Law Dems blocking Senate relief bill bc it doesn't cancel $10k of student debt

[whougonnacall]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/27/trump-congress-coronavirus-relief-oversight-152560


Sooo 2 trillion of taxpayer money and trump wants to chip away oversight of where that cash goes ? Anyone wanna defend that ?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Again, a wall of text but can't overcome the simple facts I've laid forth. You wriggle and squirm but they're still right there.

You said "certain policies bring it closer..."

Policies enacted by the government. So yes, you did in fact say the government pushes the country toward "experiential satisfaction". In fact, policy is exactly how the government affects its citizens. Are you forgetting what you've typed now?

Wriggle and squirm? I responded to everything you said. For you to accuse me of not overcoming "simple facts" you laid forth is laughable. On the contrary, you've repeatedly eluded saying what your core beliefs are even though I've asked you numerous questions to try to get you to state them.

Now you're doubling down on your trolling. I never said the government pushes the country toward experiential satisfaction. I said certain policies bring governments closer towards the ideal of enforcing the conditions necessary for their citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. I said, "It might never be realized, but that doesn't mean certain policies do not bring the country closer to it and that other policies do not take the country farther away from it." "It" = perfect enforcement (I'm assuming you know what "ideal" means) of the conditions necessary for citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. For you to twist my words into, "the government pushes the country toward experiential satisfaction" is either a case of sloppy reading or dishonesty.

 

[Seano]

Like this for example:

One point of contention in negotiations centered around a fund for distressed industries, with Democrats worrying that there would not be adequate oversight. In a compromise move, the final deal provides for accountability through an independent Inspector General and congressional oversight panel.

This is exactly what the working man was crying out for.

 

[mkess101]

Wriggle and squirm? I responded to everything you said. For you to accuse me of not overcoming "simple facts" you laid forth is laughable. On the contrary, you've repeatedly eluded saying what your core beliefs are even though I've asked you numerous questions to try to get you to state them.

Now you're doubling down on your trolling. I never said the government pushes the country toward experiential satisfaction. I said certain policies bring governments closer towards the ideal of enforcing the conditions necessary for their citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. I said, "It might never be realized, but that doesn't mean certain policies do not bring the country closer to it and that other policies do not take the country farther away from it." "It" = perfect enforcement (I'm assuming you know what "ideal" means) of the conditions necessary for citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. For you to twist my words into, "the government pushes the country toward experiential satisfaction" is either a case of sloppy reading or dishonesty.

Holy shit are you trying to dance through the raindrops with your mental gymnastics.

"Certain policies bring governments closer towards the ideal of enforcing the conditions necessary for their citizens being able to live experientially satisfying lives..."

But then you have the audacity to claim that's way different than me saying your claim was that government pushes people toward this "experiential satisfaction" (or pulls them away from it)?

Government influences its people DIRECTLY THROUGH its policies. Your ridiculous attempt to put layer upon layer of buffer in with meaningless words is comical. "No no no, they don't directly impact citizens lives with these policies, they, umm...bring the government closer to the ideal of making conditions for this to happen blah blah blah..." Does anyone actually buy this bullshit, seriously? I hope not, they'd have to be dumb as a stump to let you snow them with this crap.

And again, I haven't even yet mentioned that every time you post this drivel you fail to clarify WHICH citizens these policies "bring the government closer to the ideal of enforcing the conditions blah blah blah..." I gave you concrete examples of how different citizens are at odds over policies when it comes to "experiential satisfaction" and your only answer was "Well uhh...I don't think those things are on par with this student aid deal..." Well no shit that YOU don't, but last I checked you aren't the only person in this country. So no matter how much you type, you can't get around the fact that your view of government leads to some benefiting with their "experiential satisfaction" and some having it taken away. And if it's just a matter of making as many people as possible have that "experiential satisfaction" with each specific policy and screw the rest, just say it bud.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Holy shit are you trying to dance through the raindrops with your mental gymnastics.

"Certain policies bring governments closer towards the ideal of enforcing the conditions necessary for their citizens being able to live experientially satisfying lives..."

But then you have the audacity to claim that's way different than me saying your claim was that government pushes people toward this "experiential satisfaction" (or pulls them away from it)?

Government influences its people DIRECTLY THROUGH its policies. Your ridiculous attempt to put layer upon layer of buffer in with meaningless words is comical. "No no no, they don't directly impact citizens lives with these policies, they, umm...bring the government closer to the ideal of making conditions for this to happen blah blah blah..." Does anyone actually buy this bullshit, seriously? I hope not, they'd have to be dumb as a stump to let you snow them with this crap.

And again, I haven't even yet mentioned that every time you post this drivel you fail to clarify WHICH citizens these policies "bring the government closer to the ideal of enforcing the conditions blah blah blah..." I gave you concrete examples of how different citizens are at odds over policies when it comes to "experiential satisfaction" and your only answer was "Well uhh...I don't think those things are on par with this student aid deal..." Well no shit that YOU don't, but last I checked you aren't the only person in this country. So no matter how much you type, you can't get around the fact that your view of government leads to some benefiting with their "experiential satisfaction" and some having it taken away. And if it's just a matter of making as many people as possible have that "experiential satisfaction" with each specific policy and screw the rest, just say it bud.

I say that what I said is different from what you accused me of saying because it is different.

Now you're even changing what you're falsely accusing me of saying. Before it was:

the government pushes the country toward "experiential satisfaction"

Now it's:

government pushes people toward this "experiential satisfaction" (or pulls them away from it)

This is a significant change, because the main point of your false accusation about what I (allegedly) said was that I said the government should push the country toward experiental satisfaction, and since I (allegedly) was talking about countries having experiental satisfaction -- not people -- I'm being inconsistent!

How does the government push this "abstract" toward "experiential satisfaction" when that can only be realized by its individual citizens?

Of course, even if you hadn't changed what you're falsely accusing me, you'd still be misrepresenting what I said.

In your last paragraph you leave out the other parts of government enforcing the conditions for human flourishing that I stated: treating people virtuously and enabling people to act virtuously. Giving a windfall to people for making investments in themselves that they didn't pay for is a clear violation of the virtue of equity. If allowing people to build golf courses, race cars, etc are unvirtuous ways of treating and/or preclude people from living virtuously, it's not apparent to me. But if you think you can make that case, as I already said, go ahead. I'll listen.

 

[mkess101]

I say that what I said is different from what you accused me of saying because it is different.

Now you're even changing what you're falsely accusing me of saying. Before it was:



Now it's:



This is a significant change, because the main point of your false accusation about what I (allegedly) said was that I said the government should push the country toward experiental satisfaction, and since I (allegedly) was talking about countries having experiental satisfaction -- not people -- I'm being inconsistent!



Of course, even if you hadn't changed what you're falsely accusing me, you'd still be misrepresenting what I said.

In your last paragraph you leave out the other parts of government enforcing the conditions for human flourishing that I stated: treating people virtuously and enabling people to act virtuously. Giving a windfall to people for making investments in themselves that they didn't pay for is a clear violation of the virtue of equity. If allowing people to build golf courses, race cars, etc are unvirtuous ways of treating and/or preclude people from living virtuously, it's not apparent to me. But if you think you can make that case, as I already said, go ahead. I'll listen.

But wait, didn't you say previously that the country is "an abstract" and that policies are only recognized through their influence on it's individual citizens???? If this is the case, how are the two not interchangeable in the context of this discussion in your eyes? These are your words, not mine, and now you think they don't matter?

Treating people "virtuously" according to whom? You face the same problem that you do with your phrase "experiential satisfaction". Who decides what's "virtuous"? Please tell me, who gets the final say on if you or I or any other citizen is being treated "virtuously"? I mean, that should be easy to answer since it's a core belief of yours. If the government enacts a policy, who's the final arbitrator of whether that policy treats me virtuously and enables me to act virtuously? I guess it's just the legislators that we've elected that are deciding what's "virtuous" now, is that it? When I think of congress, "virtue" is definitely the first thing that comes to mind LMAO.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

But wait, didn't you say previously that the country is "an abstract" and that policies are only recognized through their influence on it's individual citizens???? If this is the case, how are the two not interchangeable in the context of this discussion in your eyes? These are your words, not mine, and now you think they don't matter?

Treating people "virtuously" according to whom? You face the same problem that you do with your phrase "experiential satisfaction". Who decides what's "virtuous"? Please tell me, who gets the final say on if you or I or any other citizen is being treated "virtuously"? I mean, that should be easy to answer since it's a core belief of yours. If the government enacts a policy, who's the final arbitrator of whether that policy treats me virtuously and enables me to act virtuously? I guess it's just the legislators that we've elected that are deciding what's "virtuous" now, is that it? When I think of congress, "virtue" is definitely the first thing that comes to mind LMAO.

I said an "abstraction", not an "abstract". Country and people are not interchangeable because only people can flourish. Your conception of country is obviously not synonymous with a country's citizenry since you used borders as part of what you think constitutes a country. Can borders have experiental satisfaction? Can borders act virtuously and be treated with virtue? Is there an organism made up of the US borders and everything within them that can flourish? (Hint: the answer to each of these questions is no).

In your second paragraph you're basically repeating questions you already asked me (slightly reworded), which I already answered, even though you've continuously not extended the same courtesy to me. And once again you're substituting a descriptive account of lawmaking for a prescriptive one, even though our disagreement this whole time has about the latter.

Since you've repeatedly dodged stating what your core beliefs about the purpose of government are even though I've repeatedly asked you to; have repeatedly misrepresented my arguments; and now you're repeating questions I already answered, I don't think continuation of this discussion would be fruitful.

 

[mkess101]

I said an "abstraction", not an "abstract". Country and people are not interchangeable because only people can flourish. Your conception of country is obviously not synonymous with a country's citizenry since you used borders as part of what you think constitutes a country. Can borders have experiental satisfaction? Can borders act virtuously and be treated with virtue? Is there an organism made up of the US borders and everything within them that can flourish? (Hint: the answer to each of these questions is no).

In your second paragraph you're basically repeating questions you already asked me (slightly reworded), which I already answered, even though you've continuously not extended the same courtesy to me. And once again you're substituting a descriptive account of lawmaking for a prescriptive one, even though our disagreement this whole time has about the latter.

Since you've repeatedly dodged stating what your core beliefs about the purpose of government are even though I've repeatedly asked you to; have repeatedly misrepresented my arguments; and now you're repeating questions I already answered, I don't think continuation of this discussion would be fruitful.

No it wouldn't be fruitful, we finally agree.

You saying "I've answered those questions already" when you really haven't does neither of us any good. When I ask you very specifically "Virtuous according to whom?" or "Experiential satisfaction by who's standards?", you simply cannot give a straight answer without defeating your own view. So instead of answering the question in a straightforward manner, you've sidestepped and typed out long winded non-answers in the hope you won't be called out for what they are. If you believe a policy helps people to be "virtuous" and I believe the opposite, why are you right and I'm wrong? Or vice versa?

People are always at odds over issues. Government sets policy and the disagreement rages on. Abortion. Pro-choice side believes it's "virtuous" to allow women control over their bodies and that choice. Pro-life side believes it's "virtuous" to protect the lives of children in the womb. Directly at odds with each other. Policy that is set is detracting from experiential satisfaction for many while giving it to others. That's just one issue. You've attempted to define things that cannot be defined when people are involved who all view the world differently. When it comes to policy, "experiential satisfaction" and "virtuous" are bullshit throwaways because they are impossible to apply to a GROUP of people who all have different views on what those things are.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

No it wouldn't be fruitful, we finally agree.

You saying "I've answered those questions already" when you really haven't does neither of us any good. When I ask you very specifically "Virtuous according to whom?" or "Experiential satisfaction by who's standards?", you simply cannot give a straight answer without defeating your own view. So instead of answering the question in a straightforward manner, you've sidestepped and typed out long winded non-answers in the hope you won't be called out for what they are. If you believe a policy helps people to be "virtuous" and I believe the opposite, why are you right and I'm wrong? Or vice versa?

People are always at odds over issues. Government sets policy and the disagreement rages on. Abortion. Pro-choice side believes it's "virtuous" to allow women control over their bodies and that choice. Pro-life side believes it's "virtuous" to protect the lives of children in the womb. Directly at odds with each other. Policy that is set is detracting from experiential satisfaction for many while giving it to others. That's just one issue. You've attempted to define things that cannot be defined when people are involved who all view the world differently. When it comes to policy, "experiential satisfaction" and "virtuous" are bullshit throwaways because they are impossible to apply to a GROUP of people who all have different views on what those things are.

I won't continue to feed you're trolling in this thread.

 

[mkess101]

I won't continue to feed you're trolling in this thread.

LMAO, trolling. Okay, sport. Best of luck peddling your nonsense to someone dumb enough to buy it.