Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
I don't see how you can guess a person's team by your theory but I guess you'll tell us eventually.
Created:
Posted in:
As far as theme goes we aren't going to be able to discern anything until we see multiple flips, but at least one. Unvote oromagi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Any of you 2 claim the Seattle Seahawks?
I don't think there are going to be any counter-claims to characters because the mod said he gave scum a pool of teams to pick from iirc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You claiming Falcons doesn't help us figure out theme at all right now. We need to see flips.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh just saw that Chris claimed. Well I gotta sign off for now so just disregard my comments about him then. BBL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
My first guess for theme split was "hated" teams as scum, specifically teams that Tom Brady was on. The Patriots make sense as scum because of deflategate and Bill Belichick just being generally unlikeable. Plus they dominated the AFC East for so long and were considered a shoo-in to the playoffs. Tom Brady was easy to hate (though has become much more likeable since going to TB imo). So my first thought was that Pats and Bucs could be scum. Now I'm not so sure because the mafia might have 3 players out of 12. If the game has two mafia and one TP though it could still fit.
Your bird theory is wrong; my team isn't a bird and I'm town. Also there only like 3 teams with bird names I can think off from the top of my head (unless you're saying birds are scum). I don't think there's a division or conference split.
I have to sign off now but just wanted to throw in (again) I really don't know how I feel about the Falcons as hated. There are just so many other teams that fit the hated role. Cowboys are voted the #1 most hated team in the NFL in like every poll despite being "America's team." Maybe that's why they're hated lol. The Patriots are also highly disliked, the Raiders are really unpopular and have the stigma of being a pretty gritty and aggressive team, and the Falcons aren't KNOWN for choking as like a long-term stigma. They choked in a random game against the Cowboys and of course in the Superbowl vs. the Pats, but other than that nobody really think about them.
It's too early to know who I wanna vote for but I did list my concerns about Parrot and Chris. I'd like to get some more analysis out of Oro other than just lists. We can start discussion now and Chris should post his division ASAP. There are 4 people I read kinda town but don't feel the need to list them or anything. G2G.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it's strange that MisterChris is allegedly having such a hard time finding out what division his team is in. He asked a question about it, Pie answered, Chris acknowledged it and then he made a post without answering before signing off. He's the only one we're waiting for and Pie said his pressure hinges on Chris' answer, so why would he not just provide it? Weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Just type your team name into google with the word "division" right after it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Assuming Chris doesn’t claim an NFC West or NFC North team, I’m willing to lynch out of the 3 AFC South teams. Oro, Danielle, That2, in that order.
If Chris is mafia, he would have every incentive to not claim one of these divisions because you've already said you'd be willing to lynch others if he doesn't. And if he does claim one of these divisions (as town or scum) that makes your post pretty useless since you would have to go back to the drawing board entirely. So why bother singling us out at all?
Lynching based on a completely theorized guess about theme on DP1 with no discussion or information about flips is pretty dumb. I agree with Speedrace that theme analysis is often pointless. But I think it could be interesting for DP1 discussion here now that we're all locked into divisions and have to pick people to pressure. What do you guess the theme is?
Created:
Posted in:
Meant to say 2008-2011. Lol at them not even taking it down on time.
Created:
Posted in:
Just noticed that2user didn't claim either. Barney signed off right before I voted for him so scratch that. Unvote Barney.
Created:
Posted in:
There's not much to analyze atm if we're doing popcorn claims. Once everyone is locked into a division I think we can start discussion. Otherwise there doesn't seem much to comment on as far as activity goes (since we're waiting on people we call out) and I think theme analysis is safer once people are locked in to what they can claim. We still have three days left of the day phase.
If we're only waiting for 3 people left to claim (badger, Barney and MisterChris) then let's just have Barney claim now if he's online and the others aren't. At this point scum has had time to think of what they wanna claim if they haven't already anyway. VTL Barney.
Created:
Posted in:
No. The webservice is shutting down, but the domain remains privately registered. I reached out to the last listed owner about buying everything, and their response was to shut it all down. The domain name arguably has a value exceeding 100k, although nobody in their right mind would pay that.
I feel like the original domain of debate.com is way more valuable. It must cost a ton if nobody's done anything with that yet.
I would have bought DDO for like $10k if they were willing to sell the whole thing. What a shame. RIP to one of my fave sites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
So this leads me to a question for the older users: What exactly was DDO like in its heyday?
2008-2012 <3
A solid group of core users with different POVs that respected each other and somehow all got along for the most part despite ideological differences. I learned a ton. As the site gained more members, the demographic skewed much younger and turned all cliquey with weird popularity contests including one about a "presidency." I remember going back to the site after a long hiatus and feeling like it turned into a digital high school or something. I believe this turned off new members, especially quality members over age 18, while older members naturally moved on. I think it could have made a small comeback around 2020 if it hadn't been abandoned.
Created:
Posted in:
I really appreciate that they put in a feature to allow users to download their data.
It doesn't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They won't. Stop and frisk is illegal.
No it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why create these dangerous gun free zones in a city?
Because if someone is caught with guns there they can be punished more substantially.
And to prevent the likelihood of unnecessary escalations or accidents by law abiding citizens who leave their guns at home.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think there's anything wrong with popcorning our division. I'm in the AFC South.
I have some guesses as to theme split but don't feel the need to discuss yet.
I'm not loving the claim of Falcons as Hated at all. Who cares about the Falcons?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If stop and frisk is unconstitutional, then there can exist no policy for banning and removing guns in America.
I should have been more clear. The practice itself is not unconstitutional; the way police carried it out was found to be unconstitutional because there was evidence of racial profiling. I don't see what this has to do with banning guns. We can't ban guns (in the foreseeable future) because of the 2nd amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats don't even care about actual gun control because they banned stop and frisk.It's all a bunch of lies for votes as usual.
Stop-and-frisk was banned by a federal judge, not Democrats, because it is unconstitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Hi Pie! I'm intrigued by the theme. Let me know if you need one more person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
One could always confront the consequences, thus providing a reprieve to subjugation. Hence, "making a difference."
Yes, we can use deadly force in opposition to politicians, police and military in order to thwart their influence over our lives. In some cases, we should (I implore you not to create another tangential thread asking something like "in what cases?"). It seems like you're trying to convey that it's useful to argue for the legitimacy of the NAP even though it is not a principle that guides our public policies today. I can see why you think that. I still disagree, least of all because getting to that place would likely require some element of violent revolution I couldn't justify at the moment, though I don't think there's anything more to say about it. I'll just add that DebateArt is probs not the most efficient way to spread your message. Very little reach.
Here's the thing: It doesn't take much moral analysis to examine an organization that seeks death as a consequence to dissent or rebellion.
It actually does, which is one reason the legitimacy of government has been scrutinized to death (no pun intended) by philosophers for millennia.
What service does the government actually provide other than pandering to prejudice? Protection? Defense?
Both of these things and more. Law enforcement. Public services.
What would actually be disrupted if the government were no longer present and all public goods and services were handled privately?
What do you mean by disrupted? State functions would either be replaced or abandoned. Absent governments there would be other governing bodies overseeing various aspects of society, and imposing some kind of aggression over people who do not consent to their authority (which is often abused) as they are subjected to whatever "dispute resolution organization" is there in place of government by virtue of proximity. We know this... I'm sorry, we can infer this not only based on observable aspects of human nature, but by looking at history and the subsequent consequences of eliminating government. There has never been the kind of an-cap utopian fantasy that exists in theoretical idealizations. Instead government revolutions tend to do nothing more than reshape and modernize the militaristic state.
You can google your little heart out and won't be able to find an example of an anarchist society without some type of aggression. And even if you think you found some examples, you couldn't be sure there wasn't force in those societies. You couldn't possibly KNOW that the people living there never experienced aggression by others or the "dispute resolution organizations" based on a Wikipedia page. But anyways. Some kind of aggressive enterprise always steps up to establish control or power over a given territory. As an example, the mafia evolved from an environment of relative lawlessness. The first mafia bosses were the local managers of large plantations whose owners lived far away. Because of their power, the managers became mediators of disputes, replacing the labyrinthine court systems and nearly nonexistent police presence. When I used to read a lot about anarchist collectives (since I used to advocate for them) I was dismayed to see that all kinds of societies without a State were still subjected to violence, force and other aggression in its place. Hobbes wasn't too far off.
The only difference, Danielle, is the idea behind it.
Another difference is that some ideas are applied, used, exercised, employed, utilized, carried out -- take your pick of verbiage meaning put into effect -- and some are not. So while U.S. laws are ideas, and self-governance within the territory known as the U.S. is yet another idea, the latter (being neither current policy nor preference) has about as much use to me in a conversation about impending U.S. law as ideas about how to make a perfect bolognese.
But if I were "too busy" for online forums, how would you and I be having this exchange where you attempt to qualify my statements and responses by some contrived juxtaposition between "online intellectual contrarians" and "influential real world intellectuals"?
To be clear, you having time on your hands to engage here isn't why you're wrong to want to discount the influence of the Supreme Court.
Worse, how?
I've already answered: I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust).
It is.
You're wrong.
Once again, what is law without moral economy?
Once again, I never said morality should be divorced from the law. Do we really have to get into why ethical egoism is collectively self defeating, or start arguing over the prisoner's dilemma and other stuff like that? There's no way to answer these questions without a deep dive into ethical subjects I have no interest in dissecting at the moment.
What is the reason behind our "should's" and "should nots"?
Well if I was interested in dissecting at the moment, we could discuss some theories starting with the principle of nonmaleficence, the principle of beneficence, the harm principle, weak paternalism, the welfare principle, etc., and I suspect we can skip over some propositions like the principle of equality (despite its popularity).
I do not presume to deny that the Supreme Court exists, is empowered, and has impact any more than I would admit that our discussions on this forum have any effect on gubernatorial referendums that concern Abortion.
That's a good start.
So when we're on here discussing subjects and topics, why would the "real world" qualify or modify my statements any more than it would yours?
Because ignoring them discounts important variables that are relevant to the conversation about how laws, government and society functions.
I know, right? They'd be quite effective, too--as many private mediations are--but don't fooled by their unassuming nomenclature.
You cannot guarantee they would be any more effective than state agencies let alone exist peacefully in the first place.
Why would, as you put it, "a world primarily based on property + individual rights + free market and voluntaryism" have concerns of "great alliances" and "more powerful entities"?
I asked how you would expect to transition from our system today to such a world, which does not indicate I believe that is possible or sustainable. Do you have an answer to my question about alliances and domination over weaker groups?
How so?
In all the ways that societies without stable governments have come up short. I suspect there would be issues with law enforcement, general instability and a propensity for more oligarchy and injustice.
What ugliness?
Outcomes with undesirable effects, including but not limited to exploitation, manipulation, market failures and negative externalities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Great, then we can move past this statement: Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter.
Rights without a governing body to enforce them upon encroachment or disagreement in society either do not exist or do not matter. I do hope we can move past this.
Which part of your statement did I embolden when first addressing your epistemological limit? Why would you assume the statement focused on your sense of the NAP's utility?
Why does it matter which part of the statement you emboldened? The reason I know the statement focused on my sense of the NAP's utility is because I explicitly mentioned the futile nature of it in regard to public policy, which I emboldened for your reference.
With the proviso that your impression is reasonable, and it's not.
No, I've agreed to the epistemological limit. Then I stated the justification for my inference, and you never explained why inferences are unreasonable or how the reasoning behind my inference was incorrect.
Which historical documents, artifacts, literature, storytelling, media, written publications, tools, weapons, protest, lawsuits, war, riots, elections, polling, art, and other kinds of politicking?
Almost all of them.
Stating that an overwhelming majority of people don't want Anarchy, for example, would be just as irrational as my stating that they do.
If you want to keep asserting the totally incorrect position that we cannot reasonably infer what kind of feelings or preferences people have (despite not being able to absolutely know them) based on their outward speech, actions or other demonstration, then that is fine as it is your prerogative to be wrong and mine to ignore it going forward.
You have yet to provide information on its relevancy. And this is important: sound reason informs moral legitimacy, not "ad populum" arguments.
I specifically said I was not making a moral claim and I never used ad populum as a barometer for moral legitimacy. Once again: I was explaining that I live under a government that makes the NAP irrelevant to the kind of conversations about law most people are having, or specifically that I would like to have. My comment about anarchy not being widespread was relevant to my point that it is not a system that has any immediate relevance to the governing aspect of my life either now or in the foreseeable future.
I'm not investigating the measures you use in formulating your impressions, only the measures behind what you claim to know. And since you've conceded that you don't know, I can point it out to you with the intention of having you adjust your argument--particularly eliminating irrational details.
That's fine, though it seems odd to spend time litigating such an insignificant detail to the conversation on abortion limits.
I'm avoiding derailing the topic should we get into, for example, the bodily autonomy of minors. Again, it's not a conversation I'm unwilling to have, just one that I think will inevitably move the subject away from Abortion.
So does harping on the epistemological limits of knowledge. I should have ignored all of the derailments.
I wonder: why did you respond to me and dissect my comments line by line in the first place if we have reached the same conclusion on abortion limits? If I had to guess, it would be that you're trying to convince me that the reasoning behind my conclusion is wrong, and that government is inherently immoral in part because it can do things like restrict abortion rights. Yet you haven't come anywhere near close to convincing me that having no state is preferable to a state that criminalizes abortion, which begs all kinds of questions about the purpose and progress of this dialog.
Okay, let's stress-test this: if a 14 year-old girl wants to have an abortion, should she be able to exercise her bodily autonomy and get an abortion or should she be subject to the authority of her stewards, whether that be her parents or State?
I would say she should be able to exercise her own agency.
Moral principles are posited axioms; fundamental; they serve as the basis of abstract reasoning. If you subject them to circumstance or gradation, then that is essentially tantamount to the proposition that circumstance/gradation precede concepts which, once again, express 0th ordered logic.What comes before the fundamental?
You should read a really good book on paradoxes.
I'm not sure how much I want to get into topics like ordered logic or even principles of moral reasoning here. Moral principles can reasonably be subjected to circumstance by way of other moral principles. There are lots of reasons that egoism has been almost universally rejected as an acceptable ethical theory, and we can discuss why, I just don't feel like it right now.
Look at Florida.
I have and their policies do more harm than good, especially on that issue.
I wouldn't touch this with a 60 yard stick.
Why not?
But I'll say this: what are you expressing when you endorse the State's authority to dictate how a three year-old expresses him or herself sexually?
That there are times stewardship over another person's body may be appropriate.
If the State has the authority to prevent or prohibit permanent sex changes among three year-olds, then why does that authority also not permit them to coerce three year-olds into permanent sex changes?
Because coercing three year olds into sex changes has no reasonable justification or purpose and may cause irreparable harm. However I believe the state should have authority to compel other kinds of surgeries which does have a reasonable justification, such as a life saving surgery that a parent may decline on their child's behalf.
Again, not with a 60 yard stick. But I extend my query about State authority. Does that authority not also allow them to coerce the distributions of said naked photos?
No, because this too has no reasonable justification or purpose that would on balance warrant subsequent harm.
"Positive consequences" is subject to the interpretation of those who have a stake in those consequences.
That's true.
In other words, what YOU find positive, may not be deemed positive by another.
Correct.
And that's okay, because PRINCIPLE would delineate, for example, that your individual interests and interpretations as it concerns you and yours are subject to the discretion and prerogative of no one other than you.
I disagree and don't see how it negates the point of mine you are responding to.
Because "propriety" =/= consistent moral framework.
Sure. Can you prove an objective moral world order? A concern for strict logical consistency is not the only way of being rational. There is also a pragmatic kind of rationality, where we are concerned with finding the best means to secure a desired end.
So inconsistency =/= inconsistency?
Typo. It should read "I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to moral inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance."
Even if your argument is that inconsistent application =/= moral insignificance, you have yet to inform the significance much less the legitimacy of this inconsistent application.
You want to shift the conversation to one about ethics? Jeez Louise. Not on a Friday night.
The focus is not on whether you accept all applications of government force, but that YOU ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY to apply it.
They have the authority (that is, empowered with consequences accepted by the society I live in) whether I accept it or not, and yes I do accept it.
Such as?
The Constitution. The branches of government that are empowered over people's lives. Politicians running for offices within those branches.
Politicians, police, and military who instill an "idea."
Yes, they enforce certain ideas.
Laws to which people are beholden aren't ideas?
Yes, they are ideas.
Empowered by what? An idea.
Yes.
Powered by the threat of deadly force, which is an idea. The consequences are material, i.e. death, but the influence is still an idea.
Yes, the government is an empowered idea with material consequences backed by force. How does this have relevance to my position on late term abortion again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No such governing body is a requisite. Only the values maintained by and the practice of individuals. The fact that I don't rob my neighbor would be an example of this.
That is why I said only within a society which recognizes [rights] are they of any value.
Except that wasn't your point.
Yes, that was my point. You were responding to me saying "I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy." I repeat, the NAP is not valuable to me regarding U.S. law.
Knowing what the "overwhelming majority" of people want is not within your epistemological limit
I've already agreed to that.
despite your "context clues"--which are impressions, not empirical observations of fact.
I've agreed, but we do know based on the historical documents and other artifacts throughout human history by means of literature, story telling, media, written publications, tools, weapons, protest, lawsuits, war, riots, elections, polling, art, and other kinds of politicking or demonstration that there has never been a mass movement calling for individual rights absent of any government. Voluntaryism has never been a widespread nor common philosophical ideal or moral value through any observable metric we can defer to as far as discerning popular political advocacy.
This was tangential context I was offering about why I don't care to discuss the NAP in this thread (although I have engaged quite a bit about it to my dismay). I don't see the use in harping on this at all as far as our conversation re: abortion. You can dismiss the fact that anarchism has never been a widespread ideal as an irrelevant fact to its moral legitimacy; however, I was not making that claim. I was explaining why the NAP has no use to me as far as relevance to government policy. You've acknowledged that self-ownership is inherently at odds with government, so surely you understand my point that your repeated deference to it has no use to me in a conversation about how government will choose to exercise its influence through law. This was me saying the NAP is its own conversation--one I'm more than willing to have. Just not here.
This is not a red herring; it's a statement--and statement you cannot possibly refute.
I said multiple times it's true I cannot literally know what the majority of people think or feel, yet I have justified my comment by explaining that my inference about people's feelings was not only reasonable but irrelevant (a red herring) to my point about the futile nature of discussing the NAP as a metric for public policy.
This is its own conversation--one I'm more than willing to have. Just not here.
That's fine, but it's very relevant to this conversation. It proves that being human and even being a born human does not mean all should have equal rights and equal status at all times, and there can be justifiable intervention by an outside party in some cases that are nuanced.
This is also its own conversation, and my response would also be the same as above.
I agree the free speech example is its own conversation and less relevant to this one. It is an interesting topic though.
So when I asked you "when does one's body stop being one's body?" and you stated, "Never," this obviously came with a caveat, which undermines the statement itself.
There's no caveat regarding the separation from one's body. I noted that sometimes stewardship is appropriate over other people's bodies despite the fact that one's body is always their own (though I guess that changes after death).
"An-caps" maintain their premises fundamentally because to subject them to "circumstances" or "gradation" is to render them subject to inconsistency, and thereby, undermine the moral argument itself.
I understand that's your moral view of what is righteous, and clearly I disagree.
It's not about how I "feel" per se, it's about what I can maintain with logical consistency. For example, the practice/exercise of abortion utterly disgusts me. But I cannot sustain an argument against the prerogative with logical consistency because any opposition would undermine the principle of self-ownership.
Why does it undermine the principle of self-ownership? Why can't a principle have limits and leave room for nuance or gradation, at least as far as governance within a society goes? Does a 6 year old really have the same agency as a 30 year old as far as moral culpability for crimes and therefore warrant the same punishment? Should a 3 year old be allowed to have a permanent sex change if they express interest? If a two year old does not object to having naked photos of them taken or distributed, should that be something society allows even though prohibiting it is a clear violation of self ownership and free association? The entire purpose of law enforcement / government / societies that people choose to live in and to associate with is to uphold policies with positive consequences and not just a unilateral principle of self-ownership or property.
The number of examples of where I could see disparate application of rights applied in a given scenario being reasonable and fair -- two very justifiable goals for good governance -- are enormous, and I'm sure you've been presented with many, many examples of abhorrent things you have to defend to remain logically consistent such as no age of consent laws.
I've said we can only legislate morality (perhaps I should have said 'behavior' ) to a degree within limits for the society to reasonably function and justify with consideration and respect to individual rights. I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance. I disagree that people anyone submitting to the concept + force of government necessarily concedes to accepting all government force as legitimate by extension. I'm happy to discuss the purpose of government and morality of government elsewhere in other contexts, but I don't see the point in discussing it as it pertains to current U.S. policy, as I've explained many times now.
What do you find useful as it pertains to U.S. Law?
The factors and variables that have an actual impact. Even if you're correct (in the sense of logical consistency alone?) that there is no moral legitimacy to the U.S. government and the entire system should be dismantled because of that, the likelihood of that happening and/or my desire for that happening is close to zero. The positions I take are going to be rooted in what's relevant and at stake under the systems we have in place and for which I can only change or ignore to a certain extent.
Wait... Santa Claus isn't real?!!!!!!
Debatable :)
Government is an idea like society; it doesn't make it "fake," which I wasn't insinuating. But I did state that government was "just" a thesis statement. The rest of the paper has yet to be written.
Well there is a government in the sense (definition) of having specific people and/or laws in place that people within society are beholden to whether they agree with them or not. The empowered people and policies colloquially known as 'government' determine how law enforcement interacts with citizens within society based on all kinds of variables. While I might find the application of laws or governing bodies to be illogical and/ or immoral, that makes no difference as to my being subject to their power. In that sense, government is not just an idea; it is a body of ideas being enforced in practice. That's why I said "[The NAP is] a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any significance in the real world" -- because it is not a thesis with any real world application in terms of law enforcement or government power over my life.
As opposed to what other kinds of intellectuals?
The kind that are too busy for online forums and have more real world influence than justifies their attention to engage.
The government does well on that front on its own.
Fair enough, but I'm confident the alternative would have outcomes that make society far worse off in many ways.
Double-speak?
Just being cheeky re: how we are subject to government regardless of our feelings on the matter.
Never said that they didn't. In fact, I've acknowledged these consequences. I even used the term, consequence:
Yes, but you also asked "Because the interpretation of nine government goons 'matters more' than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?" implying that my deference to Supreme Court precedent was illogical or misplaced in this conversation.
So your endorsement and opposition to particular policy is strictly dictated by how it affects you personally? Am I presuming correctly, or are their other considerations on your part?
You are incorrect in that presumption. I never suggested that how something affects me personally dictates my endorsement, so I'm not sure why you would think that. The reason I brought up personal impact of those Supreme Court cases is to highlight why I would be far more concerned with the processes and procedure of the Congress and Supreme Court rather than discuss the NAP or the legitimacy of the Congress and Supreme Court to begin with. Whether or not the existence of those bodies is morally just has no bearing on the fact that they do exist, that they are empowered, and they will impact my life, family and livelihood.
And in what plane of existence does DebateArt.com rest?
Some type of black hole time suck.
Governments would be abolished. "Law" would be dispensed by dispute-resolution organizations.
That's a cute name.
Only at the local level.
And how would society stop greater alliances or more powerful entities from dominating the smaller, weaker and less powerful?
Why?
Because I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. Because I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust). Etc.
That is the beauty of a free-market, you are free to seek out your interests.
I agree, that is the beauty of a free market although there is some ugliness to it as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
what were you indicating?
Rights are a product of society and culture (government), meaning government which is also a product of society and culture establishes and enforces those rights. Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter.
Any rationale inconsistent with its own premise is not reasonable, regardless of how "selective" the rationale's conceiver is.
What is the rationale and premise behind your moral view on rights and government?
Knowing what someone wants--especially a person with whom you don't even remotely have an intimate relationship--is beyond your epistemological limits. It's not a red herring; it's a statement.
And yet it is reasonable to make inferences based on context clues like I said. If my partner complains of feeling very full, and I say "I know you don't want to eat right now," my statement may not be fully known but it is not illogical, not irrational and not irrelevant. You choosing to focus on the epistemological limitations of human knowledge rather than my point (that the NAP is not valuable to me as a pinnacle of morality or U.S. law) seems like a red herring to me.
Can't argue much here. Though...
That's the thing: there's a "though" that is reasonable.
Selectively.
That's right. For instance respecting bodily integrity, but understanding why that might not extend to everyone (say, toddlers) is not unreasonable to me. It's reasonable to recognize the distinction and epistemological limitations of people (say, toddlers or the impaired or the insane, etc.) and consider how that impacts their rights, especially if you think rights are primarily a product of a reason. Isn't that why they are uniquely human? Given the significant limitations of a toddler's ability to reason, why would we find it morally acceptable to reciprocate or permit the sexual advances on a toddler so long as there wasn't "aggression?" against them
Another example: while I find free speech to be very important, I think it's reasonable for a society to consider the impermissibility of some speech in some contexts. Sexual harassment, extreme verbal abuse or mental battering by a guardian, defamation, fraud and child pornography are examples of speech I think a society can reasonably and morally restrict.
An-caps are always having to pretzel themselves into defending horribly immoral outcomes on the basis of upholding one specific premise unilaterally at all times under all circumstances with no gradation or nuance whatsoever. I disagree that the same principle can be absolutely applied in all circumstances to preserve moral integrity. I understand that you feel differently, and even though I wholeheartedly disagree with you, like thett I can at least intellectually respect your commitment to an unwavering moral principle -- but I still don't find it useful to most conversations about U.S. law.
They most certainly are. Government is nothing more than a thesis statement.
No, unlike Santa Clause, government is a real thing that does not only exist in our imaginations. It is not just a thesis statement; it describes people and policies with actual power and impact over our lives.
I understand where you're coming from as far as being a contrarian intellectual online and wanting to devalue the entire legitimacy of the U.S. government. And maybe you're right (you're not though lol). But the interpretation of nine government goons has very real consequences for people, so focusing on that is not off base.
A national/total abortion ban would affect me, not just as a woman generally, but as I started my fertility process last year I was faced with the choice of abortion at some point which I won't get into now. I feel VERY, VERY strongly at a visceral level about this being a legal option for women. The overturning of Obergefell which is threatened by overturning Roe could also impact me, especially if I explore a job opportunity in Miami that would be huge for me and move to Florida. Florida would definitely get rid of gay marriage, so that job is off the table. My wife and I have assets. We own property. We share insurance. We're having kids. Of course my focus is going to be on deference to Supreme Court precedent which dictates these decisions and has real consequences on my life, as opposed to a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. Cuz I don't live there.
I'm not ready, yet. I'm fine, here, in Minos' labyrinth.
I'm curious - if your political ideology were to be adapted by our society (and I don't even know what I mean by "society"... I guess it would refer to everyone in the Americas? Or maybe just the U.S.? You tell me) how would you expect a transition from our system today, to a world primarily based on property + individual rights + free market and voluntaryism? "Starting small at the local level?" It's so wild to think about a world like that in practice. Even an-caps disagree with each other on aspects of property and rights, let alone everyone else living amongst each other with competing values and interests + intellectual limitations. Yikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
>> legal rights > moral preferences
what are "legal rights" based on if not moral impulse ?
What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts, in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another; being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
>> fundamentally disagree on the role of government
please explain
He seems to thinks the sole function of the state is to preserve the same exact rights for every single born human without exception, and presumably advocates for the abolition of government in favor of a system of private property that would (theoretically) be enforced by private agencies in the free market -- whereas I do not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It's cool, I'm just disappointed because I don't find our conversation as futile as the one with Athias where we fundamentally disagree on the role of government. I was hoping to get to a place where I convinced you that legal rights > moral preferences. However I understand that it's hard to separate the two.
This topic takes a lot of working through and is very emotionally charged. I think the fact that there is such a partisan divide shows there is room to reason with people that are willing. I didn't read your posts to other people so I think there's a lot you haven't said (to me), but I understand wanting to move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That's fine. Your position is just an appeal to emotion. The "sacred bond" between a parent and child has no relevance or justification to government controlling people's bodies or disregarding the right to privacy.
And don't you think your focus on third trimester abortions (1% of cases) seems a little weird? Even if that's something you feel very strongly about, you could have responded to all the important and relevant points I made about rights, blowback, court precedent and limitations of government to explain why Roe is correct in establishing viability as a threshold for personhood. I think that's where the crux of our disagreement lies vs. someone like Athias who has a position on government that's totally divorced from reality. But you chose to ignore all my contentions and reiterate opposition to throwing babies in the trash can. While that is certainly your prerogative, I think it says quite a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Is there not a point where the right to choose has been exercised? If a tenant and a landlord agree on a lease there’s a consequence for breaking it.
Forced pregnancy is far more invasive than anything that has to do with property or the domicile. The constitution recognizes the distinction between violating property vs. person and considers the latter to be far more significant (i.e. searches of one's person have higher standards than searches of one's property; forcibly inserting yourself into someone's home has a lesser criminal status than forcibly inserting yourself into someone's body, etc.).
My references to property have only meant to highlight how much we value property and privacy when it comes to government intrusion. The Bill of Rights establishes that the government cannot even force someone to house a person against their will, let alone live inside of their body. If there's a hurricane coming, the government can't force anyone to take in homeless people to save lives regardless of how immoral you find it to leave them on the streets.
Is there not a point where the right to choose has been exercised?
Why should a woman's capacity for choice end after ~5 months of pregnancy? Once again out of the 1% of abortions that occur late term, most have to do with considerations regarding health of the baby or mother who wants to be pregnant (so it's weird that you keep saying you have no sympathy for those making such a heart wrenching decision). But even if health risks weren't a factor, fetuses have no rights that would overrule the rights of the mother's nor should they, and that's what it comes down to. It's not a matter of what you or I consider to be palatable. It's a matter of what power the state should have over citizen's bodies. Again, why should the government EVER have that type of control over someone's body even if another person's life is on the line? Every single aspect of rights as we employ them contradicts this.
It’s just weird because I know that every single person who has responded and said that yes they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth also supports taxes and other types of government policy.
Well it's weird to me that you've ignored every question and example I brought up about how problematic it would be to disregard bodily integrity. They are real concerns. Skinner v. Oklahoma was a case about forced sterilization preceding Roe where the Court acknowledged decision making power over child rearing belonged in the hands of the individual and not the state. Yet California sterilized almost 150 female prisoners within the last ~15 years. And I think it was 12 states that at one point introduced bills to sterilize unwed mothers. Again, it comes back to what power the state should have over citizen's bodies.
To your point, paying taxes is not the same as usurping control of another person's body and you know that. Even in cases we try to draw as close of a reasonable comparison as possible (say, military conscription) there's an expectation of compensation or quid pro quo from the state. People are paid when the government takes control of their property via eminent domain or sends them to the military. Should we start paying women for having babies they don't want at tax payer expense? That would be an interesting take but I don't support it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Isn't that a gross exaggeration?
It's a slight exaggeration.
Does Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine really describe one's capacity to kill someone for just walking on their property without their permission?
Depends on the jury.
First, society & culture =/= government;
I did not say they were equal or the same.
second, rights are moral concepts.
Maybe.
They're primarily a product of reason, which analyzes action within a society and its culture.
Yep.
But they are uniquely "human."
Sure.
A society can apply them uniformly or not, but "value" is individual.
Application is what matters. Rights are meaningless words unless a society recognizes them as governing.
Except the distinctions aren't reasonable.
Most are. Some are more reasonable than others.
I've stated numerous times on this forum that I considered myself a "true" pro-choicer;
Okay.
I've argued against age of consent laws;
Gross.
and though I've never seen the topic brought up before your commentary, it would be reasonable to presume that I'm against the prohibition of sodomy.
That's good.
Because, there's a single principle on which all these arguments are premised: self-ownership.
We know.
So I ask: when does a one's body stop being one's body?
Never, although there are times stewardship over another's body might be appropriate.
Why would one, who's presumably pro-choice, support any restriction on one's capacity to exercise an abortion if in fact, her body is her body?
I don't but I assume they prioritize other values and philosophical ideals over the NAP.
That is not within the realm of your epistemological limit.
It's reasonable to make inferences based on context clues, but this is a red herring.
All political ideologies are hypothetical ideals. Pragmatism is arbitrary execution.
No, the systems we operate under are not hypothetical.
What is law without moral economy? Legal arbitration? Then you have no dog in this race since your stake is rooted in legal decision, the policy it favors notwithstanding.
I never said morality should be divorced from the law. I said tangential references to the NAP are useless to conversations about U.S. laws not only because I think it's a philosophically problematic ultimatum, but because it has no status and no impact or relevance to outcomes of policy that interest and/or affect me.
Because the interpretation of nine government goons "matters more" than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?
In this country, yes. Welcome to the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Who are these people who comprise this "good percentage" of the population?
Anyone who supports Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine laws which are legal in the majority of states.
And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.
Rights are a product of society and culture (government). They are not inherent or innate. Only within a society which recognizes them are they of any value. I realize this presents many opportunities for inconsistencies that frustrate you, but thankfully most people see the utility in reasonable distinctions. There's an obvious difference between forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth vs. expecting citizens to pay taxes, just like there's an obvious difference between regulating sex between consenting adults vs. adults having sex with children (re: your point on legislating sexual propriety) although admittedly not everything is black and white and society is not perfect.
I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy. It's a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any significance in the real world. Even if I did find value in it as an insurmountable moral ideal (I do not), as a matter of U.S. law there should be deference to Supreme Court precedent and not a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
RE: Late term abortion, I think Pete Buttigieg did a good job articulating my position on it in one of the presidential debates.
Buttigieg: I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line and I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health.
Chris Wallace: So just to be clear, you’re saying you would be okay with a woman, well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy.
Buttigieg: Look, these hypotheticals are usually set up in order to provoke a strong emotional --
Wallace: It’s not hypothetical - there are 6,000 women a year who get abortions in the third trimester.
Buttigieg: That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases. So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy, then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Not everything that tugs on our heart strings warrants government intervention. Why don't you find it completely disgusting and barbaric to shrug off immigrants, abandon refugees, and ignore others in life or death situations that might rely on help from the U.S. government to intervene and save their lives? I'm not trying to sound snarky here - just showing that the prioritization of American lives is morally arbitrary and rooted in pragmatism. There is only so much we can and should police.
Politically this is an issue of privacy and government power. Why should the government be authorized to prosecute people on behalf of humans in utero that have not been born and have no rights at all (including no right to bodily autonomy) at the expense of born women that do have said rights? Should we force all government mandated vaccines on everyone? How about forced sterilization of some for the good of society? Should the government be able to force a father to donate a kidney to his daughter in need?
As I said, I used to agree with using viability as a point in time in which the government's interests could theoretically override the value of bodily autonomy. But I cannot think of a scenario in which the government controlling people's bodies in such an invasive way could ever be justified, even if the fetus is 9 months old.
I haven't even brought up pertinent issues like IVF and genetic testing. Ultimately, it goes back to the issue of privacy and government power regardless of people's personal feelings on abortion and how viscerally grotesque they imagine it to be. Late term abortions are extremely rare; most choose to have an abortion as soon as they are able. The decision that goes into each abortion is very different and extremely complex and personal. You have to separate your feelings on what you consider abhorrent to look at the what role the government ought to play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I never said there was a sacred right to slaughter someone you drama queen. Nor did I ever say that people shouldn't question abortion, nor did I ever say that only women can have an opinion on the matter, nor did I suggest that I speak for all women. Either you're struggling immensely to read what I wrote or you think being hyperbolic is somehow going to move me. It's not. Don't get yourself all worked up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it. A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
You should stop using dramatic words like "slaughter" to make up for the inability to articulate a better argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would be ridiculous to treat fetuses as people under the law in terms of equal rights. In that case, would a woman who suffered a miscarriage be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Can we file habeas petitions on behalf of the illegally incarcerated fetus of every pregnant woman in custody? Are we going to start fighting for a fetus' right to own property and to vote? I just realized that I could have used voting as another example of rights that children don't have.
But even if fetuses were considered persons under the law, I don't see a legitimate state interest that can justify such intrusion over people's bodies. We don't force people to donate blood, plasma or organs to those in need. Pregnancy is perhaps the most invasive thing someone could ever experience. This country was up in arms over a mask mandate on a 2 hour plane ride. If the argument is that the state can force childbirth on the basis of an interest in growing the population, does that mean there would be justification to compel women into becoming baby making machines Handmaid's Tale style should an interest ever arise? Scary stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Calm down. I never said "only women can have an opinion on the matter" nor would I ever try to speak for all women.
In a free society, it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. The right to be left alone and free to do what we want (so long as nobody else's rights are being violated) is something our country values quite a bit and built into various aspects of our constitution. I don't care that anti-choicers are disgusted by abortion. Some people are disgusted by anal sex, but that doesn't mean those who choose to have it should be treated as criminals (see Lawrence v Texas).
It comes down to whether or not there is a legitimate state interest that can justify intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Roe v Wade says that government interest in preventing abortion is realized upon fetal viability. I'm starting to see that there is likely never a justification to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. However it's something I have to think more about legally. For instance we have laws that discriminate to promote marriage based on government interest in child rearing, so there are some things I'm intellectually working through. But at the very least abortion should be legal until viability which seems obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What constitutional rights are not afforded to minors? Which rights?
Several. States have laws that say minors can't get a tattoo. Prohibiting adults from getting tattoos would be a violation of the first amendment. There are more examples like this. Gender reassignment surgery is not legal in many states for those under age 18. Meanwhile the government prohibiting elective surgery for an adult would be unconstitutional.
But I digress. What I actually said is that not all human beings have the same rights and protections under American law. Minors don't have the same rights as adults. People that are under arrest do not have the same rights as those not under arrest. People that were convicted of felonies do not have the same rights. People that are in comas do not have the same rights. People that are mentally handicapped do not have the same rights.
The government can't ban abortion under a nonexistent "right to life" because fetuses have no rights. The government instead has to demonstrate a state interest in protecting the unborn, which is what Roe did in determining viability as the point in time in which the government's interest overrides personal autonomy. For most of my life I agreed with this threshold, but now I'm pretty sure they got it wrong.
Probs has something to do with Jurisdiction in that an American constitution applies to American citizens. Otherwise we would be sending the world police outside our borders to protect everyone's rights. (which we do sometimes whenever we feel like it).
Yes, the point is that emphasizing a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life is not that strong of a legal argument against choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That is pretty disgusting to me, ngl.I literally see no difference between killing an 8 month-in fetus or murdering a premature born baby... Do the math... Think about it.
Well one of them is born and therefore not dependent on living inside of another person's body that's unwilling to carry it, so there's that obvious distinction. But I understand your feelings on the matter. When you get pregnant I will fully support your choice to carry the pregnancy to term. In the meantime you will just have to deal with things you find unpalatable. In a free society we cannot jail everyone whose choices we disagree with, especially when nobody's rights are being violated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes. I pointed out that not all human beings have the same rights and protections under American law. If someone is born outside of our borders for example, we pick and choose which rights of theirs we will recognize. The same goes for minors. Being born is a prerequisite to our constitutional rights. The 14th amendment starts out with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
I fully support abortion with no conditions until fetal viability, and most likely until childbirth.
I don't really want to get sucked into a conversation on this site though; there's not much good faith discussion to be had. I just signed on to tease Wylted about OAN having to admit they lied about voter fraud but I guess he left the site.
Created:
Posted in:
Where is Wylted? I signed on to share this with him. The lawsuit against the Gateway Pundit (his fave lol) is still ongoing but nearing a similar conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Definitely not. And if Republicans win the House, Senate and WH (which they probably will) there will likely be a national ban.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It's funny, part of the reason I made this thread is because I'm genuinely undecided on my position on abortion in very early pregnancy (before 10 weeks or so) but the responses from the pro-choice crowd have been so inhuman and unempathetic I'm moving rapidly to the extreme pro-life camp
If you think they're callous, try perusing threads on immigration which have made my stomach turn. The moral posturing of the "pro life" crowd which acknowledges that not all human beings are deserving of equal rights and protections under American law is so wild.
So are the cries about how bodily autonomy doesn't apply when other lives are at stake. These are the same people screaming bloody murder and threatening revolution over being "forced" to wear a tiny piece of cloth over their mouths, or get a shot in order to freely associate in certain venues, now lecturing about how women should be coerced to endure pregnancy 24/7 for nine months and give birth against their will under threat of murder charges.
Most who choose late term abortions are looking to avoid giving birth to stillborns, which is incredibly difficult and traumatic. I one million percent support abortion (for any reason) up to the point of fetal viability, and most likely up until childbirth which I'm still working out.
The law righteously provides a constitutional right to abortion. It's very hard for me to imagine a scenario in which compelling someone to give birth against their will seems like a legitimate function of the state, and even harder to imagine why an unborn person should have any rights at all.
The visceral reaction against abortion is just psychological conditioning. The people screaming about 'dead babies' are willing to shrug off moral atrocities in many other contexts. The whole basis of their argument is an appeal to emotion. Suggesting or even joking that a presumed lack of empathy (by randos on an internet forum no less) is somehow a legitimate justification to disavow bodily autonomy is a douchey position at best, and a moral travesty at worst if and when that policy comes to fruition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Immigrants are more like to be entrepreneurs than natives whether they are wealthy or not. Statistical analyses confirmed that a high willingness to take risks contribute significantly to that fact, even after controlling for other variables.
Many people that are highly educated or skilled in other countries actually come here and are forced to take shit jobs, or open small shops despite their work experience because they have been relegated to those roles in society. Language barriers are a big factor; so is discrimination.
But if your position is that "only people who are rich and skilled" can come here, then (I repeat) stop reiterating your concern for LEGAL immigration. It's not the LEGALITY you're concerned about. You just admitted your primary concern is whether or not someone is "worthy" of coming here based on their contributions to society. You don't think it should be LEGAL for them to come here unless they meet certain qualifications. Say that then. Say "I don't think it should be legal for immigrants to come" instead of "waaah just come here legally" which obviously you don't give a shit about.
It's amusing that you think it's so simple to determine who would "improve America" too. All the people who rely on immigrant labor, i.e. not just business owners who "exploit" them, but everyday people who benefit from their work certainly acknowledge that so-called low skill immigrants are improving America. They babysit our kids, they clean our houses, they mow our lawns, they cook our food, they rent our houses, they pay taxes and otherwise contribute significantly without necessarily being rich or entrepreneurial. Note that we are currently experiencing a labor shortage where we can't even fill all the open jobs despite how many immigrants we have. And wages are going up.
Cracking down on employers is a good way to curb some illegal immigration, but that would never be embraced by the populous. So many people use immigrant labor it wouldn't fly for long. Ten percent of the NYC labor force = undocumented immigrants. I don't think you realize how significant of a role immigrants play in the economy. That's not your fault though; it is extremely complex.
I do not support necessarily allowing in every single person who wants to immigrate right away; I've noted concerns with infrastructure like five times now. I think you just want to see me as an "enemy" on this issue and not really digest what points I am trying to make. You think I want to destroy the country lol so I doubt you are open minded to even consider what I am saying.
Perhaps I would be more open to accepting all (safe) immigrants if we could control where in the US they settle, but that seems problematic and the exact opposite of what supporters of open borders believe. The whole premise of their position is valuing the free movement of goods and people without interference. I understand the moral argument there and quite frankly the economics one as well. It's been years since I've deep dived into the analysis, but iirc it's been proven several times over that open borders achieves the best economic outcomes by far. I still don't support it though. I only suggested that we allow everyone in to highlight that your issue isn't the LEGALITY of immigration. I repeat: you don't want it to be legal for most people to come here.
Once again it is concerning that you equate Americans with whites. You've done it several times now so at this point it's clear that you are not misspeaking and you are legitimately a racist. Not all Americans are white, Wylted. I know that's hard for you and Mitch McConnell to understand but those be the facts. And telling "white people" a.k.a. people who only speak English in this country to grow a pair of balls because they're such pussies they are afraid of going into a foreigner's business does not exhibit any hatred for white people on my part. It's pointing out that those particular white people sound like pansy ass little bitches who want to use the law to exclude people from opportunities and a better, safer life just because they might feel embarrassed they don't know how to pronounce their food order when entering. White people in engage with foreigners all the time and have no issues. If you can't understand them, use Google translate. It's really not hard. Have you ever left the country Wylted? It doesn't sound like it. I've been in many places where I didn't speak a word of the language and came from a completely different culture but I survived and lived to tell the tale. I even enjoyed myself. I do understand the utility and value of wanting to preserve English though, etc. I just think it's really funny that because a few neighborhoods have a lot of foreigners that you feel you are being discriminated against lol.
Since arriving on U.S. soil white people have used their power to create preferential access to survival rights and resources (housing, education, jobs, voting, citizenship, food, health, legal protection, etc.) for other white people while simultaneously impeding people of color’s access to these same rights and resources. Now you think that because you feel "unwelcome" in some areas that we're all supposed to feel sorry for you or ignore the totality and history of the immigrant experience. ANYONE would feel uncomfortable being a minority or not understanding a language or what have you, but that doesn't mean it's justifiable to exclude immigrants. Once again someone's jealousy or resentment or [insert feeling here] does not reveal the morality or utility of a position. Just because some people are uncomfortable by gays doesn't mean gay marriage should be illegal. Just because some people are uncomfortable by standing out in a crowd doesn't mean the crowd should be legally expelled.
I think if you truly believe that my goal is to destroy America and shame or put down white people that this is a pointless conversation. There's only like 2 people on this website I like to engage with for that reason. People can have different ideas and perspectives and not be terrible people or totally off base. Believe it or not you don't know a lot more than you do know and that goes for all of us. But I maintain it is terrible that you keep equating Americans with whites lol you should stop doing that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I appreciate you expanding on that. I also roll my eyes at the "fuck white people" thing, but to be fair you should consider why urban liberals tend to only disparage certain whites. I don't really think it has to do with class at all because most are blue collar/middle class themselves. I think it specifically has to do with the culture wars regarding positions on race, LGBT issues and immigration among others. That's why politicians have focused on those wedge issues over the years.
I forget the exact statistic but it's something like 180 different languages spoken by kids or their parents in NYC public schools. Now I can definitely see how that's problematic (and may save that for my next post) but the takeaway is that multiculturalism is something we're used to. And not only used to, but appreciate. It's a selling point here to be in a neighborhood where there's diversity indicated by restaurants of all kinds.
Having so many different people breeds tolerance of tolerant people. There are so many different types of people in big cities that nobody can really be bothered to hate or focus on one particular group (Hasidic Jews are a bit of an outlier in that they exclude themselves from society). I think being surrounded by different people has been a huge factor in acceptance of gay people. Even if one's personal beliefs or culture was staunchly against homosexuality, it's like who can be bothered to care or try to control that when there is so much else going on around you? You just kind of blend in and worry about your own self. There are so many different types of people that it barely resonates. You get used to it. So urban liberals have a hard time understanding why it's so hard to be tolerant. I think outside of the economic or structural problem with mass immigration, the mindset is simply "get over it and figure it out." There is definitely a toughness and mental fortitude that people living outside cities have in a lot of ways that make us city folk seem very delicate, but I think this is one of a few areas (along with "street smarts") where urban people just seem more resilient and xenophobes come off as fragile and weak.
Anyway, I wanted to note that I seriously do understand where you're coming from and will not dismiss your personal experience as irrelevant to the discussion at all. I guess what I'm trying to point out is that it doesn't affect everyone that way and that's why there is a "hatred" of the people who act like it's a big deal. For instance Wylted just said that white people are "not welcome" or something in foreign businesses. That is definitely NOT true. Those businesses are probably desperate for natives to go in. Non Spanish speakers might be uncomfortable because they don't know the language, but it's like bro grow a pair of balls and figure out how to order your quesadilla. I know it might be annoying, but is that annoyance justification for sentencing swarms of people to shitty lives and accepting the tragedies that come with immigration bans? Is it really justifiable for people to be dying in deserts and rafts because someone doesn't feel comfortable mispronouncing their Chinese food order?
I'll get to the other responses later (I like these conversational posts) but wanted to interject another random ass point. Have you ever seen the show Yellowstone? Great show - I'm all aboard the bandwagon and highly recommend it if you don't watch. But the main character is a rancher in Montana whose ultimate goal is to keep his land, even rejecting hundreds of millions of dollars to do so. He would literally fight to the death for it. Everyone keeps trying to take it because it's right next to Yellowstone National Park i.e. very valuable real estate. He describes himself as anti-progress and "the wall that [progress] bashes against." The audience is wholly sympathetic to his cause and roots for his family despite being arguably horrific people, and knowing that Montana would benefit financially from said expansion. It's funny because the characters are always complaining about transplants from NY or CA, or people with second homes there in the country, and all of us people watching from here are like "yeah fuck those people!" even though we're all secretly hoping to buy a second home in Montana lol. The preservation of "the American way of life" is very much a cornerstone of the show and I totally understand it. But in contrast to these characters that the audience is rooting for is the Native Americans who are trying to get their land back (by purchasing it). They are a parallel reminder that people's land gets "stolen," things change. That's been the American way of life since the beginning. You're not going to stop "progress." You can lament and reject and kick and scream, but the country's landscape has continuously evolved and likely always will due to greed and other things.
I'm forgetting the point I was going to make so I'll just plug another show. If you like historical fiction you might like 1883, the prequel to Yellowstone. It's essentially a show about the Oregon trail and the dangerous journey taken by (mostly) immigrants to settle the west. I think these shows do a good job of framing the values of people outside cities that help us see what they're so desperate to protect and preserve.
I'll respond to the rest later ~ thanks again for responding to that question.
Created: