[NYYS]

There is no 'fix' to life to make it 100% wonderful but that by no means implies that there is no imperative to make things better (as you would suggest).

There is no way to make people better parents. If the government wants to embark upon some sort of ad campaign to tell parents to give a shit about their children I'm all for that, but anything short of government regulation of parenting is going to create widely divergent opportunities among children. Tough luck.

because all that's being pointed out is that conservatives have an immoral attitude.

Why is it immoral? What if someone says it is immoral to tax people's income? Oh boy, now it looks like liberals (and conservatives, actually - well, anyone who isn't an AnCap or hardcore libertarian) is immoral.

conservatives apparently believe in the proposition that "it is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others".

If conservatives believed that they would be fine with aristocracies and feudalism, which they are not. Without knowing why people answered in certain ways I would assume that they were answering something along the lines of "people don't have equal opportunities in life, due to factors beyond anyone's control, and that's acceptable." Not "I have no problem with it being impossible for a poor child to succeed."

For the record, I would have answered that I'm ok with that situation, but if I were asked if I'd be fine with putting barriers in front of poor people I would not find that acceptable. It depends on how the question is interpreted.

[Cartertonian]

It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,

One wonders how many respondents for whom life had offered less rather than more chances would subscribe to this view?

I have always had difficulty with "I'm alright, Jack" approaches to life. Doubtless the 'haves' will enthusiastically support anything that protects and increases whatever they 'have' and rely on this sort of ideology to disassociate the idea that their 'having' may be as a result of others 'not having'. Like I say, I'm sure you're cool with that if you sit within the former category.

When I was at Sandhurst (that's like West Point, only better) my company commander told us that being officers conferred upon us no rights - only responsibilities. As citizens of any state or as citizens of the world, we have to balance rights and responsibilities.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You have avoided my question as to why two people deserve the same opportunities.

No, I have just tried to soften the impact of its consequences. But why does a white person deserve the same opportunities as a black person? Or do you not agree that she does?

There is no way to make people better parents.

Actually, there clearly is. Again, you can't make people perfect parents, but we could all come up with ten things on the spot that would tend to make people better parents - greater access to childcare, better maternity leave, ante-natal classes, giving new parents children's books, courses on childhood development. Again, your idea that "nothing can be done differently to make society more just or better, so we may as well do nothing" is ridiculously stupid.

Why is it immoral?

We've been through this - providing or sanctioning unjust outcomes is immoral and discriminatory outcomes are unjust. You are basically asking why it's immoral to treat people wrongly - it's immoral by definition.

If conservatives believed that

Umm... What do you mean 'if'? The OP, which we're talking about, says conservatives DO believe that. That's precisely why we're talking about it. If you want to use 'if', then take issue with the OP.

[Dan]

Why would it be wrong for the United States to have "no blacks need apply" "blacks not allowed" "blacks to the back of the bus" signs everywhere?

That was discrimination based on the incorrect assumption that's blacks were inferior.

No, I have just tried to soften the impact of its consequences. But why does a white person deserve the same opportunities as a black person? Or do you not agree that she does?

Neither of them deserves opportunities. They are given them or, preferably, they make them themselves.

We've been through this - providing or sanctioning unjust outcomes is immoral and discriminatory outcomes are unjust.

Except we're not talking about discrimination, we're talking unequal opportunities, which are two different things.

Also, prove that discriminatory outcomes are inherently unjust.

[Maxim Litvinov]

They are given them or, preferably, they make them themselves.

Given them by whom? Clearly, the eighth baby born to a single bankrupt crack whore is not going to be 'given' the same opportunities as Paris Hilton. Nor can a 6-year-old be expected to 'make' opportunities to get to a good school, for instance.

People who believe in providing good state services - ie. liberals - have a solution for this. People who don't believe this is a problem - ie. immoral conservatives - decide to kid themselves, act immorally and deny there is any way of alleviating this problem (see NYYS in this thread).

[The Immortal Goon]

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

Oh my God, in 2006, with a very right-leaning president blowing shit up in other countries, promoting church-in-state, facing the homosexual threat, and a giant wall being built to keep brown people out of the country, right-leaning people were happier.

Stop the presses!

Of course, when there was a Democrat in the most moderate sense of the word in the White House these same people were declaring themselves the Messiah and stockpiling weapons to stop Satan's government or blowing up FBI buildings.

The study proves political people are happier when their valued policies are being implemented. Big surprise!

[NYYS]

Actually, there clearly is. Again, you can't make people perfect parents, but we could all come up with ten things on the spot that would tend to make people better parents - greater access to childcare, better maternity leave, ante-natal classes, giving new parents children's books, courses on childhood development.

a) Even if you did those things it's not going to cost a whole lot, which I regret to inform you means you won't be able to raise taxes on the wealthy.
b) It won't make a damn bit of difference. Parents are only as good as they want to be. You think if you go handing out childcare books in some ghetto the parents are going to suddenly start making their kids study for 18 years? Don't be ridiculous. Parenting is hard, hard work. Some poor parent who has never worked hard at anything in their life isn't going to decide that they're willing to sacrifice 18 years to benefit someone else.

Besides, historically your point is wrong anyway. The United States tried a "War on Poverty" for 30 years - it did nothing. It bred people who live off welfare and cranked out kids to increase their checks. If you look at poverty data you'll see that poverty was already in decline and leveled off a few years after LBJ got it passed, never improved after that, and then actually got slightly better when the GOP repealed it in the 90's. It's clear that bad parenting trumps all; if a parent isn't willing to do the work the kid has no shot, no matter what happens.

Umm... What do you mean 'if'? The OP, which we're talking about, says conservatives DO believe that. That's precisely why we're talking about it. If you want to use 'if', then take issue with the OP.

You only quoted and answered part of what I said. It depends on how you interpret the question. I have no problem with unequal opportunity due to parenting differences (which is what we have). I would have a serious problem with unequal opportunity due to legal differences.

Of course, when there was a Democrat in the most moderate sense of the word in the White House these same people were declaring themselves the Messiah and stockpiling weapons to stop Satan's government or blowing up FBI buildings.

Yeah that was definitely a statistically relevant number of people.

[Dan]

Given them by whom?

By whomever.

Clearly, the eighth baby born to a single bankrupt crack whore is not going to be 'given' the same opportunities as Paris Hilton. Nor can a 6-year-old be expected to 'make' opportunities to get to a good school, for instance.

And? How is this discrimination?

People who believe in providing good state services - ie. liberals - have a solution for this.

A solution often as bad as the problem, and which usually don't work.

People who don't believe this is a problem - ie. immoral conservatives - decide to kid themselves, act immorally and deny there is any way of alleviating this problem (see NYYS in this thread).

False. Conservatives tend to give to charity to help others, rather than enforced redistribution. Also conservatives advocate people to take responsibility for themselves and their families and live proper moral lives so that there are no crack whores, no broken homes, no impoverished children, etc. Meanwhile liberals advocate policies and moralities which lead to more crack whores, more broken homes, more single parents, and more impoverished. They attack traditional structures which provide guidance and support.

The study proves political people are happier when their valued policies are being implemented. Big surprise!

Actually, Republicans have been consistently happier than either Democrats or independents since 1972 when they first started measuring the data.

[Maxim Litvinov]

a) Even if you did those things it's not going to cost a whole lot...

Wait... so now your problem with a state that makes better parents has gone from it being 'impossible' or 'outrageously expensive' to that it's 'possible' and 'not going to cost a lot'?'

In which case, you've just demolished your own argument, yes?

How is this discrimination?

It's an unjust outcome. The idea that we should be willing only to stamp out such outcomes when they are the direct result of individuals, rather than the result of 'acts of God' or the indirect outcome of people's actions ... well, you provide no evidence for this bizarre assertion.

Conservatives tend to give to charity to help others...

Source? Conservatives don't even believe that there's a problem in the first place (see OP) and frequently think that those suffering aren't deserving of support or that support is all 'too difficult' (see NYYS, your answers). They are fundamentally immoral because they support unjust outcomes.

[NYYS]

Wait... so now your problem with a state that makes better parents has gone from it being 'impossible' or 'outrageously expensive' to that it's 'possible' and 'not going to cost a lot'?'

In which case, you've just demolished your own argument, yes?

Maxim, you have a bad habit of quoting bits and pieces of people's posts so you only have to answer what you like in a form that you find suitable.

Anyway, my whole statement started by mocking you, pointing out that even if you were to undertake those measures it wouldn't be expensive enough to raise taxes on the dreaded upper class.

The second part (which you ignored so that you could pretend the argument defeated itself) said that those measures wouldn't do any good anyway - I have consistently said it's impossible to make people better parents.

I think most lefties really know this (they either know it or they refuse to look at historical data), they just use it as an excuse to justify more wealth redistribution to ease their bleeding hearts.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The second part I ignored, because it was just stupid. I thought I'd saved you from embarrassment.

Your argument was that people won't be better at parenting if they have done courses on practical issues of being a good parent, that children won't be more likely to read if they are given access to books from a young age, that babies won't be cared for better if their mothers are given access to ante-natal classes, that parents wouldn't be able to work harder if they had access to reliable child care.

In short, anyone who is not an idiot can see how wrong you are.

[NYYS]

Your argument was that people won't be better at parenting if they have done courses on practical issues of being a good parent, that children won't be more likely to read if they are given access to books from a young age, that babies won't be cared for better if their mothers are given access to ante-natal classes, that parents wouldn't be able to work harder if they had access to reliable child care.

Any of these things are available now. Parents choose not to take advantage.

In short, anyone who is not an idiot can see how wrong you are.

Anyone who can look up poverty data can see that handing money to people who don't want to be good parents does nothing but waste money. Like I said, it does help bleeding hearts feel good about themselves though.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Any of these things are available now

They're not - they simply aren't provided ubiquitously, conveniently, automatically or for free.

Anyone who can look up poverty data can see that handing money to people who don't want to be good parents does nothing but waste money.

Actually, you couldn't tell that from poverty data. But seeing as no-one has been talking about 'handing money to people who don't want to be good parents', it's another strawman anyway.

So, you only got two things wrong in that last post. If you only try to say one thing in the next one, you will only get one thing wrong.

[ThereBeDragons]

That was discrimination based on the incorrect assumption that's blacks were inferior.

But why is this bad?

I'm looking for the value judgment here, because there is one.

[QatzelOk]

Happy people tend to vote Republican because they don't want anything to change.

Unhappy vote Democrat because they want changes (but never get it).

[Dan]

It's an unjust outcome.

Which does not logically follow. You have yet to prove that just because something it unjust it's discriminatory.

The idea that we should be willing only to stamp out such outcomes when they are the direct result of individuals, rather than the result of 'acts of God' or the indirect outcome of people's actions ... well, you provide no evidence for this bizarre assertion.

When did I assert such a thing?

Source?

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

Conservatives don't even believe that there's a problem in the first place (see OP) and frequently think that those suffering aren't deserving of support or that support is all 'too difficult' (see NYYS, your answers). They are fundamentally immoral because they support unjust outcomes.

What you're basically saying is that conservatives are fundamentally immoral because they don't feel guilty because reality is the way it is.

If that's immoral sign me up.

[NYYS]

But why is this bad?

It's inefficient. There are black people more than capable of making positive contributions, and blocking them from the process prevents that.

They're not - they simply aren't provided ubiquitously, conveniently, automatically or for free.

Yeah, books are tough to find. Ante-natal classes are what, child-rearing classes? I don't know very many people that took those anyway, and again they are no substitute for a parent that cares. And child care? Kids are taken care of 7 hours a day by the public school system.

For the millionth time, you're deluding yourself if you think that even if these things were free and/or easy (and most of them are already) disinterested parents are going to take advantage of them.

Actually, you couldn't tell that from poverty data.

Just because you say it isn't true doesn't make it so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poverty_59_to_05.png
US poverty was dropping pre-War on Poverty anyway, then The War on Poverty was instituted in '65 and it slowed down, then it stopped and stayed more or less steady until the GOP repealed all the welfare bullshit in the mid 90's, when it dropped again (although poverty is cyclical, so it's likely that just coincided with another drop due to economic growth).

Welfare made no difference, at best, and possibly hurt.

But seeing as no-one has been talking about 'handing money to people who don't want to be good parents'

Handing them money, handing them services. It's all the same, you can either use it to help your kids or not. Those decisions aren't going to change.

[ThereBeDragons]

It's inefficient. There are black people more than capable of making positive contributions, and blocking them from the process prevents that.

Wait, so discrimination against blacks is only bad because of inefficiency?

[NYYS]

Not only, but that's certainly a big reason why no smart society should discriminate on the basis of something that has no effect on value.

I would also say it's morally wrong to discriminate against someone over something they have no control over, but I imagine some dumbass Klansmen would disagree with me about that. Which is why I avoid the morality argument in favor of one that is undeniable - there are some smart, hard-working black people whose integration into the workforce benefits you and me.

[Rancid]

Happy people tend to vote Republican because they don't want anything to change.

Unhappy vote Democrat because they want changes (but never get it).

they don't get change, because they haven't learned that democrats are just as much involved with big business and in the pockets of big money.

If you want real "change" you have to vote something other than rep or dem.