Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[River]

Don't confuse definition with values. The point is that if merit is the ONLY factor, you shouldn't have factors outside of that. Your parents' money shouldn't be a factor.

That has nothing to do with whether I think parents should be able to leave money for their kids.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Should people be able to gift things they've earned or acquired to whomever they choose? Yes or no?

 

[Belz...]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

So now you're saying that it is impossible to discuss a topic without including a moral consideration into it? You're wrong. If I say men walked on the moon, it's not equivalent to saying that it's bad, or good, or that the list should've included women.

Should people be able to gift things they've earned or acquired to whomever they choose? Yes or no?

Irrelevant to the discussion. If merit is the only factor, does that include other people's merit? If you answer in the positive, then the entire concept of meritocracy is meaningless, because even the "handouts" you mentioned earlier are "merits" that someone earned and that they transfered to someone else.

 

[TJM]

Did I somehow misinterpret your broadside partisan attack against Feinstein?

If so, please illuminate me as to your actual intent.

You really believe that she didn’t leak it? C’mon.

It was Hail Mary time. Democrats had to do anything they could to keep an utter buffoon off the court whose sole purpose is to keep Trump’s wrinkled ass out of prison should Mueller find the right trail of cheeto crumbs that leads to Putin’s crotch. If he’s able to undermine or completely gut Roe in the meanwhile, that’s the icing. They had to be stopped. Hopefully they still can be.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ford is under constant threat because of their betrayal.

 

[River]

So now you're saying that it is impossible to discuss a topic without including a moral consideration into it? You're wrong. If I say men walked on the moon, it's not equivalent to saying that it's bad, or good, or that the list should've included women.



Irrelevant to the discussion. If merit is the only factor, does that include other people's merit? If you answer in the positive, then the entire concept of meritocracy is meaningless, because even the "handouts" you mentioned earlier are "merits" that someone earned and that they transfered to someone else.

Look, you're going to have a really difficult time feeding and cleaning your butt when you're a baby. Oh wait, someone is supposed to help you and gift you things until when? When does that stop exactly? What are the limits in what we can legally give in order to raise a child?

If we sell an item, and give someone a great deal on it, is the government going step in and fix the pricing, and make that person pay more so that its equivalent to all others? (no inside deals!)

How about birthdays?? Can we give a gift? Is it going to be limited in how large of a monetary value it can be?

You don't begin to see how absolutely ridiculous what you propose is....

 

[Belz...]

Look, you're going to have a really difficult time feeding and cleaning your butt when you're a baby.

More irrelevancies.

Oh wait, someone is supposed to help you and gift you things until when? When does that stop exactly? What are the limits in what we can legally give in order to raise a child?

If we sell an item, and give someone a great deal on it, is the government going step in and fix the pricing, and make that person pay more so that its equivalent to all others? (no inside deals!)

How about birthdays?? Can we give a gift? Is it going to be limited in how large of a monetary value it can be?

You don't begin to see how absolutely ridiculous what you propose is....

I'm not proposing anything. Again, you fail to distinguish between description and prescription.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

River, you are trying to deflect the weakness in your argument by going government-bashing.

We just asking questions, not demand solutions:

do you think ability to succeed in society is completely uncorrelated with birth circumstances?
do you think it reasonable to compare the merits of a legacy child with all advantages available with a kids from a poor, under-educated background?

 

[River]

River, you are trying to deflect the weakness in your argument by going government-bashing.

We just asking questions, not demand solutions:

do you think ability to succeed in society is completely uncorrelated with birth circumstances?
do you think it reasonable to compare the merits of a legacy child with all advantages available with a kids from a poor, under-educated background?

Don't want to answer those basic questions? But toss out a few of your own? OK.

 

[River]

Lessons learned from Kavanaugh hearing: The left hates gifts. Especially from a parent to a child.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Don't want to answer those basic questions? But toss out a few of your own? OK.

I asked first. You are stalling.

 

[Thermal]

Lessons to be learned from the Kavanagh hearing: a conservative can sodomize a puppy and the rabid right will defend him, no questions.

 

[River]

I asked first. You are stalling.

False. I answered your question with "Yes." meaning both. I then asked you:

Do you have a problem with people gifting things to others or their children? Should everyone not be allowed to? (because it might further someone along?)

 

[Belz...]

Lessons learned from Kavanaugh hearing: The left hates gifts. Especially from a parent to a child.

Stop playing dumb. You know full well that the left isn't against wealth redistribution, taxation or leaving money to your descendants.

We're talking about the ridiculous notion of full meritocracy. It can't be full. It can only be partial. And this is just a matter of fact, not a moral prescription, see?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

False. I answered your question with "Yes." meaning both. I then asked you:

in other words, you are practicing Cognitive Dissonance: you want to think of yourself of someone who values merit above all, yet at the same time you are fine with people being judged by their parentage, not their abilities.

 

[TomB]

There is actually a "Meritocracy" party in Britain. According to Wikipedia they support:

The Meritocracy Party

In 2007 an anonymous British group called The Meritocracy Party published its first manifesto, to which they have now added more than two million words on the subject (discussing Hegel, Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and various other philosophers, scientists, reformers, and revolutionaries). In summary, The Meritocracy Party wants to achieve the following:

1. A world in which every child gets an equal chance to succeed in life.
2. The abolishment of party politics.
3. Only those with a relevant education and work experience should be allowed to vote, rather than just anyone who has reached the age of 18 or 21.
4. The introduction of 100% inheritance tax, so that the super-rich can no longer pass on their wealth to a select few (their privileged children). This would mean the end of the elite dynasties and hereditary monarchy.
5. A radically reformed educational system, based on the MBTI personality types, and insights from radical innovators such as Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori.
6. To replace free market capitalism with social capitalism and to replace democracy with a fully transparent meritocratic republic, under a meritocratic constitution.
7. The end of nepotism, cronyism, discrimination, privilege and unequal chances.

On their website The Meritocracy Party lists five meritocratic principles[48] and thirteen primary aims. The Meritocracy International is the host of all meritocratic political parties in the world and the place where these may be found by country of origin.[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

 

[River]

in other words, you are practicing Cognitive Dissonance: you want to think of yourself of someone who values merit above all, yet at the same time you are fine with people being judged by their parentage, not their abilities.

No, it would seem from your descriptions you have a very strict vision of what you deem to be meritocracy, and that would include a basic reset button on every person that begins with exactly the same economic and social advantage, and physical and mental advantage.

This is not the real world.

You have still not answered the questions I've asked.

 

[River]

There is actually a "Meritocracy" party in Britain. According to Wikipedia they support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

That's not true meritocracy. 100% inheritance tax is ludicrous. That implies that only ones accomplishments can benefit ones self, and no one else. Going to be hard to live that way, for many reasons. Especially as a child. Or are you suggesting this "gifting" should end at a certain age for children from their parents? Are we not allowed to give gifts to people we please or gifts we choose? Who regulates who can be given what, and how much?

Ludicrous...

 

[Segnosaur]

How about getting rid of gerrymandering and voter ID laws designed to minimize the input of minority (black) voters, with the goal of giving them an equal footing in U.S. politics? Oh, but wait! The republicans don't want to do that...

Well, how about taking steps that would minimize instances where police treat minorities differently (typically poorly) compared to white people? Oh, but wait, Trump (who is, as you know, a republican) actually wants to bring in things like stop-and-frisk, which are typically used to target minorities...
...
How about providing improved educational opportunities (including better funding for elementary and high schools, as well as more chances for post-secondary education) for poor people/minorities so that future generations will have roughly equal skill sets when they enter the work force, regardless of race? Oh wait, the Republican head of the Department of Education is pushing for vouchers (which some evidence has shown don't work), and the idea of "free tuition" at schools would be seen as "socialism" and thus must be shunned.

Gerrymandering is a problem for both parties.

Uhh... no, its not.

In the past decade or 2, gerrymandering has GREATLY favored the republicans.

I think there should be stricter regulations on where the districts are located, and requirements about living in them in order to represent it.

I don't think you really understand what gerrymandering is.

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with where a politician lives. (You might be thinking carpetbagging). Gerrymandering means that district voting lines are drawn to give one party an advantage over another. If (for example) you have a city where 1/3 may vote republican, 2/3rds may vote democrat, normally 2/3rds of the elected representatives will be Democrats. Under gerrymandering, the boundries get draw to 'lump' certain voters together, so that you get a majority of politicians elected from a party that only represents a minority of voters.

Public school does not send away people for race or ethnicity reasons,

Never claimed that students were 'sent away' for racial reasons. But not all public schools are equal... they can vary over things like class sizes, available computer systems, funding for sports and extra cirricular activities. A student from inner-city detroit will have a much different (and probably poorer) school experience than a student who grew up in the suburbs, due to the amount of money that is collected and spent on education.

Because of the educational differences, a student from the inner city will have (on average) poorer job prospects, and will probably continue to be stuck in the same conditions.

A higher proportion of black and hispanic people live in poverty than white people. Thus, a higher proportion of minorities are harmed by the poorer educational opportunities.

neither do voting facilities.

There has been a trend in many areas where republicans have closed down polling stations in minority areas.

How does voter ID laws impact black voters any differently than other ethnic groups?

Voter ID are problematic because they often impose financial hardship on poorer individuals in order to obtain the necessary ID. (Even 'Free' voter ID cards can have secondary costs associated with them... time spent visiting the government office to apply for the ID, costs of obtaining supporting documentation.)

A higher proportion of black and hispanic people live in poverty compared to white people. Thus, any law that targets poor people (such as voter ID laws) will have the secondary effect of harming minorities more than white people.

I'm not sure how these suggestions might make things different.

I guess the question is whether your lack of understanding is an honest interpretation or whether you are lying.

The issue of things like voter ID laws (and why they are problematic) have been discussed in this forum before, so for you to claim ignorance about how such laws affect minorities suggests that perhaps you are trolling.

 

[Segnosaur]

In all this, one of the things I'm wondering is how Anthony Kennedy feels about his replacement by Kavanaugh.

Kennedy was a 'swing vote' on the supreme court. I'm sure he knew that the republicans would replace him with a hard-right justice. But he's not a stupid man, and probably recognizes that Kavanaugh is not fit to serve on the court. (I'm sure Republicans in congress know that too; they just don't care.)

Now, his legacy is tarnished slightly by the fact that his retirement has left the court in a position where it has little or no moral authority to a large portion of the electorate.

 

[River]

Uhh... no, its not.

In the past decade or 2, gerrymandering has GREATLY favored the republicans.

I don't think you really understand what gerrymandering is.

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with where a politician lives. (You might be thinking carpetbagging). Gerrymandering means that district voting lines are drawn to give one party an advantage over another. If (for example) you have a city where 1/3 may vote republican, 2/3rds may vote democrat, normally 2/3rds of the elected representatives will be Democrats. Under gerrymandering, the boundries get draw to 'lump' certain voters together, so that you get a majority of politicians elected from a party that only represents a minority of voters.

Never claimed that students were 'sent away' for racial reasons. But not all public schools are equal... they can vary over things like class sizes, available computer systems, funding for sports and extra cirricular activities. A student from inner-city detroit will have a much different (and probably poorer) school experience than a student who grew up in the suburbs, due to the amount of money that is collected and spent on education.

Because of the educational differences, a student from the inner city will have (on average) poorer job prospects, and will probably continue to be stuck in the same conditions.

A higher proportion of black and hispanic people live in poverty than white people. Thus, a higher proportion of minorities are harmed by the poorer educational opportunities.


There has been a trend in many areas where republicans have closed down polling stations in minority areas.


Voter ID are problematic because they often impose financial hardship on poorer individuals in order to obtain the necessary ID. (Even 'Free' voter ID cards can have secondary costs associated with them... time spent visiting the government office to apply for the ID, costs of obtaining supporting documentation.)

A higher proportion of black and hispanic people live in poverty compared to white people. Thus, any law that targets poor people (such as voter ID laws) will have the secondary effect of harming minorities more than white people.

I guess the question is whether your lack of understanding is an honest interpretation or whether you are lying.

The issue of things like voter ID laws (and why they are problematic) have been discussed in this forum before, so for you to claim ignorance about how such laws affect minorities suggests that perhaps you are trolling.

Look, I get you're trying really hard to make voter ID racist. It's not. Everyone follows the same rules, and laws -- regardless of ethnicity and sex. Period.

Are you suggesting we need different laws for people based on ethnicity??

Also, there's this.

Are these things are also racist?

I understand gerrymandering perfectly. I also understand its mostly GOP that benefits from it, but that does not absolve the DNC of any benefit at all from it. You also must've missed where I advocated for fixing the problem, and asking also that politicians be required to live in the districts in which they represent.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, it would seem from your descriptions you have a very strict vision of what you deem to be meritocracy, and that would include a basic reset button on every person that begins with exactly the same economic and social advantage, and physical and mental advantage.

This is not the real world.

so how does your "real world" meritocracy work?

You have still not answered the questions I've asked.

If you check the thread, I've never talked about a 100% inheritance tax as anything but a thought experiment, and have made it clear that it would be futile to implement one, since parents would always seek to subvert it.
Such a tax would also not nullify the advantage of being raised in a stable family which fosters curiosity.
Asking about your views om such a tax was never more than a test of your conviction for Merit.
Now we know the extend of that.