Total posts: 532
-->
@Mall
Neo-Nazis get tattoos. I don't think it's because they hate their skin color.
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2021/04/02/uncovering-hate-revealing-not-so-secret-hate-symbols/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I come from a different political wheelhouse than you, but given the lack of critical engagement with your ideas, I thought I might chime in. Much of what I have to write are immediate impressions and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Theory and Praxis
I think you could be more specific on how this programmatic civicism would bridge theory and praxis. I buy that changing people's psychology through group "therapy" would make them more amenable to mythic ideas that might, in turn, support a preferred social ontology or political project. But the aforementioned is my assumption. Is this the connection between theory and praxis you are aiming at? It would help to describe precisely what this civic therapy is meant to fix. Is it... everything up to and including "negative personality traits?"
Left and Right
I can see how this model could fit leftist and right-leaning (rightist?) political projects, but I think you might overstate the model's applicability. I don't see how someone like Ayn Rand would be able to support any version of programmatic civicism in the manner you describe because programmatic civicism imposes a significant moral burden on subjects and embraces a communitarian, non-individualistic, manner of living. People under programmatic civicism are forced into "accountability" groups, life partnerships, and reciprocal-care relations with people not of their choosing. Even if the government does not dip its toes into enforcement, this is a lot of control to have over a group of people. Example: Since the therapy session you describe is not chaired by a leader, the rules are "pre-established" - but pre-established by who? One would think the non-profit organizations running the therapy. This might rankle some libertarians, which is a decidedly non-neutral ideological valence for programmatic civicism to have. How this would impact adoption across the left and right spectrum I'm not entirely sure of, but it's unlikely that it does nothing.
The program also encourages an "intensive" accountability group program - that's fine - but it also means having the capacity to know and sanction non-compliance with the rules (mythic principles will only go so far). Otherwise (as you note), you end up with something like Alcoholics Anonymous where the "end-results" don't line up with the program's intentions (incidentally, I am curious whether relapse is due to faults in individual AA chapters, or more due to the nature of recovering from alcoholism itself, or from the program as a whole irrespective of individual chapters). To do this, intensive surveillance seems necessary. Bentham's panopticon would have to be in full effect to capture non-compliance. Surveillance is another barrier to adoption as an ideologically neutral politics.
As a side note: I know you said that one has to consent to being disciplined in terms of the level of its severity, which seems like a way around this issue, but then people could plausibly never consent to punishment, defanging the whole operation.
Better Citizens?
I'm not too sure what needs to be changed about citizens to make them "better." Is it that we want them to become more moderate? Less polarized? I'm not sure, and I'm less sure if "less polarized" (if that is what "better" means within this context) is good. Regardless, I see potential objections to using the langugage of "therapy" in the context you prescribe - to create "better" citizens. This intervention seems designed to ameliorate conflict (or at least, "calling out,") in a manner that hampers legitimate conflict between people. When someone is called a "bad citizen" or a "hypocrite," it is not necessarily because people want them to "get better" through therapy (though sometimes this is the case), these terms are also deployed to demarcate lines of contestation and enmity. Camaraderie is not the baseline of democratic experience. Division seems to be the "norm" for democratic ontology. A good way to test this theory is by asking yourself what you are willing to compromise on.
Myths
There is actually precedent for myths being used to form a civic politics. Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes about the importance of maintaining a "civic religion" maintained by the state in the penultimate chapter of The Social Contract and, in Book II Ch. 7, maintains that a supremely wise "lawgiver" (alternatively translated as law-maker or legislator), often appeals to the gods in order to constitute a "good" people. Much of Rousseau's works support public rituals (e.g., his work on the theater and politics) that take on a mythical quality.
Even earlier, Plato used myth-making throughout The Republic to distribute appropriate roles to citizens in his utopian Kallipolis (see his Myth of Metals).
In any case, modernity has not done away with mysticism. The story of the American founding is mythical since it spawned a considerable number of idealized conceptions of self-government. The US has its own civic rituals - the pledge of allegiance, the star-spangled banner, and the swearing-in of public officials, to name a few. Even "the people" is a mythical category that is hard to realize and render (to answer the question "who belongs to the people?" one has to ask "the people," causing a problem of infinite regress).
There are arguments against mythical approaches to politics. What you are advocating for could be considered indoctrination. I am more inclined to let this pass though because I have more pressing observations.
Time
A ninety-day retreat is unworkable within my schedule. I would imagine for most people, a ninety-day retreat is unworkable. People have responsibilities outside of becoming better citizens. Routine chores, work, education, etc., have to be balanced with programmatic civicism's imposition. The people who can take a ninety-day vacation probably skew toward rich people. If civic progressivism aims at establishing a new form of participatory politics, it probably should include the whole of the populous (as you mention, the entirety of the 300 million people in the U.S.). How does one get around the problem of time without radically altering the weight of people's personal, financial, and familial responsibilities? And if one must change the weight of these responsibilities, how and where does one even start?
On a related note, are we assuming that people already have business connections before being thrust in the wilderness? If so, I don't see how this strategy would increase employment if people were already networking and getting jobs before they join the civic therapy session. In which case: rich people, who can afford to leave their job for a long time, meet up and become life partners, exchanging contact information and networking so they can become richer.
I think the sharpest critique I can muster along these lines is this: this might not be a fair use of everyone's time. To expect 300 million people with varying backgrounds to participate is a bit of a stretch without significant alleviation of their other responsibilities.
Suggestibility
Another problem I foresee is that some people are just more skeptical of mythopoetic principles being espoused. One would have to be invested in the group, their life partner, and the guiding mythos of their resort for much transformation of character to occur. In short, people need to be suggestible, and while a sizeable chunk of the population might be, I see others being dismissive of the "grand ideals" of any organization with mythopoetic pretensions.
Conclusion
I like what you are doing here, notwithstanding some of my more critical notes. What I buy is that living in a democratic society comes with obligations that do not come naturally to citizens. If you are so inclined to think more about this, I recommend picking up Danielle Allen's book "Talking to Strangers" and/or her pandemic book "Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus." Alternatively, it might help to look at scholarship on more participatory forms of democracy - mini-publics research and deliberative democratic experiments for a start.
As far as "mythopoetics," I would recommend (if you haven't already) reading Plato's magnum opus "The Republic." It's dry sometimes, but it invokes myth-making a lot. Additionally, checking out Susan Buck-Morss's work on Dreamworlds might interest you as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I think the third is the best. I can go Con if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It was fun!
I hope you come back one day refreshed and ready for another debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
@Barney
@whiteflame
@WeaverofFate
Created:
Posted in:
RM hasn't accepted yet, but I think we agree on the topic and rules. Just wanted to put it here so we didn't get the randomizer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triggerhappyhavoc
Welcome! I like the Chiaki profile pic!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually, if you're really set to go Pro on topic 1, we can do topic one. I was just curious what you thought of the other topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Im con but can also go pro
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Weaver can judge! Do you havr any feelings on topic 2 or are you pretty set on topic 1?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't researched many of these topics so I'm down for basically anything. That said, I think I'm partial to topic 2 (I don't know what side I want yet). I'd be down to do Con on 1 of you really want to debate that topic. That last topic looks complicated as hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
@whiteflame
Just a heads up. My debate has ended and is in voting period. I dont know if there are other judges, but I tagged the ones I knew were judges for sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Hey! Sorry I missed your message on here. It's good to be back!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
@That2User
That2User and I agreed to the debate on the BBC guidelines. I was going to be Con and That2User was Pro. We'll make the debate shortly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Political Theory. I got accepted to a university (thank god) but I'm waiting on other schools to get back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I'm as surprised as you are that I'm back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
/in
I am a little worried about my work schedule (and my preparation for grad school) so I might have to bow out of the tourney, but I really want to debate.
I am a little worried about my work schedule (and my preparation for grad school) so I might have to bow out of the tourney, but I really want to debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Happy to debate this again sometime in the future
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
So, when I said debate, I meant like a debate under the debate tab. That said, I'll respond, though some of this might be covered in the earlier post I made.
First off, I'm not necessarily dead set against welfare people voting, but I think a person's vote should be in some manner related to amount they pay in taxes. I understand that giving rich people more representation under the current structure would make them too powerful. However, higher taxation of the rich (in the numeral amount) is taxation without good representation. I will give you a demonstration of my point. Suppose I make a million dollars and pay $300,000 dollars in taxes and my neighbor makes $50,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes. Why should someone that pays 5% of amount that I pay in taxes have an equal say in the distribution/use of those funds in government?Now, I wouldn't be in support of taxation with proportional representation in congress, but I think the people that pay the most in taxes ought to have their own house in congress to consent any increases in taxation or allocations of funds.
What kind of taxes count? Payroll taxes are deducted from workers' income. Moreover, payroll taxes are regressive, meaning that low and medium income workers lose a higher percentage of their paycheck to payroll taxes vis-à-vis their wealthier counterparts. These wealthy counterparts, especially business owners, can only contribute so much to government coffers because they conscript the lower class to work for them at minimum pay. Workers, then, not only contribute to corporate tax revenue, they also keep the economy running, fund research and development through corporate profits they generate, and provide conveniences that most people in the world could not even dream of (our gig economy and service sector is massive and caters to most people's needs).
An even more important problem is distinguishing the individual tax contributions of the rich and the poor. If my theater, fast food restaurant, or whatnot, made $4 billion USD (and paid, I don't know, $200 thousand USD in taxes), but I employ 300 workers at minimum wage, how do we know how much is produced by me, the single CEO, and the 300 workers that I employ? There is no clear-cut division between what workers contribute and what I, the CEO, contributed. I might be a decent CEO, but the combined efforts of my 300 workers who sold product, served customers, etc., certainly have as much, if not more claim to that $200 thousand dollars in tax revenue than do I (and, for that matter, the $4 billion dollars too). I cannot pay shareholders from these profits if my workers don't do their jobs, so even capital-gains income is born out of wage-labor, and hence, is produced in part by the laboring class. The contributions made by low-income workers is ultimately invisible and often claimed by their employers. Yet, if someone has a 9-5 job, they can be relatively certain that they are contributing to company profits, personal profits (especially shareholders if the company is public), and often charities (fast-food restaurants, especially McDonalds and Taco Bell, often ask people to round up to donate to charity) simply by working. Company profits are taxed. Corporate gains (dividends) are taxed (with some exceptions). The products that indigent people buy are also taxed (and this is another tax that the poor bear the brunt of).
Thus, creating your new "house" will be all but impossible unless you track the exact tax contributions of every person in society, both indirectly and directly.
An even more important problem is distinguishing the individual tax contributions of the rich and the poor. If my theater, fast food restaurant, or whatnot, made $4 billion USD (and paid, I don't know, $200 thousand USD in taxes), but I employ 300 workers at minimum wage, how do we know how much is produced by me, the single CEO, and the 300 workers that I employ? There is no clear-cut division between what workers contribute and what I, the CEO, contributed. I might be a decent CEO, but the combined efforts of my 300 workers who sold product, served customers, etc., certainly have as much, if not more claim to that $200 thousand dollars in tax revenue than do I (and, for that matter, the $4 billion dollars too). I cannot pay shareholders from these profits if my workers don't do their jobs, so even capital-gains income is born out of wage-labor, and hence, is produced in part by the laboring class. The contributions made by low-income workers is ultimately invisible and often claimed by their employers. Yet, if someone has a 9-5 job, they can be relatively certain that they are contributing to company profits, personal profits (especially shareholders if the company is public), and often charities (fast-food restaurants, especially McDonalds and Taco Bell, often ask people to round up to donate to charity) simply by working. Company profits are taxed. Corporate gains (dividends) are taxed (with some exceptions). The products that indigent people buy are also taxed (and this is another tax that the poor bear the brunt of).
Thus, creating your new "house" will be all but impossible unless you track the exact tax contributions of every person in society, both indirectly and directly.
Your grouping an entire sector of society and not fairly. Some rich people are crooked and others are honest. I don't think we should penalize all rich people for the actions of others when they're not complicit in these actions. The idea that the rich are "supposedly" the oppressor class or that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few are bad arguments for mostly diminishing the consent/representation of the rich. They should be able to decide to which ends their money in government is most usefully applied.The issue you brought up is bigger and more complicated. It begs the question of "how do we end conspiring and collusion between corrupt politicians and businesses leaders?" I think then you should consider "what would make it harder or less likely for them to collude together?" Giving the rich a little veto and approval power on allocation and taxation in their respective house, I don't think will make things any worse. Its the politicians that can be bought and stay in office forever which is the problem that needs to be solved.
First, I made no normative claim. I don't recall calling all rich people oppressors or even implying they were corrupt because they lobbied. Their leverage in the political arena simply outweighs that of the ordinary citizen. For every year since 2008, corporations constituted over 85% of annual lobbying expenditures (1). Billionaires make up nearly 10% of federal campaign contributions despite being an infinitesimal substratum of the US population (2). Corporations that donate are rewarded with trillions of dollars in government funding (in fact, from 2007-2012, the government spent more on subsidies than social security) (3). I could go on, but I'll spare you. If you are interested, I would recommend reading the works of Page, Gilens, Hayes, and Bartels. Their work is not uncontested, though their empirical findings (especially the one that, when those in the 90th and 10th percentile of income have opposing policy preferences, the rich get what they want, are mostly supported by empirical data) (4) (5).
It need not be the majority of rich people that contribute to campaigns or lobby for this effect to manifest, nor do these contributions need to be corrupt. The quid-pro-quo relationship between congress and companies is not illegal. It is facilitated by law. Yet, those profits did not manifest out of the ether. They were not earned solely by the board of trustees or the CEO. Company income is generated by those at the foot of the pedestal: the average worker.
As for your solution of giving the rich more influence by offering them a house, I might point out that there is a chamber that caters specifically to the rich: the Senate (5). Second, why are we paying off the rich with political influence so they stop being corrupt? Appeasement only emboldens people and makes them demand more from us.
First off, Do you think people that don't pay any taxes at all should be able to vote? Representation in the U.S. had always been based loosely on principle that taxes are based on consent and the representation of the people who are taxed. Firefighters, police and charity workers are subjectively important to society, but should they have the same representation as a person that pays double amount of taxes? I'm sure other individuals (the same income) wouldn't like it if these people paid lower taxes than everybody else because they were deemed subjectively more valuable to society.
For the first part of your question: yes. Voting is the sine qua non of modern democracy (unless we return to sortition like the Greeks). Removing someone's suffrage is tantamount to stripping them of citizenship (or at least, it's damn close). Falling under US jurisprudence and concomitantly being denied suffrage removes from people their political agency and allow others to decide what the law should be for them. If democracy supposes "autonomy" as its principal concept, what you would institute is "heteronomy," a form of internal colonization where the poor are disenfranchised wage-laborers without the capacity to change political leadership. I am against oligarchy, hence, I am against non-universal and unequal suffrage. However, most people pay taxes to begin with. And, even if they don't, if they work, they contribute by increasing the pot from which corporate and capital gains tax revenue is drawn.
Also, representation in the US was based on property qualifications, race, but not personal income tax. In fact, personal income taxes were not constitutional until the early 20th century. How do I know this? The 16th amendment authorized personal income taxes and was passed shortly after the Civil War (6). Hamilton believed imposts should fund governmental institutions more than anything.
Up til the late 19th century, noncitizen Europeans could vote in the US, too (actually, the naturalization law said "free white persons") (7 p. 14-15). If we are basing our model of representation on the past, then I would imagine we would extend voting rights to noncitizens, although that is anathema in current discourse (at the national level, anyway).
I'll clear something up now. Firefighters, teachers, certain utility workers, and garbage collectors make under the median wage, generally. It is not that I think their tax burden should be less, it naturally is less; they all in a different tax bracket. Yet, society depends on them to fix powerlines, collect garbage, etc. If we must couch all contributions to society in economic terms, imagine a start-up tech firm, or even a major one like Apple, trying to make money when their factories are experiencing brownouts. What economic damage would result from destroyed powerlines? What economic damage would result from having no firefighters? What diseases would spread if there were no garbage collectors, and would it not hurt the economy too? What would happen to the future workforce if teachers didn't teach students basic math and reading skills?
Also, representation in the US was based on property qualifications, race, but not personal income tax. In fact, personal income taxes were not constitutional until the early 20th century. How do I know this? The 16th amendment authorized personal income taxes and was passed shortly after the Civil War (6). Hamilton believed imposts should fund governmental institutions more than anything.
Up til the late 19th century, noncitizen Europeans could vote in the US, too (actually, the naturalization law said "free white persons") (7 p. 14-15). If we are basing our model of representation on the past, then I would imagine we would extend voting rights to noncitizens, although that is anathema in current discourse (at the national level, anyway).
I'll clear something up now. Firefighters, teachers, certain utility workers, and garbage collectors make under the median wage, generally. It is not that I think their tax burden should be less, it naturally is less; they all in a different tax bracket. Yet, society depends on them to fix powerlines, collect garbage, etc. If we must couch all contributions to society in economic terms, imagine a start-up tech firm, or even a major one like Apple, trying to make money when their factories are experiencing brownouts. What economic damage would result from destroyed powerlines? What economic damage would result from having no firefighters? What diseases would spread if there were no garbage collectors, and would it not hurt the economy too? What would happen to the future workforce if teachers didn't teach students basic math and reading skills?
Lastly, I don't think a lot of workers making McDonald's sandwiches are ultimately worthy of deciding an arbitrary tax rate on a group of people that pay it. If the workers pay taxes, then they should enjoy the privilege's of the government services that everyone consented would be shared by all. However, this doesn't mean they should have a say in matter about the taxes that another group commits to the government.I think the wealthy would actually consent to many taxes that they thought were vital. More importantly though, they wouldn't consent to taxes that they deemed unnecessary or harmful to business.
I find this much less unfair than rich people arbitrarily setting budgets for city firefighters, welfare, and other programs they do not have any stake in and do not use. Under your system, the rich would hold arbitrary influence over a large swathe of the population that now cannot exercise political agency. You don't make the relationship any more fair, you just reverse it.
But, again, the poor do contribute tax dollars, indirectly or otherwise. Their production generates revenue and dividends. Many in the service sector avert economic damage to society that would come out of our tax dollars. This is "invisible" contributions, but they are still there.
Sources
But, again, the poor do contribute tax dollars, indirectly or otherwise. Their production generates revenue and dividends. Many in the service sector avert economic damage to society that would come out of our tax dollars. This is "invisible" contributions, but they are still there.
Sources
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
Willing to debate this with you if you're still dead set on it
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
What constitutes a fair share of taxes? Workers incur payroll taxes. If we only extend the right to vote to "working Americans," then I'd be reluctant to extend it to people who, at any time could up and leave their jobs and never return. Jeff Bezos is not forced to job search, work from 9 to 5, etc. He may choose to do that, but he has an exit option. Why should he have an equal say to that of workers who are compelled to do so to satiate their biological needs?
The minute tax you propose does nothing to help your position either. If "contribution" to society is most important to you, then the head tax, which I'm assured will not "tax the homeless to death," would contribute to society in direct proportion to its tax burden, which is minimal and payable by everyone. If it is a minute amount of money that anyone can pay, even homeless people, why distinguish between the politically "worthy" and "unworthy" at all?
As for the rich not being "properly represented," their lobbyists, political donations, and connections with members of high society lend them immense power and pressure in the political arena in the US. They have, in effect, a second vote by spending their money. What contribution do they make to warrant this second vote? Is it the billions they give to shareholders or the billions in stock buybacks? Do they lose their voting status the moment they lay off their workers or retire their company?
For that matter, why do contributions necessarily take on a material quantity of money? Just by becoming a firefighter, a member of the military, or someone working for charity, do they not contribute to society in a meaningful way? Many service jobs would likely not be filled by people who are rich. I argue that one's ability to purchase a McDonalds sandwich at a minute cost is itself a societal convenience worthy of praise and suffrage bestowed on the workers making it possible to do so.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
Then they shouldn't have to follow laws you pass on their behalf while they have no representation. Some 50 million people or so are on welfare. If you expect them, many of whom work in ther service industry, to fill up your car, serve you food, etc., to remain demure when they become second-class citizens, then I don't think we live in the same world. And what happens when strikes and work stoppages happen en masse? Do you think the Elon Musks' of the world will be nearly as wealthy without their legions of workers laboring on their behalf? What fair contribution does Jeff Bezos make to society anyway? He creates dirt-cheap jobs, the occupiers of whom are ineligible to vote (i.e., he creates slaves) and he accumulates wealth to influence how institutions are shaped in the US. Put simply, billionaires are just as much vote slaves as anyone else hoping to raise themselves out of poverty by voting for a pro-welfare politician. Moreover, the contributions of the rich to society only manifest if people are willing to work for them. In other words, the billions of dollars in tax revenue gleaned from businesses would dry up unless there were people poor and desperate enough, often on welfare, to work. And, when these workers are laid off (see Abbot Laboratories) those billionaire contributions to the national income start looking a lot more paltry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is all income used by the 1% reinvested back into the economy or spent productively? What about stock buybacks? From 2003 to 2012, over 100 major corporations expended 53% of their corporate profits, or $2.4 trillion USD, on repurchasing stock (HBR). Another 37% went to paying shareholders (HBR), so about 10% was spent on capital, wage hikes for employees, etc. The HBR article was published in 2014, but more recent data suggests that stock buybacks currently constitute a significant chunk of corporate expenditures, often to the tune of 100 billion dollars or more per quarter in 2020 and 2021 (CNBC). Even when firms do spend their money "productively," its often not all that beneficial for us in the long term. Abbot Laboratories destroyed hundreds of thousands if not millions of rapid Covid-19 tests during a "trough" in Covid-19 reporting and laid of 2 thousand workers. Then, when the delta variant emerged, the company surge-hired workers to produce more. Is this productive?
I'm sure industries do innovate. New medicines are being made all the time (though a large percentage of medical firm profits are spent on advertising, either directly to doctors or through TV ads). The medical industry also overspecializes, invests heavily in expensive healthcare tech, and pushes uneeded treatments into patients. Innovation occurs, then, but at the cost of the consumer who cannot afford the "best and newest" healthcare treatments. Patent abuse, too, allows for medical firms to forego innovation. If a firm can change one or two ingredients to a drug and prolong its patent, thereby preventing a generic version from being made, does this not affect companies' motive to innovate?
It may be the case that corporate wealth tax-hikes, by themselves (that is, with no other redistributive policy being passed after) may reduce innovation. However, a) tax revenues can be spent productively to reduce poverty, incentivize R and D through targeted tax credits, etc., thereby fostering long-term innovation and b) companies' quashed innovation under a higher corporate tax bracket may not serve a human need. Pogs, technically, were an innovation. Silly bands were an innovation. Musk's flamethrowers were an innovation. Are we to believe that the money used to create the above inventions could not be better spent elsewhere? For that matter, can we not think of better ways for "celebrities'" income to be spent?
I won't comment on the efficacy of the wealth tax. Suffice to say, billionaires are skilled at dodging regulations, and just because new tax revenue enters government coffers does not mean it will be spent on programs that I support either (although, it could mean a lesser tax burden for the middle and lower class if a tax on wealth is implemented). But, wealth is not always spent productively nor in the best interest of consumers. Furthermore, we have a graduated tax system, so (notwithstanding loopholes and legal folderal) those in higher tax brackets pay more income tax. If this system does not augur innovation, then how can it be that we've experienced a surge of tech developments over the past couple decades?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If atheists can get married, if Ted Bundy can get married, what religious sanctity is preserved by excluding gay people from marrying?
A marriage doesn't have to be officiated by the church for it to carry legal weight. A court provides a marriage license to all couples, gay or otherwise, which acknowledges the marriage in the eyes of the law. Getting married without all the faff and B.S. does not reduce a marriage to a "civil union."
If the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't want to host someone's wedding ceremony, they aren't compelled to do so under the law. You can support gay marriage and believe that private religious organizations should be able to refuse their services to gay people. I'd be curious to know if you would extend this religious exemption to doctors, but that's already being done.
As for the "inviolable institution of marriage" being tainted, I think it helps to remember what it did protect. A "good Christian" marriage used to involve a practice known as coverture in the early days of the American republic, which legally mandated husbands to subsume the rights and obligations of their wives. This meant that wives were unable to draw pay, husbands were obligated to defray their wives' debts, and husbands could legally beat their wives.
Coverture, through a slow and laborious process, was excised from the law. No matter how "sacred" the institution of marriage, it always evolves. For much of American history, interracial marriages were anathema to the public, and society generally accepted that spouses always consented to sex. If the institution of marriage is truly sacrosanct, then when did it start being so sacred? Was it during the 90s, when it was finally understood that married partners can still commit rape if a spouse is unwilling? Was it during the 60s, when it was accepted that married couples could use contraception and that interracial marriages could not be banned by state statutes?
If marriage can shift so radically in the span of a lifetime, both legally and culturally, then there really isn't anything sacred about it. It's good, no doubt, for people to marry (sometimes anyway). But, to treat marriage as a hermetically sealed time capsule which cannot change for the sake of religious tradition seems more damaging to the institution of marriage than simply allowing gays to marry. If we did treat marriage as a time capsule since the inception of the US, then coverture would still be legal, as would laws targeting "miscegenation," and marital rape would not be punished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Oh, and how does 10-12k characters sound?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Well, maybe the BRI is "net beneficial for participating nations" or "net beneficial for the global community." I think you'd favor the latter.
The BRI debates I'm most familiar with tend to ask whether the benefits from the BRI tend to help BRI recipients. The global community resolution seems interesting too, though.
If you're down, feel free to offer me a challenge. If you could change argument time to 1 week, that would be very helpful. I'm busy a lot these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
"The Belt and Road Initiative is good."
I like that resolution, but good for whom? Recipient nations? China?
I think it's a worthwhile debate. I think a a little bit of specificity would go a long way though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oooh! Oooh! Do me when you have a chance!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Feel like debating this idea? 4 rounds. You go first. 10k plus characters (I'd prefer 12k characters, but I write a lot). 1 weeks time for writing cases/rebuttals. If that's all good for you, I'd be down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I don't know much about any of them, so not really
Created:
Posted in:
If you have room for me I might be able to join provided I'm not inundated with work any time soon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Maybe, but there are few places on Earth that could be democratic without political parties. It would be hard to, among other things, campaign for a political position, maintain connections with one's polity, and fund re-election campaigns against political contenders without some sort of organized body designed to facilitate the process.
Without political parties, only those with the resources to launch a successful campaign without party connections and resources would win. There's already a monolithic barrier-to-entry for political success in the US given the number of hours candidates spend on fundraising, rallying, and GOTV initiatives.
Who are the ones with the resources to get elected without support from political parties? I'd imagine it would be billionaires who already have access to the media. People like Mark Zuckerberg could get elected. And, with their money, they could create PACs, lend their support to local elections, and generally do what political parties are already known to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I think the test is valid insofar as you use it correctly. Would I want to disqualify a potential job candidate because they aren't the right type? No. Would I use it as a professional diagnostics tool? No. I would use it for my own personal satisfaction.
Keep in mind that any tool measuring personality will be flawed. 1) personality changes over time and 2) the traits described in these sort of classification systems are not all encompassing. Peoples' psychological makeups are unique due to life experience, how their parents raised them, etc. So, you might have 2 INTPs or ENFJs who are very different from each other.
As for my type, I'll take the test and get back to you.
Keep in mind that any tool measuring personality will be flawed. 1) personality changes over time and 2) the traits described in these sort of classification systems are not all encompassing. Peoples' psychological makeups are unique due to life experience, how their parents raised them, etc. So, you might have 2 INTPs or ENFJs who are very different from each other.
As for my type, I'll take the test and get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I got a lot of my skills from my IRL debate career in high school too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I was on DDO. I took after a good friend of mine who showed me the ropes of policy debate.
Created:
Posted in:
I happen to concur with you on this. A few family members of mine like to put the blame on Obama for "not doing anything" to reduce police abuse while also saying that he perpetrated the eponymous war. I think people overestimate the power of the bully pulpit to begin with, but I distinct remember the president repudiating violence three days following the Ferguson incident. For what it's worth, he did say in an interview that he regretted some aspects of his response to Ferguson. I still find that some in the current administration reacted worse to the ongoing police-citizen crises.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd be fine being rated. I do need to get back into debating and having some things to work on would be good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think you missed one for my debate with bsh1. It should be WF, Trent, Chris, and SirAnon who nominated it so far.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I fully support the idea of incentives for DRVs and extensions for debates with no votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks! I agree with your assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Sorry, I forgot you already did just after reading your op. I must be blind.
Created:
Posted in:
My presence on this site is kind of dwindling. That said, please feel free to have a go at me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I'd imagine that even good officers are prevented from coming forward due to fear of ostracization from their fellow cops. Despite some reasoned objections related to the logistics of outfitting so many cops with body cameras, I think they might go a long way to deterring police abuse and informing the public when these incidents happen. I mean, just the knowledge that one is being recorded is a deterrent. That said, police officers are always free to turn off their cameras, and data storage is of short supply. The major problem is that we only hear of these injustices when evidence is recorded and publicized, which means there is a high chance of abuse that escapes the public eye unless you follow these cases religiously. What do you think would help in weeding out police corruption and abuse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Let me clarify. What he did was wrong. I'm not trying to deny that he murdered someone. I just don't get into the minutiae of whether it was in the first or second degree or whatever. I've just had a 20 minute discussion with someone IRL who tried to convince me it was only second or third degree and it honestly does not matter. Murder is murder, no matter who the victim is. I can't imagine many would defend the police officer's actions given what we see and know.
As for the violent protests, I feel that the message of police malfeasance being a problem is undermined. The complaints are legitimate, but media pundits are likely to brush off the officer's crime and only focus on the violence of the protests. I'm reminded of the neverending coverage of BLM and how it impacted people's perception of the police shooting. I can't speak for everyone, but the people I know did not take subsequent incidents of police brutality seriosuly and any honest conversation about police malfeasance instantly derailed into people berating the BLM. Because opinions influence policies, this is a problem. Is this the fault of the protesters? No, obviously not. It's just an unfortunate aspect of humans that people cannot and will not differentiate between a protest (violent or otherwise) and a killing without comparing the two.
Created:
Posted in:
The protests, the person, or the police officer? The forum topic doesn't specify, although since you're fielding thoughts, I'll answer all three.
Protests
I doubt anybody is willing to defend violent protests. I will say that the arson damages the message the protesters are trying to send, (although not all are implicated in burning down businesses and razing districts). Those caught committing crimes of any sort should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I doubt anybody is willing to defend violent protests. I will say that the arson damages the message the protesters are trying to send, (although not all are implicated in burning down businesses and razing districts). Those caught committing crimes of any sort should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Person
No idea who the person is, and I don't think it matters in all honesty.
No idea who the person is, and I don't think it matters in all honesty.
Police Officer
Regardless of if he is charged with a crime or what charge is appropriate, it was definitely high time to strip him of his badge. He is clearly unfit to uphold the law given his professional malfeasance, and the department was definitely in the right by firing him.
What Probably Matters More
The Minneapolis Police Dept. has a history of failing to retrain or fire problem officers even before this incident though, with supervisors unable to document problematic police officers and inaccurate (and often contradictory) "coaching" sessions which are used as an alternative to other types of punishment to allow for problem police officers to brush up on a specific policy (1). Calls for reform, in this instance, are legitimate and almost certainly should be pursued. To be fair, many of the noted deficiencies of the police department are not specific to the region. Other police departments allow for officers to purge their disciplinary records (2) (3), and the shared knowledge and cooperation between police departments and prosecutors can jeopardize the integrity of investigations into misbehaving police officers (4 p. 582 onward). In addition, some police officers resign even before they are disciplined for a crime or breach of policy to join other departments (5).
I should probably put a disclaimer here: most police officers are not evil. They have a difficult job, and I doubt many people want to join the force. That said, there are clearly lapses of police accountability in many departments, including the Minneapolis one.
Sources
Regardless of if he is charged with a crime or what charge is appropriate, it was definitely high time to strip him of his badge. He is clearly unfit to uphold the law given his professional malfeasance, and the department was definitely in the right by firing him.
What Probably Matters More
The Minneapolis Police Dept. has a history of failing to retrain or fire problem officers even before this incident though, with supervisors unable to document problematic police officers and inaccurate (and often contradictory) "coaching" sessions which are used as an alternative to other types of punishment to allow for problem police officers to brush up on a specific policy (1). Calls for reform, in this instance, are legitimate and almost certainly should be pursued. To be fair, many of the noted deficiencies of the police department are not specific to the region. Other police departments allow for officers to purge their disciplinary records (2) (3), and the shared knowledge and cooperation between police departments and prosecutors can jeopardize the integrity of investigations into misbehaving police officers (4 p. 582 onward). In addition, some police officers resign even before they are disciplined for a crime or breach of policy to join other departments (5).
I should probably put a disclaimer here: most police officers are not evil. They have a difficult job, and I doubt many people want to join the force. That said, there are clearly lapses of police accountability in many departments, including the Minneapolis one.
Sources
Created: