(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.

George- you seem to be implying that progressives fall into two camps:

1) those that buy into the "repugnant" ideology that they are smarter than others and therefore deserve to order other people around and are within their rights to push this ideology by force.
2) those that are too gullible/stupid to recognize this repugnant ideology that their leaders are pushing

In either case, you seem to have an incredibly poor view of progressives. This point of view makes Hillary's "deplorables" comment seem somewhat quaint.

I thought I was interested in reasonable gun laws because I wanted to lower the chances of my kids being massacred in a school shooting. I believed that legislation to combat climate change would lead to a more habitable earth for future generations. Maybe I am just hell-bent on controlling other people?

(06-11-2019 09:33 PM)Rice93 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.

George- you seem to be implying that progressives fall into two camps:

1) those that buy into the "repugnant" ideology that they are smarter than others and therefore deserve to order other people around and are within their rights to push this ideology by force.
2) those that are too gullible/stupid to recognize this repugnant ideology that their leaders are pushing

Correct. Most so-called "progressives" fall into one of those camps.

(06-11-2019 09:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  In either case, you seem to have an incredibly poor view of progressives.

Yes, I have a low view of so-called "progressives", and properly so.

(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.).

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others. The approach to welfare policy is similar: whether it reduces poverty is less important than whether it increases control. If control is increased, that in itself is considered "progress"; and if it doesn't solve the original problem, that can only be because the control didn't go far enough -- the obvious prescription is more control. Other motives may exist, but they are not what makes the "progressive" tick.

That motive is repugnant, and it seems to based in part on a presumption that the leftist deserves to be a controller. A simple way to avoid being repugnant is not to follow an ideology that's rooted in a desire to control others.

(06-11-2019 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Surely is Dems aren’t altruistic, conservatives aren’t either?

Now you're catching on! People in general are not altruistic. That's why thoughtful people do not advance ideologies that require altruism in order to succeed. Instead, thoughtful people believe in reducing the opportunity for people to control others. In contrast, leftists believe in maximizing the ability to control others, while assuring those others that the controllers will be virtuous. That's foolish, and clinging bitterly to this foolishness is deplorable.

I don't see it as starkly as George does. I think it is an unconscious motivation on the part of most progressives, the bottom 90% of the pyramid. They just see an enormous amount of people who cannot take care of themselves, and so they step in to direct their lives in the proper channels, and the rest of the people they see are uncaring, so they must be forced to help, and the end result either way is a bureaucracy shaping and propelling lives into the proper channels. Channels the progressives see and define for us, like environmental laws. It's not that they want power, they just have to run things if they want them done right. Sort of a modern version of the White Man's Burden from 200 years ago. I guess now, we caqn call it the Progressive's Burden.


And now for something completely different...

I am going out of town, so for a while my posting with be erratic (huge sigh of relief from the parliament). One question I have had running through my mind lately is this:

What have the Democrats in the House accomplished since winning the house? All that comes to mind are:

1. Endless bleating about impeachment, with the endless investigations rerouted into OOJ matters, with the attendant subpoenas and whatnot; Yada, Yada, Yada, rinse and repeat.
2. AOC proposed the GND, met with total derision, disbelief, and inaction from both sides.

Is the legacy of this House to be that they did nothing but oppose Trump?

In the meantime, two dozen candidates seem united on one thing - Somebody must beat Trump, it doesn't matter who or what their program is, or else Armageddon will be here and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (One of their Dirty Two Dozen said as much yesterday*).

So, i would like to hear especially from the libs here, what the hell are you doing?

BTW, the price of gasoline continues to drop, the stock market continues to rise, people continue to work and take home their pay and have disposable income to spend. This must STOP! if the Democrats are to meet their goal, their only goal, of beating Trump.

* = I think it was Sanders, and what he said (quoting from memory) was that four years of Trump will be a blip in history, but eight years would change the course of the world irreparably.

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(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:  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.).

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support? They are just interested in controlling people?

That is a massive leap. You're telling progressives that you have better insight into their motivations than they do. IMO that is ridiculous.

(06-12-2019 08:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't see it as starkly as George does. I think it is an unconscious motivation on the part of most progressives, the bottom 90% of the pyramid. They just see an enormous amount of people who cannot take care of themselves, and so they step in to direct their lives in the proper channels, and the rest of the people they see are uncaring, so they must be forced to help, and the end result either way is a bureaucracy shaping and propelling lives into the proper channels. Channels the progressives see and define for us, like environmental laws. It's not that they want power, they just have to run things if they want them done right. Sort of a modern version of the White Man's Burden from 200 years ago. I guess now, we caqn call it the Progressive's Burden.


And now for something completely different...

I am going out of town, so for a while my posting with be erratic (huge sigh of relief from the parliament). One question I have had running through my mind lately is this:

What have the Democrats in the House accomplished since winning the house? All that comes to mind are:

1. Endless bleating about impeachment, with the endless investigations rerouted into OOJ matters, with the attendant subpoenas and whatnot; Yada, Yada, Yada, rinse and repeat.
2. AOC proposed the GND, met with total derision, disbelief, and inaction from both sides.

Is the legacy of this House to be that they did nothing but oppose Trump?

In the meantime, two dozen candidates seem united on one thing - Somebody must beat Trump, it doesn't matter who or what their program is, or else Armageddon will be here and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. (One of their Dirty Two Dozen said as much yesterday).

So, i would like to hear especially from the libs here, what the hell are you doing?

BTW, the price of gasoline continues to drop, the stock market continues to rise, people continue to work and take home their pay and have disposable income to spend. This must STOP! if the Democrats are to meet their goal, their only goal, of beating Trump.

Govtrack shows that The House has passed 168 bills onto the Senate in the first 6 months of working. 20 bills so far have been signed by the POTUS and 2 have been passed by Congress by vetoed by POTUS.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

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

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

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You're telling progressives that you have better insight into their motivations than they do. IMO that is ridiculous.

Most "progressives" have poor insight into their motivations. It is not uncommon for people to have a poor understanding of their own underlying motivations, as opposed to what they would like to think their motivations are.

What is ridiculous is believing that the self-proclaimed altruism of "progressives" is a complete or accurate description of their real motivation.

I understand your frustration: "progressives", like their kindred ideologues under other names, seem to have generally convinced themselves (sometimes with the proverbial zeal of a convert) that "progressivism" equates with virtue. This belief is so central to "progressive" self-identity that it can be hard to accept that the ideology might actually be rooted in something not virtuous at all, or that anyone would even question that supposed virtue in first place. But even a moderate degree of critical thinking makes the weakness of those assumptions clear.

Belief in one's own virtue is not a pre-condition of all political ideologies. (Heck, James Madison designed a government -- a darn good one -- based on the understanding that people are NOT virtuous, and that the best way to ensure the public liberty, safety and happiness is to reduce the opportunities for the concentration of power). But it seems to be a pre-condition of the most dangerous ones. History has proven time and again that the ideologies that are most destructive of liberty, safety and happiness are precisely the ones that most loudly self-identify as virtuous.

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

(06-11-2019 02:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It is absolutely a true statement and is an unbiased observation. What's untrue and biased is your failure to recognize it.

Sheesh.



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.).

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You're telling progressives that you have better insight into their motivations than they do. IMO that is ridiculous.

Most "progressives" have poor insight into their motivations. It is not uncommon for people to have a poor understanding of their own underlying motivations, as opposed to what they would like to think their motivations are.

What is ridiculous is believing that the self-proclaimed altruism of "progressives" is a complete or accurate description of their real motivation.

Why does it either have to be either 1) altruism or 2) a pathologic need to control people by any means necessary?

My interest in gun control and climate change is mainly self-interest - specifically my interest in seeing my kids and their kids be safe and healthy. Self-interest is what motivates most of us, right? Not because of altruism. Not because we feel the need to pick the most virtuous path. Not because we want to control people.

Quote:I understand your frustration: "progressives", like their kindred ideologues under other names, seem to have generally convinced themselves (sometimes with the proverbial zeal of a convert) that "progressivism" equates with virtue. This belief is so central to "progressive" self-identity that it can be hard to accept that the ideology might actually be rooted in something not virtuous at all, or that anyone would even question that supposed virtue in first place. But even a moderate degree of critical thinking makes the weakness of those assumptions clear.

See above. I think, in many cases, the Democrats have the better ideas than the Republicans and that is why I have generally voted for the Democratic party over the last decade. It has nothing to due to virtue. I wouldn't equate either side with that term.

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

(06-11-2019 02:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It is absolutely a true statement and is an unbiased observation. What's untrue and biased is your failure to recognize it.

Sheesh.



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.).

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

(06-12-2019 09:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Why does it either have to be either 1) altruism or 2) a pathologic need to control people by any means necessary?

Again: I didn't say there couldn't be a mix, even among "progressives"; rather, I specifically said there could be. Even the ultimate progressives of mid-20th-century Eurasia had some kernel of altruism (or what they thought was altruism) in some of their policies.

(06-12-2019 09:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  ...I have generally voted for the Democratic party over the last decade. It has nothing to due to virtue.

Then it has little to do with "progressive" ideology. You might be less "progressive" than you think you are, and more of a "useful innocent".

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Is that any different than attributing Trump's border policies to racism and the support of same to xenophobia? how about the attribution to those who support voter ID of a desire to disenfranchise blacks?

My opinion is that we all often see others more clearly than we see ourselves.

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

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

Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

(06-12-2019 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

(06-12-2019 10:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 10:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Sheesh!

I didn't say that the desire to control others is the only motive that leftists ever have, in all cases.
- A fundamental motive is not necessarily the only motive; a person may have secondary motives on any given topic, and these may vary from person to person.
- A person who is leftist or "progressive" on most topics might be conservative or classically liberal or centrist or otherwise non-leftist on a particular subject. That happens all the time. More generally, it would be absurd to say that everything espoused by a Democrat is necessarily leftist. And on those non-leftist issues, their fundamental motive might be something quite different from controlling others.

But when it comes to "progressivism"/leftism, the fundamental motive behind it is absolutely the desire to control others. 93's "reasonable gun laws" and "legislation to combat climate change" are good examples: at the end of the day, most leftists care less about whether the proposed laws or legislation will ACTUALLY save lives or protect the environment than they do about whether the proposed laws will increase control over others.

How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't you see, supporting a strong public school system that extends before/after kindergarten and 12th grade is just about controlling people!

Your word choice seems revealing: stating one's objective as making the system strong rather than the education effective does not necessarily mean that it's "just" about control, but it certainly suggests that it's at least as much about control of education as it as about learning.

You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How are those good examples? Most leftists don't actually care about the things that they supposedly support?

I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  They are just interested in controlling people?

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."

(06-12-2019 08:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  That is a massive leap.

Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:01 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I didn't say that don't care at all about results. I said that at the end of the day they care more about increasing control than they do about results. The history of most leftist policy on most issues bears that out.

Again: not "just", but "fundamentally."


Again: not massive, and not a leap, but borne out by experience.

Of course it's a leap. A massive one. You are defending the notion that you have better insight into a certain group of people's motivations than they themselves do.

Again, not a leap and not massive. Again, people do not necessarily have good insight into their own motivations. That disconnect is perhaps particularly true when their stated (as opposed to actual) motivations are so closely bound up in self-identification as virtuous. Yes, on this particular topic my insight, based on observation and experience, is better.

What is a massive leap is to contend that because "progressives" say that their motivations are not sinister, their motivations must not be sinister.

So my belief that climate change is a serious challenge to future generations and should be addressed... there is something inherently sinister that I have self-deluded into not understanding? Or is it that I am not actually progressive?

Not speaking for George of course, but how you propose addressing that without wielding power?

Ciao, friends. Maybe I can check in from the airport and se haow this is going.

How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!