Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
Interesting, I'll consider this a little more carefully before giving a detailed reply. I tend to be quite concious and wary of any potential label that enters my thinking. That evolved into a kind of "question beliefs until a flaw is found". So far, everything has had a flaw somewhere.
Out of interest, which "conservative" ideas do you think bear more examination?
Vex, you stated on the other thread that you hold conservatard postures in regards to welfare, maybe thats an example we can work with ?
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
My views and position on a rather notorious topic has been construed as a Conservative position, though I think that is incorrect and in fact most of the people I work with in the field are Democrats. I'm, comparatively, more conservative when it comes to environmental policy, though again, I rather think of it as a centrist, independent position. And I mean mostly in terms of how environmental policy intersects with the economy. For example, I oppose locking up huge tracts of land in Maine as part of an enormous National Forest and completely off limits for development. I'm all for protecting the environment but not at the expense of the poor and lower income.
Quote- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
I think so but they just aren't as overt an "in your face" about it. Individuals like Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo come to mind. I think they tend to give Liberalism a bad name. But, I imagine there are many Conservatives who feel the same way about Glenn Beck and Victoria Jackson.
One of the things that annoyed me the most about Liberals during the GWB presidency was the talking points and caricature of him being a mindless moron. When you create a narrative like that, you almost give him a pass for some of his nefarious policies because he is just a bleeting moron who doesn't know any better. That doesn't help your cause when you are trying to get the public as mad as you are about those policies.
QuoteCould it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I wouldn't go THAT far, but I think sometimes the ship does list in that direction. But I think your average noob happening upon this place might more often than not have that kind of impression.
QuoteI ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Vex is cruising on the correct motorcycle here.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
That doesnt seem conservatard to me, it seems like a rational position.
(Just as an aside comment, here in Mexico welfare doesnt exist, so if your friends and family dont help you out in a time of need, you are fucked. BIG time.)
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
Doubtful.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Yes, definitely. As RWHN said, it's less in your face, but it's there all the same. I tend to find that the take certain things out of context.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I don't think so. We, as a whole, tend to lean more left, but we still pick things apart no matter the source.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Prove it.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
WELL, DUH! :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 02:13:36 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
Doubtful.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Yes, definitely. As RWHN said, it's less in your face, but it's there all the same. I tend to find that the take certain things out of context.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I don't think so. We, as a whole, tend to lean more left, but we still pick things apart no matter the source.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Prove it.
EH,
"prove it" isn't really a counterpoint, it's kinda ridiculous. Challenge vex on this point with an argument
It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.
He also didnt say it was the majority of people on welfare, just some.
I think i can agree with the general statement, but it boils down to what is considered appropiate enforcement, and what line is drawn for "he can work but he doesnt".
Because ive read about this thing called "fares" as in, the government considering that giving aid isnt unconditional, and that it gives them the right to meddle in private affairs such as what one can do or cant do.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Emphasis mine, JN.
ETA: yes there are people who are on it and can work. That's inevitable. But that's not what I'm asking about.
In the US, a lot of people do get stuck in a welfare trap, that has complex origins including a loss of self-worth and the fact that it is made time-and-labor intensive enough to remain on welfare that the effort required to remain on it sometimes takes the place of fulfillment that people would otherwise find in a job.
There are many negative emotional ramifications to being on welfare, some of which in themselves hinder a person from getting off it, especially over extended periods of time. However, my thoughts are that welfare should not be made more difficult to be on, but easier and less time-consuming so that it becomes less of a disabling factor in itself. But yes, it should still have checks and balances to help prevent abuse.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 04:01:51 AM
It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.
THAT'S
The ridiculous part. he's supposed to hit you with a library's worth of human experience?
Why not present an actual counterargument? Otherwise you're all "Nuh yer wrong".
Which is also a time-honored tradition, but not very effective in serious discussions.
He repeated a talking point, so I'm asking him to back it up. A demand for evidence is not a "no you're wrong."
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 03, 2012, 04:22:22 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 04:01:51 AM
It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.
THAT'S
The ridiculous part. he's supposed to hit you with a library's worth of human experience?
I'm asking for statistics, not the story of each and every welfare recipient.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 04:35:50 AM
He repeated a talking point, so I'm asking him to back it up. A demand for evidence is not a "no you're wrong."
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 03, 2012, 04:22:22 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 04:01:51 AM
It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.
THAT'S
The ridiculous part. he's supposed to hit you with a library's worth of human experience?
I'm asking for statistics, not the story of each and every welfare recipient.
"Prove it" is substantially different from "Can you provide some supporting evidence or statistics?"
No it isn't. Granted, "prove it" is more challenging than "evidence please", but it's asking for the same thing.
I don't want to derail the thread any further with semantics, so lemme rephrase: Vex, please support your assertion.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 04:01:51 AM
It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.
Without giving people's actual names and social security numbers, I can say without resorting to "studies" and "statistics," that I have personally known people who milk the system. I recognize that these are a minority of cases and that most of the people who milk the system are already breaking a number of welfare rules and would be tossed off the rolls if they played by the book.
But that wasn't what I was talking about when I said "welfare trap." What I mean is this: in order to qualify for welfare in America, you have be pretty well fucked in the first place. Under normal circumstances, you must have children, there are prohibitive restrictions when you're married, you can't own many material assets, etc. And once you're on welfare, you will be kicked off of it as soon as you start showing signs of getting back on your feet. For example, if you get a job, you're off the program - even if that job pays LESS than welfare, or it's temporary. So, people have a legitimate reason to stay on welfare and not work.
The point where welfare would be most effective is in preventing poverty in the first place. As it is, it is only available for people who are already impoverished - and it's snatched away as soon as they start showing an inkling of ambition to get out of poverty, leaving them with a gap between "living of the government" and making it on their own - a gap that's impossible to bridge for many people.
As for Welfare Queens - yes. There are those who have kids specifically for increases in welfare payments. I have personally known one or two of these myself. But they
wouldn't be there if welfare was a legitimate "poverty to self-sustainability" program that provided child care and REAL education (right now the best 'education' they offer are workshops and classes on how to land dead-end jobs).
The flip-side to this is that we would need to agree that at some point, if you have been handed a free education and all the honest chances in the world and you choose to blow it off, then yes I'm sorry but you deserve to be homeless and live out of dumpsters. But that's ONLY after the system has been changed to provide real value and real opportunity.
So the only Conservative part of my position is that there are people on welfare who shouldn't be, and they need to get off. Not to save the State's money, but to save THEM.
I don't really understand how "welfare dependency" as a concept relates to the left/right divide. I've worked in welfare organisations all my working life, am too far to the left to be called liberal, and thoroughly believe that yes, people can become dependent on welfare. People further to the left than I actually call for the complete abolition of welfare, because according to Marxist ideology, poor people should all be out revolting and smashing up fast-food outlets out of desperation, rather than being made complacent by a subsistence level existence.
In couselling relationships, for example, there's a fairly universal policy that if someone hasn't shown any effort at reaching mutually agreed goals after four sessions, there's no point continuing, as then they are becoming dependent on the relationship with their counsellor rather than trying to get control over their own lives from whatever threatens that.
I've found it interesting that the folks who ignore this policy tend to come from a more conservative point of view, which accepts that people are born stuff-ups, will always be stuff-ups, and will stuff up continually without some sort of maternal/paternal figure to set them right again and again.
Sounds like Bell Curve stuff to me, which I always thought comes right of conservative ideology.
I know this thread didn't start out as a welfare dependency thread, but it illustrates the way I think that these things are misconstrued, and liberals and conservatives are two labels that have increasingly less to do with the actual ideologies as they have been defined.
If we went back to the actual ideological concepts, decent arguments could be had about whether social intervention in a certain area would be a good or a bad thing. The argument about how much I am responsible for the well-being of my neighbour, not to mention whether my neighbour's well-being is essential to my long-term well-being, are such arguments within this frame-work, and they should be had.
Instead, conservative and liberal have become these tribal labels that give people some sense of belonging to something bigger than they, and often they're bullshit. A collection of micro-positions and opinions that turn into tribal defenses.
Vex, you make several really good points, and I totally agree with most of your post. However, I have to take issue with your phrase about "resorting to "studies" and "statistics"". Anecdotes don't adequately support any shift in public policy which affects large numbers of people.
The other point I disagree about is people who are given every opportunity and still choose the dole; those dratted "studies" and "statistics" strongly indicate that the vast majority will choose productivity if they have a chance; it's a basic human drive. Most of the people who don't choose productivity, do not because of legitimate psychological or emotional problems.
VEX
You are making some absolutely excellent points, for reals
HOWEVER,
the idea that people go through the epic process of birth to attain a pittance of financial support is just stupid.
Quote from: E.O.T. on July 03, 2012, 05:02:35 AM
VEX
You are making some absolutely excellent points, for reals
HOWEVER,
the idea that people go through the epic process of birth to attain a pittance of financial support is just stupid.
Also this.
There is welfare fraud that will never show up in statistics. But that is an extreme minority of cases and not my focus. My point is that the entire system is designed wrong. The rules are set up against success, so we trap people on welfare. I would love to see MORE flagrant welfare fraud, as it is defined now, because if people on welfare are able to make real money they would be more likely to get off the system. As it is, people might make money but they dare not report it, because they will be dumped and possibly prosecuted for "fraud."
Your position doesn't sound very much at all like the typical conservatard bullshit I was expecting. Good. I agree with you and with Nigel/EOT's point.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 05:12:56 AM
There is welfare fraud that will never show up in statistics. But that is an extreme minority of cases and not my focus. My point is that the entire system is designed wrong. The rules are set up against success, so we trap people on welfare. I would love to see MORE flagrant welfare fraud, as it is defined now, because if people on welfare are able to make real money they would be more likely to get off the system. As it is, people might make money but they dare not report it, because they will be dumped and possibly prosecuted for "fraud."
Vex, the fact that some data is uncollectible doesn't invalidate the process of measuring collectible data for the purposes of policy change. I mean, obviously I'm biased because right now I work on an NIH-funded program at a DHS-overseen institute that collects data on human services programs for the purposes of changing human services policies. :lol:
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
No I don't and if you do you are bad and you should feel bad.
Also what you think is "current and popular use" is just what the media told you to think.
QuoteIs it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Instead of answering this question I'm going to suggest you pull your little American head out of that giant gaping two-party-ass.
QuoteCould it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
Honestly I recently looked up what farts are made of and oxygen wasn't one of the ingredients so I seriously think you could be getting permanent brain damage if you don't get your fucking head out of there.
QuoteI ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right.
How about you leave the Liberals and the Conservatives alone for a bit and let them fight their fight.
Or you go there and tell them.
It's a bit like the guy that lost his watch at his driveway but is looking for it under the street lights, isn't it?
"No I'm going to ask dumb questions about Liberals and Conservatives here on PD, because if I were to go to the actual Liberals and Conservatives that need to hear this, they wouldn't listen!"
QuoteAnd I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
Passive-aggressive digs at the whole forum in general like these are one of the few things I'm quite predisposed against.
Fortunately they're not even "bad ideas worth exploring", they're just made by "people worth dumping heaps of shit upon".
Think about it for a bit. In what way are the questions you started in this thread exactly like asking someone "When do you plan to stop kicking puppies?"
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 03, 2012, 12:24:41 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
No I don't and if you do you are bad and you should feel bad.
Also what you think is "current and popular use" is just what the media told you to think.
QuoteIs it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Instead of answering this question I'm going to suggest you pull your little American head out of that giant gaping two-party-ass.
:lulz: 000! you are on FIRE! :lulz:
Seriously, Vex, the premise of this thread is incredibly American-centric. I mean the Republicans are a lot further to the right than most mainstream conservative parties in Europe.
Most left wing parties in Europe are a lot further to the left than the Dems. in fact the Dems are pretty much more similar to European conservatives.
We have real, live to gods
SOCIALISTS here. I suspect me and Trip count in that number.
As for the whole "living in dumpsters comment" well, that IMHO is kind of callous. You are assuming that everywhere provides the same standard of education, completely discounting other environmental and social factors that go with adhering and gaining education and other opportunities.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
Yes. I am a gun rights advocate.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Yes. They believe that safety trumps rights, and they're proud of it.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I think most people here reject the
current dichotomy. I also think people here are to some degree "Franklin liberals", which is a very different thing than passes for "liberalism" today.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
Examples?
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 05:12:56 AM
There is welfare fraud that will never show up in statistics. But that is an extreme minority of cases and not my focus. My point is that the entire system is designed wrong. The rules are set up against success, so we trap people on welfare. I would love to see MORE flagrant welfare fraud, as it is defined now, because if people on welfare are able to make real money they would be more likely to get off the system. As it is, people might make money but they dare not report it, because they will be dumped and possibly prosecuted for "fraud."
1. Compare this with corporate welfare fraud.
2. Followed to it's logical conclusion, we should now spend $1.00 to chase $0.10 in fraud. Or we should eliminate welfare and watch people starve in the streets.
Thing is, EVERY organization on the planet is inefficient. There IS going to be some loss. Do we worry about Joe Sixpack taking a few thousand under the table while he's on welfare, or do we worry more about things like TARP, which is measured in trillions and prevented not one person from starving to death?
On the Welfare thing, I tend to think that having a life I really love and adore where I have meaningful work and enough money to do cool shit is really satisfying. For this reason I don't really iderstand the moaning about other people on welfare; I'd be so unhappy like that, and you would too, so why are you bitching?
Yes, I agree that there does need to be some maths wizardry to make sure people aren't penalised for getting a job. Generally though, I tend to suspect that the most powerful thing is to market the idea of being free from wellfare. Promote programs that help people move location/get work and promote the fck out of why that makes you a happier person. I'm not sure if there's been a campaign like this but I can't help but feel it's more effective than making the whole process harder for everyone.
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
This thread delivers.
:popcorn:
I am a flat-out Socialist and a social liberal. I believe in high government services, regulations on practices that impact the quality of life for citizens, and low government interference in individual lives and choices.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 03, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
I am a flat-out Socialist and a social liberal. I believe in high government services, regulations on practices that impact the quality of life for citizens, and low government interference in individual lives and choices.
Same here, plus guns.
Because it just isn't America for me without random citizens walking around with projectile weapons.
And that's where I'm not willing to go that far left. Individual freedom and liberty is important but at some point that needs to be ceded to some degree in the name of public health and public safety. It seems like a disconnect to insist the government take a strong role in protecting citizens from organizations and practices but a soft role in protecting them from each other.
If people want to live in communities, I think there is an implicit agreement that people need to invest in promoting the safety and welfare of that community. That, unfortunately, does require ceding some ground on absolute freedom.
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 03, 2012, 04:40:56 PM
And that's where I'm not willing to go that far left. Individual freedom and liberty is important but at some point that needs to be ceded to some degree in the name of public health and public safety. It seems like a disconnect to insist the government take a strong role in protecting citizens from organizations and practices but a soft role in protecting them from each other.
If people want to live in communities, I think there is an implicit agreement that people need to invest in promoting the safety and welfare of that community. That, unfortunately, does require ceding some ground on absolute freedom.
Then it's not freedom, it's privilege.
ETA: The government can't do shit to make you safe, anyway. All they can do is punish after the fact.
Or, that freedom comes with responsibility.
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 03, 2012, 04:53:41 PM
Or, that freedom comes with responsibility.
Freedom comes with nudity. And fun. And yeah, responsibility. That being a personal thing, and not jammed up your colon by a government, at least until you do something directly harmful to someone else, or make trade/commerce either impossible or effectively monopolized.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a
month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
Nope.
I don't subscribe to "Liberalism" per se. I think that anything consensual between adults that isn't hurting anyone else is not a crime, and if anybody needs help, something should be available. Apparently this makes me a flaming Liberal.
Quote
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Of course.
Quote- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?
I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.
I see a difference.
"Liberal" gets conflated with "Democrat" these days. Democrats are not liberals, they're just slightly less idiotically right wing than republicans.
Nobody here is cheering Obama, obviously. PD is not Huff Post. There's an effort made to just see things as they are.
There's some pretty extensive welfare studies out there. The bottom line on most of them is that a there is a noise floor or about 4-5% of the population who are incapable of working either because of disorders psychological and physical who don't qualify for disability, these can often be attributed to nervous disorders, depression, and what was very surprising is undiagnosed anaemia leading to lethargic behaviour.
In a recession, economic factors can push that as high as 8-12 percent, this is a normal figure. Not something abhorrent. Ireland's is 14% and Greeces which is a disaster scenario is 22%
Google tells me the America's is 8% which is not bad considering it was the country that gut raped the world economy in 2008.
I always wonder why people talk about people unwilling to get off of welfare. They don't make up a large enough % to be worth noting. There are far greater saving to be made by focusing on the people who are interested in working but unable.
The back to work scheme is a good idea and has saved a ton for Ireland. While our 14% figure is high it includes 2% people on this scheme which operates as follows.
Workers are found internships with businesses. Often SME's who are struggling for labour. The state still provides them with 120 a week and the company pays 50. These have had excellent follow on results where the internship ends and the person is trained so the business hires them instead of retraining someone else.
I mean savings for the state are more readily available elsewhere anyway. For instance::
(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=p3&chs=600x200&chf=bg,s,e8e8ff&chd=t:22,22,4,24,12,2,3,1,5,6&chl=Pensions%2022%%7CHealth%20Care%2022%%7CEducation%204%%7CDefense%2024%%7CWelfare%2012%%7CProtection%202%%7CTransportation%203%%7CGeneral%20Government%201%%7COther%20Spending%205%%7CInterest%206%&chtt=Budgeted%20Federal%20Spending%20for%20%20-%20FY%202012)
America, you are really looking a little chubby around the edges, did you really need to have a 24% slice of defence pie?
Actually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
Quote from: Faust on July 03, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Google tells me the America's is 8% which is not bad considering it was the country that gut raped the world economy in 2008.
Two things:
1. Our BLS lies and ADMITS it lies. The real number is about 13%.
2. You can't really call it rape if people eagery line up for it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 01:53:58 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?
Yes. I am a gun rights advocate.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:57:02 AM
- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?
Yes. They believe that safety trumps rights, and they're proud of it.
DAMMIT, TGRR!
Made me
think. :lol:
I did notice in Mass that there was an overemphasis on safety as compared to Texas. In a way it was nice knowing that society at large gave a shit whether we lived or died (you have to live in Texas awhile to appreciate this.) In another way it was annoying as FUCK: "Don't get on a bicycle without a helmet, you'll get a ticket." "That CS gas is illegal here, you can only have pepper spray." etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 05:19:50 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 03, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Google tells me the America's is 8% which is not bad considering it was the country that gut raped the world economy in 2008.
Two things:
1. Our BLS lies and ADMITS it lies. The real number is about 13%.
2. You can't really call it rape if people eagery line up for it.
1. That is admittedly on the high end, but still close to normal for a recession. Its not a symptom of a people unwilling to work.
2. True dat.
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Shit, the only reason I know how is I vaguely remember being taught that during some school field trip back when I was in KS.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Shit, the only reason I know how is I vaguely remember being taught that during some school field trip back when I was in KS.
TBH, in a way I hope checks DIE DIE DIE and everybody switches to plastic. I've wasted a good chunk of my life in line behind check writers. :lol:
People still need to know how to do that, though.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:41:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Shit, the only reason I know how is I vaguely remember being taught that during some school field trip back when I was in KS.
TBH, in a way I hope checks DIE DIE DIE and everybody switches to plastic. I've wasted a good chunk of my life in line behind check writers. :lol:
People still need to know how to do that, though.
I was taught how to write a cheque at school, at about 15. I haven't written one in years though- everything is chip and pin here these days.
I'm thinking the best way to reduce welfare bills in the long term is to provide better education and training, and to support people to change careers if they didn't do too well with schooling in the first place. Does anyone have US literacy figures and stats?
Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2012, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:41:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Shit, the only reason I know how is I vaguely remember being taught that during some school field trip back when I was in KS.
TBH, in a way I hope checks DIE DIE DIE and everybody switches to plastic. I've wasted a good chunk of my life in line behind check writers. :lol:
People still need to know how to do that, though.
I was taught how to write a cheque at school, at about 15. I haven't written one in years though- everything is chip and pin here these days.
I'm thinking the best way to reduce welfare bills in the long term is to provide better education and training, and to support people to change careers if they didn't do too well with schooling in the first place. Does anyone have US literacy figures and stats?
Yeah, but I can't make heads or tails of 'em.
The stated idea, when the welfare cuts were being pushed in the 90's, was to provide child care, education and help with job placement. Of course this was utter bullshit. I think a few blue states offered child care vouchers, but most didn't.
I can think of a few areas where I could be considered conservative.
By anyone except American conservatives, that is. Machtpolitik, Baby Jebus and Libertarian "economics" do not feature high on my agenda, of course.
Quote from: Cain on July 03, 2012, 06:39:47 PM
I can think of a few areas where I could be considered conservative.
By anyone except American conservatives, that is. Machtpolitik, Baby Jebus and Libertarian "economics" do not feature high on my agenda, of course.
IF YOU AIN'T WID US, YOU IS AGIN US
/
:mullet:
I am in favor of reduction of federal power and a relative increase in power of states, counties and cities. In the US this is generally a Conservative position. I favor it primarially because I prefer to live in Liberal areas and want the area to be able to implement those policies however.
That and because people are better able to effect change at a local level.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.
We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 04, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.
We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
No way can you ban speech. Of any kind. Free speech (the hypothetical kind that will never exist) requires that everyone gets their say. Unfortunately this includes the 99.99% demographic that tends towards saying totally fucking retarded shit but it has to be all or nothing. Telling people to get on out there and stomp on brown people for great justice is not a crime and should not be a crime. If someone listens and goes out and stomps on a brown person then it is a crime. It's two crimes - stomping on brown people and incitement but the talking bit is only a crime if it leads to the stomping otherwise it's free speech.
Censorship can fuck off because there is no way to draw a line without impinging on rights. Unfortunately censorship will never fuck off, we'll never have the rights we should and, every time someone complains about butthurt and the children, another word is declared badwrong and the noose tightens just a little more.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
Quote from: Faust on July 03, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
There's some pretty extensive welfare studies out there. The bottom line on most of them is that a there is a noise floor or about 4-5% of the population who are incapable of working either because of disorders psychological and physical who don't qualify for disability, these can often be attributed to nervous disorders, depression, and what was very surprising is undiagnosed anaemia leading to lethargic behaviour.
In a recession, economic factors can push that as high as 8-12 percent, this is a normal figure. Not something abhorrent. Ireland's is 14% and Greeces which is a disaster scenario is 22%
Google tells me the America's is 8% which is not bad considering it was the country that gut raped the world economy in 2008.
I always wonder why people talk about people unwilling to get off of welfare. They don't make up a large enough % to be worth noting. There are far greater saving to be made by focusing on the people who are interested in working but unable.
The back to work scheme is a good idea and has saved a ton for Ireland. While our 14% figure is high it includes 2% people on this scheme which operates as follows.
Workers are found internships with businesses. Often SME's who are struggling for labour. The state still provides them with 120 a week and the company pays 50. These have had excellent follow on results where the internship ends and the person is trained so the business hires them instead of retraining someone else.
I mean savings for the state are more readily available elsewhere anyway. For instance::
(https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=p3&chs=600x200&chf=bg,s,e8e8ff&chd=t:22,22,4,24,12,2,3,1,5,6&chl=Pensions%2022%%7CHealth%20Care%2022%%7CEducation%204%%7CDefense%2024%%7CWelfare%2012%%7CProtection%202%%7CTransportation%203%%7CGeneral%20Government%201%%7COther%20Spending%205%%7CInterest%206%&chtt=Budgeted%20Federal%20Spending%20for%20%20-%20FY%202012)
America, you are really looking a little chubby around the edges, did you really need to have a 24% slice of defence pie?
Actually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
Good fucking post, thanks for spelling it out so well, along with providing facts and statistics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 05:19:50 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 03, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Google tells me the America's is 8% which is not bad considering it was the country that gut raped the world economy in 2008.
Two things:
1. Our BLS lies and ADMITS it lies. The real number is about 13%.
2. You can't really call it rape if people eagery line up for it.
I am starting to realize that it's only a tiny vocal minority, along the lines of our "moral majority", who are demanding this shit and making it seem like the whole country is in line to get fucked over. The actual majority are the people who have been demoralized, disenfranchised, or misled into silence.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
You got some facts and figures to back that up? Last I checked, the US literacy rate is the highest in history.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2012, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:41:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
I know people who can't fill out a check. They get the cashiers to do it for them.
Shit, the only reason I know how is I vaguely remember being taught that during some school field trip back when I was in KS.
TBH, in a way I hope checks DIE DIE DIE and everybody switches to plastic. I've wasted a good chunk of my life in line behind check writers. :lol:
People still need to know how to do that, though.
I was taught how to write a cheque at school, at about 15. I haven't written one in years though- everything is chip and pin here these days.
I'm thinking the best way to reduce welfare bills in the long term is to provide better education and training, and to support people to change careers if they didn't do too well with schooling in the first place. Does anyone have US literacy figures and stats?
Yeah, but I can't make heads or tails of 'em.
:lulz:
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 04, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.
We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
I can't help reading this as reading that you include violence as a form of expression similar to speech. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
I will say that snuff porn, if it includes real snuff, should be illegal because it infringes on another being's right to live. Bestiality should not be illegal, but animal cruelty should be. A written guide to being a successful pedophile should not be illegal, nor should anyone be prosecuted for being a pedophile
unless they act on those urges. Then they should be prosecuted for the action, not the thought.
It's not a society's job to protect its people against things that make them go "ew".
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:37:00 PM
On the Welfare thing, I tend to think that having a life I really love and adore where I have meaningful work and enough money to do cool shit is really satisfying. For this reason I don't really iderstand the moaning about other people on welfare; I'd be so unhappy like that, and you would too, so why are you bitching?
Yes, I agree that there does need to be some maths wizardry to make sure people aren't penalised for getting a job. Generally though, I tend to suspect that the most powerful thing is to market the idea of being free from wellfare. Promote programs that help people move location/get work and promote the fck out of why that makes you a happier person. I'm not sure if there's been a campaign like this but I can't help but feel it's more effective than making the whole process harder for everyone.
I think the attitude about it is a combination of anti-tax rhetoric as well as the idea of indirectly supporting someone else. OR, perhaps even, the whole "Protestant Work Ethic" thing that America's supposed to have and extol but few people actually have. They look at it as money for nothing.
There's this guy I know, who once made a comment along the lines of how his tax dollars have to go and fund my friend's endless string of secret illegitimate children (an assertion which is nowhere close to reality). What was funny about this is that he has no desire to work at all. He had recently gotten a job when he made this comment. Now this recent job went the way of all of his other jobs. He just up and quit it, presumably with the same abruptness and bridge burning flair that I would expect of him. At the moment he's living at his parents' house on food stamps because they couldn't afford to keep feeding him specifically anymore. He tells the system he's looking for a job, but I hear he's not really.
It doesn't bother me that "my tax money's goin' ter a freeloader!" like him because for every one of him, there are many more that actually do need it. Someone's always going to abuse the system. No use punishing everybody for one guy.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 03, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
I am a flat-out Socialist and a social liberal. I believe in high government services, regulations on practices that impact the quality of life for citizens, and low government interference in individual lives and choices.
I'm a Marxist-Nigelist.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
It's a combination of two things I think:
a) America's special. Everyone hates our freedoms. It has nothing to do with being imperialist jerks talking out their ass about freedoms. That guy Faust? Freedom hater. Doesn't realize we need that 24% and more to defend our freedoms in locations nowhere near the United States.
b) Anti-intellectualism. Book learnin' is against GAWD. There's only one book EVERYONE needs to read, and that's the Bible. You don't even really need to read it, your pastor can read it for you once a week.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
You got some facts and figures to back that up? Last I checked, the US literacy rate is the highest in history.
I posted this before I knew what precisely is the definition of literacy, which the CIA says IA "over 15 and can read and write." I would have thought some amount of spelling and grammar accuracy factored in.
So no, I can't back that statement up.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 04, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:45:28 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
QuoteActually now that I notice it I see the far more alarming figure of 4% education. How is this possible, how can you run an education system on so little?
We can't. It's why illiteracy is beginning to become rampant in people my age and younger.
You got some facts and figures to back that up? Last I checked, the US literacy rate is the highest in history.
I posted this before I knew what precisely is the definition of literacy, which the CIA says IA "over 15 and can read and write." I would have thought some amount of spelling and grammar accuracy factored in.
So no, I can't back that statement up.
America: If you can't make the cut, lower your standards.
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
You'd have everybody who
applied get a psyche eval?
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
Conservatives tend to be religious.
Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.
The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.
The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.
I always forget other countries have natural predators. Australia scares the shit out of me. It seems like a continent that was created exclusively to kill people.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.
The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.
Text of the 2nd Amendment:
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's important to remember that at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the US had no permanent standing Army. Defense of the States was entrusted to state militias, composed of citizen-soldiers. As such, it was necessary to ensure that no legislation was passed which would hamper these militias' ability to do their jobs. But common defense wasn't thought of in those days in the same way we think of it now. It was much closer to home and each citizen had a personal investment in the his military security. We didn't outsource our defense to "the Military" as we do now - each person was responsible for their own security and the security of his/her neighbors in a very community-centric system.
Still, it's part of the American psyche also that people should have the right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. While I understand that is a dangerous can of worms to open, it's been fairly integral to American psychology for a long time (albeit decreasingly so).
And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 05:36:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.
The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.
I always forget other countries have natural predators. Australia scares the shit out of me. It seems like a continent that was created exclusively to kill people.
I believe it, though I've never been there. :lulz:
For me, I find that I agree with several positions that are often considered 'right wing' by US standards. For example, I don't think that the US should have an offensive army, only defensive. I think that most laws should be up to individual states (except where they deprive an individual of their rights). I think that government should be small and limited in what it can control.
I don't identify with 'Conservatives' in the US though because the overall positions taken by Republicans and Libertarians are a mishmash of nationalism, populism and religious nutbaggery.
I don't identify with 'Liberals' because I think having a Mommy until I was 18 is more than enough.
However, I do find that many 'thinking' people tend to cheer for the Dems more than the GOP, mostly because the Dems appear to be trying to play politics from the 3rd/4th circuit while the GOP seems firmly entrenched in the 2nd circuit and the overwhelming Monkey behavior is pretty annoying.
As for the welfare issue... I think the right solution is simple:
Make sure people have food, medical attention and a place to live. Probably this could be handled by States, as long as they met that minimum.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
Conservatives tend to be religious.
Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.
Conservatives only hate government intrusion whan it's THEM being intruded on.
It's the Ayn Rand thing. "I got mine, fuck everybody else."
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
Conservatives tend to be religious.
Here's the thing. Conservatives exist in the US. They're actually reactionaries who are all about government intrusion when it comes to things they find unappealing, like human rights for non-Americans. Am I conservative about stuff? Yeah, there are too many stupid laws being argued, debated, passed, vetoed, revoted on. We shouldn't propose any changes to the law unless it's necessary. Unfortunately, America's fucked up enough that we need to pass more legislation to deal with all of the legislative bullshit already piled on top of us.
Conservatives only hate government intrusion whan it's THEM being intruded on.
It's the Ayn Rand thing. "I got mine, fuck everybody else."
Oh yeah. See, and welfare's fine for them if THEY need it as an individual. There's an exception there.
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 04, 2012, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:11:09 PM
3 pages while I was having a flu. Great now I'll never catch up.
YES This thread is American-centric. I live in America, and it's about domestic policy more than anything else. I understand the US in general is "Right" of center for most of the world. Some of that is a good thing, because there are some "hurr durr Amurricah!" things that I actually like. Like the right to own guns, and the right to say crazy shit, even if it offends people. Also keeping the government out of people's private lives - which is why it confuses me that the anti-gay-marriage and anti-abortion movements can somehow be classified as politically "conservative."
As someone who comes from a country that doesn't have guns and has never had any school or even child shootings, I always find the right to own rat a tat toys baffling.
To me it just seems like an excuse to arm the stupid and lower the value of human life, I can understand OTHER countries wanting america to persue this policy but I cannot understand why there is such a large domestic love of guns.
It depends on where you live. In Boston, people don't generally need a gun for anything.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be armed in order to protect the state. The word militia is written into that particular one.
The US is also a pretty large place of mostly rural terrain with predators. To be fair, the only predators Ireland has is humans, dogs and cats. Here you get coyotes, wolves and bears, sometimes even near major cities in heavily urbanized regions. I'm rather indifferent about guns. I don't really need them. I'd like to shoot one someday at a range for shits and giggles, but I would never really feel the need to own one.
Text of the 2nd Amendment:QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's important to remember that at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the US had no permanent standing Army. Defense of the States was entrusted to state militias, composed of citizen-soldiers. As such, it was necessary to ensure that no legislation was passed which would hamper these militias' ability to do their jobs. But common defense wasn't thought of in those days in the same way we think of it now. It was much closer to home and each citizen had a personal investment in the his military security. We didn't outsource our defense to "the Military" as we do now - each person was responsible for their own security and the security of his/her neighbors in a very community-centric system.
Still, it's part of the American psyche also that people should have the right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. While I understand that is a dangerous can of worms to open, it's been fairly integral to American psychology for a long time (albeit decreasingly so).
And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
No it doesn't get rid of gun crime you are right. It minimises it.
It doesn't make a difference initially, no criminalisation rarely if ever does.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 04, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.
We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
I can't help reading this as reading that you include violence as a form of expression similar to speech. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
I will say that snuff porn, if it includes real snuff, should be illegal because it infringes on another being's right to live. Bestiality should not be illegal, but animal cruelty should be. A written guide to being a successful pedophile should not be illegal, nor should anyone be prosecuted for being a pedophile unless they act on those urges. Then they should be prosecuted for the action, not the thought.
It's not a society's job to protect its people against things that make them go "ew".
I'm tAlking about censorship, not just freedom of speech. So yes, violence that's then commercially exploited commercially is a censorship issue.
I'm not interested in protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, and I hope that you're just making a misjudgent there, not misrepresenting my view. There are real consequences for allowing promotion of hate speech (People getting bashed) or normalising and assisting child abuse (kids getting abused) or pornography portraying rape (normalising rape, but more importantly, incentivising the industry to develop more exploitative content that maltreats their workers).
I'm really pointing out that my main concern here is production or distribution of content commercially.
Also Pent says you can't draw a line. Why not? People draw lines all that time. You can't draw one objective line that exists forever in all circumstances, but you can draw a line, that's all the law does.
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PMAnd if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
:cn:
Or rather, explain to me why we have so much less criminals shooting or threatening people with guns over here? (Or owning guns, for that matter, but it's not the owning but rather the shooting and threatening that bothers me)
It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
Also comparing the right to abortion with the right to own guns is completely retarded. Both happen to be hot topics in the US doesn't mean they're similar in arbitrary ways. And making rape illegal didn't get rid of rape. However, making Kinder Surprise eggs illegal in the US
did in fact successfully almost entirely get rid of those pesky Holy Trinities of Confectionary: chocolate, excitement AND something to play with!
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 05, 2012, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 04, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 03, 2012, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 03, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I don't have a lot of 'conservative' views but I do believe in censorship, especially of hate speech and of what can be produced commercially.
Say again? You approve of censorship?
Absolutely. When Alan Jones reads out racist shit on radio that leads to Lebanese people getting bashed, that's something that we say as a society is unacceptable and I'm inclined to agree.
We also don't, and I should think, shouldn't, allow commercial sale of things like snuff pornography, beastiality, the guide to being a successful pedophile etc.
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
I can't help reading this as reading that you include violence as a form of expression similar to speech. How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
I will say that snuff porn, if it includes real snuff, should be illegal because it infringes on another being's right to live. Bestiality should not be illegal, but animal cruelty should be. A written guide to being a successful pedophile should not be illegal, nor should anyone be prosecuted for being a pedophile unless they act on those urges. Then they should be prosecuted for the action, not the thought.
It's not a society's job to protect its people against things that make them go "ew".
I'm tAlking about censorship, not just freedom of speech. So yes, violence that's then commercially exploited commercially is a censorship issue.
I'm not interested in protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, and I hope that you're just making a misjudgent there, not misrepresenting my view. There are real consequences for allowing promotion of hate speech (People getting bashed) or normalising and assisting child abuse (kids getting abused) or pornography portraying rape (normalising rape, but more importantly, incentivising the industry to develop more exploitative content that maltreats their workers).
I'm really pointing out that my main concern here is production or distribution of content commercially.
Also Pent says you can't draw a line. Why not? People draw lines all that time. You can't draw one objective line that exists forever in all circumstances, but you can draw a line, that's all the law does.
Then dont complain when the line gets drawn by the conservatives that yell louder, thats all the USA has been for the past 40 years.
A bunch of very vocal screaming yahoos that push legislation their way and nobody stops them.
Did you forget about Wikileaks already? Wasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court?
Just remember, the arbitrary line you are comftable with in separating what is right or not right to be heard/said, is in reality chosen by others, not you.
QuoteWasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court
An Indian skeptic is likely going to get thrown in prison very soon for "upsetting the Catholic Church" by showing how it faked certain miracles at an Indian shrine. Three years, for "blasphemy". The Vatican backs the Indian Catholic Church to the hilt, because the skeptic, Sanal Edamarku, "hurled false allegations against the Church" and "upset" them.
"World's largest democracy"? Hah!
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 01:29:01 AM
QuoteWasnt there a case where criticism of the reality of events in the bible called hate speech and it proceded to court
An Indian skeptic is likely going to get thrown in prison very soon for "upsetting the Catholic Church" by showing how it faked certain miracles at an Indian shrine. Three years, for "blasphemy". The Vatican backs the Indian Catholic Church to the hilt, because the skeptic, Sanal Edamarku, "hurled false allegations against the Church" and "upset" them.
"World's largest democracy"? Hah!
I didnt recall where i had heard it, yes, that case.
And you know what? There's censorship laws in my country about talking badly and/or criticizing ANY and ALL government officials, candidates in all levels. This isn't enforced -YET-, but this law passed about 3 months ago.
And no, its not like the UK where its about being vindictive and spreading unfounded rumours, no, its about CRITICIZING.
I have WONDERFUL ideas about where the line should be drawn as does anyone with an opinion, but you know what? its always gonna boil down to what is convenient or not to someone, and the only ones that have the power to enforce their opinion, is well, POWERFUL people.
Remember those laws for the internet about outlawing trolling?
Well, trolling is
spreading lies or
whatever and can be misleading and can hurt somebodies little princess heart. Does that mean it should be outlawed? Some people think it should.
You can't draw a line under free speech - you draw a line though it. As soon as you do that, it aint free speech anymore. Free speech is not for the fainthearted. It's implicit that you're going to hear a lot of shit that annoys, insults, threatens or even scares the shit out of you. This is the reason they did away with it in the first place.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 12:27:03 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PMAnd if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
:cn:
Or rather, explain to me why we have so much less criminals shooting or threatening people with guns over here? (Or owning guns, for that matter, but it's not the owning but rather the shooting and threatening that bothers me)
It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
Also comparing the right to abortion with the right to own guns is completely retarded. Both happen to be hot topics in the US doesn't mean they're similar in arbitrary ways. And making rape illegal didn't get rid of rape. However, making Kinder Surprise eggs illegal in the US did in fact successfully almost entirely get rid of those pesky Holy Trinities of Confectionary: chocolate, excitement AND something to play with!
Trip, it's because we're all psychotic. You spent a week here, you didn't notice?
It's true, if we didn't have all of the guns we have in Maine, the Massholes would be all over the damned place.
Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?
Kinder eggs are a constitutional right!
The pursuit of happiness cannot possibly undertaken without free access to Kinder Eggs.
Maybe they could fill them with tiny guns, hate speech text and aborted foetuses? Then you could call them FREEDOM EGGS!
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 04, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 12:27:03 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PMAnd if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
:cn:
You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Correct. The ones you can see are almost always better that the ones you can't, unless it's an A-Bomb dropping from the sky about half a mile up, in which case, it'd be better to close your eyes, snack on a deep fried Mars Bar and Itis to sleep.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 12:27:03 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PMAnd if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
:cn:
You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.
Also many believe that when they do get caught, they will be cooler for it, a lot of that is seen in California where foolish teenagers point air pistols at cops, drop them immediately, then spend a while in juvie/jail for "cred points".
Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible. There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership.
Even when guns were legal in the UK, they were never present in such large numbers, making their criminalisation a rather simple act. Also, the UK authorities had a more centralised database for gun purchases and ownership, and so could follow up on those people who did have firearms more easily.
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible. There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership.
A fact of which I approve.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
And that's exactly what it is. A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.
Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant. I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
And that's exactly what it is. A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.
Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant. I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.
What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
And that's exactly what it is. A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.
Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant. I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.
What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.
Yeah, that's nice. But it wasn't what we were talking about.
And there's no fucking need for "superliminals". They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.
This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks: They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:23:31 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
And that's exactly what it is. A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.
Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant. I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.
What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.
Yeah, that's nice. But it wasn't what we were talking about.
And there's no fucking need for "superliminals". They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.
This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks: They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES.
Superliminal is a joke I remembered from The Simpsons, where a drill instructor explained it as this:
HEY YOU! JOIN THE ARMY! and the guy he shouted at says OKAY!
Must be a private joke I thought more people got.
Anyways I also thought it fit because of this: There are simply people you cannot suppress no matter what type of censorship you have.
The idea of if Joe Teabagger got a muzzle because he was open expressing himself in any way he saw fit, and there were laws against it, wouldn't stop any of us from analyzing it. That right cannot be mere privilege, because you wouldn't let it be just a privilege, even if someone else said you did not have the right. Might sound crackpot to you but that's how I see it.
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on July 05, 2012, 12:53:54 PM
It's true, if we didn't have all of the guns we have in Maine, the Massholes would be all over the damned place.
Don't forget that the only reason you're not a Masshole now is because Maine was created out of Massachusetts to admit Missouri as a slave state.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 01:06:09 PM
Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?
I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 12:27:03 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PMAnd if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.
:cn:
You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.
Just like Teabaggers collecting from the government. :lulz:
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 01:06:09 PM
Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?
I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?
You amerispags are culturally deceased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 01:50:29 PM
Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible. There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership.
Even when guns were legal in the UK, they were never present in such large numbers, making their criminalisation a rather simple act. Also, the UK authorities had a more centralised database for gun purchases and ownership, and so could follow up on those people who did have firearms more easily.
Holy fuck. If those were evenly distributed that would be a gun for 2/3rds of the population.
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:40:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:23:31 PM
Quote from: The Dark Monk on July 05, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech. And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free. End of story.
Today's clue: Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.
Also, this, as a more basic principle.
And that's exactly what it is. A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.
Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant. I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.
What I worry about more is corporate media than government super-liminally telling younger people that free thought is bad and you shouldn't speak unless everyone wears Hurley or Calvin Klein. Stupifying, creating all to be the same and have a single thought is more dangerous to us all than a government trying to censor us, simply because I don't figure any of us would stop what we're doing if a sort of censorship bill was passed. Since Discordia promotes intelligence and activity, we'd find a way. The true danger in my eyes, that I see the future in, is liminals of all degrees continuing to promote stupid and mindless, and teaching people to disregard the ones that go against authority.
Yeah, that's nice. But it wasn't what we were talking about.
And there's no fucking need for "superliminals". They do it OPENLY, and people DEMAND MORE.
This is the kind of shit that makes me laugh at conspiracy freaks: They keep spouting about esoteric means to control the population secretly, when the fuckers are doing it RIGHT IN THEIR FUCKING FACES.
Superliminal is a joke I remembered from The Simpsons, where a drill instructor explained it as this:
HEY YOU! JOIN THE ARMY! and the guy he shouted at says OKAY!
Must be a private joke I thought more people got.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xx4BsBr2fU
I would have caught it before you mentioned it if I had coffee. Also it was Navy, episode is when Bart was in a boy band. Evan eht nioj.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 05, 2012, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 02:52:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 05, 2012, 01:06:09 PM
Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?
I would, except that you may as well be speaking Dutch right now. What the hell is a KSE?
You amerispags are culturally deceased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise
Perhaps, but not necessarily for this reason. So, it's basically an Easter Egg that you can get year round everywhere except the US and it has a toy inside the chocolate? Doesn't that get messy?
Thread is now about chocolate eggs.
Why fight it?
Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them. There is no disputing this fact.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:10:13 PM
Thread is now about chocolate eggs.
Why fight it?
Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them. There is no disputing this fact.
Point taken.
So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:10:13 PM
Thread is now about chocolate eggs.
Why fight it?
Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them. There is no disputing this fact.
Point taken.
So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?
If I had my way, there would be 312,000,000 firearms, and no licenses.
It's the one thing Arizona does right.
And I don't know the average, but I do know that most gun owners I know have between 2-15 firearms.
I range between 0-5.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:10:13 PM
Thread is now about chocolate eggs.
Why fight it?
Western civilization ended when they got rid of those hollow chocolate eggs that had toys inside them. There is no disputing this fact.
Point taken.
So about there being almost as many guns as Americans. That's a friggin' lot. I know that some gun owners out there have arsenals, and there's also the criminal element, but what's the average amount of guns someone with a firearms license has?
If I had my way, there would be 312,000,000 firearms, and no licenses.
It's the one thing Arizona does right.
And I don't know the average, but I do know that most gun owners I know have between 2-15 firearms.
I range between 0-5.
I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.
Which brings up some other interesting things- do we let the senile have firearms? I love my Nana, but I would not want her to have any sort of firearm. It would knock her on her ass and she'd break her hip too.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:19:34 PM
I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.
That's how we do it here. There is no driver's ed, and if you can pass the test, you can drive. So, while it's regulated, there's no formal training of any kind. Oh, and yes, we have horrible wrecks all the time.
My argument for having everyone armed is that it is obviously not safe, and I don't want anyone feeling safe at any price. I'd rather see everyone adjust to danger or go mad.
"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates. "Safe" is a method of conditioning. I'll expand on that if you like, after the morning staff meeting.
About 25% of Americans have firearms.
I was quite happy with using knives, not least because knives have other uses, but apparently carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon is against the law. Plus wearing a hooded jumper and carrying a blade is a potentially life-destroying move in the UK, because DECAYING MORALS, YOOFS, GANGS, DRUGS, RAP, BLACK PEOPLE, SOMETHING. It was never properly explained to me, but it made you a Bad Person.
I liked working in a pub kitchen, it gave me a legit reason to carry an 8" carving knife on me. I also had a decent flashlight that would probably break some bones, because, well, I worked nights sometimes, and the lanes in my town didn't have lights, because that would have involved paying taxes and the Tories who run my town instinctively recoil from the idea of spending money on anything other than their own expense budgets. But an edge puts the fear of god into people too stupid to realise how useful a metal club can be, so...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:19:34 PM
I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.
That's how we do it here. There is no driver's ed, and if you can pass the test, you can drive. So, while it's regulated, there's no formal training of any kind. Oh, and yes, we have horrible wrecks all the time.
My argument for having everyone armed is that it is obviously not safe, and I don't want anyone feeling safe at any price. I'd rather see everyone adjust to danger or go mad.
"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates. "Safe" is a method of conditioning. I'll expand on that if you like, after the morning staff meeting.
Please do. I'll need a coffee myself.
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 03:31:51 PM
About 25% of Americans have firearms.
I was quite happy with using knives, not least because knives have other uses, but apparently carrying anything with the intent to use it as a weapon is against the law. Plus wearing a hooded jumper and carrying a blade is a potentially life-destroying move in the UK, because DECAYING MORALS, YOOFS, GANGS, DRUGS, RAP, BLACK PEOPLE, SOMETHING. It was never properly explained to me, but it made you a Bad Person.
I liked working in a pub kitchen, it gave me a legit reason to carry an 8" carving knife on me. I also had a decent flashlight that would probably break some bones, because, well, I worked nights sometimes, and the lanes in my town didn't have lights, because that would have involved paying taxes and the Tories who run my town instinctively recoil from the idea of spending money on anything other than their own expense budgets. But an edge puts the fear of god into people too stupid to realise how useful a metal club can be, so...
25% sounds right to me.
One of my guitar teachers used to mention a few innocuous things that a musician could be expected to carry around that could be used as a weapon. A screwdriver, for example.
The screwdriver is one of the favourite weapons of the Scottish Ned. I found a bloodstained one on a bus in Glasgow once. Since I was the only one on the bus, there didn't seemt to be much I could do about it...
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 03:40:01 PM
The screwdriver is one of the favourite weapons of the Scottish Ned. I found a bloodstained one on a bus in Glasgow once. Since I was the only one on the bus, there didn't seemt to be much I could do about it...
Yeah, probably not.
Anything can be a weapon, provided you have the imagination and motivation.
I've enjoyed having a car because my key ring is longhand pointy, just the thing for driving into fleshy tender places around the face.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 05, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
Anything can be a weapon, provided you have the imagination and motivation.
I've enjoyed having a car because my key ring is longhand pointy, just the thing for driving into fleshy tender places around the face.
Well, a lot of things can anyway. I'd recommend practicing beforehand with whatever you're planning on using to make sure it doesn't break, slip out of your hand, or cause yourself an injury in the process. I've never been able to get keys to work, but if the handle part it is bulky enough I could see that working.
Some of the things I've carried as a nasty troubled youth:
• 1lb sinker tied to a sturdy nylon cord
• Heavy chain with carabiner worn as an unnecessary belt
• Pillow case inside of a pillow case full of dead batteries
• A variety of hammers
• Good ol' lead pipe
:walken:
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 03:19:34 PM
I dunno about the non-licensing thing. It would be like everyone being able to get behind the wheel as soon as the turned 16 whether or not they've been properly taught.
That's how we do it here. There is no driver's ed, and if you can pass the test, you can drive. So, while it's regulated, there's no formal training of any kind. Oh, and yes, we have horrible wrecks all the time.
My argument for having everyone armed is that it is obviously not safe, and I don't want anyone feeling safe at any price. I'd rather see everyone adjust to danger or go mad.
"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates. "Safe" is a method of conditioning. I'll expand on that if you like, after the morning staff meeting.
Please do. I'll need a coffee myself.
What is the best way to oppress a population?
To get them to buy into it, and thus oppress themselves. We saw this after 9/11, and we see it in the safety Nazi culture that has developed in America (and elsewhere) since the 1970s. It doesn't matter whether people are shrying about terrorists or "doing it for the children" or whatnot, it's the same thing.
I distinguish between actual safety concerns (cribs that choke children to save on the cost of additional slats, car safety requirements, UL listings required on extension cords, lifeguards at pools, etc) from the idea of legislating personal behavior that does not pose a direct risk to people around them.
Examples:
Seat belt laws: Good. A minor accident can turn into a major accident if the driver is hurled away from the controls in, for example, a "sideswipe" accident, leading to a direct physical threat to uninvolved people.
Helmet laws: Bad. You endanger nobody but yourself by not wearing a helmet on a bike.
Gun registration: Bad. The population is better served by hordes of anonymous gun owners than by restriction of gun rights...Accidents and weird shootings notwithstanding, violent crime (and just general bad behavior) decreases in an armed population, not to mention the threat it poses to would-be tyrants (obviously, a bunch of yokels with pistols aren't going to do jack shit to a military unit, but it only takes one bullet to settle a tyrant's hash). The fact that most Americans desperately WANT a tyrant doesn't change this fact. In addition, the pistol is "the great equalizer". The strong have trouble fucking with the weak, if they don't know which weak people are packing. Lastly, an armed population has a different mindset, and typically find it easier to say "no". Disarming a population doesn't make things any safer (I offer England as proof), but it DOES make it more compliant.
Drug laws: Depends on the drug in question (ie, does it cause the user to become a direct physical threat to those around them). Not going to expand on this because, well, you know.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 04, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 03, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
I am a flat-out Socialist and a social liberal. I believe in high government services, regulations on practices that impact the quality of life for citizens, and low government interference in individual lives and choices.
I'm a Marxist-Nigelist.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates. "Safe" is a method of conditioning.
Fucking YES! Like, 100 times - YES!
Why can't they see this? :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 05, 2012, 06:10:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
"Safe" isn't a proper environment for primates. "Safe" is a method of conditioning.
Fucking YES! Like, 100 times - YES!
Why can't they see this? :argh!:
Because it's scary, and people are really small these days.
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
Also while certainly it wasnt the only factor- guns do make a difference against a government. If it didnt youd be british and id have dual citizenship with the united kingdom.
Granted those were illegal firearms smuggled from boston and new york but hey a gun is a gun.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Also while certainly it wasnt the only factor- guns do make a difference against a government. If it didnt youd be british and id have dual citizenship with the united kingdom.
And to a greater extent the war, if Germany didn't have guns England would have been able to afford to keep Ireland. The real Major factor was that we were a money pit for the UK in that period, in fact we still are with the north...
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
1. Mentally ill people will find a way.
2. It isn't the urban sectors here that you have to watch out for, it's when you're out in the land of the billygoons. Our rural areas are, per capita, far more dangerous than our cities.
I cant speak for other cities but most of the murders that occur in boston are stabbings. It makes a certain amount of sense. Its discreet.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 07:04:52 PM
I cant speak for other cities but most of the murders that occur in boston are stabbings. It makes a certain amount of sense. Its discreet.
And it doesn't disturb the neighbors.
Granted we do have shootings but theyre all between gang members with a rare exception and are usually a late night execution sort of thing or so it generally seems.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
1. Mentally ill people will find a way.
2. It isn't the urban sectors here that you have to watch out for, it's when you're out in the land of the billygoons. Our rural areas are, per capita, far more dangerous than our cities.
All I know of hill billies is the portrayal on TV. Seems terrifying.
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
1. Mentally ill people will find a way.
2. It isn't the urban sectors here that you have to watch out for, it's when you're out in the land of the billygoons. Our rural areas are, per capita, far more dangerous than our cities.
All I know of hill billies is the portrayal on TV. Seems terrifying.
It's even worse than it appears. The Great American Cletus is a far, far worse creature than that portrayed on television and in the movies. It's really hard to describe.
Imagine a rather large Down's syndrome victim...Now, fill him full of meth and pour cheap beer down his throat. Teach him that "book learning" destroys "common sense", and ensure that his only two responses to new information are A) Appeal to Ridicule, and B) violence. Then make sure that he has a dichtomy of "if you hate women, you're a fag" and "if you like women, you're a fag" tearing what few brain cells he has in half. Teach him that domestic violence is "how men handle things", and then arm him.
They are Piltdown Man, and they must be stopped.
It is no coincidence that tornados target trailer parks unerringly.
Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
1. Mentally ill people will find a way.
2. It isn't the urban sectors here that you have to watch out for, it's when you're out in the land of the billygoons. Our rural areas are, per capita, far more dangerous than our cities.
All I know of hill billies is the portrayal on TV. Seems terrifying.
It's even worse than it appears. The Great American Cletus is a far, far worse creature than that portrayed on television and in the movies. It's really hard to describe.
Imagine a rather large Down's syndrome victim...Now, fill him full of meth and pour cheap beer down his throat. Teach him that "book learning" destroys "common sense", and ensure that his only two responses to new information are A) Appeal to Ridicule, and B) violence. Then make sure that he has a dichtomy of "if you hate women, you're a fag" and "if you like women, you're a fag" tearing what few brain cells he has in half. Teach him that domestic violence is "how men handle things", and then arm him.
They are Piltdown Man, and they must be stopped.
Yeah, that's, like, half my family right there.
These are my people.
Quote from: Alty on July 05, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on July 05, 2012, 06:33:49 PM
Safe or unsafe only come into play on a personal level of the responsibility of the individual, if you have irresponsible, impulsive or stupid people, you get high gun death and high gun crime. I also don't think people having guns keeps any kind of government in check. In fact I think they use it as an easy issue to rally numbers from the pro or against crowd.
There are several high power, volatile or toxic things I would enjoy keeping upon my person and though it would be highly entertaining if everyone else was entitled to as well it's not a place I would consider living or having a family.
I guess that's what it boils down to, the more rights and freedom the lowest common denominator has to dangerous or stupid shit, the shittier the quality of life in that region but the most morally pure.
I don't know about that, Faust. I live in a state that allows anyone 18 years old or older, who has no felony or domestic violent misdemeanors on their record, to carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
We had 35 murders in 2009, in a population almost exactly the same as Dublin's. 9 of them were committed with firearms. Most of the rest were the standard Tucson "knife 'em and toss them in a dumpster" murders.
Dublin's results were 19 gang-related shootings by November.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Dublin-has-become-the-gun-murder-capital-of-Europe-69575922.html
So I don't think legalization has much to do with whether or not a particular place is a good place to raise a family.
That's true. And six of those shootings were at that Giffords ladies political rally, so maybe politicians should be scared of uprisings. Shame about that 9 year old though.
In fact the with Dublin our gun crimes are even more concentrated with nearly every one of those 19 shootings happening within a ten mile radius all centring around the black horse inn and two drug families. Of course Cork where I live has had two shootings in the last ten years and both of which were by those same drug families.
Then there's northern Ireland and the endless kneecapping.
I always make the mistake of looking at the whole US for these kind of things, where when I hear gun crime I think of the sprawling urban decay of the rougher cities.
1. Mentally ill people will find a way.
2. It isn't the urban sectors here that you have to watch out for, it's when you're out in the land of the billygoons. Our rural areas are, per capita, far more dangerous than our cities.
All I know of hill billies is the portrayal on TV. Seems terrifying.
It's even worse than it appears. The Great American Cletus is a far, far worse creature than that portrayed on television and in the movies. It's really hard to describe.
Imagine a rather large Down's syndrome victim...Now, fill him full of meth and pour cheap beer down his throat. Teach him that "book learning" destroys "common sense", and ensure that his only two responses to new information are A) Appeal to Ridicule, and B) violence. Then make sure that he has a dichtomy of "if you hate women, you're a fag" and "if you like women, you're a fag" tearing what few brain cells he has in half. Teach him that domestic violence is "how men handle things", and then arm him.
They are Piltdown Man, and they must be stopped.
Yeah, that's, like, half my family right there.
These are my people.
And the best part is, no description actually does the situation justice. You have to see it in person to understand. Then you spend the rest of your life trying to forget.
These are the mysterious creatures we hear dwell beyond worcester. We dont know for sure because theres no reason to go beyond worcester and rare reason to even go to worcester (usually heavy metal concert which should be telling)
Oh and monster truck rallys and wresling too but those dont interest me or my wallet.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
These are the mysterious creatures we hear dwell beyond worcester. We dont know for sure because theres no reason to go beyond worcester and rare reason to even go to worcester (usually heavy metal concert which should be telling)
That's not even the real deal. No, the East coast has many problems (guidos, mobsters, hair bands), but Billygoons aren't one of them. At least not to the degree you see in the Southeast and the Midwest. Thank God I'm in Arizona, where I only have to deal with pimps, crazy people, and smugglers.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 07:27:55 PM
Oh and monster truck rallys and wresling too but those dont interest me or my wallet.
That's just cultural tourism. REAL rednecks don't have time for that shit. They're too busy trying to pirate their neighbor's cable so they can watch NASCAR. Unfortunately, they are not yet tool-users, and they invariably fail in ways that lead to either incarceration or an entry in
Fortean Times Magazine's "strange deaths" column.
I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 07:31:23 PM
I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.
Rednecks don't go to gun shops. They buy their firearms at swap meets.
When you hear the phrase, "All the damn niggers are hogging up the welfare", or "my cousin got killed trying to steal the copper out of power disconnects", or "I met my husband by writing to him in prison", then you're getting in the right neighborhood.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 05, 2012, 07:31:23 PM
I dunno man. You start seeing gun shops in worcester county. Westawoostah is bostonian for thar be dragons here. We dont know whats out there other than north adams which is practically south west vermont.
I think you're talking about the area that Lovecraft wrote about...
I could see that happene
ing in athol or fitchburg.
Did lovecraft write about western... Ah arkam county. Nevermind.
Best description of a Billygoon:
A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:51:12 PM
Best description of a Billygoon:
A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.
Funny thing is our suburbs are a lot worse than the back country. We have a rough approximation of your hillbilly culture but it's always near densely populated areas. The real sticks is full of good people and upper crust english twats who sometimes need a bit of education as to what rights they have on their "own" land.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 05, 2012, 07:57:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2012, 07:51:12 PM
Best description of a Billygoon:
A Scotsman, but without the cultural sophistication you find in Aberdeen.
Funny thing is our suburbs are a lot worse than the back country. We have a rough approximation of your hillbilly culture but it's always near densely populated areas. The real sticks is full of good people and upper crust english twats who sometimes need a bit of education as to what rights they have on their "own" land.
Upper crust assholes are always in need of education, in one thing or another.
I give regular courses in - do not attempt to eject drunken scottish people from your landmass when you don't have the law on your side, unless you have an inexplicable desire to experience the kind of mockery that will leave you scarred for life
Testament to my teaching prowess - no one has ever come back to resit the exam :evil:
<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>
Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.
Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).
Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.
So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:11:23 AM
<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>
Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.
Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).
Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.
So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.
So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".
And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.
And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.
Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2012, 03:40:01 PM
The screwdriver is one of the favourite weapons of the Scottish Ned. I found a bloodstained one on a bus in Glasgow once. Since I was the only one on the bus, there didn't seemt to be much I could do about it...
it is a favourite of their English cousins. I almost got threatened with one by a yoof once.. until he realised I used to sell pot to his sister.
I dunno, Vex.
One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.
What you talkin about, Twid?
We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.
Let's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.
What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."
The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.
On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 06, 2012, 05:46:19 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:11:23 AM
<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>
Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.
Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).
Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.
So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.
So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".
And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.
And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.
Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?
Put down the shit sling shot for a minute.
I never said we should have let them just stew in their backward thinking. If you'd actually read what I typed instead of what you wish I typed so we can have an argument, you'd see I emphasized that a) abolition was absolutely the "right" thing to do, and b) it takes a lot of effort to change a culture. I wasn't giving the South a free pass on anything, I was saying the progression from slavery to equality could have happened without war, and that it would have been a more solid, bottom-up transition if war hadn't brought on the tribe reflex. And it may have happened even sooner than it did happen (or
is still happening, actually).
Other slave-holding countries were pressured into abolition by foreign powers. See Brazil, which was done with slavery by 1890 and did it without the added shock of civil war. Economically, slavery was a loser. The South would have figured that out. As for equality (a whole different topic), it would have been an easier pill to swallow had it not been for armies marching across their territory exporting freedom and setting fire to everything in sight.
This is really no different from the argument that the USA has no business exporting freedom to the Middle East, but for some reason that logic doesn't carry through to the Civil War.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 06, 2012, 05:55:23 AM
I dunno, Vex.
One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.
What you talkin about, Twid?
We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.
Carpetbaggers; Reconstruction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger) The Civil War didn't change the culture overnight. While during Reconstruction Blacks could vote, the staying power of that "cultural revolution" was seen all over the South when Reconstruction ended and the South set in for a 75 years or so of intense intimidation of African-Americans through Jim Crow laws.
QuoteLet's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.
What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."
The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.
On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).
The Courts can't interpret laws that haven't been passed yet. And the interpretation of laws that DO exist is more or less at the mercy of the prevailing culture, anyway. I doubt the MA Supreme Court would have allowed same-sex marriage to stand in 1850, even under the exact same Constitution. What motivated progress in this case wasn't a law or a court; it was culture.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:56:10 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 06, 2012, 05:46:19 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:11:23 AM
<warning: I can't decide whether I'm replying to this thread or the one about the South, so bear with me>
Upon further reflection, I think I understand my most fundamental break with (modern) Liberalism. I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.
Some laws (Civil Rights, etc.) need to be passed because it's unfair to ask an entire population of people to wait generations for the rest of us monkeys to warm up to the idea of behaving like civilized people. In these cases, the culture and the popular morality will eventually fall into line with the law (as it more or less has in much of the South, albeit not nearly as uniformly or as smoothly as it was supposed to).
Unquestionably, abolition of slavery was the right and moral choice. But slavery as an institution was dying anyway. The North's industrialization had already placed the Free States in the position to win the war, and the South would have found more than enough economic incentive to follow suit. But the Civil War, Abolition, and Reconstruction caused so much turmoil and social upheaval in the South that the Tribe Reflex became a regular institution there (and still is). Had slavery been allowed to dissolve into history, Civil Rights laws would have been a much easier sell -- and probably much sooner than the 1960s. And the South might not be full of people who see every attempt to effect social change as a direct assault on their "right to self-determination." Overall the country would still be to the right of Europe (thanks a lot, Puritans), but probably less than it is now. We might also have something resembling dialogue, instead of just pandering and posturing, on hot-button issues.
So my break with Liberalism is mostly about "hush now, Mommy knows what's good for you" politics. Even if the big brains are right (and we know they usually are), a morally superior conclusion enforced by means that ignore the natural progression of ideas, or that fails to put in the grassroots-level effort to actually change minds, is only going to result in generations of people stuck in bullshit.
So the South gets a free pass on still being racist, because, "look what YOU made me do!".
And the "natural progression of ideas" seems to be "progressing" to the middle ages; all these people pushing intelligent design into education.
And really think through what you are arguing ultimately: fighting racism only made it become entrenched, therefore, nothing should have been done about it, and it would be gone by now.
Also, you are under the assumption that this idea of yours of "natural progression of ideas" does work, and thats a very big one. What is even a "natural progression"? And, in the given case that it does exist, dont you think all them fundamentalists would not allow it to happen?
Put down the shit sling shot for a minute.
I never said we should have let them just stew in their backward thinking. If you'd actually read what I typed instead of what you wish I typed so we can have an argument, you'd see I emphasized that a) abolition was absolutely the "right" thing to do, and b) it takes a lot of effort to change a culture. I wasn't giving the South a free pass on anything, I was saying the progression from slavery to equality could have happened without war, and that it would have been a more solid, bottom-up transition if war hadn't brought on the tribe reflex. And it may have happened even sooner than it did happen (or is still happening, actually).
Other slave-holding countries were pressured into abolition by foreign powers. See Brazil, which was done with slavery by 1890 and did it without the added shock of civil war. Economically, slavery was a loser. The South would have figured that out. As for equality (a whole different topic), it would have been an easier pill to swallow had it not been for armies marching across their territory exporting freedom and setting fire to everything in sight.
This is really no different from the argument that the USA has no business exporting freedom to the Middle East, but for some reason that logic doesn't carry through to the Civil War.
I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.
Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 06, 2012, 06:07:42 AM
I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.
Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.
The South already realized that slavery was as good as dead. Their Constitution prohibited importing new slaves from anywhere except from the USA (and between the Confederate States), which they obviously realized was a non-starter given the tensions between the two countries and the likelihood of pending universal abolition in the USA. With no source of new slaves other than natural procreation, and no Northern States enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act (which would surely cease in response to secession), the value of a slave would quickly drop in comparison to the cost of keeping him/her in CSA territory. That and the rapid industrialization and automation of agriculture and textiles was going to make slavery economically untenable in the very near future - something the CSA must have been aware of.
Furthermore the Civil War was never a "moral intervention" any more than our invasion of Iraq was. It was about political power, resources, and money. They just sold the Abolition angle to the rubes.
ETA: See I told you I couldn't tell the difference between this thread and the one about the South.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 06:13:23 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 06, 2012, 06:07:42 AM
I share your view on "moral interventions" in which they rarely (if ever) do any good.
Im just not on board with the idea that the South would "figure it out eventually", there's way too many factors involved to draw comparisons with other places and contexts.
The South already realized that slavery was as good as dead. Their Constitution prohibited importing new slaves from anywhere except from the USA (and between the Confederate States), which they obviously realized was a non-starter given the tensions between the two countries and the likelihood of pending universal abolition in the USA. With no source of new slaves other than natural procreation, and no Northern States enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act (which would surely cease in response to secession), the value of a slave would quickly drop in comparison to the cost of keeping him/her in CSA territory. That and the rapid industrialization and automation of agriculture and textiles was going to make slavery economically untenable in the very near future - something the CSA must have been aware of.
Your argument is logical, but im not sure if the causes you attribute to the actions are historically accurate. I can't argue it do, im not that familiar with the history beyond the major points.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 06:15:46 AM
Furthermore the Civil War was never a "moral intervention" any more than our invasion of Iraq was. It was about political power, resources, and money. They just sold the Abolition angle to the rubes.
ETA: See I told you I couldn't tell the difference between this thread and the one about the South.
I agree, they were smoke-screens covering and justifying the real hidden reasons.
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 06:04:53 AM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 06, 2012, 05:55:23 AM
I dunno, Vex.
One of the consequences of the Civil War was the immediate elections of black politicians.
What you talkin about, Twid?
We had black Congressmen immediately after the Civil War. No shit. Black Congressmen. Yeah, it took us 150 and change years to get a black President, but that's big right there. And as far as rights go, the Judicial Branch is probably the most important branch in any government. You can't rely on legislation. It's at the whim of the masses. You can't rely on the executive, it's at the whim of reelection. Every bit of progress (progressive, see, painfully slow that it can be at times) has come from the Judicial.
Carpetbaggers; Reconstruction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger) The Civil War didn't change the culture overnight. While during Reconstruction Blacks could vote, the staying power of that "cultural revolution" was seen all over the South when Reconstruction ended and the South set in for a 75 years or so of intense intimidation of African-Americans through Jim Crow laws.
QuoteLet's take same sex marriage. There was a bit for a little while about Hawaii, but that shit was struck down. And actually created DOMA. DOMA was a reaction against the fact that Hawaii might ratify same sex marriage. Which didn't happen.
What got the ball rolling (and this is what makes me proud to be a Masshole, since we were the first to have it statewide, without any bullshit) was a gay couple sued, and the MA Supreme Court said, "yeah, there's nothing in the state constitution (the oldest continuous constitution in the world, I might add) that forbids this. Mazel Tov."
The same with Civil Rights. These were fought in court, not in Congress.
On that note, DOMA is a blatant violation of the bit in the Constitution that says that whatever public records are enacted in one state must be recognized as valid in all others, regardless of local laws (Full Faith and Credit Clause).
The Courts can't interpret laws that haven't been passed yet. And the interpretation of laws that DO exist is more or less at the mercy of the prevailing culture, anyway. I doubt the MA Supreme Court would have allowed same-sex marriage to stand in 1850, even under the exact same Constitution. What motivated progress in this case wasn't a law or a court; it was culture.
There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.
A gay couple sued.
The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."
Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.
There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.
Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.
My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 06, 2012, 06:37:29 AM
There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.
A gay couple sued.
The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."
Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.
There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.
Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.
My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.
That's true, the courts have to somehow give rights that little "push." But that usually only happens when prevailing culture is conducive to it, or at least won't explode over it. So the proper target for the brunt of Progressive efforts should be culture at large, not the courts. And definitely not just legislation.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 07:01:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce Twiddleton on July 06, 2012, 06:37:29 AM
There were no laws either way, that had been passed yet.
A gay couple sued.
The supreme court said, "yeah, you're right, hey you give them a marriage license."
Gay couple eventually divorced. Seriously. God bless America.
There were no laws involved here other than the ones drafted in the 18th century, and the interpretation thereof.
Would this have been ignored in the 1700s? Yeah. Of course.
My point is, is that progress is not made with the legislative branch, nor the executive branch. Rights are recognized by the judicial.
That's true, the courts have to somehow give rights that little "push." But that usually only happens when prevailing culture is conducive to it, or at least won't explode over it. So the proper target for the brunt of Progressive efforts should be culture at large, not the courts. And definitely not just legislation.
Maybe. I dunno, I think that the judicial has a lot of leeway. They're not elected, and they're lifers. Their purpose is to judge a case as far as strict interpretation of the Constitution allows.
Now, example, I disagree with Roe v Wade. But yet, I'm pro-choice. My argument is that it's not a matter of privacy. It's a matter of right over what happens to your body.
I am against PPACA. Not because I hate Health Care. On the contrary. I believe in Universal Health Care. I'm against the mandate that says I have to buy insurance since the government won't provide me with it, unless I'm poor, and they have no idea what poor constitutes. It's moot. Obamacare is rooted in Romneycare, and if you'll recall I'm a Masshole. I've had the individual mandate for years, and I only got insurance through work to comply with Massachusetts law. Thanks Shitt Romney.
Anyway, I'm not a Justice. So, whatever. I am however glad that there is a branch of the gov't that is not beholden to the whims of the populace. Conservative has a different meaning there, and I'm definitely a Conservative when it comes to the Judicial branch, since that's the only branch that seems to understand, some of the time that Liberal and Conservative have nothing to do with Right and Left.
Twid,
Conservative Leftist, I guess.
Quote from: v3x on July 06, 2012, 05:11:23 AM
I can't say I agree very often with Conservatism the Political Platform, but I do sympathize with Conservatism the Political Ideal. "Progressivism" seems to share at its core the same top-down "you just shut up and do it our way" mentality that I dislike about the current practice of Conservatism. Legislating morality.
All politics is about legislating morality. All democratic politics, anyway. Who suffers, who doesn't, what is considered legal, what is not...they all ultimately come down to moral criterea used to inform policy making, and getting votes based on who holds what moral positions and what tradeoffs they are willing to make to see those positions realised.
Non-moral politics seems to only exist in certain third world dictatorships, normally the kind where the leader relies on natural resources to buy off his core of followers, and lets the rest of the population do whatever, so long as it doesn't threaten him. Ironically, this doesn't make them a moral free-for-all, it just means the people with the most guns, the army, militia or presidential security forces, do whatever they want and anyone who looks like disagreeing gets a bullet in the face.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
I'm not worried about it going away. I'm worried about, when mass media/commercial interest is concerned, limits should be in place.
Also when I say current practice I mean in Australia, I didn't clarify. I realise I won't convince anyone, but I do want my position to be clear.
Well and that's kind of something we already have in place here in the States as far as regulating what can/cannot be aired on the airwaves. And I have to admit I'm a bit conflicted on that one. Because it is really easy for a responsible person to avoid content they would find objectionable. But, on the other hand, some kids have rotten parents who don't know any better and they may become subject to said content without any kind of reasonable filter for the content.
In the end I lean more towards free speech but can understand the desire for some level of regulation.
V3x, what I'm seeing in your "conservative/progressive" argument is you're that you seem saying "not all conservatives are fascists, but all progressives are mommy-staters", and then moving on from there.
I see it breaking down into roughly two major ideas: "things are fine as they were" and "things can get better". Where people go with those ideas can be extremely repressive both ways: Conservatives can restrict the ability for citizens to act freely just as much as progressives can, if it serves their ultimate agenda.
Another overly simplified breakdown can be "To ensure a strong country, the government must maintain it's power" vs "To ensure a strong country, the government must ensure a strong citizenry". The "power" idea tends to result in military and established social hierarchies, and the "citizenry" tends to result in education and social welfare.
Or something. I feel that a nation whose government ignores or exploits the poor is in need of improvement.
Yes, I know that means every nation that has ever existed.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on July 06, 2012, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away. It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter. I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.
I'm not worried about it going away. I'm worried about, when mass media/commercial interest is concerned, limits should be in place.
Also when I say current practice I mean in Australia, I didn't clarify. I realise I won't convince anyone, but I do want my position to be clear.
:sad:
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Basically what it accomplishes, is
porn. Here, let me use SCIENCE to explain:
POP = total amount of people applying for welfare
CWP = cost of welfare for one person
CPP = cost of a psychologist/psychiatrist/psychotechnician/psychic to evaluate one person
PF = ratio of people that would get "caught" faking eligibility
so you'd save money if:
POP * CWP > POP * CWP - PF * POP * CWP + POP * CPP
which reduces to
PF * POP * CWP > CPP * POP
meaning, if the amount of people "caught" exceeds the total cost of psych evaluating everybody that applies for welfare.
you can vary CPP by making the test shorter, or hiring less well-trained psychosniffers--which also affects PF. But then you'd also have to account for false positives and false negatives. The cost of a false negative is obvious (just one more CWP), but you can't really put a number on a false positive (when someone eligible is deemed not to be). But you can fudge those. Then you can plot everything onto a nice ROC curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic), write a report and leave it in a legislator's office, where it'll be ignored unless you fudged the cost of false positives low enough. So you decide that the legislator's office is a better place to leave porn instead of reports.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Punishment.
I agree with V3X on one thing: We shouldn't have fought to preserve the union.
Because the South infected the rest of us, shortly afterward...Which is why the default state of being for the average American is now "dumbass redneck".
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 06, 2012, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Basically what it accomplishes, is porn. Here, let me use SCIENCE to explain:
POP = total amount of people applying for welfare
CWP = cost of welfare for one person
CPP = cost of a psychologist/psychiatrist/psychotechnician/psychic to evaluate one person
PF = ratio of people that would get "caught" faking eligibility
so you'd save money if:
POP * CWP > POP * CWP - PF * POP * CWP + POP * CPP
which reduces to
PF * POP * CWP > CPP * POP
meaning, if the amount of people "caught" exceeds the total cost of psych evaluating everybody that applies for welfare.
you can vary CPP by making the test shorter, or hiring less well-trained psychosniffers--which also affects PF. But then you'd also have to account for false positives and false negatives. The cost of a false negative is obvious (just one more CWP), but you can't really put a number on a false positive (when someone eligible is deemed not to be). But you can fudge those. Then you can plot everything onto a nice ROC curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic), write a report and leave it in a legislator's office, where it'll be ignored unless you fudged the cost of false positives low enough. So you decide that the legislator's office is a better place to leave porn instead of reports.
"Caught" doing what? Being mentally ill? Welfare isn't dependent on mental illness. There seems to be no point to the proposed screening whatsoever.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Punishment.
But for what?
My point was that people who sabotage their own lives in order to qualify for welfare are clearly mentally ill. But unless they are applying for disability, the DHS does not care whether they are or not, only whether they qualify for welfare. It is not the domain of the DHS to screen for mental illness unless it is being asked to provide services for treating mental illness.
The proposal of psych evaluations for welfare recipients is a non-sequitur, unless the budget and mission of the DHS was expanded in an effort to provide a wider net of services for people on welfare. Which I would be in favor of. Otherwise (addressing Vex here) it's a load of shut up shut up shut up.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:32:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 06, 2012, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 06, 2012, 06:37:20 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 04, 2012, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 04, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 04, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 03, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 01:48:50 AM
Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.
Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.
Not sure where you live, Vex, but in Texas cash welfare benefits are about $104 a month. That's a month, not a week. And it's a bitch to qualify even for that, a lot of people (who have been denied unemployment benefits which the state is also loathe to pay out, for instance) who need help can't get it.
I know what you're talking about from the old days, I've seen people have babies and stay on welfare until the kids were teenagers, then have another crop of babies so they could continue getting benefits, but I think the people who need help outnumber people like this by far. These were fucked up people, BTW, usually hard alcoholics who supplemented their benefits with prostitution. Cutting welfare didn't make everything all better, obviously.
In my opinion, anyone who HAS A KID to stay on welfare has a mental problem that absolutely qualifies them for welfare.
My sister, a few years ago, went from being a productive adult to a heavy drinker who sued people constantly, and eventually got sick and divorced her high-earning husband so she would go on disability, which she is using along with some of her lawsuit win to pay some quack naturopath for an exorbitantly expensive and dangerous treatment that will probably kill her.
Some people could make the argument that she's a welfare cheat who did it to herself, but she's clearly batfuck insane, or she would have simply finished her Masters degree and gotten a job instead of systematically destroying herself.
100% THIS.
Everybody I've known who did things like that had some kind of pathology going on, or probably several, whether they'd been diagnosed or not.
Easy fix. Make psychiatric evaluation mandatory for welfare recipients.
AND DRUG TESTS! lol. okay just the psych eval.
What would that accomplish?
Punishment.
But for what?
My point was that people who sabotage their own lives in order to qualify for welfare are clearly mentally ill. But unless they are applying for disability, the DHS does not care whether they are or not, only whether they qualify for welfare. It is not the domain of the DHS to screen for mental illness unless it is being asked to provide services for treating mental illness.
The proposal of psych evaluations for welfare recipients is a non-sequitur, unless the budget and mission of the DHS was expanded in an effort to provide a wider net of services for people on welfare. Which I would be in favor of. Otherwise (addressing Vex here) it's a load of shut up shut up shut up.
To be fair my suggestion of psych evals for people stuck on welfare was a poorly executed joke. My argument was that some people have in fact been known to procreate in order to stay on welfare -- which I think was probably an ignorant argument to make, now. The counter-argument was that anyone who does that would have to be clinically insane so I suggested psych evals since I don't have a serious retort.
OK then.