|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Today's Republican Party is quite simply, ignorant; ignorant of reality, of history, of the meaning of words and their historic usage, of the very basis even of the Republican Party. Is the con man ignorant, or is the ignorance found in those who are conned? What the Republican party has done is package their message to distract people from the fact that their policies harm the middle class. Instead of allowing people to ponder the idea that socialism might actually help the middle class they throw out the red herrings of atheistic communisms, tax paid abortions, and welfare queens. It works not because Republican politicians are ignorant, but because their constituents are ignorant (or easily conned, take your pick). A perusal of this thread will demonstrate this. When asked how the Republican party is helping the middle class the answer is that the GOP is fighting socialism. They never even stop to consider the fact that a certain amount of socialism is very beneficial to the middle class. The GOP has been allowed to demonize socialism so that people never stop to think if socialism would actually help them or not. Both Democrats and Republicans want a limited government. The difference is the limitations they want to put in.
As a long time Republican I find that sad and pitiful; the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a mob with but one battle cry... "What's in it for me?" Shouldn't we be asking that question with respect to public policy? You may be referring to a very narrow and myopic view in which case it is a fair criticism. However, I do believe that we would be better off if people did ask this question more often and if they demanded an answer that went beyond talking points and buzzwords.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My claim throughout is that children, being human beings, have a right to not be brainwashed into dangerous and loathsome ideologies just because that's what their parents decided to do. While I agree with the sentiment, I don't see how this could be implemented. Who decides which ideologies are allowed and not allowed? Do we start a Thought Police force? That doesn't sound double plus good. Whether right or wrong, US law has sided on punishing actions instead of beliefs. While this may not be ideal, it may be the most practical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Taq writes: jar writes: Today's Republican Party is quite simply, ignorant; ignorant of reality, of history, of the meaning of words and their historic usage, of the very basis even of the Republican Party. Is the con man ignorant, or is the ignorance found in those who are conned? The con man is smart enough to know that his audience wants to be fooled, and that they are too ignorant to know they are being conned.
Taq writes: jar writes: As a long time Republican I find that sad and pitiful; the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a mob with but one battle cry... "What's in it for me?" Shouldn't we be asking that question with respect to public policy? You may be referring to a very narrow and myopic view in which case it is a fair criticism. However, I do believe that we would be better off if people did ask this question more often and if they demanded an answer that went beyond talking points and buzzwords. No, being a citizen requires that we go beyond just what is good for "me", for the personal individual, and look towards what will be good for society. We are our brothers keepers. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Who decides which ideologies are allowed and not allowed? Courts, based on what is in the child's best interest. (I think I've said this a few times already.) You know, like we're already doing. I don't see how it's any more troublesome for enforcement than, say, a law against emotional abuse of a child.
Whether right or wrong, US law has sided on punishing actions instead of beliefs. Brainwashing your child is certainly an action. Again, we're not talking about taking the children of racists away just because they're racists. We're talking about protecting children against being brainwashed with racist, violent ideologies. Am I the only one who can perceive the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1530 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Crash,
Crashfrog writes: It is a slippery slope. I certainly agree, but once society begins with this sort of policing, where does it end. Like freedom of speech is protected by the constitution, do we pass laws that limit what speech we can use in the home to children? I agree I think it is wrong to brain wash anyone, especially vunerable innocent children.
We're talking about protecting children against being brainwashed with racist, violent ideologies. Am I the only one who can perceive the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
No, being a citizen requires that we go beyond just what is good for "me", for the personal individual, and look towards what will be good for society. We are our brothers keepers.
So we should be asking "What is in it for us?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
crashfrog writes: The example of the singing white supremacist twins featured rabid racist indoctrination of the most extreme sort; the judge had the option of removing the children from the households of both parents The judge did not have that option. If it's your contention that he did, then by all means, present the evidence. Yeah, judges actually do have the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of minor children in divorce cases and award custody to a third party if the guardian recommends that. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Brainwashing your child is certainly an action. Teaching your children is the action. Only when you disagree with what is taught do you call it brainwashing. When you claim that a child is being brainwashed you are making a moral judgement on what is taught, not on the action itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Found a California order of preference reference.
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And the "Us" should be expanded based on the specifics of the issue.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And the "Us" should be expanded based on the specifics of the issue.
To bring this more in line with the OP . . . From my own experience, no public policy is going to benefit everyone individually. There are always trade offs. So where do we draw the line? If raising the taxes of the top 10% benefits the other 90% is that allowable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course it is allowable. In fact I'd say it was essential.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I certainly agree, but once society begins with this sort of policing, where does it end. It ends where it began and where it has always been; with the rights of the parent subordinate to the interests of the child. I don't see anything slippery about the slope.
Like freedom of speech is protected by the constitution Freedom of speech is indeed protected by the constitution, as is freedom of assembly. Children have these rights as much as parents do; parents may have a right to free speech but they have no right to force someone to listen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Teaching your children is the action. Only when you disagree with what is taught do you call it brainwashing. That's not at all true. I certainly think it's possible for a parent to brainwash a child into liberalism, or into the biological sciences, or into evolution. I think you can be brainwashed into the belief that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, even though that's a true fact. It's possible to believe true things for the wrong reasons, and teaching isn't the same thing as brainwashing. Not at all. Brainwashing is an objective description of specific indoctrination techniques, not a judgement about the veracity of what is being taught. It's frequently the case that brainwashing is the only way to "teach" something that is completely false, but certainly true things could be brainwashed, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
See above, Crash. Subbie has verified that judges do indeed have the ability to remove children entirely from homes in custody disputes if both households are unsuitable. Jor provided the specific law that says so.
We have here a full falsification of your hypothesis. A mother was allowed to retain custody of her children despite "brainwashing" them with reprehensible racist ideas (their status as white supremacist pop singers fully establishes that they have embraced the ideals of their parents and become racists themselves). Despite her disgusting racism and association with white supremacist movements, her parental rights were not terminated, despite the judge most definitely having the ability to do so. This refutes the hypothesis that "brainwashing" children with racist ideology is grounds for termination of parental rights, pure and simple. "Aggregate" means nothing - a single clear example like this is all that's required to falsify your hypothesis. The only reason you're refusing to discuss this particular example, one that you brought up I might add, is because it destroys your argument utterly. ABE - just to reiterate the point we're refuting, Crash, the quote from you that I originally took iss with was:
Racists don't have the right to raise little racists. They do have that right, Crash. That's why the 13-year-old white supremacist twin sisters are still in their mother's custody instead of foster care. That's why the police don't round up any and all children at white supremacist rallies and take them from their parents. You're just wrong, plain and simple, and we've all provided more than ample evidence to prove it. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024