(06-10-2019 04:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 03:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Right... I think we're on the same page here. I have not seen first-hand racist behavior by any progressives that I know. I don't know what otherwise lurks in the minds of my friends and acquaintances.

But are you sure you would be willing to recognize it? Again, my own experience is that when leftists who engage in overtly racist behavior are questioned about it, the response by themselves and many of their fellow leftists is denial, excuse-making, deflection, sometimes name-calling, and ultimately a claim that leftists BY DEFINITION cannot be racist -- a retreat to tautology. It's hard to have much confidence in the observational ability of judgment of people who act like that.

There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

I am open to the possibility. Do I think that my observational powers are weaker than average? My experience doesn't suggest that, however I am certainly biased when it comes to that question as well.

You haven't ever observed any racist behavior from a conservative while you have from liberals. Are you open to the same possibilities?

I think I have the same degree of openness as you do, and the same degree of confidence in my own abilities. But two data parameters that might be relevant are:

- I know a whole lot of people-- my wife and others often tell me that the number of people I know is astonishing. And of the people I know, the overwhelming majority (by an integral multiple) are on the left. That in itself may explain why I've seen more racist behavior from leftists whom I know than from conservatives whom I know, and more than you've seen from leftists whom you know.

- As I mentioned a while ago, my social circle is extraordinarily loaded with advanced degrees, even by Rice alumni standards. That doesn't make it "better", but it is demographically unusual by any objective measure. It is possible that as they pile on degrees, any latent racist tendencies of conservatives tend to decline or at least be suppressed, while latent racist tendencies of leftists tend to increase or at least are given freer reign. That hypothesis may fit not only yours and my observational data, but also some of the other topics cited in this thread.

(06-10-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But are you sure you would be willing to recognize it? Again, my own experience is that when leftists who engage in overtly racist behavior are questioned about it, the response by themselves and many of their fellow leftists is denial, excuse-making, deflection, sometimes name-calling, and ultimately a claim that leftists BY DEFINITION cannot be racist -- a retreat to tautology. It's hard to have much confidence in the observational ability of judgment of people who act like that.

There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

One factor which speaks against my own bias is that I was strongly conservative until roughly my mid-30's. I gradually became less and less conservative as I felt that the GOP was becoming less interested in balancing the budget and more interested keeping evangelicals and the NRA happy. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate that I ever voted for.

If you had asked me at age 30 (at which time I strongly identified with the GOP) about racist behavior I would have given you the same answer that I gave in this thread.

Guns and Biblethumpers I can see, but how in the heck did an interest in a balanced budget lead you to the Democrats?

LOL. You make an excellent point. I certainly have no faith in either party to provide anything beyond lip-service when it comes to managing our national debt.

When it became evident to me that the GOP was no more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats, I chose the party that was closer to me on issues that I found important (gun control, climate change, etc.).

(06-10-2019 06:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

One factor which speaks against my own bias is that I was strongly conservative until roughly my mid-30's. I gradually became less and less conservative as I felt that the GOP was becoming less interested in balancing the budget and more interested keeping evangelicals and the NRA happy. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate that I ever voted for.

If you had asked me at age 30 (at which time I strongly identified with the GOP) about racist behavior I would have given you the same answer that I gave in this thread.

Guns and Biblethumpers I can see, but how in the heck did an interest in a balanced budget lead you to the Democrats?

LOL. You make an excellent point. I certainly have no faith in either party to provide anything beyond lip-service when it comes to managing our national debt.

When it became evident to me that the GOP was no more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats, I chose the party that were closer to me on issues that I found important (gun control, climate change, etc.).

For me the entire question hinges on the proper role of government, and the idea that we are a nation with a supposed limited and enumerated power Federal government.

In my early teens through my early twenties -- Reagan guy. Turned to moderate Democrat from 25 or so to early thirties.

Reread Mises out on the seismic ships, and through that process ended up reading Hayek. As a result, I turned to Chicago school economics and libertarian thought.

I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

On the other hand the Republican party still has to 'make use' of us libertarians in their tent.

You are correct, in the formulation of both parties currently, neither will address the budget. But for me, the Democrats are way too far down the path of collectivism for me to really be a fan of.

(06-10-2019 11:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-09-2019 10:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Oberlin’s cluelessness is morbidly fascinating.
Before trial, Oberlin had moved for a change of venue (to Cleveland), saying that the college could not expect fair treatment in their home county after all the negative public comments that had been made about the college. It claimed that the community had rushed to judgment against the college.
Do you think anyone in the campus administration saw any irony in this argument?

It's just a logical extension of the typical left wing, "We're smarter than you, so we can run your life better than you can," condescension. And none of them realizes the condescension.

You are a huge fan of sweeping generalizations.

I said "typical" not "universal" and I do in fact find it to be typical, at least of the left's political leadership. Obama oozed it out of every pore. Hillary's "deplorable" comment was in that same vein, as was Nancy Pelosi's, "We've got to pass it so that you can see what's in it."

What I don't understand is why so many people whom I consider reasonably intelligent and well-meaning can fall for it.

(06-10-2019 06:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

One factor which speaks against my own bias is that I was strongly conservative until roughly my mid-30's. I gradually became less and less conservative as I felt that the GOP was becoming less interested in balancing the budget and more interested keeping evangelicals and the NRA happy. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate that I ever voted for.

If you had asked me at age 30 (at which time I strongly identified with the GOP) about racist behavior I would have given you the same answer that I gave in this thread.

Guns and Biblethumpers I can see, but how in the heck did an interest in a balanced budget lead you to the Democrats?

LOL. You make an excellent point. I certainly have no faith in either party to provide anything beyond lip-service when it comes to managing our national debt.

When it became evident to me that the GOP was no more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats, I chose the party that was closer to me on issues that I found important (gun control, climate change, etc.).

To be blunt, this is a story of why it is emblematic that I do not think that modern progressivism is a viable political philosophy:

Denver Baker sued a third time

I mean, good fing god. I think the question has to be asked of 'will he ever be left alone'? Criminy, literally this guy isnt even the only baker on his block, yet because he 'won' a round I guess he will be forever targeted by progressive political activists.

But the plaintiff can't just go to another bakery, because this isn't about purchasing a cake. It's about persecuting someone for 'wrong' beliefs.

It's not about promoting tolerance. It's about punishing dissenters.

Oberlin and this have *very* common roots in philosophy and in resulting actions.

The reason why I am not a progressive in a nutshell.

(06-10-2019 06:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There has been nothing obvious. We all have biases that will affect our perception of situations and I am clearly no different than the next person in this regard. I am open to the possibility that I missed subtle instances somebody with a different set of biases would have picked up on.

Are you open to the possibility that you might be different from the next person in a relevant respect -- e.g. that your biases might be stronger than average, or that your observational powers might be weaker than average?

One factor which speaks against my own bias is that I was strongly conservative until roughly my mid-30's. I gradually became less and less conservative as I felt that the GOP was becoming less interested in balancing the budget and more interested keeping evangelicals and the NRA happy. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate that I ever voted for.

If you had asked me at age 30 (at which time I strongly identified with the GOP) about racist behavior I would have given you the same answer that I gave in this thread.

Guns and Biblethumpers I can see, but how in the heck did an interest in a balanced budget lead you to the Democrats?

LOL. You make an excellent point. I certainly have no faith in either party to provide anything beyond lip-service when it comes to managing our national debt.

When it became evident to me that the GOP was no more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats, I chose the party that was closer to me on issues that I found important (gun control, climate change, etc.).

Issues that I find important:

Tax and fiscal policy
foreign policy

Those are things that affect the here and now for me and the future for my family.

Things I find of minor importance - Your issues. Gun control will not prevent the violence unless all guns are outlawed for all people. Still wouldn't then. Climate change is important, but half measures in 6% of the world on a changing climate that is primarily natural will have little or no effect. Extending the sell by date of the world by a few months does not impel me. I think overpopulation will kill us before carbon does.

Things we may agree on, but that I find not to be important as a policy issue
Gay marriage (pro)
Death penalty (anti)

I think a wall from sea to sea is a stupid idea, but I find it dishonest that Democrats portray the wall as a stand-alone item. Walls in specific locations combined with patrols can be very effective. Ask the warden of any high security prison if the walls are useful. Ask if they would be useful if built but not patrolled. or would it be better to have double the guards but have no walls? maybe with a little Welcome Wagon service for those who make it past the official edge of the prison?

Issue on which I am with neither extreme - abortion. Grew up before RvW, saw how that worked. (not well) But I think the fetus is human from conception, so it is the taking of a human life. Just a legal killing, like the death penalty.

I have given a lot of thought to a lot of issues since I was 21 (legal voting age back then). I get tired of all my positions being attributed to greed or racism. Drives me further to the right.

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For me the entire question hinges on the proper role of government, and the idea that we are a nation with a supposed limited and enumerated power Federal government.
In my early teens through my early twenties -- Reagan guy. Turned to moderate Democrat from 25 or so to early thirties.
Reread Mises out on the seismic ships, and through that process ended up reading Hayek. As a result, I turned to Chicago school economics and libertarian thought.
I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)
On the other hand the Republican party still has to 'make use' of us libertarians in their tent.
You are correct, in the formulation of both parties currently, neither will address the budget. But for me, the Democrats are way too far down the path of collectivism for me to really be a fan of.

I had a somewhat different path.

I have pretty much always been a libertarian, even before there was a Libertarian Party. I remember my alumni interview during the Rice admissions process was with an English professor at Alabama. I don't remember much of the interview, but I do remember he asked if I were liberal or conservative. I responded, "Conservative on government matters, liberal on personal issues." That was really the first time I had ever tried to pin myself down, but the words came out very quickly and naturally. That kind of defines libertarian, and I've never really strayed far from it.

It usually leaves me pretty dissatisfied with our presidential choices. The last time I voted for a major party presidential candidate was Reagan in 1980, and that was more a vote against Carter than a vote for Reagan, although Reagan was pretty acceptable from a Libertarian point of view. Every other election since there was a Libertarian Party, I have voted Libertarian.

As for 2020, I'm no great fan of Trump, but I cannot stand any of the democrats. Democrats just have too many drop dead showstopper issue positions for me. I'm basically in the, "Libertarian if I can, Trump if I must," camp at this point.

(06-10-2019 06:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  When it became evident to me that the GOP was no more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats, I chose the party that was closer to me on issues that I found important (gun control, climate change, etc.).

How is that working for you? Do we have enough gun control yet? If you were to get exactly the gun control you want, what would it be? Who would be allowed to have guns, and what would they have to do to have them?

I live in a rural area. The population is 66% Republican, according to voting records. I estimate that 50% or more of the residents have guns, and many carry them. Yet gun violence is very rare. Perhaps it is different where you live. So I see little need for stricter, and stricter, and stricter gun laws. Maybe in Chicago and Houston. But this conservative county has no gun problem. If Houston has one, let Houston pass laws to deal with it. No need to make it statewide or national.

I own guns. I don't hunt anymore, so i haven't used them in decades. I did use one once to protect my home and family from intruders. That was 1979.

Climate change is real, and has been real since the beginnings of the Earth. Yes the Earth in 2060 will be warmer than in 1860. Not as hot as 65,000,000 years ago. But here is my premise: We cannot stop it or reverse it, any more than we could stop or reverse the last inter-glacial, 11,000 years ago. We can slow it down, but what is the point? We are dying here, not from heat, but from overpopulation. If the world joined in sensible conservation, that would be one thing. But it doesn't. It pays lip service at best, and we cannot even agree among ourselves over what to do. So voting for a party or a candidate on the basis of futile gestures seems grotesque to me. "I am for the Paper Party, and against those evil Plastic advocates". Reminds me of the Jonathan Swift controversy over which end of the egg to crack.

When the Democrats come up with a plan to limit world population to a manageable number, call me. But so far, they seem intent only on making living here now unbearable.

yes, I realize that I am not Optimistic.

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-10-2019 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I realized that at its core, the Democratic party is and always will be progressive. Unbridled use of government power is the core support of progressive thought (as it is with any collectivist-style political ideology)

For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

Are you saying that one of the following HAS to be correct?

1) Leftists follow a repugnant philosophy that seeks to control others and stomp down those who disagree with them.

2) Leftists have primarily altruistic motivations.

There is no room to land somewhere in between these two statements?

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  For most of the last hundred years, the number one cause of intentional death has been government. Yet this -- and this alone -- is the institution that leftists want to make more powerful.

It has been noted before that the leftist infatuation with government control is too complete and too contrary to evidence to plausibly stem from altruism. Rather, it stems from a desire to boss other people around: to take things from them, to be the dispenser of permissions and prohibitions, to tell them what work they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot live, what they can or cannot wear or eat or say or think or do -- and ultimately to impoverish, imprison, destroy or kill those who are reluctant to obey. THOSE are the real goals of leftists: power for the pleasure of wielding it; confiscation for the pleasure of taking; destruction for the pleasure of destroying. It's a repugnant ideology, but one that too many people fall into time after time time, and to which the "educated" are especially prone, since they believe themselves specially deserving of that power.

And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

I strongly disagree with the notion that that “fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others.” That is anything but a true statement and is a very biased opinion.

But your comment about smugness blinding people seems to be spot on.

I also think that just as many Reps are as smug as Dems - they’re rather demeaning on a regular basis and think that their views are clearly superior and can’t believe that others don’t have the same perspective.

(06-11-2019 02:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

Are you saying that one of the following HAS to be correct?

1) Leftists follow a repugnant philosophy that seeks to control others and stomp down those who disagree with them.

2) Leftists have primarily altruistic motivations.

There is no room to land somewhere in between these two statements?

Based on George’s take on Democrats, the only reason I want to decriminalize (or ideally legalize) marijuana is because I want to control people! Makes perfect sense! Or maintaining and strengthening environmental laws - that’s not because I see value in addressing negative externalities of industry that escape the grasp of the market, but because I want to control those companies! Or how about expanding Medicaid - not because I support a larger social safety net and think that those who can more easily afford preventative care will have less long-term health issues, but because I want to control those people!

Sheesh.

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Dems are supposed to be the ones who are smug?

Yikes.

Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

I strongly disagree with the notion that that “fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others.” That is anything but a true statement and is a very biased opinion.

It is absolutely a true statement and is an unbiased observation. What's untrue and biased is your failure to recognize it.

Sheesh.

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But your comment about smugness blinding people seems to be spot on.

So I see.

(06-11-2019 02:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Not “supposed to be” — they are smug. No reasonable person would contend otherwise.

I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

I strongly disagree with the notion that that “fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others.” That is anything but a true statement and is a very biased opinion.

It is absolutely a true statement and is an unbiased observation. What's untrue and biased is your failure to recognize it.

Sheesh.

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But your comment about smugness blinding people seems to be spot on.

So I see.

George - you seem to be trying to argue what the motivations of people are and those those motivations are uniform and ulterior. If anything, trying to argue for the uniformity of a large group is questionable, let alone that the entire group has an ulterior motive. If you were arguing that Dems mostly advocate for more, rather than less, I would agree.

But your screed is quickly put to bed by pointing out positions that Dems hold that reduce the amount of government intervention in private matters (abortion, marijuana legalization, etc.).

I wonder what you make of conservatives and what their motivations are. Surely is Dems aren’t altruistic, conservatives aren’t either?

I don't think that making something legal (concealed carry) implies no control, nor does making it illegal (guns in Chicago) imply control.

(06-11-2019 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess the irony of that statement, which immediately follows a high-minded screed denigrating those on the left as following a "repugnant ideology" and so one, is lost.

For someone who always seems to be very careful with their words and welcoming of others, you just jumped to a massive conclusion about the motivations of a large portion of the population and, in essence, called them repugnant. It's not like you're talking about a small subset of the left, say Antifa, but rather the entire left.

The alleged "irony" isn't lost, because there is no irony. Democrats are smug AND the fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others, which is repugnant. Those are both true statements. The irony, if you can call it that, seems to be that most leftists are too smug to recognize the truth of either.

The "massive" conclusion wasn't "jumped to" -- it is consistent with historical fact. The alternative theory -- that the motivations of leftists are primarily altruistic -- is absurd, and the propagation of that theory by leftists is very much an example and instrument of their smugness.

What exactly are you disputing?

I strongly disagree with the notion that that “fundamental motive of leftists is a desire to control others.” That is anything but a true statement and is a very biased opinion.

It is absolutely a true statement and is an unbiased observation. What's untrue and biased is your failure to recognize it.

Sheesh.

(06-11-2019 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But your comment about smugness blinding people seems to be spot on.

So I see.

George - you seem to be trying to argue what the motivations of people are and those those motivations are uniform and ulterior. If anything, trying to argue for the uniformity of a large group is questionable, let alone that the entire group has an ulterior motive. If you were arguing that Dems mostly advocate for more, rather than less, I would agree.

But your screed is quickly put to bed by pointing out positions that Dems hold that reduce the amount of government intervention in private matters (abortion, marijuana legalization, etc.).

And at the same time those same people seemingly want to fing smother the ability of the individual in other matters, like...... gee they want to make sure that they take everything someone makes or has above some amount x, because it is 'fair'.

Or they want to make sure that 'bad thought' is stamped in an official manner. For that effort, just Google the term 'masterpiece bakery continuously sued', and that seems to paint the picture pretty well.

Funny how you overlook those overarching edifices of progressive thought and action. Dont like the message, just sue them into oblivion. Dont like the message, yell 'hate speech' and claim that there is no freedom to convey that message.

You are correct that there are a few issues that progressives actually seek less government intervention. A few.

For the most part progressives simply wish to use the weight of government in their collectivist-leaning agenda. But hey, because they support private use of reefer, and the ability to get rid of a pregnancy, that *completely* outweighs the rest of the progressive agenda and effort. Got it.