Jump to content

Wabash82

Member
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Wabash82 last won the day on April 1

Wabash82 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

About Wabash82

  • Rank
    100 Post Club

Personal Information

  • School
    Indianapolis Cathedral
    South Bend St. Joseph
  • Affiliation
    Fan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lots to address in an internet forum. Slavery was not lawful in the sense I am talking about AT ANY TIME. King George III was the "lawful" ruler of the American colonists in 1776 under English law, but he was not the lawful ruler of them under natural law, the law that creates the "inalienable rights" to which Thomas Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence. The mere fact that many human beings for thousands of years thought it was okay to deprive fellow humans of their liberty and property based on their skin color, and promulgated human laws to allow that, did not render those things lawful under natural law (or God's law, or however you wish to characterize it). The fact that duly-elected representatives of the German people in the 1930s passed laws allowing handicapped children to be euthanized by the State didn't somehow deprive those children of their (human) right to life and make the State's killing of them "lawful" in any meaningful sense. Perhaps you believe that your right to life, right to liberty, right to self-defense, right to own property, right to pursue your own happiness all exist only because a human government has by law "created" them for you -- and therefore, by the jot of a pen, can also lawfully take them away from you. But I doubt very many other Americans believe that is the true source of those rights. Those rights have existed under law that has existed from the begining of time. So in regard to deprivation of human rights we are talking about here, no, this is not imposing today's laws on prior generations. It is acknowledging that we now understand that prior generations of Americans, (whether in ignorance or even misguided good intent) used the power of government to deprive certain of their fellow men of the natural law rights that our nation's founders had readily acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. As for the taxpayer thing -- you and other current taxpayers fund all sorts of federal government obligations that were incurred by our nation's government long before you were born, by virtue the actions and decisions of prior generations. This is not about "punishing" you or holding you accountable for your personal ancestor's deeds; it is about the U.S. government taking responsibility for addressing injuries that the United States government inflicted in the past. Again, I think this focus on the accountability of particular individual's ancestors, instead of the accountability of the nation, is odd. The other situations you mention -- women and voting; drinkers and prohibition; military draftees; gays and marriage -- do not in my mind necessarily involve deprivation of basic human rights, and I think the "damages" argument could be tougher to make. I'd still certainly look at a couple of them. But I don't see how the possibility of other comparable situations existing affects the validity of this one? The four issues you list are what the hearings are designed to explore. It seems to me that logical answers would include: 1) folks who are the ancestors of slaves. 2) the U.S. government. 3) Needs analysis -- the actual damages are probably too high to realistically consider paying -- the present value of the labor that was taken without compensation for over 300 years? The overall wealth gap between African Americans and white Americans? Maybe the present value of the 40 acres and a mule promised in 1865? (That's facetious.) 4) It could do many things, but the main thing it would do, like a posthumous pardon of a wrongfully convicted man, is do justice. 5) all ready addressed.
  2. If the federal government had seized your father's house that you were legally entitled to inherit, and many years later paid you the value of the house that you would have inherited, but for the government unlawfully taking it from your father, would you consider that payment "free stuff"?
  3. Effective in what sense? In a personal injury or property damage lawsuit, for example, valid evidence may be presented to explain how the proposed damages relate to the injury -- e.g., evidence about future earnings a person killed in an accident reasonably could have earned, or comparable valuations for the property of the type that was taken or destroyed. Such damages are "effective" in the sense that theu provide reasonable economic reimbursement for ascertainable economic loss. But I doubt they are "effective" in soothing the heartache of losing a loved one, or the anger and frustration of being deprived of some important thing that rightfully belonged to you. In what sense are you asking about?
  4. If someone puts together the evidence to establish the cause and effect relationship, I personally would consider it. I'm not sure how to have a discussion if you are so defensive. Why do you feel like this idea (reparations) is some sort of personal reflection on you? Is it somehow a novel notion to you that some of the things your federal taxes fund are programs that don't benefit you directly? Or that there may be federal programs that benefit you that other people who don't benefit from tjose programs pay taxes to help fund them? Why in this particular case is that concept any more offensive?
  5. In every discussion I have heard, the reparations would be paid by the U.S. federal government, not by any specific individuals of any certain race (or who live in any certain area of the country, etc.). The federal government would be paying compensation to surviving relatives of people the U.S. government victimized by systematically denying them basic human rights, like the right to liberty, self-determination, etc. I am puzzled how anyone could intepret that as "racist" toward white Americans? Can you help me understand your logic in suggesting that?
  6. This whole thing is such a cluster. The Archbishop's decision to make this particular issue a deal-breaker for Catholic schools strikes me as very cynically calculated. Just as a matter of statistical probability, the likelihood that there are or will be any significant number of teachers in archdiocesen schools who are in same sex marriages would be small relative to the likely number of teachers in the schools who have had multiple different-sex marriages without obtaining annulments, or who are engaging in pre-marital sex and/or "living in sin" with a different sex partner/significant other. The fact that he has chosen to focus on this particular, fairly rare example of "immoral conduct" instead of the (presumably) much more common ones mentioned above suggests to me he didn't have the balls to challenge "immoral" behavior among teachers of the sort that he knows many, many students' parents and alums of Catholic schools also have engaged in or are now engaging in. He went after a fringe group to minimize (he hoped) the backlash. The Archbishop's calculation appears to be correct for the most part, since for reasons noted in the Board's letter, Cathedral's situation was akin to Roncalli's in terms of the strong leverage the archdiocese holds over it. That made this pretty much a, "Is this a hill I am willing to die defending?" decision for the Board of Directors. Not exactly a "Profiles in Courage" moment on either side. But the reaction among Cathedral alums I am seeing online -- "I won't send my kids there; they won't get anymore money from me!" -- ignores the plain fact that Cathedral (like Roncalli) didn't have the luxury to say no, like Brebeuf did, and still stay open and essentially continue to operate as it has up to now, without archdiocesan support. If they truly want to put their money where their mouths are, Cathedral's wealthy alums, instead of threatening to withdraw their financial support, should step up and offer to fund the cost to buy the school the flexibility it needs to pursue a third option: surviving for a year or two simply as a non-denominational "private school" until they can gain sponsorship from a Catholic order independent of the archdiocese, ala the situation with Brebeuf.
  7. Well, perhaps folks in the past were better at wrapping their motivations in loftier-sounding words, but don't you think that most folks, from the dawn of whenever "voting" became a meaningful thing, have cast their votes based on their own self-interests? People convince themselves that they aren't just voting of out self(ish)-interest, but because what's good for them is for the "greater good". I guess I don't see Americans voting based on their perceived self-interest -- or politicians pandering to that impulse -- as a particularly new thing.
  8. I kinda doubt this guy would want your pickup truck, either....
  9. I can't decide if Howard's bro crush, cult-of-personality shtick is creepy, or just funny.
  10. Strictly for entertainment value, I'd much rather see The Donald in action over Senator Warren.
  11. I think most people would consider "eugenics" to refer to government-compelled application of genetic "purity" theories, such as the forced sterilization of people deemed by the State to be "mentally defective." Characterizing an individual person's choice not to give birth to a child with certain genetic characteristics as "eugenics" seems very odd: would Justice Thomas consider a black woman's choice to have her tubes tied so she won't produce any "racially undesireable" black children to be eugenics? His linkage of abortion rates among black women to the specter of eugenics is weird not just because it implies black women are aborting their babies specifically because the babies are black (and not for all the other reasons listed in the stats previously furnished by TD, such as their financial situation), but also because black Americans still have a higher fertility rate than white Americans. So is the apparent choice of white people in America to have fewer white babies evidence of eugenics?
  12. My disability application just hit the mail: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/27/health/who-burnout-disease-trnd/index.html
  13. As noted, viability -- having a substantial probability of being able to live outside of the womb -- does not align with the presence of a heartbeat, at least under current medical technology. Strictly from a medical ethics standpoint, it would seem like development of brain wave activity not associated with just automatic nerve function would be a more logical point to draw the line, since the inverse of that is essentially the standard ("brain dead") we apply at the other end to decide that a human life has ceased to exist. That aligns roughly with week 24 of a pregnancy.
  14. I am now at that fatness/age ratio where the exertion of showering makes me sweat. I need to shower after I shower....
×
×
  • Create New...