Political Discussion

ayayrawn said:
KY's piece of shit governor, statistically the least popular in the country, has an uphill battle to win in November. His opponent in yesterday's primary got 36% of the vote, and 150,000 more democrats showed up to vote than republicans. Can't wait to clean house later this year.
Click to expand...
Fuck Matt Bevin! I really hope he'll be ousted. I'm more optimistic about the governor being kicked out than the president unfortunately...
 
Joe Mac said:
Is now a good time to say that I think that the idea of an eternal or fundamental set of human rights is bullshit? They don’t derive from god or nature or anywhere. Unfettered freedom is an an anarchic state of nature type existence. We give this freedom up to be part of a coherent and governed society that “protects” from the anarchy. The rights have derive only from a conversation between us and the systems that govern us determined on the lives we wish, as a society, to lead. Also no right should be unlimited otherwise it can negatively affect the more important rights of others...
Click to expand...

relativity from a lawyer? What is the literature that got the human race started on this rights stuff anyway?
 
Dtknuckles said:
relativity from a lawyer? What is the literature that got the human race started on this rights stuff anyway?
Click to expand...

The God deriving stuff is St. Thomas Aquinas. The rights of man deriving from humans nature is more the enlightenment so you’re looking at Hobbes/Locke and the American and French Revolutions and characters such as Tom Paine.
 
Joe Mac said:
The God deriving stuff is St. Thomas Aquinas. The rights of man deriving from humans nature is more the enlightenment so you’re looking at Hobbes/Locke and the American and French Revolutions and characters such as Tom Paine.
Click to expand...


Almost 1.5 centuries ago and Aquinas is older,. Isn't he a reformation guy? I wonder why hasn't human kind updated these ideas?
 
To me, a right is something intrinsic to the self. A good example is the right to remain silent. Of course it is your right because, realistically speaking, I can't make you not be silent. Same for bearing arms so long as we are flexible with the definition of being armed. So, while it may be illegal the law simply infringes upon the right as opposed to removing it. If it can be removed then it is a privilege instead.

So it is with one's body. Abortion can be illegal or not but they will still happen. Vaccinations can be mandated but they will still be evaded. Thus, I refute your idea that rights are an antiquated notion. It is simply a new ideology to deny the fact that rights do exist. Otherwise, I thank you for your rather long winded exposition that boils down to saying that no, you do not want people to have the right to their own bodies.
 
debianlinux said:
To me, a right is something intrinsic to the self. A good example is the right to remain silent. Of course it is your right because, realistically speaking, I can't make you not be silent. Same for bearing arms so long as we are flexible with the definition of being armed. So, while it may be illegal the law simply infringes upon the right as opposed to removing it. If it can be removed then it is a privilege instead.

So it is with one's body. Abortion can be illegal or not but they will still happen. Vaccinations can be mandated but they will still be evaded. Thus, I refute your idea that rights are an antiquated notion. It is simply a new ideology to deny the fact that rights do exist. Otherwise, I thank you for your rather long winded exposition that boils down to saying that no, you do not want people to have the right to their own bodies.
Click to expand...
None of this is predicated on a good faith argument. Our laws are not exclusively written to adhere to a pure vision of natural rights, nor are they absolutely subject to the whims of moral relativism. They're a hybrid patchwork of ideologies put together by opposing forces for the ostensible betterment of the society as a whole. Abortions aren't contagious. Measles is. Case closed.
 
debianlinux said:
To me, a right is something intrinsic to the self. A good example is the right to remain silent. Of course it is your right because, realistically speaking, I can't make you not be silent. Same for bearing arms so long as we are flexible with the definition of being armed. So, while it may be illegal the law simply infringes upon the right as opposed to removing it. If it can be removed then it is a privilege instead.

So it is with one's body. Abortion can be illegal or not but they will still happen. Vaccinations can be mandated but they will still be evaded. Thus, I refute your idea that rights are an antiquated notion. It is simply a new ideology to deny the fact that rights do exist. Otherwise, I thank you for your rather long winded exposition that boils down to saying that no, you do not want people to have the right to their own bodies.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to remain silent if someone kills you for doing so. The only way a person has a right is if it is enforceable by a power structure. There is no different between a right and a privilege because a power structure always has to give permission to either to be exercised.
 
Dtknuckles said:
You don't have the right to remain silent if someone kills you for doing so. The only way a person has a right is if it is enforceable by a power structure. There is no different between a right and a privilege because a power structure always has to give permission to either to be exercised.
Click to expand...
Killing me only enshrines my right to silence. The self is an intrinsic power structure. If an external structure must permit then explain original thought.
 
debianlinux said:
Killing me only enshrines my right to silence. The self is an intrinsic power structure. If an external structure must permit then explain original thought.
Click to expand...

No it negates your right to silence and provides an example of what will happen for those that choose that behavior in the future.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Almost 1.5 centuries ago and Aquinas is older,. Isn't he a reformation guy? I wonder why hasn't human kind updated these ideas?
Click to expand...

Longer. Aquinas was 13th century and the enlightenment, and the two revolutions, were mid 18th.

Mainly because to be honest the rights themselves haven’t changed. We’re still looking to protect the same things we just interpret these things differently based on modern perspectives. Well other then historicist judges and the Catholic Church, but that’s a debate I don’t wanna get into haha! Also the ideas, that I share, that there is nothing magical from god or human nature imbuing these, they come from our negotiations with our governance structures.
 
debianlinux said:
Killing me only enshrines my right to silence. The self is an intrinsic power structure. If an external structure must permit then explain original thought.
Click to expand...

Also with original thought. Yes human being can have a thought without an external force preventing it. However, that thought is useless unless it creates some action or we exercise it. That is when we run into power structures that permit or deny the actions based on the thought.
 
Last edited:
As we all know student loan debt is a huge issue in our country. It is likely the next bubble that will burst and it is starting to become a hot button issue for some democrats heading towards 2020 with them announcing their plans on how to help relieve the issue.

Yesterday, Trump announced his own plan for the issue and I just have to roll my eyes. Instead of helping those with crippling debt his approach is to set caps on student loans. Therefor, people taking out future student loans could only barrow up to the cap and would be responsible for paying for the rest of the cost of the tuition out of pocket.

His approach is to prevent students from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back.

My thoughts on this is it will only put college further out of reach for the poor and lower middle class.

Keep the sheep dumb / uneducated.


What do you all think about this?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
As we all know student loan debt is a huge issue in our country. It is likely the next bubble that will burst and it is starting to become a hot button issue for some democrats heading towards 2020 with them announcing their plans on how to help relieve the issue.

Yesterday, Trump announced his own plan for the issue and I just have to roll my eyes. Instead of helping those with crippling debt his approach is to set caps on student loans. Therefor, people taking out future student loans could only barrow up to the cap and would be responsible for paying for the rest of the cost of the tuition out of pocket.

His approach is to prevent students from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back.

My thoughts on this is it will only put college further out of reach for the poor and lower middle class.

Keep the sheep dumb / uneducated.


What do you all think about this?
Click to expand...

Education is a right not a privilege. It should be free.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
As we all know student loan debt is a huge issue in our country. It is likely the next bubble that will burst and it is starting to become a hot button issue for some democrats heading towards 2020 with them announcing their plans on how to help relieve the issue.

Yesterday, Trump announced his own plan for the issue and I just have to roll my eyes. Instead of helping those with crippling debt his approach is to set caps on student loans. Therefor, people taking out future student loans could only barrow up to the cap and would be responsible for paying for the rest of the cost of the tuition out of pocket.

His approach is to prevent students from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back.

My thoughts on this is it will only put college further out of reach for the poor and lower middle class.

Keep the sheep dumb / uneducated.


What do you all think about this?
Click to expand...

Let me preface this by saying I'm left of centre, and fortunate enough to live in a country where tuition is subsidized...

I can kind of see the merit in preventing students from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back in the same way that I think a lot of folks take out mortgages that far-exceed their budgets and then - WHOOPS - we now have a financial crisis.

I think the piece that is missing in this policy is some sort of bursary/grant system for lower income students. For example: when I applied for my government student loan when I went into undergrad, I had to provide information on my mom's income. Since she was a single mother, I was recognized as a low income student, and much of my loan was granted in the form of a bursary.

Gail Vaz-Oxlade, who is Canada's answer to Suze Orman, says that your student loan shouldn't exceed more than one year's expected net salary. I sure wish I had known this rule of thumb when I decided to get a BA and an MA in English. Oof.
 
DataBase said:
Let me preface this by saying I'm left of centre, and fortunate enough to live in a country where tuition is subsidized...

I can kind of see the merit in preventing students from borrowing more than they can afford to pay back in the same way that I think a lot of folks take out mortgages that far-exceed their budgets and then - WHOOPS - we now have a financial crisis.

I think the piece that is missing in this policy is some sort of bursary/grant system for lower income students. For example: when I applied for my government student loan when I went into undergrad, I had to provide information on my mom's income. Since she was a single mother, I was recognized as a low income student, and much of my loan was granted in the form of a bursary.

Gail Vaz-Oxlade, who is Canada's answer to Suze Orman, says that your student loan shouldn't exceed more than one year's expected net salary. I sure wish I had known this rule of thumb when I decided to get a BA and an MA in English. Oof.
Click to expand...

Grants exist but are very minimum. Most help comes through scholarships funded by private individuals and corporations.

The cost of education has been skyrocketing in the United States in recent years. Unless you go to a community college, for more than 90% of people their student loans are likely to be more than a single years expected net salary. In in many cases, multiple times a single years expected net salary.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Grants exist but are very minimum. Most help comes through scholarships funded by private individuals and corporations.

The cost of education has been skyrocketing in the United States in recent years. Unless you go to a community college, for more than 90% of people their student loans are likely to be more than a single years expected net salary. In in many cases, multiple times a single years expected net salary.
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose that rule of thumb is meant for a Canadian audience.
Our previous provincial government had set a free tuition program in place for low income students. Our current provincial government (unbelievably led by the brother of former crack smoking Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford) just cancelled the program. Nobody was pleased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top