Now you're getting into a different argument of where the money should come from.
I'm simply stating that parents should have these benefits and we as civilized people should work to provide them for others and ourselves/families.
Now you're getting into a different argument of where the money should come from.
I'm simply stating that parents should have these benefits and we as civilized people should work to provide them for others and ourselves/families.
AvastNow you're getting into a different argument of where the money should come from.
I'm simply stating that parents should have these benefits and we as civilized people should work to provide them for others and ourselves/families.
To be honest I also don't think richer than us should be forced to share. They should feel the need to do it, but if they don't then well fuck. I don't need anything from them.
HedoKingoglu@Se7en "Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation, although some professionals maintain that it is a disorder."
The psychologists who hold the view that it's genuinely a disorder are far and few between among respected psychological organizations in countries with gay rights. Some scientists maintain that creationism is science and evolution is false, that doesn't mean the view holds validity, because the vast, vast majority of accomplished psychologists will agree that it isn't a disorder. In the same way, the vast, bast majority of biologists will say that evolution is true and creationism is false. There's dissent among small minorities of respected professionals in every field, but that dissent doesn't mean much when the vast consensus and anybody who can critically think can determine that it isn't a disorder.
HildrethThe old age rule of internet forum debates:
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Great step towards equality, proud of you, Murica.
The problem with that quote is "idiot" can be subjective and enables people to think "this guy is an idiot for having a different opinion than me so I'm not going to engage in debate”. It enables people to remain ignorant on a false sense of superiority and/or allow the perceived idiot to remain ignorant. Not only that but you allow the idiot to spread his idiot thoughts all over the place where they are free to enter minds of other people. Proper debate is a beautiful thing as nothing but truth, understanding and growth can come from it, to shy from it is a great disservice to humanity. This is why Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. Instead the quote should read something like "do not argue with those who cannot argue" which is probably the intended interpretation.
CHERRYTo be honest I also don't think richer than us should be forced to share. They should feel the need to do it, but if they don't then well fuck. I don't need anything from them.
You don't think the rich should share more of their wealth? How about the fact that the 85 richest people in the world have more money combined than poorest half of the entire earth population.
And this is not anywhere near in the decline.
hooliHildrethThe old age rule of internet forum debates:The problem with that quote is "idiot" can be subjective and enables people to think "this guy is an idiot for having a different opinion than me so I'm not going to engage in debate”. It enables people to remain ignorant on a false sense of superiority and/or allow the perceived idiot to remain ignorant. Not only that but you allow the idiot to spread his idiot thoughts all over the place where they are free to enter minds of other people. Proper debate is a beautiful thing as nothing but truth, understanding and growth can come from it, to shy from it is a great disservice to humanity. This is why Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. Instead the quote should read something like "do not argue with those who cannot argue" which is probably the intended interpretation.
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Great step towards equality, proud of you, Murica.
Suit yourself.
I'll always fight for my point of view but I prefer not to spend my time arguing with people who won't impact anything on a legislative level. A few generations will go by, it will be a non-issue, hardly seems worth it to me. Gay marriage is real and a good thing, get over it and worry about actual world issues climate change. Much prefer to shift someone's opinion on that than about whether two blokes can kiss in public and adopt children.
Just drove through a southern part of Georgia this morning. There was a billboard ad that was giant, white, with the line #secede on it. A message from The League of the South. Scary really
BonafideCHERRYTo be honest I also don't think richer than us should be forced to share. They should feel the need to do it, but if they don't then well fuck. I don't need anything from them.You don't think the rich should share more of their wealth? How about the fact that the 85 richest people in the world have more money combined than poorest half of the entire earth population.
And this is not anywhere near in the decline.
As a devil's advocate, just because they are rich, doesn't mean that they're obliged to share their wealth. (You could strengthen your argument by saying that the means they acquire that money should make them share it with the poor)
The last couple pages of this thread explains why our government has a difficult time coming to decisions. Republicans don't change their minds, and neither do democrats; the point of views are so opposite that you're not going to change their beliefs (usually) unless they were first uneducated about an issue.
BonafideCHERRYTo be honest I also don't think richer than us should be forced to share. They should feel the need to do it, but if they don't then well fuck. I don't need anything from them.You don't think the rich should share more of their wealth? How about the fact that the 85 richest people in the world have more money combined than poorest half of the entire earth population.
And this is not anywhere near in the decline.
You're comparing company assets and non liquid "wealth" as if that's the same as having cash or a single family bank account for personal provisions that you can just dispense to the poor on the streets
Please don't use that 85 people number as if it tells the whole story. The left is supposed to be against generalizations of all forms yet they love to generalize "the rich vs the poor". I also don't think they're obligated to share their supposed "wealth" with everyone simply for the fact that those people exist. That philosophy of "I exist and you have more, you are obligated to give it to me even though I have nothing of value in return" is actually more egocentric than "I provide X good to you for Y service/money or else I starve" but hey, members of the socialist party/ extreme left by american standards usually shout at me when I point that out
on topic, gj america