|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Great clip, thanks for sharing~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I happen to like Ron Paul. He is incredibly smart, he usually sticks to what he says, he seems to be the most pro-average Joe guy in the running. I agree with him about a lot of his economic ideas and his desire to get out of Iraq.
I don't agree with him about gun control, same sex marriage, and some other social issues.
And I agree with some of his ideas about education but not all of them.
So I don't own guns, and don't really care about them because I tend not to frequent places where people get shot a lot. I'm not gay, so I don't care about same sex marriage enough to let it influence my vote much.
Basically, I care about my money (or lack of) and education policy. I could see myself voting for Ron Paul over Obama. But I don't see Ron Paul winning the nomination right now. He hasn't captured the media's attention yet (or they are so scared of him they are ignoring him). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can anyone still seriously doubt that there are powers that be in the background actively working to continually cast Paul as a fringe or wacko candidate or just completely marginalize him? When a bunch of different hosts use exactly the same language in ignoring him, it is obvious.
Luckily, his support seems ot be coming to a point where they won't be able to do it much longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
Can anyone still seriously doubt that there are powers that be in the background actively working to continually cast Paul as a fringe or wacko candidate or just completely marginalize him? When a bunch of different hosts use exactly the same language in ignoring him, it is obvious.
Luckily, his support seems ot be coming to a point where they won't be able to do it much longer. |
Even before this I have acknowledged that pretty much all major news networks cater to the establishment/government. I wonder if the general public will ever catch on to this fact and abandon it television news all together and opt to get their news from the internet instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Can anyone still seriously doubt that there are powers that be in the background actively working to continually cast Paul as a fringe or wacko candidate or just completely marginalize him? When a bunch of different hosts use exactly the same language in ignoring him, it is obvious. |
Any candidate who threatens to take the debate out of 'safe' territory is classified automatically as a wacko. Some because they actually are wackos (although they're letting a lot of those into the game nowadays); some because they advocate sensible measures that go against powerful interests or 'powers that be'.
Which are 'powers that be' in question ought to be obvious: the US military, the biggest and most powerful organisation in the world bar none. I'm guessing they don't like Ron Paul's isolationist stance, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the top thing to like about him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Looking at the clip...Wow. You couldn't make this stuff up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
So I don't own guns, and don't really care about them because I tend not to frequent places where people get shot a lot. I'm not gay, so I don't care about same sex marriage enough to let it influence my vote much. |
So you know certain things are wrong, but because these wrongs don't affect you directly, you disregard them in your voting habits. This very common behavior type is one of the biggest drivers of dysfunction in American politics.
-Who cares if gays and/or ethnic minorities are actively and unjustly discriminated against? I'm not gay and/or an ethnic minority.
-Who cares if gun violence leads to a large number of needless deaths among the urban poor? I don't live near those people.
-Who cares if cutting welfare leads to increased poverty and child poverty? My children and I aren't poor.
-Who cares if cutting Medicare and Social Security would harm the elderly poor? I'm not elderly, and I don't plan on being poor by the time I become elderly.
-Who cares if opposing universal health insurance drives up health care costs and lowers access? I can still get health care.
-Who cares if outsourcing American jobs and crushing unions destroys working class jobs? I'm not working class.
-Who cares if education cuts reduce opportunity for future generations? My kids are all ready educated.
-Who cares if the elimination of income taxes increases wealth disparity at a time when said disparity is all ready both historically high and damaging our society? I plan on being on the winning side of that insurmountable gap.
-Who cares if women are denied the right to determination regarding their own bodies? I'm not a woman.
-Who cares if a total lack of environmental regulation could seriously harm both the quality of life of future citizens and the future livability of the world in general? I'll be dead by then.
I'm not trying to say that every single thing I've listed off is a specific position you yourself hold. What I'm trying to illustrate is that your position shares the same essence as those on this list, and that essence is not an admirable one. "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care," is not how we should craft our political stances. Americans need to vote based on what is right, not within the narrow scope of "What is right for me," but within the broader scope of, "What is right for society." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
So I don't own guns, and don't really care about them because I tend not to frequent places where people get shot a lot. I'm not gay, so I don't care about same sex marriage enough to let it influence my vote much. |
So you know certain things are wrong, but because these wrongs don't affect you directly, you disregard them in your voting habits. This very common behavior type is one of the biggest drivers of dysfunction in American politics.
-Who cares if gays and/or ethnic minorities are actively and unjustly discriminated against? I'm not gay and/or an ethnic minority.
-Who cares if gun violence leads to a large number of needless deaths among the urban poor? I don't live near those people.
-Who cares if cutting welfare leads to increased poverty and child poverty? My children and I aren't poor.
-Who cares if cutting Medicare and Social Security would harm the elderly poor? I'm not elderly, and I don't plan on being poor by the time I become elderly.
-Who cares if opposing universal health insurance drives up health care costs and lowers access? I can still get health care.
-Who cares if outsourcing American jobs and crushing unions destroys working class jobs? I'm not working class.
-Who cares if education cuts reduce opportunity for future generations? My kids are all ready educated.
-Who cares if the elimination of income taxes increases wealth disparity at a time when said disparity is all ready both historically high and damaging our society? I plan on being on the winning side of that insurmountable gap.
-Who cares if women are denied the right to determination regarding their own bodies? I'm not a woman.
-Who cares if a total lack of environmental regulation could seriously harm both the quality of life of future citizens and the future livability of the world in general? I'll be dead by then.
I'm not trying to say that every single thing I've listed off is a specific position you yourself hold. What I'm trying to illustrate is that your position shares the same essence as those on this list, and that essence is not an admirable one. "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care," is not how we should craft our political stances. Americans need to vote based on what is right, not within the narrow scope of "What is right for me," but within the broader scope of, "What is right for society." |
I don't know. jrwhite82 has shown a lot of thought as to what his priorities are, and he pretty clearly is not single-issue voting. This is the kind of political calculus you want citizens to engage in before they step in the voting booth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
So I don't own guns, and don't really care about them because I tend not to frequent places where people get shot a lot. I'm not gay, so I don't care about same sex marriage enough to let it influence my vote much. |
So you know certain things are wrong, but because these wrongs don't affect you directly, you disregard them in your voting habits. This very common behavior type is one of the biggest drivers of dysfunction in American politics.
-Who cares if gays and/or ethnic minorities are actively and unjustly discriminated against? I'm not gay and/or an ethnic minority.
-Who cares if gun violence leads to a large number of needless deaths among the urban poor? I don't live near those people.
-Who cares if cutting welfare leads to increased poverty and child poverty? My children and I aren't poor.
-Who cares if cutting Medicare and Social Security would harm the elderly poor? I'm not elderly, and I don't plan on being poor by the time I become elderly.
-Who cares if opposing universal health insurance drives up health care costs and lowers access? I can still get health care.
-Who cares if outsourcing American jobs and crushing unions destroys working class jobs? I'm not working class.
-Who cares if education cuts reduce opportunity for future generations? My kids are all ready educated.
-Who cares if the elimination of income taxes increases wealth disparity at a time when said disparity is all ready both historically high and damaging our society? I plan on being on the winning side of that insurmountable gap.
-Who cares if women are denied the right to determination regarding their own bodies? I'm not a woman.
-Who cares if a total lack of environmental regulation could seriously harm both the quality of life of future citizens and the future livability of the world in general? I'll be dead by then.
I'm not trying to say that every single thing I've listed off is a specific position you yourself hold. What I'm trying to illustrate is that your position shares the same essence as those on this list, and that essence is not an admirable one. "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care," is not how we should craft our political stances. Americans need to vote based on what is right, not within the narrow scope of "What is right for me," but within the broader scope of, "What is right for society." |
If enough people actually valued the things you mentioned maybe people would of cared? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
If enough people actually valued the things you mentioned maybe people would of cared? |
They would value these things if they were able to consider the matter in a clear-sighted, systematic fashion. Because a dysfunctional culture of consumeristic narcissism and apathy towards others obstructs their ability to do that, they understandably struggle.
I agree with Kuros that our citizens need to engage in a sort of political calculation -- as opposed to straight-line party voting or single-issue voting -- when considering which candidates to lend their support to. I simply assert that it's both more in line with the best of the human spirit and more conducive to bringing about the best possible society to make, "What systematically benefits society," the driving force behind those calculations, as opposed to, "What benefits me personally and in the moment."
In my limited experience, I've found jrwhite82 to be a thoughtful and intelligent individual, so I think he'll be able to look past the (perhaps unjustly) harsh and direct presentation of my idea, take my meaning, and hopefully give it some real consideration. It would be nice if you did as well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
. Americans need to vote based on what is right, not within the narrow scope of "What is right for me," but within the broader scope of, "What is right for society." |
Problem being that what is "right" or "right for society" means different things to different people. For example in Canada society (2/3rds) supports a gun registry and strict regulations on the sale/ownership/use of guns.
Think that would fly in America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Problem being that what is "right" or "right for society" means different things to different people. |
There are objectively correct answers to what makes the best society, derived directly from human nature and the nature of the world we live in. What will or will not "fly" in any given society often has more to do with the state of its culture than with an honest consideration of what will actually produce the best results. Such thinking needs to be opposed, not accommodated.
Last edited by Fox on Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
No where did I say I don't care.
What I said is I don't care enough to let it influence my vote to sway me towards a certain candidate.
Some things naturally are more important to me than others. And a candidate's track record and campaign promises on those issues that are personally important to me will sway me in a certain direction to vote for him or her.
I would love for their to be a candidate that I agree with 100% across the board. But there isn't (unless it was me running, but I don't have the money or experience to win office, so that ain't happening) So I have to decide which candidate represents my most important interests the best.
What's wrong with that? I'm not a gun owner, my friends aren't gun owners, I don't live in a state that hands out carry permits like they're going out of style (like Pennsylvania for instance). So I'm content with the level of gun control where I hold permanent residence. Ron Paul would want less gun control or give more power to the states to decide for themselves, but I don't agree with him. My state government is doing it right (in my opinion) so far. So I'm ok with it for now. What's more important for me is how much money I have to give up because of taxes (and how much of that money is being spent on worthwhile programs and causes), having affordable insurance to protect my family's health, getting the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and education policy (because I'm a teacher in the US too). Does a candidates stance on gay marriage affect my decision. Sure, it pulls me in a certain direction, but the strength of the pull is not as strong as core issues that are important to me. If I match up with a candidate on all my core issues and I only disagree with him on his gay marriage stance, I'll still vote for him because he represents me more than anyone else in the field.
Fox, you misquoted me in your bold print. I didn't say "I don't care". I said "I don't really care" (as in care A LOT, but just a little) and "I don't care enough to let it influence my vote". To me, there's a difference. All these issues factor into a decision. Some are weighted more heavily than others.
Do you mean to tell me that a candidate's stance on whether Dokdo is Korean or Japanese is as important to you as his or her position on the Iraq and Afghanistan war? Do you think I should weigh his stance on the semi-conductor industry policy as highly as I weigh his stance on Education policy (the field that most directly affects me and my soon to be school age children)?
The problem is not voters like me. It is people won don't vote because of apathy. And people who vote based on who they want to drink a beer with. And people who vote because their favorite MSNBC or Fox News host tell them to vote for. I feel like I'm using critical thinking skills here. Maybe I'm not.
I don't understand how you can possibly think the way I approach voting is wrong.
I'm a below average incoming making Joe, in an interracial marriage, my wife is an immigrant and we have a diverse family, I can't afford my own home, I can't afford a new car, I struggle to make ends meet. I am happy to have welfare and social security as a safety net if I need it and don't want to see those programs ruined. I am an American. The things that I consider are both good for me and for society as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
What's wrong with that? I'm not a gun owner, my friends aren't gun owners, I don't live in a state that hands out carry permits like they're going out of style (like Pennsylvania for instance). So I'm content with the level of gun control where I hold permanent residence. |
Right: it doesn't affect you, so you aren't especially interested. You know what's right, but because the wrong that right is meant to address isn't knocking on your door, you aren't really letting it affect your vote. Your priorities are about you. You are simply confirming what I said here.
I don't blame you for caring about your family and wanting them to do well; everyone wants that, and it's right to want that. What I'm blaming you (more precisely, blaming much of the world) for is your relative indifference to other families doing poorly. You say you care, and I believe you, but from a political point of view, caring insufficiently for it to drive your vote is not especially meaningful. The gay couple that is discriminated against, the black family that is torn apart by gun violence, the working-class family that is driven out on the street due to a lack of governmental assistance in their time of need, these things matter very much. Given we're at a time when two of your priorities -- education and health care -- are both under political attack, you should be aware of that. Your continued ability to make a living as a teacher, and the cost and quality of the health care that you will be able to purchase for your family, will be strongly affected by the sentiment of strangers and their willingness to translate that sentiment into political action. How can you expect them to stand for you when you won't do the same for them? Obviously, you cannot, and unsurprisingly, a society that is essentially at war with itself produces progressively worse results.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Fox, you misquoted me in your bold print. I didn't say "I don't care". I said "I don't really care" (as in care A LOT, but just a little) and "I don't care enough to let it influence my vote". |
If you're referring to the phrase in quotation marks near the end of my first post, that was meant to be a generic quote describing the essence of a certain type of action, not a specific quote attributed to you. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Do you mean to tell me that a candidate's stance on whether Dokdo is Korean or Japanese is as important to you as his or her position on the Iraq and Afghanistan war? |
I mean to tell you that any issue which seriously affects the welfare of society or its denizens should be a pressing and serious one. Obviously Dokdo is ultimately trivial to the well being of both Korea and Japan and it's people. Thus, it's obviously not of equal importance to the Afghanistani War, which affects the well being of both America and Afghanistan. Gun control, human rights, equality under the law, health care, social welfare programs, pro-middle class tax policy, and so forth are all policies which do strongly affect the welfare of American society, and thus, they should all be treated as pressing issues, regardless of whether we feel like they affect us as individuals.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Do you think I should weigh his stance on the semi-conductor industry policy as highly as I weigh his stance on Education policy (the field that most directly affects me and my soon to be school age children)? |
Yes.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| The problem is not voters like me. It is people won don't vote because of apathy. And people who vote based on who they want to drink a beer with. And people who vote because their favorite MSNBC or Fox News host tell them to vote for. I feel like I'm using critical thinking skills here. Maybe I'm not. |
For what it's worth, I think you're correct that those people are also highly problematic, and in a fashion far more difficult to rectify. I do also think you're using critical thinking. I simply think you're predictating that critical thinking upon the personal rather than the universal.
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| I don't understand how you can possibly think the way I approach voting is wrong. |
Because it's not conducive to bringing about an ideal society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
