TakeYouToTasker

@Deranged Rhino

You don't throw good money after bad. Change the culture surrounding education in these communities so that the overwhelming majority of the parents are involved and clamoring for upgraded infrastructure, and we can have that conversation. Prove to me first that the money won't be wasted.

The problem with "not wanting to show up" is that many would be students in those areas come from a culture which not only doesn't place a premium on education, but in many cases actually lionizes ignorance, taking open pride in what they don't know. There is no amount of glitter and gold on a school house which can replace parents active and involved in a child's education.

I was told this never happens.

There's an argument to be made that they're more capitalist than we are. Which makes his proposition even funnier.

That's... that's not what "the tragedy of the commons" is. That's not even close to what it is. And no, you've put effect before cause. Also, I haven't condemned feminism at all. I haven't given prescription or preference. All I'm doing is explaining cause and effect. If you don't like it, take it up with the cosmos. I didn't make the rules.

Feminism changed this, in large part. It was the raw economics surrounding the reality of doubling the work force (labor supply) without increasing demand for goods and services (there were the same amount of people). A family used to be supported by a single income, but the doubling of the labor supply reduced wages, and eventually a two income family was required for most to achieve a middle class lifestyle. Without a parent able to stay at home to actually raise a family, family planning was pushed back. Couple that with a second economic change, the introduction of federal aid and subsidization of secondary education, and a culture demanding "college degrees for everyone" had the dual effect of prolonging the entry into professional life/adulthood while simultaneously creating a massive new industry of educational debt service which sucks the financial capability out of many Americans until they're in their 30's, and voila. There's your recipe for a delay in family rearing.

I wish I could say I was stunned by this, but I'm not, and that realization makes me despondent.

Queue up the breathless claims that President Trump must now prove that he didn't have the Saudi's kill Khashoggi on his behalf for being critical of his administration.

Empathy is not a moral priori, it is an emotion. I'm also not at all sure why you're injecting God into the conversation, as I never introduced Him (or any other concept of a deity(ies)). I have made exactly zero appeals to the divine. And yes, you did make an argument for moral relativism, even though you are not intending to. A subjective understanding of right and wrong is precisely that argument. What about the nature of man makes it wrong to enslave them?

You just made the argument that slavery, murder, the execution of homosexuals or Jews, child rape, sexual assault, etc. are not morally wrong, but rather that moral relativism is the proper order. As such, there are no "better" or "worse" cultures, that American slavery was morally neutral and required no abolition, that it's perfectly fine to throw homosexuals off of buildings, and that the holocaust was perfectly reasonable. Unless there is a underpinning moral priori which you are appealing to, rather than making a subjective judgment, then you can make no claims to wrong or right. You need to refine your position.

"Proper compensation" is an arbitrary and subjective idea. Who determines what is proper? And not "moral priority", "moral priori". When a person states that slavery is wrong, what are they appealing to? Wrongness is not predicated on empathy, nor human decency; both of which are also bound to subjectivity. Stating that it wrong to own another human being, that it is a moral evil, is underpinned by something. What is that something?

You first, as I've answered every question you've asked; including laying out the underpinnings of an entire moral philosophy inextricable for the concepts of human freedom, and you've yet to reciprocate. So, yet again: You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit. What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong? If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

Again: You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit. What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong? If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit. What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong? If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

Again, you aren't being internally logically consistent, and are engaging in a special pleading fallacy. You're making an argument in favor of compelling human beings to take positive action against their will, demanding they undertake labor they do not wish to under penalty of law (a use of aggression). In doing to you are co-opting language, ascribing it new meaning, re-labeling inaction as aggression. Your argument is an argument legitimizing forced servitude, of which human slavery is a logical, and not even far reaching, extension. Your world view is one that legitimizes human slavery, and mine is one which exalts human freedom; and you are correct that those are strikingly different positions. I like mine more.

I would argue that removing a persons freedom is a violation of the non-aggression principal. Aggression implies positive action. I cannot be aggressive in refusing to act. In your example the person being aggressed is the one being compelled, ultimately by a government force monopoly, is the shop owner. Your example is not internally logically consistent.

... "The right to murder"? The above is nothing more than concrete proof that you have a total lack of understanding of what rights and freedom are. The basic underlying principle of both is that you own yourself in an absolute sense, and that no one else has the right to compromise that self ownership without your express consent. There is no such thing as "the right to murder" because it works outside of the logical framework of such a system. This notion is, quite literally, the governing philosophy which dictates that human slavery is immoral. Without the principal of self ownership, directly tied to self determination in the most raw sense, there is nothing wrong with owning another person, or ending their life. These same principals when logically extended also dictate that compulsory labor of any sort is wrong; as even if you decide for yourself that you're comfortable surrendering your own freedoms, you don't get to make that decision for other individuals. Insisting that you do is nothing short of oppression, and one who acts as an oppressor content to violate the rights of others in fulfillment of their own desires cannot logically be said to have their own rights protected by a system they willfully violate. IE In a society that rejects the nature of rights, no one has any rights, and no one can make just claim that their rights are being violated.

It certainly should if one wants to assume a position that human freedom is a proper foundational principle, though religion doesn't even need to factor into it. Freedom of association alone is sufficient. The only counter argument is one which assumes that humans should not be free. You're certainly free to make it, though I don't find arguments in favor of subjugation to be very compelling.

The Civil Rights Act does not override an the Constitutional protection of Freedom of Religion.

Did you consider asking him which of President Trump's policies marked him as a dictator?

You don't have to disagree. You could give it some consideration, and wind up coming towards a position which embraces human freedom, and acknowledges that man deserves to live free, rather than at the barrel of a gun being dictated to by Party Elites, and made slave to those who would empower themselves to steal simply because there are more of them.

... Your position, backed solely by your own confirmation biases, is that while you can't prove they are liars, that you will call them liars because it aligns closely with your feelings about them. And while you also acknowledge (hell, not just acknowledge, it's actually central to your argument) a shift in the public sentiment, which means individuals are being persuaded; you completely discount the notion that Shapiro may have been persuaded, and disregard his general shift towards libertarian principals in other areas which would give weight to that actually being the case.