By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Second Civil War Coming to USA?

pastro243 said:
HappySqurriel said:
MidnightRider85 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Craan said:
I wonder if the real mafoo actually knows any poor people?

Now I am currently in my last year of high school, it is a public school, it is okay as far as education goes, there are about 1500 students attending, it is overcrowded, it is a public school, it is in a rural area, and it has students from a wide range of economic backgrounds from very very poor to pretty damn rich. Now what I have noticed is that students from better economic circumstances tend to do better and the poorer a family is the worse the student is going to do now there are always many exceptions but my point is not that people who's family have more money try harder often they don't. Most of the students, excluding those that do really well or really bad, put out about the same effort and yet the students from worse socioeconomic backgrounds do worse. Why is that mafoo?

When I was in University I took several sociology courses because (although their research was highly questionable and most of their conclusions were unfounded) there were lots of interesting observations that were pointed out in these courses. The underlying assumption of sociology is that the difference between people in different social groups is primarily a factor of upbringing and society and not based in biology.

Now, I mention this because one of the studies that was presented to us demonstrated that by the time children were 9 years old there was a noticeable difference between the ability for children of middle class and lower class backgrounds ability to communicate effectively and co-operate to solve a problem; and the worst group of middle class children were more effective that the best group of lower class children.

I don't know your school, and I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be that surprised to find that the wealthier the background of a student the more likely they were to seek out help from teachers, students, family and (potentially) tutoring services at all levels of achievement. To a certain extent money would play a role in this, after all tutoring isn't free, but the extra help weathier students were getting was rarely related to anything that directly involved money.


     But it could be related to the fact that it was more desirable or easier to help the wealthier students from the best neighborhoods than the ones from the worst homes and neighborhoods.  Would you want to spend time with the people that were from the nicer homes and neighborhoods, and wore nicer clothes or would you want spend more time with the kids from homes where they are beaten and that have been driven a bit psychotic from the abuse and that come from dangerous neighborhoods where most teachers probably wouldn't want to go to home visits with the parents?

 

 

So child abuse is entirely a factor of poverty?

Now, there is no doubt that wealthy students may have advantages in picking friends who are better able to help them but are you expecting the government to step up and provide social equity? Are we now going to provide everyone with plastic surgery to make pretty people uglier and ugly people prettier in order to ensure that people who are better looking have no advantages in life?

You missed the point, it can be said as its different when your parents and grandparents are lawyers, doctors, etc.. than when they are an average or lower than average guy, its different when you live in a house where the people dominate a lot of words and forms of expressions than when you live in a house where your parents didnt go to the university.

Differences like this come into play when giving people more tools to develop in life, a lot of people get in this cicle where it isnt easy to get out of poverty because you dont  have these tools.

To pretend poor people have the same oportunity to be succesfull than rich people is naive.

Didn't I say that there were difference beyond money that translated into greater success for the middle class than the lower class? Aren't you basically re-iterating the point I was making?

My point that you were responding to was that there are countless other factors that also give people advantages that we don't try to compensate for ... Everyone has advantages and disadvantages that they need to learn how to deal with in order to be successful, but we don't seem to see the need to compensate for people being more attractive, intelligent or athletic and we're only ever focused on one kind of advantage; primarily because everyone can see how unfair it is to try to compensate for the others.



Around the Network

I just heard some guy playing his guitar... and he says he is homeless by choice. He is fucking awesome... but this thread for some reason reminds me of one of his songs. It starts off as "Well I know that I am barely scraping by. I can hardly afford to pay my bills" but later in the song he goes "Please don't confine me to office walls. I think it's okay to call out of work on a sunny day. Or better yet barely go at all. Just learn how to survive on less pay. Or we can just live off their waste. All the good things they throw away. Are we geniuses or just insane?" And his shirt says "Quit your job and just go on tour" While he is singing you can absoloutly see he is content with his life. It's great.



TheRealMafoo said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I am for legalizing drugs, against aborting laws, pro gay rights, for the separation of church and state.

Let me clarify something about the “gay rights” comment, before others who I have argued with chime in.

Rights belong to all people, not a sub group, so I am for all rights being giving to all Americans. I hate the terms “gay rights”, “woman’s rights”, and so on. There are no “gay rights”, only human rights.

So while I am for this country to progress in a manner where everyone has the rights to live, work, and prosper, I am not for classifying a group of people, and then giving them some sort of rights.

We need to just change the laws so the rights everyone should already have, are not taken from them. So for example, get rid of marriage as a legal term and only recognize civil unions for legal purposes, and then let any two people join in a civil union, or let any two adults marry. That’s should not be a gay right, it’s a right all people should have.


Against aborting laws?? Maybe you are against murder laws too? 



Listening to Obama, he says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 to pay for the healthcare plan.

Now, in my opinion, if people are making over $250,000.00 and have way more than they need to survive, but are refusing to help people that are making less than $25,000.00 to be able to have quality healthcare and other things that are ncessary to enjoy all of the positive aspects of the American Dream and American Way of life, then they are flying in the face of all of the most positive aspects of Western morality and philosophy -- The Golden Rule, Jesus' moral teachings, and should eventually reap the fruits of what they are sowing.

What greedy, rich people fear the most is that the vast majority of poor people will one day wake up and see the inequality of life and run riot much as the zombies in films like Romero's Night of the Living Dead Trilogy do.



Slimebeast said:
TheRealMafoo said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I am for legalizing drugs, against aborting laws, pro gay rights, for the separation of church and state.

Let me clarify something about the “gay rights” comment, before others who I have argued with chime in.

Rights belong to all people, not a sub group, so I am for all rights being giving to all Americans. I hate the terms “gay rights”, “woman’s rights”, and so on. There are no “gay rights”, only human rights.

So while I am for this country to progress in a manner where everyone has the rights to live, work, and prosper, I am not for classifying a group of people, and then giving them some sort of rights.

We need to just change the laws so the rights everyone should already have, are not taken from them. So for example, get rid of marriage as a legal term and only recognize civil unions for legal purposes, and then let any two people join in a civil union, or let any two adults marry. That’s should not be a gay right, it’s a right all people should have.


Against aborting laws?? Maybe you are against murder laws too? 

Nope. Murder is wrong, and goes against your right to life.

But those rights are for humans, and an at some point the thing growing in a woman becomes a human, but it's not as soon as the egg gets a sperm.

Define what a human is, and when it gets there, it gets rights. Until then, it's something else. I have no idea when that point is, but it sure is not the first month or two, so during that time, it has no rights.



Around the Network
MidnightRider85 said:
Listening to Obama, he says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 to pay for the healthcare plan.

Now, in my opinion, if people are making over $250,000.00 and have way more than they need to survive, but are refusing to help people that are making less than $25,000.00 to be able to have quality healthcare and other things that are ncessary to enjoy all of the positive aspects of the American Dream and American Way of life, then they are flying in the face of all of the most positive aspects of Western morality and philosophy -- The Golden Rule, Jesus' moral teachings, and should eventually reap the fruits of what they are sowing.

What greedy, rich people fear the most is that the vast majority of poor people will one day wake up and see the inequality of life and run riot much as the zombies in films like Romero's Night of the Living Dead Trilogy do.

Obama also promised that he would drive down the cost of drugs and all negotiations with lobbyists would be done in public ...

Now, the vast majority of companies in the United States are considered small businesses and the vast majority of high income earners are owners of these small businesses. For the most part you can't seperate these people's personal income with their corporate income, and any increase in taxes will likely translate into passing on the increase in taxes through cost cutting measures (including lower employment and wage reductions to their employees) or by increasing the cost of the goods and services they provide to others. In the end the standard of living of the "Wealthy" doesn't change but the standard of living of people who have limited capacity to pass on costs are heavily altered.

To make my point clearer ... If you could "Tax" people to provide more equity wouldn't the United States have one of the most equal distribution of wealth due to their (insane) progressive taxation policy?



MidnightRider85 said:
Listening to Obama, he says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 to pay for the healthcare plan.

Now, in my opinion, if people are making over $250,000.00 and have way more than they need to survive, but are refusing to help people that are making less than $25,000.00 to be able to have quality healthcare and other things that are ncessary to enjoy all of the positive aspects of the American Dream and American Way of life, then they are flying in the face of all of the most positive aspects of Western morality and philosophy -- The Golden Rule, Jesus' moral teachings, and should eventually reap the fruits of what they are sowing.

What greedy, rich people fear the most is that the vast majority of poor people will one day wake up and see the inequality of life and run riot much as the zombies in films like Romero's Night of the Living Dead Trilogy do.

And this is why we have the rule of law, so people like you can't just pick a group of people they don't like, and take there rights.

The bill of rights and the constitution is not just for the people you like, it's for everyone. That's why justice is supposed to be blind. To protect Americans from people like you.

Sadly, someone just like you got elected to be president, so it makes it a lot harder to protect americans from someone with a King complex.



TheRealMafoo said:
MidnightRider85 said:
Listening to Obama, he says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 to pay for the healthcare plan.

Now, in my opinion, if people are making over $250,000.00 and have way more than they need to survive, but are refusing to help people that are making less than $25,000.00 to be able to have quality healthcare and other things that are ncessary to enjoy all of the positive aspects of the American Dream and American Way of life, then they are flying in the face of all of the most positive aspects of Western morality and philosophy -- The Golden Rule, Jesus' moral teachings, and should eventually reap the fruits of what they are sowing.

What greedy, rich people fear the most is that the vast majority of poor people will one day wake up and see the inequality of life and run riot much as the zombies in films like Romero's Night of the Living Dead Trilogy do.

And this is why we have the rule of law, so people like you can't just pick a group of people they don't like, and take there rights.

The bill of rights and the constitution is not just for the people you like, it's for everyone. That's why justice is supposed to be blind. To protect Americans from people like you.

Sadly, someone just like you got elected to be president, so it makes it a lot harder to protect americans from someone with a King complex.


      Yeah, and knowing that you're denying the quality services you receive to other people by refusing to do certain things like pay higher taxes so that they can enjoy quality healthcare too especially when you're in a much higher income bracket is also picking a group of people you don't like and denying them the right to proper medical treatment, etc.

     Have you ever read Dicken's The Christmas Carol?  The moral was not that being stingy didn't make Scrooge some super nice guy.  Yet, I would say that many of these people that are against healthcare reform think that even though they are denying poor people the right to quality treatments etc. that almost every moral teaching of western philosophy says they are entitled to go to church every weekend and think they're going to heaven even though Jesus himself is quoted as saying it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to  get into heaven and even exhorted rich people to sell all of their earthly possessions.

     I don't think that you would like it anymore if the Jesus of the Bible (and not the Jesus of George Bush was elected president either) if you read things like the Beatitudes or The Gospel of Thomas.  But then again, it is refreshing that you are an atheist because you don't base your beliefs on much more than Darwinian principles while many people with beliefs on the issue of healthcare reform similar to yours hypocritically believe they are loved by heavenly powers even though not granting healthcare to others is anti-Bible and even anti-Dickens, and they aren't following those principles of charity or the founding fathers of the USA's principle of seeking to improve the general welfare for all.

 

 

 



TheRealMafoo said:
Slimebeast said:
TheRealMafoo said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I am for legalizing drugs, against aborting laws, pro gay rights, for the separation of church and state.

Let me clarify something about the “gay rights” comment, before others who I have argued with chime in.

Rights belong to all people, not a sub group, so I am for all rights being giving to all Americans. I hate the terms “gay rights”, “woman’s rights”, and so on. There are no “gay rights”, only human rights.

So while I am for this country to progress in a manner where everyone has the rights to live, work, and prosper, I am not for classifying a group of people, and then giving them some sort of rights.

We need to just change the laws so the rights everyone should already have, are not taken from them. So for example, get rid of marriage as a legal term and only recognize civil unions for legal purposes, and then let any two people join in a civil union, or let any two adults marry. That’s should not be a gay right, it’s a right all people should have.


Against aborting laws?? Maybe you are against murder laws too? 

Nope. Murder is wrong, and goes against your right to life.

But those rights are for humans, and an at some point the thing growing in a woman becomes a human, but it's not as soon as the egg gets a sperm.

Define what a human is, and when it gets there, it gets rights. Until then, it's something else. I have no idea when that point is, but it sure is not the first month or two, so during that time, it has no rights.


But 'aborting laws' don't cover just the first two months, but the whole 9 months pregnancy.

So I really doubt you are 'against aborting laws'.



MidnightRider85 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
MidnightRider85 said:
Listening to Obama, he says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 to pay for the healthcare plan.

Now, in my opinion, if people are making over $250,000.00 and have way more than they need to survive, but are refusing to help people that are making less than $25,000.00 to be able to have quality healthcare and other things that are ncessary to enjoy all of the positive aspects of the American Dream and American Way of life, then they are flying in the face of all of the most positive aspects of Western morality and philosophy -- The Golden Rule, Jesus' moral teachings, and should eventually reap the fruits of what they are sowing.

What greedy, rich people fear the most is that the vast majority of poor people will one day wake up and see the inequality of life and run riot much as the zombies in films like Romero's Night of the Living Dead Trilogy do.

And this is why we have the rule of law, so people like you can't just pick a group of people they don't like, and take there rights.

The bill of rights and the constitution is not just for the people you like, it's for everyone. That's why justice is supposed to be blind. To protect Americans from people like you.

Sadly, someone just like you got elected to be president, so it makes it a lot harder to protect americans from someone with a King complex.


      Yeah, and knowing that you're denying the quality services you receive to other people by refusing to do certain things like pay higher taxes so that they can enjoy quality healthcare too especially when you're in a much higher income bracket is also picking a group of people you don't like and denying them the right to proper medical treatment, etc.

     Have you ever read Dicken's The Christmas Carol?  The moral was not that being stingy didn't make Scrooge some super nice guy.  Yet, I would say that many of these people that are against healthcare reform think that even though they are denying poor people the right to quality treatments etc. that almost every moral teaching of western philosophy says they are entitled to go to church every weekend and think they're going to heaven even though Jesus himself is quoted as saying it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to  get into heaven and even exhorted rich people to sell all of their earthly possessions.

     I don't think that you would like it anymore if the Jesus of the Bible (and not the Jesus of George Bush was elected president either) if you read things like the Beatitudes or The Gospel of Thomas.  But then again, it is refreshing that you are an atheist because you don't base your beliefs on much more than Darwinian principles while many people with beliefs on the issue of healthcare reform similar to yours hypocritically believe they are loved by heavenly powers even though not granting healthcare to others is anti-Bible and even anti-Dickens, and they aren't following those principles of charity or the founding fathers of the USA's principle of seeking to improve the general welfare for all.

 

 

I thought free will was pretty high on Jesus' and God's agenda.

I don't think Jesus liked to steal from either the rich or poor.

Isn't forcing people to give money to charities they don't approve of kind of against Jesus' teachings?

God gave them their lot in life, let God pay their healthcare.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!