(Oops, someone still didn't answer the basic question I asked...)

> Lizon wrote:

> There will also be people who refuse to believe in evolution. Course there are also people who still believe that Elvis is still alive, doesn't mean that either people are right of course.

One has to wonder though, what happens to the book of Revelations once humans colonize other worlds? ^.^;

A: It could be interpreted from a less literal meaning... framing the "world" as the realm in which humanity resides, rather than as this one rock.
B: Here's an odd interp:
Perhaps it remains exactly the same.  The plagues, wars, quakes, and every other calamity will happen on Earth.  When the New World was discovered, the first colonists were those seeking religious freedom.  The Bible does take the mention of some refugees: The tribes of Israel fleeing to another place, where they will receive God's protection.  Now, I'm not sure whether there is a specific place mentioned as the place of refuge.  If there isn't, space is definitely a possibility.

In this case, Justinian's calculation of a product's "value" is screwed up.

Yes, in many cases with ethical consumerism, the product at hand may be more expensive for a product of the same quality as an "unethical" product (there are exceptions such as fuel-efficient cars and longer lasting lightbulbs).  However, there is an added cost which you forgot: the cost of externalities.  The externalities involved in producing a good are added costs, yet are not otherwise factored into the product since the majority of the cost is not incurred by either the producer or the consumer.  Ethical consumerism internalizes those costs by requiring purchasers to pay extra to avoid said externalities and by requiring producers to produce ethically in order to obtain a customer base.

For example, consider the environment.  The environment is a common resource: Nobody can be specifically refused use of the environment (aside from shooting them in the head), which means we all benefit from it.  However, being a common resource, nobody has a vested interest in protecting the environment.  If I can save $20 by damaging the environment to an effect that would cost $50 to clean up, why not?  That $50 would be paid by taxpayers if cleaned up by the government, or if not cleaned up, it will be incurred by some future generation.

As another example, let's take sweatshops.  Many argue that sweatshops reduce people's potential income by only paying them enough to make end's meet, with no disposable income.  Economies can't develop on purely disposable income: it means no consumer spending, no added infrastructure investments, and no banking system development.  So a sweatshop essentially locks a country into non-development.

Lack of development IS an externality.  Potential developments from that region are made impossible.  In addition, poorly developed regions are hotbeds for political instability, as people fight to obtain what few resources do exist in the region.

Ethical consumerism attempts to instill awareness of the fact that society as a whole is hurt from certain manufacturing processes.  Sure, you may not feel the cost now.  But that's how an externality works: it's a cost that you don't perceive, yet will hit you or someone else in the future.

Here you are implying that your position is that consumers should not factor in costs to third parties in making their purchasing or selling decisions. Testing this position to an extreme, you would be committed to allowing nuclear weapons to be sold for profit because they are in demand. Furthermore, you would be defending British actions of selling opium to the Chinese during the Qing dynasty. But assuming you are not nutty enough to defend this position to its radical extreme, lets focus the question on whether ethical consumerism is permissible.

Just answer the question.  What is the conservative view of education policy?

Okay, then.

What is the conservative position on education?

Did you even read my second post?

I'm not advocating "yielding."  In fact, I claim that the right, along with the left, are both rhetorically benefited by going on the offensive by offering solutions to issues, rather than playing defense and simply addressing "why the opponent's idea won't work."

I even point out that the right's effort on immigration was a good example of what I'm talking about: they presented a proposal (secure the border, strengthen domestic enforcement against illegal immigrants) that fit exactly in line with what I said above.

I am only criticizing a party when they attack an opponent's plan without presenting their own proposal to alleviate the worries.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "Thus, you have already achieved the greatest amount of "abundance" that you ever could achieve."

Silly.  No worth responding to at all.

Wow, xeno.  Way to completely shit on a hypothetical scenario meant primarily to test people's understanding of the world...

Oh, and nice job of being able to thoroughly justify your views, rather than just posting one-word responses.

(If you don't understand the sarcasm in the above, then I'll lay it out very clearly: I have dubbed you as such:

Silly.  No worth responding to at all.

Cool.)

Anything?  Anyone?

For some reason, I feel like the subject of this thread has suddenly been ignored...

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Except the social security house IS going to fall down.

I knew a faculty advisor who always got the $$$ for his office.  He always asked for more than what he needed.  So when he went in to argue budgets, he always had to admit he was guesstimating costs, but certainly he was within the realm of possibility and not beyond reality...for instance, he wanted 100 new chairs for guest lectures.  Do you have more than 100 people show up, he was asked. He said he was hopeful.  The budget chief rebuked him for being greedy and ignoring realities and told him he would get 20 new chairs and if more people came, he could always borrow from other offices.  And then the budget guy felt very good about cutting so much waste out of the new budget.

But our guy got the 20 chairs he needed.

And every few years he would get mad with the budget head and say "I told you I needed 100 chairs, I got 20.  I told you we needed 3 assistants, we got 1.  I told you we needed six visiting lecturers, we got three.  When will we get full funding? it's a disgrace!" and the budget chief told him nobody got everything but he had been patient and he'd see what could be done to help them out this coming year...

All the Dems need to do to game Republicans looking to play it smart, is jump waaaay left, adn the Republicans would be the champions of "the middle" and meet them halfway... and make it clear that EVERYBODY wants to go left, just a question of how far...when we don't want it or need it.

Look at how amnesty is playing out.  Obama oughta be a dead duck for promising amnesty...but too many Republicans are on record as open to a deal, so they can't attack him for what they cheered Bush for doing...

1: I'm not saying that either side NEEDS to capitulate to the other.  Presenting a counter-proposal doesn't mean conceding to the other side.  I presented you a perfectly good example here: Hannity on health care, presenting a right-wing proposal to solve the issues the left wanted to fix.  If a real problem in society exists and your political philosophy doesn't offer any option to repair the issue... then that's probably a reason why your philosophy is flawed.

The amnesty debate, actually, is a really good example of what type of debate I'm talking about.  Neither side in the debate said that the status quo was a good system.  The Democrats wanted an amnesty system established, while the Republicans wanted a more strict enforcement system.

2: I'm only asking for people to make tactical assessments of their arguments.  Let's take your example of amnesty.  Bush proposed an amnesty system, putting conservative Republicans on the defensive.  Republicans are given three options:
A: Present a conservative counter-proposal.
B: Advocate the current system.
C: Look for a moderate change.

Many conservatives opted for choice B.  From a purely rhetorical point of view, this is probably the best choice.  Republicans were able to create the same leverage in terms of argumentation that the Democrats were able to do. 

Tighter border controls is very much in line with the conservative agenda.  There's no philosophical paradox there.  However, rhetorically, Republicans get to claim, just like Democrats, that the status quo is a bad system, and we need to use a hypothetical policy option to fix it.

Yes, many Republicans did end up capitulating and negotiating with the Democrats.  However, we're not talking about them.  They've either already conceded the debate, or their political beliefs are different than what you are assuming they actually were, at which point they actually won the debate (RINO).

3: You're not actually responding to the substance of my argument anyway... please try not to derail the subject.  We're not talking about these issues from a substantive point of view.  This is a rhetorical analysis of HOW we argue about things, not about the issues themselves.

4: Are you telling me that Republicans would be better off saying that no immigration problem existed than to demand tighter border controls?  I am ONLY making the comparison between these two issues: Presenting a counter-advocacy (ideally one in line with your own political beliefs), versus advocating the current system.

Okay, I want to give this thread a swift execution before anyone takes it seriously.

Jesus wasn't a government philosopher.  His philosophies were meant to be the actions of an individual, not the actions of a government.  In fact, rarely, if ever, did Jesus even mention government policy within his teachings.

That being said, your attempt to butcher any semblance of a debate by saying we have some moral obligation to set up National Health care is bullshit.  First of all, the issue of whether universal health care works is a prerequisite issue to the moral obligation: you can't claim that your system is more Christian if your system doesn't achieve the goals of Christianity better than another system, can you?

There's one more issue, but I want to make a rant about this in a separate thread... later...

Has an "a" AND a "z" in his name, just  like the Nazis!