Archive for Debate

Political Debate and Inheriting Parents Money

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on May 12, 2010 by raingeg

I am fascinated by political debate, so I’ve decided to tackle some issues that come up in political debates and write what I think about them. I’ll do this every now and then for a while and see how it works out. You’ll probably see me ask questions of myself and answer them within the post.

Getting “Daddies money” OR Inheriting your Parents Wealth: Should I have a problem with this? Is this a good thing?

I have no problem with a person that wants to live off their parents money, provided their parents have a lot of money and they’re able to give their children that life. If you have a rich mother or father and they want to give you some of their doe, or a lot of their doe, or all of their doe, so you never have to work again for the rest of your life, then that’s just fine with me.

Everyone seems to throw this one out there when you start talking about some of the more wealthy individuals in this country. “He’s just in that position because his daddy gave him everything!” Or, “She didn’t work for those clothes, her mommy paid for them!” What a credit that is to our country! People get their panties in a bunch when they realize that someone hasn’t worked hard for what they have, and they say that its a bad thing. It just goes to show that in our country we value work and we want people to work hard for a living, I like that about America, and I actually agree with their complaint. But its always particularly interesting when you hear this coming from the left. The same left that pushes this notion that we need the federal government to do more for us, that some of us are victims, that the government needs to provide us with more entitlements. Yet they oppose this same action when it happens within a family? I don’t get it!

Whether or not I believe that it is a good thing for a person and society is a whole different issue. Is this a good lifestyle for someone? Probably not. I don’t think that it is good for people to get everything they want for free. I think a person should work for what they own. And I think it makes for a better society if people get real jobs and work their way up the ladder of success. But, again, this goes back to the heart of the issue. Is it really my business what private citizens do with their money? No. Should I really care what is happening between John Smith and John Smith Jr.? No.

I’m in favor of a country where we want our fellow citizens to work, because that means they are not living on my dime, and I like it that way. But I’m also equally in favor of letting people do what they want with their money, and if that means giving it to their kids, then so be it. That’s just a credit to our country, that we have a place where this is possible. Its none of my business what you do with your money, or what your father does with his money. It is my business what the government does with my money.

Am I allowed make negative judgment of a politician that has never held a real job in his or her whole life without being a hypocrite? I say yes. Its one thing for me to criticize you, a regular citizen, for rightfully taking advantage of a system that allows you to do so, that’s none of my business. But its not wrong for me to desire a politician, a servant to the people, to have a certain amount of experience in the private sector. If my job as a voter is to find and vote for someone that I think is qualified for the job, and one of my qualifications is a politician that has held a real job and worked for a living, then so be it.


Debate: Lee Doren vs. Bob Witeck

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on April 26, 2010 by raingeg

In an attempt to post more things that get my attention, here is a good debate that I watched.

Poker, Politicians and Objective Truth

Posted in Humanity, Politics, Top Posts with tags , , , , , on December 15, 2008 by raingeg

In the game of Poker a hand is won because a player has a winning hand and no other reason. It is called letting the cards speak, in order that a player cannot just throw down their cards, confidently shout out that they’ve won the hand and take the pot. The cards speak, if someone thinks they’ve won it is completely possible that they’ve not. This is because sometimes a player will misread their cards and not occupy the hand they thought they had. So this rule enables the rightful winner to always get what they deserve.

This should be a rule when politicians speak about issues or when one is debating issues with another. Lately it seems that what is true doesn’t even matter, the only thing that matters is how one arguing his or her position delivers their argument. This is part of a greater issue that I have been thinking about lately. Subjectivism  vs. Objectivism. In politics we have far to many politicians that side with subjective arguments rather than looking at issues objectively. This comes from politicians being tied to the consensus within their party rather than the objective truth. So a politicians stance is subject to what the party believes about an issue rather than what is actually true. This is not the case for all politicians but it is problem for the vast majority of them.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t oppose party politics and I don’t even mind the “two party” system, I just want honest politicians. I want politicians that can look at an issue say what they believe about it and tell us what is true about it, rather than give us the party line or lie to us to save face for the party. I fully acknowledge that there can be two different opinions about something that is completely true and an opinion does not prohibit a facts ability to retain its truth. The political party that learns to tell the truth will fair much better with the American people than the one that caters to the people that are in the party by telling them lies. Even if it means that telling the truth will take them out of power.

We run into the same problem when people are debating issues. For the same reason that the cards speak in Poker, truth should speak when it comes to issues. Truth is often trumped by delivery and popular but not credible sources.

Delivery of an opinion can either make or break a discussion. Often times I’ve been in discussions with people that just confidently shout out facts trying trump my argument. So it becomes more of a competition of who can give more facts rather than whether or not those facts are true or false. If someone presents more facts than me in an argument that forces me into a corner, but its easy to escape that trap. First of all, whether or not someone has a better argument is never dependant upon the number of facts they present, it is totally dependant upon whether or not those facts are true or false. Second, if you don’t think that someone’s fact is correct ask them to prove it, most of the time they can‘t. There has been so many times that I’ve been discussing issues with people that present a fact that they know nothing about, they merely know talking points.

Far to many times people are just regurgitating information with out actually understanding what they’re saying about the issue only because someone they like said it. Over the years I have tried (emphasize tried) to listen to something a person say’s and make a judgment on that issue before I hear someone else’s opinion. This allows for me to form my own ideas independently, rather than form ideas based on what someone else say’s. One might say that is a subjective way of approaching an issue, but its not. I’ll reiterate again that there can be a true fact and it can have two different opinions directed at it without the fact loosing its truth. This allows me to look at an issue objectively, see if it is true or not and then form an opinion. Once I’ve formed an opinion I then look at what the people that I agree and don’t agree with are saying and either keep or modify my opinion based on true facts that they bring to the table. My opinion then becomes something that is grounded in objective truth rather than an opinion that is based on subjective reasoning. It is no longer subject to what I or someone else think is true, but what is true.

I know that in life there will always be subjectivity, people will always like different things, there will always be issues that have gray areas and people will always have different opinions on different issues. All I am trying to get out of people is truth, because it is nearly impossible to spin issues in your favor all the time. Truth must always be accounted for and it must prevail.