Gutless Republican Cowards

[DMC]

Neither do I.

What I can do matters very little in the grand scheme. It sucks, but that is reality. I don't think I am saving the world at all, just trying to make it better for having been here. No more. No less.

Then that makes you feel better. People are aimed in different directions because they have different concerns. If people took care of their own families we'd be fine, and I'm not saying you don't. I care about others, only the "others" I care about don't really extend past my family and friends, and children in general.

If you feel panicky about it, join some organization like the Peace Corps and off you go, or ferry in like Sean Penn, do a photo op with you squinting and pointing, wearing a military insignia hat when you despise the military (not you in particular), and then head back to your penthouse for a mocha latte.

[RandomGuy]

No I didn't. I was commenting on SJWs in general. You just feel guilty and you're lashing out.

Feel guilty?

No, not really.

I am however, committed to pointing out that "conservative" philosophy is morally bankrupt, especially the war on the poor being waged by the GOP.

The fact that conservative themselves being scared of women and children, just so they can use "OMG look out for the terrorists" as some sort of intellectually dishonest cover for mild racism, should also be pointed out.

I find the "the Syrian refugees are dangerous" to be unsupported by the facts. We can afford to do more, but don't because... why exactly? We don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy?

People are more important than money.

[DMC]

Feel guilty?

No, not really.

I am however, committed to pointing out that "conservative" philosophy is morally bankrupt, especially the war on the poor being waged by the GOP.

The fact that conservative themselves being scared of women and children, just so they can use "OMG look out for the terrorists" as some sort of intellectually dishonest cover for mild racism, should also be pointed out.

I find the "the Syrian refugees are dangerous" to be unsupported by the facts. We can afford to do more, but don't because... why exactly? We don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy?

People are more important than money.

Superficial characterization of conservatives is how you lost to Trump. You haven't learned .

[RandomGuy]

Superficial characterization of conservatives is how you lost to Trump. You haven't learned .

"superficial"?

I can go waaay beyond superficial.

I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do, and are so spectacularly bad they deserve all the ridicule and scorn one can muster.

Where would you like to start?

We are already on the moral and economic failure of limiting refugees. I have been concentrating on the moral failure, but there are some fairly decent studies on how immigrant populations tend to assimilate and add to the economy in the long run.

[RandomGuy]

This paper analyzes how the implicit difference in time horizons between refugees and economic immigrants affects subsequent human capital investments and wage assimilation. The analysis uses the 1980 and 1990 Integrated Public Use Samples of the Census to study labor market outcomes of immigrants who arrived in the United States from 1975 to 1980. I find that in 1980 refugee immigrants in this cohort earned 6% less and worked 14% fewer hours than economic immigrants. Both had approximately the same level of English skills. The two immigrant groups had made substantial gains by 1990; however, refugees had made greater gains. In fact, the labor market outcomes of refugee immigrants surpassed those of economic immigrants. In 1990, refugees from the 1975-1980 arrival cohort earned 20% more, worked 4% more hours, and improved their English skills by 11% relative to economic immigrants. The higher rates of human capital ac ulation for refugee immigrants contribute to these findings.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...65304323031058

Refugees tend to do better in the long run than economic immigrants.

[RandomGuy]

This article reviews the recent evidence on US immigration, focusing on two key questions: (1) Does immigration reduce the labour market opportunities of less skilled natives? (2) Have immigrants who arrived after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act been successfully assimilated? Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant. On the question of assimilation, the success of the US-born children of immigrants is a key yardstick. By this metric, post-1965 immigrants are doing reasonably well. Even children of the least educated immigrant origin groups have closed most of the education gap with the children of natives.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...5.01037.x/full

Over time, all immigrant populations assimilate and approach natives. Meaning they compensate for falling birth rates which are negative in every major western industrialized country.

I can provide some data on how economies over time are dependent on demographics for growth.

We need more young people to sustain our historic 3% growth, although this long-term average is likely to fall, simply due to demographics.

Conservative policies limiting refugees and immigration will hurt our long term prospects for economic growth of the USA.

This is a rather common thing pointed out by publications that deal with such data, such at the Economist.

[Thread]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...5.01037.x/full

Over time, all immigrant populations assimilate and approach natives. Meaning they compensate for falling birth rates which are negative in every major western industrialized country.

I can provide some data on how economies over time are dependent on demographics for growth.

We need more young people to sustain our historic 3% growth, although this long-term average is likely to fall, simply due to demographics.

Conservative policies limiting refugees and immigration will hurt our long term prospects for economic growth of the USA.

This is a rather common thing pointed out by publications that deal with such data, such at the Economist.

I'll just bet it will.

[DMC]

"superficial"?

I can go waaay beyond superficial.

I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do, and are so spectacularly bad they deserve all the ridicule and scorn one can muster.

Where would you like to start?

We are already on the moral and economic failure of limiting refugees. I have been concentrating on the moral failure, but there are some fairly decent studies on how immigrant populations tend to assimilate and add to the economy in the long run.

How many refugees live with you?

[RandomGuy]

Then that makes you feel better. People are aimed in different directions because they have different concerns. If people took care of their own families we'd be fine, and I'm not saying you don't. I care about others, only the "others" I care about don't really extend past my family and friends, and children in general.

If you feel panicky about it, join some organization like the Peace Corps and off you go, or ferry in like Sean Penn, do a photo op with you squinting and pointing, wearing a military insignia hat when you despise the military (not you in particular), and then head back to your penthouse for a mocha latte.

I have decided, over 20 years ago, that the best thing I can do, since I can't single-handedly save the world is raise children. I have two intelligent, thoughtful, polite, curious, kids. Being a good dad is the #1 priority for me.

Part of that is showing my kids what it means to be emphatic and kind, and to live for something outside myself.

Do I feel better for doing the right thing? Sure.

[RandomGuy]

How many refugees live with you?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...inem-Tu-quoque
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

For an atheist, you sure make some of the same ty arguments that religious people do.

[DMC]

I have decided, over 20 years ago, that the best thing I can do, since I can't single-handedly save the world is raise children. I have two intelligent, thoughtful, polite, curious, kids. Being a good dad is the #1 priority for me.

Part of that is showing my kids what it means to be emphatic and kind, and to live for something outside myself.

Do I feel better for doing the right thing? Sure.

And you think being empathetic and kind is getting online and ing about other people?

Why aren't you spending all this time being kind? Empathy is a feeling. Feelings don't keep roofs up or bellies fed. Go work with Homes for Humanity or some other charity. We should almost never see you online unless you're doing a fundraiser.

[Thread]

And you think being empathetic and kind is getting online and ing about other people?

Why aren't you spending all this time being kind? Empathy is a feeling. Feelings don't keep roofs up or bellies fed. Go work with Homes for Humanity or some other charity. We should almost never see you online unless you're doing a fundraiser.

D M C

[DMC]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...inem-Tu-quoque
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.



For an atheist, you sure make some of the same ty arguments that religious people do.

It's a question. I didn't say it negates the point you weren't even making.

Plus you prefaced with this "I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do"

Is that your tu quoque?

It's only a fallacy if you made a statement like "refugees should never be limited" and I responded with "wrong, because none live with you".

The truth is that you don't possess the courage of your convictions. It's really easy to sit in your home and tell the world how they should be accepting of refugees, but you're not. Tell yourself that, then serve as an example instead of a bullhorn.

[RandomGuy]

[restates criticism for the 10th time].

um, sure. It is just as valid now, as it was the first time.

You seem upset that someone might criticize your inaction.

Smells like... cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

The truth is that you don't possess the courage of your convictions..

I do.

You can wish that to be true all you want. That won't make it any more true than the people wanting the magic man in the sky to be true means there is some magic man in the clouds that is watching you masturbate.

More cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

[DMC]

um, sure. It is just as valid now, as it was the first time.

You seem upset that someone might criticize your inaction.

Smells like... cognitive dissonance.

I do.

You can wish that to be true all you want. That won't make it any more true than the people wanting the magic man in the sky to be true means there is some magic man in the clouds that is watching you masturbate.

More cognitive dissonance.

All you have now is your ghost of a windmill named religion that I don't even subscribe to. Keep jousting that. You've stated yourself you want to help, but you don't have the ability "right now".

When you get the ability and you actually do something besides run your suck online, then you can climb back up on your high horse. Right now you're indistinguishable from a person who openly claims to not give a , especially to the needy who get nothing from either side. Your nothing isn't more special than mine.

[DMC]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

Too bad that beer money isn't going to needy families.

[SnakeBoy]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

You should give that up until you get those bills paid off dumbass

[RandomGuy]

US fertility rate hits a record low

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/health...recorded-2017/

[boutons_deux]

US fertility rate hits a record low

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/health...recorded-2017/

no paid maternity long-term leave

no "maternal subsidy" per child

no bonus for having a child

sperm counts down 50% in 40+ years (BigChem poisoning everyone, everything)

no free or very cheap govt day care or govt pre-K (day care often matches or exceeds what working women are paid)

while oligarchy sucks $Ts out of the pockets of the lower 80%

so the govt helps NO ONE to have children, while the oligarchy impoverishes everyone and will cut public assistance to the bone.

You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...agnation-chart

(the lower 4 quintiles of ) America: ed and un able, and the ing is gaining momentum.

[RandomGuy]

You should give that up until you get those bills paid off dumbass

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problem we should do anything about."

This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

[SnakeBoy]

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problem we should do anything about."

This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: Arbitrary Moral Standard

[DMC]

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: Arbitrary Moral Standard

RandomGuy forgot which thread he was responding to. Got all flustered. lol

[RandomGuy]

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: Arbitrary Moral Standard

More reasoning failure. The stink of it follows you around.

Almost as if you are more interested in trolling than a serious conversation.