The Debate Hall Social Thread

[ballin4life]

I'll be the first to admit that when it come to consumption tax I know very little about it, However from what I do know it's a regressive tax. (Though I have read some variations that are more progressive and can be just as progressive as a income tax.) I'd rather we not tax income, because you're taxing work basically. I say we tax the things we like the least most and tax the things we like the most least.

However A consumption tax at it's most basic level is regressive and I can't help but think it would negatively effect the people who spend the most (middle and working class income earners). Not on useless things, but on necessary goods and services.

It's my birthday so I had to make this brief but if you have more info you should post it up IE a link of some kind.

Most proposals for a consumption tax would exempt food (like most state sales taxes do already). Since most of the argument for a consumption tax being regressive comes from the fact that the truly poor spend a huge percentage of their income on food, exempting food takes care of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax was the proposal that I saw a while back. Note though that I have NOT read the details of this particular proposal so I don't necessarily support it 100%. I just like the idea of the consumption tax.

True. A simple tax system would be better, but it would be better if one could modify it to suit one's purposes eg. tax breaks for charities etc.

That's like the one thing that falls in that category though IMO.

If saving lives is not important, I don't know what is. Also, the people that want this service are the ones who cannot pay for it, and I believe that they have a right to healthcare as well.



If providing omelets were a important enough then maybe we should. Also, the market can provide omelets and it does, but the market can't provide cheap and affordable healthcare for the poor and they need healthcare.

So part of your right to health care is planned parenthood? How do you draw the limits? Do I have a right to plastic surgery too?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Doesn't the applying part go back to when the PG was private, and therefore you would have to apply to be able to see it?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Most proposals for a consumption tax would exempt food (like most state sales taxes do already). Since most of the argument for a consumption tax being regressive comes from the fact that the truly poor spend a huge percentage of their income on food, exempting food takes care of this.

Yeah. Basic necessities really should be exempted, because taxing one's attempts at survival is a little ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairtax was the proposal that I saw a while back. Note though that I have NOT read the details of this particular proposal so I don't necessarily support it 100%. I just like the idea of the consumption tax.

The prebate bit sounds a little strange. It's complex and it applies to everyone, including those who probably don't need it. I think it's far simpler and easier to just exempt basic necessities like food, electricity (maybe) or cheap clothing (maybe).

So part of your right to health care is planned parenthood? How do you draw the limits? Do I have a right to plastic surgery too?

Whether it is necessary for good health in members of the community, saves lives and has a decent level of cost-effectiveness I guess. Plastic surgery wouldn't count because it is not necessary for good health.

 

[ballin4life]

Whether it is necessary for good health in members of the community, saves lives and has a decent level of cost-effectiveness I guess. Plastic surgery wouldn't count because it is not necessary for good health.

What if I'm going to have really bad looking scars without plastic surgery?

"Necessary for good health" is again a fairly arbitrary criteria. Not to mention "decent level of cost-effectiveness".

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have a question, why does one need to apply to get into the proving grounds? Could we have an open proving grounds and a closed debate hall? Why do we need to close the proving grounds?

Battlecow. That's why.

@Debate over planned parenthood and the free market: here's the problem. The free market doesn't provide **** to the poor. Planned Parenthood's particular niche (providing free health care and sex education to the poor) would never be filled by an institution that wasn't backed by other funding. It won't ever make a profit-it's not supposed to. It's supposed to help those who need help.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Battlecow. That's why.

And? He is in the proving grounds, I am not arguing for an open debate hall (might do that later though, but not right now) all I am saying is we should have an open proving grounds.

Also battlecow may be ethnocentric, but he is intelligent, he could make a good debater if he stops using logical fallacies.

 

[ballin4life]

Battlecow. That's why.

@Debate over planned parenthood and the free market: here's the problem. The free market doesn't provide **** to the poor. Planned Parenthood's particular niche (providing free health care and sex education to the poor) would never be filled by an institution that wasn't backed by other funding. It won't ever make a profit-it's not supposed to. It's supposed to help those who need help.

Free market is way better than what we have now for the poor. Free market leads to lower prices of goods, meaning the poor can afford more. Plus you wouldn't have the inflation tax that eats away at the purchasing power of the poor.

Don't forget too that the free market will provide work opportunities for the poor as well.

As for planned parenthood, I'm still wondering how you know that planned parenthood is worth the cost.

And? He is in the proving grounds, I am not arguing for an open debate hall (might do that later though, but not right now) all I am saying is we should have an open proving grounds.

Also battlecow may be ethnocentric, but he is intelligent, he could make a good debater if he stops trolling.

Fixed your post.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Fixed your post.

Thanks, I knew I made a mistake somewhere.

 

[ballin4life]

I still support an open Debate Hall though

 

[ballin4life]

Battlecow. That's why.

This is kind of funny considering that you two have some similarities in posting style.

Also at least we have some threads now that aren't about religion haha

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, me too. But I only became a flamboyant **** after I established myself as intelligent. :V

 

[Theftz22]

This quote taken from the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog on the most cringe-worthy moments of the book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, had me

"Random House (why, even the name is irrationalist!) throw Rand a surprise party to celebrate the launch of 'Atlas Shrugged'. In return, Rand throws a control-freaky snit about other people trying to 'control her context'. Later she launches into a analysis of the merits of surprise parties and hilariously declares that, philosophically, she can find "no valid reason for them"."

 

[Sieguest]

Also at least we have some threads now that aren't about religion haha

True, would've thought it was the Crusades brought onto an internet debate hall some time ago. x.x

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=12704402#post12704402

 

[Savon]

I know this might irk a few people, but I personally feel that in the United States and taking into consideration what we stand for and what our nation values as seen in most of our laws, that there exists no logical argument against homosexuality and rights to homosexuals in general without not being consistent with the basic fundamental values of the United States.

My reasoning is that the ultimate purpose of the laws in the United States are meant to protect people in some way/shape/form. I think that most hatred and dislike of homosexuals this day and can be compared to the irrational hatred of blacks during the Civil Rights movement and irrational hatred of the Jews during WWII.

Discuss?
Discuss?

 

[AltF4]

How to revive the Debate Hall:

1) Remove the Proving Grounds
2) Temporarily allow anyone to enter. Have some period of open enrollment.
3) Have some core current group make a number of interesting (IE: Not all religion) threads.
4) ???
5) Profit!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I know this might irk a few people, but I personally feel that in the United States and taking into consideration what we stand for and what our nation values as seen in most of our laws, that there exists no logical argument against homosexuality and rights to homosexuals in general without not being consistent with the basic fundamental values of the United States.

My reasoning is that the ultimate purpose of the laws in the United States are meant to protect people in some way/shape/form. I think that most hatred and dislike of homosexuals this day and can be compared to the irrational hatred of blacks during the Civil Rights movement and irrational hatred of the Jews during WWII.

Discuss?
Discuss?

Duh. I used to say, that homosexuals were like blacks; they're just different.

 

[Dre89]

Except that one is a state of existence and the other is a practice.

 

[AltF4]

Am I hearing Dre arguing that being homosexual is a choice? (Or perhaps being intentionally obtuse about it, while clearly implying that statement?)

 

[SuperBowser]

Dre. loves to imply that statement over and over, no matter how many times he is called out on it, so he can whine people don't understand his argument over and over.

 

[Savon]

Even if dre was right, neither harm anybody in any way

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Except that one is a state of existence and the other is a practice.

Note that I said, homosexuals, not homosexuality.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Except that one is a state of existence and the other is a practice.

Clarify this statement.

Am I hearing Dre arguing that being homosexual is a choice? (Or perhaps being intentionally obtuse about it, while clearly implying that statement?)

This being why.

Also, Dre., is it possible for something that one has no control over, and something that does not commit any actual harm (beyond the naturalistic fallacy of a moral worldview you seem absolutely intent on continuing to advocate) to anyone, to be seen as morally wrong? If you honestly think so, then I have nothing more to say to you on the matter because your view of morality is ridiculously arbitrary and backwards, and not even remotely based on right or wrong in any true sense. Might as well say that it's wrong to be black; after all, even though it's outside of your control, and even though it does not harm anyone else, it's morally wrong... according to my incredibly arbitrary, demonstrably fallacious moral code, which actually doesn't even seem to include "being black" in the things that it considers wrong (yeah, remember how we demonstrated that homosexuality is natural? Remember how science actually showed that homosexuality is present in other primates as a way of blowing off stress in some monkey tribes? No? read up and stop being such a moron about it!!!)! But oh well, whatever, you'll just find more post hoc justifications for your feelings towards homosexuality, that almost certainly come from your intolerant religious upbringing.

Dre., stop talking about homosexuality. You do not do yourself justice, and you are shown to be wrong again and again and again and just won't shut up about it.

Yes, I mad.

Also, get this. If being black is the state of existence, then guess what? Breeding while black (god forbid) is the practice.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

how many people will God make gay before we realize that maybe gays were meant to be?

 

[AltF4]

How many sociopaths must god make before we realize that if we're made in his image, there is something seriously messed up with our god.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

how many people will God make gay before we realize that maybe gays were meant to be?

No, no, you don't get it. These people choose to be gay. Despite social pressure, despite the chance of losing their homes, their friends, their families, their lives because of it. Despite (in some places) suffering the death penalty for it. No, despite all that, they still choose to go with satan's sexuality. Probably because they hate god.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

exactly which characteristics does God decide and which characteristics are your own choice

as far as my understanding of God goes, God knew you before you were born and knew you were going to be gay when he put you on the earth. Doesn't that mean God put gay people on the earth?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

>insert nonsensical "free will" argument<

 

[Savon]

No, no, you don't get it. These people choose to be gay. Despite social pressure, despite the chance of losing their homes, their friends, their families, their lives because of it. Despite (in some places) suffering the death penalty for it. No, despite all that, they still choose to go with satan's sexuality. Probably because they hate god.

The part in bold can be applied to lots of groups throughout history that were oppressed who could have hidden what made them different. The Roman persecution of the Christians for example. Even then, who cares if homosexuality is a choice/unnatural/something you are born with? Lots of things in our world are not natural. The candy we make is not natural, television is not natural, the INTERNET is not natural. We should be basing our points on whether or not it is harmful to society.

Religions, political parties, hairstyles, clothes. Those things are all choices. Point is, nobody has clearly demonstrated how homosexuals DIRECTLY harm society by them being GAY!!! How can a dude/girl smashing another dude/girl hurt society? Is it because the sex is not reproductive? Then why not ban all forms of contraceptives/oral/anal or non-traditional sex?

 

[Aesir]

I changed my mind, consumption tax is dumb.

Edit: Savon, because homosexuality while being a natural occurance also isn't harmful. Even if it was a choice, there is no evidence that it harms society.

 

[Savon]

Exactly my point

I find homosexuality in men to be very visually displeasing, but nobody is being harmed or is having their innate rights violated, so let them be

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

>insert nonsensical "free will" argument<

And actually, it's existence is debateable, especially if an all-knowing god is invoked.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And actually, it's existence is debateable, especially if an all-knowing god is invoked.

Hence my calling it senseless; free will and omniscience do not make sense together.

@Savon: first point taken, but religion/faith is demonstratively a choice. And furthermore, Dre. does find anal/oral sex immoral... I think he has some kind of ridiculous exemption for contraceptives though.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hence my calling it senseless; free will and omniscience do not make sense together.

@Savon: first point taken, but religion/faith is demonstratively a choice. And furthermore, Dre. does find anal/oral sex immoral... I think he has some kind of ridiculous exemption for contraceptives though.

Actually for contraception, I'm pretty sure, he's against that; because it stops people having kids.

 

[AltF4]

0

Please.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

0

Please.

Who is that in response to? Me?

 

[Savon]

Actually for contraception, I'm pretty sure, he's against that; because it stops people having kids.

So does pulling out, what is the problem?

 

[AltF4]

Who is that in response to? Me?

No, not a response to anyone. Just found that and had to share.

 

[Dre89]

I've stated many times that I don't believe homosexuality is a conscious choice, that's a stupid position, but we know that sexuality has psychological influences.

Besides, even if it was genetic that wouldn't make a difference to the debate anyway.

As soon as I saw Alt and Superbowser imply that was my position I just posted this and didn't read the rest of the convo.

 

[SuperBowser]

I know it's not your position. I also know that you imply it is your position over and over and wonder why people get mad at you.