-->
@fauxlaw
Because Theweakeredge is a very intelligent person, I will allow him to speak for me.
Taxes, and the case of the helpful billionare
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@FLRW
@Theweakeredge
A study published in 2001, 20 years ago in the research [making it passé?] that you cite is replaced by further study ten years later, that I cited https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf
which demonstrates as I said, that at 24 - 30 weeks, and certainly after 30 weeks, which leaves a full 7 weeks of pre-natal development to full term, or full gestation, speciifcally, in which sensation of pain and the observance of consciousness is observed.
No, Edge, I am not wrong. Catch up. The research FLWR produced was done before you were born.
-->
@fauxlaw
Your reference does not state what you said.
Summary
The implications for clinical practice of the neurobiological evidence presented in section 2
have been considered. Interpretation of existing data suggests that cortical processing and
therefore fetal perception of pain cannot occur before 24 weeks of gestation. It is reasonable
to infer from this that the fetus does not require analgesia for interventions occurring before
24 weeks of gestation. Diagnostic or therapeutic procedures that involve the fetus directly are
very uncommon but do occur and can be associated with a stress response. However, this does
not indicate that the fetus is aware or can feel pain. The case for administering analgesia before
an invasive procedure (in addition to maternal general anaesthesia) after 24 weeks when
the neuroanatomical connections are in place, needs to be considered together with the practicalities
and risks of administration of fetal analgesia in continuing pregnancies and the
uncertainties over long-term effects. Evidence that analgesia confers any benefit on the fetus
at any gestation is lacking but should be a focus of future research that will need to include
medium and longer-term as well as immediate outcomes. However, the need for maternal sedation
before fetal interventions such as transfusion or feticide is still recognised, as it provides
both maternal and procedural benefits.
They key point is:
"However, this does
not indicate that the fetus is aware or can feel pain."
-->
@FLRW
Read the whole bloody thing. I did. So can you. Summary? That's taking a pulse. Do a full work-up, Doctor.
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... your study made a mistake? Studies can be posted later and still be wrong? Regardless of that - your study doesn't agree with your conclusion - you're assuming it does based on what you interpret to be a researched conclusion - no - the study specifically says its not pain "as adults can feel it" - to say that its "pain" is not a researched conclusion. However, again - this is asusming that the study is right... which isn't always the case
-->
@fauxlaw
While acknowledging that the development of the fetus is complex, especially after 26 weeks gestation, considerable development is still to occur, even after birth. The fetal pain literature is criticised for tending to exaggerate fetal development. Finally, the difficulty of explaining the subjectivity of pain in materialist terms is discussed. Pain is suggested to arise with development of the necessary neurological, cognitive and emotional structures. Pain experience is placed at approximately 12 months of age, though this is within the context of a continuum of awareness rather than a straight ‘on‐off’ switch. The major moral implication of this stance is to place the burden of proof for analgesic use onto clinical measures, rather than relying upon the, so far, poorly supported assumption of pain awareness.
Locating the Beginnings of Pain
-->
@fauxlaw
Do a full work-up, Doctor.
Well, I was asked to go to Medical School. When I was an undergraduate nuclear engineer, we were required to take a course in radiation biophysics at our university's
Medical School. We engineers found a major problem with radiation treatments the school was providing. Also on the final exam, we engineers scored in the 90th percentile and the pre-med students in the class all scored in the 30th percentile. The grades were curved so that we engineers received an A and the low scoring med students all got B's. We engineers were invited to attend this medical school after our graduation as a part of a special research project. I had no interest.
-->
@FLRW
@fauxlaw
yeah - when it comes to studies and resarch, I have no doubt in my mind that FLRW has both of us beat Fauxlaw, I just happen to agree more with FLRW's interpretations of 'em than I do yours Fauxlaw, and to be clear, we don't agree on everything - or even most things (go see religion is a mental illness debate to see us oppose there), but here I think FLRW and I can agree on what's said here - a response to what would be considered painful is being misinterpreted as pain by your interpretation of your study, in reality, there is no nuerulogic evidence to support that claim, and evidence against it- during gestation in general - like - not from 13 - 24 weeks, GESTATION.
72 days later
-->
@FLRW
President Dwight David Eisenhower, perhaps the last real Republican, had a 90 percent tax rate for the super rich during his administration.
How was he a real Republican if he had high taxes? Isn’t the definition of Republican someone who cuts taxes and wants social authoritarianism? Otherwise what does it mean to be a Republican?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nope - especially back in that era - Republican's wanted to settle the national debt: so they taxed the biggest resource they had.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Was the US debt even that big when Eisenhower entered office? I can understand the debt being a big issue now, but when Eisenhower was in office, it wasn't a big deal. The US never paid off it's debt completely, even with republicans in power.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What is your exact criteria for a "human life".
-->
@Bones
A human - a homo sapien, as for what deserves consideration - a homo sapien with the ability to think, and feel pain.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wrong - it wasn't that long after World War II, it was right after the Great Depression finally ended - the debt was NOT paid off.
-->
@Theweakeredge
a homo sapien with the ability to think, and feel pain.
What about people in coma's? They can't think. What about people with congenital analgesia? They can't feel pain.
-->
@TheUnderdog
A Republican is best defined as a Conservative democrat....Though some Republicans have a tendency to be more conservative and less democratic
Whereas a Democrat is a more liberal democrat. Though some Democrats have a tendency to be even more liberal and less democratic.
And then there will of course, be exceptions in both camps.
And then there will be those that don't wear any badges.
-->
@Theweakeredge
But Eisenhower was president before the great depression, so for him the debt wasn't that high.
-->
@zedvictor4
If a republican is a conservative democrat, what does it mean to be conservative if you want to raise taxes on anyone and what does it mean to be a democrat if you want lower taxes? Being a conservative democrat is a contradiction, as is being a liberal republican.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let's clear some facts mister doesn't read books apparently. The Great Depression started in 1929, Eisenhower served in World War II as a general. The Great Depression was already ending due to the New Deal, and is typically agreed to have ended during World War II. Eisenhower was a president AFTER WW II, so, what does that mean? Oh yeah, HE WAS PRESIDENT AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Eisenhower had a Total US debt of $289 billion when he left office. Trump had a Total US debt of $27 trillion when he left office.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh; I guess I don’t know History well.
-->
@FLRW
Every president hasn’t paid off the debt and this is a bipartisan problem. I made a plan to get out of debt quickly and easily.
14 days later
-->
@fauxlaw
why did you pivot to abortion? regardless i notice how you base everything on a constitution written by rich white men hundreds of years ago. even IF minimum wage wasn't meant to be a living wage; laws change, policies change, regardless it SHOULD be a living wage.
-->
@drlebronski
Why should a starter job traditionally used for training unskilled labor provide 40k a year?
12 days later
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I've discussed the idea of taxing the rich more, there has been some, well, pushback. That these people are paying more than their fair share, that they provide all of the income for the government, etc, etc. Here's the thing, the fundamental things - whenever a rich person it taxed almost any percentage of taxes, they will have more than enough income to live on, this is not always the case with poor people.
So why are the poor entitled to the money the rich have earned?
Yes, the rich are able to theoretically pay more tax, because their base costs can be super easily covered. But why should this be happening? Why are you forcing them at the government's gunpoint to pay more?
Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income. That's approximately $2400, so, to deduct that 50% income tax, you get 1,200 dollars. According to Statistica, in January of 2021 (the last recorded data point), that is an overall cost of $1,124... so - rent - costs nearly your entire gross monthly salary - and that's not even considering if you have kids, or any other bills you have to pay, like internet, car insurance, health insurance, utilities, etc, etc. And this is all presuming that the minimum wage is increased to 15 dollars an hour.
So what? Who cares if the poor aren't able to afford "average" rent? Poor people have to bunch up with other people to pay rent, pick below "average" rent areas, or become more employable so they can command wages better than minimum wage. No one is entitled to housing, let alone "average" housing. If you're so worthless to a society that you can't make over minimum wage, then you're in not position to demand better housing, especially if you stupidly had kids you can't afford to raise. Stop making rich people pay for your incompetence/mistakes.
According to Pew. Research and Business Insider, the median interest of the group considered the "rich" is $187,872 - to be charitable, we'll round down to 185,000 dollars annually. So dividing that number in half, we get 92,500 annually, and 7,708 monthly.. which, is enough to pay what Statistica reports as the average rent for a house of more than 5 people, more than four times over - so- to say that a tax will affect each level of income earner the same is to not understand what fractions can do to different proportions. This is, fundamentally why, the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor. Not to make them also struggle, but to overcome this basic principle of proportionality.
If you're not contributing substantially to America, then perhaps you don't deserve housing.
Your entitlement complex is ridiculous.
-->
@Mesmer
Absolutely right!
Generally speaking, greater income is the result of higher education, and high school, alone, just doesn't cut it, anymore. Not to mention that the true education level out of high school has declined in the U.S., somewhat coincident with the left thinking they knew more about education than the educated. At one time, one of the major results of a good education was represented by the level of American innovation compared to other countries, demonstrated by the US owning the majority of new patents on an annual basis. But, we no longer own that plurality, and haven't since two years into Obama, and it has declined since. Might have something to do with Obama saying, then, that "there comes a time when you have made enough money." Funny thing, he bought a Martha's Vineyard mansion only after leaving the Presidency, when, before his presidency, he complained that he was just an ordinary guy.
-->
@949havoc
Most people aren't educated enough to invest for an inflationary period.
-->
@Greyparrot
One of the many faults in current so-called education.
10 days later
-->
@Theweakeredge
You must be young. The idea that the uber rich will taxes passed by the American government is quaint. They have a million different ways to hide their money, and make most of it from capital gains anyway. CEOs are the chumps that the vampires at the top hire in order to ensure that the money keeps flowing into their coffers. Income tax hikes would just take a chunk out of the level that's under the 1% and turn the wealth gap into a chasm. The way to really take a pound out of the uber-wealthy's hide would be structural (break up big conglomerates and distribute stock among working class people). But the entire political system is structured to stop something like that from even being seen as a political possibility. And if a country does try something like this then that top echelon, which is fundamentally international at this point, will just pull the necessary strings to destroy that country (either sponsor a 'democracy movement' to overthrow their leader or slaughter their people with sanctions until they bend the knee).
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
walk us more through your middle-ages utopia and how greatly undeveloped our society and species would be if we refused to stop localised networks staying only town-based.
If I've misunderstood anything you suggested, I apologise, correct me please.