Scioly.org

benk wrote:(look who didn't vote for civil rights: democrats)

I don't typically get involved in politics, but I really have to point something out here:

If you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which I'm assuming you do), it's true that there were some Democrats who voted against it. However, Republicans also voted against it, and at greater rates - based on party affiliation and region (Southern = former Confederacy). The division was mainly regional, not political...

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

benk wrote:/

benk wrote:How do you feel about redisturbution of wealth?


How do you feel about avg. Every students gpa so every one has the same.


If you answers are not the same is because u are at the top of you class, and you are in collage debt( since your division is grad)

Answer that Deeisenberg[/quote]
I answered that already; you seem to have ignored my explanation, so I will give another reason why the comparison is moot.
You are not taking into account finite resources: the amount of money held in the United States is finite; while the amount in gpa could potentially be infinite.

I will explain it another way: if you were to want a apple, and you wanted to buy it from a company, you would exchange money for it. The net change in value for each party is zero. However, since we are dealing with money, and not goods, you have a net decrease in worth and the company/store has a net increase in worth. With every trade of such, stock, clothing, food, etc, the buyer has a net decrease in wealth, and the seller has a net increase. Assuming that everyone were to keep buying food, then eventually the buyer would go bankrupt, and all the money would go to the rich. The buyer then makes the money back by being the employee to a company that sells apples, and in giving the company labor, gets money. It is the reverse of what is described above.

My point is, is that as one side of a transaction gains money, the other side loses money. There is pretty much no way for both sides to go up. In this case, if one side of the equation is getting too much money, then some mild redistribution of wealth is necessary; it is called taxes. The government takes some money from the party selling, and gives the money to the party buying, in the form of social safety programs.

By contrast, in the world of gpa, there is no equal sign. It is possible for all students to have a 4.0 gpa, or a 0.0. There is no requirement that says that there needs to be a total sum to all the students in a school. If my gpa goes up, it does not mean someone else's gpa goes down; it means my gpa goes up. Since my gpa increase does not intrinsically hurt anyone, no redistribution of wealth is necessary.

This is an announcement from your friendly neighborhood starpug,

You can debate, but we ask that you keep it civil.
That is all

PacificGoldenPlover wrote:There is pretty much no way for both sides to go up.

Let us, for a moment, abandon this novel concept of "money" and look into REAL goods/services/production.

Then, if I farm, I have created a good without taking from anyone else; that is, I have gained value without taking it from anyone else.

Yes? Yes.

Similar logic applies for virtually any other job.

Then, much like one student working hard can boost his gpa from a 1.5 to a 1.8 and thus boost the overall total gpa by 1, a small advance in farming technologies can increase the average farmer's output from 10000 apples to 10002 apples.

If you want to argue "Yeah but the amount of money in the system doesn't change", I have 2 responses:

1) The REAL value of money goes up, therefore the value of money rises.
2) You don't think the government prints more and more money every single day?

benk wrote:

benk wrote:How do you feel about redisturbution of wealth?
How do you feel about avg. Every students gpa so every one has the same.
If you answers are not the same is because u are at the top of you class, and you are in collage debt( since your division is grad)

Answer that Deeisenberg

I am not in debt actually. I have no debt at all as I am lucky enough to be from a upper middle class family that can afford to send me to college. I also don't need to take on loans because I go to a publicly funded university with reasonable tuition, but let's put that aside for the moment.

To put it quite simply I don't believe that grades should all be averaged together. I also don't believe in a socialist economy (socialized in some aspects yes, but not socialist), although I strongly support a progressive income tax. I believe that all people should get the grade they have, and that all of those people should at a minimum be able to come out of high school with a job that can sustain a small family at a reasonable standard of living.

To put it simply our economy has enough money in it to support everyone with a relatively high standard of living. I don't think that rich people are bad, or that they shouldn't exist. I simply think that they should be made to contribute their fair share to help others who have not been so fortunate. I also don't see why you take statements I haven't said and push them upon me because they are your ideas of what liberals believe. You take an extreme position and make it sound as if it is the norm. I have not done the same of you.

benk wrote:It seems to me that you all believe what your 8th grade history teacher said, which was problem something like this: republicans are evil, demorcrates are the party of the blacks(look who didn't vote for civil rights: democrats) and regulations are good, and the government is never to big, and life is eaiser in china, because if you do something against the government you disapper or die. ( yeah all things mine has said and it's only been 1trimester) listen to me, the numer one thing the education in our puplic schools does is produce democrates, and they are doing a great job

I don't know about you but while I had quite liberal teachers throughout my education in public schools (both because teachers are generally more liberal than the general population and I live in a liberal district) I didn't really have teachers pushing their politics on students on any sides. Perhaps a few might make their opinions on social issues known but even in those instances it was only in issues of keeping a safe environment for everyone (i.e. don't bully gay kids). Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that they haven't thought the issues over for themselves. It isn't fair to assume that. Also I would like to say that the average 8th grader in the United States has the political awareness of a grapefruit (no offense to the exceptions who seem to be active on this thread).

winneratlife wrote:

PacificGoldenPlover wrote:There is pretty much no way for both sides to go up.

Let us, for a moment, abandon this novel concept of "money" and look into REAL goods/services/production.

Then, if I farm, I have created a good without taking from anyone else; that is, I have gained value without taking it from anyone else.

Yes? Yes.

Similar logic applies for virtually any other job.

Then, much like one student working hard can boost his gpa from a 1.5 to a 1.8 and thus boost the overall total gpa by 1, a small advance in farming technologies can increase the average farmer's output from 10000 apples to 10002 apples.

If you want to argue "Yeah but the amount of money in the system doesn't change", I have 2 responses:

1) The REAL value of money goes up, therefore the value of money rises.
2) You don't think the government prints more and more money every single day?

You bring up great points, and I don't disagree with you, but I would like you to clarify just a few things:
1) Making a good essentially puts you as the "company" in my analogy.
2) Are these technologies you have developed, or are you acquiring them from other companies?

Happy thanksgiving, go abe lincoln ( he made it a national holiday)

benk wrote:Happy thanksgiving, go abe lincoln ( he made it a national holiday)

It is also 152nd anniversary of the publishing of the Origin of Species!

Another fun fact. Thanksgiving was made an official holiday by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and moved to it's current date in order to boost retail sales during the Christmas season.

Oh, I can't resist: according to the government, pizza is a vegetable. We let these people make important decisions like who lives and dies? A child could tell you pizza isn"t a vegetable.

is it true that the government is trying to censor the web?