or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 299

post #4471 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I think the intent, which it hardly accomplished, was to show why holding conservative positions on certain issues inherently means you can't be any sort of liberal. In their view, there is no liberalism to tie in.

I think it's a little more insidious. I think it's trying to say anything that is not explicitly liberal, as defined by her of course, is conservative and therefore wrong/bad/evil. She was quite clear that, unlike liberals, conservatives do not create policy with unintended consequences but rather any fall out was the actual goal. Of course, many of her assumptions are bogus, and she's very tunnel blind.
post #4472 of 5454
Here's her main problem:
Quote:
You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues.

It's like the equally blind folks that say you cannot separate ethics/morality from economics.
post #4473 of 5454

You can be overwhelming liberal or conservative and have non-correlative views and anywhere in between. I think this idea that 'she defines what's liberal' is stupid. Of course she fucking does; it's her opinion. Gawd.

You can separate morality and economics, but it's a bad idea. That's why we suffer from the myriad of issues which exist. Why are people 'blind', because they think putting morality before economics is important? That effectively makes them a good human being.

post #4474 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

You can be overwhelming liberal or conservative and have non-correlative views and anywhere in between. I think this idea that 'she defines what's liberal' is stupid. Of course she fucking does; it's her opinion. Gawd.


You can separate morality and economics, but it's a bad idea. That's why we suffer from the myriad of issues which exist.

I was going to give you a thumbs up before I read your closing lines. Separating morality from economics does not cause us to suffer any issues. It's picking the wrong policies that causes this and those are often chosen with the supposed intent of "helping" people.
post #4475 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think it's a little more insidious. I think it's trying to say anything that is not explicitly liberal, as defined by her of course, is conservative and therefore wrong/bad/evil. She was quite clear that, unlike liberals, conservatives do not create policy with unintended consequences but rather any fall out was the actual goal. Of course, many of her assumptions are bogus, and she's very tunnel blind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Here's her main problem:
It's like the equally blind folks that say you cannot separate ethics/morality from economics.

I agree with both of these Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
because they're pretty much just a more parsed-out version of what I was saying.

wink.gif
post #4476 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

You can be overwhelming liberal or conservative and have non-correlative views and anywhere in between. I think this idea that 'she defines what's liberal' is stupid. Of course she fucking does; it's her opinion. Gawd.


You can separate morality and economics, but it's a bad idea. That's why we suffer from the myriad of issues which exist. Why are people 'blind', because they think putting morality before economics is important? That effectively makes them a good human being.

There is a difference between separating morality and economics and "putting morality before economics." But please explain how amoral economics has caused a myraid of issues that exist today.
post #4477 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I was going to give you a thumbs up, before I read your closing lines. Separating morality from economics does not cause us to suffer any issues. It's picking the wrong policies [which] causes this, and those are often chosen with the supposed intent of "helping" people.

 

This smells pretty fishy. Of course, separating morality from economics causes issues. Child labour, destruction of the environment, etc. You're telling me, if a group of CEOs put morality before capital gains, there would be exactly the same issues? That would be pretty stupid.

post #4478 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

This smells pretty fishy. Of course, separating morality from economics causes issues. Child labour, destruction of the environment, etc. You're telling me, if a group of CEOs put morality before capital gains, there would be exactly the same issues? Because, that would be pretty stupid.

There is plenty of evidence that in countries like India, when familes can afford to not send their children to work, they do so. The thing is that they can't afford to feed their families without the extra income. Which is more moral? Sending kids to work, letting family members starve to death.
post #4479 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

There is a difference between separating morality and economics and "putting morality before economics."

 

Please, expand on what you mean by this, because it isn't coming across in your sentence. Separating morality and economics sounds mightily like putting economics before morality.

post #4480 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

This smells pretty fishy. Of course, separating morality from economics causes issues. Child labour, destruction of the environment, etc. You're telling me, if a group of CEOs put morality before capital gains, there would be exactly the same issues? Because, that would be pretty stupid.

There is plenty of evidence that in countries like India, when families can afford to not send their children to work, they do so. The thing is that they can't afford to feed their families without the extra income. Which is more moral? Sending kids to work; letting family members starve to death?

 

How about option 3: Creating a better system? Your analogy is pretty lacklustre. To say families can afford to not have their children working, and then say that they can't afford food without said child labour, is blatantly contradictory. Also, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of cultural differences in India (like arranged marriages).


Edited by JapanAlex01 - 8/31/15 at 10:09am
post #4481 of 5454
"Morality before economics" usually results in a bunch of wishy washy lefty spendfests that sooner or later bring on a belt-tightening reckoning wherein things are much worse than before the whole cycle began.
post #4482 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Morality before economics usually results in a bunch of wishy-washy, lefty spend-fests, that sooner or later bring on a belt-tightening reckoning wherein things are much worse than before the whole cycle began.

 

Are you high on crack? You're mixing things. Confusing government policies which don't work--I won't go into whether you are right or wrong about said policies working or not--with regulation of capitalism is... well... weird. (Hence the first question.) You're mixing up your ideologies (I'm assuming you're right-wing) with morality-before-economics which was the original point of discussion.

post #4483 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

How about option 3: Creating a better system? Your analogy is pretty lacklustre. To say families can afford to not have their children working, and then say that they can't afford food without said child labour, is blatantly contradictory.

As family income rises, they stop sending their children to work and rather send them to school. It really isn't a difficult concept to comprehend. I'm sure a resourceful lad, such as yourself, can find all kinds of economic papers showing this effect around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

Please, expand on what you mean by this, because it isn't coming across in your sentence. Separating morality and economics sounds mightily like putting economics before morality.

You're telling me it isn't possible to do an economic analysis of a problem and a moral problem of the analysis? People don't choose the economic based conclusion all the time. As an example, from a purely economic analysis, you shouldn't give money to panhandlers because it encourages more panhandling (if no one gave them money, there would be no reason to panhandle). However, people still give money to panhandlers presumably out of some more decision (eg. they can afford to give said individual a few dollars and it will greatly help that person).

Another example would be how we will spend millions of dollars to rescue a trapped miner because it is the moral thing to do, even if economically it would be cheaper to let the miner die.
post #4484 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post

How about option 3: Creating a better system? Your analogy is pretty lacklustre. To say families can afford to not have their children working, and then say that they can't afford food without said child labour, is blatantly contradictory.

As family income rises, they stop sending their children to work and rather send them to school. It really isn't a difficult concept to comprehend. I'm sure a resourceful lad, such as yourself, can find all kinds of economic papers showing this effect around the world.

 

Ah-doi. My point was: You contradicted yourself. If that was just an error of type, then fair enough. People don't chose to send their children to do hard labour, if they can afford not to. And, I'm glad you at least agree in the humane and objective fact, that, as wages go up, child labour goes down.
 

Quote:
You're telling me it isn't possible to do an economic analysis of a problem and a moral problem of the analysis? People don't choose the economic-based conclusion all the time. As an example, from a purely economic analysis, you shouldn't give money to panhandlers because it encourages more panhandling (if no one gave them money, there would be no reason to panhandle). However, people still give money to panhandlers presumably out of some moral decision (e.g. they can afford to give said individual a few dollars, and it will greatly help that person).

Another example would be how we will spend millions of dollars to rescue a trapped miner because it is the moral thing to do, even if economically it would be cheaper to let the miner die.

 

Your first sentence makes no sense. Do you mean it's possible to do an analysis of an issue coming from either economics or morality independently? Of course, that's possible. Sometimes, you can do both. For example: It is over 70% cheaper to put homeless people in free housing (yes, you read that right), than it is to leave them out on the street. That is an example of an issue which can be solved morally and economically, but isn't enacted merely because of politics.


Actually, if no one gave money to panhandlers, panhandling would still continue (but, perhaps to a smaller extent), as that is just the fucking nature of being homeless. (Seriously hoping that you don't think giving money or food to homeless people is an unwise thing.)

Your last example is a much better example of economics in relation to humanism. I wouldn't be able to sleep, if I'd known I had put any amount of money before human life, but that's just me.

post #4485 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanAlex01 View Post
 

 

Ah-doi. My point was: You contradicted yourself. If that was just an error of type, then fair enough. People don't chose to send their children to do hard labour, if they can afford not to. And, I'm glad you at least agree in the humane and objective fact, that, as wages go up, child labour goes down.
 

 

Your first sentence makes no sense. Do you mean it's possible to do an analysis of an issue coming from either economics or morality independently? Of course, that's possible. Sometimes, you can do both. For example: It is over 70% cheaper to put homeless people in free housing (yes, you read that right), than it is to leave them out on the street. That is an example of an issue which can be solved morally and economically, but isn't enacted merely because of politics.


Actually, if no one gave money to panhandlers, panhandling would still continue (but, perhaps to a smaller extent), as that is just the fucking nature of being homeless. (Seriously hoping that you don't think giving money or food to homeless people is an unwise thing.)

Your last example is a much better example of economics in relation to humanism. I wouldn't be able to sleep, if I'd known I had put any amount of money before human life, but that's just me.

Source?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.