IntenseDebate - tilgorekrout

12 years ago @ HoosierAccess - Petition to Redistribu... · 0 replies · +3 points

time isn't a resource that can be hoarded; time is distributed evenly for everyone while they're alive.

13 years ago @ HoosierAccess - Petition to Redistribu... · 2 replies · +2 points

With curved classes I'd grant you a bit of ambiguity, but practically speaking, there are very few classes (none that I have ever experienced) that will actually curve down due to an abundance of high grades. There is still no real scarcity in grades as there is in the realm of material goods.

It's not as simple as "the meanies took his success away" (for one thing, 'success' is an intangible concept-- call it what it is: material wealth); like I said before, we live in a world of finite resources, and I see no reason why we all should feel compelled to live under the philosophy that property allotments (which are arbitrary when we come into this world, and correlate with one's positive contributions to society only weakly) are somehow absolute and untouchable. You can believe in that, of course, but it strikes me as an incredibly flawed philosophy, the flaws of which reveal themselves to us increasingly with every year (it seems absurd that one person should be able to hypothetically control all of the material wealth on earth, and that every other living being should be morally compelled to shrug their shoulders and mutter 'the free market has spoken...')

13 years ago @ HoosierAccess - Petition to Redistribu... · 0 replies · -1 points

There isn't necessarily any concept of scarcity in GPA scores, as there is in material resources; the two concepts are not analogous.

Whether I happen to get a 4.0 or a 0 GPA has no direct effect on someone else's opportunity to get a high/low GPA; however... privatization, hoarding, etc. necessarily decrease the amount of available resources for everyone else to utilize. If material resources were infinite, I suppose how I could see this argument being legitimate (though, under that philosophy, you'd basically be stating that those who cannot physically provide for themselves deserve no support... that's another story), but they're not, and so this is an obviously flawed analogy.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 0 replies · 0 points

butbutbut... believing that our government/military are essentially a humanitarian organization JUST MAKES US FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT OURSELVES!

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 0 replies · -2 points

You're disgusting.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 0 replies · -2 points

funny, that sounds kind of like what Islamic terrorism recruiters would say to their men regarding Westerners. THEY'RE ALL FASCISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US! WE MUST TAKE THE BATTLE TO THEM TO PROTECT OURSELVES!

funny, funny, funny...

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 1 reply · -3 points

wait... so... NOT wishing to mow down countless human beings just to prove military might now falls under 'politically correct'?
I hadn't been under the impression that being a bloodthirsty psychopath was a key aspect of being 'politically incorrect', but you're convincing me to re-evaluate my opinion on that matter.

...yikes. Do you know what they call people like you when they come from Islamic cultures?
They call them f*cking terrorists!

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 1 reply · -1 points

What's this obsession over exporting our culture in the first place? Yeah, moving forward ideals like our basic civil rights is great, but that hardly need be a package deal with the goddamn baconator.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 2 replies · 0 points

translation: ignoring your arguments and calling you crazy is a lot easier than trying to refute them.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Why Are We in Afghanis... · 2 replies · +2 points

"Why do conservatives bemoan the Federal government when they regulate the size of our toilets but expect other people, foreigners with no say at all in our government, to be passive while our government blows up their families (and enable Israel to do the same) and sticks guns in their faces? "

...because conservatism isn't a coherent political philosophy?

Conservatives aren't against big government, per se, they're against big government when it has the potential to inconvenience them. On issues such as national security, they're willing to take everything their leaders say on complete faith, and basically give them as much power as they want, so long as they're convinced that there's a threat (and it's not very hard to convince them of that).

And finally, and quite critically, there's this subconscious (or even, often times, overtly conscious) notion in many people's heads that the value of an American life is worth much more than the value of an Middle Eastern life. Compare the base number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan against the civilian deaths coming from terrorist actions, and TRY to tell me that they give a rat's ass about 'protecting innocent life'.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with tilgorekrout

People I'm following

tilgorekrout