I think people overestimate the number of times minorities actually "pull the race card". From my experience it's often nothing more than an illusory correlation.

This is nonsensical. Here's what I'll do. I'll kindly ask you to name the sections that you're referring to. If you can't name them, I'll assume that you haven't read the bill. It's all I can do.

The only clip from 2009 is his claim that a Public option is not a trojan horse, for a single-payer system. The video then, at ~26 seconds, skipped to 2007 and then to 2003. The rest of the clips from 2009 aren't even about Obama. So I don't know what you're talking about.

The "you lie" yell was ironic because President Obama was speaking the truth on all counts.

And your video is irrelevant to current legislation. It doesn't matter what Obama said 2 and 6 years-ago. What is relevant is the regulations in the current proposed bills.

My major contention when people ask these kinds of question or propose an issue of "better", "better at what"?

My major contention when people ask these kinds of question or propose an issue of "better", "better at what"?

Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.

I'm not disputing facts. I'm disputing whether the facts make an action morally warranted. And that fact seems to have flown way over your head. Maybe this is an issue that's beyond your abilities and you don't recognize it, because you seem to be stuck in this conventional thinking that the ends morally justify the means. That if we want less homeless people we have a moral obligation to end their suffering by sterilizing the abjectly impoverished. Or that China is morally justified in its one-child policy.

Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans.

Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about.

Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans.

Grey wolves, for example, are genetically identical to domesticated dogs. So it's not like there's some "fundamental" genetic difference. You don't know what you're talking about. The difference is the domestication, not the genes. If you take a wolf today (and that's basically how it started, someone took a wolf) and started artificially selecting various traits over thousands of years, you'll end up with a domesticated dog. That's what artificial selection does.

Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.

What you're highlighting is a self-inflicted wound. You and people like you don't think of dogs as animals. You think of them as pets. As toys or slaves. And you treat them as such. That's why you refer to yourself as your dog's "owner". For you, the dichotomy is pet/shelter or death. And not freedom. You don't think of these animals as organisms that do or can exist outside of this humane, self-gratification. Let the dogs go and allow selection its course.

My experience growing up in a third world country tells me that dogs will form packs if left alone for months, scavenge for food, hunt down and kill goats and other animals, and dogs will become increasingly feral over time, and that poodles can definitely and do survive on their own and in packs in a metropolitan zone. Now maybe "your poodle" can't. And maybe that says more about how you've raised your poodle or how you just perceive your poodle than it does about the dog itself.

By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance.

You admit you can't read by making this point. By simply altering the subject of the proposition you made, your logic: the movement from one premise to another, to form a necessarily connected and contingent conclusion could be utilized to make the sterilizing argument for the homeless or the poor. It's an argument from analogy. According to your logic, the argument can be made that sterilizing the homeless and the poor is justified because of its end. And that is a necessary implication of your logic.

It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.

Yeah, and China's one-child policy is also birth control. It must be humane and moral because "it's doing a good thing". Forced sterilization of another animal is not moral. constraining your consideration to pet or death is not moral. Your entire worldview on "pet" care is immoral. You just don't see. Probably can't. So, I've made my points. I'm out.

First, the term "domesticated" only refers to the adaptation of an animal for living with humans--both dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) have been domesticated. So, if you're going to argue that cats can survive without humans... I'm going to allow you to finish the logic. But the term "domesticated" doesn't mean that they require humans to survive. That is patently absurd.

Second, what I'm advocating is not that stray dogs have equally good lives, what I'm advocating is that it's immoral to spay and neuter dogs based on the assumption that some hypothetical dog in a hypothetical future will hypothetically give birth to a hypothetical pup that some hypothetical person may not want, and therefore the "moral choice" is to ensure that the hypothetical dog living in that hypothetical future won't even be capable of hypothetically giving birth to a hypothetical pup who hypothetically may not be wanted. That's the twisted logic of a psychotic human being.

By all accounts this argument: "stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them...." could very well be used to ensure the homeless or poor people around the world ought to be neutered. Let's agree that this is somewhat of a fact. Some stray dogs will live shorter lives. Some will suffer painful deaths (I don't know if it's more painful), some will go hungry in metropolitan areas, some will endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, some "always" have fleas and ticks feeding on them.

So? Does that mean they should never be born because of a hypothetical scenario that some human has concocted in his or her selfish brain? What you're advocating, and this is necessarily implicit from your argument(s) thus far, is that if a dog MIGHT not have a standard of living acceptable to you, then we should ensure that it is never born by neutering or spaying its hypothetical father or mother. And we are moral to do so. And that's absurd and psychotic.

The selfishness is so pungent and thick. It's like a dizziying miasma. I can taste it. In all of your response, there isn't even the winking pretense of acknowledging that these animals are independent organisms that can and do live outside of the care of the doting human who tries to humanize them with psychobabble that really only makes them feel good. I mean, if you really think that dogs view humans as loving "owners" and not just another member of the pack, you've watched too many Disney movies.

"All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner." I mean, really? This has nothing to do with the dog. It just brings you comfort by saying it. And if you think you're dog isn't conscious of its genitalia then you are absolutely out of your flipping mind and should be laughed at and ridiculed. And dogs tend lose interest in sex because a large part of the libido-system comes from the biochemical actions in the mammal genitalia.

Just think about the logic you're using. Forget the fact that dogs are animals that can hunt, form packs and live on their own, go feral after a few months away from human contact, we should cut out their genitalia because WE can't take care of them!! By golly, if a future dog might not have a human in its life, we might as well make sure it's never born! That is the ultimate in selfishness. Come on man. By your reasoning, it's morally right to spayed and neuter the homeless.

No, it's not morally wrong to neuter or spay dogs and cats. Every organization I can think of advises you do just that. The unwanted, uncared for population is so out of hand that we cannot afford not to neuter as a precaution to more unwanted pets.

China for dogs, huh?

Yes, it is immoral to remove the reproductive organs of an animal. The single thing that is universal and fundamental to all life is its ability to reproduce and provide for the next generation. I find all arguments justifying the act simple contrivances that betray a deeply underlying selfishness on the part of humans who think they have a moral obligation to cut out genitalia.

I'm sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere, but who is "we" and where is "here"?

Maybe not. But then, why do people learn in college?

People learn in college because they study. People go to college or a variety of reasons, which might include the incentive of a degree. But, if a "certification process would have the same effect", then there's really little point to replacing the current system with a new one if it's going to do the same thing. Moreover, a university is one form of a certification process. Literally.

Sitting in a lecture hall with a hundred other students while a professor reads a Powerpoint presentation isn't any improvement over reading a well designed website.

Well first: a well-designed website doesn't mean the website has new and accurate information, and it certainly doesn't mean you're gaining any technical or practical knowledge from it. You're not (not specifically you) going study up on HIV on the web and then jump into HIV/AIDS research and revolutionize how we combat human lentivirus families.

We have been able to combat these kinds of problems because we have researches who are practicing their fields across disciplines: biologists and geneticists help microbiologists and microvirologists in a discussion about the virus. Some Nana who's just read some website about HIV probably won't be any help, will almost necessarily not be up on what research is currently being done and will have to wait around until the results have already been published just to try keep up.

Second, I was in the main lecture hall of my school for an Astronomy class two semesters ago. And even in a large class, people still ask questions. And some people asked questions I didn't and couldn't conceive of, and I learned something more than I would have if it was just left to me (and god forbid it was just me and some website, I would have been doomed).

For example, we were able to ask questions of an active researcher who is looking into Quintessence, and all got information beyond what Wikipedia (I just checked) and probably most - if not all - internet sources have available right now or might ever have.

It helps when you have an active anthropologist who's just finished her conclusionary research on the descendents of the Ju/'hoansi of Dobe and what's happened to their people, who can tell you things that aren't in books or on websites.

Third, we can discuss stuff after class; we can get in groups and debate, and ponder what we've learned and broaden what we know by interacting with others in an academic environment, with academic and colloquial information to back up our points.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like "universities are cost-effective because students pay tuition."

Not really. I even specifically noted that students financially benefit universities, off-setting the overall cost of functioning, beyond tuition. Specialized institutions will cost more because they have a lower student body and will invariably have a proportionally lower number of students doing things like research or participate in extra-academic events like panel discussions that will help whatever school or institution they are going to.

Well that's a rather vague benefit, isn't it?

Your point was, and I quote: "the one reason to go to college is to signal competence to potential employers." My point was simply that college signifies more than competence. It signifies progress, that when x-student/graduate goes to y-institution, they will be able to do more than just maintain the business or be competent, they will be more likely to innovate or to add to its infrastructure and money-making powers.

If we want people to have a broad range of knowledge, than that can be incorporated into the aforementioned certification process.

This basically means that you're going to replace college with college, except you're not going to call it college as per your first statement.

Whoo! There's a lot of disputing going on.

If want to put money into the economy you let the consumer do it not the government.

Why?

By letting people spend their money on what they want or need is the best way to stimulate the economy not a trillion dollar plan that will take 2 years to work.

Actually, we've had a contemporary example of this experiment failing in America. Please remember that the Bush tax-cuts were accompanied by the the encouragement to spend. And Americans did. They spent their money on whatever they pleased and ultimately the economy collapsed in a four year period because of it. Consuming doesn't stimulate an economy. It doesn't even maintain one. It never has and never does and it probably never will. Spending tax-cut money really only equates to recirculating an existing pool of hard-currency. Nothing is actually being made: tangible wealth is not increasing. Producing, on the other hand, does stimulate economies.

Remember, in a capital environment, the best and possibly only way to stimulate an economy is to produce more capital: resources, produce for free exchange in an open market, not spending an abstractly valued thing like green paper. In a consumer environment, and one that is increasingly becoming service oriented, no one is funding production.

So, how does common sense solve advanced problems like AIDS research or more dense political considerations like the the consequences of Perestroika and how we might avoid similarly bad decisions, exactly?

Please explain, and make sure to use only common sense.

You can easily learn stuff without college, via books and the internet.

Most people aren't autodidactic in ability or discipline. What I have learned from my experience with many people who attempt self-learning is that at best they acquire a competent but rudimentary level of knowledge and very little understanding or wisdom. Further it's rare that this kind of knowledge can be applied in a cumulative discourse across disciplines or in-depth, or in practice for that matter, that people who have gone through a university experience can't do better.

Sure college provides some nice social opportunities, and universities conduct useful research, but if we want to do those things, we should create separate institutions that are far more cost effective.

First, interdisciplinary universities are more cost-effective than specialized universities because they incorporate a larger number of paying students who ultimately help in the money making enterprise of universities outside of their tuition. It's one of the reasons why many Ivy-league schools are so expensive; they reject over 90% of applicants and have to make up for their functioning costs in other ways.

Second, universities play a major role in human advancement beyond simply making people competent workers. They help people formulate more robust intellectual considerations and conclusions through a process of competition and discussion across classes and disciplines.

The one reason to go to college is to signal competence to potential employers.

It's more than that. It signals that out of the competing field you are above competent and can add to whatever institution you enter.

I think we should replace degrees with some kind of certification process for various professional fields.

I think this diminishes a part of the point of the university experience. Anyone can be prepared for professional fields. All that would be required is a high school diploma, or some certificate from ITT tech and (other) trade schools. Undergraduate and graduate schools act as secondary and tertiary vetting systems, respectively, that allow people to not simply be competent, but add to human knowledge and achievement.

What exactly is a "higher order"?

I mean organisms that qualify as complex and not simple life: bacteria or archaea, and exist in higher taxanmic classifications like Aves and Mammalia.

If you're saying as predators, let's see how well you fare in a pin with a leopard (or even in the wild, with a leopard).

How humans (apparently how I) compete directly against particular predators has no bearing on whether or not humans are also predators. I could put a cheetah in a cage with a male silverback gorilla and the cheetah would lose, too. So what? Does the cheetah suddenly stop being a predator?

If you're talking about intelligence, why if we are so "high" in the order, are we still eating meat?

The question is moot: our intelligence has nothing to do with why we still eat meat.

There are plenty of healthy alternatives that cost much less in the way of work required, resources needed, associated pain, environmental impact, etc.

Only because they're not "mainstream". If everyone or even most people, for example, lived on a vegetable dominant diet and not a meat dominant diet, there would still be a need to have an industry that can produce the necessary quantities for people to survive on that diet. That means: farms, trucks, fuel, processing factories, machinery, increasingly more land for produce and a much larger labor force. You'd just be switching one for the other; it doesn't come "carbon-imprint" free. And to be honest with you, we are killing life either way. I don't buy into this whole humane bullshit. The whole pain angle is like saying it's better to shoot someone in the head than stab them in the throat - the latter unethical and the former morally acceptable because it's less painful. Humans kill life to survive. I don't give a flying fuck how much or little pain the life I kill and eat encounters; at the end of the day I'm still killing. Or someone is killing on my behalf. I don't put a hierarchy on killing or compartmentalize my ethical judgment. Killing is unethical. But I'm going to eat meat and vegetables.

Animals, like cheetahs, don't have a sense of morals... Humans do, and yet it seems to make little difference.

Which is not the point. The point is what moral judgment humans ascribe to other animal behavior, we recognize that cheetahs are doing what cheetahs do. Whether or not they have morals is immaterial. Humans are doing what humans do. We have bodies that have evolved to ingest and digest meats, vegetables and grains. So we eat these things. To say "killing painfully is unethical" is as meaningful a judgment as saying "cheetahs choking their prey to death is unethical". It's just what we do.

We have moral choice, many morally acceptable options that are just as good if not batter tasting, and we have the ability, physically, to choose... and you say that meat is perfectly acceptable?

Yes, I do say killing and eating organisms that have meat is perfectly fine.

How do you feel about cannibalism?

How I feel about cannibalism is irrelevant.

the world has been getting colder since 1995 so how come we have global warming. please answer that also both poles have got thicker ice.

Tits or gtfo.

What criteria would permit someone to "know what they are doing" with respect to quantitatively analyzing how many people should be permitted into the US? What does "know what they are doing" even mean with respect to immigration?

The quote has nothing to do with this issue at all. This is not about compassion or justice. The point is that, at what end do you regard illegal behavior a "preclusionary" consideration for prospective immigrants?

What if the kid stole a candy bar? Should that kid never be able to receive a Visa to visit America, ever, afterward? Where does it end?

I agree that only certain amounts of people should be allowed to immigrate, plus the should not have criminal records.

Even if it was just theft at... like 12 years-old to feet a starving family member in India?

I agree with everything except the amount of legal immigration should be limited.

Why should it be limited and what would the limit be?

In other words, "it's natural."

Well, that's not the point at all. The peripheral point is that higher order animals will cause undesired pain in sentient beings simply by living. The more substantive point is that you don't believe that anything that causes undesired pain to sentient beings is wrong. What you're really arguing isn't about pain in and of itself, it's about painful killing. And humans painfully killing, at that. Because clearly, I can tag an elephant in a preserve and it would cause undesired pain to a sentient being, and you probably wouldn't argue that I was doing something wrong. So your initial sentiment is what I am contending. It is in fact not the case that you "...believe that anything which causes undesired pain to a sentient being is wrong."

You believe in specific conditions and not the very general statement you made at the start.

It's wrong to kill humans, even painlessly, because if we don't condemn murder then we will not be able to function as a society.

You're going to have to flesh out this argument for me. How does not condemning murder result in a non-functioning society? What do you mean by a functioning society? Is your definition universal?

However there is a second aspect of morality at work here: Pain is bad and it should therefore be minimized.

Why is pain bad? Is all pain bad? Should all pain be minimized? Does minimizing pain make the act of killing the animal more "good"? And if it does, why does it make it more "good"?

Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.

Humans are predators, so are many of the other great apes. And like humans, many apes have the intellectual capacity to be moral and this morality has been documented.

As far as I'm concerned, so far you're trying to impress upon the debate a bit of special pleading on behalf of humans, when humans are animals, we are predators, like many other apes, have a moral compass and still behave true to our biological roots. What is immoral about treating other animals in the way other animals treat other animals? But to the major question itself. Do we have a moral obligation to not eat meat simply because we can live on other foods?

I wouldn't call it "murder", but I do believe that anything which causes undesired pain to a sentient being is wrong.

Meh, we're higher order animals. It's what we do. All predators do it: cause undesired pain to their prey, which are usually other sentient beings.

Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable

Why is it morally acceptable to kill at all?

In fact, due to the atrocious conditions maintained in the factory farming industry, the entire lives of millions of sentient beings are filled with suffering.

So?

Why don't people get that?

Is a cheetah immoral for choking their prey to death or sometimes eating them alive? Do you yell at the discovery channel animals for doing what they do?