowels.

[Reaganista]

lol, never did i say today isnt fair, that is Dropper & PB
you said progressive income tax isnt fair today is built upon progressive income tax among other things

[Iskandar]

I don't see how flat tax is fair. On paper, it looks like it is, but in reality, no way.

[Mr. Ron]

just tax the rich more, there we go

[Iskandar]

just tax the rich more, there we goAnd the poor less.

[Russell]

And give me the rest

[Mr. Ron]

Lets just tax Bill Gates more. There's a guy that could lose a few billion and not be hurt by it.

[Iskandar]

Lets just tax Bill Gates more. There's a guy that could lose a few billion and not be hurt by it.Dude, he worked for that money.

[Mr. Ron]

Dude, he worked for that money.

so does everyone else.

[Russell]

Hes gives a lot to charity.

[Iskandar]

Hes gives a lot to charity.Yeah, I respect that. Though I doubt he did it purely out of altruism.

[Mr. Ron]

Hes gives a lot to charity.

And good on him for doing that. But as Alex stated, I think its more for public image than anything else.

[Reaganista]

most expensive public image everrrr

[Russell]

And good on him for doing that. But as Alex stated, I think its more for public image than anything else.

probably, but its better than not giving any at all.

[guitrguy]

I'm about to go to Barnes & Nobles, what Sartre should I pick up?

[Der Übermensch]

The Wall

[Iskandar]

I'm having difficulty deciding whether neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism is worse. Hard to say, since the two are so interconnected.

[Reaganista]

I'm about to go to Barnes & Nobles, what Sartre should I pick up?

none

[ringworm]

Lets just tax Bill Gates more. There's a guy that could lose a few billion and not be hurt by it.
this is exactly what i refer to^
you guys just dont get what i mean

of course it wouldnt hurt him, and it would be nice to have slack taken up by the richer, but according to your position on other threads, this is unfair treatment, i'm calling bullshit, its just unequal and hypocritical according to how you express your feelings in other threads

[Iskandar]

this is exactly what i refer to^
you guys just dont get what i mean

of course it wouldnt hurt him, and it would be nice to have slack taken up by the richer, but according to your position on other threads, this is unfair treatment, i'm calling bullshit, its just unequal and hypocritical according to how you express your feelings in other threadsYou just don't understand our position.

We think taxing the rich more is fair, because they tend to earn more than they deserve to, from our point of view.

[ringworm]

i understand it enough to see that mine was being perceived wrongly

and you're just wrong on this one, just wrong

its comparable to using racism to get rid of racism

[Iskandar]

i understand it enough to see that mine was being perceived wrongly

and you're just wrong on this one, just wrong

its comparable to using racism to get rid of racismI take it you hate affirmative action as well.

[Aaron]

I think all people above the poverty-line/taxable-income-line etc. should have to contribute 2% of their wage to a non-government, not-for-profit charity of their nomination. Then, anything above that can be tax-deducted.

[Iskandar]

I'm content with the current system of progressive taxation.

[Aaron]

Tax system is fine.
People just naturally don't donate enough to charities, in my opinion.

[The Stig]

So who likes coffee?

I just returned from the coffee shop around the corner working on LSAT logic games.

Cafe Americano no cream no sugar is the best.


And charity donation should be 100% voluntary. They force us to give enough as it is in the form of taxes.

[Mr. Ron]

I only like coffee when I have to go to a 8:00 class.

[The Stig]

Any time of the day is a good time for coffee. Or tea. But my teeth are slightly stained, so I've been cutting back a lot lately.