ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

Subsidies are a necessity for agriculture. If there wasn't any, price of food would explode because farmers, at current prices, would run a deficit for the vast majority of them.

Sort of. They are a necessity for modern industrial agriculture. Contemporary farming practices promote industrial monocultures which, while mechanically efficient, introduce a whole host of new problems. Those problems are big ag’s windfall, but are not necessary to feed the nation. The existence of subsidies destroys competition in agriculture, and that is what causes inflation.

"

faerwin wrote:

It's also needed for many other sector that would otherwise be unable to make back its money such as space exploration.

Space exploration is poised to become the most profitable venture in human history, what are you talking about? Even if we don’t make it out to Mars and the asteroids within our lifetime, the discoveries in astrophysics and astronomy lead to better technologies that can be applied across the entire spectrum of human industry. Science itself is perfectly profit motivated, since every new discovery leads to better products and services. You suggest that profit and the betterment of the human condition are mutually exclusive things; they aren’t. Economy is the single greatest human invention, and the only sustainable way to “make the world a better place.”

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Oh, I get it now. You’re statist, and you’re jealous that the Mormons are better at looking after their own than some stranger 600 miles away is at looking after you.

Since pooling money to pay for stuff is so socialist, I figure that people are just anti-social and don't enjoy any privileges and benefits of being in the group. I reckon stripping them of their rights and throwing them into the ocean more appropriate than throwing them in prison. Prison is the epitome of socialist haven, according Joe Arpaio. Housing them in an institution that they refuse to pay for, ridiculous.

I don’t think I understand what your position is.

Edit: Also, you should bold “anti” to show that you altered my quote.

"

faerwin wrote:

It's also needed for many other sector that would otherwise be unable to make back its money such as space exploration.

Space exploration is poised to become the most profitable venture in human history, what are you talking about? Even if we don’t make it out to Mars and the asteroids within our lifetime, the discoveries in astrophysics and astronomy lead to better technologies that can be applied across the entire spectrum of human industry. Science itself is perfectly profit motivated, since every new discovery leads to better products and services. You suggest that profit and the betterment of the human condition are mutually exclusive things; they aren’t. Economy is the single greatest human invention, and the only sustainable way to “make the world a better place.”[/quote]


It eventually will be, but it isn't right now. Consider how long it's gonna take for it to even become profitable without including cost of research and development and you'll realize that from an economic venture, it's suicide because it will cost billions to develop and could take decades before seeing the first dollar from the investment. The Hadron collider is the same thing, "The total operating budget of the LHC runs to about $1 billion per year. The Large Hadron Collider was first turned on in August of 2008, then stopped for repairs in September until November 2009. Taking all of those costs into consideration, the total cost of finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion" It would never have been profitable to research and build that in the lifetime of a privately owned company (and it wouldn't share its results with the rest of the world).

The truth is simple, you need the governments for these kind of things otherwise there's no actual scientific knowledge gained (because they would keep it to themselves to have a monopoly). As such, science needs to stay gov funded for us to advance as a civilization.


Edit: that's the cost (of the hadron collider) as of july 2012, so you can imagine what it's at now...

"

deathflower wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Oh, I get it now. You’re statist, and you’re jealous that the Mormons are better at looking after their own than some stranger 600 miles away is at looking after you.

Since pooling money to pay for stuff is so socialist, I figure that people are just anti-social and don't enjoy any privileges and benefits of being in the group. I reckon stripping them of their rights and throwing them into the ocean more appropriate than throwing them in prison. Prison is the epitome of socialist haven, according Joe Arpaio. Housing them in an institution that they refuse to pay for, ridiculous.

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show that, as of 2013, there were 133,000 state and federal prisoners housed in privately owned prisons in the U.S., constituting 8.4% of the overall U.S. prison population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Prisons are socialist havens?...

Calling prisons a socialist haven is one of the most retarded thing that can be said about socialism.

"

MBata wrote:

All the people that i know that are Mormon or regularly tithe, do not consider the financial demand a burden and do not believe they are being 'forced' into donating. They give with joy and believe that their contributions go towards the betterment of their community. People who would object strongly enough to contributing 10% of their wages (to the point of feeling they are forced) would leave or never join in the first place.

To the best of my knowledge there is no actual being 'forced' to contribute. There might be peer pressure or they might be strongly urged; but there is not threat to being expelled. Those who are not able to donate are usual recipients of the donations. Those who are not able to donate financially typically donate their time.

I think we are losing the main thread of my initial statement: political conservatives generally donate more money to charity to political liberals. This has nothing to do with religion.

It has to do with how those political spectra believe that the needy should be cared for.

The right believes that the care of those less fortunate should be handled privately.
The left believe that everyone's money should be pooled and that the state should decide how to split it up.

You believe that the reasons for this are due to religious pressures, which is simply a false claim which you can not support with reasoned arguments. A quick search online of the terms "religious private welfare charity" will help you understand this idea more fully.

Edit:
References

Mormons are not forced to tithe on penalty of expulsion

Spoiler

http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm

Protestants are not forced to tithe:

Spoiler

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14400/what-happens-when-a-protestant-doesnt-tithe

According to your link mormons are forced to tithe, or you cannot enter the mormon temple. That's like saying taxes are not forced, but you go to jail if you dont pay. Same difference, forced is forced, and forced charity is not charity.

And as far as protestants go, most do not force tithes, some DO though. There are over 30,000 protestant denominations now, one web link obviously cannot cover all of them.

Some definitely do though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3197218/Georgia-church-booted-longtime-member-92-not-paying-tithes.html

"

Kamchatka wrote:

According to your link mormons are forced to tithe, or you cannot enter the mormon temple. That's like saying taxes are not forced, but you go to jail if you dont pay. Same difference, forced is forced, and forced charity is not charity.

Are you forced to contribute to POE? No. If you do, you get some utility and visual effects. That's how the tithing in the Mormon church works. You can play for free, but if you want in the temple, you must pay. Your original stance was: you have to tithe in the mormon church or you are kicked out. This is obviously incorrect. Now you are looking for other ways to attack YOUR example.

Let's not lose sight of what my original claim was - it had NOTHING to do with religion. I said that people who are politically right-of-center donate a greater portion of their earnings than people who are left-of-center. This is because conservatives believe that social welfare is a personal obligation, and liberals believe it is the responsibility of the state.

You have turned this into a straw-man argument by introducing religious tithing. That argument was not only flimsy, it was not on-topic. You are now clinging to a faulty argument, not because it has anything to do with the original point; your personal pride won't let you accept you are losing this discussion.

An insignificant number of Christian denominations "force" their congregations to pay. In fact, the vast majority of church-goers tithe willingly.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

And as far as protestants go, most do not force tithes, some DO though. There are over 30,000 protestant denominations now, one web link obviously cannot cover all of them.

Some definitely do though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3197218/Georgia-church-booted-longtime-member-92-not-paying-tithes.html

You went from "most force" to "some force" to using a single example that is outrageous. The example is so unique that it made the news in England while the event took place in Georgia, USA. Using such a special case to make a broad statement is not a valid argument.

If you're banned from entering the temple, you're kicked out, same difference.

If I wasn't allowed to log on to POE if I did not donate, then I'm kicked out, same difference.

I said some protestants, not most. I would admit that 'some' is not as precise a term as 'a few'. Happy now?

And I do not disagree with your sentiment, of your original post. I just do not agree With including religious groups that force you to tithe or otherwise ban you from entering the building.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

If you're banned from entering the temple, you're kicked out, same difference.

If I wasn't allowed to log on to POE if I did not donate, then I'm kicked out, same difference.

I said some protestants, not most. I would admit that 'some' is not as precise a term as 'a few'. Happy now?

And I do not disagree with your sentiment, of your original post. I just do not agree With including religious groups that force you to tithe or otherwise ban you from entering the building.

So you don't agree with using the data from the Baptist church in Georgia. They probaly represent less than 0.01% of all religious donations. Noted.

Republicans donate privately to social welfare. Democrats want taxes to cover social welfare. Democrats want to FORCE charity through taxation. Republicans actually donate more to charity. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Your lone example of 'forced' tithing is from the first african baptist church, which falls under the national baptist convention. This religious group is 87% democrat, 5% republican:



I spoke with my LDS neighbor about this topic, she is unaware of anyone EVER being forced or kicked out of the religion. Those unable to pay are recipients of LDS charity, and those severely opposed have converted to another religion (left voluntarily)

You want the world to be a certain way, and are trying to argue it into being that way - when it is simply not.

[Removed by Support]