The point is to work towards that, by other means than excessive ammounts of do-nothing programs. Equal opportunity is a Republican philosophy, equality is a Democratic dream.
I'm not certain those are meaningful or even accurate distinctions...
Well the first part should have made enough sense, it is possible to not be affiliated with a party and still have right-wind leanings, or left-wing leanings, or to move back and forth as issues that pertain to your well being favor one or the other....etc...etc.
as for you liking to argue, it was just a mere question/comment, in the past few political threads you have been one of the more outspoken, even in the face of tremendous scrutiny and evidence against your cases, but you've still stayed stalwart to whatever cause you had, people that do this, generally don't ever care to change their mind, or let anything change their mind, they just, as I mentioned, like to argue.
this isn't a knock on you, just something I've noticed from a couple years of participating in internet forums, you may or may not fit this description, as with almost everyone who argues here, arguments on the internet are pretty pointless anyway, it's naive to think you'll actually change anyone's mind on something, the best you can hope for is agreeing to disagree, and even that is petty sometimes. Sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, regardless of what people say ("show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind") they never actually will, ya know?
Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.
I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.
Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?
Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.
Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?
You seem to have contradicted yourself here.
They're your opinions, I'm just curious.
If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?
No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.
Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.
I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.
Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.
I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
You and I are very similar to one another methinks, only, what makes sense to you, seems to be right leaning, and what makes sense to me, tends to be left leaning, that's not saying I wouldn't support either, but more often than not, What comes out of the left makes more sense to me, not necessarily case-by-case, but in general over the past few years I've actually raised an ear towards politics.
but more than anything the divide between right and left is what irks me the most, it seems that people get too caught up with disagree with the other side simply because they are the other side.
If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?
No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.
Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.
I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.
Thanks for the reply. That's the most pragmatic I've ever seen you - no offense intended.
My issue was with the following comment: "I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue."
Although I think you've somewhat explained that, I'm still interested in knowing if there are any sources that you will accept at face value without question? (Besides any currently elected President, that is. )
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works.
So what did YOU do to be born by that wonderful family?
So what did YOU do to be born by that wonderful family?
I am the product of the system's success. Some people are born as products of the system's failures, but then they have the chance to become the success.
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.
You missed his point.
Equal opportunity exists if the playing field is level. It's not. If your father was a deadbeat dad and your divorced mother worked in the cafeteria at the school, you would not have equal opportunity to be attending the school or living in your 5 bedroom house.
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
That's the rub, though. The opportunities afforded to you are vastly greater than those who may live in the hypothetical situation I described.
Drop 100 people on a island with equal amounts of supplies and you have equal opportunity (discounting the fact that some people are more capable than others). Unfortunately, what you call equal opportunity only exists at the beginning. Opportunity changes as time passes and generations build upon the successes and failures of their progenitors.
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
I honestly don't think most Dems, or liberals, or whatever you want to call them, would say that the goal is equal outcome. What I think is the crux of the issue is the means by which the playing field is levelled.
I honestly don't think most Dems, or liberals, or whatever you want to call them, would say that the goal is equal outcome. What I think is the crux of the issue is the means by which the playing field is levelled.
Thoth.
But see, you should not be levelling the field by BRINGING PEOPLE DOWN TO BRING OTHERS UP.
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
So you really think the republicans are doing that right now?
Before you post please do a search for affirmative action and my username here. I don´t believe in that at all. It should be handled on primary and secondary level of education. BUT leveling the playing field at that age isn´t anything I have seen the republicans do at all. Actually I have seen a lot of the opposite.
Proive me wrong and please a bit more qualified than a few catch phrases.
Comments
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The point is to work towards that, by other means than excessive ammounts of do-nothing programs. Equal opportunity is a Republican philosophy, equality is a Democratic dream.
I'm not certain those are meaningful or even accurate distinctions...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I'm not certain those are meaningful or even accurate distinctions...
They are accurate and meaningful, you just dont want them to be.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Well the first part should have made enough sense, it is possible to not be affiliated with a party and still have right-wind leanings, or left-wing leanings, or to move back and forth as issues that pertain to your well being favor one or the other....etc...etc.
as for you liking to argue, it was just a mere question/comment, in the past few political threads you have been one of the more outspoken, even in the face of tremendous scrutiny and evidence against your cases, but you've still stayed stalwart to whatever cause you had, people that do this, generally don't ever care to change their mind, or let anything change their mind, they just, as I mentioned, like to argue.
this isn't a knock on you, just something I've noticed from a couple years of participating in internet forums, you may or may not fit this description, as with almost everyone who argues here, arguments on the internet are pretty pointless anyway, it's naive to think you'll actually change anyone's mind on something, the best you can hope for is agreeing to disagree, and even that is petty sometimes. Sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, regardless of what people say ("show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind") they never actually will, ya know?
Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.
I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.
Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?
You seem to have contradicted yourself here.
They're your opinions, I'm just curious.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Just because things make sense to you doesn't make those things right.
Do you have any criteria for determining someones authority on a subject, or which facts to believe? Do you just pick the side that 'feels' right to you?
You seem to have contradicted yourself here.
They're your opinions, I'm just curious.
If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?
No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.
Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.
I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, you are very astute, because I see the same things. However, I have not participated in threads to change anyone's mind, as I too realize that changing minds is virtually impossible. I make a stand when I see spin and dishonesty. Someone needs to point it out, so I do.
I have said many times I feel there is a place for both liberal and conservative views in real life and in politics. But both need to realise it is a checks and balances issue.
I also have never asserted that anyone can change my mind, but the facts can. I will readily admit when I am wrong. I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue. I like things to make sense to me, I choose the path that makes the most sense to me.
You and I are very similar to one another methinks, only, what makes sense to you, seems to be right leaning, and what makes sense to me, tends to be left leaning, that's not saying I wouldn't support either, but more often than not, What comes out of the left makes more sense to me, not necessarily case-by-case, but in general over the past few years I've actually raised an ear towards politics.
but more than anything the divide between right and left is what irks me the most, it seems that people get too caught up with disagree with the other side simply because they are the other side.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I have no such loans, luckily my tuition is only a small amount, since I have academic scholarships and parents that work for the University.
Ohhh. So THAT is equal opportunity...
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you mean, do I pick and choose what facts I beleave?
No. That is lala land. But take for instance this whole "bush lied argument", in order to beleive that whole premise you need to assume way to much, IMO. So therefore rather than buy into that line, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That makes more sense to me.
Don't get me wrong, maybe he did lie, I would not put that past any politician, isn't that the ongoing joke anyway? But I am willing to accept the fact that I do not know everything, and this could go either way. For example, a breaking news story could bring to light that SH really did have WMD and all of sudden some will feel very foolish for jumping the gun.
I would rather err on the side of the president whoever he/she may be.
Thanks for the reply. That's the most pragmatic I've ever seen you - no offense intended.
My issue was with the following comment: "I however refuse to accept things base on supposed or assumed authority by anyone on some issue."
Although I think you've somewhat explained that, I'm still interested in knowing if there are any sources that you will accept at face value without question? (Besides any currently elected President, that is.
Originally posted by Anders
Ohhh. So THAT is equal opportunity...
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works.
So what did YOU do to be born by that wonderful family?
Originally posted by Anders
So what did YOU do to be born by that wonderful family?
I am the product of the system's success. Some people are born as products of the system's failures, but then they have the chance to become the success.
Originally posted by Thoth2
By parity of logic, wouldn't poor people/less fortunate people be a product of the system's failures?
Thoth
Please re-read.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Yeah see, my parents worked their way up into positions where they could afford to be able to do this for their children. You see, my dad was born into a row house in Philadelphia, his father died before he graduated from high school, and his mother soon after. He was put through college from inheritence and eventually met my mother, gave up coaching football, and got a PhD. Now he is a top executive at a University and my mother is a lawyer for the same institution. How's that for the American dream? Oh, and we just built a brand new house. 5 kids, is a lot to support also...the system works. So now they are being compensated for their sacrifices and committment.
You missed his point.
Equal opportunity exists if the playing field is level. It's not. If your father was a deadbeat dad and your divorced mother worked in the cafeteria at the school, you would not have equal opportunity to be attending the school or living in your 5 bedroom house.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
That's the rub, though. The opportunities afforded to you are vastly greater than those who may live in the hypothetical situation I described.
Drop 100 people on a island with equal amounts of supplies and you have equal opportunity (discounting the fact that some people are more capable than others). Unfortunately, what you call equal opportunity only exists at the beginning. Opportunity changes as time passes and generations build upon the successes and failures of their progenitors.
I think there's a problem with semantics here.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
I honestly don't think most Dems, or liberals, or whatever you want to call them, would say that the goal is equal outcome. What I think is the crux of the issue is the means by which the playing field is levelled.
Thoth.
Originally posted by Thoth2
I honestly don't think most Dems, or liberals, or whatever you want to call them, would say that the goal is equal outcome. What I think is the crux of the issue is the means by which the playing field is levelled.
Thoth.
But see, you should not be levelling the field by BRINGING PEOPLE DOWN TO BRING OTHERS UP.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, the point is to keep compounding upon their successes. You make the most of your given situation, with what is presented to you.
The playing field is not always level, but that is what we need to strive to accomplish. Not equal outcome though, but equal opportunity.
So you really think the republicans are doing that right now?
Before you post please do a search for affirmative action and my username here. I don´t believe in that at all. It should be handled on primary and secondary level of education. BUT leveling the playing field at that age isn´t anything I have seen the republicans do at all. Actually I have seen a lot of the opposite.
Proive me wrong and please a bit more qualified than a few catch phrases.