A recumbent?
OK, I think you’re Donne here…
yes: life is too short to run into head-first, looking at the ground
And in a nutshell, this is the problem with progressivism. There are no limiting principles. Nothing to say, ‘We’ve gone far enough, and now we need to let people live in peace.’ It’s just a never-ending struggle to ‘fix’ everything that prevenfs you from perfecting society.
Tell me - under what progressive principle would you stop someone like Trump from closing down all the Starbucks in the country? Talk about societal harm… No one needs a 700 calorie frapaccino, and obesity is the single biggest medical problem in America. Then there’s those cars idling in the drive-through, making global warming worse and polluting the city. You really should ban all drive-throughs, come to think of it. It will do people good to park and walk, right?
How about private jets? No one needs a private jet. Ban them! And while we are at it, we should get rid of recreational boats and aircraft, too. They pollute the atmosphere, you don’t get exercise using them, boats spread invasive species like milfoil to new lakes, they scare wildlife, and people drown.
And son’t get me started on private swimming pools, which kill dozens of children every year. Ban them all.
Where do we stop? Is it all just up to the whim of the public? Are there to be no limits whatsoever in the power of government so long as it thinks it’s doing good? Or are we now going to be ruled by the mob?
If you think these ideas are crazy, tell me where in your philosophy I can find the line that says closing all Starbucks is crazy, but banning soft drinks isn’t.
It isn’t. It’s an enlightenment vs illiberal progressivism thing. You and I, Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, and a whole lot of people with very little in common other than a belief in the rule of law, due process, freedom of speech and conscience and other liberal principles that almost everyone in the west believed in up until fairly recently.
You and I could probably talk all day and agree on just about nothing, except that at our core we still believe in the basic values of the enlightenment that the new brand of progressive is willing to flush down the drain for ‘justice’. That makes us allies on these issues, just as I am an ally of Eric Weinstein despite the fact that he’s really far to the left on most issues. Because all of those issues are trivial compared to the core issues of freedom to live an individual life without being attacked by a mob for not conforming.
Since this is the Pit, I am free to say that you are a fucking idiot. An articulate, well-spoken, seemingly reasonable moron, lacking even the mental capacity of a steer turd.
Feel free to answer my question.
I don’t see this as just a liberal problem. There are also plenty of issues where it’s conservatives who want to impose their views on what’s good on everyone else.
^This^
Until recently, though, while I could say I’d been annoyed at every president I’d had direct knowledge of, despite the campaign rhetoric of the opposing side, neither the Democrat nor Republican parties had served up (never mind gotten elected) candidates who put their personal interests above that of this country and skated so close* to the line of legality in their everyday lives as Trump.
*We can’t ‘officially’ say crossed over… yet.
The one good Republican I can think of in fairly recent memory was C. Everett Koop. As Surgeon General he was a conservative Christian. When he saw the evidence regarding Aids he made decisions based on it. Sure, abstinence was first, but he also advocated condom use and education in schools.
The Reagans and other Republicans were fine to let those troublesome gays die.
Your question, hmm, what was it? Some like “Progressive values are whatever ideas upset me. What’s up with that?” Yeah, I think I did answer that. Just try being a tad less dogmatic and you might not be seen as so much of a shithead
nm
And yet, for some reason, this has not happened. Not in a “this was stopped by political opposition” sense, but rather in the far more general, “nobody ever proposed this or even thought about proposing this.” Weird, right?
(Unlike separating refugee children from their families and locking them in cages. That was proposed and implemented, and not by liberals.)
The trouble with conservatives is that they fear what will never happen. Does anyone advocate the elimination of swimming pools? No. But we have to be afraid of regulating soft drink sizes because doncha know, there is no difference between regulating soft drink sizes and banning swimming pools. It really is about time that we stopped letting stupid motherfuckers use moronic strawmen to subvert social progress.
Clearly you’re pushing absurd arguments to make your point, and I don’t care to engage in this particular debate. But I just want to say,*** man those drive-throughs piss me off!***
<rant> I can almost always park, walk in, get my food or drink and leave while cars that were in line when I got there are still waiting in line. So those drivers are wasting gas *and *time, all because they’re too damn lazy to get out of the car?
If you have kids buckled into car seats, fine. If you have a broken ankle or a permanent disability, fine. If it’s 20 below zero, fine. Anyone else who waits in line at a drive-through is a fucking moron. </rant>
It isn’t just a liberal problem. Or rather, it’s a liberal vs illiberal problem, and there are people with illiberal tendencies on the right and left.
Uh, no. The question was about limiting principles. Try reading for comprehension.
Here, here! Even with the apparent priority given to the drive-thru orders, it seems generally more time-efficient to go in if the line is more than two or three cars (of course, I tend to go in all the time).
My most annoying drive-thru experience was at a Sonic (which has 30 or so parking stalls where the nice car-hop will bring you your food).
I pulled into a stall, ordered my food, got my food, and couldn’t leave because the drive-thru line had backed up to the point that I was blocked in. Eventually someone in line noticed my plight and let a gap develop that let me back out.
That it would cause harm for no good purpose.
As opposed to conservatism, which is *all about *harming people for the sake of harming them. Conservatism is all about emulating Sauron; “malice, cruelty and the will to dominate all life.'”
Letting people “live in peace” goes against everything conservatives stand for; only cruelty, suffering and death are acceptable. A conservative isn’t going to let some gays get married and live happily together if he can help it; he’ll beat them to death instead.
Wow, with 60 million or more conservatives in the nation, how do any gays survive??