LightbulbSun said:Quality of life and fairness go hand in hand.
stewartcs said:No they don't.
CS
LightbulbSun said:Explain.
stewartcs said:So now 10 people's lives are worth more than 1?
This is a bad example since it is beyond the government's control (other than whether we go to war or not) of how the people fall into economic classes. What they can control is how they tax those in the US.
CS
Office_Shredder said:Yes, 10 people's lives on average are worth more than one.
The best argument here is that national security and domestic law enforcement both are used to protect the stability and wealth of a nation, and hence since wealthy people have more to lose, they should pay more for the protection
stewartcs said:Everyone in the nation uses the same law enforcement and they protect all of the people in the US regardless of how much money they make. If anything, based on your logic, since there are more poor people in the US they should pay more for the protection.
CS
stewartcs said:Explain why you think fairness and quality of life are equal.
CS
stewartcs said:So if we have 10 rapists and the Pope it's ok to kill the Pope? I don't think so.
me said:Yes, 10 people's lives on average are worth more than one.
LightbulbSun said:They should go hand in hand, but in our current situation they are not. The rich should pay higher taxes than the poor, it's just that simple. That's fairness in my book. Don't worry, you'll still have plenty of disposable income to buy that fancy car.
LightbulbSun said:What if we have 10 babies and 1 rapist, is it ok to kill the rapist?
stewartcs said:I don't see the equality of fairness and quality of life. They describe two different things.
And it is only "just that simple" in your opinion (which you are certainly entitled to). Which isn't an effective argument.
CS
stewartcs said:That's my point. You can't put a price on life. These question are a matter of subjectivity based on moral beliefs.
CS
LightbulbSun said:Equality of fairness would be giving the poor guy a break.
LightbulbSun said:Yes you can. Saving the majority of people on average is better than only saving a few.
stewartcs said:The term "fairness" and the phrase "quality of life" do not mean the same thing.
CS
Proton Soup said:this all depends on how you define things. if you took "all men are created equal" to one extreme, then fair could mean all receive the same educational, financial, nutritional, and social (am i leaving something out?) opportunities. and then see where each goes with it.
stewartcs said:I can kind of see your point on the two being related. However, let's say this was true, then would it be fair that after everyone was given all of the same opportunities, that person A worked harder than person B to make more money and then the government taxed him more?
CS
But is it better to save 10 people that are undeserving of it than 2 who are deserving?LightbulbSun said:Saving the majority of people on average is better than only saving a few.
LowlyPion said:Hate no more.
CaptainQuasar said:Just in case it might have been ambiguous, I'm sure that LowlyPion was just playing off of the title of the thread there. No one here, not stewartcs nor anyone else, has been exhibiting hatred, just arguing for their beliefs.
Some folks have toned down their harsh rhetoric. However, realize that some are still full of hostility toward Obama, probably more out of fear of change. The two skin heads arrested for plotting to kill a large number of African Americans on the way to assassinate Obama represent the extreme, but hopefully very small minority.That whole anti-American, friend-to-the-terrorists thing about President-elect Barack Obama? Never mind.
Just a few weeks ago, at the height of the campaign, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that, when it came to Mr. Obama, “I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”
But there she was on Wednesday, after narrowly escaping defeat because of those comments, saying she was “extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year.” Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama’s victory, which included her state, “a tremendous signal we sent.”
And it was not too long ago that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, accused Mr. Obama of “palling around with terrorists.”
But she took an entirely different tone on Thursday, when she chastised reporters for asking her questions about her war with some staff members in the McCain campaign at such a heady time. “Barack Obama has been elected president,” Ms. Palin said. “Let us, let us — let him — be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we’re in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family.”
There is a great tradition of paint-peeling political hyperbole during presidential campaign years. And there is an equally great tradition of backing off from it all afterward, though with varying degrees of deftness.
But given the intensity of some of the charges that have been made in the past few months, and the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s election, the exercise this year has been particularly whiplash-inducing, with its extreme before-and-after contrasts.
The shift in tone follows the magnanimous concession speech from Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who referred to Mr. Obama’s victory Tuesday night as “a historic election” and hailed the “special pride” it held for African-Americans. That led the vice president-elect, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., to get into the act. During the campaign, Mr. Biden said he no longer recognized Mr. McCain, an old friend. Now, he says, “We’re still friends.” President Bush, in turn, also hailed Mr. Obama’s victory, saying his arrival at the White House would be “a stirring sight.”
Whether it all heralds a new era of cooperation in Washington remains to be seen, and it may be downright doubtful. But for now, at least, it would seem to be part of an apparent rush to join what has emerged as a real moment in American history.
The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she was hard-pressed to find a similar moment when the tone had changed so drastically, and so quickly, among so many people of such prominence.
“I don’t think that’s happened very often,” Ms. Goodwin said. “The best answer I can give you is they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history, and they recognize how the country saw this election, and how people feel that they’re living in a time of great historic moment.”
. . . .
Astronuc said:Some folks have toned down their harsh rhetoric.
LowlyPion said:And they were just so shocked that their reporter was snubbed at the Press Conference. Perhaps if Fox represented something other than the Roger Ailes Hate Arm of the Far Right Propaganda machine, they might actually be judged as belonging to the Press Corps?
WarPhalange said:Sure, but at the other extreme you have the McCain Double Talk Express that only let reporters who were friendly to him interview him. That's not change we can believe in, folks.
So do you snub a reporter because all he ever does is make up lies and false accusations, risking the slippery slope of destroying freedom of the press, or do you let this *** through to ask what color turban you will be wearing on inauguration day?
What would you have done about this 'failure to provide'?LowlyPion said:It surely wasn't change that many more than 46% of the people believed in anyway.
While I am certainly for freedom of the Press, and I think that some latitude should be given their expression, I do think that there needs to be quite a bit more balance than Fox has managed.
I understand there is a presumption that there is some kind of cabal of the Eastern media elite, presumably based on the tenuous perception of there being some correlation between Jews, liberals, media property owners and intellectuals - but I rather think the naked agenda of Fox to propagandize the Republican Party talking points represents some kind of failure to provide "fair and balanced" time to public issues is a bit of an over reaction to that idea.
mheslep said:What would you have done about this 'failure to provide'?