Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

Ray Rider wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

Ray Rider wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.

The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol

You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.

So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.

Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.

Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.

TGD wrote:Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.

Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.

Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.

thegreekdog wrote:I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.

MegaProphet wrote:Another thing to consider is that abortion isn't just a social issue it can also be an economic issue.

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.

First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:I'm not blind. Obama isn't the one who claimed a non-existent analysis proved he'd create a specific number (12 million) of jobs.

Obama said all along he'd have to spend a lot to help us weather the storm, and it would be painful, and since the storm didn't happen overnight and took longer than 4 years to build, I didn't expect him to bippity-boppity-boo miracles for us; but I did hope Congress would give his plan a try for a while.

Obama's "plan" is simply stated: Increase taxes on businesses that send jobs overseas; ask those who can afford more to pay more with our country and its people hurting so much; and give tax incentives to companies that will create jobs within the United States.

I'm sorry you need "numbers" to see logic and cannot review Obama's budget personally to satisfy your thirst.

Me, I'll take logic over lies any damn day.

First of all, twelve million jobs will likely be created no matter who is president (see Bloomberg Business from this week).

Second, I don't need numbers to see logic. Both presidential candidates' tax plans made sense to me... a tax attorney. Mitt Romney's plan was to remove various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits given to corporations and the wealthy. Barack Obama's plan was to raise tax rates on the "wealthy." You cannot increase taxes on those businesses that send jobs overseas; there is no tax credit or deduction that can be eliminated.

And there is the problem. Obama was successful from a rhetoric perspective. Voters didn't care about facts or analysis, they just took what the president had to give at face value. And that includes. I'm a tax attorney and I'm telling you that both plans made sense fiscally and did not provide any details. I reviewed both budget plans, no details were given. I'm not the one suggesting that Obama had details and Romney didn't. You have the burden of proving that to me and, thus far, you have not. Merely regurgitating rhetoric you heard on the radio or TV doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

Symmetry wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.

Symmetry wrote:Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.

Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?

stahrgazer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?

Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.

Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Symmetry wrote:Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.

My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?

Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

Symmetry wrote:
I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

Symmetry wrote:I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.