Debate Thread

Exactly.

well, actually they are trying the same thing in Europe now

there's not much american citizens can do however, besides spread awarness.
so, lets work to save jonny, 2me, gorgro, packie and whoever else i missed
http://www.stopacta.info/

There's a petition here. I don't know if it's restricted to Europe but it doesn't look like it. You need some patience though, it's pretty slow.

There's no point in fighting their policies. FileSonic has taken down its services and (if I may speculate) that's only because of fear of potential action from the government after all this MegaUpload business. The government doesn't need these policies to achieve their ends.

The system is corrupt. People should be fighting for a more just government, overall, instead of picking at the parts they don't like and expecting that to fix things.

Yet alas! No one wants to take the time out of their day to make a difference.

Because then I would have to have a shower and take off my pajamas and put on proper clothes and it is really bright outside I think I might go blind. Did they turn the Sun up? I swear it wasn't this bright when I was a kid.

But, no. Too many people are content with the situation at the moment. For real change to happen, a government would have to do something horrible that would unite the people against it.

Such as trying to limit their interwebz?

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"

-James Madison, 4th US President

Woah.

About two years ago, a young Californian man called Jeremy Stewart broke into two unoccupied homes and stole some jewellery. He had started using crystal meth (methamphetamine) and was stealing to feed his addiction. Burglary of a residence is counted as a serious offense in California, and as Jeremy already had two strikes against him (one for a previous burglary and a second for coming into contact with stolen goods), he had landed himself in considerable trouble.

He had no idea how much trouble, however, neither did his mother Elizabeth Stewart, who described what followed:

"My young son of 25 years was arrested. The district attorney made no offers and Jeremy was forced to go to trial. The attorney I hired (Anthony J Solare) never prepared us for what was about to happen next.

"Jeremy was convicted October 2010. Judge David Gills S of San Diego issued two strikes, each for 25 years, plus ten times two years for breach of contract. The judge referred to it as 'two nickels doubled up'. Seventy years for taking jewellery worth less than the price of an old car."

Due to the severity of his sentence and because his crimes are counted as serious felonies, Jeremy was sent to Calipatria State Prison, a maximum security facility, designed to house the "worst of the worst". Because he was convicted under the three strikes law, he cannot reduce the time he spends in prison by more than one-fifth (rather than the standard one-half) of his sentence; therefore, he will become eligible for parole in 59.5 years, when he is 86 years old.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/25/california-three-strikes-law?commentpage=1#start-of-comments

What do we think? Is his punishment appropriate?

Well, considering that if he broke into my house, and stole my stuff, he wouldnt have made it to the police, yeah. I think he got off pretty good.

I would have killed him. Or at least crippled him.

It always irks me how The Guardian is passed off as a high-class news source by some people.
The given news should be impartial and unbiased, gosh darn it.
They don't even try to hide the fact they've picked a side, I mean, if it was just the ridiculous photo of him holding his kid (what has that got to do with the story, anyway? HE HAS A CHILD, THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING HE MUST BE A GOOD FATHER BECAUSE OF THE WAY HE IS HOLDING HIS CHILD -no, what respectable father keeps up a meth addiction if he has a family to support?) I could understand, but they've picked his side clearly.

I think 70 years is completely bonkers for stealing a single piece of jewellery, though it wasn't just one piece, he'd been caught dealing with stolen goods twice before; what about the times he wasn't caught?
Stealing is out of line. If anyone came into my home and started stealing all the expensive and intrinsic stuff I bought with my hard-earned money throughout my life, I believe that it would be right for me to lay into their head with a cinder-block.

All of that being said, I think the prison system is inefficient and stupid. 70 years behind bars, breeding contempt for society, is ridiculous. Why 70 years, anyway? Is there a dramatic difference in rehabilitation between people who are imprisoned 70 years and those who are imprisoned 50 years? Bullshit. (Can I swear on here?)

Give the man a couple thousand dollars under the table to cover any debts, send him to rehab, check up on him once a month to make sure he's doing well. I'm sure that would do more for him than locking him up for the rest of his life.

At least he wasn't caught stealing in a place where the penalty is loss of limb...[]

Semicolon, I should probably point out this was written in the Comment section of the website, not the News one.

Now I just feel silly.

Disregard the first paragraph.

I agree that people who commit multiple offences should get tougher sentences, but 70 years is a bit over the top considering there are no real 'victims' here in the same sense as murder or, as the word filter kindly pointed out, "tender loving". It's stupid and ridiculously short-sighted to base your legal system on a baseball rule with no room for leniency, but in this case I doubt it's such a huge loss to society. I don't really care what happens to druggies.

I would also like to point out that, at least in the US, that the State gets plenty of money for having inmates. They get money annualy for each prisoner, and the inmates generaly work for free, thus earning even more for the State.

Okay, that just strikes me as a terrible system. Surely the State should be working to empty prisons, not fill them?

If the prison debate has fizzled out, then may I present this one?
JT posted this video, and it sparked a little discussion on the American Dream.



I feel that the students don't actually expect to be handed everything on a silver platter, and while that's what they certainly would like to happen, they still realize that they need to work.

More thoughts would be appreciated.

I can't speak for the 'American Dream' aspect of this, but since the topic of that discussion was clearly "These young kids are lazy bums who demand handouts" instead of "these kids don't know what this specific concept means" here's my two cents.

I don't see what's so blasphemous about asking things like that. Most of them
seem perfectly reasonable demands but they get blown out of proportion by the interviewer
and, perhaps alarmingly, the professor.

I doubt they're saying "I want to get everything, ever and don't want to do a damn thing",
I'd give them a bit more credit than that. The wallet stealing act is a completely ridiculous misrepresentation of what would actually happen. Why does government assistance translate directly into "TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND SPEND IT WILDLY ON STUPID IDEAS"?

We have relatively free healthcare, in the sense that costs for medication and treatments are, depending on the type, either fully or partially reimbursed by the government
The government steps in for education as well, making elementary school (and I think
high school as well, not sure) nearly free or at least very affordable. I keep hearing about people in other countries needing loans to actually pay their college or university education, leaving them in debt for years. That's insane to me. The college I'm going to right now doesn't even break the 1000€ mark (per year), all course material included, and I have no reason to suspect any others being so different in this regard. Hell, even adding transportation costs doesn't make it go over yet, because I get student discount for that as well. The government also supplies a pension when you retire.

Yes, there are taxes, and they've just raised the minimum retirement age by 2 years
(that a bunch of old people in the unions are protesting about tomorrow, pissing off everyone else while doing so. Not very union-y at all if you ask me since they're supposed to represent "the people", but over 80% of "the people" is not happy at all with the massive strike they're planning)
But we're not exactly doing that bad, economically speaking, compared to some other countries in the EU and it sure as hell doesn't mean we can just sit back and be showered in cash at the press of a button.

Sure, our system isn't perfect, but the sentiments being displayed in this clip strike me both as resentment to the younger generations because they might actually have it easier than them should any of these ideas actually catch on, and as a massively egotistical attitude towards everyone else in the country.

(Before I get into the debate proper... He went through students' stuff? That's not right, there are other ways to make a point.
Also, teaching is not about ridiculing your students on television.
Sure, names were not mentioned, but other students will see that guy and will know what class he's talking about because students talk to each other.)

Long post is so long that my computer disconnected while writing it and I had to reboot!

I also can't speak for the American Dream, but this doesn't sound like a fair analysis of what the students wrote. The man appears to be biased to one side already. (Of course, I could be wrong, but an unbiased approach doesn't generally going to an organisation known to share the general political views of the conductor of such a test/survey.)
I'd like to hear from the students about what has been said here.
Also, there are only so many students in a class, it is not a fair sample size to define a generation with, but I guess these aren't the issues really.

Free tuition and health care aren't that objectionable. My arguments are explained down a couple paragraphs.
Sustainable for the government to give them to everyone? No, of course not.
I think that government assisstance should be given to those in need - and only to those in need.

It would of course be much better if everyone could get a job and pay their way through college. That's not going to happen, though.
I am job-searching constantly and it's not easy to find a job.


My argument in favour of goverment assistance for college education is this:
Capitalism means that people should have equal opportunities where possible.
You cannot help whether you are born into a family that is rich or poor just as you cannot help whether you are black or white, male or female.
Immediately out of secondary school, you are usually still dependent on your parents for the most part - you generally can't get a job below 15/16 years old and then you have maybe two or three years left in school at the most. Not long enough to amass a college fund.

Therefore the government should try and make it so that economically disadvantaged people with good grades can go to good third level institutions just as much as well off students with comparable grades can.
Of course, if you get more money, the assistance should be re-evaluated.

Attending college does not guarantee a qualification: It's the opportunity to gain the qualification that you get, thus it's your responsibility to take it by working hard.
It should only be for one degree/course/whatever though: the rest, you'll have to work for. After all, if you pass you have the tools and if you fail - without medical reasons - then, well, that's too bad.

I advocate free health care, up to a certain point, for similar reasons.
By up to a certain point I mean only for neccessary care for people who cannot otherwise afford it.
You should pay what you can afford and if it's not neccessary, you should have to pay for it regardless of your income level.


As for the X amount of people on government benefits, I don't know how it works elsewhere, but here you have to be documented as unable to work or actively seeking a job in order to receive benefits.

The students said they wanted the government to give them jobs?
To me, that sounds like a badly thought-out version of "the government should focus on job creation."

As for taxing the rich... I agree that the richer you are, the more you should be taxed but not overmuch.
I don't intend to make the middle class poor or to make the comfortably well-off just scrape through.
The really, really rich people have generally worked a lot to get to where they are, yes, so they know how it is. Time to pay it forward: But not too much. If you've gotten rich honestly, I believe that you deserve to be there. Just enough so that other hard working people have the same chance, regardless of who their parents were or what their parents did.

I personally don't see it as the government's role to make sure people succeed. People should have the freedom to succeed or fail on their own efforts. That's the American dream. I also don't believe that people should be punished for success by higher tax rates. I believe in three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with emphasis on "the pursuit," not the guarantee. A government that exists to provide for its citizens is providing de facto serfdom. There are more than enough examples of individuals who have succeeded wildly in this country without a college education to disprove the notion that it is mandatory for success. If it were any other entity taking my money by force and giving it to someone who hadn't earned it, it would be called theft. []

I agree with JT. I mean, thats the point of this country. Just because you're poor doesnt mean you should get extra help from the government. It means you should tighten your belt, put on your cardboard shoes, and get out there and start finding a job.

Because there are three constants in this world.

There will always be death.
There will always be taxes.
And there will always be work.

Oh, Fox News. I'm not even from America and I can see where this video is going.

What's wrong with free healthcare? Is it someone's choice to get sick?
"WOW, TODAY I THINK I MIGHT GIVE MYSELF TERMINAL BRAIN CANCER, JUST FOR KICKS!"
I mean, if you're getting your breasts enhanced or a mole removed, by all means, you should pay for elective surgery, but if you're working in a labour-intense job and you find out you've got cancer, that's all your money gone on treatments, probably most of your savings gone too (since you can't support yourself any longer), plus your job will probably be given to someone else by the time you're healthy enough to start working again.

Having come from a butt-fucking poor family for most of my early childhood I can most certainly tell you it was not because of my parent's lack of effort at either working or trying to find a job. Then, when my mother couldn't work anymore because of her disability, we were almost solely living off food stamps and handouts. My mum still needs government handouts, for godssake. Some people need that to survive.

Tuomey wrote:I am job-searching constantly and it's not easy to find a job.

I can vouch for this. I'm 17, went to one of the best private high-schools in the state on an academic scholarship, and they can pay me practically nothing at all and I can't find a job. They aren't even hiring at fast food restaurants so I really am quite sick of hearing that "durr work at MacDonalds" shit from older people. I've only got a job because my mum's friends at a restaurant down the road pitied me.

This "tighten your belt and start finding a job" thing is ridiculous.
They shouldn't get any help at all? Do you want them to just starve to death in the streets? And when they do find a job opening that they're qualified for, how are they going to show up to the interview? Dirty rags? Unshaven? Sick?

Yeah, I'm sure they'll get the position over the better qualified, better presented, younger alternative. /s

Im not saying people shouldnt get healthcare benifits. Some people just cant take care of themselves, plain and simple.

But if the only thing holding you back is money, then.... Im sorry, but you just are not trying hard enough. You went to school to be a doctor, but there are too many doctors, and no one is hiring? Well, you dont just sit around umtil one of them dies! Go do something else. Be a farmer. Join the military. SOMETHING!


My dad went to school for the Tel-Com business. You know what he does? Picks locks. He makes about $30 an hour. He's also a music producer.

You cant just limit yourself to one thing.

One of the problems with finding a job in today's market is actually all the government regulation and "support." Even in America, it is getting more and more expensive to hire someone, higher minimum wages notwithstanding. I started behind a convenience store counter working for $5.50 an hour, and it was a great experience. Can't imagine it would have been as easy to hire me to work just four hours a day, four days a week, if they'd had to pay me what minimum wage is now. That would have been me never even getting off the ground, let alone working my way up the pay scale.

In October 2008, my mother was abruptly laid off from her $60K/year job in real estate leasing. While looking for a better job, she started working at a bookstore, and I helped pay more of the bills as well. We got by.

Also, nobody chooses to get sick, but that doesn't make the cost of healthcare free, even if the person getting treatment doesn't pay for it. For the short period I didn't have healthcare insurance, I budgeted my money tighter and went to a clinic that would take uninsured patients (for a flat fee of $125 per visit) when absolutely necessary. My aunt was diagnosed with leukemia a few years ago, and she wasn't insured, but she negotiated a payment plan that she could afford (little known secret: hospitals can't refuse necessary treatment based on inability to pay in this country) and is now a survivor.

The big point, I guess, is that bad things will happen to people. That's the world in which we live. That doesn't negate anybody's personal responsibility. Government shouldn't be a parental entity; it's not there to catch you or to ensure that you succeed. That is antithetical to the free market principles that made America great. []