edit: I use "you" alot in this post, because you responded to my question, but just for clarity, "you" is not entirely personal, but to everyone who expressed the sentiment...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
How is that so? The Army is nothing like Acorn. The people at Acorn aren't protecting America from invasion or terrorism, correct me if I'm wrong..
Acorn "rehabilitates" people, the army kills people..
|
So the army can be corrupt...they can have MEMBERS within it commit outlandish and shocking acts, but because they provide a service you personally deem necessary they are exempt from the logic you expressed regarding acorn (re: if members of an organization do something obscene, they deserve to be destroyed)?
Acorn, in theory, is protecting America from disenfranchisement. Your personal opinion might be that this is less "important" than a military, but this assumption has nothing to do with your original argument. what does "importance" have to do with your belief that because ACORN has some bad apples in it that it should be destroyed? And why does "importance" exempt institutions like the army from your same wrath? Is congress exempt from your corruption "all or nothing" mentality? How about your local police force? GM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
If you set up a company and your company is corrupt then it needs to be dropped from tax-payers taxes. If a couple dip-shits in an army did corrupt things, we have no choice, what abolish the whole army? Good point...? We need an Army we don't need Acorn, especially if it's corrupt by nature..
|
First of all ACORN is not corrupt, some people WITHIN ACORN are corrupt. Likewise, the ARMY is not corrupt, some people WITHIN the Army are corrupt. Herein lies your main mistake, imho. You are choosing to look at Acorn as if it's a single being. And while this is true in terms of legality when a business is "encorporated" it is still a collection of many many many people. When I was working at FAO Schwarz here in NYC, one of our co-workers was caught stealing from a register. Since this man was stealing, am I also guilty? Should we all have lost our jobs since, apparently, FAO Schwarz houses criminals?
So should I be exempt from funding the military if I find their atrocities and "bad apples" incongruous with my belief systems? your logic here is insane...because the army is "needed" we should see the greater good they do in contrast with the mistakes of a few...but because ACORN as a single company is NOT needed, we shouldn't? Besides the inherent mistake of pre-supposing your personal views of what is/is not necessary as universal truth, I continue to fail to see why "importance" is in control of your slide-bar of tolerance for atrocious actions.
If a famous actor on your movie set raped a co-star, and an extra raped a co-star...are you suggesting it's appropriate to fire the extra since you can replace him, but keep the famous actor because he's vital to your film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
Your saying that the Army is a company, which it is not. Your saying that people die to serve Acorn which serves our country..
|
I said no such thing. I am merely providing context and exposing hypocrisy based on political affiliation overriding common sense. I could just as easily employed a different governmental subsidy that contains bad eggs...say...the park service...which is not "NECESSARY" but would still expose the hypocrisy of the "destroy it" mentality towards ACORN. If a few park rangers embezzled money, chopped down rare trees, and had orgies on public land, would you say destroy the park service, or address the problem(s) exposed by this atrocious behavior and let it continue it's work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
False Analogies serve no purpose in a debate, the two terms have to be equivalent, otherwise it's just bunk..
|
I agree! Unfortunately, this IS (well, WAS) an equivalent analogy...you have simply changed the parameters in your response to make it a "false" analogy and keep your dissonance in check. Never once has "importance" been in this discussion until you "added" that as a neccessary criteria to when/when not to destroy a complete institution because of the actions of a few within it.
Now that you have, I have provided you with other examples of less "important" by your standard roles in our society. The park service...or how about the straphangers...or a political movement like the green party...or your local supermarket?
this, by the way, is all hinged upon what your personal ethics deems "important" and "unimportant." I find disenfranchisement and getting people motivated politcally and socially to be a VERY important cause, regardless of party or "views."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
But I do agree Acorn has very right to do what it does, just not from tax dollars, if it's going to embrace crime..
|
Are you therefore in complete agreement that faith-based initiatives and charities should not receive government help in any form? Should each of us get to choose whre our personal tax donations go? If I disagree with you about, say, the necessity for an army, should I be able to exempt myself from this, as you seem to think you should be exempt from ACORN (let alone the belief you should be able to dictate that NO ONE's taxes should go to their support)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mydriasis
I also agree that the army is pretty fucked up, but you can't have a country with no army, whereas we CAN have a country without acorn. Also if it were up to me, we wouldn't still be fighting this war.
|
I was unaware that the existence of an army was a pre-requisite to the ability of a country to exist. Things you learn...
but on a more concilliatory note: I agree (!!) with you that this war should end...I'm far more upset about the mistake of GOING to war, but finding a way to end this as soon as possible without fucking things up even more is absolutely something I stand with you on.