I'm sorry, but if you can't make such basic interpretations (e.g., what "Sure.'" meant), there's probably not much I can do for you.
I'm sorry, but if you can't make such basic interpretations (e.g., what "Sure.'" meant), there's probably not much I can do for you.
That entire reply was argumentative and slightly mocking. If that is your idea of agreement then you have major work to do on your social skills.
candrew
Well-Known Member
When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn Reverend Al marched in my neighborhood (mostly working class white). The leaders of both our Catholic and Protestant Churches contacted Al's people before the march and suggested instead of having a march that the congregations from both churches AND Reverend Al's people get together and have a prayer session at the local Little League Field. Reverend Al flat out rejected the idea and had his march.
That's quite an indictment. Too bad..
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Fair point. Conditioning is a factor. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second just for fun and to expand the breadth of the discussion.
To what extent do you justify compensating for conditioning? Is it fair to society to OVER-compensate for conditioning?
Conditioning will always be there. We're all a victim of it at one level or another. And, ironically, for those that are able, hard work can overcome conditioning. in my vastly limited experience dealing with people on both sides of the "success" fence, it is my impression that those who can overcome conditioning and resist the negative influences around them also tend to be those who take advantage of opportunities when presented to them, and in the right way.
I disagree with the premise that we need to afford people excessive opportunity and aide because they've been conditioned. To think that people don't have opportunity to improve their life right now is just flat-out wrong. Just because people refuse to leave their comfort zone and take drastic action to improve their lives and situation doesn't mean they haven't been afforded opportunities.
At some point people have to be responsible for their own actions, regardless of their past, or regardless of the social pressures they feel around them. Even more so than with right or wrong, legal or not, they should be held accountable for those decisions that directly impact their own well being and prosperity.
Taking from the rich and giving to those that refuse to use it properly or even at all for their own long-term well being is nothing but waste.
We can lead the horse to the water, and then let him decide whether to drink or not. We don't have to drug the horse, transport it via horsey-ambulance on a horsey-stretcher of feather pillows, give it a mani/pedi on the way, give it a phone so it can call it's horsey friends, gently crane it over to the edge of the water, and make sure it has a flexi-straw in his mouth.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'll hit you where it hurts.
Read this paper published by a economically-libertarian University, who would typically hold beliefs very close to yours.
https://mises.org/rothbard/flattax.pdf
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I honestly don't see your point here. Are you simply trying to discredit his point? Or are you trying to justify that taxing the poor 10% wouldn't be that bad because the poor usually just spend their money on exotic cheeses and expensive cell-phones?
Argumentative, sure. That's our thing. Mocking, not at all. I was agreeing with your statement of fact, but not your interpretation. No need to mock your facts, particularly when they were correct.
Why not have both the march and the prayer session? Why did having the prayer session negate the need the for the march?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Yup. Don't think too many people would disagree with you here
I'm coming from the perspective that I doubt that I could have been as successful in terms of chasing my dreams if I lived in Canada, than if I lived in the States. To put it simply. Of course, you could immediately think that I'm wrong, but I'm just giving you my opinion.
As far as the self-described novice part, its definitely true. I don't like to participate actively in conversations without having a good knowledge of the topic at hand.
To me, a flat-tax seems like a rather obvious mistake, so I figured that I'd point it out-- and I gave Gameface a paper from someone who is probably ideologically in-line with him, to show that a flat-tax isn't necessarily something that is always touted by those of the right. It's a pretty good paper btw, you should read it as well. It talks about how a flat-tax would negatively impact entrepreneurialism as well.
I agree it's an indictment, but I think we would disagree on who was indicted in that particular example.
I don't have much use for Sharpton generally, but I also don't have much use for middle-class white pastors telling him the "better way" to protest things. Too often, the "better way" is the one that makes the white pastors and/or their congregations the most comfortable.
I agree it's an indictment, but I think we would disagree on who was indicted in that particular example.
I don't have much use for Sharpton generally, but I also don't have much use for middle-class white pastors telling him the "better way" to protest things. Too often, the "better way" is the one that makes the white pastors and/or their congregations the most comfortable.
I must have missed the part where the race of the pastors was ever mentioned. Or even their wealth status for that matter.
As for the better way comment. That is all perspective. The ones that the march felt their way was better because it made them more comfortable.
As for an earlier comment you made. I agree. Why not join forces, have a large public joint prayer and then those that want to march can.