# A rational discussion of the mid-terms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466 "2010-11-04T15:21:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/41 "2010-11-04T19:20:47Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > …So the tolerant should only tolerate the tolerant? > > A person can’t very well insist on tolerance from a certain group and then display hatred and intolerance toward that group. For decades I’ve watched as the left has pleaded for tolerance from the right for everything from hair styles and clothing to drug use to gangsta rap to entitlement programs to…well, you get the idea. Yet at the same time they’re yelling at every opportunity about how evil, selfish, racist, sexist, backward, homophobic, provincial, red-necked, stupid and ignorant the members of that group are… I believe that the philosopher [Karl Popper](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) put it best, when addressing the issue of “tolerating the intolerant”: > [@Karl Popper](#): > > Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. **If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.** — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/42 "2010-11-04T19:21:56Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > For me , the unemployment extensions are an example - we keep extending it, and extending it, and I see Help Wanted signs everywhere, and the paper is full of jobs available. I have no idea why people complain about not being able to find a job. Of course, it may not be in your field, or it may be a lot less than you used to make. But I was raised that, oh well, shit happens, and you downgrade your lifestyle, you move, you do whatever you have to. Life is hard work, and you do what you have to do. For me, who’s budget has suffered the same downgrade - having to pay more in taxes to fund programs for people who don’t seem to be willing to put in the hard work that I have to get the things that I want, seems like a shit deal. One thing people need to understand before arguing policy is that your particular anecdotes are meaningless to a large question. There are currently 4.6 job seekers for each available job. Think about that for a second. Does that suggest to you that some number of out of work people are going to be out of work for a long time to come? Attacking the out of work as lazy or indigent is a profoundly ignorant thing to do. We’re in a terrible recession. Just because you’re okay, doesn’t mean that everyone who is doing less well than you is lazier than you. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/43 "2010-11-04T19:22:06Z")
Villa, I was thinking that every company along the food chain has an HR department, and accountants, and IT people, and salesmen, and CEOs, etc etc. Many of these people would be unnecessary if everything were owned by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/44 "2010-11-04T19:27:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem is that many of us ‘conservatives’ have patiently explained where we are coming from _many times_ on this board, only to see our point of view caricatured, ignored, replaced with the current Democratic talking points or the latest rant from Keith Olbermann or some damned thing. > > I suspect most of the liberals on this board only ask questions of conservatives hoping to get stupid answers they can mock or easily refute. When you respond with something detailed and not easy to throw a soundbite at, you usually get either silence in response, or a mischaracterization of what you said, or a response that makes it clear that the other person didn’t really bother to read your message but just responded against some caricature of your position that he has in his mind. > > So don’t be surprised if you don’t get the full cooperation of the board’s ‘conservatives’ to yet another thread asking them to explain themselves. > > And it’s not like it’s hard to find thoughtful conservative commentary out on the web that you could use to educate yourself. Of course, liberals like to find the craziest conservatives they can, and then label them as the standard-bearers for the ideology. But there are plenty of sane conservatives around. George Will, for example. Read some of his columns and you might get a better picture of where conservatives are coming from. > > Or you could read the CATO institute’s site, or some of the articles at the [Library of Economics and Freedom](http://www.econlib.org/) at George Mason University, where a lot of libertarian/conservative policy is discussed. They also have an excellent series of podcasts consisting of economists mixing it up with political scientists, media figures, or other movers and shakers. Well worth listening to if you truly want to understand the free-market proponents’ point of view. How about you actually state your ideas instead of handing out homework? You advocate a fringe view. Policy should be based on what mainstream economists believe. Not some ideological types throwing shit from the sidelines. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/45 "2010-11-04T19:33:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > One thing people need to understand before arguing policy is that your particular anecdotes are meaningless to a large question. > > There are currently 4.6 job seekers for each available job. Think about that for a second. Does that suggest to you that some number of out of work people are going to be out of work for a long time to come? > > Attacking the out of work as lazy or indigent is a profoundly ignorant thing to do. We’re in a terrible recession. Just because you’re okay, doesn’t mean that everyone who is doing less well than you is lazier than you. And one thing other people need to understand before they argue policy is that day-to-day experiences matter far more than policy papers. That may be the disconnect in our views. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/46 "2010-11-04T19:33:26Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > From what I have experienced in this world it seems to me that all of the things that I consider to be advancements (greater gender equality, greater racial equality, greater equality towards those with differing sexual orientations, environmental regulations that slow down the despoilment of the earth, so on) had to be taken by force. Maybe you are using “force” in a different sense than I think. But I am not aware that we fought any wars over gender equality, or that suffragettes got the vote by beating people up. > [@](#): > > I cannot think of a time when the folks that opposed this stuff heard the arguments in favor and said “huh, those guys sure have a point”. I disagree. I would say that many of the gains made in the civil rights movement of the 60s came about because people realized that black people were really being treated badly, and that Jim Crow was indeed a horror. And ISTM that the non-violent MLK Jr. did more to bring this about than any number of Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam. Sure, there were riots, but not race wars, nor would a race war have done the trick. YMMV. > [@](#): > > So at this point of the game I see this more in terms of self-defense. Over and over again we are shown that the “loyal opposition” has no desire to do anything but win. Why would I want to be tolerant of some dude beating the crap out of me? Isn’t the sane response to fight back. This, I think, is rather badly overblown. Your side lost an election - nobody beat you up. And frankly, this stuff about how Republicans will do anything to win and are so corrupt and all that is just bullshit, and based on the fallacy of attribution. It is unpopular to say it on the SDMB, but it is dead on true - Democrats are no better, no less corrupt on average, no more committed to altruistic principle, than Republicans. You’ve been reading too many threads in the Pit, where the high-minded and noble liberals are wishing that I die in a fire because I voted for a Republican. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Is there anything at all that you guys (the general “you” conservatives) are willing to compromise on? Sure - any number of things. Say for instance - abortion. I want _Roe v. Wade_ overturned, because it is an unwarranted power grab by the Court. So, we overturn it, and put the power of determining whether or not abortion should be allowed into the hands of the states. Those states who want to keep abortion legal can do so - those that don’t, don’t have to. Are you willing to compromise on that? If not, what are you willing to give up? And if the answer is 'Nothing, we don’t have to give anything up" maybe the unwillingness to compromise isn’t all on one side. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/47 "2010-11-04T19:41:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > We’re in a terrible recession. You owe it to the board to educate yourself a bit before you make these kinds of false statements. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/48 "2010-11-04T19:44:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You owe it to the board to educate yourself a bit before you make these kinds of false statements. > > Regards, > Shodan Will the _aftermath of a terrible recession_ make my good buddy Shodan stop picking nits and start addressing the meat of the thread? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/49 "2010-11-04T19:48:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There are degrees of inequality, but no degrees of equality. > > Equals are equal. Unequals are unequal. This is why I think the left should use the term “disparity” instead of “inequality.” We know what a disparity is, & it can be greater or lesser. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/50 "2010-11-04T19:50:41Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] This is why I think the left should use the term “disparity” instead of “inequality.” We know what a disparity is, & it can be greater or lesser. [/QUOTE] That would be more accurate, but since we are now in GD, I would prefer to discuss the OP with less joking around. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/51 "2010-11-04T20:40:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That would be more accurate, but since we are now in GD, I would prefer to discuss the OP with less joking around. > > Regards, > Shodan And now that we’re in GD, I _really_ don’t want to participate. It always ends just like **Sam Stone** said it does. No matter what’s said, the liberals will dress it up like a caricature they have in their heads and then proceed to beat down that straw man. Take, for example, **davidm** ’s comments in the Pit thread that spawned this one. [I say I don’t want to give my money to other people](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13099454&postcount=124). He calls me a total sociopath. So I ask for some of his money. [He then claims](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13100249&postcount=169) that has nothing to do with what he said. It should be painfully obvious to any honest, mentally functional adult reading this that, yes, I’ll pull you out of a river if you’re drowning. Sure, I’ll help you pick up something you dropped or hold the door for you. But I’m not going to give you any of my money. That exchange is a perfect microcosm of why it’s pointless to answer OPs like this one. I’ll lay out a simple, sane viewpoint and I’ll get called a “totally self-centered sociopath”. When called on the hypocrisy of such a statement, it’s meant with feigned ignorance (“doesn’t have anything to do with what I said”) and insults (“is that what you call proper debating technique?”). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/52 "2010-11-04T20:51:36Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > That exchange is a perfect microcosm of why it’s pointless to answer OPs like this one. Maybe it’s skewed because it started in the Pit. But you are probably right. Maybe after the rancor over the elections dies down. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/53 "2010-11-04T20:59:03Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Fourth, an econmy must grow at a healthy pace for a socety to survive with any sort of decent standard of living. Large entitlement programs necessitate higher taxes, which slows economic growth, which is a per se bad thing. You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the term, “_per se._” If economic growth were good in itself, axiomatically, then constant inflation through the printing of money would be ideal. But if economic growth is good because of some other purpose, such as increasing the general standard of material culture, than growth as such can be slowed for the sake of other processes that work in the interest of that other purpose. > [@Sateryn76](#): > > And one thing other people need to understand before they argue policy is that day-to-day experiences matter far more than policy papers. So you’re saying that you don’t believe in any statistics, or just this one? > [@Shodan](#): > > And ISTM that the non-violent MLK Jr. did more to bring this about than any number of Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam. Sure, there were riots, but not race wars, nor would a race war have done the trick. > … > I want _Roe v. Wade_ overturned, because it is an unwarranted power grab by the Court. So, we overturn it, and put the power of determining whether or not abortion should be allowed into the hands of the states. Those states who want to keep abortion legal can do so - those that don’t, don’t have to. Why should one’s state of residence determine whether one has the right to get an early-term abortion? Why do you invest the amateur politicians in Albany, Austin, Little Rock, Sacramento, & Oklahoma City with the right to say when life begins? It doesn’t matter, of course. If abortion is outlawed, it will be violence that does it; the murders of abortion providers are the greatest power your side has going for you. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Even M. Gandhi & M. L. King used violence, they just used the violence against them instead of their own. But of course you don’t believe that. You’re a conservative, you believe in tradition. But Confucius would have been nothing without someone to kill in his name. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/54 "2010-11-04T21:04:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem is that many of us ‘conservatives’ have patiently explained where we are coming from _many times_ on this board, only to see our point of view caricatured, ignored, replaced with the current Democratic talking points or the latest rant from Keith Olbermann or some damned thing. IOW, “exposed to the light”. Don’t kid yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/55 "2010-11-04T21:31:01Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > And one thing other people need to understand before they argue policy is that day-to-day experiences matter far more than policy papers. I have to strongly disagree with that notion. You are only one person, out of 300 million in this country. You might be very smart, and very observant, but what you do observe is only a very tiny fraction of what is actually going on. The entire purpose of statistics is to pool together as much information as possible, to get a look at the bigger picture. Imagine a neighbor who is pondering whether to start smoking tobacco, and is asking for your advice about whether that’s a good idea. He tells you that he believes smoking is harmless, because his grandfather lived to be 100 while smoking two packs a day. Would you believe that he drew the correct conclusion just from his personal experience about the health risks of smoking, or would you point him to the thousands of scientific studies showing a link between smoking and lung cancer? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/56 "2010-11-04T21:33:57Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Villa, I was thinking that every company along the food chain has an HR department, and accountants, and IT people, and salesmen, and CEOs, etc etc. Many of these people would be unnecessary if everything were owned by the government. I find it amusing that you’ll argue when it suits you that government control cuts down on the administration costs of something. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/57 "2010-11-04T21:35:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I want _Roe v. Wade_ overturned, because it is an unwarranted power grab by the Court. So, we overturn it, and put the power of determining whether or not abortion should be allowed into the hands of the states. Those states who want to keep abortion legal can do so - those that don’t, don’t have to. How far back will you go on this? Is _Marbury v. Madison_ an unwarranted power grab by the Court? Are you in favor of that being overturned? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/58 "2010-11-04T21:43:48Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > If abortion is outlawed, it will be violence that does it; the murders of abortion providers are the greatest power your side has going for you. Political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Oy, this is the kind of statement that takes us away from rationality. I don’t know anyone who is against abortion because doctors are being killed (for abortion to become illegal it will require votes). I’d love to see a cite that says otherwise. How many abortion providers are killed each year? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/59 "2010-11-04T21:50:11Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Why should one’s state of residence determine whether one has the right to get an early-term abortion? Why do you invest the amateur politicians in Albany, Austin, Little Rock, Sacramento, & Oklahoma City with the right to say when life begins? **Binarydrone** , you might want to read the above before you decide that the only people who won’t compromise are conservatives. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466/60 "2010-11-04T21:55:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **Binarydrone** , you might want to read the above before you decide that the only people who won’t compromise are conservatives. > > Regards, > Shodan The pro-choice position is the one of compromise. If you think abortions are okay, you can have one. If you think abortions are bad, you are free to not have one. The pro-life side seeks to utterly rob people of the option. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-rational-discussion-of-the-mid-terms/559466.md?page=4)