Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Senethro]

I wonder how that would translate to permanent incapacitation punishments for violent offenses, ie "tough on crime," in the light of male murder victimization rates(particularly among the neurodiverse) when held up to say, equal pay for upper middle class women, or more extensive coverage for recreational reproductive acts among those that are relatively well insured? Or perhaps additional wages per hour for above average unionized labor?

Empathy intact, you're going to get a Spiderman meme laugh from me for this post. Not even in mean spirit. It's just funny as hell.

Yeah, I still never understand what you're talking about anymore. Not one sentence in the last 3 posts.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The first two were just darts thrown at me. You can safely ignore them. I share your bafflement at the third.

When I can't comprehend a Farm Boy post, I just surf it.

 

[Gorbles]

This was extremely confusing and I didn't really understand your point. A number of your sentence feel like non sequitur.
"might makes right" seems pretty spelled out for me : it means that whoever is able to enforce his will is "right". Basically a moral justification for the law of the strongest. Alternatively a constatation that if one is powerful enough he can influence others to see him as in the right (guess it would be the "history is written by the victor"), but in this case it's just an observation and not a moral argument.

Everything is an observation. "moral" arguments depend what we consider "moral". Your morals are not mine. Mine are not Narz's. Narz's are not Crezth's. How on earth do you define "enforcing", if you can't see that the US imposing its foreign policy r.e. Ukraine is "might"?

Do I therefore think that it's bad that the US is aiding Ukraine? Of course not. But some people will, because the problem isn't who is right, it's how the will is enforced (to make the thing "right"). It's a moral argument, all the way down. Unless someone's a sociopath, in which case it's literally just brute force that wins and nothing end. The ultimate "ends justify the means".

This all came out of you having a dig at Crezth for apparently supporting "might makes right". I'm saying we all do. History is written by the victors, because all history is written by the victors. It's why that phrase exists, and why historians have such a hard time relying on historical text to give a faithful understanding of what actually happened. How much of the Aztecs did we learn from the accounts of Spanish Conquistadors? How much about kings and queens did we learn from their admirers, or their enemies? If Russia wins in Ukraine, they get to determine the history there, in violation of what anyone else thinks on the subject. They already did in Crimea. The same goes for Israel in the Middle East. They get to write their own story, teach their own children that story. Just as schools in countries all across the world teach sanitised versions of their own histories. "but it's okay when we do it", or "our history is closer to the actual truth than theirs". It doesn't matter. They're all ultimately justifications.

If it was as simple as a definition, there'd be little argument about it. And I'm not saying I agree with Crezth's take on the subject. But I know from past experience you and I disagree on a bunch of things, so where does that leave us?

 

[Farm Boy]

Why would somebody be tough on crime?

Why would somebody work so hard for MADD?

They must hate equal rights for women. Duh.

 

[Gorbles]

Why would somebody be tough on crime?

Why would somebody work so hard for MADD?

They must hate equal rights for women. Duh.

Why would someone insert their personal faith into matters of women's autonomy?

Huh. Duh.

 

[Senethro]

Why would somebody be tough on crime?

Why would somebody work so hard for MADD?

They must hate equal rights for women. Duh.

Maybe you could just say if something is good or bad and why, instead of starting from one piece of secret information you expect the reader to know already, and then comparing everything else to something you've already secretly communicated your approval/disapproval of.

 

[Farm Boy]

Because killing humans is wrong.

But I do so love people who rename social eugenics. Fine people, all around!

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe you could just say if something is good or bad and why, instead of starting from one piece of secret information you expect the reader to know already, and then comparing everything else to something you've already secretly communicated your approval/disapproval of.

I don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Fyi

 

[Senethro]

I don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Fyi

Its every phrase in this post. Some are good things, some are bad things, some are poorly supported blood libels. Overall meaning? No idea.

I wonder how that would translate to permanent incapacitation punishments for violent offenses, ie "tough on crime," in the light of male murder victimization rates(particularly among the neurodiverse) when held up to say, equal pay for upper middle class women, or more extensive coverage for recreational reproductive acts among those that are relatively well insured? Or perhaps additional wages per hour for above average unionized labor?

Empathy intact, you're going to get a Spiderman meme laugh from me for this post. Not even in mean spirit. It's just funny as hell.

 

[Gorbles]

Because killing humans is wrong.

But I do so love people who rename social eugenics. Fine people, all around!

I can attach names to things I don't like as well, it's easy. Nice little bait and switch, rolling out bangers like "eugenics".

Almost makes people forget about the people dying. The birth parents, that is. But I guess that's "less wrong". Fine people and all that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Killing humans sometimes is necessary. Most people would make exceptions for that. Even ones that aren't fans of social purity.

Its every phrase in this post. Some are good things, some are bad things, some are poorly supported blood libels. Overall meaning? No idea.

I'm thinking maybe some additional training on empathy is required in the thread, since it came up. I can always use it, I despise a lot of folks, bone deep. But I can't pop the bubble mirrors for people. If they want to see out, they're going to need to pop it themselves. If I'm asking a question, I usually want an answer. It's not like I have everything figured out.

So from Lex's post, what I'm getting is that people who vote the issues I mention are over l incredibly callous individuals.

 

[Senethro]

Because killing humans is wrong.

But I do so love people who rename social eugenics. Fine people, all around!

Yeah, I just don't believe you believe this. Its a performance and on some level you know it. The people who really believe it bomb abortion clinics, which is bad, but a rational and consistent action with the belief that many millions of humans are being killed.

I doubt you're concerned about the "humans" killed through IVF or any other process using similar materials. I don't think you can make a serious claim that there is an ideology or an agenda to "purify" the US population through manipulated healthcare provision. I doubt the historical examples of the US very much engaging in such activities resemble what you believe is happening now.

This is just shouting your disapproval over something you can't quite name. To me it looks like that ancient aliens guy who used to hang around here. Just a vocal rejection of the status quo and its values and methods.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bull**** on you, then. I've structured my life around that belief. Best I can.

What the **** have you done?

 

[Gorbles]

Killing humans sometimes is necessary. Most people would make exceptions for that. Even ones that aren't fans of social purity.

Necessary doesn't mean not wrong. For "killing humans is wrong" to stick, it needs to be without exceptions.

Is it? Or is it once again all about the justifications? Because if we're talking about justifications, "wrong" is irrelevant. Nevermind the mixing of church and state.

 

[Farm Boy]

Necessary doesn't mean not wrong. For "killing humans is wrong" to stick, it needs to be without exceptions.

You aren't three. You can do better.

 

[Senethro]

Bull**** on you, then. I've structured my life around that belief. Best I can.

Have you though?

Remember those crazy pizzagate guys? They thought a specific restaurant was a front for trading child sex slaves/blood consumption and were very loud about it. There looked to be a more than a few of them - but only one guy ever turned up with a gun and looked in all the closets.

Is your belief more like the loud guys rejecting the status quo, or the guy who acted?

 

[Farm Boy]

Every day my lived life. Maybe I decided a father was a better tool than a gun. Much as I may have wanted to use it, a child needs his dad, as long as he can have him.

 

[Gorbles]

You aren't three. You can do better.

So you can, and yet here we are.

So pull the other one, alright? If something is bad because killing is wrong, but I'm reducing it to something simplistic, then it's more complicated than killing is wrong. But you just need the slogan, because it's catchy.

I'm not like Senethro in that I have no doubt you believe what you believe.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: You better chill a bit, or I'll lock the thread for a while.

 

[Senethro]

So you can, and yet here we are.

So pull the other one, alright? If something is bad because killing is wrong, but I'm reducing it to something simplistic, then it's more complicated than killing is wrong. But you just need the slogan, because it's catchy.

I'm not like Senethro in that I have no doubt you believe what you believe.

Well, I'm sure he believes he believes it.

I just think there are certain magical categories of belief that you profess, but do not (typically) act upon. The conspiracy theory guys are just an out there example.

This is probably overall a good thing. It would not be good if people acted on these beliefs.

But then what is their purpose? They're not uncommon. I can probably identify at least one in myself. In-group/out-group identification is my best guess maybe.