> Lizon wrote:

> *slaps his forehead*

Xeno you honestly don't know the answer to that question? Trust me, you won't like the answer. I don't think anybody does really but nothing much you can do about it ATM.

Here's what you've gotta ask yourself on this question:

If the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand were the only countries on Earth, what goods would we be missing?  What could nations develop economies to produce?  Are there any countries/industrialized provinces I'm missing here?

There needs to be a distinction between so-called "productive poverty" and useless poverty.

Now, if you're arguing that, for example, people in impoverished Chinese factories are essential to the 1st world, then you just might have a point.

However, what about in various African countries?  If poverty in some countries is important for the growth of other countries, then it would mean those countries would actually be producing some essential goods.  In fact, it's quite the opposite: The deeply impoverished create an economic drain on 1st world nations via foreign aid and various assistance programs.

To compare, let's put a microcosm comparison: The beggar vs. the homeless guy who does random odd jobs.

A beggar produces little in an economy.  Money is earned via the generosity of others.  But the beggar has potential assets that can be turned into economic wealth.  Their economic status is simply a creation of a waste of potential assets.

In contrast, a homeless person who does random jobs WOULD be a potential asset.  Now, whether his place in life is essential for this goal is up for debate... but he is a contributor to an economy.

But I want to throw one more thing out here: Even crappy jobs can be made valuable due to supply and demand.

Example: Plumbing.  It's not really a highly specialized field.  It's not dangerous.  However, people in the field charge $80 an hour, or even more.  Why?  Even though the field isn't THAT difficult to get into, it's the lack of people in the field that makes it a strong engine of growth.

There are other positions like this.  Electricians, car repair... there is some expertise needed in the fields, but it's not Ph.D-level expertise at all... Supply and demand MAKES those positions valuable.

Here's what I'm getting at: Certain positions are highly paid only because there are just a few people that could fill the role, even if the position doesn't require many skills.  As such, once we bring a good portion of impoverished people out of said poverty, the roles they once filled will now have very few people competing for said positions.  As such, the positions they would otherwise fill would become vacant, increasing the demand for work in those positions, which consequently would increase the pay for people in those fields.

It's that simple.

Didn't  explain why someone is a Nazi... just like the Nazis!

used the word "wheres" when the correct word was "wears"

1234

Oh, wait, we're not just yelling out random numbers?  oops!

> ~E

> avogadro wrote:

> using grandfathers was a way to avoid people of certain races to vote. marriage isnt between a man and woman inorder to keep gays from being married.

The Marriage Amendment would be a way to keep gays from being married.  So would every state Constitutional law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

> avogadro wrote:

> those discriminated against the poor and the black, of coarse they fit my definition.

But neither of them specifically mentioned race.  They created the exact same rules for everyone.  How can that possibly fit?  What is the distinction between these two policies and gay marriage in terms of discrimination?

1: It's a difference of treatment or favor.  The government is creating a difference of treatment in which society acts toward homosexuals.
2: Your argument is simply semantics at best.  I could just as easily argue that the definition you use for "discrimination" isn't an accurate definition if it doesn't encompass de facto discrimination instances.

2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

There is a difference.  Not a difference in the law's treatment of the individual, but a difference in the impacts of the system on those people.  The exact laws may cover the exact groups of people.  But if there are cultural, racial, or other areas that require certain exceptions which aren't considered by the system, then there is de facto discrimination.

> also my comparison to fat people on airplanes is more accurate then any of the examples you provided.

Says who?  Why?

Oh, and here's a couple more examples for you:

Drug laws.  For the sake of this argument, let's assume two things:

A: Marijuana is bad.
B: Underaged drinking is bad.

I don't want to get into those debates, so let's just assume those two views correct for now.  Anyway, what would be the problem with these standards applied universally, in every instance?  Discrimination.

Native American tribes use marijuana in various ceremonies.
Christians give a small amount of wine to underaged people accepting communion.

See?  There was absolutely no distinction among religious groups in the rules above.  However, each of these laws managed to find one segment of society that would have their way of life trampled on simply due to an overarching rule.

(I'm not arguing that, in all cases, discrimination of this sort is bad.  There was a Supreme Court case where the court condemned animal sacrifices.  Same thing goes for female genital mutilation.  But you have to debate them on a case by case basis, and those seeking to have laws without said exceptions always have the burden of proof since, all other things being equal, the discrimination in itself is a bad thing... but I'm not here to say that gay marriage is good or bad.  I'm here only to clarify a word)

I'm not sure anymore...