Practical Debating

[dairygirl4u2c]

being that i think politics is properly debated in specifics, usually what they'd argue in regulation making or committes for laws, here is an idea.

instead of arguing vague ideologies that never get to the concrete occurances. why not debate specifc things? for example.

there's homeless. every city has them. subsidiarity might say let the locals do it. subsidiarily also says the next higher up does it, or forces the lower to, if they don't. if they don't, they are "incompetent" to says the theory. given that most peple think they are either lazy, or afraid of the homeless. so they are still there, and many get tossed into that category given their mental diseases and legit circumstance. the locals throw the baby with the bathwater thinking they are all bad. but they are also afraid and it's a very tough subject. yet locals as per subsidiary don't do their stuff.
shouldn't the feds or state or who ever is necessary step in?

here's bob. bob can't afford catestrophic insurance. his parents were poor, and he's on his own just starting out in life. something catestrophic happens.
here's john. john can afford it. his parents were also poor, and he's just starting out in life. he loses his job. he can't pay on the premiums and loses his insurance. catastorphe

really, tehse last two simply expose my ignorance. cause i'm not sure how much catestrophic costs and whether poorer could afford, and whether an insurance co can jsut cut your benefits if you lose employment etc. or when medicaid works and whne it don't. but whatever the case, these are the details where the debate lies in my mind. to me, it is extremeists who need no facts, and say no government at all, or government for everything, or let the states do it etc or charity, when states and charity don't. people don't like paying others' bills after all, and states want to be competitive. (but are states being that way is another material fact)
and even if charity did do it, should they start interviewing them to see if they are their own problem for not saving, and whether all kinds of things?

maybe charitable organizations should start up, which is an intereesting debate. but what if they don't do anything, or don't exist? (organizations instead of government, interesting way to curtail laws now that i think aout it, cause feds can force states to do stuff as per spending money, according to the supreme court. but still, those orgs don't exist or are insufficient so)

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you are a conservative obviouslyist who doesn't debate the details or civially discuss things, here is a time to at least be honest an say it's sad, but all my examples should just smell of elderberries it up. it's a wonder the conservatives don't say this stuff very much being the logical end of their principles.
or, if they don't believe that, and believe in charity, what to do when charity does awry.

or, why they don't explain what they'd do in these situations, and how they're ultimately different than "liberals" or at least the realistic indpendants, if they'd be willing to do something.

me thinks many times the peple arguing disagree, they really don't at specifics, but only in the rhetoric of debate.

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

I'm working my way through your post, but seriously...

Theres a reason we have grammar rules and things like periods and commas and even spell check! (run on sentence anyone??) I'm not trying to be rude, and I know I make typos all the time, but when the only form of communication is writing, you should really strive to write well. (I think...)

Type it in word, spell check it, and read it back to yourself...

Edited November 7, 2007 by rkwright

[rkwright]

Before I go through this in detail, I have to just say that I had a hard time understanding everything you were saying, so maybe some further clarification is necessary.
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415559' date='Nov 6 2007, 10:06 PM']being that i think politics is properly debated in specifics, usually what they'd argue in regulation making or committes for laws, here is an idea.

instead of arguing vague ideologies that never get to the concrete occurances. why not debate specifc things? for example.[/quote]
You can't debate the practical without a proper ideology. The two examples you give are loaded with underlying assumptions that are at the core of the debate. Is the State responsible for the health care of the nation? This is an ideological question more than a practical one.

In debating the practical, one must apply the ideological. You derive the rule then apply the rule.
[quote]there's homeless. every city has them. subsidiarity might say let the locals do it. subsidiarily also says the next higher up does it, or forces the lower to, if they don't. if they don't, they are "incompetent" to says the theory.[/quote]
In my above post when I talk about grammar, this is what I was talking about here. I don't know who or what "subsidarily" is, who they're telling to do what, who you're referring to with all the "they" in there... [quote]given that most peple think they are either lazy, or afraid of the homeless. so they are still there, and many get tossed into that category given their mental diseases and legit circumstance. the locals throw the baby with the bathwater thinking they are all bad. but they are also afraid and it's a very tough subject. yet locals as per subsidiary don't do their stuff.
shouldn't the feds or state or who ever is necessary step in?[/quote] You're saying the "locals as per subsidiary don't do their stuff" and then saying shouldn't the feds or state do it? Isn't that completely contradictory?? The feds give funding to the states. Most states have their own programs as well.

[quote]here's bob. bob can't afford catestrophic insurance. his parents were poor, and he's on his own just starting out in life. something catestrophic happens.
here's john. john can afford it. his parents were also poor, and he's just starting out in life. he loses his job. he can't pay on the premiums and loses his insurance. catastorphe

really, tehse last two simply expose my ignorance. cause i'm not sure how much catestrophic costs and whether poorer could afford, and whether an insurance co can jsut cut your benefits if you lose employment etc. or when medicaid works and whne it don't. but whatever the case, these are the details where the debate lies in my mind.[/quote]
I might be a little ignorant here also, but I think catastrophe insurance is a type of home or property insurance. It doesn't really deal with medical issues. My Aunt works with project Gabriel to help get young mother the help they need. They deal with Medicaid and as I understand it, you have to have a job to qualify for it. [quote]to me, it is extremeists who need no facts, and say no government at all, or government for everything, or let the states do it etc or charity, when states and charity don't. people don't like paying others' bills after all, and states want to be competitive. (but are states being that way is another material fact)[/quote] Just FYI, when you use the term material fact, that means its really important, something that cannot be left out.
[quote]and even if charity did do it, should they start interviewing them to see if they are their own problem for not saving, and whether all kinds of things?

maybe charitable organizations should start up, which is an intereesting debate. but what if they don't do anything, or don't exist? (organizations instead of government, interesting way to curtail laws now that i think aout it, cause feds can force states to do stuff as per spending money, according to the supreme court. but still, those orgs don't exist or are insufficient so)[/quote]
There are all kinds of charitable organizations in the nation. Catholic Charities are one of the largest that help for the poor. I'm not sure what you mean by curtail laws, the organizations have act legally. President Bush also signed an executive order in 01 allowing for things called Faith Based Initiatives, which are Federally supported religious charitable organizations.

Overall I'm not sure I see your point. These charitable organizations already exist.

[Adrestia]

rkwright, Thanks for going through the various points. I also had a difficult time understanding the post.

On this one point, I think I may understand what was meant:

[quote name='rkwright' post='1415632' date='Nov 7 2007, 12:29 AM']In my above post when I talk about grammar, this is what I was talking about here. I don't know who or what "subsidarily" is, who they're telling to do what, who you're referring to with all the "they" in there... You're saying the "locals as per subsidiary don't do their stuff" and then saying shouldn't the feds or state do it? Isn't that completely contradictory?? The feds give funding to the states. Most states have their own programs as well.[/quote]

referring to:

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415559' date='Nov 6 2007, 10:06 PM']there's homeless. every city has them. subsidiarity might say let the locals do it. subsidiarily also says the next higher up does it, or forces the lower to, if they don't. if they don't, they are "incompetent" to says the theory. given that most peple think they are either lazy, or afraid of the homeless. so they are still there, and many get tossed into that category given their mental diseases and legit circumstance. the locals throw the baby with the bathwater thinking they are all bad. but they are also afraid and it's a very tough subject. yet locals as per subsidiary don't do their stuff.
shouldn't the feds or state or who ever is necessary step in?[/quote]

To my knowledge, Subsidiarily is not a word. Subsidiary (n) is a something that falls under the control of another. Subsidiary (adj) describes a subsidy.

Subsidiarity: a principle in social organization that functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization (Merriam-Webster)

I think the statement says that locals are doing a bad job with "homeless" and that they should perform more effectively than the feds (or state). Additionally, the feds (or state) is failing the homeless by not taking over or forcing the locals to do a better job. Therefore, the higher authority should take a more active role.

dairygirl, Is that correct?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes that is correct.

some interesting issues are... what do you do when charity fails. what do you do when charity is probably not what's needed but actually the justice of government intervention is what's needed. what do you do when locals would begin to just think the government will do it and don't do it themselves: do you not intervene and let the homeless be geniuses etc or what.

i'd really some some hard core conservatives to answer, cause they often dont explicitly, on the points of "just smell of elderberries it up".

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415693' date='Nov 7 2007, 11:21 AM']yes that is correct.

some interesting issues are... what do you do when charity fails. what do you do when charity is probably not what's needed but actually the justice of government intervention is what's needed. what do you do when locals would begin to just think the government will do it and don't do it themselves: do you not intervene and let the homeless be geniuses etc or what.

i'd really some some hard core conservatives to answer, cause they often dont explicitly, on the points of "just smell of elderberries it up".[/quote]

Doesn't the government already intervene? As to my knowledge, currently the government provides nearly every service that charities provide plus more.

The proper question would then be, what happens when the government and charity fail? Either "smell of elderberries it up" or put more effort into the system.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes the proper debate is changing the ways things are done.
i just want conservatives to be accountable for the logical ed of their beliefs. be more explicit about it. actually address it. instead of saying charity is best, or local government etc, and not getting to the difficult issues.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415778' date='Nov 7 2007, 04:33 PM']yes the proper debate is changing the ways things are done.
i just want conservatives to be accountable for the logical ed of their beliefs. be more explicit about it. actually address it. instead of saying charity is best, or local government etc, and not getting to the difficult issues.[/quote]
What??? dairy I'm not sure whats going on, but I'm having a really hard time following any of your arguments.

"the proper debate is changing the ways things are done" - What? The proper debate IS (currently) changing the way things are done

OR

The proper debate is (about) changing the way things are done

I'm not sure how to take your sentence, though after re-reading it I assume you meant the second. But honestly, the first time I read it, I read it as the first way.

If it is the second, I have to disagree. The proper debate is not soley practical. Debate over theories is just as important. What if my belief was that those without services can simply 'smell of elderberries it up'. Then debating the practical is of no use; instead you would want to debate my ideology.

Conservatives do see the logical ends to their arguments. They address this; I'm not sure how you say they don't. They claim that charities can do a better job at taking care of the poor (this is a very very broad generalization and you'll find it probably doesn't really describe anyone single person). Everyone of the stats that I've seen the conservatives use are ones that come from "practical" real world issues.

Honestly, you're not making too much sense here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm making generalizations. conservatives think charities are the best ways of doing things, yes. they don't say that when charities fail, "smell of elderberries it up". or, if that's not what they believe, then they should explain how they are not government averse at all times as per charity, which i don't see from hard core conservatives.

the best debate is as you said, to debate the details and how to advance given that gov does a lot already.
but, i am simply trying to stick it to hard core conservatives to be more explicit and acknowledge the logical ends of their beliefs.

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's an incidental point but. the reason i said no theory debates is. it's often just rhetoric that doesn't show beliefs at a concrete level. ideology is not irrelevant, that is not what i'm referring to.

A is liberal. B is conservative. both allow minimum wage. A wants it higher, and B lower. they pretty much say this, my theory says, because they adhere to ideology without concrete foundation. eg if you asked them to make a list of what those at the minimum should be able to buy, i bet many in B's position would list more than those in As. often one's debate rhetoric is just fluff.
not saying ideology is not important.
it up"
if this is all that's occurring, and conservatives don't think those who get no charity should just smell of elderberries it up, then i'd like to hear that. or, for them to b emore explicit about they should jsut "smell of elderberries it up" instead of pussyfooting around saying charity should be the rule, not government. be explicit that that means they should "smell of elderberries

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415805' date='Nov 7 2007, 05:18 PM']i'm making generalizations. conservatives think charities are the best ways of doing things, yes. they don't say that when charities fail, "smell of elderberries it up". or, if that's not what they believe, then they should explain how they are not government averse at all times as per charity, which i don't see from hard core conservatives.

the best debate is as you said, to debate the details and how to advance given that gov does a lot already.
but, i am simply trying to stick it to hard core conservatives to be more explicit and acknowledge the logical ends of their beliefs.[/quote]
Prove that because someone believes charities are better suited to take care of the poor that they also believe those who fall through the cracks should just smell of elderberries it up.

Your conclusion, that conservatives believe that people who fall through the cracks should smell of elderberries it up, does not in any way come from the premise that charities are best suited to take care of the poor.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm only referring to hard core conservatives as i said. they know who they are in this phorum. socratest iron justin to name a few. i never see them say the government might be appropriate. or to "smell of elderberries it up". they need to take a stand on this issue.
i also believe charities are usually best so it's not what you're saying that i'm arguing.

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415830' date='Nov 7 2007, 05:49 PM']i'm only referring to hard core conservatives as i said. they know who they are in this phorum. socratest iron justin to name a few. i never see them say the government might be appropriate. or to "smell of elderberries it up". they need to take a stand on this issue.
i also believe charities are usually best so it's not what you're saying that i'm arguing.[/quote]
I figured you addressed it to them, but seeing as they haven't jumped in here I'll continue.

Again why assume government might be appropriate? Why not try harder with the charities? Why do you assume the government will be able to do better than the charities?

It is not logical to assume that because people fall through the cracks we should just then abandon them or tell them to "smell of elderberries it up". Its also not logical to assume that the government is the only solution.

A question; do I want the government, who mismanaged social security so poorly, to also be responsible for my health care?

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415830' date='Nov 7 2007, 06:49 PM']i'm only referring to hard core conservatives as i said. they know who they are in this phorum. socratest iron justin to name a few. i never see them say the government might be appropriate. or to "smell of elderberries it up". they need to take a stand on this issue.
i also believe charities are usually best so it's not what you're saying that i'm arguing.[/quote]
Oooh, those no-good "hardcore conservatives" like that awful Socrates!

You say you want to discuss specifics here, yet it's not clear specifically what you are asking here.

Subsidiarity means that things should be handled on the private and local level before government steps in.
If friends, family, and private charity can't help, then local government can step in. If local government can't do the job, then the federal government can intervene (send in the National Guard or something).
But this means that private and local bodies make an honest-to-God effort, not just do nothing and hand all responsibility over to the federal gov't, and the federal government should intervene only in an emergency situation.

Concerning your example, what exactly are you advocating, that the government provide free insurance for absolutely everybody's property?
Not so easy; this insurance isn't free, and must be paid for by somebody (presumably in the form of taxes).
And the government insuring everybody's property would get damned expensive!
Furthermore, insurance companies have enough problems dealing with fraudulent claims. Things could get messy with a national government bureaucracy trying to sort out whose claims are legit, and whose are fraudulent. And such a system seems way too easy to abuse.

Your guy's friends and family should help him out best they can, and charities can also lend a hand, to help him get back on his feet.
It wouldn't be feasible for hims to be given back everything he lost in the catastrophe, but, yeah, life's tough. We don't live in a utopia. The cost to society at large for the government the to give everybody "free" catastrophic insurance would simply be too high.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually you guys are right i didn't make it clear. in my examples, charities are failing to do what they need to do. i am referring only to my examples lest we get too generalized. if charities are failing, and a hard core refuses to get government involved, they can try to pick up charity themselves but they are only one person and cannot do it all. so, by logical deduction given their limits, they are effectively saying "smell of elderberries it up", unless they are willing to get government involved.
it's important to note as i think this is hwere i'm being misunderstood, i agree they are not saying "smell of elderberries it up" in that the person saying isn't going to do what they can, but given that they cannot do it all, they have to essentially say "smell of elderberries it up"


[quote]But this means that private and local bodies make an honest-to-God effort,[/quote]
i'm glad you acknowledge that government could theoretically get involved. as per theory discussion apart from the last examples, why do they have to make the honest to God effort... what if they simply don't care? isn't that enough to say they are "incompetent" and the government should intervene. this is a grayer terreritory i acknowledge. even for a hard core er to say it's a gray area would be sufficient for me to at least know they are not all hopelessly lost.

actually this theory discussion might be relvant to my examples. what if the charity failed by lack of people doing anything, and what if it failed by those that did exist that were doing charity did not do enough.this is getting much more complicated that i realized.

Edited November 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually, i think this is way too complicated of an issue to really discuss intelligently. this is the sort of thing you could write a PhD dissertation on. the only thing that's clear, is that it's not obviously one way or the other, and depends on the situtation. one of these days if i get time, maybe i'll do that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1416109' date='Nov 8 2007, 09:57 AM']actually you guys are right i didn't make it clear. in my examples, charities are failing to do what they need to do. i am referring only to my examples lest we get too generalized. if charities are failing, and a hard core refuses to get government involved, they can try to pick up charity themselves but they are only one person and cannot do it all. so, by logical deduction given their limits, they are effectively saying "smell of elderberries it up", unless they are willing to get government involved.
it's important to note as i think this is hwere i'm being misunderstood, i agree they are not saying "smell of elderberries it up" in that the person saying isn't going to do what they can, but given that they cannot do it all, they have to essentially say "smell of elderberries it up"
i'm glad you acknowledge that government could theoretically get involved. as per theory discussion apart from the last examples, why do they have to make the honest to God effort... what if they simply don't care? isn't that enough to say they are "incompetent" and the government should intervene. this is a grayer terreritory i acknowledge. even for a hard core er to say it's a gray area would be sufficient for me to at least know they are not all hopelessly lost.

actually this theory discussion might be relvant to my examples. what if the charity failed by lack of people doing anything, and what if it failed by those that did exist that were doing charity did not do enough.this is getting much more complicated that i realized.[/quote]
Too many "theories" here . . .

What the concerned "true conservative" (or anyone else, for that matter) [i]should[/i] do about such situations is to volunteer if he is able; if he is not, encourage others to volunteer, support local charities, and encourage others to do the same, maybe organize a drive at his church or such, and work to support competent and good people in the local government.
If there is a situation (such as a large scale disaster) where locals simply are unable to do what needs to be done, then the federal government should get involved.
But simply saying that local people don't care, so the responsibility should be passed to the federal government is no excuse at all - that is nothing more than people shirking their responsibilities.

Liberalism is the philosophy of sloth and irresponsibility. The big-government liberal would rather shirk his own responsibilities, and instead pass the buck to the federal government; and rather than devote his own time, efforts or money, simply vote for higher taxes and more federal programs. Then, when the federal government fails to take care of the problem to his satisfaction, he blames Bush (or whomever) for "not caring" and pushes for even bigger government.

People today rely on government for many things which people used to do for themselves.
Thus the problem of dependency and socialism perpetuates itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it almost seems like pilate though. the people being neglected will just continue to suffer, if we refuse to help them when those who should do charity don't. "i wash my hands of it". not completely analogous but similar.

it seems you could argue, let the governent help them. the charities have the responsibliity you could argue, to make government not have to, but gov is always there.

i see that it's tough, because if you help with gov, that give few incentive for charity. but that's the charities they are culpable.
the bottom line is the chraity cases will continue to be neglected. as per this thread, "just smell of elderberries it up" does seem to be the case with conservatives, though there's always a way to get yourself not to face this.
nothing new under the sun after all.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, liberalism as a principle can often lead to the things you describe. but, you can't say you're liberal just because you might favor government intervention, sometimes. or even that some liberal ideas are all bad for the reasons you say.
it'd be like saying conservatives like bright line rules and simplicity at the expense of justice. which, as a general rule, conservatives are guilty of. and which, i'd argue, appears to be the case here and most other times someone tries to be status quo, text book pamphlet style conservative. but, that doesn't mean that someone who wants bright lines sometimes is a conservative guilty of injustice all the time, or that wanting brightline rules isn't sometimes warranted.
extreme liberalism and conservativism are artificial and sacrafice justice.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c