View Full Version : Socialists Pushing for Child Euthanasia......
Libhater
11-11-2013, 11:21 AM
Here in the US, Oregon passed the first legal euthanasia law in 1994 that allows assisted suicide for anyone 18 years of age or over who have a terminal illness. This is a form of euthanasia. In 2008, Washington passed its euthanasia bill and Vermont followed suit in May of this year.
Socialist governments in Europe have never held that human life is special or needs to be preserved. People are little more than livestock to them and like livestock, they are free to be slaughtered when necessary.
This is the same philosophy that pervades the Democratic Party. These are the very people that so ardently defend the right to murder unborn children.
The hedonistic debauchery that has taken over the American culture is bad enough, but what will happen when we begin to kill our children and loved ones simply because they are inconvenient to care for?
http://godfatherpolitics.com/13201/socialists-pushing-child-euthanasia/
Cigar
11-11-2013, 11:30 AM
:rollseyes: Oh God ... three more years of this ... ?
Mainecoons
11-11-2013, 11:38 AM
While I can't agree that euthanasia should be used on children under the age of consent, I think the government has no business getting in the way of adults who want to have this option rather than extreme suffering and/or demeaning decline in their last few years. This is just more government interference in what should be private matters.
I have no problems with appropriate safeguards being required but in the end, it is my life, not government's. We treat our pets far better than we treat ourselves when it comes to this matter.
Libhater
11-11-2013, 11:40 AM
:rollseyes: Oh God ... three more years of this ... ?
Yeah, and what's more troubling than having to put up with 3 more years of this socialist president is the fact that we Conservatives have to spend so much time and energy in cleaning up the mess you socialists left in the aftermath.
Adelaide
11-11-2013, 11:56 AM
The nature of my job requires that I work with end of life patients. I don't know many who wouldn't prefer the option of assisted suicide and I'm sure some doctors have done it under the table at some point. As for terminal children, it's not about inconvenience. It's about watching your precious child go through an immense amount of pain, sometimes for months on end. A newborn with birth defects so disabling they aren't expected to live past 3 months with hydrocephalus so bad that their head has to be constantly tilted to avoid them suffocating on their own spit and compressed airway, just waiting for the eventual death. A 14 year old diagnosed with terminal cancer who loses her sense of dignity in the final weeks where her parents have to change her depends and wash her, to say nothing of the pain. There are not many parents who would consent to assisted suicide for their child - in fact, getting them to the point of acceptance to permit a DNR is a battle probably 90% of the time because they don't want to let go even if their child wants nothing more.
My job has changed how I view assisted suicide. It's not about a disregard for the sanctity of human life, it's about people who know they're going to die and want to outline a plan for saving themselves from significant pain, suffering and loss of dignity, as well as wishing that their family not have to suffer more or longer than necessary. If a person wants to end their life before they reach a certain point in their end of life care, it should be their decision and physicians should be allowed to help them so it's as painless and peaceful as possible.
The Xl
11-11-2013, 12:07 PM
While I can't agree that euthanasia should be used on children under the age of consent, I think the government has no business getting in the way of adults who want to have this option rather than extreme suffering and/or demeaning decline in their last few years. This is just more government interference in what should be private matters.
I have no problems with appropriate safeguards being required but in the end, it is my life, not government's. We treat our pets far better than we treat ourselves when it comes to this matter.
Why shouldn't a 16 year old with terminal cancer be able to choose to end his suffering? This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.
The Xl
11-11-2013, 12:08 PM
And I'm not sure what socialism has to do with euthanasia....
kilgram
11-11-2013, 12:08 PM
Here in the US, Oregon passed the first legal euthanasia law in 1994 that allows assisted suicide for anyone 18 years of age or over who have a terminal illness. This is a form of euthanasia. In 2008, Washington passed its euthanasia bill and Vermont followed suit in May of this year.
Socialist governments in Europe have never held that human life is special or needs to be preserved. People are little more than livestock to them and like livestock, they are free to be slaughtered when necessary.
This is the same philosophy that pervades the Democratic Party. These are the very people that so ardently defend the right to murder unborn children.
The hedonistic debauchery that has taken over the American culture is bad enough, but what will happen when we begin to kill our children and loved ones simply because they are inconvenient to care for?
http://godfatherpolitics.com/13201/socialists-pushing-child-euthanasia/
And comes to tell it a person who defends death penalty. LOL.
And a death in life is not a life. I don't desire even for my worst enemy having to suffer a long agony before the certain death.
A life must have quality. And it is defended by that people that wants to deny healthcare to anyone who cannot pay it. Fantastic.
Ah, and I have bad news for you, Europe is not socialist. Sorry to deceive you.
Chris
11-11-2013, 12:12 PM
Historically it's Progressives who supported euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia. Then the Nazis borrowed it.
I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia which is what the law mentioned in the OP is about as far as I can tell.
Professor Peabody
11-11-2013, 12:13 PM
Here in the US, Oregon passed the first legal euthanasia law in 1994 that allows assisted suicide for anyone 18 years of age or over who have a terminal illness. This is a form of euthanasia. In 2008, Washington passed its euthanasia bill and Vermont followed suit in May of this year.
Socialist governments in Europe have never held that human life is special or needs to be preserved. People are little more than livestock to them and like livestock, they are free to be slaughtered when necessary.
This is the same philosophy that pervades the Democratic Party. These are the very people that so ardently defend the right to murder unborn children.
The hedonistic debauchery that has taken over the American culture is bad enough, but what will happen when we begin to kill our children and loved ones simply because they are inconvenient to care for?
http://godfatherpolitics.com/13201/socialists-pushing-child-euthanasia/
When I look around at the Libs, I see a lot of missed opportunities.
pjohns
11-11-2013, 12:31 PM
Europe is not socialist.
Well, I suppose that depends upon how one defines the word, "socialist."
Certainly, no European country may fairly be described as Marxist--let alone Stalinist--but just about the entirety of Europe is now governed by the tenets of democratic socialism (a.k.a. "social democracy"; that does sound so much better)...
Adelaide
11-11-2013, 12:38 PM
Historically it's Progressives who supported euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia. Then the Nazis borrowed it.
I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia which is what the law mentioned in the OP is about as far as I can tell.
Yes to the latter. I think it would be most ideal if end of life patients drew up documents in advance that state "When x happens, I wish to have assistance in ending my life." There is always the concern that relatives might make the decision against the will of a patient, but most EOL patients are aware of what is happening in advance. It becomes complicated when you factor in dementia and Alzheimer's in elderly patients diagnosed with a terminal illness like cancer.
And obviously, there should be protocols such as mandatory counseling to ensure the decision is made in full awareness, and physicians should not be forced to assist.
Chris
11-11-2013, 12:51 PM
Yes to the latter. I think it would be most ideal if end of life patients drew up documents in advance that state "When x happens, I wish to have assistance in ending my life." There is always the concern that relatives might make the decision against the will of a patient, but most EOL patients are aware of what is happening in advance. It becomes complicated when you factor in dementia and Alzheimer's in elderly patients diagnosed with a terminal illness like cancer.
And obviously, there should be protocols such as mandatory counseling to ensure the decision is made in full awareness, and physicians should not be forced to assist.
Agree with doing it ahead of time, and agre that counseling would be a good idea, just not mandatory.
kilgram
11-11-2013, 01:43 PM
Well, I suppose that depends upon how one defines the word, "socialist."
Certainly, no European country may fairly be described as Marxist--let alone Stalinist--but just about the entirety of Europe is now governed by the tenets of democratic socialism (a.k.a. "social democracy"; that does sound so much better)...
Social democracy died in the 90s. Europe is governed by the same bunch that is governed USA. Corporativists, the deformation of capitalists.
Chris
11-11-2013, 01:56 PM
Social democracy died in the 90s. Europe is governed by the same bunch that is governed USA. Corporativists, the deformation of capitalists.
It may have died in Europe, but it's going strong with Obama.
nic34
11-11-2013, 02:16 PM
It may have died in Europe, but it's going strong with Obama.
If it was, we'd have a national healthcare system by now.
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 02:24 PM
And I'm not sure what socialism has to do with euthanasia....
The idea of socialism is that you belong to the state or the hive as it were. Since you are unimportant as an individual socialist are far more likely to condone euthanasia than conservatives who value the sanctity of all life.
Cigar
11-11-2013, 02:25 PM
And I'm not sure what socialism has to do with euthanasia....
Give it time ... Benghazi will be the cause :laugh:
nic34
11-11-2013, 02:26 PM
the idea of socialism is that you belong to the state or the hive as it were. Since you are unimportant as an individual socialist are far more likely to condone euthanasia than conservatives who value the sanctity of all life.
wow....
The Xl
11-11-2013, 02:27 PM
The idea of socialism is that you belong to the state or the hive as it were. Since you are unimportant as an individual socialist are far more likely to condone euthanasia than conservatives who value the sanctity of all life.
But their isn't any other person in this instance who makes this call except the person in question. Does one not have ownership over his or her own body?
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 02:28 PM
I will say I had a friend who had stomach cancer. In his final stages he kept calling for more morphine shots to ease the pain. His wife asked the doctor if she should since it could kill him. His response was that the man was dying all ready. If he died today or died tomorrow the end result is the same, he would be dead by Wednesday. If he died today because of an overdose then his pain would be gone.
I love life too much to even consider suicide, assisted or otherwise. If I were in the end stages of cancer I might change my mind but I plan on going out kicking and screaming.
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 02:28 PM
wow....
dispute that
Cigar
11-11-2013, 02:29 PM
wow....
That's where the Wing-Nut part comes in ... :laugh:
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 02:29 PM
But their isn't any other person in this instance who makes this call except the person in question. Does one not have ownership over his or her own body?
Eventually, it will not be just the decision of the individual under socialism. If you cannot add to the well being of the hive of what use are you?
The Xl
11-11-2013, 02:32 PM
Eventually, it will not be just the decision of the individual under socialism. If you cannot add to the well being of the hive of what use are you?
Well, we don't really have a socialist system, so we don't need to worry about that right now. We have a corporatist one with a sprinkle of a socialist safety net.
Cigar
11-11-2013, 02:38 PM
More predictions of Gloom and Doom ... and Apocalyptic Devastation
God I'm glad I'm not a Republican
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 02:40 PM
I disagree. We have a fascist system with no safety net. Hitler did not start off killing off Jews in order to purify the race. I am not suggesting anything except socialist are all about planning and making things "better" through scientific means. Killing off the weak and incapable is a natural outcome of that. Remember at the turn of the last century eugenics was a very hot topic and was accepted by the vast majority of the Progressive Elite in government and academia. The final outcome of eugenics was the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Which, by the way, is why socialist don't want to be known as socialist.
Chris
11-11-2013, 02:41 PM
If it was, we'd have a national healthcare system by now.
No country has national healthcare, nic, insurance, administration, but not healthcare.
The Xl
11-11-2013, 02:41 PM
I disagree. We have a fascist system with no safety net. Hitler did not start off killing off Jews in order to purify the race. I am not suggesting anything except socialist are all about planning and making things "better" through scientific means. Killing off the weak and incapable is a natural outcome of that. Remember at the turn of the last century eugenics was a very hot topic and was accepted by the vast majority of the Progressive Elite in government and academia. The final outcome of eugenics was the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Which, by the way, is why socialist don't want to be known as socialist.
We aren't run by socialist, though. We're run by special interests through politicians.
Mainecoons
11-11-2013, 02:43 PM
No country has national healthcare, nic, insurance, administration, but not healthcare.
Not exactly, the British have National Health, health "care" by government employees. You are very fortunate if you survive their care according to my U.K. friends.
Cigar
11-11-2013, 02:43 PM
I disagree. We have a fascist system with no safety net. Hitler did not start off killing off Jews in order to purify the race. I am not suggesting anything except socialist are all about planning and making things "better" through scientific means. Killing off the weak and incapable is a natural outcome of that. Remember at the turn of the last century eugenics was a very hot topic and was accepted by the vast majority of the Progressive Elite in government and academia. The final outcome of eugenics was the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Which, by the way, is why socialist don't want to be known as socialist.
The only thing that's getting eradicated are Conservatives and you can thank the TeaBaggers for that.
jillian
11-11-2013, 02:48 PM
:rollseyes: Oh God ... three more years of this ... ?
his lunacy is astounding, isn't it?
Cigar
11-11-2013, 02:51 PM
his lunacy is astounding, isn't it?
Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now?
The point is that abortion has never been rare. Not when it was originally legal, not when it was made illegal, and not now that it is again legal. It is unlikely to ever be rare. It is a medical procedure a large number of women find themselves to need at some point in their lives for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which could be controlled by using birth control or even if birth control were 100% effective.
Since abortion never has been rare, regardless of law or stigma, it seems very unlikely that abortion ever will be rare at any point in the future. Why increase the stigma by saying we wish it were rare? It's like pointing a finger at every woman who has had an abortion and saying, "Did you REALLY need one?" She's one of the reasons why it is not rare. Is that a problem?
Here's an older article about the history of abortion: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm
nic34
11-11-2013, 03:00 PM
dispute that
Dude, you got to stop watching so many "Soylent Green" type movies......
GrassrootsConservative
11-11-2013, 03:08 PM
He said "dispute that," not "make an inane accusation about that."
Chris
11-11-2013, 03:09 PM
Abortion has never been rare. Why is that an expectation now?
The point is that abortion has never been rare. Not when it was originally legal, not when it was made illegal, and not now that it is again legal. It is unlikely to ever be rare. It is a medical procedure a large number of women find themselves to need at some point in their lives for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which could be controlled by using birth control or even if birth control were 100% effective.
Since abortion never has been rare, regardless of law or stigma, it seems very unlikely that abortion ever will be rare at any point in the future. Why increase the stigma by saying we wish it were rare? It's like pointing a finger at every woman who has had an abortion and saying, "Did you REALLY need one?" She's one of the reasons why it is not rare. Is that a problem?
Here's an older article about the history of abortion: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm
So then you admit we've made no progress as humans, we're just as immoral and barbaric as ever.
Would you like histories of slavery?
kilgram
11-11-2013, 03:43 PM
It may have died in Europe, but it's going strong with Obama.
Please don't make me laugh. Obama is not socialdemocrat, neither close to it. The maximum that you can say is that he is a populist. That is true.
kilgram
11-11-2013, 03:45 PM
The idea of socialism is that you belong to the state or the hive as it were. Since you are unimportant as an individual socialist are far more likely to condone euthanasia than conservatives who value the sanctity of all life.
???????
Seriously? Is it Socialism? Wow. I didn't know. Thank you for explain it to me.
Chris
11-11-2013, 03:56 PM
Please don't make me laugh. Obama is not socialdemocrat, neither close to it. The maximum that you can say is that he is a populist. That is true.
???????
Seriously? Is it Socialism? Wow. I didn't know. Thank you for explain it to me.
Again we have trouble with different ways different people define socialism. WHile I may know better to distinguish statist and voluntary socialism, my habit like most Americans is to use socialism for the statist sort. And this, following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy,
Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century
Obama is a social democrat. He doesn't seek to control capitalism, as that socialists, of the statist sort, have found to be fatal. Rather he seeks to manage capitalism. It's the sort of managment Krugman, a social democrat, advocates, though he'd like to see more. It's the sort Robert Reich advocates in, say, The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).
So if you want to talk voluntary socialism instead, then I have no argument with you.
Better i make you laugh than cry. :-)
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 04:06 PM
I'm sorry but socialism is socialism, be in voluntary or involuntary and truthfully, you will never get 100% voluntary socialism so it will always remain an involuntary system. Capitalism on the other hand forces no one to do anything and its up to each individual to make his own decisions without any interference from the state on any level. You explanation, while I thank you for it, is really akin to being "slightly pregnant" You either is or you ain't. You are either controlled by the government or you are free to choose.
Manage capitalism or control capitalism, what exactly is the difference here?
Chris
11-11-2013, 04:15 PM
I'm sorry but socialism is socialism, be in voluntary or involuntary and truthfully, you will never get 100% voluntary socialism so it will always remain an involuntary system. Capitalism on the other hand forces no one to do anything and its up to each individual to make his own decisions without any interference from the state on any level. You explanation, while I thank you for it, is really akin to being "slightly pregnant" You either is or you ain't. You are either controlled by the government or you are free to choose.
Manage capitalism or control capitalism, what exactly is the difference here?
Voluntary socialism can and does exist within capitalism. An example of a firm is Valve (http://www.valvesoftware.com/), an example of a small community is Marinaleda in Spain.
Manage capitalism or control capitalism, what exactly is the difference here?
Communism managed--there is no free market, capital is owned publicly. Fascism is controlled--there is a free market to some degree, capital is privately owned, though only insofar as you do what the state wants. Social democracy is closer to fascism.
bladimz
11-11-2013, 04:18 PM
We aren't run by socialist, though. We're run by special interests through politicians.Boy, have you hit the nail on the head!
Chris
11-11-2013, 04:22 PM
We aren't run by socialist, though. We're run by special interests through politicians.
Boy, have you hit the nail on the head!
Nails.
One nail is special interests, especially corporate special interest, union special interests, and the like who purchase political favors. The other is government, the politicians, bureaucrats and the like who sell us out selling political favors.
The solution is not to stop business but to stop government.
bladimz
11-11-2013, 04:30 PM
I will say I had a friend who had stomach cancer. In his final stages he kept calling for more morphine shots to ease the pain. His wife asked the doctor if she should since it could kill him. His response was that the man was dying all ready. If he died today or died tomorrow the end result is the same, he would be dead by Wednesday. If he died today because of an overdose then his pain would be gone.
I love life too much to even consider suicide, assisted or otherwise. If I were in the end stages of cancer I might change my mind but I plan on going out kicking and screaming.Most people who are in the throes of happiness and loving life aren't going to request assisted suicide. The trick is when you're on your way out, do you want to crawl out screaming, on your bloody hands and knees, or, seeing that you're leaving anyway, would you rather a little help with the nasty pass-over. Why anyone would choose to slowly rot away is beyond me.
nathanbforrest45
11-11-2013, 04:34 PM
Most people who are in the throes of happiness and loving life aren't going to request assisted suicide. The trick is when you're on your way out, do you want to crawl out screaming, on your bloody hands and knees, or, seeing that you're leaving anyway, would you rather a little help with the nasty pass-over. Why anyone would choose to slowly rot away is beyond me.
Hope springs eternal for some, never for others. Like I said I may change my mind but right now I am not taking the easy way out.
bladimz
11-11-2013, 04:35 PM
Nails.
One nail is special interests, especially corporate special interest, union special interests, and the like who purchase political favors. The other is government, the politicians, bureaucrats and the like who sell us out selling political favors.
The solution is not to stop business but to stop government.Government is nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business. Stop business and you stop government. Stop government and .... what?
Chris
11-11-2013, 04:39 PM
Government is nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business. Stop business and you stop government. Stop government and .... what?
Government has a monopoly on power. Growing government to solve the problem will only exasperate it. Stop government.
Here in the US, Oregon passed the first legal euthanasia law in 1994 that allows assisted suicide for anyone 18 years of age or over who have a terminal illness. This is a form of euthanasia. In 2008, Washington passed its euthanasia bill and Vermont followed suit in May of this year.
Socialist governments in Europe have never held that human life is special or needs to be preserved. People are little more than livestock to them and like livestock, they are free to be slaughtered when necessary.
This is the same philosophy that pervades the Democratic Party. These are the very people that so ardently defend the right to murder unborn children.
The hedonistic debauchery that has taken over the American culture is bad enough, but what will happen when we begin to kill our children and loved ones simply because they are inconvenient to care for?
http://godfatherpolitics.com/13201/socialists-pushing-child-euthanasia/
How is that child euthanasia? Oh right, it isn't.
Historically it's Progressives who supported euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia. Bullshit.
GrassrootsConservative
11-11-2013, 04:54 PM
Bullshit.
Because you say so?
patrickt
11-11-2013, 05:16 PM
Words have power so I prefer assisted suicide and euthanasia as being two distinctly different terms for two distinctly different actions. Physician-assisted suicide is when I make a decision and am assisted in committing suicide.
Euthanasia is when you make a decision and kill me.
The key issue is who makes the decision. I totally support my having the right to make the decision for myself. I do not want someone else deciding I'd be happier being dead. I most certainly do not want the government deciding.
kilgram
11-11-2013, 05:23 PM
Again we have trouble with different ways different people define socialism. WHile I may know better to distinguish statist and voluntary socialism, my habit like most Americans is to use socialism for the statist sort. And this, following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy,
Obama is a social democrat. He doesn't seek to control capitalism, as that socialists, of the statist sort, have found to be fatal. Rather he seeks to manage capitalism. It's the sort of managment Krugman, a social democrat, advocates, though he'd like to see more. It's the sort Robert Reich advocates in, say, The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).
So if you want to talk voluntary socialism instead, then I have no argument with you.
Better i make you laugh than cry. :-)
Ok, we can discuss about social_democracy. But the problem is that Obama does even not qualify for a socialdemocrat. He is of the level of socialdemocracy of the Spanish PSOE(Spanish Socialist Worker's Party), and the leftism of this party is 0, like the one of Obama. I like the American term to define him, he is a liberal. He is capitalist, even he does not try to manage it. He is a corporativist who works for the banks and corporations.
If you want to look for Socialdemocrats you should go to the North Europe, and they are vanishing, too. Or go to minoritary parties in Europe and USA. In Europe for example you have Die Linke in Germany, in USA the Greens. They are socialdemocratic.
Chris
11-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Bullshit.
I understand why you, a progressive, want to deny that, but I've given you the history before.
Chris
11-11-2013, 05:46 PM
Ok, we can discuss about social_democracy. But the problem is that Obama does even not qualify for a socialdemocrat. He is of the level of socialdemocracy of the Spanish PSOE(Spanish Socialist Worker's Party), and the leftism of this party is 0, like the one of Obama. I like the American term to define him, he is a liberal. He is capitalist, even he does not try to manage it. He is a corporativist who works for the banks and corporations.
If you want to look for Socialdemocrats you should go to the North Europe, and they are vanishing, too. Or go to minoritary parties in Europe and USA. In Europe for example you have Die Linke in Germany, in USA the Greens. They are socialdemocratic.
No doubt the comparisons are difficult and the language (labels) different.
You have to understand, Obama, like all American politicians says one thing but means another. He talks like a capitalist but is a social democrat, a corporatist.
I don't know enough about European politics to make a good comparison.
kilgram
11-11-2013, 07:23 PM
No doubt the comparisons are difficult and the language (labels) different.
You have to understand, Obama, like all American politicians says one thing but means another. He talks like a capitalist but is a social democrat, a corporatist.
I don't know enough about European politics to make a good comparison.
Well, I don't see any act that can be catalogued as socialdemcorat. From my point of view he is a lie like Zapatero was for Spain.
With Zapatero, Spanish people expected a change. A change to a socialdemocracy, to a more Socialist government, nothing of it happened. With Obama, people who voted for him, I think that people hoped something similar. Nothing like that happenned.
Chris
11-11-2013, 07:33 PM
Well, I don't see any act that can be catalogued as socialdemcorat. From my point of view he is a lie like Zapatero was for Spain.
With Zapatero, Spanish people expected a change. A change to a socialdemocracy, to a more Socialist government, nothing of it happened. With Obama, people who voted for him, I think that people hoped something similar. Nothing like that happenned.
American social democracy is slow and insidious. Didn't Spain's socialist government fail? Spain's new conservative leaders make rapid push to overturn liberal laws (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0202/Spain-s-new-conservative-leaders-make-rapid-push-to-overturn-liberal-laws).
Mr Happy
11-11-2013, 07:37 PM
American social democracy is slow and insidious. Didn't Spain's socialist government fail? Spain's new conservative leaders make rapid push to overturn liberal laws (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0202/Spain-s-new-conservative-leaders-make-rapid-push-to-overturn-liberal-laws).
Sounds like Franco has returned...
kilgram
11-11-2013, 07:44 PM
American social democracy is slow and insidious. Didn't Spain's socialist government fail? Spain's new conservative leaders make rapid push to overturn liberal laws (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0202/Spain-s-new-conservative-leaders-make-rapid-push-to-overturn-liberal-laws).
Spanish Socialist government never existed.
And yes, Conservative government is abolishing the few good laws that previous government did. Thank you to the PP, we've increased the numbers in poverty, unemployment, and other negative indicators like repression. Yes, we had a bad government and we changed for even a worse government and with more corrupt that is selling cheap the government to their friends. It is the new government. For this you will see that I dislike to an extreme the Conservative.
The fail of the "Socialist" government was because they were not Socialist, they were liberal(liberal in European meaning, it is capitalist).
kilgram
11-11-2013, 07:45 PM
Sounds like Franco has returned...
Exactly we think the same in Spain.
Chris
11-11-2013, 08:08 PM
Spanish Socialist government never existed.
And yes, Conservative government is abolishing the few good laws that previous government did. Thank you to the PP, we've increased the numbers in poverty, unemployment, and other negative indicators like repression. Yes, we had a bad government and we changed for even a worse government and with more corrupt that is selling cheap the government to their friends. It is the new government. For this you will see that I dislike to an extreme the Conservative.
The fail of the "Socialist" government was because they were not Socialist, they were liberal(liberal in European meaning, it is capitalist).
Socialists who weren't socialist who were. It's what we call them--this is what I mean about language and labels.
If it weren't for the partisans around here you'd hear a lot more liberals complaining about Obama not living up to many of his promises. Same thing as Spain. But partisanship masks the underlying politics.
Chris
11-11-2013, 08:08 PM
Exactly we think the same in Spain.
Franco was a two-bit fascist. How's that differ from socialism of the statist sort?
Mr Happy
11-11-2013, 09:02 PM
How come Chris has to apply labels to people. Statist this, socialist that, progressive him, conservative her.
So you've studied philosophy so now people have to fit into these little categories to satiate your conceived ideas of what type of category people are?
Chris
11-11-2013, 09:27 PM
How come Chris has to apply labels to people. Statist this, socialist that, progressive him, conservative her.
So you've studied philosophy so now people have to fit into these little categories to satiate your conceived ideas of what type of category people are?
For the same reason you do, happy, to communicate. Same reason kilgram does, to communicate. Care to get back to the discussion now?
Mr Happy
11-11-2013, 10:37 PM
For the same reason you do, happy, to communicate. Same reason kilgram does, to communicate. Care to get back to the discussion now?
I am giving feedback. Almost any time you post, you start pulling these labels on to people, which I find very weird... You almost demand that they fit into one of these categories. I am not here for your amusement...
fyrenza
11-11-2013, 11:18 PM
tl/dnr
As a nurse, this is one of those things that ...
On the one hand, I would want to save folks from the horrible suffering that most handicaps represent,
and so I wouldn't be against aborting children that we KNOW will only be born into anguish,
and "saving" their care-givers/parents from the financial and emotional debilitation that occurs;
on the other hand, I wonder how I could presume to be God, sitting in judgement about a life,
for I KNOW that He'll work ALL things to the good.
I guess I'm butting in to say that I can't really say anything about this subject.
kilgram
11-12-2013, 04:28 AM
Socialists who weren't socialist who were. It's what we call them--this is what I mean about language and labels.
If it weren't for the partisans around here you'd hear a lot more liberals complaining about Obama not living up to many of his promises. Same thing as Spain. But partisanship masks the underlying politics.
Yeap, partisanship is a big problem.
In Spain we equiparate it with soccer. People is of a team whatever the team does and they do the same in politics. If you are of the PSOE, you are and if you are of the PP you will vote forever them. However, I have to say that this partisanship is being reduced, and I think it is easier in Spain than in USA. Mainly the PSOE is losing a lot of voters, and for this reason the Conservative win. In Spain the conservative win(because they have a stable number of voters, what we call the zombie voter) when the left and the "left" leave to go to vote.
Libhater
11-12-2013, 07:06 AM
How come Chris has to apply labels to people. Statist this, socialist that, progressive him, conservative her.
So you've studied philosophy so now people have to fit into these little categories to satiate your conceived ideas of what type of category people are?
I have no problem labeling people for the political and or ideological sway they just happen to portray. The problem with people like you is that you are so insecure with your leftist swing that you tend to run from it like the plague...which of course a plague is what it is. When the shoe (political ideology) fits....WEAR IT, and wear it proudly. You seem perfectly content to present yourself as a happy troll if you will--unwilling to define any type of core principles, or to address the topic of any of these posts in a meaningful manner. You're so hung up on semantics and personal insecurities that you have lost any such credibility as a participant on a political forum. Hey look, you could take the easy way out by calling yourself a moderate, that way you'll always have an out when it comes to taking a principled stand on anything serious.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:07 AM
I am giving feedback. Almost any time you post, you start pulling these labels on to people, which I find very weird... You almost demand that they fit into one of these categories. I am not here for your amusement...
That's not feedback, happy, you're not addressing what I said but the fact that in a discussion of socialism and capitalism and social democracy I use the labels socialism and capitalism and social democracy. Oh you're just using labels is not feedback. It's a cop out.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:16 AM
Yeap, partisanship is a big problem.
In Spain we equiparate it with soccer. People is of a team whatever the team does and they do the same in politics. If you are of the PSOE, you are and if you are of the PP you will vote forever them. However, I have to say that this partisanship is being reduced, and I think it is easier in Spain than in USA. Mainly the PSOE is losing a lot of voters, and for this reason the Conservative win. In Spain the conservative win(because they have a stable number of voters, what we call the zombie voter) when the left and the "left" leave to go to vote.
The problem with parties, whether its PSOE or PE, or Republican or Democrat, is they're in it just for power, and power is corrupting because people will naturally seek political favors. The other part of the problem of partisanship is partisan believe government can solve all their problems when it cannot. In Spain the social democrats promised solutions, got elected, and things got worse, so the conservatives make promises, get elected and raise taxes. In the US you end up with a dysfunctional Obamacare.
Libhater
11-12-2013, 08:40 AM
The problem with parties, whether its PSOE or PE, or Republican or Democrat, is they're in it just for power, and power is corrupting because people will naturally seek political favors.
You've said this before, and it still isn't the truth. Sure there are a few Republicans in office that are just there for the individual power and or bennies they may get for themselves and their family. But do you honestly think that Republican presidents like both the Bushs' and Ronald Reagan were in it for the power? If so, please give us examples of those power grabs. Everyone should know by now that every liberal president was in it for the power, with obummer being the prime example of that.
kilgram
11-12-2013, 10:23 AM
The problem with parties, whether its PSOE or PE, or Republican or Democrat, is they're in it just for power, and power is corrupting because people will naturally seek political favors. The other part of the problem of partisanship is partisan believe government can solve all their problems when it cannot. In Spain the social democrats promised solutions, got elected, and things got worse, so the conservatives make promises, get elected and raise taxes. In the US you end up with a dysfunctional Obamacare.
Well, my analysis is different.
Social democrats promised things, did almost nothing to what was expected that they would do. Even they did the opposite, they started to apply liberal measures. They lost elections, obviously they were punished for not doing what was hoped and betraying the people, and people in their partisanship voted the other evil(worse evil, known by many) and they did what was hoped, apply a conservative government, it is, continuing applying the same liberal policies of the previous government, the supposed Socialdemocrat(lie that only believe it a few, mainly old people) but with more destructive power than the previous.
The problem is that both governments apply the same shit. They agree and vote together in everything that keep them in power, because other parties have tried to reduce their power and make the system more democratic, and obviously they voted against it.
Also other problem are the news that keep this partisanship, and the other options if they are mentioned it is basically to ridiculize them.
Chris
11-12-2013, 10:29 AM
You've said this before, and it still isn't the truth. Sure there are a few Republicans in office that are just there for the individual power and or bennies they may get for themselves and their family. But do you honestly think that Republican presidents like both the Bushs' and Ronald Reagan were in it for the power? If so, please give us examples of those power grabs. Everyone should know by now that every liberal president was in it for the power, with obummer being the prime example of that.
Reagan, I like to think not, but Bushes, definitely, they think they know better what people want and seek only yo force their views on us.
The sequester was about cutting spending, what the Reps argued for was reducing, by a piddling 1.5%, the rate of increased spending.
Chris
11-12-2013, 10:32 AM
Well, my analysis is different.
Social democrats promised things, did almost nothing to what was expected that they would do. Even they did the opposite, they started to apply liberal measures. They lost elections, obviously they were punished for not doing what was hoped and betraying the people, and people in their partisanship voted the other evil(worse evil, known by many) and they did what was hoped, apply a conservative government, it is, continuing applying the same liberal policies of the previous government, the supposed Socialdemocrat(lie that only believe it a few, mainly old people) but with more destructive power than the previous.
The problem is that both governments apply the same shit. They agree and vote together in everything that keep them in power, because other parties have tried to reduce their power and make the system more democratic, and obviously they voted against it.
Also other problem are the news that keep this partisanship, and the other options if they are mentioned it is basically to ridiculize them.
Increasing taxes is not conserving liberty.
Otherwise I think we agree actually on partisanship, "The problem is that both governments apply the same shit." And, yes, the news (MSM) contributes to it as the propaganda arm of government.
http://snag.gy/fWri8.jpg
Just substitute Spain's major parties in the above. Same old same old.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 06:50 PM
I have no problem labeling people for the political and or ideological sway they just happen to portray. The problem with people like you is that you are so insecure with your leftist swing that you tend to run from it like the plague...which of course a plague is what it is. When the shoe (political ideology) fits....WEAR IT, and wear it proudly. You seem perfectly content to present yourself as a happy troll if you will--unwilling to define any type of core principles, or to address the topic of any of these posts in a meaningful manner. You're so hung up on semantics and personal insecurities that you have lost any such credibility as a participant on a political forum. Hey look, you could take the easy way out by calling yourself a moderate, that way you'll always have an out when it comes to taking a principled stand on anything serious.
Only in neocon loon land am I NOT a moderate. I have plenty of principles, but I think it is typically an American (especially right-wing America) to label people, because that is the only way they can interact. God forbid somebody's principles and way they live their lives are complicated and don't fit into a box. That would require thinking. Something that obviously troubles you.
Mainecoons
11-12-2013, 06:52 PM
You're not an America either. You're an obviously bored citizen of a boring little country that thinks his far leftist opinions about someone else's country are intelligent and welcome.
They are neither.
:grin:
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 06:55 PM
That's not feedback, happy, you're not addressing what I said but the fact that in a discussion of socialism and capitalism and social democracy I use the labels socialism and capitalism and social democracy. Oh you're just using labels is not feedback. It's a cop out.
No, I think you like discussing philosophy. One of the tenets of the subject is different ideologies. You are a control freak, and like to push threads in directions that you like. So you start introducing ideologies and label them onto people. If somebody says "I believe in blah, blah, blah" you go "Oh, so you're a Neoconservative, socialist libertarian with fascist tendancies. That means you're a ________ (fill in the blank)". Sorry, Chris, most people don't fit into one ideology. And just because Marx or Confucious or Plato, or their modern counterparts invoked a name to a certain philosophy doesn't mean people fit into it.
IMO, it is you who copping out by trying to limit a person's mores, morals and values by putting into some box that some college-educated intellectual with too much time on their hands invented.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 07:00 PM
You're not an America either. You're an obviously bored citizen of a boring little country that thinks his far leftist opinions about someone else's country are intelligent and welcome.
They are neither.
:grin:
Thanks for your input Mr Xenophobe. I like getting under your skin (cue Maineboy "You're doing no such thing" - which is BS because he/she never gives up an opportunity to get nasty and personal about where somebody is from). FYI, my insignificant country not only gave you the nuclear power (look up Ernest Rutherford - they don't call him the Father of Nuclear Physics for nothing). At least I'm not a nobody from Nowheresville, USA, who is nothing more than a frustrated neocon whackjob who thinks is freedoms are slowly being eroded day by day. And my country is a lot freer than yours will ever be (politically anyway)...
Chris
11-12-2013, 07:04 PM
No, I think you like discussing philosophy. One of the tenets of the subject is different ideologies. You are a control freak, and like to push threads in directions that you like. So you start introducing ideologies and label them onto people. If somebody says "I believe in blah, blah, blah" you go "Oh, so you're a Neoconservative, socialist libertarian with fascist tendancies. That means you're a ________ (fill in the blank)". Sorry, Chris, most people don't fit into one ideology. And just because Marx or Confucious or Plato, or their modern counterparts invoked a name to a certain philosophy doesn't mean people fit into it.
IMO, it is you who copping out by trying to limit a person's mores, morals and values by putting into some box that some college-educated intellectual with too much time on their hands invented.
So you need to make up quotes to criticize? Baloney, happy.
Chris
11-12-2013, 07:06 PM
Thanks for your input Mr Xenophobe. I like getting under your skin (cue Maineboy "You're doing no such thing" - which is BS because he/she never gives up an opportunity to get nasty and personal about where somebody is from). FYI, my insignificant country not only gave you the nuclear power (look up Ernest Rutherford - they don't call him the Father of Nuclear Physics for nothing). At least I'm not a nobody from Nowheresville, USA, who is nothing more than a frustrated neocon whackjob who thinks is freedoms are slowly being eroded day by day. And my country is a lot freer than yours will ever be (politically anyway)...
Speaking of labeling. And trolling.
jillian
11-12-2013, 07:20 PM
You're not an America either. You're an obviously bored citizen of a boring little country that thinks his far leftist opinions about someone else's country are intelligent and welcome.
They are neither.
:grin:
last i heard, you don't live here either.
jillian
11-12-2013, 07:21 PM
So you need to make up quotes to criticize? Baloney, happy.
perhaps a little introspection would do you some good….
that and a good read of your own posts and how they appear to anyone who isn't one of your little acolytes.
jillian
11-12-2013, 07:22 PM
Speaking of labeling. And trolling.
poor chris.
Chris
11-12-2013, 07:25 PM
perhaps a little introspection would do you some good….
that and a good read of your own posts and how they appear to anyone who isn't one of your little acolytes.
Once again you manage to use words but say nothing substantial.
Kilgram wasn't giving me "acolytes" (lol), he was arguing with me, the argument went along fine, he's socialist, I'm libertarian, so we disagree, but also reached points of agreement. I enjoy arguing with him. He has something to say and substantiates it with more than imaginary quotes like happy and vague generalities like you.
Poor jillian.
Chris
11-12-2013, 07:43 PM
poor chris.
Because happy was labeling someone else, and admitting to trolling? Try reading for comprehension and context, jillian.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:06 PM
So you need to make up quotes to criticize? Baloney, happy.
I'm only mirroring your own standards. Hypocrite much?
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:07 PM
Speaking of labeling. And trolling.
He has admitted that he is a Xenophobe in his own posts. I have not admitted to any political philosophy at all...
As for trolling, and the risk of sounding childish - he started it...Why aren't you having a crack at him??
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:09 PM
Once again you manage to use words but say nothing substantial.
Kilgram wasn't giving me "acolytes" (lol), he was arguing with me, the argument went along fine, he's socialist, I'm libertarian, so we disagree, but also reached points of agreement. I enjoy arguing with him. He has something to say and substantiates it with more than imaginary quotes like happy and vague generalities like you.
Poor jillian.
LOL...um, reread Jillian's post with regard to how she has used the term 'acolytes'. If you're going to try and belittle somebody at least get it right...
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:23 PM
I'm only mirroring your own standards. Hypocrite much?
That would make you the hypocrite. You have yet to point out where I do anything of the stuff you're making up to criticize.
jillian
11-12-2013, 08:23 PM
That would make you the hypocrite. You have yet to point out where I do anything of the stuff you're making up to criticize.
again, read your own posts.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:25 PM
He has admitted that he is a Xenophobe in his own posts. I have not admitted to any political philosophy at all...
As for trolling, and the risk of sounding childish - he started it...Why aren't you having a crack at him??
Now you're making things up about Maine. And again, you're being hypocritical for saying he started it and you criticized while doing the same.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:25 PM
again, read your own posts.
Read your own posts, jillian.
Poor jillian.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:26 PM
LOL...um, reread Jillian's post with regard to how she has used the term 'acolytes'. If you're going to try and belittle somebody at least get it right...
Google:
ac·o·lyte
ˈakəˌlīt/Submit
noun
plural noun: acolytes
1.
a person assisting the celebrant in a religious service or procession.
Still, lol.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:31 PM
Google:
ac·o·lyte
ˈakəˌlīt/Submit
noun
plural noun: acolytes
1.
a person assisting the celebrant in a religious service or procession.
Still, lol.
Er, go reread your own post. Certainly looks like you are getting mixed up between the words 'acolyte' and accolade....You said Kilgrim wasn't giving you 'acolytes'. You're right. He wasn't. Jillian never said he was... You can't 'give' acolytes, but you can give accolades. You can have an acolyte (which is what Jillian said)...capice??
And yes, I am laughing at you.
BTW, other people can read y'know (just forewarning you in case you try and make an idiot of yourself again)
jillian
11-12-2013, 08:32 PM
Read your own posts, jillian.
Poor jillian.
not even a little, dear.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:34 PM
Now you're making things up about Maine. And again, you're being hypocritical for saying he started it and you criticized while doing the same.
I'm making things up? His post 75 wasn't xenophobic? So having a go at somebody just because of where they come from isn't xenophobic? Do you want me to post the definition? And when he did nothing but troll my post when I wasn't interacting with him, is NOT him starting something?
This thread is turning into a "Let's Educate Chris Day". You're missing the mark so many times, I'm thinking you must be up too late??
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:36 PM
Er, go reread your own post. Certainly looks like you are getting mixed up between the words 'acolyte' and accolade....You said Kilgrim wasn't giving you 'acolytes'. You're right. He wasn't. Jillian never said he was... You can't 'give' acolytes, but you can give accolades. You can have an acolyte (which is what Jillian said)...capice??
And yes, I am laughing at you.
BTW, other people can read y'know (just forewarning you in case you try and make an idiot of yourself again)
Yawn, now you're reduced to arguing about words. Jillian misused the word, nip at her heels for a while.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:36 PM
Read your own posts, jillian.
Poor jillian.
not even a little, dear.
I don't expect you read them at all.
Chris
11-12-2013, 08:38 PM
I'm making things up? His post 75 wasn't xenophobic? So having a go at somebody just because of where they come from isn't xenophobic? Do you want me to post the definition? And when he did nothing but troll my post when I wasn't interacting with him, is NOT him starting something?
This thread is turning into a "Let's Educate Chris Day". You're missing the mark so many times, I'm thinking you must be up too late??
Obviously that's how you read it. You're just projecting your feelings.
Anyway, yawn. Obviously you have no interesting in discussing socialism, capitalism, social democracy.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:40 PM
Yawn, now you're reduced to arguing about words. Jillian misused the word, nip at her heels for a while.
Well, I warned you. As I said, people can read...
You got caught out and now you're scurrying.
BTW, if you can point out how the word was misused, please do so..
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 08:42 PM
Obviously that's how you read it. You're just projecting your feelings.
Anyway, yawn. Obviously you have no interesting in discussing socialism, capitalism, social democracy.
I'm going 2 and 0 with you today...like shelling peas.
Now, just to continue today's education for you, your above statement has a great example of somebody misusing a word...well, to be more correct, using the wrong word. I think you were looking for 'nothing' maybe? Or was it 'not'. You'd have to move a few words around to make either of them make sense... maybe take the 'ing' off 'nothing'??
Now say thank you to me for educating your ignorant ass...;o)
jillian
11-12-2013, 08:43 PM
Well, I warned you. As I said, people can read...
You got caught out and now you're scurrying.
BTW, if you can point out how the word was misused, please do so..
he can't… but that type of thing is always his last refuge… like complaining about the spelling of the phonetic version of a yiddish word.
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:05 PM
he can't… but that type of thing is always his last refuge… like complaining about the spelling of the phonetic version of a yiddish word.
Poor jillian.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 09:07 PM
Hey J,
I think his last is as close as you will ever get to him admitting he is wrong. Psychopathic behaviour doesn't allow for apologies...
jillian
11-12-2013, 09:08 PM
Hey J,
I think his last is as close as you will ever get to him admitting he is wrong. Psychopathic behaviour doesn't allow for apologies...
i'd like to think that, but he's just aping what i said to him.
he's out of material and really has nothing to say since staying on topic is anathema to him.
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:08 PM
Hey J,
I think his last is as close as you will ever get to him admitting he is wrong. Psychopathic behaviour doesn't allow for apologies...
Poor happy. It is good to see you tag-team trollers back together again.
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:09 PM
i'd like to think that, but he's just aping what i said to him.
he's out of material and really has nothing to say since staying on topic is anathema to him.
Is there an echo in here. You repeat yourself and any criticism directed at you. Poor poor jillian.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 09:11 PM
Poor happy. It is good to see you tag-team trollers back together again.
At least I have a history of admitting when I'm wrong. Doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Instead of going off on a tangent. That truly is psychopathic behaviour. Mind you, if you have a mindset that you are the smartest guy in the room, and it gets disproven, I guess that is a hard hit to take....
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:12 PM
At least I have a history of admitting when I'm wrong. Doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Instead of going off on a tangent. That truly is psychopathic behaviour. Mind you, if you have a mindset that you are the smartest guy in the room, and it gets disproven, I guess that is a hard hit to take....
No, I don't consider myself smart and I'm usually wrong. So once again you're showing yourself of making things up to criticize. Good troll, poor happy.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 09:20 PM
No, I don't consider myself smart and I'm usually wrong. So once again you're showing yourself of making things up to criticize. Good troll, poor happy.
Then why can't you admit you were wrong about the use of the word acolyte. Jillian didn't even come close to using it like you said she did. It is there in black and white. Anybody can see that. Yet, you say nothing, instead you try and spin. Don't get me wrong, in the scheme of things, this example is not life or death. Far from it. I just find it weird that you would be that stubborn as to not go, "yeah, well, I read it wrong" or "I posted too fast without reading it first" or whatever. You insist that she used it in the wrong context, when anybody with even a remedial understanding of the English language can see she didn't. It comes down to credibility. If you are so set on not admitting you are wrong on such a thing, what else have you been saying that is BS?
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:24 PM
perhaps a little introspection would do you some good….
that and a good read of your own posts and how they appear to anyone who isn't one of your little acolytes.
Then why can't you admit you were wrong about the use of the word acolyte. Jillian didn't even come close to using it like you said she did. It is there in black and white. Anybody can see that. Yet, you say nothing, instead you try and spin. Don't get me wrong, in the scheme of things, this example is not life or death. Far from it. I just find it weird that you would be that stubborn as to not go, "yeah, well, I read it wrong" or "I posted too fast without reading it first" or whatever. You insist that she used it in the wrong context, when anybody with even a remedial understanding of the English language can see she didn't. It comes down to credibility. If you are so set on not admitting you are wrong on such a thing, what else have you been saying that is BS?
Jillian misused it. And you, rather than get back to the topic, want to discuss words. The one who admitted he trolls. Speaking of credibility. Give it a rest, you only hoist your own petard.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 09:25 PM
Jillian misused it.
How? That is what I am asking you. Just reposting what she wrote doesn't prove that she misused it. It's just you reposting it. I have no expectation that you will explain 'how' because I doubt you can. Just putting it out there.
Chris
11-12-2013, 09:27 PM
How? That is what I am asking you. Just reposting what she wrote doesn't prove that she misused it. It's just you reposting it. I have no expectation that you will explain 'how' because I doubt you can. Just putting it out there.
Read her post. It makes no sense, she makes no sense, she's got nothing to say, just make up snarky little comments. Should we discuss posting in good faith?
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 09:39 PM
Read her post. It makes no sense, she makes no sense, she's got nothing to say, just make up snarky little comments. Should we discuss posting in good faith?
Ah, now we are getting to the crux. She did not in fact misuse the word at all. Now, the post might have been snarky...but that is open to interpretation. But misusing the word 'acolyte'? Nope, not even close. Now, you may not have liked the fact she used it, and in your opinion she might be wrong (in that you have acolytes), but in her opinion you do, and therefore she did not misuse it.
Well, it's a little hard to talk about good faith when this whole page has been me trying to get you to do so, but you keep on dodging and weaving. I feel like I'll have a nervous breakdown if I ask you what the definition of 'is' is...
Chris
11-12-2013, 10:03 PM
Ah, now we are getting to the crux. She did not in fact misuse the word at all. Now, the post might have been snarky...but that is open to interpretation. But misusing the word 'acolyte'? Nope, not even close. Now, you may not have liked the fact she used it, and in your opinion she might be wrong (in that you have acolytes), but in her opinion you do, and therefore she did not misuse it.
Well, it's a little hard to talk about good faith when this whole page has been me trying to get you to do so, but you keep on dodging and weaving. I feel like I'll have a nervous breakdown if I ask you what the definition of 'is' is...
Earlier today I had an enjoyable, interesting learning discussion with kilgram and some others about socialism, capitalism, social democracy, as I have been doing with kilgrim, a socialist, since he arrived here a month or so ago, during it I repeated cautioned about differences in European and US meanings of the labels and so we each defined what we meant and gave examples. I look forward to having many more discussions with kilgram, as well as other socialists like Who and Green of the same caliber.
Since then you and jillian have done nothing to contribute to the topic but to degenerate it into petty bickering about a word.
I'm really not worried about my reputation. You might be.
God night. I leave you to stew as long and late as you please.
Mr Happy
11-12-2013, 10:34 PM
Earlier today I had an enjoyable, interesting learning discussion with kilgram and some others about socialism, capitalism, social democracy, as I have been doing with kilgrim, a socialist, since he arrived here a month or so ago, during it I repeated cautioned about differences in European and US meanings of the labels and so we each defined what we meant and gave examples. I look forward to having many more discussions with kilgram, as well as other socialists like Who and Green of the same caliber.
Since then you and jillian have done nothing to contribute to the topic but to degenerate it into petty bickering about a word.
I'm really not worried about my reputation. You might be.
God night. I leave you to stew as long and late as you please.
Translation: I refuse to admit I'm wrong, so will change the subject.
It's 2 in the afternoon here...
pjohns
11-13-2013, 01:35 AM
Social democracy died in the 90s.
And the evidence for that would be...what, exactly?
pjohns
11-13-2013, 01:40 AM
If it was, we'd have a national healthcare system by now.
As thoroughly as I oppose such a healthcare system (similar to what currently exists in, say, Canada or the UK), I would find it far preferable to ObamaCare.
Those who view ObamaCare as a compromise between the two systems are either delusional or intellectually dishonest. (A rational case may be advanced in favor of national healthcare--I very much disagree with its conclusions; but it is an intellectually honest case, nonetheless--but no rational argument may be made that ObamaCare is the best of all possible healthcare systems...)
roadmaster
11-13-2013, 02:02 AM
Most Dr.s will refuse to perform assisted suicides. They will allow you to die without machines but you can't ask them to kill you. Just like you can't run to a regular hospital and tell them to kill your unborn child if it's not a life threatening situation.
jillian
11-13-2013, 06:07 AM
Jillian misused it. And you, rather than get back to the topic, want to discuss words. The one who admitted he trolls. Speaking of credibility. Give it a rest, you only hoist your own petard.
no. i didn't. and your starting that kind of patented chris troll is proof positive that you have zero to say.
perhaps a little introspection would do you some good….
that and a good read of your own posts and how they appear to anyone who isn't one of your little acolytes.
His acolytes. Perfect description of what I call the little chrissies, though I'm not allowed to say that because somehow the word chrissie offends chris.
zelmo1234
11-13-2013, 06:35 AM
While I can't agree that euthanasia should be used on children under the age of consent, I think the government has no business getting in the way of adults who want to have this option rather than extreme suffering and/or demeaning decline in their last few years. This is just more government interference in what should be private matters.
I have no problems with appropriate safeguards being required but in the end, it is my life, not government's. We treat our pets far better than we treat ourselves when it comes to this matter.
I actually agree with you but with one exception? Insurance companies should not be required to pay death benefits for those that take their own life and have not had their policy, or up graded with in the last five years.
No person should be able to go a take a life insurance policy for 3 million and then kill themselves
I actually agree with you but with one exception? Insurance companies should not be required to pay death benefits for those that take their own life and have not had their policy, or up graded with in the last five years.
No person should be able to go a take a life insurance policy for 3 million and then kill themselves
So you'd force them to suffer for three months longer? That must be what is meant by compassionate conservatism.
zelmo1234
11-13-2013, 06:49 AM
Government is nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business. Stop business and you stop government. Stop government and .... what?
This is easy, you free up the free market to create new and exciting industries, find ways to compete with imports and make energy choice that reduce the cost for all!
In short you jump start this stagnant economy and put people back to work and begin changing those that have become dependent to those with personal responsibility, and working toward a brighter future!
That is what getting rid of government is about!
jillian
11-13-2013, 07:18 AM
This is easy, you free up the free market to create new and exciting industries, find ways to compete with imports and make energy choice that reduce the cost for all!
In short you jump start this stagnant economy and put people back to work and begin changing those that have become dependent to those with personal responsibility, and working toward a brighter future!
That is what getting rid of government is about!
In other words, you do nothing and have more supply side economic failure.
nathanbforrest45
11-13-2013, 07:34 AM
How come Chris has to apply labels to people. Statist this, socialist that, progressive him, conservative her.
So you've studied philosophy so now people have to fit into these little categories to satiate your conceived ideas of what type of category people are?
Why do progressives hate to be identified for what they are?
nathanbforrest45
11-13-2013, 07:41 AM
Hey J,
I think his last is as close as you will ever get to him admitting he is wrong. Psychopathic behaviour doesn't allow for apologies...
Another mark of the progressive. When all else fails mark your opponent as mentally unbalanced.
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:12 AM
Social democracy died in the 90s.....
And the evidence for that would be...what, exactly?
I think kilgram is talking about Europe where it did start dying in the 90s and being replaced by more conservative governments--conservative by European standards.
From the 40s there raged a great debate with the socialists over how socialism could solve the economic calculation (Mises) and coordination (Hayek) problems. In the 90s the socialists conceded the debated and switched goals from pubic ownership of capital to management of capitalism, ie, social democracy. It was then that social democracy started failing in Europe, and then that here in the US the likes of Obama, Reich, Krugman embraced it.
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:20 AM
This is easy, you free up the free market to create new and exciting industries, find ways to compete with imports and make energy choice that reduce the cost for all!
In short you jump start this stagnant economy and put people back to work and begin changing those that have become dependent to those with personal responsibility, and working toward a brighter future!
That is what getting rid of government is about!
In other words, you do nothing and have more supply side economic failure.
Another canned and irrelevant response. Nothing zelmo said had anything to do with supply side economics. Freeing up the market would mean following a policy of economic freedom, getting government out of regulating and taxing the economy. He specifically says "That is what getting rid of government is about!" It would be the exact opposite of, for example, Obama's crony corporatist supply side policies, or Bush's, can't tell them apart on that score, both sucking the lifeblood out of the poor and middle classes and making the rich richer.
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:21 AM
Why do progressives hate to be identified for what they are?
I've often wondered the same. Why be progressive if you don't others to know.
Libhater
11-13-2013, 08:49 AM
Why do progressives hate to be identified for what they are?
Many of my posts here expose that very theme as to why leftists run from their appropriate labels such as liberals, progressives, communists and or socialists. Not one of them has the guts to stand up to their belief system by recognizing and standing firm on their anti American views. Sad but true.
patrickt
11-13-2013, 09:07 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bladimz http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=420574#post420574) "Government is nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business. Stop business and you stop government. Stop government and .... what?"
What? What springs from you silly false premise? The leftists are determined to stop business, aren't they, Blad, so why don't you tell us what? When all business is dead and the government runs everything, what do we have? USSR. Cambodia. Cuba. Venezuela.
Chris
11-13-2013, 09:39 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bladimz http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=420574#post420574) "Government is nothing but a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business. Stop business and you stop government. Stop government and .... what?"
What? What springs from you silly false premise? The leftists are determined to stop business, aren't they, Blad, so why don't you tell us what? When all business is dead and the government runs everything, what do we have? USSR. Cambodia. Cuba. Venezuela.
And when they kill business, the source of wealth, where will they get the funds to pay for their liberal progressive socialist agenda?
pjohns
11-13-2013, 02:36 PM
So you'd force them to suffer for three months longer?
To take out a life-insurance policy, with the foreknowledge that one is about to depart this Earthly existence, is very close, I think, to being a matter of fraud; and, since life-insurance companies (like all other companies in a capitalist society) are in business for the purpose of making money--not acting as social workers might--it stands to reason that this would cut considerably into these companies' profit margins, thereby prompting them to raise premiums; which would not be a good thing for everyone else.
That is, unless you happen to hew to egalitarian doctrine, and therefore feel quite sanguine about discomfiting the majority a bit, if one's doing so would benefit the minority...
That must be what is meant by compassionate conservatism.
It would probably be preferable for one to avoid taking cheap shots...
:rolleyes:
An insurance company isn't going to offer life insurance to someone with a terminal illness.
pjohns
11-13-2013, 02:54 PM
I think kilgram is talking about Europe where it did start dying in the 90s and being replaced by more conservative governments--conservative by European standards.
True. But some of that progress has been reversed in more recent times. For instance, the (relatively) conservative former President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, was replaced, about a year-and-a-half ago, by the less-conservative Francois Hollande.
From the 40s there raged a great debate with the socialists over how socialism could solve the economic calculation (Mises) and coordination (Hayek) problems. In the 90s the socialists conceded the debated and switched goals from pubic ownership of capital to management of capitalism, ie, social democracy. It was then that social democracy started failing in Europe, and then that here in the US the likes of Obama, Reich, Krugman embraced it.
This is a very trenchant analysis.
Still, I cannot help but chuckle at the typo (as regarding which, I have made my share) that was doubtless intended to read, "public ownership"...
pjohns
11-13-2013, 02:58 PM
:rolleyes:
An insurance company isn't going to offer life insurance to someone with a terminal illness.
But the person in question might not be suffering from "a terminal illness." What if he (or she) were simply very depressed--but not yet diagnosed as suffering from clinical depression--and fully intended to commit suicide, just as soon as the life-insurance policy could be purchased and put into effect?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 05:24 PM
Why do progressives hate to be identified for what they are?
I never even heard the term before coming here. Still dunno what it means. A derogatory term for Libs by Cons???
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 05:27 PM
Another mark of the progressive. When all else fails mark your opponent as mentally unbalanced.
no, it is a clinical condition. When one fails to admit they are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yes, I call that a mental problem. Remember, this is not some philosophical principle or ideal we're discussing. We are talking about the meaning and definition of a word. There is no might or maybe, it is a straight forward yes or no. Either the word was used correctly or not. It was. It is there for all to see. Let me put it this way. If you were to say to me that Obama was the president of the US, and I said he wasn't - and I truly, utterly believed that to be the case - you'd think me a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, right?
Chris
11-13-2013, 05:31 PM
I never even heard the term before coming here. Still dunno what it means. A derogatory term for Libs by Cons???
Wikipedia might get you started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism:
Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread from Europe to across the world.[1] Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than...the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years." and defines five "crucial premises" of Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth.[2]...
As for Australia the meaning of the label seems to differ some:
Australia
In the past few years, the term "progressive" has been used in Australia to refer to what used to be called "The Third Way."[citation needed] The term is popular in Australia, and it is often used in place of "social liberal." The term "liberalism" has become associated with free markets and small government; in other words "classical liberalism." Progressivism is used to differentiate between the two-party political system of the classical-economic liberal Liberal Party[citation needed] and the protectionist-working class Labor Party.[citation needed]
The Australian Greens represent the third largest political party in the country, polling around 12%[13][14] with 9 senators and one newly elected member of the Australian House of Representatives (elected in the 2010 Australian federal election). The party espouses progressive ideologies, together with grassroots democracy and participatory democracy.[citation needed]
See in article a little low on US.
Chris
11-13-2013, 05:32 PM
no, it is a clinical condition. When one fails to admit they are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yes, I call that a mental problem. Remember, this is not some philosophical principle or ideal we're discussing. We are talking about the meaning and definition of a word. There is no might or maybe, it is a straight forward yes or no. Either the word was used correctly or not. It was. It is there for all to see. Let me put it this way. If you were to say to me that Obama was the president of the US, and I said he wasn't - and I truly, utterly believed that to be the case - you'd think me a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, right?
Look up psychologist fallacy.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 05:37 PM
Wikipedia might get you started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism:
As for Australia the meaning of the label seems to differ some:
See in article a little low on US.
More meanings and terms that label people/ideals. How would you ever survive without pigeon holing people?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 05:38 PM
Look up psychologist fallacy.
More definitions wanted. Wow. Not a fallacy when it is true. So, you still think Jillian misused the word, or is your ego too fragile to admit it?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 05:39 PM
Wikipedia might get you started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism:
As for Australia the meaning of the label seems to differ some:
See in article a little low on US.
BTW, which part of so-called progressivism is bad? Which parts don't you like?
Chris
11-13-2013, 05:45 PM
More meanings and terms that label people/ideals. How would you ever survive without pigeon holing people?
All those are labels, happy. We communicate with them. You've now reduced yourself to criticizing using words on a forum.
Chris
11-13-2013, 05:52 PM
BTW, which part of so-called progressivism is bad? Which parts don't you like?
I didn't say, just gave you a definition of the label, which, now, you use and want me to use to discuss it. Well, let's try. To me there are two problems with progressivism. One is the belief in progress. What progress? Sure, we see materialistic progress all around us, but what about moral progress? The other problem is means, and that is the use of political means, legislation, coercion to try and implement progress--if this vision of progress was so good why does it need to be coerced, wouldn't people naturally follow it? Probably not, because people have not progressed--and neither have those who govern. If man is to change it won't be designed but emergent.
Libhater
11-13-2013, 06:54 PM
All those are labels, happy. We communicate with them. You've now reduced yourself to criticizing using words on a forum.
Look, this is a guy that deals in semantics with every posting because he has absolutely nothing to offer.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 07:01 PM
All those are labels, happy. We communicate with them. You've now reduced yourself to criticizing using words on a forum.
I'm criticising the generic labelling of people when most people don't fit into one category or the other..
Chris
11-13-2013, 07:04 PM
I'm criticising the generic labelling of people when most people don't fit into one category or the other..
I label Franco a fascist and that bothered you?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 07:05 PM
I didn't say, just gave you a definition of the label, which, now, you use and want me to use to discuss it. Well, let's try. To me there are two problems with progressivism. One is the belief in progress. What progress? Sure, we see materialistic progress all around us, but what about moral progress? The other problem is means, and that is the use of political means, legislation, coercion to try and implement progress--if this vision of progress was so good why does it need to be coerced, wouldn't people naturally follow it? Probably not, because people have not progressed--and neither have those who govern. If man is to change it won't be designed but emergent.
So are you saying the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing? Or Women's Suffrage? Or Child Labour Laws? Or EPA regulations? Or FDA regs? I'm not too sure what you are getting at. The reasons these things 'progressed' into law, is that left to their own devices those in charge will not change a thing. Just ask George Wallace...
Now, if you are not happy how it is done, what would your alternative be?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 07:09 PM
I label Franco a fascist and that bothered you?
Sorry, I will amend.
I'm criticising the generic labelling of people on this board when most people don't fit into one category or the other..
Chris
11-13-2013, 07:09 PM
So are you saying the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing? Or Women's Suffrage? Or Child Labour Laws? Or EPA regulations? Or FDA regs? I'm not too sure what you are getting at. The reasons these things 'progressed' into law, is that left to their own devices those in charge will not change a thing. Just ask George Wallace...
Now, if you are not happy how it is done, what would your alternative be?
Where did I say any of that? Why does every attempt at discussion with you end up with you inventing what I said and then criticising what you invented?
AmazonTania
11-13-2013, 07:26 PM
So are you saying the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing? Or Women's Suffrage? Or Child Labour Laws? Or EPA regulations? Or FDA regs? I'm not too sure what you are getting at. The reasons these things 'progressed' into law, is that left to their own devices those in charge will not change a thing. Just ask George Wallace...
Um, no.
Child Labour was made illegal simply because during the Great Depression adults were so desperate for work, they were willing to accept wages offered to children. FDA regulations implied on drug innovation and work as defacto protectionism for large pharmectual companies. Civil Rights Act simply a government correction of a government endorsed segregation campaign. And there was really nothing controversial about women suffrage. Women during that era were not involved in society as actively as they were today. They weren't workers, business owners, or part of the military. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have any input on any of these things at the time.
The fact is, as living standards rise, so does the expectations of society and the economy. This happened all over the world, without it being mandated into law.
Chris
11-13-2013, 07:31 PM
Um, no.
Child Labour was made illegal simply because during the Great Depression adults were so desperate for work, they were willing to except wages offered to children. FDA regulations implied on drug innovation and work as defacto protectionism for large pharmectual companies. Civil Rights Act simply a government correction of a government endorsed segregation campaign. And there was really nothing controversial about women suffrage. Women during that era were not involved in society as actively as they were today. They weren't workers, business owners, or part of the military. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have any input on any of these things at the time.
The fact is, as living standards rise, so does the expectations of society and the economy. This happened all over the world, without it being mandated into law.
In fact none of those things happened without society first changing and the law fell in behind, to the great resistance of Progressives--it was progressive Democrats who resisted civil rights to the bitter end, filibustering the act in a last grandstanding.
More definitions wanted. Wow. Not a fallacy when it is true. So, you still think Jillian misused the word, or is your ego too fragile to admit it?
Yes
jillian
11-13-2013, 08:13 PM
More definitions wanted. Wow. Not a fallacy when it is true. So, you still think Jillian misused the word, or is your ego too fragile to admit it?
psychologist fallacy? lmao… has nothing to do with my telling him he should engage in introspection.
lololololololololololol
but what did happen was his deflecting and changing the thread to something *he* wants it to be about.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 08:31 PM
Where did I say any of that? Why does every attempt at discussion with you end up with you inventing what I said and then criticising what you invented?
But they were all progress, were they not? Of do they not fit your definition? You were the one who brought legislation etc into the conversation. They are not part of it? Is that what you are saying?
How come everytime I ask you a reasonable question you weave and dodge?
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:33 PM
psychologist fallacy? lmao… has nothing to do with my telling him he should engage in introspection.
lololololololololololol
but what did happen was his deflecting and changing the thread to something *he* wants it to be about.
What are you babbling about now, jill?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 08:33 PM
Um, no.
Child Labour was made illegal simply because during the Great Depression adults were so desperate for work, they were willing to accept wages offered to children. FDA regulations implied on drug innovation and work as defacto protectionism for large pharmectual companies. Civil Rights Act simply a government correction of a government endorsed segregation campaign. And there was really nothing controversial about women suffrage. Women during that era were not involved in society as actively as they were today. They weren't workers, business owners, or part of the military. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have any input on any of these things at the time.
The fact is, as living standards rise, so does the expectations of society and the economy. This happened all over the world, without it being mandated into law.
I've never stated otherwise. What I am stating is they are part of progress as defined by Chris. See his post 145. Specifically "The other problem is means, and that is the use of political means, legislation, coercion to try and implement progress--if this vision of progress was so good why does it need to be coerced, wouldn't people naturally follow it? "
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:35 PM
But they were all progress, were they not? Of do they not fit your definition? You were the one who brought legislation etc into the conversation. They are not part of it? Is that what you are saying?
How come everytime I ask you a reasonable question you weave and dodge?
My definition? I gave no definition, you asked for criticism of progressivism, I gave it, then you made an unrelated leap of imagination to invent things I don't think.
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:39 PM
I've never stated otherwise. What I am stating is they are part of progress as defined by Chris. See his post 145. Specifically "The other problem is means, and that is the use of political means, legislation, coercion to try and implement progress--if this vision of progress was so good why does it need to be coerced, wouldn't people naturally follow it? "
I didn't define progressivism. Post 145 was an answer to your question about why I dislike progressivism. Your response was to invent things as if I'd said them. Let me know when you have something to say about my criticism.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 08:42 PM
My definition? I gave no definition, you asked for criticism of progressivism, I gave it, then you made an unrelated leap of imagination to invent things I don't think.
When one criticises something, one naturally takes it that they don't like it, especially in this context. You said there were two reasons you had problems with it - the belief in progress - specifically moral progression. You then talked about the means and political means by coercion to instill progress.
How can I not take from what you said to be what I thought you said. If I'm wrong, please expand on what you meant..
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:46 PM
When one criticises something, one naturally takes it that they don't like it, especially in this context. You said there were two reasons you had problems with it - the belief in progress - specifically moral progression. You then talked about the means and political means by coercion to instill progress.
How can I not take from what you said to be what I thought you said. If I'm wrong, please expand on what you meant..
Yes, I criticised progressivism.
How can I not take from what you said to be what I thought you said.
How can you. Explain.
If I'm wrong, please expand on what you meant..
Already have. Return to both amazon's response and my response to amazon.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 08:53 PM
I didn't define progressivism. Post 145 was an answer to your question about why I dislike progressivism. Your response was to invent things as if I'd said them. Let me know when you have something to say about my criticism.
Chris, I've given an explanation of how I see your posting style, and it is why I once had you on ignore. But I'll give the example again, just so you know how I see you and why I rarely engage. You use semantics all the time and allude to things then deny you are doing such.
Example:
Chris: "I hate those birds that have webbed feet, a bill, swim in the water and get hunted for sport. And they go "quack".
Happy: "Oh, you mean a duck!"
Chris: "I never said that."
I think it pretty pedantic of you. You know what I mean, but continue to dodge and weave...
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 08:56 PM
Um, no.
Child Labour was made illegal simply because during the Great Depression adults were so desperate for work, they were willing to accept wages offered to children. FDA regulations implied on drug innovation and work as defacto protectionism for large pharmectual companies. Civil Rights Act simply a government correction of a government endorsed segregation campaign. And there was really nothing controversial about women suffrage. Women during that era were not involved in society as actively as they were today. They weren't workers, business owners, or part of the military. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have any input on any of these things at the time.
The fact is, as living standards rise, so does the expectations of society and the economy. This happened all over the world, without it being mandated into law.
Everything you have said does not negate anything I said, if you take Chris's criticism into account. Some of your answers are pretty shallow and reaching for straws - especially women's suffrage. Or are you saying that them getting the vote wasn't progress?
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:56 PM
Chris, I've given an explanation of how I see your posting style, and it is why I once had you on ignore. But I'll give the example again, just so you know how I see you and why I rarely engage. You use semantics all the time and allude to things then deny you are doing such.
Example:
Chris: "I hate those birds that have webbed feet, a bill, swim in the water and get hunted for sport. And they go "quack".
Happy: "Oh, you mean a duck!"
Chris: "I never said that."
I think it pretty pedantic of you. You know what I mean, but continue to dodge and weave...
Psychologist fallacy again. Really not interested in how you distort things and then try to justify it with poor analogies. Like I said a few posts ago i said I would try to discuss progressivism with you. You're once again off on a tangent of your own inventions. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Chris
11-13-2013, 08:59 PM
Everything you have said does not negate anything I said, if you take Chris's criticism into account. Some of your answers are pretty shallow and reaching for straws - especially women's suffrage. Or are you saying that them getting the vote wasn't progress?
You're doing the same thing to amazon. Inventing what she things with the implication of your question.
Ever think it might be your approach to discussion that's failing?
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 09:10 PM
Psychologist fallacy again. Really not interested in how you distort things and then try to justify it with poor analogies. Like I said a few posts ago i said I would try to discuss progressivism with you. You're once again off on a tangent of your own inventions. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Dodge, weave, avoid...
Off you go then...
Captain Obvious
11-13-2013, 09:13 PM
Dodge, weave, avoid...
Off you go then...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw
Chris
11-13-2013, 09:14 PM
Dodge, weave, avoid...
Off you go then...
You're still making things up. I'm still here, waiting for you to actually engage in discussion. Any time you want to contribute, I'll respond.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 09:20 PM
You're still making things up. I'm still here, waiting for you to actually engage in discussion. Any time you want to contribute, I'll respond.
I did engage you. I expanded on your answer by asking you questions (reread my post to you after your response about why you were not keen on progressive). Note they were questions, not putting things in your mouth.
I disagreed with AT answer and thought it shallow and did not really address my post. (IMO of course)
jillian
11-13-2013, 09:22 PM
You're doing the same thing to amazon. Inventing what she things with the implication of your question.
Ever think it might be your approach to discussion that's failing?
^^^^^^
projection
Chris
11-13-2013, 09:34 PM
I did engage you. I expanded on your answer by asking you questions (reread my post to you after your response about why you were not keen on progressive). Note they were questions, not putting things in your mouth.
I disagreed with AT answer and thought it shallow and did not really address my post. (IMO of course)
You expanded on what I said with your thinking as if it were mine, and then criticised your own thinking. Sorry, but twisting what someone says into what they didn't and then criticizing your own twisting is transparent sophistry.
You did the same to amazon.
Chris
11-13-2013, 09:35 PM
^^^^^^
projection
Substantiate by showing where I invent straw men, jillian. Put your money where your mouth is.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 10:38 PM
You expanded on what I said with your thinking as if it were mine, and then criticised your own thinking. Sorry, but twisting what someone says into what they didn't and then criticizing your own twisting is transparent sophistry.
You did the same to amazon.
I am not putting words in your mouth. You said what you said and I addressed that. You said why you didn't like progressive, I gave you suppositions on why you said that, and you then claimed that was putting words in your mouth. They were questions because I wanted you to expand on your answer, or at least explain or clarify, neither of which you seem to want to do? Why? Maybe the conversation has gone past your ability to explain, or maybe you don't give a shit, or maybe you have a comprehension problem. Buggered if I know...
AT gave her opinion on what I said. I vehemently disagree with her on what she said and think her answers shallow. At the end of the day, you fail to answer yet again. I have asked you to expand on your answer and you unwilling to do so. Again. it gets rather boorish to be honest.
Have a good day, I'm done wasting my time on this with you...
Blackrook
11-13-2013, 10:38 PM
The nature of my job requires that I work with end of life patients. I don't know many who wouldn't prefer the option of assisted suicide and I'm sure some doctors have done it under the table at some point. As for terminal children, it's not about inconvenience. It's about watching your precious child go through an immense amount of pain, sometimes for months on end. A newborn with birth defects so disabling they aren't expected to live past 3 months with hydrocephalus so bad that their head has to be constantly tilted to avoid them suffocating on their own spit and compressed airway, just waiting for the eventual death. A 14 year old diagnosed with terminal cancer who loses her sense of dignity in the final weeks where her parents have to change her depends and wash her, to say nothing of the pain. There are not many parents who would consent to assisted suicide for their child - in fact, getting them to the point of acceptance to permit a DNR is a battle probably 90% of the time because they don't want to let go even if their child wants nothing more.
My job has changed how I view assisted suicide. It's not about a disregard for the sanctity of human life, it's about people who know they're going to die and want to outline a plan for saving themselves from significant pain, suffering and loss of dignity, as well as wishing that their family not have to suffer more or longer than necessary. If a person wants to end their life before they reach a certain point in their end of life care, it should be their decision and physicians should be allowed to help them so it's as painless and peaceful as possible.
And the Nazis made the same arguments and started rounding up all the "useless eaters" i.e. the handicapped, the mentally challenged, the autistic, the terminally ill. They put them in the backs of trucks that were rigged to pipe carbon monoxide into the cargo area. Then they drove the trucks around a few blocks and all the people in the trucks died. This happened under the noses of the German and Austrian people before the war started. You are basically saying we should get started and do the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van)
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 11:15 PM
And the Nazis made the same arguments and started rounding up all the "useless eaters" i.e. the handicapped, the mentally challenged, the autistic, the terminally ill. They put them in the backs of trucks that were rigged to pipe carbon monoxide into the cargo area. Then they drove the trucks around a few blocks and all the people in the trucks died. This happened under the noses of the German and Austrian people before the war started. You are basically saying we should get started and do the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van)
no she's not.
Chris
11-13-2013, 11:19 PM
I am not putting words in your mouth. You said what you said and I addressed that. You said why you didn't like progressive, I gave you suppositions on why you said that, and you then claimed that was putting words in your mouth. They were questions because I wanted you to expand on your answer, or at least explain or clarify, neither of which you seem to want to do? Why? Maybe the conversation has gone past your ability to explain, or maybe you don't give a shit, or maybe you have a comprehension problem. Buggered if I know...
AT gave her opinion on what I said. I vehemently disagree with her on what she said and think her answers shallow. At the end of the day, you fail to answer yet again. I have asked you to expand on your answer and you unwilling to do so. Again. it gets rather boorish to be honest.
Have a good day, I'm done wasting my time on this with you...
Same old same old, psychological fallacy, you're full of yourself.
Chris
11-13-2013, 11:22 PM
And the Nazis made the same arguments and started rounding up all the "useless eaters" i.e. the handicapped, the mentally challenged, the autistic, the terminally ill. They put them in the backs of trucks that were rigged to pipe carbon monoxide into the cargo area. Then they drove the trucks around a few blocks and all the people in the trucks died. This happened under the noses of the German and Austrian people before the war started. You are basically saying we should get started and do the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van)
And the Nazi's got it from American Progressives and their misconceptions about survival of the fittest and arguments for euthanasia.
What Adelaide's talking about though is not that.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 11:30 PM
Same old same old, psychological fallacy, you're full of yourself.
Says the guy who always bobs, weaves and avoids questions when the going gets hard or are not to his liking...
Chris
11-13-2013, 11:36 PM
Says the guy who always bobs, weaves and avoids questions when the going gets hard or are not to his liking...
And there you go making things up again, making things up that contradict even your own words. In your previous post you said I in response to your question: "You said why you didn't like progressive [sic]." I can't both be true that I didn't answer and that I did. And everyone knows I did. Therefore, Q.E.D., you like to make things up to criticize. You're arguing with yourself, happy, you're full of yourself.
Mr Happy
11-13-2013, 11:54 PM
And there you go making things up again, making things up that contradict even your own words. In your previous post you said I in response to your question: "You said why you didn't like progressive [sic]." I can't both be true that I didn't answer and that I did. And everyone knows I did. Therefore, Q.E.D., you like to make things up to criticize. You're arguing with yourself, happy, you're full of yourself.
I never said you didn't answer ALL questions, just the one that matters. Yet again, you are wrong. Hey, I wouldn't start pointing out typos if I were you, you don't even know when a word is used correctly (acolyte anyone?)
Blackrook
11-14-2013, 12:07 AM
Once you start euthanizing people, it will never stop. Our experience with abortion proves that. Clinton said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." And yet, we abort every child in three.
If euthanasia starts rolling it will put an end to all medical treatment for the elderly, the mentally ill, autistics, and anyone else who is inconvenient. This is already happening in the Netherlands.
fyrenza
11-14-2013, 12:14 AM
@Blackrook ~ links?
(if you need some help with them, i'd be more than happy,
but you've sort of got to back up statements like that, you know? ;) )
Blackrook
11-14-2013, 12:23 AM
OK, I was wrong about one in three pregnancies ending in abortion. It's more like one in four.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/santorum-wrong-on-abortion-birth-facts/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/santorum-wrong-on-abortion-birth-facts/)
So I guess that's a little better. It means we're murdering one fourth of all our children and tossing them into the incinerator.
The pro-aborts are now going about telling us that one in three women will have an abortion in their life. Like that's a good thing.
http://www.1in3campaign.org/ (http://www.1in3campaign.org/)
What that tells me is that one-third of women, and an equal number of men, are stone-cold killers. If murder were legal, they would probably do that too.
fyrenza
11-14-2013, 12:28 AM
What a sad commentary on humanity. <sigh>
fyrenza
11-14-2013, 12:28 AM
Oh, yeah ~ but I was actually talking about the Netherlands thang.
Mr Happy
11-14-2013, 02:36 AM
Once you start euthanizing people, it will never stop. Our experience with abortion proves that. Clinton said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." And yet, we abort every child in three.
If euthanasia starts rolling it will put an end to all medical treatment for the elderly, the mentally ill, autistics, and anyone else who is inconvenient. This is already happening in the Netherlands.
Alarmist pap....
Blackrook
11-14-2013, 02:50 AM
Alarmist pap....You know nothing about the topic of euthanasia in the Netherlands and yet express an opinion, which is based on total ignorance. Let me enlighten you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/360668/euthanasia-blind-netherlands-wesley-j-smith (http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/360668/euthanasia-blind-netherlands-wesley-j-smith)
fyrenza
11-14-2013, 05:10 AM
I have friends ...
(i know ~ likely story, BUT)
lots of folks in other countries learn English and it's nice to talk to folks that live THERE, about there.
Just reading these articles/news stories isn't like Being There.
jillian
11-14-2013, 05:27 AM
@Blackrook ~ links?
(if you need some help with them, i'd be more than happy,
but you've sort of got to back up statements like that, you know? ;) )
except that there has always been abortion….
and the rest of what he says is his "opinion"… so what are you going to help him with? *your* opinion?
Chris
11-14-2013, 08:19 AM
except that there has always been abortion….
and the rest of what he says is his "opinion"… so what are you going to help him with? *your* opinion?
Naturalistic fallacy. There had always been slavery too, but that never justified it. There have always been wars and killing and theft and nasty snarky people, but that being so doesn't justify it.
Mr Happy
11-14-2013, 06:28 PM
You know nothing about the topic of euthanasia in the Netherlands and yet express an opinion, which is based on total ignorance. Let me enlighten you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/360668/euthanasia-blind-netherlands-wesley-j-smith (http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/360668/euthanasia-blind-netherlands-wesley-j-smith)
A link with no sources or links itself to back up an opinion piece. File this under 'must try harder'...
Mr Happy
11-14-2013, 06:29 PM
Naturalistic fallacy. There had always been slavery too, but that never justified it. There have always been wars and killing and theft and nasty snarky people, but that being so doesn't justify it.
Now whose putting words in peoples' mouths. I don't see Jillian justifying anything. Just stating a fact. You know what those are, right?
Chris
11-14-2013, 06:37 PM
Now whose putting words in peoples' mouths. I don't see Jillian justifying anything. Just stating a fact. You know what those are, right?
She presented a fact in attempt to justify it: "except that there has always been abortion…. ". Explain how the fact justifies anything. Get around the naturalistic fallacy if you can.
Mr Happy
11-14-2013, 10:02 PM
She presented a fact in attempt to justify it: "except that there has always been abortion…. ". Explain how the fact justifies anything. Get around the naturalistic fallacy if you can.
Did she? Are you a mind-reader now? what a hypocrite..
Are 'naturalistic fallacy' you buzzwords of the day? Have they replaced "hoist your own petard"...?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.