Fuck me, you really are an ass-hat.
Fuck me, you really are an ass-hat.
calamus (July 20th, 2018)
What is 'liberal'?
Seriously, I get told i'm extreme right wing by some people, and others tell me i'm a extreme leftist;
I tell them all the same - I ain't one thing or the other, I simply address each problem on its own merits/considerations, and attempt to arrive at the simplest solution for each problem in turn.
Fair enough. “Liberal” in an American context carries a connotation that references the Democratic Party specifically, and their policies generally. It prioritizes the state and society over the individual, and has devolved generally into “social justice” and other related ideas.
Given that this forum has international membership, I should have picked a more precise term rather than one that is more colloquial (even though it has a similar connotation in other western societies). I’ll give it some thought and change it later to something different.
I agree with your last sentence, and tend to do likewise. Depending on the topic (and the forum), I get characterized as both liberal and/or conservative. I prefer “rational”.
SIR (June 11th, 2018)
If you believe that the CDC would issue a statement that was not strongly supported by research*... well, that's how anti-vaxxers are.
And onto the ignore list you go.
*not all research has 100% consensus. Decisions are made when the weight of the research reaches a critical point, which is the position of the CDC.
Last edited by Empty_of_Clouds; June 10th, 2018 at 12:13 PM.
I’ve pretty much eliminated my use of the word “liberal” in favor of “progressive”. No liberal would conscience the restrictions on 1A rights that rank and file Democrats seem willing to embrace these days.
--
Mike
dneal (June 10th, 2018)
Although I agree generally with you, l take some issue with your definition of a liberal, better termed a progressive, in America. Given how American liberals policies have destroyed our once great public schools, inevitably led to high crime rates and high taxes (as evidence look at every major city ruled for significant lengths of time by Democrats, ie Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc) along with anemic economic growth I would say it prioritizes the state and ideals for human behavior over the individual, society, rational thought, and freedom.
Yet again, you have not done your homework and make assertions that only indicate your ignorance on the topic. Have no fear however, I'm happy to school you yet again.
"We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC).
That's one of many quotes, from several leaders of the CDC (before Congress banned them from doing it). It's all well documented, and you can read more here although your history appears to me that you only claim to read facts.
Oh dear! I'm going to be ignored!!! C'mon, we both know you don't have the self-discipline not to peek. What's just a little satisfying is knowing the nail-biting that will go on as you try to figure out how to respond. Just ignore it? No, too much agony. Post that you see that I've posted, but reassure everyone that you didn't read it? We all know that wouldn't be true. Just respond, and deal with the embarrassment of not really "ignoring" me? I think that's the most likely, and akin to your frequent "I'm leaving, no I'm not, I'm leaving, no I'm not). We're used to that.
mhosea (June 10th, 2018)
American liberal policies have not "destroyed" our once great public schools. Liberal policies tend to favor more generous educational budgets, whereas conservatives would prefer to make them anemic. George W. Bush eviscerated educational budgets and created nonsense policies to address bare minimum acceptable educational standards. Obama had his hands tied behind his back because of a nasty obstructionist Republican senate that was one step away from a heinous cabal in their open disdain for the man as he first took office, promising to do whatever it takes in their power to make him a "one term president" (Mitch McConnell's infamous quote). So, even though a Democratic president was in place, the erosion of the educational system wasn't his fault because he couldn't get any budgets passed with anything decent for the public education initiatives. Your citing of crime rates and high taxes as all at fault of the Democrats is arrogantly narrow minded and dismissive of context. The failures of these cities if far more complex than your sweeping generalizations.
Yes, there are extreme liberals who would like full social programs whereby bums will be enabled to get a free ride off the system and not have to work or pay for it. Those people are few and far between. Sensible liberals want better social programs than the ones we have, but fair and balanced so that you help people who are struggling to become productive tax paying citizens. Hard line conservatives treat "social" as a curse word, even though many enjoy social programs themselves such as Medicare, Social Security, and so on. Wealthy conservatives could give a rat's ass about the poor--as Paul Ryan intimated, it's their fault they're poor and they'll have to figure their own way out of it.
There are sensible forms of liberal and conservative views, but it's hard to see them when there are so many people around who are quick to turn each other's labels as insults and curse words and draw only from extreme ends of the definitions. Nothing gets done, falsehoods are promoted, and there's almost no point in even trying to engage in any intelligent debates.
Last edited by myu; June 10th, 2018 at 05:11 PM.
There is a difference between "prospering" and keeping gun violence to a minimum. Per capita, the USA suffers far more deaths at the hands of citizens with guns (excluding police/military) than any other 1st world nation. This is a major problem, only getting worse. But the only solution offered by NRA supporters is to just arm more citizens. It's patently ridiculous. It's like claiming you can put out a fire by burning everything so there's nothing left for fire to burn, and thus the fire will go out. And what are you left with? A worse situation than if you figured out a way to keep fire breakouts to a minimum.
NibsForScript (June 13th, 2018)
I heard someone say (talking about decentralised economies, blockchain, etc) the most important goal for society should be freedom; I disagree, I think equality is more important - the majority of crime and social incohesion is ultimately caused by inequality.
Guns are a great equaliser, but the big problem in the USA's example is how poor a lot of people are versus the pressure of the state for everyone to get rich, and obviously guns don't address that problem.
Well, the statistics I've seen don't support the contention that it is getting worse, at least not over the time scale of 20 years or so.
The technique of including suicides to inflate the statistics is deceitful. Generally, women do not choose to commit suicide by firearm. Men often do, but men are more likely to be successful regardless of the method they choose. Obviously in countries with less access to firearms, men will choose other means, and they will still generally succeed. The methods that make sense and that actually work to prevent suicide are mental health related, not gun control related.
So, once we remove suicide from the statistics, we're left with about 12,000 deaths per year. That's about 37 per million. Not to minimize that, but it's only one of many risks at that order of magnitude. DUI accounts for about 32 per million, for example, distracted driving about 11 per million. Except in self-defense, shooting people is already illegal, just like drunk driving is already illegal. Texting while driving is illegal in some places, at least. But prevention is the issue. How do you keep people from drinking and driving, from texting while driving? It's not an easy question, but I think we would probably not have a partisan divide on what methods are potentially OK and which go too far. The gun control avenue to reducing deaths by firearm is analogous to attacking these problems by limiting access to alcohol and cell phones. If only it were harder for everyone to get a drink or a cell phone, lives would be saved.
Looking at the 12K figure overstates the case on the gun control side of the equation because the vast majority of it is gang and drug related, upwards of 80%. Exactly how does discouraging private ownership of firearms pretend to affect that? And when it comes to comparing to other first world countries, do all first world countries face pretty much the same per-capita drug and gang activity? No doubt there's some everywhere, but it's not the same. And if the government can't prevent these people from smuggling and distributing illegal drugs, it can't prevent them from smuggling and distributing illegal guns. Many of these perpetrators are already prohibited from possessing firearms and obtained their firearms illegally. Nobody, including the NRA, objects to more vigorous enforcement of existing laws that cover that.
The NRA represents law-abiding and responsible gun owners. If a law-abiding, responsible person decides to arm themselves, it does not make them a problem waiting to happen. Maybe they won't have what it takes to actually use the firearm in self-defense, but it's not like being armed changes whether they have the heart of a murderer or not. The NRA doesn't want to arm the criminals who are shooting it out with one another and police in the street, but neither does it think that the existence of those criminals and that activity should restrict the freedom of law-abiding citizens any more than drunk and distracted drivers should prevent you from buying alcohol or enjoying the convenience of a smart phone. Reducing "gun violence" is something everybody can get behind (except criminals), but if we really want to work on this problem, we need to work on it in ways that we can agree on. As long as the ideal is analogous to prohibition and smart phone bans, the only thing that is ahead of us are pitch political battles and division.
--
Mike
Equality of outcome is an exceedingly dangerous and futile goal. Outcomes will always follow a Pareto distribution. History has shown that it does so regardless of the form of government, regardless of the government policies. Equality is only achieved when everyone has nothing. Burn the place down, and everybody will be equal, and destitute. From that point, the system will inexorably tend towards a Pareto distribution (unless everyone is dead). We don't know how to stop that (except by killing everyone).
Now equality of opportunity is another matter. That is a laudable goal. What you want is not a society where everyone is equal but one in which there is mobility. You don't want the richest people to be the same fat cats forever and ever. I mean, you don't necessarily want the rich to become destitute, but it's not a zero sum game we're playing. Wealth is created by society, and you want to see the top echelons displaced by new people. There should be churn. And while inequality is inevitable, it is by no means necessary that the poor be destitute. The best outcome is when everyone has enough, maybe even more than enough. The poor in the US today have an inflation-adjusted income that would make their forebears of 100 years ago feel rich. The world is actually on this trajectory. Poverty worldwide has been decreasing at a rapid rate, some locales faster than others, obviously. The transformations in China from the early 1980's have been amazing, and it wasn't "equality" that achieved this.
Last edited by mhosea; June 13th, 2018 at 02:44 PM.
--
Mike
dneal (June 13th, 2018)
No, i want the richest to be taxed the most and be the most controlled, limited, and accountable.
NibsForScript (June 13th, 2018)
OK, I see where you're coming from.
--
Mike
SIR (June 17th, 2018)
mhosea (June 13th, 2018)
Bookmarks