Educational

Author Topic: Liberal self-pwnage??  (Read 2571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rabbit From Hell

  • Milla's Husband
  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Karma: -186
  • Gender: Male
  • Gun or turkey baster? Do you feel lucky, punk?
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2007, 04:39:31 AM »
It's nice using Mac/Linux, if you do click on a web-page that tries to load a virus the computer just says, "WTF? I don't understand this!" and off it goes to the bit bucket.
You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish squirrel, congratulations.

politics and evil
all one and the same
satan hides behind
another name

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2007, 10:33:19 PM »
The old tax canard.  Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.

Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.

But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!!  Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets.  ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)

have personal property rights

On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.

Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)

We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing.  Didn't work out too well.

That's ancient history. I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.

You can have whatever beliefs you want.  You just can't force them on the rest of us.  And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.

You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.

the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

Then, by all means, continue.


I've done an OK job for now.


Offline morthaur

  • Dungeon Master of the Aspie Élite
  • Part of the Chaos
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: 53
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2007, 12:50:22 AM »
 :-[  Err, can I but in here with a comment, a complaint, and a question?   :angel:

The old tax canard.  Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.
Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.
Did you ever bother to check the figures for that, or are you just quoting another ditto-head?!
Look here to see where the real "lion's share" of the money goes, and how little feeds anything remotely like your assumptions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/summarytables.html

Besides... if we got to choose between banana slug research and nukes in space, I think the former is far more worthwhile...  :laugh:

have personal property rights
On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.
Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)
Oh, heavens forbid we might actually want to leave a sustainable ecosystem for our children!  I swear, arguments about how people should be able to do as they please with 'their property' just remind me of how thoroughly fucked up our species is.  And of why I became an anarchist in the first place...

I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.
I've always wondered about this one.  The vouchers make good sense if you're one of those people who think that education should be entirely privatised and offered for profit.  But this doesn't seem to describe most proponents of the topic!  Maybe you can help make sense of this for me?  Here's how I understand the issue:

1. Public schools are short on proper resources and sensible budgetary accountability, so they start to suck.
2. Vouchers could allow parents to opt out of the system, but at a cost of less funding for those public schools.
3. This seems like it would lead to further school-suckiness, and eventually to utter collapse...

Given that our elementary education in this country is already abysmal, why would cutting resources make things any better for our kids?  Sure, maybe things would be better for your kids, but the nation as a whole would decline.  And since our entire economy is coming to depend upon high-tech services and knowledge industries, we need more comprehensive education, not a total collapse of the system.

You can have whatever beliefs you want.  You just can't force them on the rest of us.  And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.
Not that you're talking to me, but I haven't, no.  Does this mean that certain positions are not allowed to be shouted out during, like, school protests and rallies and suchlike?  Because 'speech codes' there would seem just as 'legitimate' as they would outside, say, the headquarters of a multinational corporation!  ;)

From my perspective, any restrictions on free speech that do not impinge on public safety, etc, are intolerable, so don't think I am defending the restrictions on your campus or anything.  I'm definitely a free-speech zealot.  But I am genuinely curious about what those 'codes' are and how they measure up against the kind of things enforced elsewhere in society.

(Damnit all, now I have Frank Zappa's 'Who Are The Brian Police?' playing in my head!!!)

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2007, 04:10:26 AM »
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2007, 01:35:40 PM »
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.

QFT  :agreed: :plus:

Offline Parts

  • The Mad
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 37470
  • Karma: 3062
  • Gender: Female
  • Who are you?
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2007, 03:54:39 PM »
As to entitlement spending - bullshit. The big entitlement is
Social Security, a fucking ponzi scheme.

QFT  :agreed: :plus:

And if we tried to pull it off we'd be in jail :police:
"Eat it up.  Wear it out.  Make it do or do without." 

'People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.'
George Bernard Shaw

Offline mordok

  • The Ultimate Question of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Incessant Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Karma: 95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2007, 05:51:24 PM »
The old tax canard.  Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.

Entitlement spending is the lion's share of the federal budget. You know... vital things like the Endowment for the Arts and studies on the sex habits of bananna slugs.

morthaur covered this quite well.  :plus:

But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!!  Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets.  ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)

Thank you for the sidebar.  Had almost nothing to do with the question posed.  Care to try again?

have personal property rights

On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.

Environmental laws an zoning laws mostly. They are often corrupted and abused to prevent property owners from doing anything on thier own property (building or improving it) by using the excuse that they're damaging the environment by doing so. (The red-legged frog fiasco in California comes to mind)

again,  :plus: for morthaur

We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing.  Didn't work out too well.

That's ancient history. I'm talking about school voucher programs that would allow poor kids to go to private schools. Teacher's unions hate them because they would introduce (GASP) accountability.

You misunderstand the teachers' position.  They are opposed to the effect (defunding of already underfunded schools), not the cause (poor performance).  Eventually, you end up with no public schools and everyone going to not-so-private-anymore schools funded by the government.  Wait, we already have that and it didn't involve giving piles of money to private interests to get there.

You can have whatever beliefs you want.  You just can't force them on the rest of us.  And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.

You're not allowed to have those beliefs when you go to Universites and other schools. Haven't you head of "Campus speech codes"?? Here come the thought police.

Actually, I have not heard of this either.  However, again, that does not mean you can't HAVE those beliefs.

the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

Then, by all means, continue.


I've done an OK job for now.

I'd have to disagree here as well.  I've seen little in the way of any cogent arguments and a lot of 'talking points'.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16680
  • Karma: 1433
  • aka Daria
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2007, 06:41:43 PM »
the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.

By this do you mean that more people lean towards conservatism than liberalism? That the most functional governments are conservative? That the human race is becoming more conservative as time passes?
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2007, 07:00:22 PM »
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!!  Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets.  ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)

Thank you for the sidebar.  Had almost nothing to do with the question posed.  Care to try again?
 
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it. As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness

No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.

Offline mordok

  • The Ultimate Question of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Incessant Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Karma: 95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2007, 08:07:59 PM »
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!!  Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets.  ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)

Thank you for the sidebar.  Had almost nothing to do with the question posed.  Care to try again?
 
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it. As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness

No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.

Well, at least you answered the question, sort of.  The insults are just a lovely bonus.  Are you capable of being challenged on anything without resorting to personal attacks?  Not that it matters really, I'll continue to answer anyway.  I'm just curious.

Now to the content, such as it is:

As for owning multiple guns, how many guns I chose to own is none of your fucking buisness

Reductive reasoning.  We are not arguing about just you.  We are arguing about liberals vs. conservatives and their differing views on various topics.  You are right about one thing though -- it is none of my business.  But, just like we're not talking about just you, we're also not talking about me.  I'm not an entity based on trying to "insure domestic Tranquility" or to "promote the general Welfare".

Either that, or are you saying that either a) no one should be concerned about how many, or at least what kind of guns anyone and everyone has or b) you should be exempt because, of course, you are special?

And what about the rest of the items from your original list?  Given up on those?

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2007, 08:20:32 PM »
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Reductive reasoning.  We are not arguing about just you. 


 :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:

Offline mordok

  • The Ultimate Question of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Incessant Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Karma: 95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2007, 08:39:37 PM »
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

Reductive reasoning.  We are not arguing about just you. 

Technically, it was the generic 'you', not you personally.  But it works either way.  You are familiar with the concept of using an example, yes?  Seems a reasonable assumption that you possess said weaponry.

:finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:

I quote the Constitution, you flip me off (repeatedly).  Classy.  Well within your rights under that Constitution, but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments, though.  Remember those?  All those freedoms that liberals are against?

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2007, 08:59:09 AM »
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,

I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith.  :finger: :wanker:

Offline mordok

  • The Ultimate Question of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Incessant Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
  • Karma: 95
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2007, 11:23:48 AM »
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,

I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith.  :finger: :wanker:

May I inquire what it is that makes you think I am not debating in good faith?

Also, if that is truly how you feel, is this also why you have yet to answer any counterpoints from anyone else?

Offline morthaur

  • Dungeon Master of the Aspie Élite
  • Part of the Chaos
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: 53
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberal self-pwnage??
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2007, 02:07:19 PM »
the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.
By this do you mean that more people lean towards conservatism than liberalism?
In some respects, yes.  There are a lot of fuzzy areas here and it is a big topic so I'll just make a couple of examples.  Realistically, though, this would be a huge subject to get into, as the basic breakdown between right and left (as in America) does not neatly match up with our biological divisions, which means that there is a lot of overlap on the issues.

The first place to start is with our natural motivations.  That humans are, strictly speaking and by nature, not altruistic, is not often disputed anymore.  Instead, we follow a reciprocal system that is inherently self-serving.  This does not mean that we cannot be altruistic, but rather than the fundamental psychological motivators are not.  You can see this in the bias we all seem to have toward our own families and groups, and in many of us towards our own 'type' of person.  That is, folks tend to favour kith & kin over strangers and strange lands.  This definitely affects large abstractions, like 'the human race' or 'people in China', which are absurdly difficult for many people to empathise with.  It is also reflected on a molecular level by the image of the 'selfish gene', but the analogy is a bit awkward and I think I'll cop out for now.

Either way, it is increasingly apparent that problems of discrimination and the inability to think in terms of future generations or distant countries are more the natural state of affairs in our brains, and it is culture that seems to be most critical in helping us to override such programming and become better humans.  But it is also apparent that the differences in political orientation people share, i.e. their facility with abstract reasoning and ability to empathise more broadly, is--at least in part--genetic.  Meaning that some people are naturally more disposed towards what we Americans (strangely) call liberalism, and others--perhaps a majority--who lean more towards conservatism.  This is, at base, probably less an issue of political philosophy than it is of human reasoning and neurological differences.  That is an opinion derived from recent research, anyroad.

That the most functional governments are conservative?
Not exactly, though yes in one specific example.  State socialism was a disastrous failure because basic human motivators are not linked to the success of the nation, but rather to the self and family.  Governments which operate along more selfish lines, i.e. according to market forces, are more likely to reflect the natural state of affairs.  This does not, of course, mean that socialism is 'bad', but rather that we have to develop aspects of it progressively, and not expect people to be--by nature--such perfectly good animals that if we only remove the oppressive systems our goodness will shine through.  This is a standard belief of Marxists and most anarchists, and explains the disastrous history of revolutionary socialism---and, by extension, the relative success of things like the Scandinavian social model, which was brought on gradually and in collaboration with basic social freedoms.

That the human race is becoming more conservative as time passes?
Most emphatically no.  Culture, the amazing wild card that trumps human nature, is increasingly more open, generous, and committed to ideals like equality and freedom.  Just look at the collapse of venerable institutions like slavery.  It is still possible, in my opinion, to be a Utopian in some respects, but the creation of a better world will require taking our biological motivations into account, and should as a consequence be a more gradual (read: non-revolutionary) process.

But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!!  Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets.  ::) (The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar.  Had almost nothing to do with the question posed.  Care to try again?
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it.
Actually, the deflection here is yours, and you did not at first answer the question.  Read it again: "Why would you need multiple weapons with".  The question is about the guns, not about the ammunition they use.  The ammunition type here serves a descriptive purpose, i.e. it defines the type of gun, but the question was about gun ownership.

No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.
He doesn't need my help to see through shoddy reasoning.  If you want to debate or argue, as opposed merely to polemicising, you need to read the questions more carefully.  And this---
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,
I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith.  :finger: :wanker:
is just sad.  You are either being deeply disingenuous or do not understand how to argue.  As I would like to see and/or participate in a real debate on the issues, I am hoping that you will get your head on straight and come back in with a real point to make.  Devolving into insults when someone calls you on a bullshit strategy is pretty puerile...