|
Didn't realize I was in the libertarian "We hate Obama, death to Elizabeth Warren" thread. Can someone explain to me why they are "evil" in your eyes? I don't get the hate.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So yeah, basically I agree with 90% of sitting US Senators and Congressmen on most of these issues (my tobacco stance might only be shared with 30% though, not sure). Maybe we are all secretly "trolling" you. Is that what you are trying to argue? The entire US Senate is just trolling? All the 2016 presidential hopefuls are "trolling"? Elotana fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So yeah, basically I agree with 90% of sitting US Senators and Congressmen on most of these issues (my tobacco stance might only be shared with 30% though, not sure). Maybe we are all secretly "trolling" you. Is that what you are trying to argue? The entire US Senate is just trolling? All the 2016 presidential hopefuls are "trolling"? "I'm just supporting the same position on same-sex marriage that Obama and most Democrats had up until 2012." Can you see why this line of thinking is dumb? They're politicians for fucks sake, do you really think we don't know that? In 10 years most of the Dems will support leglaization, they operate based on dollar signs and opinion polls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:"I'm just supporting the same position on same-sex marriage that Obama and most Democrats had up until 2012." Actually, I don't support Obamas position on same sex marriage. His position is basically: "I will never, under any circumstances, try and pass a federal gay marriage law. Same sex marriage is literally the only issue where I think the states should decide on their own. For everything else, especially medical marijuana, I want full federal control". I've disagreed with Obama on same sex marriage from day one. I want it done on the Federal level. I don't like the idea of states banning gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
No one cares what you think about gay marriage, that wasn't the point of the post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Elotana posted:No one cares what you think about gay marriage, that wasn't the point of the post. Should states be allowed to ban X, even after the federal government legalizes X? Do you have any consistency at all to your political ideology? So far your only argument is "they should be allowed to ban X if MY FEELS tell me X is a bad thing. They should not be allowed to ban X if MY FEELS tell me X is a good thing". That is a very poor way to write a constitution. Not everyone is going to have the same "feelings" as you do about what is moral and immoral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Should states be allowed to ban X, even after the federal government legalizes X? (The answer is yes, unless X is something that is not merely permitted federally but declared a basic right such as contraception drugs.) Elotana fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
We are not writing a constitution, this is a discussion of policy that does not present new or intriguing Constitutional questions. The States routinely act as "laboratories of democracy" in experimenting and deviating from Federal law. When those experiments are promising, they should be supported. When they are not promising, they should be opposed. To the extent those experiments infringe on, for instance, the Bill of Rights as incorporated under the 14 amendment, they will be ended. To the extent federalism is a stupid idea, and often it is, it should be reigned in while minimizing the damage to real human beings. If you oppose marijuana legalization, fine. Great. But spare everyone the absurd kabuki about federalism, because Nobody Anywhere Cares.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Elotana posted:That hasn't been my only argument at all. I've already given you the Con Law 101 lesson on how cannabis federalism is going to work and why it is or isn't distinguished from other issues you posed under current law under very basic, well-known 10th and 14th precedent. I haven't said a single thing about my personal ideology. Try reading instead of projecting. I think (and I know you get this, I'm trying to piece it out for myself and others) that what he wants to know is why someone would ever be justified in being a federalist w/r/t one issue and not a federalist w/r/t another issue, and he's dumb enough that he can't think of any examples that don't have 10th/14th exceptions carved out already. In other words I think he wants everyone to be an ideologue but doesn't really understand what that would entail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Plus our Constitution comes down to OUR FEELS (SCOTUS) anyway. Late-term abortion was a right until Alito replaced O'Connor, and then it wasn't. There's no such thing as determinism when it comes to these matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Very seriously though DudeManBro, its kind of hard to be picky and choosy with alcohol, but believe that marijuana should be a criminal offence given its relative potential for abuse. If we go along your point of regulating and taxing alcohol, where is the line in the sand for you regarding dangerous substances? What is the limit that makes alcohol a thing we can allow, whereas other substances should be a criminal offence to take part in? If there's a particular worry about legalization that you feel is core to the issue, these guys can likely dig up some well sourced studies for you. Disregard for a minute the costs of enforcement and assume that weed will make me a violent murderer (wont happen). Despite this enforcement, drug use in the states has flourished whereas more lax countries have had declines in use. edit: As far as the states right issue, lot of it comes down to popular opinion and opinions of human rights. As society starts to realize that their white wives aren't going to run off with black men over weed, and that the states that have legalized it aren't collapsing as a result of it, its going to very much become a non-issue. For the same reason the Feds would never allow a state to state to imprison someone wearing the color green, its eventually going to hit the point where cultural norms lessen or eliminate the penaltys associated with it. If there health concerns that were more notable, or if as a drug it put others at substantial risk, this might be a different story, but as it stands people are seeing it as a non-issue. You would have an issue time arguing to ban caffeine and cough syrup for their potential for abuse honestly. w00tmonger fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:Disregard for a minute the costs of enforcement and assume that weed will make me a violent murderer (wont happen). Now that you mention it, a brief anecdote -- my wife is finishing up nursing school, and just last night her mental-health instructor showed slides with DSM-V information (i.e. freshly updated) and then proceeded among other things to claim that marijuana "scrambles your neurotransmitters something nasty", that it is "just as addictive as heroin" and "ruins many lives". She might as well have showed them Reefer Madness. Edit: At least she did admit that alcohol was in the worst category, since it's the only substance from which detoxification can actually kill you (seizures, hypotension, etc.) Whether or not that is strictly true, I don't know, but still at least a worthwhile point (unlike the rest of her lecture, I gather). mdemone fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Plus our Constitution comes down to OUR FEELS (SCOTUS) anyway. Late-term abortion was a right until Alito replaced O'Connor, and then it wasn't. There's no such thing as determinism when it comes to these matters. That's just because they didn't have DudeManBro to inform them of the inconsistency of their positions 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Do you have any consistency at all to your political ideology? So far your only argument is "they should be allowed to ban X if MY FEELS tell me X is a bad thing. They should not be allowed to ban X if MY FEELS tell me X is a good thing". A principle of a constitutional democracy is equal basic liberties. Selective prohibition violates this principle: quote:Where the law creates a presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. This is especially so where the criminal law is used, and emphatically so where the more harmful liberty (e.g., consuming alcohol and tobacco) is allowed for reasons well and widely understood. To the extent that a political regime fails to protect basic liberties like bodily autonomy in substantially equal fashion, then, it is illegitimate and unstable, losing its character as a constitutional democracy. quote:“(w)hen the law lays an uneven hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense ... it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for repressive treatment.” quote:Democracy is ordered liberty, and so liberty may, indeed must, be restricted in some ways, even using the blunt instrument of the criminal law in some cases. From a constitutional perspective, the problem is that these writers implicitly move from this premise directly to the conclusion that government may therefore draw the line between criminal and lawful acts wherever it chooses. Yet this is seriously mistaken. Our bedrock constitutional principle is not liberty. It is equal liberty. quote:If consumption of all three substances were treated the same, then - either all regulated or all prohibited – the law would violate equal liberty on that ground alone. Yet under U.S. and most State law, the possession and use of cannabis by adults is punished more harshly, subject to prohibition, not mere regulation.46 The problem is thus not simply that cannabis users are similarly situated to drinkers and smokers, yet differently treated. The law’s imbalance – its disproportionality - is even greater than this, for far from posing as much risk to genuine state interests as those who drink and smoke, especially in public, adult cannabis users pose less, especially in the home. On a fair application of the equal liberty principle, then, the legal punishment for tobacco or alcohol use, particularly in public, should be greater than that for cannabis, not less. quote:If it truly did not matter, as critics imply, where government draws the line between legal and criminal acts, then the U.S. could punish alcohol use based on gender or tobacco use based on race with the following official statement on the DEA and ONDCP webpages: KingEup fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Now that you mention it, a brief anecdote -- my wife is finishing up nursing school, and just last night her mental-health instructor showed slides with DSM-V information (i.e. freshly updated) and then proceeded among other things to claim that marijuana "scrambles your neurotransmitters something nasty", that it is "just as addictive as heroin" and "ruins many lives". She might as well have showed them Reefer Madness. Thais crazy. See, a bunch of this can be sort of compared to the gay rights movement. Basically, more and more people know stoners who otherwise have normal lives and do a good job being a part of society. Much like the idea of "pedophile Gays" being eroded by people interacting with gay family members, exposure to users has started making people more accepting of marijuana. On the other-hand, maybe I'm just hitting this bong to hard to realize Im a hated minority
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Edit: At least she did admit that alcohol was in the worst category, since it's the only substance from which detoxification can actually kill you (seizures, hypotension, etc.) Whether or not that is strictly true, I don't know, but still at least a worthwhile point (unlike the rest of her lecture, I gather). Benzo withdrawal can do that too. A mental health instructor really ought to know that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Benzo withdrawal can do that too. A mental health instructor really ought to know that. Heh, if you knew what I knew about this particular institution it wouldn't be shocking, and I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that it's not surprising they can only manage to hire the sort of medical professional who thinks the dependence-qualities of cannabis are on the same level as The loving King Of Opioids. Jesus Harold Christ on a jet-ski.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Benzo withdrawal can do that too. A mental health instructor really ought to know that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:
Like, Friday? It's Book Barn, not here. I'm still figuring out what all the new buttons do. mdemone posted:Now that you mention it, a brief anecdote -- my wife is finishing up nursing school, and just last night her mental-health instructor showed slides with DSM-V information (i.e. freshly updated) and then proceeded among other things to claim that marijuana "scrambles your neurotransmitters something nasty", that it is "just as addictive as heroin" and "ruins many lives". She might as well have showed them Reefer Madness. I went to a similar lecture on the DSM V this past friday and was similarly surprised by some of the anti-marijuana comments made in passing during the lecture. Oh no, someone has some personality changes and is using marijuana! Clearly they are suffering from cannabis use disorder, not using cannabis to self-medicate some other issue!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Elotana posted:That hasn't been my only argument at all. I've already given you the Con Law 101 lesson on how cannabis federalism is going to work and why it is or isn't distinguished from other issues you posed under current law under very basic, well-known 10th and 14th precedent. I haven't said a single thing about my personal ideology. Try reading instead of projecting. Again, this is an internet forum, not con law 101. No one gives a crap about how things work right now. We are interested in your own personal opinions about how things should be. If I wanted to read wikipedia articles about how the US constitution works, I would go do that. Remember, internet discussion forum... Please share YOUR opinions, not cut/pastes off wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well aren't you special. Here, I'll give you a list. You tick off the ones you'd ban. I'm really not a fan of that graph, as much as it gets passed around. I get that Nutt is a respected researcher, but the source of those numbers is literally two people to rate them on a scale of 1-100 and then using a weighted average of the criteria. The graph really implies far more objectivity than is actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Again, this is an internet forum, not con law 101. No one gives a crap about how things work right now. We are interested in your own personal opinions about how things should be. No, basically the entire set of arguments against you in this thread have been about how things actually work right now. And if that was really your problem then you'd have said something ages ago since this is hardly the first time you were responding to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Idran posted:No, basically the entire set of arguments against you in this thread have been about how things actually work right now. And if that was really your problem then you'd have said something ages ago since this is hardly the first time you were responding to it.  No, literally every time I posed a question in this thread I used the word "should". "Should they be allowed to...." I think you need to go back and quote every post of mine where I used "are they allowed to" vs "should they be able to". Go and compare "should's" vs "are's". Honestly dude, did you really think this entire discussion was me asking someone to google Wikipedia articles for me? Why didn't I just google them myself? When I asked "what do YOU think SHOULD happen?" you honestly thought I meant "Don't tell me your opinion, instead just cut paste wikipedia articles". Really? That's what you thought? Sounds like an obvious troll to me. Nice try though. Now why don't you tell me your opinion on this question that I have asked many many times. Federal government passes a law making X illegal. State passes a law making X legal. Who do YOU think SHOULD decide what's legal in that particular state? Is there consistency in your answer or does your answer flip flop day to day, week to week, hour to hour, depending on what X is? Are you ideologically consistent? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Again, this is an internet forum, not con law 101. No one gives a crap about how things work right now. We are interested in your own personal opinions about how things should be. If I wanted to read wikipedia articles about how the US constitution works, I would go do that. You should take your own advice and write something about why YOU think cannabis should be illegal that isn't "well rules are rules and federalism blah blah". Your argument as far as I can tell boils down to saying cannabis shouldn't be legal because its illegal which is a common argument that is used against reform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You should take your own advice and write something about why YOU think cannabis should be illegal that isn't "well rules are rules and federalism blah blah". Your argument as far as I can tell boils down to saying cannabis shouldn't be legal because its illegal which is a common argument that is used against reform. Same reason why I'm against letting Alabama pass a law saying evolution is banned in Science class. You would be cool with Alabama doing that I take it? Are you also cool with Arkansas ignoring federal gun control programs and letting anyone buy any gun they want? What if Texas wants to pass a law banning gay marriage. You are cool with all these things happening? Yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Remember, internet discussion forum... Please share YOUR opinions, not cut/pastes off wikipedia. Please share your opinion RE: CheesyDog posted:So, you're saying that rhetoric is less important to you than the end result, even if that rhetoric is at odds with your other stated beliefs. Oddly, that seems inconsistent with your criticisms in this thread! It seems odd that you only respond to certain posts. Kind of... inconsistent...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Same reason why I'm against letting Alabama pass a law saying evolution is banned in Science class. You think it's harmful to cognitive development? Well, I guess that's consistent with a belief that alcohol should be prescription only.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Same reason why I'm against letting Alabama pass a law saying evolution is banned in Science class. Kinda missing the point here. So much of it is a case of relative harms. If I smoke weed, worst case scenario is I say crash a car (but really...). With guns, gay marriage, or evolution, your dealing with the fact that someone is causing problems on the community as a whole. Even outside of that, if your end goal is to make sure marijuana's off the streets and out of the hands of kids, making it illegal isn't the way and clearly hasn't worked. Regulating it at least means you can have some control to make sure people aren't getting poisoned and keep it out of the hands of organized crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Please share your opinion RE: Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. Now, please share your opinion with us. Are you ideologically consistent or does your support of state vs federal change on every single issue? Are you guided by some kind of coherent philosophy when it comes to politics or are you just and emotion trumps all, gently caress consistency, kind of guy? Doc Hawkins posted:You think it's harmful to cognitive development? Well, I guess that's consistent with a belief that alcohol should be prescription only. Why is this directed at me? I don't think I ever argued alcohol should be prescription only. I think you need to read the thread. w00tmonger posted:Kinda missing the point here. So much of it is a case of relative harms. If I smoke weed, worst case scenario is I say crash a car (but really...). With guns, gay marriage, or evolution, your dealing with the fact that someone is causing problems on the community as a whole. Yeah, you are kinda missing the point here. This argument isn't really about you smoking weed. It is mostly about how state and federal governments interact with each other and how we think that relationship should work. I'm against letting Colorado ban evolution in public schools. I'm also against letting them ignore federal gun control laws. I guess you could say I'm ideologically consistent on these kinds of issues. What about you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Same reason why I'm against letting Alabama pass a law saying evolution is banned in Science class. So to answer my question, you have no reasons to not want cannabis legalized other than "rules are rules". GuyDudeBroMan posted:Again, this is an internet forum, not con law 101. No one gives a crap about how things work right now. We are interested in your own personal opinions about how things should be. If I wanted to read wikipedia articles about how the US constitution works, I would go do that. You don't want to talk about the constitution or the history of federalism but your only objection is on some flimsy dogmatic adherence to a fake idea of what federalism is because of your ignorance of constitutional law. Seems like this will end up being a productive discussion. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I dont think GayDudeman realizes that prohibition didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I dont think GayDudeman realizes that prohibition didn't work. He is quite clearly trolling and the only way it could be more blatant is if he was spouting rhetoric similar to his "70% of minimum wage earners are just supplementary income to middle class* families!  " stuff from the Robots in jobs thread.* where "middle class" means "literally the median household income". computer parts fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You don't want to talk about the constitution or the history of federalism but your only objection is on some flimsy dogmatic adherence to a fake idea of what federalism is because of your ignorance of constitutional law. Seems like this will end up being a productive discussion. I'm in general agreement with the Printz decision, and I don't see why you have a hair up your rear end about it except that you don't want to debate the actual policy of legalization for whatever reason, just show your rear end at the federalism window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Prohibitionist admits that the forced rehab (instead of jail) schtick is just a money making scam, quote:Project SAM -- the misnamed “Smart Approaches to Marijuana” -- opposes marijuana legalization and aims to redirect adults caught by police with cannabis into drug courts and rehabs. So it was quite a surprise to hear Stephen Colbert interview of SAM’s founder, former Rhode Island congressman Patrick Kennedy, as he admitted that there is an acceptable level for marijuana use, that marijuana is far safer than the pharmaceutical drugs he was addicted to, and that Colbert should “invest in rehabs.” This is quite funny. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:It seems odd that you only respond to certain posts. Kind of... inconsistent... Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. Now, please share your opinion with us. Are you ideologically consistent or does your support of state vs federal change on every single issue? Are you guided by some kind of coherent philosophy when it comes to politics or are you just and emotion trumps all, gently caress consistency, kind of guy? Why is this directed at me? I don't think I ever argued alcohol should be prescription only. I think you need to read the thread. Yeah, you are kinda missing the point here. This argument isn't really about you smoking weed. It is mostly about how state and federal governments interact with each other and how we think that relationship should work. I'm against letting Colorado ban evolution in public schools. I'm also against letting them ignore federal gun control laws. I guess you could say I'm ideologically consistent on these kinds of issues. What about you? [/quote] Yes. Totally against those. What you're not putting together is that what's taught in schools and how guns are controlled is a matter which affects people outwardly, whereas this is something that doesn't result in deaths going up or people pushing an ideology. Federal laws step in when there's room for local abuses, and as shown in anywhere that has weed, they haven't suffered as a result. If we allowed slavery again in the south, people would suffer on a whole mother level. On the ideology front, you could see how s government wouldn't want to stimmy its education system by actively discouraging what is scientific. gently caress, this argument is absurd. Seriously, on the municipal level weed sale can be banned to. This is a zoning issue. You might as well states should not have control, and all decisions should be left to individual ridings, if not family's. Laws are more nuanced than saying ultimately all laws should be under a state or federal level. Not all problems are equal and have different scopes and implications
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Like, Friday? It's Book Barn, not here. I'm still figuring out what all the new buttons do. I imagine that the addiction medicine specialists have a hell of a lot riding on prohibition continuing to exist for as long as possible. When hundreds of your colleagues could be out of work practically overnight, I imagine you work hard to justify their existence. Edit: While I'm at it, let's just throw private prisons and the police, too. I think everybody knows better at this point and they're all just trying to stop progress because Jobs. Some people are going to be employed by the marijuana industry (probably a LOT of people) but I really doubt it's going to come close to making up for the number of people employed to prevent Marijuana's use. It'll be better for everybody in the long run, but short term it's going to be a big punch in the teeth. I think when federal legalization starts to come up to the plate, this is going to be a long, drawn out process designed to keep as many people in their jobs for as long as humanly possible. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He is quite clearly trolling and the only way it could be more blatant is if he was spouting rhetoric similar to his "70% of minimum wage earners are just supplementary income to middle class* families! Why didn't you post a critique of the university study then? I don't understand why you think "math" and "statistics" are trolling. How do you formulate your political ideology if math and science are not allowed? Do you do it purely by emotion? Wow... I guess that explains a lot about your posting history. I'm not really sure I buy it though. Are you sure you aren't just trolling us? I have a strong feeling you are arguing in bad faith here. "Statistics have no place in economic debate" is a very strange argument to make. You are the first person I've ever met who has tried to argue such a thing. Anyways back to the topic of the thread. Look I get it you guys. The argument here is that "ideological consistency has no place in formulating government policy. It is far more important to be able to smoke weed right now today than to have to worry about things like legal precedent, or being ideologically consistent" (of course Computer Parts would also add that math and statistics also have no place in the formulation of government policy, but I think the rest of us disagree with him on that). It's a valid argument. I just have to ask though. Is "ideological consistency doesn't matter" only something that is important to yourselves or do you also want your elected officials to believe that way as well? Should supreme court justices make decisions based on emotion or should they try and worry about things like consistency? Does it really not matter at all? Smoking weed right now today is more important?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Why didn't you post a critique of the university study then? I don't understand why you think "math" and "statistics" are trolling. How do you formulate your political ideology if math and science are not allowed? Do you do it purely by emotion? Wow... I guess that explains a lot about your posting history. I'm not really sure I buy it though. Are you sure you aren't just trolling us? I have a strong feeling you are arguing in bad faith here. "Statistics have no place in economic debate" is a very strange argument to make. You are the first person I've ever met who has tried to argue such a thing. Because Middle Class doesn't literally mean the middle of a graph, you moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because Middle Class doesn't literally mean the middle of a graph, you moron. From wikipedia: quote:The term middle class in more colloquial language use may refer to all those individuals who might at one point or another be identified as middle class, as they occupy neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. Most of those with households income between $40,000 and $95,000 identify as "middle class". The term can also be used to describe those at the actual center of the income strata, who may also be referred to as the middle-middle class. There are many different theories on the middle-middle class. The middle-middle class may be composed of those households with annual incomes of 80% to 120% of the national median household income. Persons in this income range could, in accordance to solely economic reasoning, be referred to as the American average. Such households would boast annual incomes ranging from $35,200 to $52,800, and thus be located in the middle of the income range.[10] Oh jeez this does not look good for you my friend. Are you sure it's wikipedia's definition that is "moronic" and not your own? Why do you disagree with them on this? I'm not sure you understand what "definition" means here. The "definition" of a word isn't what you and you alone think the word means. Society as a whole has to come together and agree on what a word means. That is how the definition gets made. It doesn't matter if you think it means something different. Look, I'm sorry "middle class" doesn't mean what you what it to mean, and the rest of the world has a different definition. That is not my problem. Are you sure it's everyone else but you that is a moron here though? \/\/\/ Are you talking to me or computer parts? I guess I'll peace out until someone answers my question about the kind of value we should place on having a consistent ideology, if such a trait is useful in a politician/judge, or if it even matters at all. GuyDudeBroMan fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Don't you think you've done enough harm for one thread yet?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:00
|
|
