How Biden can unite the country

[jamil]

I sort of agree with this but have an issue with the 'mutual acknowledgment of all individuals right as people to think and be different from [me] ...', but my disagreement may lie in the forcing of agreement on such things. I am reminded of the current push to force acceptance of 'women with a penis' and associated claptrap. I think 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' provides top cover to dilute revulsion for all sorts of perversion under the cover of it being just 'differences' and part of the 'normal' human spectrum. Some things, like Lolita island and it's enablers, need to be forever beyond the pale

The idea of mutual acknowledgement is predicated on whether it affects individual rights or not. It does not affect me if someone has some sort of condition which causes them to believe they're really the opposite sex. It's not my business. I acknowledge that person's right to believe that. They've not harmed me by believing that. It's a bit different when agreement with it becomes coerced. Then my rights have been violated and I have every right not to accept/tolerate that.

And of course Lolita Island exploited young teens. We're under no moral obligation to accept or tolerate that either.

 

[jamil]

One other thing, "tolerance" and "acceptance" is an evolutionary feature which I think helped humans survive in groups. But, those groups which evolved the trait were smaller; tribes. If only in-group behaviors are tolerated/accepted, which have led to the success of the tribe, then the tribe's success would continue and they'd tend to pass on their genes compared with tribes who don't have that feature. But scale that to a society and I'm not so sure it doesn't behave more as a bug. As we've learned to suppress it we've stopped burning witches at the stake. Mostly. It seems like the way 2020 has gone, it'll probably be sometime in late december.

 

[BugI02]

One other thing, "tolerance" and "acceptance" is an evolutionary feature which I think helped humans survive in groups. But, those groups which evolved the trait were smaller; tribes. If only in-group behaviors are tolerated/accepted, which have led to the success of the tribe, then the tribe's success would continue and they'd tend to pass on their genes compared with tribes who don't have that feature. But scale that to a society and I'm not so sure it doesn't behave more as a bug. As we've learned to suppress it we've stopped burning witches at the stake. Mostly. It seems like the way 2020 has gone, it'll probably be sometime in late december.

I don't think we stopped because we no longer think witches should be burnt, I think it has more to do with no longer believing in witches

 

[foszoe]

I don't think we stopped because we no longer think witches should be burnt, I think it has more to do with no longer believing in witches

You must be new here!

 

[indykid]

Came to this thread this morning for the update on how biden can unite the country and find out about how we treat witches. Love this site!!! <-- note, not purple nor purple implied.

 

[BugI02]

Came to this thread this morning for the update on how biden can unite the country and find out about how we treat witches. Love this site!!! <-- note, not purple nor purple implied.

Well, personally I use the Monty Python standard to decide to burn or not to burn

 

[IndyBeerman]

Didn't read all the upthread posts, but here's my take on the question for this threads existence. It's not a question of how Biden can Unite our country but how far is he really willing to tear it apart?


He's not even in office yet and he his is alienating ALMOST each and every legal gun owner in the country and will do so if he tries to Unconstitutionally enact a tax on legal handgun's and rifles, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That places a undue hardship on Americans to protect themselves. It would not only force people to purchase new items and magazines where the prices would be inflated, but to pay a excessive cost to keep them, and this will only be the start. His plan of "Phasing out" fossil fuels and fracking" will lead to unrealistic prices to heat and power our homes and drive our vehicles.


Factor in other things he has said and it will drive a wedge between the richest and the rest. Because only the rich will be able to survive.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, but we're talking about a word and how it's used by others. The following definition is apt.

Tolerance: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.


This assumes the part I object to. "Allow." Who am I to allow you to be you? I have no righteous claim to interfere. I can only deign such authority when the thing I might wish to tolerate or not is when you're interfering with my rights. Let me explain it in terms of behavior. My neighbor often mows a foot or two into my yard. I have every right not to allow that. It's my property. But I like my neighbor. He can't mow straight lines. He can't help it. There's no harm done. I allow it. I tolerate it. It would be within my rights and authority as the property owner not to tolerate it. My other neighbor has a son that likes to play basket ball constantly. I suppose I could be annoyed with the sound of the bouncing ball. It's not something within my power to tolerate or not. There's nothing I have any right to do about it. I accept that he does it. I recognize it's his right to do. That's not something that the world "tolerance" can apply to.

So it's the same thing with things that people talk about tolerating. Take religious tolerance, for example. WTF do I have any right to do about what someone believes about religious matters? I can be intolerant, and take steps I don't have the right to take, to interfere with that person's exercise of their religion. But that would be pretty ****ty of me to deign to have a say about another person's religious exercise. I could "tolerate" a religious person, and decide that I will not interfere with that person's religious exercise. But then that would make me an arrogant SOB for thinking I'm so high-minded for choosing not to be an ******* because I disagree with that person's religious beliefs. How about just not give a **** about what people choose to believe? Doesn't mean I won't engage them, or challenge their beliefs. Recognizing I have no right to interfere with other people's religious exercise is neither tolerance, nor intolerance. It's understanding my place in the world and what rights I have versus other people's rights.

I don't want to be "tolerated". I want a mutual understanding that we both have equal rights to our place in the world, and neither of us have a right to interfere with that. It is that mutual understanding that forms the necessary basis for the ability to live in a diverse world and not kill each other. You don't have a right to tolerate or not tolerate me. And of course I mean "you" rhetorically.

I see your point. Perhaps "accept" would be a better word choice than "allow".

 

[Bennettjh]

Didn't read all the upthread posts, but here's my take on the question for this threads existence. It's not a question of how Biden can Unite our country but how far is he really willing to tear it apart?


He's not even in office yet and he his is alienating ALMOST each and every legal gun owner in the country and will do so if he tries to Unconstitutionally enact a tax on legal handgun's and rifles, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That places a undue hardship on Americans to protect themselves. It would not only force people to purchase new items and magazines where the prices would be inflated, but to pay a excessive cost to keep them, and this will only be the start. His plan of "Phasing out" fossil fuels and fracking" will lead to unrealistic prices to heat and power our homes and drive our vehicles.


Factor in other things he has said and it will drive a wedge between the richest and the rest. Because only the rich will be able to survive.

Must have some rich people on here, they can't believe their good luck. They can't wait to pay more taxes, pay more for fuel, etc...

Not even getting into the irony of "gun owners" voting for him.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Must have some rich people on here, they can't believe their good luck. They can't wait to pay more taxes, pay more for fuel, etc...

Not even getting into the irony of "gun owners" voting for him.

But look at all the "free" stuff we'll get (after we pay for it)!

 

[indyartisan]

Where’s my UBI check?
It’s been over three weeks and still no UBI check.
I’m starting to feel a little disunification and a lack of caring about me and my UBI check.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Where’s my UBI check?
It’s been over three weeks and still no UBI check.
I’m starting to feel a little disunification and a lack of caring about me and my UBI check.

Just so I'm clear, will our UBI checks be in addition to our WFAL (Working For A Living) checks?

 

[indyartisan]

All I know is the man at the vote countin house promised me Ol Joe was gonna send me a UBI check if I made my mark.

 

[Phase2]

Just so I'm clear, will our UBI checks be in addition to our WFOL (Working For A Living) checks?

Serious answer:
That is the general idea, yes. Universal Basic Income as it is generally described is for every adult, eliminates all welfare, unemployment, social security and other transfer payments. Any earned income is in addition. That's what makes it so attractive to the lazy, economically ignorant, and those unconcerned with responsibility and the long-term health of the nation. If you ever thought multi-generational welfare was a good thing, just magnify it across a much wider swath of the population... until it all crashes and burns.

It has been tested in dozens of cities around the world and so far has a 100% failure rate. But much like Communism, it has never been done right before.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Serious answer:
That is the general idea, yes. Universal Basic Income as it is generally described is for every adult, eliminates all welfare, unemployment, social security and other transfer payments. Any earned income is in addition. That's what makes it so attractive to the lazy, economically ignorant, and those unconcerned with responsibility and the long-term health of the nation. If you ever thought multi-generational welfare was a good thing, just magnify it across a much wider swath of the population... until it all crashes and burns.

It has been tested in dozens of cities around the world and so far has a 100% failure rate. But much like Communism, it has never been done right before.

Why, I'm just befuddled as to why it didn't work!

 

[Tombs]

Didn't read all the upthread posts, but here's my take on the question for this threads existence. It's not a question of how Biden can Unite our country but how far is he really willing to tear it apart?


He's not even in office yet and he his is alienating ALMOST each and every legal gun owner in the country and will do so if he tries to Unconstitutionally enact a tax on legal handgun's and rifles, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That places a undue hardship on Americans to protect themselves. It would not only force people to purchase new items and magazines where the prices would be inflated, but to pay a excessive cost to keep them, and this will only be the start. His plan of "Phasing out" fossil fuels and fracking" will lead to unrealistic prices to heat and power our homes and drive our vehicles.


Factor in other things he has said and it will drive a wedge between the richest and the rest. Because only the rich will be able to survive.

He's putting gun owners in a life threatening situation.
Even if he doesn't actually manage to do it, his intent behind his words means that we the people have to bring every single option to the table to fight this even if it risks our lives in the process. Because the outcome of not doing so will likely result in a large number of us in a coffin.

Serious answer:

That is the general idea, yes. Universal Basic Income as it is generally described is for every adult, eliminates all welfare, unemployment, social security and other transfer payments. Any earned income is in addition. That's what makes it so attractive to the lazy, economically ignorant, and those unconcerned with responsibility and the long-term health of the nation. If you ever thought multi-generational welfare was a good thing, just magnify it across a much wider swath of the population... until it all crashes and burns.

It has been tested in dozens of cities around the world and so far has a 100% failure rate. But much like Communism, it has never been done right before.

I don't see UBI as being anywhere near that dangerous as long as it is a 100% replacement of all forms of welfare.
If anything I welcome the job opportunities it creates as it pushes lazy people out of the workforce and allows the average person a lot more latitude to negotiate their employment.

It does absolutely require the US to be the No.1 economic power in the world to hold it together, because as soon as we aren't on top of the hill, we won't have the clout to support such a thing and will collapse like everyone else.

 

[Brad69]

Communism/Socialism is the enlightened path!

We can make it work!

All we need is some over educated people to guide us.

 

[foszoe]

But look at all the "free" stuff we'll get (after we pay for it)!

Well if I can turn in magazines I bought for 6$ a piece and get 200$ apiece, thats a pretty good return...

 

[Phase2]

I don't see UBI as being anywhere near that dangerous as long as it is a 100% replacement of all forms of welfare.
If anything I welcome the job opportunities it creates as it pushes lazy people out of the workforce and allows the average person a lot more latitude to negotiate their employment.

It does absolutely require the US to be the No.1 economic power in the world to hold it together, because as soon as we aren't on top of the hill, we won't have the clout to support such a thing and will collapse like everyone else.

Many problems with that view:

1. The wealth and prosperity of a nation is in the goods and services that it produces, not the digits in peoples bank accounts. Magically multiply people's bank accounts by 100x and the country will be no richer. Reduce what people actually produce and the country will be poorer.
2. Replacing welfare/unemployment/etc with UBI, particularly if they are approximately the same cost, doesn't seem on the surface like an issue. However, welfare isn't supposed to be a lifetime income. It is intended to be a period where you can get some training or fix issues that allow you to get back into the workforce and generate real wealth. By contrast, UBI is a lifetime income, so there is no real motivation to get back on your feet and become productive.
3. A percentage of people who can get by watching TV, browsing the web, playing video games or other non-productive pursuits will be happy to do those things and live non-productive and in fact parasitic lives taking part of what everyone else is producing. (ex: health care is a right).
4. Human nature unfortunately shows that non-productive people with a lot of time on their hands too often aren't grateful for what they are given and often resent those who provide. More than that, they too often become actively destructive. A couple of examples: the Muslim slums in France and Sweden and Antifa in various cities.
5. No way you remain the #1 economic power if you are dragging a boat anchor of non-productive or even destructive people around and less ignorant nations that value responsibility and productivity don't.
6. You might think that you'll benefit from a higher income with less competition for jobs, but consider that those who don't produce won't be giving anything real in return for what they consume. You're earned money has to compete with their "free" money to buy things. In other words, the UBI program reduces the supply side in the supply-and-demand system, generally raising prices.
7. Don't be confused by the welfare/unemployment/social security argument UBI proponents make. I really think it does confuse a lot of people. This isn't just replacing one government handout with another. It is putting *everyone* on welfare.
8. UBI is a a way to expand government power over people and reduce their freedom. It won't be long after UBI is introduced that government will start adding "requirements" to continue giving you that money you've become dependent on. Exactly like the Feds do with money that they pass to the states.

 

[printcraft]

I hear they'll give ya 30 pieces of silver...