Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[negative creep]

The military is a useful tool for our generation. It's a way out of poverty for many people and a way to pay for school for others.

There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.

Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.

One more thing before I leave this thread: I firmly believe that militaries will be necessary as long as people believe them to be. Once they stop, we won't need them anymore.

[JazzyJoe]

You say it like it's a bad thing that people think it is more important to protest something wrong than sit at home and watch TV...

Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.

There are better ways of dealing with poverty or inability to afford college education than an economic draft.

So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...

I'd love to, but there isn't a world handy without governments and their armed forces. If you find one let me know, I'll be off like a shot. Until then, the right to protest is one of the few bits of a truly democratic society that exist around the world so yes, I'd say it is a cornerstone of any decent society.

Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.

Also, I can't get quite rid of the feeling that YOUR government is keeping certain demographics poor on purpose to always have enough people desperate enough to enlist.

No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong. 

[Alex C]

Well, looking at the Federalist papers and the way our system of government was structured, it's kind of hard to argue that the United States didn't limit the power of the poor by design, just like every other country of the day. The founding fathers were generally rather open with their stance that the middle class was too ignorant to govern, that the rich cannot be trusted and that giving suffrage to the poor would be even worse and could result in the popular vote forcing a redistribution of wealth. Much like capitalism, the the entire US system is based in large part on the idea that no one group is capable of looking out for anyone but themselves. Besides, this is Berkeley we're talking about here; many of the people who are protesting there do not believe "like normal" is acceptable to begin with. Don't you find it a little naive to believe that the government isn't capable of stacking the deck against various social classes? Governments have been doing that for hundreds of years; you could easily make the argument that the entire function of government is to dilineate whose rights will be deferred to at any given time. I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.

[Sox]

Edit: I took a while to type this, Whipstitch got in there first. He says what I say at the end of this post far more eloquently.

The only time a protest is 'useless' is when nobody listens, thankyou. Things might be 'normal' but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is wrong either. It's just what you're used to. If a person is okay with being treated poorly because it's 'normal' then that's entirely up to them. Personally, I'd like to see improvement on many subjects than be content with their current state because it's "normal". Sitting around and watching TV is "normal", but I don't think that's healthy. Minimum wage is "normal" but I think it's far too little. Racism, sexism, all forms of prejudice are "normal", but they HAVE to stop in order for us to progress as a species.

The economic draft is, I believe, bullshit. It's taking advantage of people who can't afford anything else, people who have given up hope on finding another way out. The government should be providing alternative ways of dealing with poverty in it's country. Signing the poor over the military is a horrible and unfair practice. The alternative, however, is 'stay poor'.

There is currently no nation that successfully reached 'utopia' because no nation has ever made a real effort. Nobody is willing to take the first step. a country such as the US announcing plans to get rid of all it's nuclear weapons would be a great first step, but it'll never happen because people don't trust people. Whenever a person comes along and suggest such things, they're dismissed as a fool.

JazzJoe, suggesting that a government doesn't have the power to keep certain demographics poor is incredibly naive. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the world's wealth is owned by a relatively small number of people? Surely, if taxes work like they're supposed to, things like this wouldn't be such an issue. Unfortunately, a single mother on minimum wage pays more in taxes than a millionaire businessman in the US, and the only reason this is possible is because of laws and loopholes that the government put in place. 
The poorest people in the worst living conditions in the US are primarily black. Why? It's not a genetic trait that makes a person predisposed to being poor. It's the same thing again. Black communities receiving less 'special attention' from their government than the privileged rich white people.
Why would a government do this? Well, in the particular examples I brought up, it's all about money and racism. When your government makes promises, always check the fine print. For example, all those tax cuts that were made? Read about them carefully. Who really benefit the most? The poor black community, or the rich white men?

[a pack of wolves]

Useless protesting gives the idea that things are in wrong when in reality things are just running like normal.

Things running like normal is wrong. Even if you disagree with that, wouldn't you agree that the right to and existence of protesting is necessary to any healthy democracy? Not that I'm saying the US is a healthy democracy, but it's something at least.

So people finding ways out of poverty is wrong? Or perhaps its choosing to help their country instead of turn to crime thats wrong...

Nobody suggested that, but the military isn't a particularly effective tool for getting people out of poverty so arguing in favour of it because it sometimes has that effect doesn't hold up very well. High quality free education and healthcare would be a much better use of the funds put into the military if getting people out of poverty was the concern.

Its called a utopia... look at every nation that went for that ideal. EVERYONE is hated by someone. Therefore conflict is always a hazard. True leaders are the ones that realize their love of peace isn't as strong a force as the hatred of others.

No it isn't, a utopia is a perfect world. A world without governments and their armed forces would not necessarily be utopian. It also isn't impossible, the idea that humans are incapable of changing their societies just doesn't hold up. We aren't burning people for witchcraft and many countries have moved on from monarchies and feudalism. Why should we assume nation-states and standing armies are inevitable?

However, I am unable to look at countries who went for the ideal of ridding themselves of their governments and armed forces since their aren't any I can think of. For example, the elements who were urging this in the Spanish and Russian revolutions were wiped out by various elements in the former and the Bolsheviks in the second, so in neither instance could the country be described as following that route. In fact, to go for it I would argue disregarding the idea of individual countries separated by strictly controlled borders would be a necessity, so no country as an entity would be able to pursue that ideal.

No, that's an idiotic idea. The government doesn't have that amount of power anyway... no matter how much conspiracy nuts want to call me wrong. 

It doesn't give them much encouragement to do anything about poverty if it provides them with the human resources for their armed forces which they rely upon though. I would agree with you that the power of elected officials is often minimal, but given that allowing them large armed forces at their beck and call seems an ever more ill-advised idea since in reality they'll act in the interests of the larger power that controls the government.

[JazzyJoe]

To put this to bed I am not talking about forcing poor people to join the military. Poor people joining the military happens anyway, the poor and young have always been the ones to die.

When has the poor ever had power besides uniting to overthrow? That is not happening anymore since everyone is looking out for themselves... which is going in a circle basically. Every nation favors the rich and to some degree the middle class. As long as the world has money poor people WILL be stepped on no matter how perfect a country is. I am not condoning this at all. I just know that is how it works. However thinking that the US government is forcing people to stay poor is not true. Also blaming the government for keeping people poor is a very convenient excuse for poor people that want wealth without work.

I like the United States and don't think it's near as bad as the loudest protesters make it out to be, but I'm perfectly okay with a little protest keeping discussion alive.

I also agree with this point. I just don't see much protesting as useful. More like people holding onto an era in the US that did basically nothing.


I don't care to reply to Sox's post.. don't try to tie racism to a and sexism to your post to try and make yourself look right. Also I know  many people that simply WORKED to get themselves out of debt or poverty, I don't care to debate this subject with you Sox. You seem to ignorant for me to care.

[Sox]

There's a difference between forcing somebody into doing something, or giving them no other option. It's a small difference as far as government is concerned. A lot of people who join the military because they are poor do so because they don't really have a better option. The current attitude seems to be 'sign up or stay poor'. It's okay telling people to work into order to achieve something, but surely, a government has an obligation to give it's people the necessary tools to help themselves? Other people have suggested that more focus should be placed on better education, they have a point.

Please, don't stop the debate. I do not think that you are wrong, I'd very much like to continue the discussion with you. Working yourself out of poverty is the right way to do it, but some people just aren't in that position. People without qualifications, people who can't get a job that pays more than the minimum wage. Yes, these people will always exist. Unless we demand change.

[JazzyJoe]

It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.

[KharBevNor]

JazzyJoe, what economic class would you say you belonged to?

[Sox]

 

It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.

Except for the part where it isn't. It's proof that some people have been in a situation where they are able to work themselves out of debt.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm nowhere near informed enough to know whether people are being screwed into poverty or not, but you definitely need more 'proof' than that.
People are certainly forced into poor conditions in developing countries, I don't see why a developed country would be any different. All it takes is a corrupt government.

[a pack of wolves]

Not even a corrupt government is necessary, at least not a legally corrupt one. You just need a government willing to let the status quo stand rather than upsetting the rich, powerful elements in society by attempting to redistribute the wealth they hoard.

[Sox]

Which is, by my personal definition, corrupt.

[calenlass]

You know, I would think the existence of all the "Get Out Of Debt" companies and federal and fiscal aid programs you can sign up for would set off more people's suspicions about our society being set up to put people in debt just so some other people can make money helping them out of it. I mean, I guess it is our excessively consumerist society and the vicious capitalisation by the debt management companies that are to blame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still kind of a set-up.


Or it could all be a government conspiracy, too, I guess.



Edit: Instead of double posting I guess I will edit.

It's not a dick move, the simple fact that people are working themselves out of poverty or debt is proof against the poor being forced to stay poor.

You do realise that most people in America never actually work themselves out of debt entirely, right? There is a reason there are laws now state that upon a person's death, any debt they may have incurred during their lifetime that still exists will be repaid by the liquidation of the person's assets and estate, but if that is not sufficient to pay the debt, the rest of it disappears. Otherwise there would be so much debt being passed down from generation to generation that either no one would ever be free of it, and by this point we would probably all have been born into family debts we could never dream of paying.


I find myself very close to being in debt; I am about $2500 away from it, I would say. If it weren't for the Hope Scholarship that I get from the state government because of my grades, I'd already be in it. I am also faced with being a newcomer to a community with an excessive supply of part-time labour (other students) and very little demand for it, either because all the positions are taken or because of the current state of the economy. I have basically come up against a wall, and I am slowly draining my savings account because I actually can not get a job. If no one will hire you, there's simply very little you can actually do about it.

[JazzyJoe]

Yeah I know alot of debts go unpaid. Still you can't blame the government for people that don't know dick about money... that is if we are talking on the same level.

[jhocking]

No way man. The problem is that poor people don't want money.

[Dissy]

CALLING ANY MODERATOR:  LOCK THIS TOPIC

REPEAT:

CALLING ANY MODERATOR:  LOCK THIS TOPIC

[Sox]

This topic is doing fine. Why does it need to be locked? If you don't like it, don't read it. Several people have made some really great points and raised some very important questions. Locking the thread before a conclusion or rebuttal at this stage would be a dick move.

[negative creep]

No way man. The problem is that poor people don't want money.

No, they're poor because they are lazy fucks.

[Dissy]

From the Rules thread:

Threads about religion & politics are undesireable in this forum because they are two topics that make Jeph angry/set off his depression. He has specifically asked us to kill these kinds of topics, especially if they are veering into argumentative or "DOOOOM!" modes.

This has broken down into a political debate. 

[KharBevNor]

JazzyJoe, what economic class would you say you belonged to?

I repeat the question. I want to know if you have ever actually been poor. I feel this is vitally important.

Also, you CAN blame the government for people having poor fiscal skills, because that is an aspect of education. Poor educations are one of the many things that sustain class divisions. I mean, look at me. I'm middle class, my parents are well-off, I went to private school, I got into a good university. I'm pretty much guaranteed a good job*. There's social factors as well; anyone find it interesting that there's not much mass produced media emphasising the benefits of saving and working hard, but lots suggesting that conspicuous consumption is the mark of wealth and social status? And then there's the criminal justice system of course. Crime is a big shitter. Put simply, if you're poor, and live in a shitty neighbourhood, and went to a crap school, you're more likely to commit crimes. You're going to steal because you're poor as shit and can't get a better job than working the counter at mcdonalds because you have no qualifications. You're going to take drugs because your life sucks (and here we could go into the inequalities and ridiculous harshness of drug laws, especially in America. Look up the penalties for possession of poor, often coloured peoples drugs like crack and meth, and then look up penalties for possession of rich peoples drugs like powder cocaine and vicodin). Ironically of course, once you have a criminal record, you're basically fucked for life. You get out of prison, you've got no money, you've got nowhere to live because you could never get on the property ladder**, you can't get a loan because you've got a criminal record, you can't get a decent job, your only viable solution, really, is to commit more crimes.

Society is wonderful.



*not actually true, as I'm doing a Fine Art BA.

**I don't think anyones yet bought up how utterly crucial this is.

[JazzyJoe]

I am lower middle class. My parents are local missionaries so I basically support myself for everything besides shelter since it just wouldn't be possible for me to live on my own now... that is without working too many horrible jobs only to afford a terrible, small apartment.  One reason why I am going into the military. For what I want to do I might be able to make a decent living... and if my past work history follows me I may be able to make my way through the ranks.

Also sorry for not answering earlier... this forum layout is causing me to miss a few posts here or there. I am new here... meh...

[KharBevNor]

So, you live with your parents.

And you can't personally be bothered to work your way up the economic ladder the hard way.

Interesting.

[JazzyJoe]

So, you live with your parents.

And you can't personally be bothered to work your way up the economic ladder the hard way.

Interesting.

I am working my way up the ladder. I just promised myself I wouldn't end up at a desk when I was about 12. Hence... military...

[a pack of wolves]

You get out of prison, you've got no money, you've got nowhere to live because you could never get on the property ladder**, you can't get a loan because you've got a criminal record, you can't get a decent job, your only viable solution, really, is to commit more crimes.

You're also quite possibly also institutionalised, or have a serious substance abuse problem, or severe mental health problems. Prison has to be the single most blatant example of why taking revenge on people who transgress is a really, really, titanically bad idea. The concept of taking people who in a large amount of cases are already screwed up and placing them for an extended period in an environment which is practically guaranteed to horrifically damage their minds, and then send them back into a society which has been conditioned to treat them even more poorly than before they went in is utterly insane to me. The last time I did vote it was for the Green party, but not because of their environmental policies (which were ok, if a bit wishy-washy). It was because they promised prison reform.

[Sox]

Please, this thread is doing you no harm. If you don't like it, don't read it. The fact it's active on the front page shouldn't bother you. A good portion of the negativity in this thread is from people needlessly calling out for locks and/or complaining about the thread seemingly for no other reason other than that they dislike the discussion of 'heavy' issues.
Take the negativity to some other place.

[Ozymandias]

The threat of Jeph being annoyed with INTENSE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS and locked yet another random forum is enough potential harm for me to agree with Anyways.

[Sox]

If Jeph doesn't like it, he shouldn't read it. It's an easy decision. Your biggest worry should be Jeph coming in here and seeing a bunch of asshats incapable of handling a political debate. If these so-called 'political arguments' were really the threat you think they are, we'd have seen a lot more locks in the past few weeks than we have. Fortunately, we are good at political debate and such action hasn't been required.

Stay calm, if you don't like it, don't read it. If you're really as worried as you're trying to convey, stay out of the thread and don't make the situation any worse by complaining about it. I hope I won't need to repeat this again.

[sean]

Sox, this thread should be locked. Political talk is clearly against the rules and having this thread is way too dangerous. The only reason why this thread hasn't been locked is cause we really only have one active mod (Harry (Inlander))

Basically, the thread is a land mine and if we keep it open much longer, somebody's gonna fucking step on it. 

And jeph is no stranger to locking forums. Go look at the sandbox and don't be stupid, or whatever its called.

[jhocking]

I hope I won't need to repeat this again.

Wow, for a guy who's only been here a week you sure are acting like you own the place.

[Sox]

Several threads were moved and/or locked in the time this thread has been active. There are active mods and they have seen this thread. Threads don't get dangerous as long as people are being sensible. That is why they haven't been locked, yet. Inlander said it best when he said "I won't lock this thread...because I shouldn't have to."

I took a look at the old, locked forums. They weren't locked because of arguments or political debate. They were locked because of immaturity. Please realise that the complaints are quite possibly the loudest parts of these discussions. They're obviously having zero-impact and serve only to create more fuss where there shouldn't be any. If you don't want locked forums, prove that you are capable of handling these debates. They're not against the rules because Jeph hates politics and religion. I'm fairly certain that Jeph is a sane and rational man. The reason they are against the rules is because he doesn't think we can handle it. That's the only rational explanation. Show him that you can handle a little heated discussion like an adult, like KharBevNor, A Pack Of Wolves, Tommydski, Switchblade, Schimmy, Jhocking, Ruyi and many others that I can not remember off the top of my head.

[jhocking]

Switchblade... Jhocking

It's kind of ironic listing us among your examples of maturity. If you want to know why it's ironic, well, it was a long time ago.

[Sox]

Well, we all grow more mature with time. I'm going by only what I have seen in the past week. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's irrelevant now.

[calenlass]

If Jeph doesn't like it, he shouldn't read it.

You seem to fail to understand the fact that these are his forums and exist by his whims alone.

[Trollstormur]

[a pack of wolves]

I'm with tommy and Sox. If we can't occasionally have an adult discussion then we might as well just replace I Like Fish with a funny cat picture and leave it at that. Party politics should be left well alone, as should those of us who don't align themselves with a party getting up on their soapbox and ranting, but there are several threads on this board right now that I would call definitely political (the bodies thread, the one about the Balkans, the tazer thread) and all have been perfectly sensible.