Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This is so monumentally superficial, I don't know where to start. "The principle should stand on its own"?* In your world, do you imagine that Democrats pound tables and say "We need more taxes!" and Republicans say "We need fewer taxes!" and that's pretty much all she wrote? Do you imagine that no Democrat has ever questioned the value of a government program in relation to its cost? (Shut up, Slave, this doesn't concern you.) Do you imagine that the Republicans believe there shouldn't be any taxation whatsoever?
*I'd have fun coming up with GOP principles that "should stand on their own." Like that they hate retarded people, pregnant women, children, and forests.
|
In my world, i.e., the real world, Democrats use kids, the elderly, the poor, etc., in order to avoid the substantive debate. Casting and issue as "if you do x, y will suffer horror," is intellectually fraudulent, because y never occurs. So the issue becomes, are you for or against this "protected" group of people, not whether you are for or against the issue presented.
Just take your example regarding the tards. The issue is cast as "AS is evil because he wants to harm tards."
I don't fault you for being a proponent of social programs. I think the position has many immoral issues attenuate to it, but I realize I am on the fringe. Most people agree that most social programs are a good thing.
