Accorn Supports Child ProstitutionFollow

Don't be so darn literal. I'm not going to repeat things I've already said. By "shut down" I mean that Acorn should be restricted from filing any applications for federal aid on behalf of a third party, and by "doubt" I mean "doubt that they can reliably be trusted to fill out said forms on behalf of third parties without fraud".

And Yes. If there is even the slightest doubt that an organization entrusted to be a gatekeeper of the taxpayers money is doing so honestly, they should be blocked from continuing to do so. Then there should be an investigation. And if and only if they satisfy those investigating that the trust they are asking us all to place upon them is warranted, then they'll be granted permission to operate in that manner again.


This is not some private company using their own money to do things. That would be bad, but would also be self correcting. They get a bad rep. People boycott them. They clean up their act. Acorn is handing out our money. Thus, the bar should be set a bit higher. If we're going to have government aid programs, and are going to entrust organizations like Acorn to determine qualification for said programs and otherwise act as middlemen in the process, then they should be subject to the absolute highest scrutiny.


I'm not sure why this is even debated. If the accounting firm handling your money was involved in an embezzlement scam, you'd certainly want significant assurances that the problems have been resolved before letting them resume handling your money. That's just plain reasonable. Yet, for some bizarre reason many of you seem to want to just let them continue what they're doing, and sure... we'll "investigate", but let's not interrupt them while we're doing it, and maybe in a few years we'll get some results after everyone has forgotten about this...


If you really care about helping those in need, and you understand that there are scarce resources available to provide for those in need, I'd think that you would want to go after any organization if there was even a hint that they were handing out said resources to those who don't really need them. Afterall, they're technically stealing them from those who do need them.


It's just that to me, if you want to push an agenda which includes providing more such services and goods to those in need, it would behoove you to show that you care that they are administered properly. It's a hard enough sell to get people to be willing to give up some of their earnings to provide for others. You're asking them to trust that the government will do so in a way that is better than they would have used those earnings themselves. Examples like what Acorn is doing make your own argument massively weaker. It's just strange that instead of falling over themselves to remove this problem, most people on the left seem to just want to look the other way and ignore the problem.


How do you expect to win the "we should let the government handle charity" argument if this is the example people see? I just think it's counterproductive, not just for the country as a whole, but certainly to the "cause" you claim to support.

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 5:40pm by gbaji

I'm a math major. You have no base to come off and tell me I have no idea what proof is or that I'm misunderstanding the concept here. You fail at it. Play again next time.

EDIT: Because you still won't get it, most people base their opinions off of facts, be they citations from experts or personal anecdotes - the former is obviously preferred. You base your opinions off a bunch of "facts" that you create to fit the situation at hand. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing. There are just as many liberal posters here who do the same thing.


Edited, Sep 17th 2009 9:03pm by CBD

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 9:27pm by CBD

I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that the concept of "proof" you are using is virtually irrelevant to a political discussion. There are no absolutes to start from. Just opinion. You can certainly use logical forms to verify the consistency of an argument or position from a set of assumptions, but you can't validate the assumptions themselves since they are pretty universally based on theoretical political models which are debated.



Nope. Neither of those are "facts". For someone making a big stink about his skill with math and proofs, you fail miserably. Those experts are just additional sources of opinion. They are *not* facts. Facts are things like "A horse is a mammal", "the city of <whatever> is X feet above sea level", "the average rainfall in the Amazon Basin is Y inches". Those are facts.

"<some expert> says that global warming is real" is not a fact. It's an opinion. No matter how much of an expert that person is, his statements are opinions (unless he's actually stating facts, of course). Now, you can properly call it a "fact" that he made the statement. But that does not make the statement he made a "fact".




No. I state my opinion that I believe something to be a fact. Yes. The formulation is literally incorrect, but I assume that anyone smart enough to read understands that when someone says something like "It is a fact that increased pollution will lead to health problems for those living in the area" is actually stating an opinion. The word "fact" is commonly used as an allegation of fact (ie: an opinion that something is true).


I don't based my opinions on those things. Those things are my opinions. If you've paid any attention at all, I overwhelmingly base my opinions based on a logical progression from a common set of beliefs I hold. The resulting opinions and positions are therefor consistent with the core ideology. That those resulting opinions don't match yours does not make mine wrong, nor yours. As I've explained numerous times, it most likely leads from a core difference of opinion regarding some very very basic ideological assumptions.

I believe that individual freedoms are the most important thing to protect in a society. Every single political position I hold derives from that basic belief (that's a simplistic form of it of course). Most liberals hold positions which are consistent with a belief that the good of the whole outweighs the rights and freedoms of the individual. Thus, they arrive at different conclusions and hold different opinions regarding a whole range of issues.

Neither have anything to do with whether one has the "facts on his side".



I think you're being overly sensitive to an irrelevant figure of speech. Try to understand what I'm saying, not obsess over possible meanings of each and every word. It might help you...

And no one is.



Sure. We're on the same page. You'll note that we're not disagreeing with the facts though. We're disagreeing with the opinion. You need to understand the difference between "persuasion" and "proof".



Because it's a null argument. You (or others) demand "proof" of something which is by it's very nature "opinion". You then declare my opinion false because I can't "prove" that it's true, and allow your own position to be declared true by default. Of course, you've avoided applying the same rigorous requirements to your own positions, but that's apparently just fine...


I primarily base my positions on three things:

1. How they derive from a common ideological starting point. Basically. Is this position on this issue consistent with my core ideology?

2. How they are supported by historical evidence. Basically, I'll find examples showing similar cases and look at the results.

3. Anecdotal experience. How do my own observations and life experiences fit into the issue and in what way to they form my position?

None of those can properly be called "proof". They are at best "subjective reasoning". But guess what? None of the positions I'm arguing against can be called proof either. They're equally subjective. We all engage in attempting to declare our own beliefs to be "true" and/or "based on fact". Some of us (me usually) can at least state a chain of reasoning behind the position itself. Most of us (the folks I argue against usually) simply parrot some third party which declares their position to be true, and are done with it. I suppose that's a simplistic way to decide what to believe in, but for a thinking person like myself it's ultimately pretty unsatisfying.




*cough*. Stop cherry picking your quotes of me and then criticizing me for doing something I didn't do. I said that those statements can be factual. Just that they usually aren't (or at least the ones used to support political argument usually aren't).



Common usage is common usage. Do you scream at the TV while watching court dramas? Cause it sounds like this is your own problem and not mine. It's a fact that I'm going to continue using the word fact whenever I factually determine that the facts of the situation support my use of the word facts to get my point across.

And if it bothers you on some deep level, I'll do it even more... ;)



Sure. I said it was a simplistic form of it. I don't feel like spending the 40,000 words it would take to fully explain my ideological views on liberty, freedom, the individual, and how a society should work to promote those things.




No. I "think" about problem A. I express my opinion about problem A. Usually, the only time I go looking for information is when someone else expresses an opinion and I'm trying to figure out where they're coming from, or they reference a specific case or event the details of which I am not aware of.

I don't read other sources to decide what my position is. I may read to get the details of a situation in order to decide how it fits into my position, but that's not the same thing.

And yeah. I'm not "backed into a corner". Usually, I'm constantly annoyed by people bringing up irrelevant side arguments as a means to distract from the main issue at hand. Like someone obsession over the exact meaning and use of the word "fact" instead of actually addressing what I said.


This whole section is an attempt to derail the conversation. You get that right? You may be doing it subconsciously, but that's what it is about. The case against Acorn is so astounding and overwhelming that those who started out defending them because it was just one person, then just two, and well... maybe some more, are pretty much left with nothing except to attempt to change the subject.



Wait. So you're suggesting that a group of people who share a common set of positions on a whole range of social and political issues cannot possibly be judged based on this commonality? Why not?

The label exists for a reason. Feel free to use a different one if you want. For me, it's a time saving device. I could have said "Most people who collectively believe that we should use the power of the government to tax those who are successful to provide for those who are not out of a belief that this will result in a greater society, and who support universal health care, marriage benefits for gay couples, oppose large corporations and the general accumulation of large amounts of wealth, etc....". Does that pretty well sum up the group we're talking about? Did I leave anything out?

If you want me to, I'll write that every single time I'd normally use a word like "liberal", or "social liberalism" or whatever. Do you want that? Or can we all just agree that when I use the word "liberal", that's what I mean?

[quote]Try to only say things relevant to the discussion, not just babble on as though we all care about every little verbal fart that passes through your head. It might help you...[/quote]

/shrug

You're free to not read or respond to my posts. No one's twisting your arms here. It is strange though that you choose to ignore the points I'm making and obsess over what is essentially decoration. Kinda telling really...

Let's go back to an old statement you haven't provided proof of yet:



Provable* fact - good diagnosticians are in high demand.
Provable* fact - good diagnosticians are paid more in the US.
Opinion - Good diagnosticians will tend to migrate to the U.S. where they will be paid more.

You present the opinion as fact. I'm sure you can find twenty different loopholes or more statements demanding that it is clearly an opinion, please don't feel the need to reply with that.

This is a trend with you. You make an opinion into fact. We then say "citation" because anything presented as fact should be provable.

* - note that by provable I mean "for the purpose of discussion, pretend that both of these statements have had accurate, applicable citations provided



Beating a dead horse now - we want proof for what you state as fact. If you wish something to be stated as an opinion, you need to write it so that it will come off as such. We aren't here to read your mind.

On a side note, I find it extremely strange that someone would do anything just to support their key ideology. It explains a lot though.



I am well aware of what you were discussing. My statement was in reference to that.



I was telling you that your common usage is really not that common. The word "fact" is only used as "opinion I feel is completely and undeniably true" by sensationalist @#%^s. See: bible thumpers, Sarah Palin, most people on one far end of the political spectrum.



Except for, you know, how it addresses you desire to make factual statements when you don't have any support of them at all by claiming that all political discussion involves opinion disguised as fact.



Er, no? Every statement I made in this thread still stands as of right now given the information released. Five cases are no more meaningful than two cases. That was the entire reason for my original post about proof. There's a reason we have a distinction between theorems and laws.



You know damn well what I meant, quit playing word games to pretend you're clueless.



Telling of what? Finish your thoughts, please.

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 11:42pm by CBD

Good god, gbaji is a large group of people?

I must be missing something here because you seemed to imply I was being hypocritical. I don't agree with either side doing it and was replying explicitly to gbaji's use of it.

Perhaps not, but you used it in an argument when your side does the very same thing. It doesn't really give your side any moral high ground.

$DEITY would like to have a word with you.

What the hell is "[my] side?" I'm disagreeing with gbaji, therefore I must be a liberal, therefore I must generalize conservatives? I don't feel that a few videos mean Acorn management is giving the orders to help prostitutes, therefore I must be a liberal, therefore I must generalize conservatives?

This is like varus and his nebulous "you liberals." Who the fuck are these people, and why are they speaking for me when they don't even know my opinion?

Just an update to this story: Juan Veras, the employee accused of trying to help the prostitutes, actually reported the couple to the authorities shortly after the conversation. There was also evidence of tampering on the tapes, heavy editing, and a language barrier that indicates Mr. Veras didn't realize they were referencing trafficking children.

NYT article here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/19/us/politics/AP-US-ACORNs-Troubles.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Hey, it worked for Sammy Sosa, didn't it?


That was Sammy Sosa, right?