zapatos

Welcome to the site Benjamin! Can you please summarize the video for us?

That comment isn't really germane to the issue of Palestinian reparations. It seems like you are more interested in fighting than discussing. I don't think I'll take the bait.

Why don't you open a thread on that topic and find out?

No, I'm saying the ability to sense god is a delusion.

Then MigL's point stands. "...any other kind of 'sensing' is usually a delusion of your own mind."

Whatever. I'm tired of trying to follow you around the room.

Thanks. Which one senses God?

You most certainly are. If I sue Ford today and win, YOU are going to lose wealth as Ford will have to pay me and it will mean you get reduced dividends or reduced share value.

The government did it. The government is still there. If Ford makes a faulty car that has exploding gas tanks, Ford is not off the hook for damages done if their CEO dies. "Ford" is at fault, not the employees personally.

Not under my model, no. My model is very simple. We did something wrong. Make it right. I'm not here to solve all the world's problems, or analyze all of its injustices. If I get into a car accident and it is my fault, I pay to make it right. I don't look at the history of what might have been, or if they should have been driving a cheaper car, or if they should have done better maintenance. If I did damage to their car, then I want to fix it. It's complicated if you choose to make it so. We aren't following rules set down by others; we get to make up our own rules. If we are paying reparations, then we get to decide who to include and who to leave out, what to pay for and what not to pay for, how much to pay, how to apologize, what to fix going forward. If your plan is too complicated to implement, then simplify it. If it costs too much, pay less. But what I don't recommend is that we ignore the harm we've done to our neighbors by using the excuse that someone else did something bad previously. Whataboutism in any form is in my mind just a way to avoid responsibility.

Well, given that the target of the injustice was based on race, it doesn't seem unreasonable to make the target of the restitution to be based on race. I have no problem with you addressing every wrong that has been committed since the beginning of time. I wish you good luck. But just as I don't see the need for the Breast Cancer Society to address pancreatic cancer, or the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples to address workplace injuries suffered by those carpenters who built the Indian Residential Schools, I also don't see the need for those addressing unjust race laws in the United States to cover every ancillary harm suffered. When Germany paid reparations to Israel they did not simultaneously address the German citizens who were harmed by breathing in the ashes of dead Jews. Personally I'm glad they kept their focus. It will take long enough to simply address those who were the targets of race laws. I'd rather we not delay their compensation any longer than we already have. If you wish to start a commission to address wrongs perpetrated by the government on other groups that have been singled out I think that would be great. We could even start another thread to focus on that exclusively. And seriously, I do wish you good luck in helping more people who were harmed. I just don't think your idea to expand the pool of recipients for reparations due to slavery, by adding white people who weren't slaves, will gain much traction. Thus my willingness to ignore that group during this particular effort.

'We' is a group put together by the government consisting of the right mix of people who are able to handle such a task. This is a separate institution set up by the government. The government is responsible for the mess, and assuming they take responsibility, they will be the party to address it. Reparations as I am discussing them are to address laws and policies set up by the government that caused harm to people based on race. It can include apologies, changes in laws and policies, payments, funding, etc. This is not to address violations of civil or criminal law. If a bank redlined neighborhoods when that practice was illegal, then the courts are already in place to address those types of activities. Since the government cannot be sued for laws that discriminated against minorities, we need a voluntary government approach to fixing the problem. For example, when the government made it legal, and provided funding, to wipe out housing for minorities through the interstate highway system, then the government must develop the solution. The courts have no jurisdiction.

As I said, the more 'provable harm' the better your case for specific financial compensation. Proof that someone stole $100 from you is a better case than "I probably would be richer if my grandma went to a better school", which is a better case than "I'm black so I've been harmed financially".

I think cash vs. programs is in large part dependent on what type of problem you are trying to solve. If you are trying to solve the problem that Bill and Marge lost financial advantages, then perhaps we should give them money. If we are trying to solve the problem that minorities are doing worse than whites in this country, then perhaps we should implement programs. So if someone can provide "evidence of a specific act that caused provable harm" then cash may be the way to go. After all, if you can show you are out $100 dollars, then you should get $100 in compensation. But if all you can prove is that 'my grandmother had to go to a crappy school because of segregation', how can you prove specific damages? Perhaps in these cases we should be looking at the bigger picture, where we work to get the group of people damaged by segregation on par educationally with those who were not harmed by segregation. Great point. Maybe there should be a floor where everyone gets at least x dollars to do with as they please. A nice combination of cash and programs to address a combination of problems. Agreed. As I said, I am in no position to speak for others and being an older white guy I obviously don't have as much knowledge as those who have been impacted.

I know this wasn't asked directly of me, but... I kind of envision a process where we look at the type of specific government policies/laws that led to harm, then try to assign some sort of reparation for that harm. The policies/laws could be slavery, housing, legal, etc. The reparations could take the form of money, education, preference, funding, etc. A 'reparations office' could be set up, and the stronger the claim for harm, the greater the reparation. I don't think we can handle 60 million claims, so perhaps if your claim is not strong enough for an individual claim (evidence of a specific act that caused provable harm) claims might be filed in specific 'classes', like 'my family was impacted by school segregation'. We need a reasonable limit as we don't want to sink the ship while trying to help the passengers. We could probably do sort of a 'means test', where your reparations decline as your means increase. I also think we have to accept the fact that any reparations will not make everyone whole again. We can't give what we don't have. I envision this being more than just a gesture, but less than 100% reparations. I don't want to seem paternalistic, but I think we need to make reparations less in cash, and more in what I would call foundational support. We are trying to fix a long term problem we created and I don't thinks handing a bunch of people a pile of cash will fix a problem in the long term. Foundational support would be more in the form of supporting education, loans, opportunities, etc. Obviously I've not completely thought this out, nor am I in a position speak for others. These are just my early thoughts on how we might address this issue.

I appreciate that you consistently make a real attempt to see things from the perspective of others. It encourages me to also put forth that effort with respect to those I seem to be at odds with.

-Cullen Nurseries Also a great wood for furniture.

This sort of debate seems to be happening in other places too. https://news.yahoo.com/zealand-debates-whether-ethnicity-factor-042350944.html

Well, I said "There is always an interesting group of "allies" who advocate for delayed or denied rights/justice, since that will be in the best interest of those who have been harmed." To which you replied "Where do you get this idea from? Who wants to delay anything?" At which point I gave an example of you using an analogy in your very next statement that would delay compensation... "But there's no point inflating the tyre without fixing the puncture properly first." So I guess we are arguing about it.

As infrequently as Bigfoot is spotted (and always an adult, or at least large) I'm surprised the breeding population is large enough to sustain itself since at least 1849. With only one sighting in that area in 26 years either these beasts can breed like the virgin Mary, or they have the longevity of Methuselah.

If you were unfairly denied a loan which resulted in financial harm caused to you I would be in favor of you receiving financial restitution without delay. I do not think it would be fair to make you wait until the financial institution has reviewed, created, vetted and implemented new policies to ensure their unfair practices have been eliminated. Even more so, if a government institution or company wronged you, I don't think your restitution should be dependent on first implementing a behavior change of the general population. I feel confident in labeling that as justice delayed.

There is always an interesting group of "allies" who advocate for delayed or denied rights/justice, since that will be in the best interest of those who have been harmed. 'Delay gay marriage since it will give people time to get used to the idea, else they will fight you.' 'Impeaching Trump will only embolden his supporters. It is in the best interest of Democrats to let his transgressions slide so that you don't risk him winning again.' 'Telling people it is time we had a black woman on the Supreme Court is a bad idea. It will be bad for black women since there will be a lot of pushback.' Sometimes I have a hard time telling certain 'allies' from the adversaries.

Gee, thanks.

Correct me if i am wrong please, but i thought that just because a drug is 50x stronger than an alternative, that does not mean you inject a volume equal to 1/50th of the weaker drug. You would instead inject a roughly equal volume in both case, but the fentanyl dose would be less concentrated and consist of more 'filler' and less drug. I would expect human error to be roughly the same risk for either drug.

Maybe I'm just naive but I've always assumed that drugs from pharmaceutical companies were mixed to such a level of precision that you didn't have to worry about over- or under-dosing.