There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Um, the response was sarcastic too. But yes, there is a really big difference between being a democratic socialist and being a communist. You know, like the difference between preferring progressive taxation and nationalization of vital sectors to centrally planned economies and total nationalization.
Anyway, my argument was perfectly logical.
Geek: Low taxes are good because the founders liked them!
Me: That isn't an argument. The founders liked other things that we now recognize aren't good. Therefore, just appealing to the founders' sense of good isn't sufficient.
Others: But the founders did some good stuff.
Me: Of course. And we should retain the good, while making things better.
You: You hate the Declaration of Independence and make no sense. Commie.
That is, you misrepresented my argument by saying I dismissed the founders entirely, when all I dismissed was the notion that because they thought something was good, it is obviously good.
But I have to get back to work, and I'm feeling bad about this giant derail, so I'd be happy to discuss this stuff via PM, but I don't think I'll post in this thread anymore.
Originally posted by Blue Horn
Some_girl,
Sorry if you thought my post was contained a nuanced argument. Assuming that you understand the definition of nuanced. Actually, I wasn't making much of an argument. I was simply using sarcasim to point out your failure to employ logical reasoning.
Assuming that you also felt that I misrepresented your post, I don't see how I mispresented anything. Maybe you simply prefer to think of yourself as a socialist instead of a communist. Either way, you are advocating a communistic/socialistic approach in that you think that the government should provide for everyone a decent standard of living. You specifically stated, "I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation." Your words not mine.
As for the constitution hating, I never said that. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your dismissing of the founder's rational for declaring independence. Specifically, you bash Geek for relying on the founding father's ideals to be free from taxation without representation. His reliance on the founding fathers, which you ppointed out as being "poor", was one of the main reasons that the documents I referenced were created. In essence you completely dismissed the reliance on any of the ideals and beliefs of our founding fathers because of their views on a few issues unrelated to taxation. Then you go on to say that we are supposed to learn from our forefathers. Thats funny considering your complete disregard of them. How can you learn from our forefathers if you completely dismiss all the ideals of people that had a few bad ideas and acts? ALL societies, including ours today, have problems, but that doesn't mean you dismiss everything else.
So, exactly how did I misrepresent your post?
Hook'em
Blue
Um, the response was sarcastic too. But yes, there is a really big difference between being a democratic socialist and being a communist. You know, like the difference between preferring progressive taxation and nationalization of vital sectors to centrally planned economies and total nationalization.
Anyway, my argument was perfectly logical.
Geek: Low taxes are good because the founders liked them!
Me: That isn't an argument. The founders liked other things that we now recognize aren't good. Therefore, just appealing to the founders' sense of good isn't sufficient.
Others: But the founders did some good stuff.
Me: Of course. And we should retain the good, while making things better.
You: You hate the Declaration of Independence and make no sense. Commie.
That is, you misrepresented my argument by saying I dismissed the founders entirely, when all I dismissed was the notion that because they thought something was good, it is obviously good.
But I have to get back to work, and I'm feeling bad about this giant derail, so I'd be happy to discuss this stuff via PM, but I don't think I'll post in this thread anymore.
Originally posted by Blue Horn
Some_girl,
Sorry if you thought my post was contained a nuanced argument. Assuming that you understand the definition of nuanced. Actually, I wasn't making much of an argument. I was simply using sarcasim to point out your failure to employ logical reasoning.
Assuming that you also felt that I misrepresented your post, I don't see how I mispresented anything. Maybe you simply prefer to think of yourself as a socialist instead of a communist. Either way, you are advocating a communistic/socialistic approach in that you think that the government should provide for everyone a decent standard of living. You specifically stated, "I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation." Your words not mine.
As for the constitution hating, I never said that. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your dismissing of the founder's rational for declaring independence. Specifically, you bash Geek for relying on the founding father's ideals to be free from taxation without representation. His reliance on the founding fathers, which you ppointed out as being "poor", was one of the main reasons that the documents I referenced were created. In essence you completely dismissed the reliance on any of the ideals and beliefs of our founding fathers because of their views on a few issues unrelated to taxation. Then you go on to say that we are supposed to learn from our forefathers. Thats funny considering your complete disregard of them. How can you learn from our forefathers if you completely dismiss all the ideals of people that had a few bad ideas and acts? ALL societies, including ours today, have problems, but that doesn't mean you dismiss everything else.
So, exactly how did I misrepresent your post?
Hook'em
Blue
