You need to show that the prison industry is representative of all industries in their destabilizing nature. You also have to show that the destabilizing forces of these companies wouldn't be offset by other, larger companies. Vandalvideoyou mean show that all industries destabilize in the same way? because no, that does not happen. some, like the financial industry, rely on overspeculation to drive up prices higher than what should safely exist (see: a year and a half ago). and I would think that the effects of the prison industry could be shown in the graph I posted, because otherwise wouldn't the more benevolent companies keep the crime rate lower?
Hillary Clinton says rich don't pay their fair share
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]You need to show that the prison industry is representative of all industries in their destabilizing nature. You also have to show that the destabilizing forces of these companies wouldn't be offset by other, larger companies. Hewkiiyou mean show that all industries destabilize in the same way? because no, that does not happen. some, like the financial industry, rely on overspeculation to drive up prices higher than what should safely exist (see: a year and a half ago). and I would think that the effects of the prison industry could be shown in the graph I posted, because otherwise wouldn't the more benevolent companies keep the crime rate lower? I'm not arguing with what the prison industry is doing. I don't know what the prison industry is doing, although that graph doesn't help. Mere correlation does not equal causation. But I digress. Remember, we were discussing whether or not businesses would invest in the community in order to drive up their bottom margin. You used the prison industry as an example. For sake of argument, I accepted they engage in practices. Now, I ask you to show that your analogy is representative of all businesses. For if it is not, then the analogy fails. The mere fact that one or two industries engage in these practices does not show that there would not be a net positive impact from other industries. Nor does it show that, while some of the industry may engage in these actions, that the entire industry does not.
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Because!VandalvideoFine, let me play the rich man for a second. We should tax the poor more than the rich... BECAUSE!. There is no underlining understanding behind that. Your because was empty, but mine was powerful... (fine I'll play along) Let me explain. We have x y and z. X has an apple core with 2 bite left. Y has 10 whole apples. Z is hungry and has the choose who he should eat from as long as he only eats 10% of their lunch.
It is the basic human understanding that Z should(and would) take an apple from Y. Which is why it falls under common sense, which is why it doesn't have to be justified. Taken from "Here is a hand" principle.
Now, I ask you to show that your analogy is representative of all businesses. For if it is not, then the analogy fails. The mere fact that one or two industries engage in these practices does not show that there would not be a net positive impact from other industries.Vandalvideonet positive in what way? if, for example, you mean crime rates, then evidently not as the incarceration rate has skyrocketed.
Nor does it show that, while some of the industry may engage in these actions, that the entire industry does not. Vandalvideowell no, the entire prison industry does this, private and public. if you want a full report, you could read this but I'm not too sure what you want.
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Fine, let me play the rich man for a second. We should tax the poor more than the rich... BECAUSE!. VandalvideoThere is no underlining understanding behind that. Your because was empty, but mine was powerful... (fine I'll play along) Let me explain. We have x y and z. X has an apple core with 2 bite left. Y has 10 whole apples. Z is hungry and has the choose who he should eat from as long as he only eats 10% of their lunch . It is the basic human understanding that Z should(and would) take an apple from Y. Which is why it falls under common sense, which is why it doesn't have to be justified. Taken from "Here is a hand" principle. Now explain why Z should take the apple from Y. Why does Y have to give up an apple instead of allowing X to starve? Why should Y's momentary discomfort be of less importance than X's death? Why is X of a higher order than Y? Surly you don't expect me to indulge such heartless inquiry? To do so would just dehumanize you... Its the same answer to why humans shouldn't be allowed to kill for personal gain.
Surly you don't expect me to indulge such heartless inquiry? To do so would just dehumanize you... Its the same answer to why humans shouldn't be allowed to kill for personal gain.jeremiah06I smell an appeal to emotion coming on. But to refrain from such meta-ethical inquiries I will redirect the argument away from that cliff. How do you know the possible widespread ramifications of causing Y to go -1 apple as opposed to X and Z going hungry? Perhaps that 1 apple could have supplied the nutrition to allow for Y to make a breakthrough in biochemical engineering solving the cancer problem. Perhaps, by redistributing the apple how you have, you have caused more harm than good to society.
My father owns a very prolific small business that's been up and running for 15 years. When it's all said and done, he pays something like 50-60% of his income to the government in taxes. So, yes, the "rich" do pay their fare share of taxes. Hilary is wrong.
Perhaps that 1 apple could have supplied the nutrition to allow for Y to make a breakthrough in biochemical engineering solving the cancer problem. Perhaps, by redistributing the apple how you have, you have caused more harm than good to society.VandalvideoPerhaps X would do that instead.
[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Surly you don't expect me to indulge such heartless inquiry? To do so would just dehumanize you... Its the same answer to why humans shouldn't be allowed to kill for personal gain.VandalvideoI smell an appeal to emotion coming on. But to refrain from such meta-ethical inquiries I will redirect the argument away from that cliff. How do you know the possible widespread ramifications of causing Y to go -1 apple as opposed to X and Z going hungry? Perhaps that 1 apple could have supplied the nutrition to allow for Y to make a breakthrough in biochemical engineering solving the cancer problem. Perhaps, by redistributing the apple how you have, you have caused more harm than good to society. But we are humans, we can't completely step away from our humanity. On the basic grounds that our country stands, we have to have an emotional weight in our decisions. Even if by some stretch of the imagination, Y could somehow have a greater, unrelated impact on society as a whole if 10 apples are kept; our human factor says we should distribute the apples. X will struggle, but the starvation isn't immanent. Z's death is given if the apple isn't taken however, Y curing cancer is a gamble not worth taking. We also have to account for the repercussions everyone will face in the wake of Z's death. This is the same logic behind the bailouts...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment