(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(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:  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!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice (and incisive to boot) example.