Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political Ideology

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    That people don't grasp this is what I fail to grasp, especially when they are "fiscal conservatives".
    The fabled "bottom line" goes straight out the window in favour of moral panic.

    M
    I'm not a conservative. There you go with assumptions, again.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
      OK. If it was guaranteed that this could help everybody who needed it ... but all experience says it doesn't. There has to be a back-stop, a "lowest level net".


      Confused. Do you use "social" and "socialist" interchangeably?



      Yes, but isn't this a question of finding the right approach, that which actually "works"?
      Yes, I know this looks like a quibble
      What I mean is, does it address the problem we are discussing? It does if the example can be generalized to other groups. Does it work for e.g. single mothers on welfare?

      (Idk if "asking questions" is a bad thing to do now when conversing with you. I don't ask trick questions, as a rule, I try to illustrate or at least identify problems. If there isn't a problem, that's ok with me.)


      And everywhere.


      Again, which people are in this group? How many are there?
      Just to kick it off, would we include the infamous reckless mothers in that number? Who else?


      Of course. Help that isn't help isn't help, but is merely being controlled by one's own sentimentality (to put it nicely).



      Well, that's me effectively disbarred from responding due to my ignorance of US conditions ...
      Bravo!
      Really, hat off, you win, and did it so elegantly
      I'll just have to take comfort in the fact that neither politics nor feminism is a strictly US phenomenon.


      A sad commentary, in a way ... But nevermind. I strive to be honest.


      My solution is to ask questions, also in order to make clear where my focus is.
      That doesn't always work as planned.


      Yes. But disagreement is not a bad thing, considering the alternative. Marketplace of ideas, and all that.
      In those lists, we are all champions of our ideas, and they deserve that we do not give up until the final gong. Because only then we will know what they were worth.

      M
      LOL It wasn't meant to offend you, Manalysis.

      Could I possibly know what it feels like to experience life in Norway if I have never resided there? I can read about it. I can learn some snippets from you about it. But, I won't know enough to really pass judgement on if its government is working efficiently or not. Sort of like someone who tells others how to play tennis, but they've never played tennis in their lifetime. Even if your best friend plays tennis, you still won't know as much as you could, unless you played the game yourself.

      I don't know many tennis coaches who have never actually played the game, and only taught lessons based on what they read somewhere. Or what their friends who happen to play tennis, have shared with them.

      #analogiesareourfriends

      This reminds me of a comment someone said to me recently...he said ''don't ever be afraid of an argument.'' (meaning, that you just might learn something, and no one needs to ''win'')
      Last edited by Deidre; 03-14-2017, 11:39 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
        Well ... kind of ... I could probably list a handful of "Everybody should be heard" or "He might pick up something useful" etc., but truth be told, I think any kind of censorship is someting we should avoid and also it's effing wearisome.
        And reading his 5 pages of nonsense isn't?

        I'm against censorship, too, but that's not what this is about: He has had his say, he keeps saying the same thing, and he is disrupting the conversation for others.


        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
        Position? Now you're asking a lot.
        Not as much as I will if he ever gives it


        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
        That makes it sound like calculation. I think it is raw emotion.
        Like I said before, I suspect a person who is used to being listened to getting flustered when this doesn't happen here. (Which I sometimes think about you, too ... )
        Ha! You think that I'm used to being listened to?

        And if this were the first time it had happened, I might agree, but it happens every time the situation arises; if this is "raw emotion," then it is a defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance.


        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
        ... while playing chess with a pigeon?

        I think he, like the rest of us, is "a fly trapped in a bottle", seeking a way out, not seeing the glass, getting beat up hitting the barrier again and again. Hard to explain if you can't speak Flytalian.
        Most discussion here is a My Subjective Virtual Reality Is Realer Than Thine pissing contest that would vanish in an instant the moment there was a specific task.
        Then, some would split off as totally alien, and some would discover that despite different views they could well work together on real life projects. If this should ever become like a movement.
        I have some likely candidates in mind, but also some very unlikely.
        Harmless fun, since the odds for it happening seem real low ...

        M
        Except that we aren't discussing abstractions, we are discussing "specific tasks," e.g. how to best set up a healthcare system.

        If we do ever get anything going in this movement, do we want the guy who's going to filibuster anything that doesn't go the way he wants? That'll shut it down in a hurry.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Deidre View Post
          It sounds humane, but I don't think it will work.
          Does the fact that it works elsewhere not mean anything?


          Originally posted by Deidre View Post
          There are many people who choose to not work, who are capable of working in the US, and they are not ''competing'' for better jobs,
          OK, let's stop here, and even though I disagree with much of the rest of what you said (we spend ~$1 trillion on our military, but $75 billion to feed the poor is too much?! And you can't live on welfare forever, they kick you off), let's just assume that it is all correct and fine.

          So what?

          Yes, there are people who are capable of work who choose not to. What are you going to do with them?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
            You do realize that we do not share your bizarre definitions of words, right?
            Kindly explain.
            "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

            Comment


            • Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
              Does the fact that it works elsewhere not mean anything?
              Is this place or places similar (very) to the US? #applestoapples




              OK, let's stop here, and even though I disagree with much of the rest of what you said (we spend ~$1 trillion on our military, but $75 billion to feed the poor is too much?! And you can't live on welfare forever, they kick you off), let's just assume that it is all correct and fine.

              So what?

              Yes, there are people who are capable of work who choose not to. What are you going to do with them?
              What would happen if you lost your job? Would you look for work or just quit on life and hope the government helps you? I don't normally gamble, but I'll bet you ten cyber dollars that you do whatever it takes to take care of yourself and your kids. If you can't find work, then you deserve welfare. If you choose to not work, you need to reap what you sow. How will people grow and learn otherwise?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                That people don't grasp this is what I fail to grasp, especially when they are "fiscal conservatives".
                The fabled "bottom line" goes straight out the window in favour of moral panic.

                M
                That's because those are both excuses; this is about neither the bottom line nor any kind of moral sensibility.


                Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                Speaking of which, would you know how to get some numbers for the narcissistic, non-job-seeking entitlement indulging welfare slobs that are such a burden to the hard-working military-industrial banking complex?
                Nobody incensed about them seem to know where they live.

                M
                http://www.cbpp.org/research/contrar...a=view&id=3677

                "91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

                Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                  How so? There is nothing in the constitution preventing it, and the simple answer is, like all other countries, have a payroll tax, straight percentage, out of everyone's check to pay for it.
                  Because how much that 'percentage' is going to be and who's free shit it's going to be diverted towards paying for and how JUST/UNJUST that is isn't ever something you can DEMOCRATICALLY determine.

                  You just have to 'decide' and then mandate it directly from central government by force because 'you' know best and if anyone disagrees with you well then they can take it up with your ARMY.

                  This gets even more complex when you get into the business of diverting vast sums of private capital across state lines.

                  Hence, 'oppressive', 'totalitarian' etc etc.

                  Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                  As for "fair," you keep coming back to this concept as if you are looking at the entire situation; I suppose that it is not "fair" to tax you to care for someone else, but then, I don't suppose it's fair for a starving mob to kill you.

                  Which "unfair" thing do you want to happen?
                  It's fair for mobs trying to rob me to get shot in the fucking face.

                  It's fair for my police and my military at best to help out in this regard and at worst to get outta of my fucking way and give me the freedom to defend myself and my property from theft and violent crime.

                  Also everyone keeps ignoring this fact no matter how many times I keep repeating it. Poor people in the US (and west generally) AREN'T starving. The biggest problem threatening their health is obesity.

                  A lifestyle choice that creates an array on ongoing healthcare needs that people like you want to advocate expanding the tax base in order to pay for via socialized healthcare provision.

                  Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                  You have claimed that, but never supported the contention with any facts. No, it is not "obvious."
                  Ok. GDP per capita tells you the average right? It doesn't tell you things like the distribution and it doesn't tell you the other OUTGOINGS.

                  For example a country like Canada might on paper simply look like it 'spreads the wealth' and 'takes care of people' better than the mean old US of A, but in reality it doesn't have to have the match the US on something like defense spending because it's GEOGRAPHICALLY next door to the US.

                  Such factors apply across the board. Nation A might be in a position to use it's per capita GDP in order to fund various public services for a vast variety of reasons and factors that might be total inapplicable to Nation B.

                  There's a BILLION complexities of this nature that you fail to take into account when comparing Per Capita GDP head-to-head in this manner that renders whatever point you are trying to make off the back of it entirely moot.
                  Last edited by Maxx; 03-15-2017, 12:15 AM.
                  "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                    I'm not a conservative. There you go with assumptions, again.
                    Everyone to the right of Mao is considered a 'conservative' to some folks around here D. Don't take it personally.
                    Last edited by Maxx; 03-15-2017, 12:23 AM.
                    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                      My right to engage in collectivist behavior, for one.
                      Engage away. I don't care.

                      Make up matching jackets. Distribute pin badges. Make up your own secret handshake.

                      I support your right to 'engage in collectivist behavior' as long as you support my right to laugh at people who do.
                      "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                        Kindly explain.
                        You are using your own private definition of "socialism" again, and then telling us, the people who are using the definition the rest of the world uses, that we are wrong.

                        "Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

                        Socialism, in and of itself, is not particularly interested in government. Cooperative businesses are an example of socialism, and they have nothing to do with government, except insofar as they rely on it to maintain an orderly environment in which to operate.

                        As we have pointed out before, one of the ultimate goals of Marxism is the elimination of the state, entirely; anarcho-Marxists make Libertarians look like fascists.

                        I am somewhat more moderate and view his comment on "the end of history" as suggesting that it is more of a journey than a destination, but I do accept "the least government necessary" as a legitimate guiding principle.

                        I just think that we need more of it than you do.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                          Is this place or places similar (very) to the US? #applestoapples
                          D, where else in the world is "similar" to the US? We are unique: High population, ethnically and religiously diverse, industrialized with high poverty.

                          How about in per capita GDP, i.e. how much money we have divided by how many people we have? Yes, those places are similar.... or lower.

                          Which part of "it is cheaper" isn't clear?



                          Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                          What would happen if you lost your job? Would you look for work or just quit on life and hope the government helps you? I don't normally gamble, but I'll bet you ten cyber dollars that you do whatever it takes to take care of yourself and your kids. If you can't find work, then you deserve welfare. If you choose to not work, you need to reap what you sow. How will people grow and learn otherwise?
                          Right off the bat, that is NOT what that bible quote means, but that is almost beside the point:

                          You keep coming back to "deserve."

                          Who decides who "deserves" help, and what happens to the people who don't make the cut?

                          Let them starve? Is that your solution?

                          OK, who is going to deal with the starving mob coming around to kill you?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                            Engage away. I don't care.

                            Make up matching jackets. Distribute pin badges. Make up your own secret handshake.
                            Pass laws to provide healthcare, food and housing to everyone?


                            Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                            I support your right to 'engage in collectivist behavior' as long as you support my right to laugh at people who do.
                            Of course; laugh away.

                            The rest of us have better things to do.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                              Because how much that 'percentage' is going to be and who's free shit it's going to be diverted towards paying for and how JUST/UNJUST that is isn't ever something you can DEMOCRATICALLY determine.
                              EXACTLY! YES! YOU'VE GOT IT!


                              Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                              You just have to 'decide' and then mandate it directly from central government by force because 'you' know best and if anyone disagrees with you well then they can take it up with your ARMY.
                              ...AND YOU JUST KEPT WALKING!!!

                              I guess Dunning and Kruger were right:

                              "The skills you need to formulate the correct answer are the same skills you need to recognize the correct answer when presented with it."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                                From the perspective of Fat Guy, knowing that Obamacare will drop you if you eat that extra burger, this of course feels like society encroaching on the area where you can choose freely.
                                No it doesn't. It's a system based on rights that come with corresponding responsibilities. Rather than a system based on entitlements that the irresponsible have which the responsible must pay for.

                                Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                                IOW, reducing the area of our individual freedom.
                                Not hard to see your logic when it comes to obesity, but if you generalize it by making a list of "behaviour that anyone disapproves of" the criteria for still being an accepted member of society, you'll soon the a "collectivist" moral tyranny.
                                It's not a question of 'disapproving of' obesity.

                                Excessive/unhealthy dieting is a lifestyle choice that leads to numerous chronic on-going long term healthcare needs.
                                Excessive drink/drug consumption is a lifestyle choice that leads to numerous chronic on-going long term healthcare needs.

                                If you are going to argue that people have the 'right' to certain types of care funded via taxation at what point does individual responsibility enter into the equation?

                                The majority of poor people in the western world aren't 'starving' they are dangerously overweight.
                                The majority of healthcare needs that people have in developed countries are a direct consequences of their consumption habits and lifestyle choices.

                                You leftists keep talking about 'starving people' and 'congenital defects'.

                                Obese people aren't starving. Obesity is not a congenital defect. And nor are the numerous on going health issues that can arise for a person who is dangerously overweight.
                                "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X