Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:40 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Please explain what problems you have with the statement.
I think the problem is that employers are not legally mandated to provide health insurance.
  #102  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:40 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Please explain what problems you have with the statement.
Which law or regulation mandates employer provided health insurance?
  #103  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
They're not "handing" women birth control anymore than the Catholic Church is "handing" you bottles of liquor.

Hobby Lobby is wiring a third party a sum of money to cover a vast number of their employees. Their employees, in turn, choose to use the third party to arrange payments to a fourth party to obtain the drugs that a fifth party prescribed to them.

The Catholic Church OTOH, is depositing money into your account at the bank that you can access that very day direct from the VIP room of your local strip club.

All of it is fungible resource that employees can choose to use or not use in many different ways. But, because they CAN restrict how you spend health care money, they WILL, because it pleases them to make other people follow their religion's rules.
That's a reasonable defense but your conclusion isn't entirely fair, imho. Is it really so much of a stretch for you to imagine that paying for a broad range of services that includes abortion would make the payer may feel complicit with any abortions that happen?

But on the other hand, Ultravirus, would you feel comfortable with an employer who refused insurance that covered blood transfusions on religious grounds?
  #104  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:49 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Which law or regulation mandates employer provided health insurance?
That can't be it. You know he's talking about the ACA. So take a breath and say what you actually mean rather than ask a lame rhetorical question that will require 6 back and forths before getting to a point.
  #105  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:57 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That can't be it. You know he's talking about the ACA.
Please cite the provision of the ACA that mandates that employers must provide health insurance.
  #106  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:01 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"A total and complete ban on all Muslims from entering the country..."
*Trump fans roar with approval*
Not the same thing that he's saying at all.

For example, I can say that I oppose illegal immigration because it often skirts the legally mandated pay scales and worker protections, depressing wages on the low end, and thereby artifically driving down the wages of OUR poor, as well as putting an extra burden on our already dysfunctional public healthcare system.

Nothing bigoted there.
  #107  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:02 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is it really so much of a stretch for you to imagine that paying for a broad range of services that includes abortion would make the payer may feel complicit with any abortions that happen?
They provide compensation that allows a sinful employee to buy up a six pack of abortions. Is Hobby Lobby really less complicit because it the transaction was made through compensation X rather than compensation Y?

Thank Jesus that the abortions were paid out of account 700100 (wages&salaries) rather than 700400 (fringes)! To think we could have been somehow responsible for them!

Do I need to respect this tortured logic?

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 06-11-2019 at 01:02 PM.
  #108  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Please cite the provision of the ACA that mandates that employers must provide health insurance.
Before I do, could you explain why you don't just make your point? It's obvious to all that you aren't asking for clarification, you disagree that health insurance is mandated employment compensation. So just say that.
  #109  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:09 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Please cite the provision of the ACA that mandates that employers must provide health insurance.
Let's just say it's whatever provision Hobby Lobby sued about. I presume that law mandated that they do *something* and they didn't want to do whatever that *something* was. I'm pretty sure that something had to do with health care and women being sinful.
  #110  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
They provide compensation that allows a sinful employee to buy up a six pack of abortions. Is Hobby Lobby really less complicit because it the transaction was made through compensation X rather than compensation Y?

Thank Jesus that the abortions were paid out of account 700100 (wages&salaries) rather than 700400 (fringes)! To think we could have been somehow responsible for them!

Do I need to respect this tortured logic?
It's not tortured logic. You can't control everything that an employee does with their money but you can refuse to pay into a fund that lists abortion as a completely neutral medical cost.
  #111  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:20 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's obvious to all that you aren't asking for clarification, you disagree that health insurance is mandated employment compensation. hat.
Employer provided health insurance is a form of compensation. However, it's not mandated.
  #112  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:39 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,191
To elaborate on what I said earlier, what's really changed is that people aren't letting conservative bigots hide behind a cloud of 'respectability' and are actually holding them responsible for the vitriol and violence they've been spewing for years instead of allowing them to cover it with a fig leaf of 'difference of opinion'. People are saying 'you want to hurt people? fine, I will treat you as someone who's trying to hurt people'.

Also, I find it fascinating that the people complaining about 'vitriol' and the 'lack of civility' don't consider people openly endorsing the quotes I included below my response to WillFarnaby to be engaging in any kind of vitriol. Apparently 'I don't want to hang out with racist/murdering/etc scum like that' is a step to far, but literally letting someone bleed out or claiming that the natural state of black people is to be subjugated to the "superior race" is polite and reasonable. It appears that the need for politeness is really the need to bow to a certain demographic, and doesn't apply equally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
none of those things are proactive measures to kill people. I donít dispute that people wear Nazi symbols for example.
Having someone declare it doesn't make it so, especially when they're known for using weird weird Libertarian definitions to justift things. Whether the phrase 'taking proactive measures to kill people' in Libertarianese applies is irrelevant to me. Here are some simple examples of what I mean, none of this is subtle or nice.

On the medical discrimination protections Republicans are actively promoting and protecting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://twitter.com/samdylanfinch/status/1131998009573531648
I remember when I lived in Michigan and a trans woman that I knew had to call 911, because a serious wound she had (from an unrelated medical condition) started hemorrhaging overnight. One of the EMTs went upstairs to her room, and when that EMT realized she was transgender, was visibly disgusted and left the room. Her mom overheard the EMT mocking her as he spoke to the other EMT, referring to her as an "it."But the worst part of it was that, when it was decided that she needed to go to the hospital, they made her walk down the stairs herself without helping her. She was hemorrhaging blood from a leg wound. They stood impatiently and just watched her struggle.

That's not even the worst story that I know of. A transgender woman in DC named Tyra Hunter was seriously injured in a car accident, and ambulance workers, upon realizing she was trans, outright refused to treat her. They mocked her. She later DIED from those wounds.
On whether Nazi flags have anything to do with killing people:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler
"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"
On the Confederate flag (Which is not about murder but enslavement, as I said)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
  #113  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:59 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,119
IMHO, one reason for the vitriol is because of the roles in which both sides envision themselves.

Liberals frequently envision themselves in the role of the "educator," and other people in the role of the "apologizer." In other words, liberals picture themselves educating people into becoming more enlightened and progressive, and the un-educated people around them are supposed to dutifully nod, be corrected, apologize for their misdeeds, and become......liberal. This attitude naturally causes tremendous resentment and a feeling of being patronized.

Conservatives envision themselves as defenders of what is good, old and true, against....a horde of liberals and other "enemies" who would eat out the foundations of America and society like termites eating away at foundational wood. This, too, causes tremendous irritation and anger among those non-conservatives who are being portrayed as evil and enemies of America.
  #114  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:59 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
To elaborate on what I said earlier, what's really changed is that people aren't letting conservative bigots hide behind a cloud of 'respectability' and are actually holding them responsible for the vitriol and violence they've been spewing for years instead of allowing them to cover it with a fig leaf of 'difference of opinion'. People are saying 'you want to hurt people? fine, I will treat you as someone who's trying to hurt people'.

Also, I find it fascinating that the people complaining about 'vitriol' and the 'lack of civility' don't consider people openly endorsing the quotes I included below my response to WillFarnaby to be engaging in any kind of vitriol. Apparently 'I don't want to hang out with racist/murdering/etc scum like that' is a step to far, but literally letting someone bleed out or claiming that the natural state of black people is to be subjugated to the "superior race" is polite and reasonable. It appears that the need for politeness is really the need to bow to a certain demographic, and doesn't apply equally.



Having someone declare it doesn't make it so, especially when they're known for using weird weird Libertarian definitions to justift things. Whether the phrase 'taking proactive measures to kill people' in Libertarianese applies is irrelevant to me. Here are some simple examples of what I mean, none of this is subtle or nice.

On the medical discrimination protections Republicans are actively promoting and protecting:


On whether Nazi flags have anything to do with killing people:


On the Confederate flag (Which is not about murder but enslavement, as I said)
Not helping someone is not the same as killing someone? Dispute?

I think I will end this conversation quickly for your sake. Is a modern communist an advocate for political murder?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-11-2019 at 02:01 PM.
  #115  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:12 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, one reason for the vitriol is because of the roles in which both sides envision themselves.

Liberals frequently envision themselves in the role of the "educator," and other people in the role of the "apologizer." In other words, liberals picture themselves educating people into becoming more enlightened and progressive, and the un-educated people around them are supposed to dutifully nod, be corrected, apologize for their misdeeds, and become......liberal. This attitude naturally causes tremendous resentment and a feeling of being patronized.

Conservatives envision themselves as defenders of what is good, old and true, against....a horde of liberals and other "enemies" who would eat out the foundations of America and society like termites eating away at foundational wood. This, too, causes tremendous irritation and anger among those non-conservatives who are being portrayed as evil and enemies of America.
You know, I have been reading your thoughtful posts for some time now and have come to the only logical conclusion I can.

You and I could totally be friends.
  #116  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:43 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, one reason for the vitriol is because of the roles in which both sides envision themselves.

Liberals frequently envision themselves in the role of the "educator," and other people in the role of the "apologizer." In other words, liberals picture themselves educating people into becoming more enlightened and progressive, and the un-educated people around them are supposed to dutifully nod, be corrected, apologize for their misdeeds, and become......liberal. This attitude naturally causes tremendous resentment and a feeling of being patronized.

Conservatives envision themselves as defenders of what is good, old and true, against....a horde of liberals and other "enemies" who would eat out the foundations of America and society like termites eating away at foundational wood. This, too, causes tremendous irritation and anger among those non-conservatives who are being portrayed as evil and enemies of America.
I agree with this, but why can't we respect our differences outside of the political arena.

My brother in law is about as liberal as they come and we get along great. Yes, we needle each other whenever we get together. If he is at my house and brings Canadian beer I tell him that I don't want socialist beer in my house and that he needs to bring good American beer. When he sees a black guy in my neighborhood he tells me that the local Re-Elect Trump committee must have missed that guy and I should probably bring it up at the next meeting to get rid of him.

There is no reason you cannot disagree yet still be friendly.
  #117  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree with this, but why can't we respect our differences outside of the political arena.



My brother in law is about as liberal as they come and we get along great. Yes, we needle each other whenever we get together. If he is at my house and brings Canadian beer I tell him that I don't want socialist beer in my house and that he needs to bring good American beer. When he sees a black guy in my neighborhood he tells me that the local Re-Elect Trump committee must have missed that guy and I should probably bring it up at the next meeting to get rid of him.



There is no reason you cannot disagree yet still be friendly.
This is easy to say, but politics is life or death, or close, for some folks. It's hard to be friendly with someone whose policies could result in harm or death to yourself or someone you love.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #118  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:55 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is easy to say, but politics is life or death, or close, for some folks. It's hard to be friendly with someone whose policies could result in harm or death to yourself or someone you love.
Which of Trump's policies could result in harm or death to you or someone you love?

And I mean the policies, not what some third party idiot does in misguided reverence to what he believes is the policy. If we go down that road, then every policy could cause harm or death.
  #119  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, one reason for the vitriol is because of the roles in which both sides envision themselves.

Liberals frequently envision themselves in the role of the "educator," and other people in the role of the "apologizer." In other words, liberals picture themselves educating people into becoming more enlightened and progressive, and the un-educated people around them are supposed to dutifully nod, be corrected, apologize for their misdeeds, and become......liberal. This attitude naturally causes tremendous resentment and a feeling of being patronized.

Conservatives envision themselves as defenders of what is good, old and true, against....a horde of liberals and other "enemies" who would eat out the foundations of America and society like termites eating away at foundational wood. This, too, causes tremendous irritation and anger among those non-conservatives who are being portrayed as evil and enemies of America.
I think there's a lot of truth to this. There are obviously times and areas where conservatives view themselves as "educators" (firearms is one area that comes to mind readily) and liberals view their political opponents as evil and enemies of America (see all the talk about President Trump and his supporters being treasonous / traitors), but at a high level, I think you've got the gist of it mostly right.
  #120  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:58 PM
Regallag_The_Axe's Avatar
Regallag_The_Axe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: United States of Leifholm
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, one reason for the vitriol is because of the roles in which both sides envision themselves.
[snipped in the interest of brevity]

This is certainly part of it. Another part is that some people mentally exclude the middle. For some liberals if you're not on board with everything Bernie, Warren, and AOC have to say you might as well be a White Nationalist. For some conservatives if you don't own a MAGA hat you might as well be calling for the abolition of private property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
My brother in law is about as liberal as they come and we get along great. Yes, we needle each other whenever we get together. If he is at my house and brings Canadian beer I tell him that I don't want socialist beer in my house and that he needs to bring good American beer. When he sees a black guy in my neighborhood he tells me that the local Re-Elect Trump committee must have missed that guy and I should probably bring it up at the next meeting to get rid of him.

There is no reason you cannot disagree yet still be friendly.
There is something to be said for knowing someone. You know your brother-in-law, you know he's not a bad person, he's not just a face on TV or faceless internet person. Social media allows us to talk with people we don't really know, which is great for some things, but makes it really easy to misunderstand and dehumanize.
__________________
PMA to the grave
  #121  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Which of Trump's policies could result in harm or death to you or someone you love?



And I mean the policies, not what some third party idiot does in misguided reverence to what he believes is the policy. If we go down that road, then every policy could cause harm or death.
Putting migrant kids in cages (with substandard care) and purposefully separating families; kicking transgender folks out of the military; fanning the flames of war with Iran; trying to end the ACA with no replacement; just to start with.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #122  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Putting migrant kids in cages (with substandard care) and purposefully separating families; kicking transgender folks out of the military; fanning the flames of war with Iran; trying to end the ACA with no replacement; just to start with.
Again, if we are going that far down the line, then we can point to analogues on the other side that would cause "harm or death." Almost any policy position taken by anyone helps some and harms others.

If those are your issues then I submit that you are, respectfully, substituting hate for mere political disagreement.
  #123  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:07 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is a whole lot of majority privilege on display in opposition to my very modest and practical advice.

In each of the examples there are places where the person in question would not be oppressed. Not only that, but fleeing would be very simple and relatively inexpensive. They may just need to move to the burbs in some cases, or the city or country in others. So no, it is not dumb to escape state predation. People have been doing it for centuries. People have uprooted their entire way of life to escape state predation I know that if I had a good chance of being locked up for some BS Iíd flee in a minute.

People move to escape less onerous state predation all the time. Many people move to Texas and other states like Florida, Delaware and Tennessee to escape a few percentage points in taxes. Yet it is dumb to escape state-enforced bigotry? You lack coherence.

So no. Not dumb. Staying and stamping an indignant foot at injustice is dumb. Of course as I said, if your goal is to martyr yourself, it is totally rational.
This, of course, is just bullshit. There are, of course, people who move to escape oppression. Those people tend to be the very wealthy who can afford it or those who are so poor they must do it to survive. The majority of middle class people with ties to family and jobs make such moves only with an amount of burden that is greater than the amount of so-called "predation" that you posit. Moving back to your initial claims, people persecuted for ethnicity or religion or sexuality may not actually have any place they may move, even if they had the resources. Proposing that sort of solution as a counter to "political disruption is not a good faith argument, but I am glad that you have exposed your actual beliefs, here.
  #124  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, if we are going that far down the line, then we can point to analogues on the other side that would cause "harm or death." Almost any policy position taken by anyone helps some and harms others.



If those are your issues then I submit that you are, respectfully, substituting hate for mere political disagreement.
I'm not talking about my feelings - my feelings come from the racism and sexual assault stuff. I understand those issues aren't as big a deal for many folks as they are for me (and there are vice versa issues, I'm sure).

I thought about it and couldn't come up with an analog on the other side for these policies that could cause harm or death to one's self or loved ones. No analog to locking up kids, separating families, booting trans military folks; etc. Maybe you can?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #125  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... I thought about it and couldn't come up with an analog on the other side for these policies that could cause harm or death to one's self or loved ones. No analog to locking up kids, separating families, booting trans military folks; etc. Maybe you can?
Gary Willis was recently killed by the police while they were serving one of the left's new-fangled "red flag" ERPO's (source). That's an example of a left-wing policy that has & will get people literally killed.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-11-2019 at 03:16 PM.
  #126  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:28 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Gary Willis was recently killed by the police while they were serving one of the left's new-fangled "red flag" ERPO's (source). That's an example of a left-wing policy that has & will get people literally killed.
Kind of hard to blame a law for a death when the guy killed was deliberately NOT following the law.
  #127  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Gary Willis was recently killed by the police while they were serving one of the left's new-fangled "red flag" ERPO's (source). That's an example of a left-wing policy that has & will get people literally killed.
I have no idea what this policy is, I'm unaware of any prominent Democrats who support it (presumably some in Maryland), and your link gives no information about how this policy resulted in someone's death.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #128  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:32 PM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
From my perspective, the Right has been engaged in a decades long project to re-frame the Left from "opposition" or "adversaries" into "enemies". To the result that the garden variety FOX view / AM radio listener only hears the word "liberal" as a sneer word.

Whereas, the Left, over the same period was still playing the game of the Right being the "loyal opposition", without a co-comitant decades long project to re-frame the language (and consequently, the belief system).

IMHO, however, the past couple of years, and antics on the Right, have pushed more mainstream Left into a similar level of enmity that has been the traditional purview of the Right.
I agree, and I think I know exactly how and when this began Ė in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and the conservative Republicans got in bed with the evangelical Christian right. Because religion (at least, their sort of religion) isnít about right and wrong; itís about good and evil. The culture warriors of the Christian right donít have opponents who are wrong-headed or misguided; no, they war with enemies who are debased, corrupt, and evil.
  #129  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Kind of hard to blame a law for a death when the guy killed was deliberately NOT following the law.
The guy was killed as a result of enforcement action undertaken by law enforcement officers in service of Maryland's ERPO law. I don't think it's all that different from, for example, blaming NY's ban on selling "loosies" for Eric Garner's death. Certainly there is some amount of blame that can be laid at the dead men's feet in both cases, but I don't think the law enforcement effort was exactly up to the level of competence we'd prefer to see in either case, too.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-11-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #130  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I have no idea what this policy is, I'm unaware of any prominent Democrats who support it (presumably some in Maryland), and your link gives no information about how this policy resulted in someone's death.
Seriously? It's right there in the first paragraph:

Quote:
When an attempt to carry out a gun removal in Anne Arundel County left a Maryland man dead, opponents of the state’s red flag law were incensed.
If that's not enough detail, the words "left a Maryland man dead" in that paragraph are a link to another story that goes into more details about the events that lead up to Gary Willis' death.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-11-2019 at 03:43 PM.
  #131  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:42 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,378
It goes back much further than Reagan (Barry Goldwater in 1994: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."). The good vs. evil stuff, based on simplistic religiosity, drove the Commie scare in the Fifties and Sixties, the earlier anti-immigrant scare in the 1930's (and earlier waves), every war ... every time a tinhorn needs some support, he can do so by fanning worry into fear, fear into hate, and hate into votes. A religion that peddles certainty and chosen-ness and righteousness, without bothering adherents with the burden of actual thought, goes right along with that sort of political manipulation.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-11-2019 at 03:42 PM.
  #132  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:10 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Not helping someone is not the same as killing someone? Dispute?
When you're a medical provider who is supposed to be providing them medical care, yes. It's utterly amazing to me that someone can read of horrific cruelty like that and just shrug it off, while whining that people who condemn it are engaging in 'vitriol'.
  #133  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:14 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I understand politics is about compromise on so many things, but I haven't figured out how someone who truly values women, or truly thinks racism and bigotry are abominable, can support and make excuses for Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Women: Just because he is a womanizing heel in his personal life does not mean that translates into public issues. See Bill Clinton.

2) Racism and bigotry. I've never understood this charge leveled at Trump. One can be against illegal immigration and support enforcing these laws without be bigoted. We've been through this in other threads.

I find it disturbing that your side has descended into outright hatred of the other side because of political differences. But it is not political differences you say, it is about hatred of gays and other minorities. Lemme ask you this: you voted for Obama in 2008 when he expressed an opposition to same sex marriage. Why the bigotry?
In his first three months in office, Trump had:

1. Made efforts imposing burdens on women, either exclusively or primarily either through Executive Order or by submitting Budget Cuts or by nominating people to Federal positions who have endorsed some of the following positions:

Slashed support for military caregivers
Eliminated child care for military families
Slashed nutrition assistance for WIC
Removed Official Information on Sexual Violence and More from Government Websites
Shifted Funding from Evidence-Based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs to Abstinence-Only
Cut violence against women programs
Cut after-school programs
Denied women reproductive, educational, and counseling services by limiting Title X availability
Attacked Planned Parenthood and Defended lies about Planned Parenthood
Brought back the Global Gag Rule and Halted family planning funds abroad
Threatened maternity coverage by nominating Seema Verma
Cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention
Cut the National Domestic Violence Hotline
Defended accused sexual harassers
Cut violence against women programs

2. Racism and Bigotry:

Violated Fair Housing Act in 1970s and continues to deny he did
Birther lies (that he continued to mention after he claimed to have found evidence it was not true).
Actively promoted hatred toward the Central Park Five and continues to publicly claim they were guilty after evidence demonstrated that they were innocent
Sparked an increase in bullying with support for racists such as happened in Charlottesville
Opened his 2016 campaign with slurs on Mexicans
Earliest Executive Orders attempted bans on Muslims
Claimed he could not get a fair trial in his Trump University lawsuit because a(n Indiana) judge was "Mexican"
Referred to Haiti and most of Africa as "shithole countries"
Lied that he had not made the comment'

Since his first three months, he has gotten worse.
For example, he promotes the change to the Census to exclude non-citizens even though the numbers represented by the Electoral College are Constitutionally based on persons, not citizens and money distributed by Congress goes to states based on population, not citizenship.

I lament and have opposed the expressions of hatred toward Trump and his administration. However, to the extent that they have involved hatred (as opposed to simple mockery which I endorse), they began after he expressed contempt for physically disabled people, contempt for women, contempt for Sen. McCain, engaged in persistent name-calling and persistent lies in support of Birtherism, expressed of violence against other citizens, (telling his crowds to beat up protestors, telling police to manhandle arrested persons), etc.

Do you ever actually read or listen to or watch news stories regarding his actions?
  #134  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:15 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
There is no reason you cannot disagree yet still be friendly.
Get back to me when your brother wants to protect an Emergency Room staff who, upon encuntering someone like you, will simply let you bleed out instead of providing actual medical care. Or when he wears a symbol that says that people like you are inferior by blood and should be enslaved for the betterment of people like him. Or when he wears another symbol that means he thinks people like you should be rounded up and exterminated. "This person wants to kill me, enslave me, or otherwise cause me great harm" is a great reason to disagree and not be friendly.
  #135  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:17 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is a whole lot of majority privilege on display in opposition to my very modest and practical advice.

In each of the examples there are places where the person in question would not be oppressed. Not only that, but fleeing would be very simple and relatively inexpensive. They may just need to move to the burbs in some cases, or the city or country in others. So no, it is not dumb to escape state predation. People have been doing it for centuries. People have uprooted their entire way of life to escape state predation I know that if I had a good chance of being locked up for some BS Iíd flee in a minute.

People move to escape less onerous state predation all the time. Many people move to Texas and other states like Florida, Delaware and Tennessee to escape a few percentage points in taxes. Yet it is dumb to escape state-enforced bigotry? You lack coherence.

So no. Not dumb. Staying and stamping an indignant foot at injustice is dumb. Of course as I said, if your goal is to martyr yourself, it is totally rational.
Millions are on the move globally doing what you suggest. Isnít it 4 million who have fled from the socialist paradise of Venezuela to date? If you have to move then move. However, it would be nice if those who were doing the predation could be removed.
  #136  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:19 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It goes back much further than Reagan (Barry Goldwater in 1994: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."). The good vs. evil stuff, based on simplistic religiosity, drove the Commie scare in the Fifties and Sixties, the earlier anti-immigrant scare in the 1930's (and earlier waves), every war ... every time a tinhorn needs some support, he can do so by fanning worry into fear, fear into hate, and hate into votes. A religion that peddles certainty and chosen-ness and righteousness, without bothering adherents with the burden of actual thought, goes right along with that sort of political manipulation.
1994 was before Reagan?
  #137  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Thank you for this weird, content-free pontificating. You're welcome to actually engage and discuss, and respond to questions (and ask your own), if this interests you.
His post is an example of what would have been sneeringly dismissed as pointless tone policing 3-4 short years ago. In other words, leftist condescension, as has been pointed out several times by a multitude of people, is actually counterproductive.
  #138  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
... he promotes the change to the Census to exclude non-citizens even though the numbers represented by the Electoral College are Constitutionally based on persons, not citizens and money distributed by Congress goes to states based on population, not citizenship. ...
The "change to the Census" is merely to ask if people are citizens. His administration is not proposing that we "exclude non-citizens" from the census count or population totals.
  #139  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:11 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Get back to me when your brother wants to protect an Emergency Room staff who, upon encuntering someone like you, will simply let you bleed out instead of providing actual medical care. Or when he wears a symbol that says that people like you are inferior by blood and should be enslaved for the betterment of people like him. Or when he wears another symbol that means he thinks people like you should be rounded up and exterminated. "This person wants to kill me, enslave me, or otherwise cause me great harm" is a great reason to disagree and not be friendly.
Jesus H.W. Where in America does this happen? Was this in a movie you watched recently? If so, it was not a documentary.
  #140  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:44 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The "change to the Census" is merely to ask if people are citizens. His administration is not proposing that we "exclude non-citizens" from the census count or population totals.
With a straight face, eh?
  #141  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:19 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
Several decades of socializing people to avoid topics such as politics or religion, in polite company, at work, with in laws, etc, etc.

Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are if instead, we’d learned to openly and respectfully discuss difficult topics.
  #142  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:41 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The guy was killed as a result of enforcement action undertaken by law enforcement officers in service of Maryland's ERPO law. I don't think it's all that different from, for example, blaming NY's ban on selling "loosies" for Eric Garner's death. Certainly there is some amount of blame that can be laid at the dead men's feet in both cases, but I don't think the law enforcement effort was exactly up to the level of competence we'd prefer to see in either case, too.
I see. Is it your belief, then, that when somebody is killed by law enforcement, the law the LE was enforcing is to blame?
  #143  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:21 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I see. Is it your belief, then, that when somebody is killed by law enforcement, the law the LE was enforcing is to blame?
More information on the case:
Quote:
One of Willis’ nieces said another family member requested the protective order to temporarily remove his guns after an incident at the house Sunday.
...
Police said Willis answered the door at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand and initially put it down next to the door as he first spoke with the officers.

Police said he “became irate” when officers tried to serve him with the emergency risk protective order and picked it up again.

As he struggled with the officers over the gun, it went off but didn’t strike anyone. One of the two officers then fatally shot Willis with his department-issued firearm, a police spokeswoman said.
So:
1) Family members think that this dude presents an extreme risk and ask the police to temporarily remove his guns.
2) When police show up, he answers the door holding a gun. He sets it down.
3) When he finds out that they're trying to take his guns, he gets super pissed and picks the gun back up.
4) The gun discharges when the police try to take it from him.
5) The police shoot him.
6) ???
7) His death is the fault of the law that says police can take guns away from someone temporarily if they look like they're out of control.

Okay there.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-11-2019 at 07:22 PM.
  #144  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:24 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Okay there.
I agree. I just can't believe that "Taking guns away from mentally unstable people results in a mentally unstable person getting killed when they legally try to take his gun away" is somehow the laws fault.
  #145  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:38 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The "change to the Census" is merely to ask if people are citizens. His administration is not proposing that we "exclude non-citizens" from the census count or population totals.
With ICE deporting all sorts of people (e.g., military veterans, people purportedly protected under the DACA umbrella, etc.), Trump and his buddies know, even if you will deny it, that a great number of aliens will avoid responding to the census for fear that even if they are here legally, they may be deported. Trump and company rely on that to get an undercount on the census. The question was removed from the short form after 1950 because statisticians determined that it was not necessary under current methodology.

Trump's people tried to add it back in for the purpose of getting an ndercount.
(That is probably why they violated the law determining how questions are added to the census, then lied to claim that it has been requested by a different department that had nothing to do with it. The party of Law and Order, of course/)
  #146  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:43 PM
Taber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Jesus H.W. Where in America does this happen? Was this in a movie you watched recently? If so, it was not a documentary.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hh...-refuse-lgbtq/
I'm not sure what current event to link, but the middle one's the confederate flag
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...nt/1410945001/
  #147  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:52 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taber View Post
AIUI, that bill means that physicians aren't required to do LGBT-related elective procedures (such as sex-change surgeries,) but they can't refuse to treat an LGBT patient for something that a non-LGBT patient would have needed. In other words, if an LGBT patient comes into the ER with a broken leg, they have to treat it since a broken leg is something everyone and anyone can get.
  #148  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:07 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, that bill means that physicians aren't required to do LGBT-related elective procedures (such as sex-change surgeries,) but they can't refuse to treat an LGBT patient for something that a non-LGBT patient would have needed. In other words, if an LGBT patient comes into the ER with a broken leg, they have to treat it since a broken leg is something everyone and anyone can get.
"Ms. Smith, I am aware that the state of North Carolina recognizes you as the legal wife of Ms. Jones. However, God does not recognize that marriage, and I cannot extend you the visitation rights extended to immediate family members."

That used to be legal.
  #149  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:11 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"A total and complete ban on all Muslims from entering the country..."
*Trump fans roar with approval*
Exactly. It's silly to pretend that people who voted for Trump after he said that hold religious freedom in high regard. They're totally cool with persecuting people because of their religion.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #150  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:21 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd add freedom of religion and freedom of speech to the list of "rights and freedoms" that are threatened by the political left.

The environmental movement tries to dictate the minutiae of people's lives: how much water their toilets and showerheads can use, which kind of lightbulbs they have to use, how many MPG their vehicle must get, what type of gas can is acceptable, etc. Perhaps calling those things "rights" would be overwrought,
It would.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017