Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
It would.
Which is why there's a "but" and more to the sentence that you excluded from the quote.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-11-2019 at 08:46 PM.
  #152  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
... That is probably why they violated the law determining how questions are added to the census...
I think it's more likely to not be a violation of the law, but we should get the final word from SCOTUS here soon.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-11-2019 at 08:48 PM.
  #153  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
More information on the case:

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
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.
Without Maryland's ERPO law, Mr. Willis would most likely still be alive today. As I noted in my post comparing his death to 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 Mr. Willis would not have been surprised by law enforcement at his door trying to enforce an order he knew nothing about at 5:00 am if it were not for Maryland's ERPO law. In that sense, the law was a contributing factor in his death, just like the NY's "loosie" ban was a contributing factor in Garner's death, but his own decisions also contributed to his demise. If you aren't capable of grasping that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
  #154  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:04 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Understand the psychology behind Trump: dominance.

The people who voted for Donald Trump did so because they want to be part of the dominant group. They want to be part of the majority, the group that makes the rules, that establishes the norms, that imposes their value system on others. That's what conservatism is in America.

Progressives want to be part of the majority, but not for the sake of owning the conservatives, and not for the sake of forcing conservatives to accept the idea that college must be free. Progressives and left-leaning centrists can accept that not everyone adheres to their world view, and they're okay with it, as long as there's an honest competition of ideas, and the contest for which of these ideas is the ballot box, and they can accept these results provided that there's been a debate in good faith about ideas, and not just about subjects.
  #155  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:04 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,016
After a conservative murdered Heather Heyer by running her down with his vehicle, lawmakers in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas proposed bills that would make it legal for drivers to kill protesters if they offered the defense "I didn't mean to."

How are we supposed to feel about people who want vehicular homicide legalized for their political opponents? Mere hatred seems a bit mild.
  #156  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:10 PM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,752
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.
Funny you ask, since I just listened to this story on NPR this afternoon: 'Patients Will Die': One County's Challenge To Trump's 'Conscience Rights' Rule

It's a story about Santa Clara County, California, joining a lawsuit against a new rule protecting health care workers who refuse patient care out of religious or moral objections. The Santa Clara County executive, who is a physician and attorney, was pretty blunt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jeff Smith
"If the rule goes through as it's written, patients will die...We will have a guaranteed situation where a woman has had a complication of an abortion, where she's bleeding out and needs to have the services of some employee who has moral objections. That patient will die because the employee is not providing the services that are needed."
Now, granted, that is just a prediction. But given examples of the type Pantastic cited in Post #112, it's not a far-fetched one.
__________________
ďIt may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.Ē
― Neil Gaiman, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch
  #157  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:15 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: 40,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Without Maryland's ERPO law, Mr. Willis would most likely still be alive today. As I noted in my post comparing his death to 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 Mr. Willis would not have been surprised by law enforcement at his door trying to enforce an order he knew nothing about at 5:00 am if it were not for Maryland's ERPO law. In that sense, the law was a contributing factor in his death, just like the NY's "loosie" ban was a contributing factor in Garner's death, but his own decisions also contributed to his demise. If you aren't capable of grasping that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Selling loosies, and furiously snatching up a gun when law enforcement tells you that you must relinquish your weapons, are equal levels of contributory action, right? And shooting the guy whose gun just went off while he wrestled you for it is pretty analogous to choking a guy who was unarmed, right?

This is the sort of analogy that makes it difficult to take your tu quoques seriously.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-11-2019 at 09:15 PM.
  #158  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:40 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's more likely to not be a violation of the law, but we should get the final word from SCOTUS here soon.
SCOTUS may give them a pass and let them implement their desires, but the law requires that the bureau submit a notification of the proposed changes to Congress three years (topic changes) or two years (specific questions) prior to Census day. The citizenship question was not submitted to Congress in that time frame. They have already broken the law, regardless what SCOTUS decides they can do. (Congress does not have to confirm the changes, but the request must be made.) The claim that they want to make the change because of a Department of Justice request is a lie. The memo from the Justice Department was drafted at the request of a Trump official after the proposal had been made. Typical lying Trump games. DoJ had no part of the proposal, although the retroactive request was placed on DoJ stationery.
  #159  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:54 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,000
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://twitter.com/samdylanfinch/status/1131998009573531648
I have known trans people who have been mocked while they were gravely ill in a hospital bed. I have known trans people who were outright turned away by doctors, or have had pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions that were desperately needed.
The incident where EMTs left the room of a transgender woman, then forced her to walk down the stairs without helping her while she was hemorrhaging blood from a leg wound happened in Michigan. The incident where a woman was seriously injured in a car accident happened in Washington DC and EMTs on the scene withdrew care and not only refused to treat her but mocked her while she was dying. The incident where a Trans man went to more than a dozen Doctors to try to get treatment for ovarian cancer and by the time any could be found who were willing to treat him instead of mock him happened in Georgia.

https://twitter.com/samdylanfinch/st...98009573531648 is the cite I gave earlier. The two cases that have names attached on that page are Tyra Hunter, and other sources are available on the wikipedia page for her here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter The trans man who was mocked while dying of cancer has a wikipedia page, again with other sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eads and was, in fact, the subject of an award-winning documentary called Southern Comfort. You can claim that all of these are imaginary, but putting your head in the sand doesn't change reality.

So, I put the question to you again, as you failed to answer it in your previous post in favor of pretending that it could never happen: Would you be willing to agree to disagree yet still be friendly with someone who felt that you personally should be subject to that treatment, and who proposed shielding people who inflict such treatment from lawsuits? In general, would you consider someone who passed laws to protect medical professionals who stand by mocking you while you were dying to be acting in a friendly manner without vitriol, or would you consider that to actually be vitriolic?
  #160  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:56 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
More information on the case:

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.
In fairness to Ditka, cops are kind of fucking terrible at dealing with people undergoing mental health crises. A law that allows cops to intervene earlier with citizens suffering mental distress is going to lead to more dead citizens. Which isn't to say that this is necessarily a bad law - or, for that matter, that the cops in this specific situation necessarily did anything wrong. If the cops hadn't intervened, it sounds like there's a good chance this guy would have killed someone else. And, given the circumstances, they may really have had no other option but to shoot him once he started resisting them.

That being said, if the law allowing cops to confiscate guns can be blamed for this guy dying, it seems to me that the law that allowed him to own a gun in the first place would be even more to blame.
  #161  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:02 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 787
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.
Somehow, despite growing up deep in Republican territory, I first learned about "liberal" from the video game Sid Meier's Civilization IV. In that game "liberalism" is one of many social advancements, in this case it unlocks social policies such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first player to reach "liberalism" also gets a free advancement, which I usually use to discover the "economics" advancement, which in turn gives me a "great person" who I use to send my civilization into a golden age.

For those who haven't played the game, the point is that the word will always have a positive connotation in my mind.

~Max
  #162  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:59 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
After a conservative murdered Heather Heyer by running her down with his vehicle, lawmakers in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas proposed bills that would make it legal for drivers to kill protesters if they offered the defense "I didn't mean to."

How are we supposed to feel about people who want vehicular homicide legalized for their political opponents? Mere hatred seems a bit mild.
The "political opponent" in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.

If a driver wants to go purposefully head-hunting and swerve out of his way to hit a political opponent, then yes that would be willful homicide; entirely different.
  #163  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:05 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The "political opponent" in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.

If a driver wants to go purposefully head-hunting and swerve out of his way to hit a political opponent, then yes that would be willful homicide; entirely different.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to advocate making it legal to actually kill people on one hand but also complain that there is too much vitriol from the other side when they speak up and object to you killing people is simply astounding.
  #164  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:02 AM
Taber is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,002
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.
Thank you, I wasn't aware.
  #165  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:06 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
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.
It's been nearly twelve hours. Do you (or Cheesesteak) have a cite that health insurance is "mandated employment compensation"?

P.S. I won't ask again so as not to be accused of badgering.
  #166  
Old 06-12-2019, 01:34 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Somehow, despite growing up deep in Republican territory, I first learned about "liberal" from the video game Sid Meier's Civilization IV. In that game "liberalism" is one of many social advancements, in this case it unlocks social policies such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first player to reach "liberalism" also gets a free advancement, which I usually use to discover the "economics" advancement, which in turn gives me a "great person" who I use to send my civilization into a golden age.

For those who haven't played the game, the point is that the word will always have a positive connotation in my mind.

~Max
Civ IV liberalism is classical liberalism which is different than modern liberalism.
  #167  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:05 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The "political opponent" in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.
There was no traffic. No traffic was moving until the murderer gunned his engine and plowed through a group of protesters. But it really sounds like you think that drivers should be able to run people over just for standing in the road. You're kind of making my point for me.
  #168  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:11 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The "political opponent" in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.

If a driver wants to go purposefully head-hunting and swerve out of his way to hit a political opponent, then yes that would be willful homicide; entirely different.
Dude, seriously, cut the crap.

She was murdered. A jury already decided that, as if the facts themselves already didn't.

What you're tacitly endorsing is murder for political purposes.
  #169  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:17 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Not sure if this belongs in GD, IMHO, or the Pit.
Next time, make it the Pit. It'll inevitably end up there anyway.
  #170  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:29 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The "political opponent" in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.
That's the dumbest hair-on-fire thing I've seen on this board in at least, I dunno, a week.
  #171  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:41 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
That's the dumbest hair-on-fire thing I've seen on this board in at least, I dunno, a week.
I hope for his sake it's just colossal ignorance; otherwise, he's advocating violence.
  #172  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:49 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I hope for his sake it's just colossal ignorance; otherwise, he's advocating violence.
It's neither. Some things don't require further examination or discussion.
  #173  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:04 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
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.
Yes. The amount of predation must overwhelm the costs associated with moving. Still better than stamping your indignant foot. If you reread you will see that I was giving advice to victims of government predation. This is practical advice, not some ideological martyrdom you prefer for some reason.

Quote:
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.
It is easier now to escape bigotry than ever before. You donít even need to flee the old US of A. You seem to think that until there are no costs associated with moving, victims should endure all costs of staying no matter how excessive. The other poster posited scenarios where the clear solution was moving. I will never give advice to someone that will make them worse off.

Thankfully your ideological martyrdom didnít stop the Underground Railroad. Perhaps you would have counseled enslaved workers to stay and stamp an indignant foot. Maybe those who fled Nazi persecution should have got political? Would that have saved them?
  #174  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Thankfully your ideological martyrdom didnít stop the Underground Railroad. Perhaps you would have counseled enslaved workers to stay and stamp an indignant foot. Maybe those who fled Nazi persecution should have got political? Would that have saved them?
This "counseling victims to stay" and "stamp an indignant foot" is entirely a straw man. I've never heard of any liberal/progressive who said that people shouldn't move if they think they'll have a better life somewhere else. Maybe someone, somewhere once said this, but the idea that this is a prominent liberal or progressive position is entirely fictional.
  #175  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:16 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
When you're a medical provider who is supposed to be providing them medical care, yes.
So there should be no distinction between allowing someone to die and committing physical aggression against someone to kill them?

Quote:
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'.
Since I neither shrugged it off or whined about that, you have no reason to be horrified.

What I said was that I felt bad for people whose identity is so tied up in politics. It isnít healthy to be worked up over things you canít control. For those that are so invested in partisan politics, they cannot stand that they donít control the behavior of the ďother sideĒ.

For example you are livid that you cannot force medical providers to do what you want. Therefore you adopt a rhetorical tactic that devastates all nuance and claims withholding help is the same as killing someone. With this tactic you hope to gain control over the medical providers through legislation backed up by govt guns and prisons. The fact that your emotional level escalates is another point in your favor. Political policy is almost entirely based on which side has the most emotional energy.
  #176  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:20 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This "counseling victims to stay" and "stamp an indignant foot" is entirely a straw man. I've never heard of any liberal/progressive who said that people shouldn't move if they think they'll have a better life somewhere else. Maybe someone, somewhere once said this, but the idea that this is a prominent liberal or progressive position is entirely fictional.
Read your thread.

Also recently sanctuary cities were very upset that those they pretend to advocate for were going to be dropped off in their towns by Trump and Co. They believed the migrants should stamp an indignant foot until they get a better deal instead of taking the opportunity to get out of Trumpís evil clutches. Pure martyrdom.
  #177  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
For example you are livid that you cannot force medical providers to do what you want.
Seems much more likely to me that he's "livid" that people are suffering and dying when it's entirely avoidable.
  #178  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Read your thread.
Nothing in this thread supports your assertion.

Quote:
Also recently sanctuary cities were very upset that those they pretend to advocate for were going to be dropped off in their towns by Trump and Co. They believed the migrants should stamp an indignant foot until they get a better deal instead of taking the opportunity to get out of Trump’s evil clutches. Pure martyrdom.
I understand that you believe you have some sort of special insight into liberal and progressive minds, but you do not. You're not a mind-reader. You're just interpreting things using your own judgment and bias, and apparently you're interpreting these things in a way that reflects most poorly (or ridiculously) on liberals and progressives.

These things you say about the goals, intentions, and beliefs of liberals and progressives are almost always highly inaccurate. And this is pointed out to you, yet you do it again and again. I don't pretend to have some special insight into libertarian intentions, goals, and beliefs -- I understand that a libertarian such as yourself has a nigh-infinitely better understanding of these than I do. Why don't you understand the same thing for liberals and progressives?
  #179  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:32 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Nothing in this thread supports your assertion.



I understand that you believe you have some sort of special insight into liberal and progressive minds, but you do not. You're not a mind-reader. You're just interpreting things using your own judgment and bias, and apparently you're interpreting these things in a way that reflects most poorly (or ridiculously) on liberals and progressives.

These things you say about the goals, intentions, and beliefs of liberals and progressives are almost always highly inaccurate. And this is pointed out to you, yet you do it again and again. I don't pretend to have some special insight into libertarian intentions, goals, and beliefs -- I understand that a libertarian such as yourself has a nigh-infinitely better understanding of these than I do. Why don't you understand the same thing for liberals and progressives?
I honestly donít know if you read threads or just posts that quote you. There are a slew of posters triggered by my advice to move to escape predation. Of course I knew they wouldnít like the fact that I suggested such a thing. Perhaps my time as a liberal has given me insight into their ideology.
  #180  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:32 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
For example you are livid that you cannot force medical providers to do what you want.
We force racist waitresses to serve black people at restaurants.

Why should religious bigots get a free pass to refuse service to their customers?

Fuck their bigotry, if they can't serve all the customers who need service, they should quit and find a new line of work that doesn't anger their personal sky pixie.


Or, if you prefer, if they find the law is predatory upon their career and religion, move to a new career, or a new religion.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 06-12-2019 at 07:34 AM.
  #181  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I honestly donít know if you read threads or just posts that quote you. There are a slew of posters triggered by my advice to move to escape predation. Of course I knew they wouldnít like the fact that I suggested such a thing. Perhaps my time as a liberal has given me insight into their ideology.
Disagreeing with you does not mean that you're reading their mind. There are more than 2 positions (and 2 motivations/intentions/feelings) about these kinds of issues. You're basically guessing -- someone could disagree with you for a whole host of reasons, but you're assuming it's the worst (or silliest) one.
  #182  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:55 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
1994 was before Reagan?
The trend had been building for a long time, arguably since the Republicans' Southern Strategy in 1968 created its enduring partnership with the Southern Baptist Convention - the religious self-righteousness just comes in a package with its racism. Goldwater's quote, combined with his own history, was just to put them into clearer perspective.
  #183  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:57 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Without Maryland's ERPO law, Mr. Willis would most likely still be alive today.
Yes, if there were no law, he wouldn't have been breaking it. No one disagrees.

You need to drop this and find a relevant example, okay?
  #184  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:29 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Without Maryland's ERPO law, Mr. Willis would most likely still be alive today. As I noted in my post comparing his death to 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 Mr. Willis would not have been surprised by law enforcement at his door trying to enforce an order he knew nothing about at 5:00 am if it were not for Maryland's ERPO law. In that sense, the law was a contributing factor in his death, just like the NY's "loosie" ban was a contributing factor in Garner's death, but his own decisions also contributed to his demise. If you aren't capable of grasping that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
You know, it's possible to understand what a person is saying, yet still disagree. You know that, right?
  #185  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:52 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
We force racist waitresses to serve black people at restaurants.

Why should religious bigots get a free pass to refuse service to their customers?
I wouldn’t give them a “free pass”. I would be quite disturbed if there were medical providers doing this in my area. I would dissociate from any organization that endorsed this policy and individuals that participate in such a policy. What is your idea of a free pass?

Quote:
Fuck their bigotry, if they can't serve all the customers who need service, they should quit and find a new line of work that doesn't anger their personal sky pixie.
I agree, though I would refrain from displaying such ignorance about religion.


Quote:
Or, if you prefer, if they find the law is predatory upon their career and religion, move to a new career, or a new religion.
Sure they could. Do you think I only advocate that liberal statists move to friendlier areas?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-12-2019 at 08:54 AM.
  #186  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:53 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Disagreeing with you does not mean that you're reading their mind. There are more than 2 positions (and 2 motivations/intentions/feelings) about these kinds of issues. You're basically guessing -- someone could disagree with you for a whole host of reasons, but you're assuming it's the worst (or silliest) one.
No Iím not assuming anything, but thanks for your input.
  #187  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No I’m not assuming anything, but thanks for your input.
Okay. Your assertions about the motivations of liberals/progressives regarding sanctuary cities and protesting community injustice in general are, for the most part, wildly incorrect. If you're interested in why progressives/liberals push certain issues, then I would be happy to answer any questions about it from the point of view of a progressive/liberal.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-12-2019 at 09:03 AM.
  #188  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:18 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,958
Others have already offered their reasoning for opposing political migration. Thanks for the offer though.
  #189  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:31 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Civ IV liberalism is classical liberalism which is different than modern liberalism.
Nevertheless I always do a double take when someone uses "liberal" in a pejorative manner. And we didn't learn about "modern liberalism" in school, we learned about "progressivism". FDR, LBJ, MLK, etc. weren't normally described as "liberals", they were "progressives" (although they were liberals in the classical sense, too). Mind you we never learned about conservatism in school, except maybe one paragraph about Barry Goldwater stating that he opposed the New Deal and LBJ but lost. Then suddenly school was out and we had to turn in our textbooks.

~Max
  #190  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:37 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Others have already offered their reasoning for opposing political migration. Thanks for the offer though.
If I may, that is totally not what Andy offered you. Wow.
  #191  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:00 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
If I may, that is totally not what Andy offered you. Wow.
I think he meant to write, "other liberals/progressives have already offered their reasoning for their political views on immigration." It still smacks of disdain, but this way it is more relevant to the preceding post.

As written now, WillFarnaby's response is a little out there.

~Max
  #192  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:05 AM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Also recently sanctuary cities were very upset that those they pretend to advocate for were going to be dropped off in their towns by Trump and Co. They believed the migrants should stamp an indignant foot until they get a better deal instead of taking the opportunity to get out of Trump’s evil clutches. Pure martyrdom.
This is absolutely false. Multiple mayors publicly stated they were happy to welcome those migrants to their cities.

It is possible to simultaneously be willing to accept migrants, while being angry that Trump sees migrants as a punishment, and thinks he's entitled to punish cities who disagree with him, and the idea that he's entitled to use desperate, vulnerable people as weapons. All of these are stupid, hateful, and autocratic beliefs.

It's pretty insane to see staunch conservative dual-sovereignty defenders cheerfully do a complete 180 when it comes to using local law enforcement for federal policy. I look forward to your enthusiastic support when future Democratic presidents decide to employ this precedent for their own purposes.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-12-2019 at 10:08 AM.
  #193  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:16 AM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm sure you've got some Libertarian-style 'paramedics letting someone bleed out doesn't count as killing them' claim, but I don't accept that weird set of definitions.
An aside: I asked a paramedic a while back what would happen if they had a patient near-death (but saveable!) in the ambulance and, en route to the hospital, they see a person literally bleeding out on the side of the road.

The paramedic told me it is a shame, but medical ethics indicated they could not always interrupt the care of the patient already in the ambulance. The life of the patient is assumed to be just as valuable as the life of the person on the side of the road. I asked if they could let off an EMT to stop the bleeding then continue to the hospital. He pointed out that a lone EMT might not be able to provide adequate medical care and this would be a point of liability, doubly so if the patient in the ambulance dies and the hospital is sued for letting the EMT off (which either adds time to the route or deprives the patient care team a critical set of hands). Thus hospital policy says that the ambulance must drive on in all but the most extreme cases, such as if a group of people are bleeding out or the person in is able to consent to a stop.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 06-12-2019 at 10:18 AM. Reason: near-death but saveable
  #194  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Others have already offered their reasoning for opposing political migration. Thanks for the offer though.
I'm not aware of anyone in this thread "opposing political migration". Haven't seen a single such post. Care to cite?
  #195  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:17 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,344
I paid very little attention to politics, especial the personalities of politicians, until retirement. I came of age under Nixon, but hardly paid attention to Watergate. It was Gingrich and Judge Starr's spending millions tracking down the semen-stained dress that awakened me. But I was still willing to give Dubya a chance until the hypocrisies of the Iraq War became impossible to overlook.

Nowadays I come in contact with very few Americans; those few are mostly older white males. I smile but no longer say Hello: odds are they are Trumpists.

I know OP specifically passed that the thread be ABOUT vitriol rather than vitriolic itself, but we're here to try to stamp out stupidity right? Thus ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If U.S. elections were consistently 80% Republican or Democrat, the winning side would soon try to strip away the losing side of various rights and freedoms.
What are the strongest synonyms of wrong and stupid that are allowed outside the Pit?

The Ds are specifically the Party of Inclusion. They favor extending rights to women as well as men, to blacks and whites, to gays and straights, to rich and poor. Inclusion. The GOP almost brags about being the Party of Exclusion. Look up Inclusion and Exclusion in a dictionary for heavens' sake.

The infuriating ignorance in an unfounded Tu Quoque like we see from Velocity provokes my vitriol.
  #196  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:41 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The Ds are specifically the Party of Inclusion. They favor extending rights to women as well as men, to blacks and whites, to gays and straights, to rich and poor. Inclusion. The GOP almost brags about being the Party of Exclusion.
Which the GOP will no longer be allowed to do if the Dems have their way.

They're having their rights to strip away the rights of other people stripped away.
  #197  
Old 06-12-2019, 01:52 PM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which is why there's a "but" and more to the sentence that you excluded from the quote.
It's the same 'but' one finds between "I hate to be rude" and something rude, so I disregarded what followed.
__________________
"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
  #198  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:22 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes. The amount of predation must overwhelm the costs associated with moving. Still better than stamping your indignant foot. If you reread you will see that I was giving advice to victims of government predation. This is practical advice, not some ideological martyrdom you prefer for some reason.
There is nothing "practical" in advice to people to pick up and move so that your tender feelings are not hurt because they are protesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
It is easier now to escape bigotry than ever before. You donít even need to flee the old US of A. You seem to think that until there are no costs associated with moving, victims should endure all costs of staying no matter how excessive. The other poster posited scenarios where the clear solution was moving. I will never give advice to someone that will make them worse off.
It is (generally) easier nw, in the U.S. than in former times. I never demanded that there be no costs. (There are costs for protesting, as well.) The clear solution is to promote change, not run and hide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Thankfully your ideological martyrdom didnít stop the Underground Railroad. Perhaps you would have counseled enslaved workers to stay and stamp an indignant foot. Maybe those who fled Nazi persecution should have got political? Would that have saved them?
I am not claiming martyrdom; that is your straw man.
As to the Underground Railroad, that pretty clearly falls under my notation of who can or will move: that group being one that requires a move to escape persecution. Although, it must be noted that the vast majority were lacking the facilities and support to employ moving. And both those fleeing slavery and those fleeing Naziism were physically restrained from doing so. However, not unexpectedly, you are changing the subject from those who are participating members of society seeking to improve their position in it (to whom you do not choose to listen) to a different class of people: those physically constrained to slavery of one sort or another.

(I realize that in your world, paying taxes so that merchandise and people can employ roads for communication and trade along with requiring vaccinations to prevent the suffering and deaths of millions is a form of slavery, but the rest of us live in the real world and do not share your odd beliefs.)
  #199  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:42 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So there should be no distinction between allowing someone to die and committing physical aggression against someone to kill them?
I don't pretend that strawman arguments are real. No one in this thread made the claim you're asking me if I support, and I'm not going to treat your question as a valid one. Incidentally, I'm also not going to do the Libertarian Definition Dance as far as definitions go either. Especially since you've made the absurd claim that Nazis aren't in favor of violence.

[quote]Since I neither shrugged it off or whined about that, you have no reason to be horrified. [/qutoe]

You did, in fact shrug it off; you're shrugging it off in this post. The fact that you're not horrified by the behavior and instead endorse protecting the people who engage in it from consequences is part of what I'm referring to as 'shrugging it off'.
  #200  
Old 06-12-2019, 03:06 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,515
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.
The administration sure is going to great lengths to not provide information behind the totally innocuous rationale for adding this question then, huh? Can you provide some reasonable explanation for why they would invoke executive privilege to keep this completely innocent proposal under wraps?
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 12:29 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