Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#677 Apr 15 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, now... Democrats have brainwashed Latinos as well, just in fewer numbers. Also Asians but in fewer numbers than Latinos.

Apparently, the more melanin you have, the more susceptible you are to being tricked. Science! Smiley: schooled

Edited, Apr 15th 2015 10:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#678 Apr 15 2015 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll just jump in here and say that if a given political party's platform (per gbaji, the GOP) says "We will make no distinction between Americans and their needs", I'd vote for the opposing party just because that is a friggin' stupid platform.
I'm not sure what you mean by making "no distinction between Americans and their needs". That's certainly not something I'd ever say, nor anything the GOP would say. Our position is in opposition to the idea that we should have a system that divides people up into identity groups, decides which group "needs" what things, and then divvies up benefits to them based on that assessment.
You're in such a rush to say I'm wrong that you say I'm right?

Do you even read what people write any more?

____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#679 Apr 16 2015 at 6:41 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'll address this first..

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. You are a member of the group. That group is larger than just "people who vote democrat" and certainly larger than "people who are elected members of the Democratic Party". Do you get this? My god you are dense!


Gbaji wrote:
What? What do you mean by "The Democratic Party"? If it's not people who vote democrat, and it's not the people who they elect, then who is it?

And let's not forget that I didn't say anything about a political party. You did. I just said "group of people" I was referring to people "on the left" who apply pressure to black people to support a specific liberal social agenda and to vote Democrat. That group can be anyone, not just people who identify as "Democrats", much less people who are elected members of the party.


Gbaji wrote:

And once again you're conflating "group of people" with "political party" (and being vague about what that means as well).


Gbaji wrote:

No, it's not. I was not just talking about elected representatives. That's you moving the goalposts after the fact.



You said the following
"And they got blacks to vote for them almost 100%"

"I'll also point out the irony of me pointing out how people fail to argue why blacks for *for* Democrats but instead why they vote *against* Republicans, and you proceed to do that exact same thing. Shouldn't you vote for a party because you agree with their positions? Aren't you the least bit concerned that maybe the reason the Dems want you focused on why you should dislike the GOP is because they're afraid that if you actually look at their own positions, platform, and past actions you might discover that you dislike them even more? Just a thought. "

"
Black people are lied to by the political Left
"

You have clearly differentiated black people from the "political left" throughout this discussion. You're simply redefining terms.

Gbaji wrote:
When you say "Every black person", you are arguing that because a large percentage of a given population (black people in this case), "know" something, that this must be true. That's a textbook example of the freaking fallacy. Arguing *why* the Democrats are better is not a fallacy. Arguing that it's ok for black people to vote democrat because the majority of them know that the democrats are better *is* a fallacy.

It also has a hint of "no true scotsman" because you said "every black person serious about politics", which means you're defining the group itself in a circular way (only people who are "serious about politics" know this), and they all hold the same position. My point is that your entire statement is meaningless and fallacious. It doesn't actually represent support for anything at all.



Gbaji wrote:
No, you didn't. You said that "every black person serious about politics knows...". That's the fallacy. If you want to argue that you believe that the Democratic party represents the lesser of two evils, then just say that. Then tell us why you believe this. You haven't done that. Your support for your position seems to be solely that "every black person knows". Which is stupid and fallacious. I don't want you to tell me what you think a whole group of people know. I want you to tell me why *you* hold the position you do. Don't worry about anyone else. Argue why you believe something.


Gbaji previously wrote:

I would argue that the perception that Democrats support social programs that benefit black people (not Almalieque) is a huge reason why black people (not Almalieque) vote so overwhelmingly Democrat. If you think otherwise, then by all means, provide said alternative explanation.


If you were referring specifically to me, which you weren't because there is no "fear of reprisal" of me saying that statement along with you specifically saying the "political left", then you would be making the same EXACT popularity fallacy. Since you are also part of a group that is much larger than the GOP, you would only be agreeing to my point that the GOP commits the same fallacies. You are once again trying to redefine the boundaries to make your argument work. If you were specifically talking about black individuals, then you are literally contradicting your claim that the political left is to blame for their near 100% support. Even if the Democratic party created the idea, tricked one black person and let it spread like wild fire, it would be because of the Democratic party.

I'll respond to your RINO nonsense later.
#680 Apr 16 2015 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Against the idea of dividing people into identity groups, says the guy who jumps at the chance to distinguish himself apart from "liberals" and has used every excuse imaginable to divide people based on their religious and sexual identities.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#681 Apr 16 2015 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'll just jump in here and say that if a given political party's platform (per gbaji, the GOP) says "We will make no distinction between Americans and their needs", I'd vote for the opposing party just because that is a friggin' stupid platform.
I'm not sure what you mean by making "no distinction between Americans and their needs". That's certainly not something I'd ever say, nor anything the GOP would say. Our position is in opposition to the idea that we should have a system that divides people up into identity groups, decides which group "needs" what things, and then divvies up benefits to them based on that assessment.
You're in such a rush to say I'm wrong that you say I'm right?

Do you even read what people write any more?


Yeah. I said I don't know what you meant by "no distinction between Americans and their needs". As I said in my earlier post, that's not what we say, so saying that you'd oppose a party that says that (and saying that's the GOP) is a bit strange.

I don't agree with the wording you used. It's not that we make "no distinction between Americans and their needs", but that we don't assume that the primary distinctions we should use should be based on things like race and sex, and we don't agree that "need" is something that can be determined based on those things and we don't believe that the government should be the means by which Americans needs should be met. I provided a whole list of reasons why in my post. We can make the distinction, we just don't feel that it's government's place to weigh benefits based on them.

We think that people's outcomes should be based on their actions, not their need. This isn't about identity groups at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#682 Apr 16 2015 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Against the idea of dividing people into identity groups, says the guy who jumps at the chance to distinguish himself apart from "liberals" and has used every excuse imaginable to divide people based on their religious and sexual identities.


The day I argue that liberals should be taxed more than conservatives, you'll have a point. Again, the point isn't about "making distinctions", but what you do based on those distinctions. Conservatives don't believe that the government should be doling out benefits based on who people are. Period. We believe in a system that rewards people based on what they do. Which is why we support the idea of a free market, since that system is best at determining the value of your actions relative to those of others around you.

We further believe that when government does involve itself, it should also do so based on actions and how they affect those around them and should do so to the least degree possible. So, for example, creating a benefit status that rewards couple who might produce children for marrying and thus ensuring that should they procreate the responsible father will be legally identified is based on the potential action, it's possible affects on those around them, and acts to influence those actions in a way that minimizes costs to those others. We oppose extending that status to gay couples because the same action (sexual activity outside of marriage) does not present the same potential cost to the rest of us, and therefore does not need to be modified.

The Left accuses us of taking this position out of bigotry against gays, but that's because the Left views things through the lens of identity and makes political decisions based on that lens. We don't. We're literally approaching the decision making process from different angles.

Edited, Apr 16th 2015 7:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#683 Apr 16 2015 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You have clearly differentiated black people from the "political left" throughout this discussion. You're simply redefining terms.


No. I'm capable of grasping that most terms overlap. There are tons of people on the "political left" who are black. Al Sharpton is part of the "political left", despite being both black and not an elected member of the Democratic party.

You're really getting lost in the woods on this one.

Quote:
If you were referring specifically to me, which you weren't because there is no "fear of reprisal" of me saying that statement along with you specifically saying the "political left", then you would be making the same EXACT popularity fallacy. Since you are also part of a group that is much larger than the GOP, you would only be agreeing to my point that the GOP commits the same fallacies. You are once again trying to redefine the boundaries to make your argument work. If you were specifically talking about black individuals, then you are literally contradicting your claim that the political left is to blame for their near 100% support. Even if the Democratic party created the idea, tricked one black person and let it spread like wild fire, it would be because of the Democratic party.


I honestly have no clue what point you are trying to argue here. It looks like you're just randomly grabbing out of context quotes and trying to find ways in which one might mean something different than another.

Meanwhile, you're still ignoring my actual point which was about the relationship between the establishment of the welfare state and the perpetuation of black poverty. You're literally arguing every single silly little thing except that. It's kinda funny to watch, really. I'm waiting for you to start berating me for using the wrong font any time now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#684 Apr 16 2015 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
procreation
Marriage has been about property rights for close to 4,500 years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#686 Apr 17 2015 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Conservatives don't believe that the government should be doling out benefits based on who people are. Period. We believe in a system that rewards people based on what they do.

Especially the first thing people do. Really, almost exclusively the first thing people do. Falling out of a white wealthy ****** is pretty much the end of the conservative meritocracy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#687 Apr 17 2015 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
procreation
Marriage has been about property rights for close to 4,500 years.


Marriage has been about inheritance. Think about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#688 Apr 17 2015 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Conservatives don't believe that the government should be doling out benefits based on who people are. Period. We believe in a system that rewards people based on what they do.

Especially the first thing people do. Really, almost exclusively the first thing people do. Falling out of a white wealthy ****** is pretty much the end of the conservative meritocracy.


That claim was weak the first time you made it, and it hasn't gotten any stronger in the hundred or so times you've repeated it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#689 Apr 17 2015 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Marriage has been about inheritance.
Inheriting the dowry.
gbaji wrote:
Think about it.
Turns out your claim was weak the first time you made it, and it hasn't gotten any stronger in the hundred or so times you've repeated it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#690 Apr 17 2015 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
procreation
Marriage has been about property rights for close to 4,500 years.


Marriage has been about inheritance. Think about it.
So homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have their spouse/children inherit their wealth?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#691 Apr 17 2015 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Marriage has been about inheritance.
Inheriting the dowry.


Which in many cultures was returned to the wife's family if the marriage dissolved, or if the marriage produced no children. Where do you think money in a marriage goes if they don't have children? It's just baffling to me that people insist that marriage and procreation aren't integrally linked. Absent the potential for children to be produced, there would be no need for a formal marriage contract to exist.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Think about it.
Turns out your claim was weak the first time you made it, and it hasn't gotten any stronger in the hundred or so times you've repeated it.


Lol. There's some projection for ya.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#692 Apr 17 2015 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
procreation
Marriage has been about property rights for close to 4,500 years.


Marriage has been about inheritance. Think about it.
So homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have their spouse/children inherit their wealth?


In the absence of some other legal arrangement, inheritance goes to the biological children of the deceased. Marriage is a legal arrangement that puts that inheritance into the hands of the surviving spouse first, under the assumption that said spouse is also a biological parent of the children and will ensure that said inheritance continues down a biological blood related course. Again, that's barring additional legal arrangements, which can include additional marriages, wills, etc.

The question isn't "are there other means by which someone's property can be legally distributed after their death", but "why did we bother to come up with marriage in the first place"? A homosexual can certainly pass his or her stuff on to a spouse via any form of legal will, or to biological children (by default), or any adopted children by legal arrangement. But the default assumption behind marriage is that the couple will procreate as a couple, producing heirs that are biological descendents of their two families (which, btw is part of the reason for the dowry system mentioned above) and ensuring to the greatest degree possible that those heirs actually inherit the shared property of both of their parents. In the absence of marriage, in societies where men were the primary property owners and labors, a man could father children and then abandon them. Marriage ensured that he must take responsibility for them. And yes, at the risk of bringing up the dowry again, in many cultures (especially the aforementioned male labor focused ones), dowry's were considered the wife's property alone, not shared, and was only to be handed to the children, and not to the husband (specifically to ensure that he could not run off).


Marriage as a social institution, and certainly as a legal contract, serves no purpose at all in the absence of the potential for procreation. It's just two people sharing their lives and finances, which doesn't require any special customs or laws. We do that all the time. It's called "roommates".

Edited, Apr 17th 2015 7:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#693 Apr 17 2015 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Just want to add one more thing about marriage. Marriage is unique in the context of social/legal contracts because it does not just create a contract between two people. It assumes a condition in which more people who are not yet defined will be impacted by the terms of the contract and become parties to it. Those are "children". Again, in the absence of the potential for children to result, and the need to have some kind of arrangement in place prior to them existing, there would be no reason to have marriage at all. While the details and customs surrounding marriage vary from culture to culture and over time, that one common component is always present. Financial contracts and other social structures existed that were not called marriage. What made marriage unique historically was that it was within the context of a relationship between two (or more in some cases) people that could produce children.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#694 Apr 17 2015 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
In the absence of some other legal arrangement, inheritance goes to the biological children of the deceased
Yes, without kids it historically goes to spouse, then other family. Note the spouse in that sentence.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#695 Apr 17 2015 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's just baffling to me that people insist that marriage and procreation aren't integrally linked.
It's baffling because even you realize it isn't true.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#696 Apr 18 2015 at 4:52 AM Rating: Good
****
4,396 posts
Despite being ganged up on, Gbaji keeps giving solid replies that are too often answered with the same tired old liberal talking points and scare tactics. Given, I only read the last three pages or so, but the bulk of the intelligence on this particular thread are really seems to come from his posts. Of course, I am a conservative, but that's because my brain functions.

On the bright side, the bulk of the amusement comes from the rest of you people and thus this forum mirrors real life politics.
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#697 Apr 18 2015 at 5:25 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Given, I only read the last three pages or so, but the bulk of the intelligence on this particular thread are really seems to come from his posts.


You seem to be borderline illiterate.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#698 Apr 18 2015 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread is 70% Alma and Gbaji bickering. Any intelligence found is purely accidental.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#699 Apr 18 2015 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Just want to add one more thing about marriage. Marriage is unique in the context of social/legal contracts because it does not just create a contract between two people. It assumes a condition in which more people who are not yet defined will be impacted by the terms of the contract and become parties to it. Those are "children".

Adoption, trusts, healthcare proxies, in loco parentis provisions, etc. What the fuck is it you think 'unique' means?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#700 Apr 18 2015 at 8:01 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Tacosid wrote:
Despite being ganged up on, Gbaji keeps giving solid replies that are too often answered with the same tired old liberal talking points and scare tactics. Given, I only read the last three pages or so, but the bulk of the intelligence on this particular thread are really seems to come from his posts. Of course, I am a conservative, but that's because my brain functions.

On the bright side, the bulk of the amusement comes from the rest of you people and thus this forum mirrors real life politics.

Ahh, gbajiland, that's where you disappeared to. Well, nice to see you come up for air every once in awhile.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#701 Apr 18 2015 at 11:02 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I disagree. Stupidity is usually associated with not having sufficient mental capacity for some task. In this case, that could be "figuring out the truth". I'd argue, however, that when people deny the truth, it's out of stubbornness, not stupidity.
Why do you think blacks continue to vote Democratic after being told how the Republican way is better?

Gbaji wrote:
That was my argument Alma. That's it. And in response you've spun off on a bewildering array of side topics, none of which actually address the argument that I made. How does pointing out that blacks tend to prefer public to private schools in any way address my point about welfare? It doesn't. How does accusing the GOP of gutting the VRA address my point about welfare? It doesn't. None of those things you keep wanting to talk about address my argument.

What they do is represent a laundry list of things that might convince black people to vote for the Dems instead of the GOP though. All while carefully avoiding the very issue that I said from the start was the most important one: Poverty rate among blacks. All of those other things are symptoms of poverty (well except the ones that are just completely unrelated). The argument that voter ID laws suppress black votes is based on the assumption that black people are more likely to be poor and less able to obtain an ID, right? The root problem is black poverty. Why might black people support public school over private school? Again, because they are more likely to be poor and thus less likely to benefit from private schools that they can't afford. Once again, the root problem is black poverty Why might black people be more supportive of gun control? Because guns are a bigger problem in poor inner city neighborhoods than they are in the suburbs, or especially rural areas. Once again, the group that is disproportionately poor is disproportionately likely to be victimized by guns, and therefore disproportionately likely to support gun control. And guess what? Once again, we find that the underlying cause is.. wait for it...black poverty

You're doing precisely what I mentioned long ago: You're obsessing over the symptoms of the problem, while ignoring the cause. Poverty is the cause. That's the problem we need to fix. Everything else is like arguing about the seating arrangements on the Titanic. Completely irrelevant.
You're looking at this completely backwards, unrealistic and hypocritical. You are literally giving the "end world hunger/poverty" beauty pageant response. There's no single policy (remove welfare) that will do that. The solution is the laundry list that is provided.

Gbaji wrote:

Notice that you still failed to actually respond to what I said though. How about instead of asking me to go look somewhere else for your response, you actually do something amazing like respond?
I responded and then gave you a citation.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes it is. In the same way that if I say something like "red dye number 5 is toxic and should be banned" and you respond by saying that ******* and cyanide are both toxic too. I mean, that's great and all, but that doesn't really address the issue about whether red dye number 5 should be banned.

In case you are really really slow, I'm not just arguing that welfare perpetuates poverty as some kind of esoteric mental exercise. I'm arguing that we should be looking at eliminating it so as to help those people that are currently poor to be less likely to not be poor in the future (or at the very least give their children a better shot at not being poor). This isn't a game of "lets just list off things that are semi-related". I'm actually arguing for a course of action. And in the specific context of this topic, I'm arguing that if you really want to fix the disproportionate crime stats that blacks in the US currently suffer, the best way to do this is to end the existing system of welfare that keeps them disproportionately poor and thus disproportionately more likely to live in neighborhoods with high crime rates.

When you respond to that argument by bringing up lists of other things you don't like, while refusing to even discuss welfare, that's you avoiding me.


Gbaji wrote:

Yes. I understand it perfectly. That's an avoidance response. Instead of addressing the problem I'm talking about you spin off on tangents talking about other problems. I'm honestly not sure what you think you're accomplishing here, other than mildly amusing me.




You: The US is too fat and it's because of McDonalds. If we remove McDonalds, then we would help those people who are currently fat to be less likely to be fat in the future.

Me: Well, McDonalds, itself, is not the problem. People tend to be less physical active (from less PE in school to desk jobs). Healthy foods tend to cost more while unhealthy food is cheaper and more abundant. We also live in a environment where people are living in fast pace world where fast food is more convenient.

You: Tangents! I'm talking about McDonalds! I'm trying to remove the obesity problem and I'm arguing that McDonalds is the problem.

Me: I understand the problem, I'm telling you that the solution is mulit-faceted and simply removing McDonalds is not only a scapegoat, but will not solve anything. In order to truly reduce the nation's obesity problem, we have to address all of the problems and not just hone in your dislike of McDonalds.

You: McDonalds!!!!!!!!!!!

Point: I'm giving you a real solution that encompasses several aspects of the problem. You are only focusing on conservative talking points on social programs. Just like how I can eat McDonalds and still be healthy, you can be on welfare and end up successful. There is absolutely nothing about welfare that hinders, prevents, stops, reduces (or any other verb) the ability to do better in life.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 318 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (318)