This is just made up nonsense. Don't think any of your sentences are true. It might be disadvantageous to be absolutely xenophobic, though.

My response was also more or less made up but just an attempt at an answer.

You're greatly overestimating my "supports the troops".

I think there is WAY too much military fetishism in this country and, yes, the size of our military is far too large.

But I don't think every individual that signs up to be a soldier is a bad person.

I can envision someone with limited opportunities entering the army thinking that is the best chance for them to live a better life. I may not agree, but I can understand it.

What I can't understand is voting for the candidate that promises to deport your wife.

EDIT: not far behind on the 40k front.

I only just read a short article on it so I've got as much as you've got.

Maybe he knows his wife is here illegally and possibly deserves to be deported

You once asked me if I'm in favor of the rich were forced to pay a very high percent of their capital gains and income in taxes to help those in need

I think the very rich should donate huge amounts of money to the poor. The question for me is it moral for the government to take half of the money they earn while only taking a quarter of everyone else's. And no i don't think that's moral

Removing the cap from fica contributions would be something i could get behind. Removing loopholes too.

I also stated i hate nazis and antisemitism but feel they have the right to be heard and you thought i was nuts. If i had my druthers i would love for there to be no nazis allowed here. But is that different than someone saying there should be no radical muslims allowed?

It's complicated

Maybe he really hates his wife but is forced by societal norms to stay in a loveless marriage. Did anyone think about that!?!

Listening to some interview with Peterson and some guy on BBC while driving funny how leading the interviewers questions are. Definite mansplaining.

Maybe he knows his wife is here illegally and possibly deserves to be deported

they "earn" it as a function of the participation, support, and complicity of the society around them

you see taxes as government taking people's money

I see taxes as people paying for the services they (often indirectly) receive


plus perhaps some monetary policy (credit MB)

And sometimes even services they (or anyone else) wants!

It's really all fiscal policy though, IMO.

Mets, maybe, just maybe, nobody deserves to be deported based solely upon immigration status. Maybe our immigration system is flawed and broken and is a talking point to exploit people's worst impulses and fears.

And maybe, just maybe, it's not unreasonable to expect people who benefit hugely from our society continuing to function in its present state to bear more of the burden of the upkeep of that society.

And maybe, just maybe, if you're worried about the morality of taxation, you should focus on reducing sales taxes and other taxes that take a greater percentage of the income of people at the lower end of the income spectrum. Because surely if taxing the wealthy at a greater rate is immoral, taxing the poor at a greater rate ought to be unthinkable.

Why bother arguing

How about this glory of an exchange, VR?

I ask you, why bother

I'm a hitch
I'm what no one believes
I'm the witch
You're all liars and thieves
Like his father
Like his son will be, too
Oh, why bother?
You'll just do what you do

It's the laaaast midnight...

Which part again do you think I'm wrong about since you wanted to rehash this?

start with the part where women lack volition

I don't think any of the pro life position is that women can't reproduce if they want to. Where is the lack of volition?

your analogy of infertility chemicals in goldfish water

The point there was that that would be control of reproduction.

It correlates pretty well to the Chinese one child policy which is also control of reproduction.

I'll grant that no one is forcing women to have abortions in the US and that they are therefore voluntary--but when you have pp clinics in poor neighborhoods I would argue that the net effect is still controlling the population of poor people (blacks).

The issue that you and most others itt seem to have is that you want reproduction to mean something other than what it actually means. It's been twisted to try to show that lack of control is actually control.

Under the goldfish analogy if the fish are breeding freely then they are not being controlled yet your argument is that they are.

restraint is freedom

LB, you are using a general concept, "control", and misascribing agency


at best (assuming you do allow that women/blacks/poors have the capacity to determine their own best course of conduct), you are equating the permission for a population to control itself with the control of a population by a separate entity

Requiring that somebody reproduce who does not want to reproduce is controlling reproduction.

What do I win?

Well, you're right, there isn't much of a point in trying to debate with someone who thinks I'm at the same level of personal responsibility as a goldfish.

Even if you are limiting your analysis to aggregate effects and ignoring the obvious fact that one policy explicitly controls behavior while the other does not, the two are still not very comparable. For example, the one child policy had a dramatic impact on the ratio of males to females in China. There are no similar outcomes associated with legalized abortion.

I think you're kind of insulting to a goldfish there, aren't you?