By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
VGPolyglot on 16 December 2016
Edit Thread
fatslob-:O said:
kitler53 said:

have you been born into extreem poverty in the United States to make your argument?  Or been in a situation where your only hope for a full belly is free school lunch and food stamps or your only hope for bettering yourself is public schools?  There's a reason that liberals push for social services that so that all citizens have at least some hope of opportunity.

 

and as lafiel stated,.. conservatives would be more than happy to regulate things like definition of marriage to ensure only their very narrow view of what it means to be an "american" can have access to the protections marriage provides a family.

 

the war on drugs was and continues to be a tool for discrimination.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2016/03/top-adviser-richard-nixon-admitted-war-drugs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti-war-proteste

 

the obvious flaw in conservative thought is that the world is fair and merit based outcomes is how the populace is rewarded or punished.  it's a nice ideal that i wish were true but it isn't.

The world is fair, it's just that confirmation bias exists to keep us all from seeing it that way and including me ... 

The world has no rule aside from physical ones, we only prefer a fixed view of what our idea of fair means instead of the default reference point ... 

It's not a flaw in conservative thought that the world is meritocratic, it's in their belief that the world needs to be meritocratic. Like it or not there needs to be tons of losers to support the winner but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to offer social services to the former ... 

Why? Especially since the winners and losers are generally decided at birth.