Romney: "What we feared is happening...the administration has made things worse"

[inthesky]

In light of the GOP stupidity with the shutdown and default brinkmanship, I was inclined to visit this topic. Lock accordingly if felt too old.

I'm going to say this first---Romney is clueless. Does government "create jobs" or not? I'm not super interested in what this guy has to say, even though he was almost certainly the best person for the Presidential ticket in the GOP 2012 field's late game.

I'm also inclined to revisit some posts. Sorry max cady and everyone else, but my quoting function still doesn't work...

"Well, the thing about the infamous CBO report is that, while I do concede that economics tip-toes between educated guess work and years of non-linear operations research studies, politically-driven economics are a dime a dozen (I am looking at you, Krugman) and unlike the popular claim the report doesn't actually prove that jobs were saved or created ("saved jobs" is not a term used by any economics major, a political activist, maybe, not an actual economist)"

Re: "saving and creating" well yes, but you have to condemn tons of politicians, and virtually every instance where anybody recognizes the convenience and positive affect of the rhetoric "job creation" which includes...tons of people. In any case, the meaning of "saving a job" and 'creating a job" is more or less understood so this isn't such a big deal beyond someone deciding to use flowery rhetoric

First, economics is fundamentally normative in so far it answers the question of what it is you want to do. There are observable patterns, but as a social science you can't answer questions (especially reductionist ones) like "are taxes bad" and just draw up a simple graph to explain in a vacuum. It's also how most economists generally agree that deficit spending in a recession is fine. as nixon said, "we are all keynesians."

You've more or less tipped your hand here politically, and so have I as I identify as left-wing but not a Democrat, but if you're going to dispute the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, implicitly because it's a government source and contradictory to whatever narrative you're interested in--the least you could do is explain what allows you to credibly dismiss the CBO. The director, at least, was appointed by both John Boehner and a senator Byrd, whose first name I can't recall but was a Democrat.

"(lee doren video)

This fall more in line with educated guess work and pre-established assumptions."

Whose educated guess work? Whose pre-established assumptions? The crux of his argument was that the report assumed that government spending does indeed create jobs/stimulate economic activity--that's because it does. The only people willing to disagree are those who are Friedman/Hayek/Austrians school types. Moves detrimental to economic activity are austerity measures which crush the purchasing power of consumers (especially worse for the poorer) and surplus hoarding which is economically anemic.

You linked to Lee Doren, a free-market/austrian school type libertarian. An adherent of terrible economic ideas.

"Jumping from that to Obama's relantionship with Congress, I'm sorry if I come off as mean, but Obama enjoyed his first two years in office pratically unopposed (full Democrat majority in the House and Senate), in which he pushed foward virtually all the major policies that we see in effect today and really his policies have changed very little since then."

You've already acknowledged the "one-term president" thing so I'll say..

This is generally just a lousy thing to say without pointing to specific pieces of legislation that you find problematic. Even a conservative wouldn't have a problem with this so long as the legislation they wanted was passed. So what is your problem with then. DADT repeal?  Dodd-Frank? the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act? Perhaps you are in a position of privilege that is shielded from stuff like even the modest Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act? Pay-as-you-go? How interested are you in fraud enforcement expansion, shark preservation, food safety standards, etc.? Which isn't to say that some of these are subject to administrative failures (see: the neutering of the ATF) but the bolded is very rhetorically shady.

"As much as one might want to kick Republicans for not playing ball, part of the problem also lies in Barack Obama's let's say... narcassistic posture towards any kind of disagreement or any obstacle of sorts. And as far as blocking him in order to be a one term president, that seems hardly an hindrance, because in any functioning republic the opposition's role is to be just that: the opposition."

Even I don't agree with Obama on everything. I think that the Democrats were behaving like a centrist party a la Bill Clinton. Hell, even Obamacare is a massive concession--we know that it originated from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. We didn't get Single-Payer.

Anyway, the function of government is to do what's better for its people at large, and especially take care of services that can't otherwise be performed as-well. If the Republicans supported health care expansion and the Democrats didn't, and the Democrats were a minority in either House/senate, I'm not going to suddenly support the Democrats on this issue. You don't just play for the team; you choose the better ideas. Republicans, coincidentally, have consistently abominable ones like their dog-and-pony bullshit on the debt limit (wasn't so great when Newt Gingrich went with it)--the debt limit doesn't even need to exist, by the way.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130904,0,2277460.column

"And to be blunt, Obama's challenges in office in this time period are akin to a mild discomfort compared to the amount of venomous ill will and Twitter-style murderous vitriol directed at George Bush."

Seeing as the thrust of your post is about presidential ill will, this is massively disingenuous considering how stupendously bad George W. Bush was as a President. I'm sure you're aware of "Bushisms"...for all his botched speeches. He screwed up his Middle East involvement (he originally stated he was against things like "regime change"!), should've responded better to Hurricane Katrina, Valerie Plame affair, Darfur, PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, was environmentally disastrous, etc. But in any case, I think being called any combination of "kenyan" "muslim" "socialist" with crappy credible reason to do so is pretty terrible. I think having to go through the whole "birther" phenomenon twice (starting with Hillary supporters and then continuing on to the 2012 campaign. Obama doesn't have particularly high approval ratings right now, either.

"Here's the thing... I don't expect the US, UK to meddle with other countries. But I do beleive in the United States of America as a positive role model. If nothing else, be a positive influence to it's allies and countries such as Egypt."

But this country is not a positive role model. We have a history of colonialism and exploitation, going to as recent as the Latin American debt crisis. This is a country that's better to live in than most others, but not without huge flaws. We're nothing like the Nordic area.

Anyway, Obama's first call once things were rumbling in Egypt this year was for "stability." Stability. That was the best he could do.

"Whatever good intentions that the Obama Administration had in Egypt with influencing Mubarak's removal from power, the fact of the matter is that the Norsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have turned out to be extremists disguised as moderates and are waging total war against the Egyptian population. Norsi intended radical changes to the constitution which would actually set back things like women's rights and minority rights in Egypt for centuries. Not to mention a powerful PR machine and enforcer squad who's sole intent was to stiffle (violentely, if need be) any dissedents and opposition. None of this reflects well on this administration as a whole, specially since Kerry, Obama and other top people have been very coy about this matter."

I sort of agree with you, but I don't see what intervention can be taken on the part of the US, or even the UN at the moment. Neither the military nor the Brotherhood are great options, and it will take long for the conservative positions to be outgrown that are terrible (genital mutilation.) Unfortunately the two main parties here most capable of providing "stability" in an ostensibly democratic state are not good.

"But alas, more pressing matters abound such as the rodeo clown who shocked the nation by putting on an Obama mask..."

yeah, but dude, that is politics for the mass-consumer, or those who don't even care about politics at all: this is how some outlets sell their crap by being sensationalist and by talking about issues that most people are otherwise not all that interested in beyond a superficial level. There is always tabloid crap.

I'll leave with this:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25039

[inthesky]

NOW it works?

Please excuse the double post...adding this to an already ugly post before is not preferable.

Libs like to jump at any opportunity to claim something's racist, I'm mostly liberal but I can't come to terms with the moral code adopted by the left wing parties hivemind. I can, however, usually support left wing economics and occasional social policies when the numbers are there to back them up.

Really though, most left wing parties just try to sell you some bullshit moral code and act otherwise. I gotta say, at least as far as this goes, the conservatives typically acknowledge their religious and moral influences even if I disagree with them on the basis that I'm an atheist; I respect their honesty on this topic.

What left-wing hivemind are you talking about? How come the right-wing doesn't have one? How come the right-wing people are more honest than the left-wing people? What about the conservative atheists (usually found amongst libertarians and not Christian Democrats)? I acknowledge that no religion influences my moral beliefs--how honest am I?

[tarpmortar]

What left-wing hivemind are you talking about? How come the right-wing doesn't have one? How come the right-wing people are more honest than the left-wing people? What about the conservative atheists (usually found amongst libertarians and not Christian Democrats)? I acknowledge that no religion influences my moral beliefs--how honest am I?

On the contrary, right wing parties do indeed have hivemind. When I say this, I'm referring to morality and how each party generally adopts moral platforms as though they can be factual. You'll note each side believes it's taking the moral high ground on a variety of topics but if you're discerning enough you'll also come to the realization there's no such thing as morality cannot be proven if disagreed upon. The left-wing adopts a set of politically correct morals whilst right-wing adopts, typically, a religious moral code.

Also while I agree Bush was a horrendous president I honestly think Obama is just as bad or worse. Expansion of the drone and internal spying programs are particularly egregious examples of how he is worse than Bush. Others are a half-assed healthcare initiative that is worse in my opinion than the old shitty and non-existent regs, the new healthcare laws are a disaster for the middle class and lower middle class, who aren't eligible for any subsidies and are faced with high plan & out of pocket costs and shit coverage. Not to mention the fact that we're giving more subsidies, mostly to the benefit of private companies, to pay for the ones who cannot afford it. The dude basically killed the public option before it even hit the congressional floor. The only positive thing I can say about it is it bars insurance companies from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions.

He attempted to stay in Iraq past the Bush administration's exit date and the only reason we, as Americans, were saved from an extension of that pointless war was because the Iraqi government refused to budge on their pre-agreed exit date with the US.

Also I'm not a fan of the gun control he promotes, I'm ok with background checks but the fact that he can really only pull out emotional plea after emotional plea doesn't inspire confidence. He also wants more than background checks which is about all I'd be ok with (if you decide to form a counterargument on the topic of gun control, I insist that before I reply you state why you oppose firearm ownership of some/all type(s)).

Shocking & full disclosure; I voted Green in 2012.

[max_cady]

I'm not going to use quotes for this, but please take this into consideration:

#1: Heritage Foundation being responsible for developing Obamacare is factually and historically incorrect (Link)

#2: Once again, "saving a job" is not an actual economic term. Not matter how much the Obama administration wants to create a statement that doesn't exist. Yes, you should condemnd many people who use this as a sales pitch, but that doesn't excuse them in any way shape or form.

#3: The Obama administration claimed the the stimulus would jumpstart the economy based on their famous chart showing different scenarios.

#4: I'm also aware of Obama's flubs, going to war against Lybia without consulting Congress nor Senate, Cash for Clunkers, which was pretty much a goverment-sanctioned scam, the Fast & Furious debacle, Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy, the IRS decable, Prism, random drone firing, ACORN, 16 Trillion dollar deficit, the embassy decable in Bengahzi, Snowden, Union thuggery, Solyndra, when was the last time the Senate passed an actual budget and Pigford, to name a few.

#5: With regards to Valerie Plame, Richard Armitage was the leaker. 

#6: Bush had to deal with 9/11 Truthers, a movement which is still fairly strong even today. Arguments about a birth certificate are nothing compared to the Bush administration being acussed of manufacturing a terrorist attack, killing innocent people just for kicks to steal gold under the WTC towers.

#7: Once again, regarding the assumption about stimulus or the CBO report, it is better that you hear from the CBO director himself (Link)

#8: Taking any criticism towards the Obama administration and labelling it as either political or agenda-driven nullifies any notion that the Democrats are behaving as centrists;

#9: With regards to ideology: ( Link )

#10: Debts should likely have some restraint, because money is a finite resource;

Don't take any of these as some form of a nasty rebuttal, it's mostly to do with today's political commentary which nowadays is very polarizing (far left and far right). Suffice to say, history will eventually make more sense to us in the long run.

Unfortunately, Egypt was a lesser of two evils scenario, but the Muslim Brotherhood itself was perhaps one of single worst things to have happened to the egyptian people.

[inthesky]

On the contrary, right wing parties do indeed have hivemind. When I say this, I'm referring to morality and how each party generally adopts moral platforms as though they can be factual. You'll note each side believes it's taking the moral high ground on a variety of topics but if you're discerning enough you'll also come to the realization there's no such thing as morality cannot be proven if disagreed upon. The left-wing adopts a set of politically correct morals whilst right-wing adopts, typically, a religious moral code.

Okay, but I don't know what your complaint is then. Going with the assumption, for the sake of argument, that all left and right wing people share the same moral code. It doesn't matter necessarily that there's no universally agreed upon morality--it doesn't stop the opposing left and right (to create a very reductionist and simplified version of any conflict) from believing they're right. It also doesn't mean that one doesn't have valid concerns. I'm against the idea that there need necessarily be consensus to create laws that reflect a moral stance...which happens all the time. The "Bill of Rights" are an expression of morality. So is the Civil Rights Act. Moral disunity and conflict of interest is older than slavery in the United States. If we had to wait for universal consensus---no Civil Rights Act, no lots of other markers of progress.

Also, I find politically correct to be one of the strangest epithets. As if demonizing the offensiveness or insensitivity of some/lampooning the use of inclusive words and ones that don't attack certain groups is something worth being negative about.

Also while I agree Bush was a horrendous president I honestly think Obama is just as bad or worse. Expansion of the drone and internal spying programs are particularly egregious examples of how he is worse than Bush. Others are a half-assed healthcare initiative that is worse in my opinion than the old shitty and non-existent regs, the new healthcare laws are a disaster for the middle class and lower middle class, who aren't eligible for any subsidies and are faced with high plan & out of pocket costs and shit coverage. Not to mention the fact that we're giving more subsidies, mostly to the benefit of private companies, to pay for the ones who cannot afford it. The dude basically killed the public option before it even hit the congressional floor. The only positive thing I can say about it is it bars insurance companies from excluding those with "pre-existing" conditions.

I think Obama is not good on civil liberties. But he is definitely not as bad as Bush. DADT repeal, movement toward better health care (though inferior to what I would've wanted, at least more people will be insured.) Didn't fabricate a war out of BS. Attempts, albeit weak, at financial regulation. Handful of other legislative things that can be pointed to if going through the Congress' enactment history (by the way, he shouldn't have promised to close Guantanamo, because he can't do it---Congress does it.)

Anyway, there ARE subsidies/tax credits for families/individuals within 139% to 400% of the federal poverty level (for family of four, 23k to 92k). As for the middle/lower middle, there is a lot of variation due to states enacting different types of exchanges. It is in fact true that premiums and relative premium increases vary by state...but there are some such configurations (not even necessarily in the "blue states"!) where some families get a sweet deal without being rich

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114849/obamacare-insurance-premiums-beat-expectations-hhs-says

It's...a lot to cover.

Anyway like I said I would've preferred single payer, as I don't like the idea of a market for health care, and I'm a bit nervous the success of the program is bolstered by more people joining (predicated on the idea that fines for opting out are enough of a disincentive). I think the barring of insurance companies from excluding those with preexisting conditions is very good though. I don't mind the more privileged paying higher rates so that others can enjoy some health care benefits.

He attempted to stay in Iraq past the Bush administration's exit date and the only reason we, as Americans, were saved from an extension of that pointless war was because the Iraqi government refused to budge on their pre-agreed exit date with the US.

Bush administration exit date? Obama and Bush ended up with the same time table.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-the-obama-bush-exit-strategy/
But yes, I don't like his about-face contrary to his election stance on timely exit.

Also I'm not a fan of the gun control he promotes, I'm ok with background checks but the fact that he can really only pull out emotional plea after emotional plea doesn't inspire confidence. He also wants more than background checks which is about all I'd be ok with (if you decide to form a counterargument on the topic of gun control, I insist that before I reply you state why you oppose firearm ownership of some/all type(s)).

Shocking & full disclosure; I voted Green in 2012.

Emotional plea? Are you referring to him offering condolences thinking its a serious issue in the aftermath of Sandy Hook or the other disasters like the Navy Yard and Aurora? "Emotional plea" is a bit simplistic, you'd probably have to recall a scenario or something. Harder for me to tell/remember where you're coming from, but I do think Obama has said awful things before. But with this topic, it's not like he hasn't cited statistics before on the issue, and in the aftermath of Sandy Hook popular support for gun control received a boost. Congressional stagnation killed that momentum--Navy Yard aftermath offered no such thing. We are "acclimated" to gun violence.

I support an assault weapons ban-- as watered down from what Obama wanted, we didn't even wind up getting--and I support the ban of handguns. The incidences of accidental discharge and accidental deaths are not worth someone's ability to keep a firearm. Also, the ownership of firearms boosts the success rate of suicide attempts. I think the idea that by arming schoolteachers we would be averting crises is asinine, because domestic terrorism is largely unpredictable and thus hard to react to, especially from an average citizen's perspective. I think the NRA is a disgusting lobbying firm. I think the requisite laws to make the broader possession of handguns by civilians ostensibly for the sake of "public safety" an internally consistent position (i.e. there must be more guns in many public places as one of the Carolinas recently decreed that gun carrying in public places is okay) make little administrative sense (i.e. in the same vein as a maximum occupancy permit) and are unrealistic. I think handgun ownership is a right not worth having, and find it funny that the same side that argues for more spending on mental health is in fact one of the least concerned parties about social spending in general. I think the people making a stand at Starbucks by bringing guns there made no statement.

By owning guns, you are not maintaining your liberty from the government--a mass organized armed citizenship likely has zero chance against government forces, except stalemate by means of attrition. You are not a criminal deterren --more guns does not mean less crime (the average decrease of violent or property crime over time is not due to gun liberty) and more guns does not mean more safety. I am also skeptical of violent vigilante movements. I think European and Asian countries and Canada have a preferable stance.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter

and...shocking & full disclosure; I voted Green in 2012 also. =P

[tarpmortar]

Okay, but I don't know what your complaint is then. Going with the assumption, for the sake of argument, that all left and right wing people share the same moral code. It doesn't matter necessarily that there's no universally agreed upon morality--it doesn't stop the opposing left and right (to create a very reductionist and simplified version of any conflict) from believing they're right. It also doesn't mean that one doesn't have valid concerns. I'm against the idea that there need necessarily be consensus to create laws that reflect a moral stance...which happens all the time. The "Bill of Rights" are an expression of morality. So is the Civil Rights Act. Moral disunity and conflict of interest is older than slavery in the United States. If we had to wait for universal consensus---no Civil Rights Act, no lots of other markers of progress.

Validity and moral codes.... Dangerous philosophy there. Listen, I don't deny that morality plays a large role in politics, chiefly because it's the easiest argument to make and get widespread support; stupid people buy it. Has it lead to good things? Often, yes. It's still the weakest argument one can form in support of something, hands down. Most good policies that come from moral-based arguments can also have an alternative argument formed on the basis of actual data or measurable realities.

Also, I find politically correct to be one of the strangest epithets. As if demonizing the offensiveness or insensitivity of some/lampooning the use of inclusive words and ones that don't attack certain groups is something worth being negative about.

Mostly because, as a moral code, it can serve to censor science and reality (as science is the closest field to absolute truth) or other moral views that are just as inherently valid/invalid. Just as much as republicans can deny climate change or that there could be a root biological explanation for homosexuality (though that requires more study, initial findings indicate there could be one). Politically correct moral codes censor studies pertaining to IQ or differences between sex, often. One time I literally received a temporary ban on NeoGAF for bringing up XX/XY chromosomes in a discussion about transgender individuals, I literally just mentioned the scientific record and was temp-banned for not being "inclusive". Literal censorship of basic sexual biology due to a PC moral code.

Was it offensive? Surely to some, was it factual based on the data available? Yes, which means it was also censorship via morality. As Oscar Wilde once said: "Morality is merely the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike." Of course back then he was referring to the anti-homosexual attitude prevalent in his homeland but the sentiment still holds true and likely always will.

I think Obama is not good on civil liberties. But he is definitely not as bad as Bush. DADT repeal, movement toward better health care (though inferior to what I would've wanted, at least more people will be insured.) Didn't fabricate a war out of BS. Attempts, albeit weak, at financial regulation. Handful of other legislative things that can be pointed to if going through the Congress' enactment history (by the way, he shouldn't have promised to close Guantanamo, because he can't do it---Congress does it.)

He was beating for a conflict with Syria quite hard, let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended), if it weren't for how absolutely tired Americans are of never ending wars he likely could have had his way. Also one must question why the fin. regs and healthcare reform was so weak, was it truly that Obama is incompetent at debate or is it because the dude's basically a conservative in a liberal's clothing? I think it's the latter because nobody gets that far with that level of incompetence, not to mention some of his cabinet choices and campaign sponsors.

Anyway, there ARE subsidies/tax credits for families/individuals within 139% to 400% of the federal poverty level (for family of four, 23k to 92k). As for the middle/lower middle, there is a lot of variation due to states enacting different types of exchanges. It is in fact true that premiums and relative premium increases vary by state...but there are some such configurations (not even necessarily in the "blue states"!) where some families get a sweet deal without being rich

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114849/obamacare-insurance-premiums-beat-expectations-hhs-says

It's...a lot to cover.

Except that's not a complete picture and the Administration is avoiding discussions of cost the 2nd year of these plans.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

Bush administration exit date? Obama and Bush ended up with the same time table.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-the-obama-bush-exit-strategy/
But yes, I don't like his about-face contrary to his election stance on timely exit.

He attempted to extend the US deployment in Iraq past the date the Bush admin agreed upon with the Iraqi government, the Iraqis refused Obama's conditions and his push fell apart.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021

Emotional plea? Are you referring to him offering condolences thinking its a serious issue in the aftermath of Sandy Hook or the other disasters like the Navy Yard and Aurora? "Emotional plea" is a bit simplistic, you'd probably have to recall a scenario or something. Harder for me to tell/remember where you're coming from, but I do think Obama has said awful things before. But with this topic, it's not like he hasn't cited statistics before on the issue, and in the aftermath of Sandy Hook popular support for gun control received a boost. Congressional stagnation killed that momentum--Navy Yard aftermath offered no such thing. We are "acclimated" to gun violence.]Emotional plea? Are you referring to him offering condolences thinking its a serious issue in the aftermath of Sandy Hook or the other disasters like the Navy Yard and Aurora? "Emotional plea" is a bit simplistic, you'd probably have to recall a scenario or something. Harder for me to tell/remember where you're coming from, but I do think Obama has said awful things before. But with this topic, it's not like he hasn't cited statistics before on the issue, and in the aftermath of Sandy Hook popular support for gun control received a boost. Congressional stagnation killed that momentum--Navy Yard aftermath offered no such thing. We are "acclimated" to gun violence.

Gun control received a popular boost because it was an emotional time; I know that's when the most logical and fair laws are crafted, when a wave of emotional support pushes the creation of legislation....

I support an assault weapons ban-- as watered down from what Obama wanted, we didn't even wind up getting--and I support the ban of handguns. The incidences of accidental discharge and accidental deaths are not worth someone's ability to keep a firearm. Also, the ownership of firearms boosts the success rate of suicide attempts.

Why shouldn't one have the right to kill themselves, can you craft a factual argument why for example I? Who has no responsibilities to anyone, shouldn't have the right to end my own life? That's my decision if we operate on the basis of free human will. Of course, it's also a moral one but none the less a factual argument could be made against a right to suicide. Hence why I support regulating and legalizing suicide via an expanded death with dignity law which could help resolve some of the major potential counterarguments. An assault weapons ban makes little sense given they kill far less than handguns but I see you also support a ban on those.

(i.e. there must be more guns in many public places as one of the Carolinas recently decreed that gun carrying in public places is okay) make little administrative sense (i.e. in the same vein as a maximum occupancy permit) and are unrealistic. I think handgun ownership is a right not worth having

My home, Oregon, has legal open carry (meaning I could carry my firearms in public with no permit to do so), we also have one of the lowest gun violence rates per capita in the US. That link doesn't exist.

By owning guns, you are not maintaining your liberty from the government--a mass organized armed citizenship likely has zero chance against government forces, except stalemate by means of attrition. You are not a criminal deterren --more guns does not mean less crime (the average decrease of violent or property crime over time is not due to gun liberty) and more guns does not mean more safety. I am also skeptical of violent vigilante movements. I think European and Asian countries and Canada have a preferable stance

I love this argument from the left because the left loves to acknowledge the stalemate we were put into in Vietnam (arguably a loss and not a stalemate), and currently against terrorism in the middle east. Those are valid views, those were stalemates but the reality of the situation is they basically prove that, even in the modern era, yes; a outgunned force using guerrilla tactics absolutely can withstand the US and its military might.

Furthermore, looking at the Arab spring we can say with some confidence that a sizable portion of the military would likely break off in a supposed revolution due to a refusal to kill American civilians. As well as potentially fight on the side of said rebels.

Am I saying I support revolution? No, I do not but it's an outright blatant refusal of reality to act as though large outgunned forces cannot hold their own using correct strategies. Unless you're also delusional enough to maintain al qaeda was defeated, which you specifically, are not.

What I'm taking away from your gun argument is that you view guns as unnecessary and they should be outlawed/banned for the most part because of the number of people they kill? Yes/No?

Personally, I operate on my own moral code and respect that others have theirs so long as they don't try to force them on me. In my personal view? I view my rights as ending where other's rights begin; essentially it's not my business unless you make it my business.

[inthesky]

I got rid of our post, max cady, but the numbers I'm referring to should be clear. the post is large as it is...

#1: Incidentally, this contains specific reference to your op-ed, by Avik Roy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
Generally, of course the libertarian-minded people like the Cato Institute (nowadays, the Club for Growth is another such policy think tank) say they kept a "consistent" position as part of the right wing but this is an argument assuming that all right-wing people have the same opinion on everything anyway...which is only mostly true at the level of national politics. Not all conservatives hate gay marriage (log cabin republicans), not all conservatives hate minority rights, not all conservatives etc. etc.

#2: You are deferring to a rhetorical trick--the Obama Administration didn't "create" the term. The use of "saving a job" is just colloquialism and not technical jargon--this is why economists amongst themselves don't generally use such language. It's a correct complaint "semantically"...but it just doesn't have much actual meaning IMO. There is such a thing as policy/legislation that preserves jobs that otherwise would be lost due to whatever external factors.

#3: See nuckles87--it should've been a stronger stimulus.

#4: Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy? Few but (or only) the strongest right-wing team players critique for this--among them not Chris Christie. As for Libya, I don't like the handling of that at all--it was some weird conflict that included China and Russia's interests. Cash for Clunkers--the demand for it was high enough that it "wasn't able to be met" and the costs for private people (like those who scrap the "clunkers") weren't factored in to the legislation. Private initiatives are generally untrustworthy in strong environmental progress--this is why subsidies are necessary. Stronger subsidies nonetheless, considering the rebates. In any case, in lieu of carbon taxation and in the absence of America accepting electric cars/hybrids in the marketplace, it was an okay idea. Fast and Furious--that tactic started under the Bush Administration! But if you are critiquing F&F, your real problem is with the Arizona Branch of the ATF--which has incidentally been neutered by lower funding/undermanning. Not even the Bush Administration per se is the problem. If you're talking about Eric Holder, Obama has a habit of defending people who aren't worth it. IRS--this is really tiresome, and one of the worst manufactured controversies of the right. These "non-taxable" entities (the organization code that they were applying for) have to be not engaged in political activity and yet an overwhelming majority of them very obviously were. Left wing organizations were not exempt. Let's not forget the fact that the NAACP is constantly targeted by the IRS and was under the Bush Administration.

PRISM started under Bush! But I made a separate comment here about Obama not being good on civil liberties by virtue of letting them continue. Organizations like these require LOTS of transparency to be trustworthy. Random drone firing--not much meaning unless you tell me something specific, like drone use in Pakistan which is bad. ACORN--is that the thing that conservative activists torched through bogus videos, spreading FUD and killing funding? Snowden--I think Obama should have let him go. I think it's strange that secrets were so easily leaked (thus they need to tighten security while being open with the public about their operations, so that personal data doesn't get leaked) but they don't need to prosecute the guy until he says something that's actually objectionable. I don't like that Snowden has some libertarian leanings apparently (which don't have to do with the fact that he did leak), and if you read some of his earlier chat logs he's actually a cocky douchebag, but we should leave him alone unless he's actually doing something bad.

"ACORN's voter registration drives, which it has conducted since the 1980s, has been frequently mischaracterized by supporters of Republican candidates as "voter fraud". ACORN received significant negative publicity in the wake of the 2009 production and publication of videos, which were later found to be partially falsified and selectively edited, by two conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. The activists used hidden camera recordings to portray low-level ACORN employees as engaging in criminal activity, apparently advising them on how to hide prostitution activities and avoid taxes.[9] A nationwide controversy ensued, immediately resulting in a loss of funding from government and private donors,[10][11][12] including legislative amendments to spending bills in the United States House and Senate prohibiting government funding of the group." (cite-the respective wikipedia page)

16 Trillion dollar deficit--you need to explain why in particular it's a problem besides "debt is bad." Not like Obama's plan is for continuing presidents to spend trillions of dollars over debt, but with the pace of inflation, whatever. Benghazi--another right-wing fever--what is it? He ordered increased security immediately, a drone developed video feed shortly after, and the CIA did rescue some people/hold their defense. I don't like the comments about the film though. Union thuggery---a weird claim to make, as if unions all of a sudden become more thuggish under a democrat president, and as if unions are fundamentally bad/economically dangerous as is.

http://aflcionc.org/unions-make-the-middle-class-video/

By the way, private sector union membership is a little above 7%. Unions are great, unregulated capitalism isn't. Solyndra--they lost to lowering silicon prices and an inability to compete in markets for what they began to produce in spite of the government assistance they received. I do think the layoffs were sad though. "when was the last time the senate passed an actual budget" - "I don't know, but I suppose if the PATRIOTS in the House from the GOP were allowed their way and allowed to screw around with the debt ceiling and govt shutdown then we'd have some real FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY." In any case, feverish rhetoric, and it shows when you talk only of the senate and not the house. Pigford...I'll leave with this

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/obama-and-the-pigford-cases/

Besides what's covered in there, the smaller specific examples I've seen in the NYT are messed up. But the degree to which conservatives want to pin it on Obama is misinformed.

#5: Yeah. You're forgetting about Karl Rove's role, among others.

#6: At least those the slightest bit more sense (by way of individuals explaining traumatic sequences) compared to the birth certificate stupidity--which for some reason was brought up in both presidential elections Obama was in, and had little reason to actual merit investigation. He had already been vetted, and McCain wasn't subjected to that foolishness. Not that I'm endorsing conspiracy fundamentalism, but by means of observation some people do come up with drastic ways of coping with perceived mortal threats or traumatic situations. This can also manifest politically--see how the current leading political party in Greece is pro-austerity. And the "Golden Dawn" party, an anti-immigrant neofascist group.

#7: First, this is a weird thing to show me. It would, on the surface, invalidate your assertion that the CBO is an untrustworthy source, and validates the idea that the CBO is more "nonpartisan" as it might claim or "bipartisan."

Anyway, aside from the alarming fact that Toomey is affiliated with the -Tea Party-, which has awful economic ideas, his criticisms are strange. The first criticism--the most he gets out of it is allowing the director to say "employment and general economic growth is indeed up." Notwithstanding the part where he fudged the law of contraposition in logic. Second part--the distinction between "public demand" and "private demand" is totally artificial. I have seen almost nobody, certainly no one in my classes (even while being taught by a neoliberal/anti-tax professor!) use the term "private demand" or "public demand." There is just such thing as public or private good, to address things like externalities/free riders and impossibility of defining ownership/cost, etc. etc. etc. The only relevant use of the word I can think of is market for for those goods--not the sense he was thinking, which was "private sector" and "public sector." It's not like when people use their EBT card or Social Security money they can only spend it in government supermarkets. That would be asinine and unnecessarily prohibitive. Money spent in the economy is economic activity. He's also got the understanding of the PIIGS country incorrect (they are the debtor currency countries.) As for boosts in some discretionary spending, see the Baby Boomer generation. If he's talking about welfare...we just had a recession, which was preceded several years earlier by September 11th (which Bush recognized as requiring economic stimulus by way of tax cuts, and led to the loss of jobs and hurting of economic activity by hurting small businesses, airport travel--generally loss of jobs due to September 11th isn't disputed.) Toomey chose an interesting decade for his critique, to say the least. The last part is just general Tea Party planks = low taxes, broadening the base (high income levels are already taxed...so this means targeting lower level untaxed brackets! and reducing taxes decreases the burden of the rich/more capable to contribute)

By virtue of making these claims myself, I disagree with whatever corresponding statements were made by the director.

#8: I sort of don't get your criticism. I've validated some criticism from both you and Taro, had some criticism of my own obviously. So I'm not, as this over the top claim suggests, "labeling ( any criticism) as agenda driven." I'm responding to claims I don't agree with--and besides, you are doing just the same as I am. I don't love the President or anything. I'm not a patriot. If you are taking issue with the "centrism" thing, you have to note the development of the Third Way, which is a very real phenomenon within the Democratic party as

the labor movement died comparatively (separate somewhat from unions)
Reagan was immensely popular
the continued rise of the financial sector through Clinton's deregulation of it (which doesn't make me happy)
promotion of free trade
weak moves on the environment
DADT is most definitely a non-progressive social progress compromise

I would think it's natural that I might disagree with criticisms coming from right wing perspectives, seeing as I don't agree with a lot of right wing views. By accounts, when comparing the Democrats to political parties in European countries, they tend to view it as a centrist party. I am not saying that Democrats are necessarily the party of compromise or negotiation. I am saying that they had taken positions that reflect an ideology of centrism. Centrists can play team sports just as well as any other faction.

#9: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

I still think it's a gaffe, but Fox News, the last bastion of patriotism, made a soundbite out of it. you can do a lot of fun things in the absence of context. And the fury leading up to it that she alludes to was something else. I think even stranger is her assertion that

"“But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”"

It's nonsense. Opposition isn't going to debunk anything without policy ideas already being present--this need not necessarily require a bill. I don't know what she might be saying otherwise I don't hate her or anything, but I don't have strong feelings about her. Then again, I could be critical even if I liked someone or something.

Anyway, I don't see how your video makes any comment on any particular ideology or ideology in general.

#10. No. Money is a social construct. How in the world did we go from bartering, to salt/seashell/whatever else based currency, to doubloons, to gold standards, to standardless fiat, to markets for currency and complex financial instruments, with currency that exists in the realms of trillions (even higher in places like Japan, where the exchange rate is 100 yen to a dollar more or less.) Even debt and credit are predicated on trust. When one has a bank account, one way they make money (among others) is by using a small percentage of your account money for investing and for loans (which they make interest/yield on.) Though, I think banks can only use account money for investing in loans. Many of our social programs, in any case, are not in fear of insolvency and would certainly be bolstered by increased taxation and other reform, IMO.

Anyway, I do not take offense to your posts, so you needn't worry on that front. I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is VERY unfortunate.

[inthesky]

made cuts for character limit, responded to complete posts tho

I don't deny that morality plays a large role in politics...

Sure, but what are you arguing? Who are you attacking? On what issue? Your criticism has little relevance if not placed into a context. Most people on either side will have a set of statistics to validate their claim and well-reasoned arguments. This is why your claim about "Libs like to call everything racist" was weird--yet here your post is about sweeping generalizations.

Science that comments on social matters is fundamentally not neutral, and will always take on a political character. Consider that there are issues that ostensibly should be cut and dried if we take looks with the scientific method but when placed into certain contexts take on more meaning, and in fact sometimes reflect certain interests (the gun control debate lasting as long as it has in America.)

Mostly because, as a moral code, it can serve to censor science and reality ... Politically correct moral codes censor studies pertaining to IQ or differences between sex, often.
...
... censorship via morality. ...

Parts of your post border on scientism, anyway--

I don't associate myself with the Moral Majority. Anyway the thing about "root biological explanation for homosexuality" is irrelevant in political contexts beyond an academic curiosity in the sense that it already exists in nature and in other species besides humans; there's no reason to treat gay people as some sort of aberrant undercaste. Also, the branch of science known as Evolutionary Psychology has historically been linked to socially conservative views and marred by poor research. You almost seem like you're stopping short of taking a gender essentialist stance.

That aside, science can't be truly censored--it's only historically been stymied. Do you think feminists or LGBT scholars have been obstructing legitimate science? This is the only relevant conflict I can think of to cite in a discussion about "political correctness" ruining the progress of science, because I don't see another issue where that's been the case on the side of the left wing in particular. Even science has to be critiqued internally and externally--I'm sure you've heard of the bogusness of The Bell Curve and its racism. Past that, I don't think it's important to, for example protect the ability of businesses to discriminate, for example, or to protect people's ability to be discriminatory.

If you're inclined, link me to your post on NeoGAF. I think there's more to the story than you're letting on--Mumei, though feminist, is not a ban-happy mod, and there are plenty of anti-feminists on NeoGAF (though you may not be one.) The choice of rhetoric here is getting too defensive/victimized for my tastes--I would never defend myself by citing a philosopher/writer. You have a sort of skewed understanding of censorship, by the way.

He was beating for a conflict with Syria quite hard, let's not beat around the bush (no pun intended), ...

I agree on Syria; but let's bring some context--you brought that up in a discussion about Obama being worse than Bush, the Patriot Act president. Obama didn't fabricate a reason to go to Syria--he chose an inconsistent angle (human rights violations, in consideration of the fact that Assad has already used weapons against his people, though he later talked about chemical weapons changing war in general which is a little more believable). Bush's purpose was punitive, predicated on overly feverish rhetoric and Republican FUD, and he chose a scapegoat. Obama, ostensibly, wanted to go through with a modest operation which would very likely achieve little.  And yeah totally, the idea that Obama is a centrist or a conservative has regularly been circulated outside of mainstream discussion. I've seen someone say he is a conservative in the Edmund Burke tradition, a philosopher that I'm not familiar with other than the fact that he's routinely cited as a kind of conservative. As I've mentioned to max, when comparing our political parties to some in Europe they might be inclined to say our political continuum is further right than theirs on the whole. You also noted/hinted at him making conservative/moderate appointments, which is true. Healthcare reform was weak because there was too little support for it congressionally, and the government is too close to the world of finance.

Except that's not a complete picture and the Administration is avoiding discussions of cost the 2nd year of these plans.

As I said to max (I believe), this system is supposed to perform better the more people who enroll in it, specifically those who are already otherwise healthy and young. It's because of this that premiums and effectiveness in general down the line are increasingly harder to guess.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/29/health-care-exchanges-impact/2879371/

Anyway, your first source talks about something that I was already talking about--the variability in coverage due to factors including the differences in the state-run exchanges and how they turn out. The previous discussion was class-based as you brought it up, but yeah younger men will pay comparatively more. let's take a look at your source--it names one particular demographic--young men not insured through employers--as those who pay higher premiums. It talks exactly about the federal poverty line statistic I mentioned earlier. In any case, it mentions that young men will pay more when not getting insured through the employer.

Let me make a diversion--you brought this up in a discussion about the flaws of Obamacare. Since you cited the article, let's just say for sake of argument that it is indeed empirically true (which I'm not debating, on a side note) that young men will pay more. You can't take a neutral stance on this, contrary to your view on sticking to science in the above posts--in fact, you may not realize it, but you have already taken a moral position. You think that this is inconsistent with Obama providing Affordable health care to all, and that all should have lower premiums. I might agree with this, but in the absence of that, I think it makes the most sense that the demographic that has the lowest incidence of hospital visits pays more to cover for the needs of the others and less capable. Though I fit the demographic as a young man, I am not all that outraged that my premiums would go up where I to participate in the exchange (accounting for the fact that these are apparently averages!) But as I have repeatedly stated, I support single payer.

Your second source--Avik Roy, the Romney adviser, who actually supports a universal mandate---is strange for a couple reasons. One, he has a graph that tries to reconcile household income and the individual effect. Not to mention he argues for the double-whammy while ignoring the distribution of tax burden (lower bracket, lower tax). Not to mention that North Carolina insists on not participating in the exchange--thereby setting up a bad one not worth participating in, and not to mention that Obamacare doesn't eliminate employer-offered plans (how do you get your money in a way that your premium will jump so high but you also don't have access to an employer-offered plan?) The other is his use of inflammatory rhetoric--just look at that article and some of the others ones, especially the ones on unions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/how-much-will-obamacare-premiums-cost-depends-on-where-you-live/
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm

I can agree that there's a messaging problem in so far as just calling Obamacare the providing of more healthcare for more people is better. And in some states it is preferable to pay the mandate penalty over enrolling if one is unemployed. But I also prefer to have more people with health care, which few people are going to debate this won't accomplish. And I still support universal coverage. And as I have already said elsewhere--I dislike the market approach. I can't make it clearer that I don't care all that much for Obamacare (=P) but it's superior to others being uninsured right now.

So, your picture is also incomplete--the "picture" of prediction is incomplete in general because of the necessity of higher enrollment numbers and because, since it's a special market, it requires more participation to judge the second year.

He attempted to extend the US deployment in Iraq past the date the Bush admin agreed upon with the Iraqi government, the Iraqis refused Obama's conditions and his push fell apart.

Now I see. Of course it was partially motivated by the usual selfish geopolitical interests (Iran.)

Gun control received a popular boost because it was an emotional time; I know that's when the most logical and fair laws are crafted, when a wave of emotional support pushes the creation of legislation....

Like the Civil Rights Act? Is it lost on you that there's actually no connection between emotional popular support and whether or not something is desirable, or dare I say, possessing a factual basis? Why would you stake your position on the fact that the support was "emotional" and therefore not warranted? False dichotomies ftw. I've broken down a number of reasons why public ownership of guns is not desirable, and a large part of your position is based on freedom. The regulation argument is already more or less clear--see other European, Asian countries, Canada.

Why shouldn't one have the right to kill themselves, can you craft a factual argument

Why shouldn't you have the right to kill other people?
Why shouldn't you have the right to defraud someone in an economic transaction if they willingly consent to it in spite of actually being defrauded?
Why shouldn't you be able to depict rape as a potentially liberating experience for the victim or blame the victim?
Why shouldn't you have the right to practice propaganda of the deed and stage violent anarchist protests against globalization summits or businesses?
Why shouldn't you have the right to be a violent vigilante?
Why shouldn't you have the right to be racist?

What --factual argument-- is there.

Let's not forget that I never argued for disallowing "the right to kill themselves!" Do you know my position on euthanasia? But, I don't like this framing of "the right to..." because

I? Who has no responsibilities to anyone, shouldn't have the right to end my own life? That's my decision if we operate on the basis of free human will. Of course, it's also a moral one but none the less a factual argument could be made against a right to suicide. Hence why I support ...

All aboard the freedom train.

I don't operate on the "basis of free human will." I don't hold it as the most desirable virtue. I don't see it as the most desirable virtue in absence of a God or an infallible moral authority to reconcile the moral differences that people have. Look at the superman/ubermensch talk "I, who has no responsibilities to anyone" I assume you have no kids. Some people without jobs say they have no responsibilities to anyone but I'm sure you do--but anyway, I am critiquing your heavy handed rhetoric. Nevermind how you contradicted yourself - "well it's a moral one but it's also a factual one!" When did freedom become a fact? Can you cite freedom in a peer reviewed science journal?

You talk of "factual basis"--to make an overly simplistic argument but one that is effective in this context--- what's the "factual basis for freedom"? It's just the only "moral position" allowed in the absence of facts acting as authority over morality--the absence of seeing any position as more desirable. Now understand I'm not arguing for lies--I'm arguing against your means of reasoning. I find it strange that you think they must essentially contradict. They don't, and even when you see people who act like this, it's not an argument for deferring to freedom of opinion on social issues

For the record, suicidal tendencies can be cries for help from people who cannot express this desire. Giving them some help might do them good. There are people out there who have been dissuaded from suicide who don't exactly regret not going through with it! Was it wrong for them to be dissuaded or be "intervened against"?

I support an assault weapons ban because there's no reason for the public to own them, other than novelty or "self-defense" which the superbly vast majority are underequipped to do in the relevant situations where it matters most. Besides, carrying around assault weapons for punitive reasons or to be on guard for self-defense is prohibitively tedious, and only becomes an internally consistent position if one carries assault weapons with them all of the time.

My home, Oregon, ....

The quote you cited has little relevance to what you're arguing. And it's not even a refutation of the fact that other countries (who carry on just fine!) with stricter gun control laws do indeed have low gun violence (see: the United Kingdom.) I don't see why one would insist one wanting guns other than a selfish indulgence of a right that doesn't actually exist. Rights don't "exist" technically anyway--rights are moral, they have to be created.

Also, you didn't look at the Wikipedia chart, did you? Check this out:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AmericaUnderTheGun-4.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/states-gun-violence_n_3091993.html

By the way, my state apparently has higher gun restrictions than most, and is low on gun violence!

I love this argument from the left...

Your argument is highly misleading. It becomes a question of how pyrrhic you want the victory to be, because the notion of turning against one's citizenship is asinine to begin with since citizenship runs the country (via election, economic activity,etc.) Think of our nuclear arsenal That's enough to take off most any threat..any civilization. Also, the left likes to talk about how our intervention in Vietnam was unjustified like MLK Jr. (who incidentally was a democratic socialist), our attempts at regime change are misguided and motivated by selfish interests/neocolonialism. The US objective wasn't to go scorched earth on Vietnam. This was motivated by more Red Scare bullshit and anti-communism paranoia and thus they saw the Viet Cong's ideological position as counter to their interests in containing communism. My position is, if a country wanted to level its cities, it easily could. Anyone who possesses the level of firepower currently owned by the several countries that own weaponized warheads who could so easily. Doesn't even need to be nuclear--it's clear how many tanks, drones (which is huge), fighter jets, cruise missiles, etc. the military has over the citizenship. We are continually financing the military industrial complex.. They've tested laser weapons (believe they are competent), and have been working on a "lightning gun."

This is in absence of the fact that it would be disastrous socially and make no sense for any govt to attack its citizenship.

For the record, I would actually call Vietnam a loss too. America didn't get what it came for. My argument is that I disagree with people feeling secure or free from the government because they're packing heat. They should've stolen their weapons and not joined a registry/gotten a permit. if they wanted real freedom from govt oversight. That's a more consistent position. Plus, a handgun is paltry against superior firepower. the mass of American citizens are not guerilla warfare specialists. they're just american citizens--not the viet cong!

... we can say with some confidence that a sizable portion of the military would likely break off in a supposed revolution due to a refusal to kill American civilians. As well as potentially fight on the side of said rebels.

This is a weird position for me to be in honestly, as I don't love the idea of any government per se but the fact that people believe in these anti-government holy war scenarios is shocking. I don't stake my views on the assumption that government is fundamentally bad or good. It's a means to an end. That being said.

What the military thinks is irrelevant once the nuclear call is made, and it's not made by democratic decision. You cited the Arab Spring--only one country out of those has nuclear weapons and didn't use them--and suffered no overthrow, anyway. There are countries still unstable in spite of it. Though I do like democratic spirit, anyway...

I find it strange your scenario is predicated on the military seeing the light (making a moral judgment, and not necessarily a factual or rational one since govt is more likely to win and the govt funds the military) and joining forces with American citizens. Let's ignore how contrived the scenario is and assume that the government is super terrible and wants to kill its citizens because its filled with cartoon villains. Let's ignore that the military in Egypt rose to power politically, and hence, acted out of self interest. Let's also ignore how the military in America is historically home to conservative views and generally hierarchical. And assume that they act in lockstep to a significant number. The military certainly didn't choose the right thing with Japanese internment in WW2, and many of them were American citizens. Our military can't even address its sexual assault and misogyny problem appropriately, and it took years before they stopped resisting non-white service.

Military is law and order. Your scenario is unrealistic--"well some of the military who believes in freedom fighting would break off and fight against the government and join the rebels."

And I generally support revolutions! As for your last statement, I never said that.

Unless you're also delusional enough to maintain al qaeda was defeated, which you specifically, are not.

Then why try to go there in the first place =P, this is not clever rhetorically or makes much sense. Sounds passive aggressive

...you view guns as unnecessary and they should be outlawed/banned for the most part because of the number of people they kill?

Personally, I operate on my own moral code and respect that others have theirs so long as they don't try to force them on me. In my personal view? I view my rights as ending where other's rights begin; essentially it's not my business unless you make it my business.

What I said earlier explains my stance. I think guns for the public are unnecessary and ineffective, not just because of the number of people that are killed. I think the Second amendment's allowance of public gun ownership is petty. I would at least support both maxims of Mill's harm principle.

I also operate on my own moral code. Virtually all humans do if they have the brain activity. But, Your second paragraph sounds uninterested in what other people have put up with. Other people's views sometime do infringe on others, as the Southern Strategy, Manifest Destiny, colonialism/neocolonialism, patriarchy, Anglocentrism, the prosperity gospel, the preservation of the filthy rich/insider trading, and numerous other problems can attest to a moral code freedom won't solve the problem for. It ignores that consent can be manufactured, the conflict of interests that can occur to preserve privilege and power, and even worse the passive ways people accept problems in the name of self-preservation or because they don't want to "cause friction". Ron Paul argued against the Civil Rights Act partially on because it's an "infringement on liberty."

[tarpmortar]

This is my final reply because these posts are getting rather long and school has restarted for me. So hopefully it answers everything.

Sure, but what are you arguing? Who are you attacking? On what issue? Your criticism has little relevance if not placed into a context. Most people on either side will have a set of statistics to validate their claim and well-reasoned arguments. This is why your claim about "Libs like to call everything racist" was weird--yet here your post is about sweeping generalizations.

Admittedly not all libs like to call everything racist, I didn't anticipate debate so I was a tad hyperbolic. Dragging an off the cuff remark into this discussion is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the current context. I acknowledge, as I consider myself liberal, that not all liberals like to call things racist. As a general rule of thumb however, liberals are often more race-sensitive and that's found in a variety of ways, including the policies, beliefs and social/political movements found within the left end of the political spectrum. Sometimes certain strains of left-wing movements (sometimes even mainstream, moderate liberal movements) can go beyond what I consider reasonable.

Science that comments on social matters is fundamentally not neutral, and will always take on a political character. Consider that there are issues that ostensibly should be cut and dried if we take looks with the scientific method but when placed into certain contexts take on more meaning, and in fact sometimes reflect certain interests (the gun control debate lasting as long as it has in America.)

Wrong, science doesn't "comment" on social matters. This is a total lack of understanding -- the science is "biased" or "not neutral" and as such it can be completely disregarded and ignored. What you describe is bad science. Science doesn't comment on politics, results can be applied to  explain some social/political issues and that's it. Science, through peer review and use of the scientific method, seeks to document, represent and come to a superior understanding of the natural world. What you're referring to is a confirmation bias, and I think you're saying that scientists who study these differences, looking to see if there's a biological/genetic causes of certain differences, are doing so without looking at all angles. As somebody who has read a significant number of studies/research papers/etc., I am well aware that this is not the case for peer-reviewed research.

Parts of your post border on scientism, anyway--I don't associate myself with the Moral Majority. Anyway the thing about "root biological explanation for homosexuality" is irrelevant in political contexts beyond an academic curiosity in the sense that it already exists in nature and in other species besides humans; there's no reason to treat gay people as some sort of aberrant undercaste. Also, the branch of science known as Evolutionary Psychology has historically been linked to socially conservative views and marred by poor research. You almost seem like you're stopping short of taking a gender essentialist stance.

Busting out the social science/liberal arts pejoratives already?

That aside, science can't be truly censored--it's only historically been stymied. Do you think feminists or LGBT scholars have been obstructing legitimate science? This is the only relevant conflict I can think of to cite in a discussion about "political correctness" ruining the progress of science, because I don't see another issue where that's been the case on the side of the left wing in particular. Even science has to be critiqued internally and externally--I'm sure you've heard of the bogusness of The Bell Curve and its racism. Past that, I don't think it's important to, for example protect the ability of businesses to discriminate, for example, or to protect people's ability to be discriminatory.

So basically it's not censorship because eventually the study eventually was/will be made, and there won't be widespread attempts to shame the results out of contemporary discussion? That's basically arguing semantics, if it's not censorship it's at the very least an attempt at suppression, the point stands. Furthermore, the critique you mention often comes from people who are completely unqualified to do so, you critique evolutionary psychology and then infer feminist and LGBT scholars are sources of sensible critique of the sciences? Please.

Let me make a diversion--you brought this up in a discussion about the flaws of Obamacare. Since you cited the article, let's just say for sake of argument that it is indeed empirically true (which I'm not debating, on a side note) that young men will pay more. You can't take a neutral stance on this, contrary to your view on sticking to science in the above posts--in fact, you may not realize it, but you have already taken a moral position. You think that this is inconsistent with Obama providing Affordable health care to all, and that all should have lower premiums. I might agree with this, but in the absence of that, I think it makes the most sense that the demographic that has the lowest incidence of hospital visits pays more to cover for the needs of the others and less capable. Though I fit the demographic as a young man, I am not all that outraged that my premiums would go up where I to participate in the exchange (accounting for the fact that these are apparently averages!) But as I have repeatedly stated, I support single payer.

I'm applying general mainstream currents of morality to politics in which I happen to agree with some. For example: equality. Why is it men should pay more? If we should pay more to cover women, why shouldn't women pay more to cover the higher cost of car insurance for men? Is it actually equal that men or women artificially pay more to subsidize the opposite gender in car/health insurance or is it equal if they just pay what they (their gender) cost the insurance company on average, to cover? Furthermore, society often supports the idea that the more wealthy should cover the less wealthy (welfare), so why is it the younger demographic that will be harmed the most by Obama's plan is also the demographic struggling to afford the ever-rising price of college? And the older demographics once more, don't subsidize them in any other insurance, so why should they be expected to do so for the older generations in this case? Not to mention this same demographic also generates less income than those who are in older demographics and have more work experience, before even taking their debt-income into consideration.

For somebody who pays out of pocket for college, like myself, the bill literally does nothing to benefit me and actually harms me. All for an older generation whom also pays less for car insurance and paid less for college than I did due to the drastic rate of inflation on tuition and the fact that the government covered a larger share of the cost when they attended.

Let me guess? Subsidies? The subsidies are bullshit and the plans are expensive even with them and as I previously stated, the whole law really benefits private hands more so than the American public. They are a band-aid on broken legislation.

Like the Civil Rights Act? Is it lost on you that there's actually no connection between emotional popular support and whether or not something is desirable, or dare I say, possessing a factual basis? Why would you stake your position on the fact that the support was "emotional" and therefore not warranted?

Straw man? Complete misrepresentation of that statement.

Why shouldn't you have the right to kill other people?
Why shouldn't you have the right to defraud someone in an economic transaction if they willingly consent to it in spite of actually being defrauded?
Why shouldn't you be able to depict rape as a potentially liberating experience for the victim or blame the victim?
Why shouldn't you have the right to practice propaganda of the deed and stage violent anarchist protests against globalization summits or businesses?
Why shouldn't you have the right to be a violent vigilante?
Why shouldn't you have the right to be racist?

What --factual argument-- is there.

Murder would cause uncertainty in markets and economy if allowed to run rampant, political systems could become completely unreliable due to assassinations. There are some reason-based arguments for outlawing murder, albeit weak ones they are more concrete than "It's wrong". Draw your own conclusions for the others.

Nevermind how you contradicted yourself - "well it's a moral one but it's also a factual one!" When did freedom become a fact? Can you cite freedom in a peer reviewed science journal?

You need to reread that, and not just the part you bolded.

For the record, suicidal tendencies can be cries for help from people who cannot express this desire. Giving them some help might do them good. There are people out there who have been dissuaded from suicide who don't exactly regret not going through with it! Was it wrong for them to be dissuaded or be "intervened against"?

Hence why I support an expanded death with dignity law that could resolve some of these issues with suicide.

I support an assault weapons ban because there's no reason for the public to own them, other than novelty or "self-defense" which the superbly vast majority are underequipped to do in the relevant situations where it matters most. Besides, carrying around assault weapons for punitive reasons or to be on guard for self-defense is prohibitively tedious, and only becomes an internally consistent position if one carries assault weapons with them all of the time.


What I said earlier explains my stance. I think guns for the public are unnecessary and ineffective, not just because of the number of people that are killed. I think the Second amendment's allowance of public gun ownership is petty. I would at least support both maxims of Mill's harm principle.

Unusual, admittedly, as most times when people are anti-gun it's because they view them as unnecessary and because they cause death. You just dislike them though and acknowledge this by calling the right to bear arms "petty". I view gun rights as positive for the purposes of defending my home and I also really enjoy firing them.

I assume you feel personal enjoyment and sportsmanship aren't valid reasons for legalizing handguns/automatic weapons?

Yet (and here's where I always find contradictory views in the folks who are anti-gun) I wonder where you stand on the personal enjoyment of alcohol and tobacco? Do you support banning alcohol and tobacco for the deaths they cause? Or do you acknowledge that the only reason you want guns banned is because you dislike guns and as such your view is entirely irrelevant due to an immense bias? As alcoholic beverages and tobacco are certainly unnecessary and serve no purpose other than personal enjoyment, and they kill many. So if personal enjoyment isn't enough to buy guns than it shouldn't be enough to buy alcohol or tobacco either.

Alcohol by itself kills roughly half as many Americans as guns do per year but alcohol plays a huge role in in all violent crime including homicides, you might say most victims of alcohol-induced death caused their own death, and you'd be right except for some of the victims of  the drunk driving/homicide induced by alcohol consumption. Or you might say guns still played a role in some of those homicides and maybe those homicides/violent crimes couldn't have occurred otherwise. Maybe, maybe not. So what about smoking cigarettes? Far more deaths than guns contribute, including that of non-participants, in fact if we excuse suicides from gun violence and death from first hand smoke (as in both cases we remove the parties responsible for their own deaths) and just count second hand smoke and gun homicides? Smoking still kills 4-7 times the number of Americans gun homicides do per year (depending on the year).

If you want to decrease gun violence, end the drug war and legalize and regulate narcotics. Use taxes generated from such programs to fund rehabiliation clinics and education; it's been a far more successful anti-drug policy when instituted well. Furthermore, a statistically significant number of gun homicides are tied directly to the drug war. Good article on this exact topic.

This is in absence of the fact that it would be disastrous socially and make no sense for any govt to attack its citizenship.


.....
What the military thinks is irrelevant once the nuclear call is made, and it's not made by democratic decision. You cited the Arab Spring--only one country out of those has nuclear weapons and didn't use them--and suffered no overthrow, anyway. There are countries still unstable in spite of it. Though I do like democratic spirit, anyway...

So you do or don't believe the US would attack it's own citizenry? What do you mean by nuclear call? You believe the US would actually use nukes in the event of a rebellion by its own citizens? And you critique others for believing in "holy war" scenarios?

It's not as though I can prove you wrong on what the course of action would be other than I highly doubt such an event would occur. Nor could you prove me wrong. Typically military factions splinter upon rebellion, whilst no government has ever nuked its own citizens.

Plus, a handgun is paltry against superior firepower. the mass of American citizens are not guerilla warfare specialists. they're just american citizens--not the viet cong!

Neither were large portions of the viet cong or al qaeda, they still proved formidable in combat and staved off the US military. They train their members but a significant portion of them start with little-to-no combat experience.

If you're inclined, link me to your post on NeoGAF. I think there's more to the story than you're letting on--Mumei, though feminist, is not a ban-happy mod, and there are plenty of anti-feminists on NeoGAF (though you may not be one.) The choice of rhetoric here is getting too defensive/victimized for my tastes--I would never defend myself by citing a philosopher/writer. You have a sort of skewed understanding of censorship, by the way.

I actually am an anti-feminist, at least anti-third wave. I mostly consider third wave a hate movement after the feminist sex wars largely made the movement petty and radical. Not that you probably care but I consider myself an egalitarian.


Regardless, this post is the final straw for me with you -- a pathetic & childish argument to make. I was explaining why a politically correct, or any, moral code can serve to stifle conversation and I provided a personal example and quoted Oscar Wilde to help illustrate my point. Now I've developed a victim complex?

Full quote of my original statement for those to see what he was replying to:

Mostly because, as a moral code, it can serve to censor science and reality (as science is the closest field to absolute truth) or other moral views that are just as inherently valid/invalid. Just as much as republicans can deny climate change or that there could be a root biological explanation for homosexuality (though that requires more study, initial findings indicate there could be one). Politically correct moral codes censor studies pertaining to IQ or differences between sex, often. One time I literally received a temporary ban on NeoGAF for bringing up XX/XY chromosomes in a discussion about transgender individuals, I literally just mentioned the scientific record and was temp-banned for not being "inclusive". Literal censorship of basic sexual biology due to a PC moral code.

Was it offensive? Surely to some, was it factual based on the data available? Yes, which means it was also censorship via morality. As Oscar Wilde once said: "Morality is merely the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike." Of course back then he was referring to the anti-homosexual attitude prevalent in his homeland but the sentiment still holds true and likely always will.

I don't see how you can read a victimized/defensive behavior into this, it smacks of desperation that you would try to discredit the point by retrofitting it in this manner.

[inthesky]

I totally understand your decision considering your circumstances. It happens. I don't think that this wouldn't get tiresome anyway.

Dragging an off the cuff remark into this discussion is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the current context...

It didn't matter then regarding censorship, but it should be clear how it matters now in this discussion about ostensible censorship and political correctness. I criticized it in the beginning because your perception on the moral codes of the left and right is inconsistent (libs call everything racist, conservatives come across as more honest). As for the second half of your post, most others generally agree. I mean, it's not like I'm trying to crack down on people making humorous remarks and such. But it's understandable in the context of a political thread.

Wrong, science doesn't "comment" on social matters. This is a total lack of understanding -- the science is "biased" or "not neutral" and as such it can be completely disregarded and ignored. What you describe is bad science. Science doesn't comment on politics, results can be applied to  explain some social/political issues and that's it. Science, through peer review and use of the scientific method, seeks to document, represent and come to a superior understanding of the natural world. What you're referring to is a confirmation bias, and I think you're saying that scientists who study these differences, looking to see if there's a biological/genetic causes of certain differences, are doing so without looking at all angles. As somebody who has read a significant number of studies/research papers/etc., I am well aware that this is not the case for peer-reviewed research.

commenting on social matters: by proxy. Can what's broadly refer to science answer questions on "how effective certain forms of birth control are?" "how useful is marijuana for medicinal purposes (and the question that follows--should it be legalized at least for that purpose)" "to what degree does alcohol inhibit motor skills" etc. These things influence policy and law. That's the same meaning as "commenting on politics." By taking a "stance" it does indeed take a political character. Else, there wouldn't be studies that oppose such any particular social issues thing (i.e. gun control.) Which isn't to necessarily that people who do act out of confirmation bias, but it must be at least the case that some do.

And to make even more clear, I'm not going to start casting doubt over the laws of physics and such.

See this, though it's more about reframing the legal system:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/317421-blame/

Then there's this:
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

Scientists, like some other occupations, have to do their best sometimes to appeal to their better side and resist certain things. The outdated understanding of free will and overemphasis on willpower is why I don't trust libertarianism or things that hold freedom as the sole maxim (with the understanding that humans will always choose a rational or good choice). Something similar to predictability is why peer review is essential in looking over things that would claim themselves as objective.

Busting out the social science/liberal arts pejoratives already?

To comment on the things that reference your complaint--

Yes, using science/the scientific method as the only absolute means of recognizing anything as true is a form of dogma. You alluded to this yourself in calling science the closest field to "absolute truth", yet you realize it has its limits by making your comment here on the natural world.

It's alarming though that you seem to perceive social science/liberal arts disciplines (including philosophy of hard science disciplines, "science studies") as antagonistic.

"gender essentialism"...social scientists can come up with their own concepts too.

So basically it's not censorship because eventually the study eventually was/will be made, and there won't be widespread attempts to shame the results out of contemporary discussion? That's basically arguing semantics....

Your argument was that you were being "censored." This is something I get to later.

As for the later section of your post - you assume that feminists and LGBT scholars have no background on which to comment on biological studies, etc. etc. There are indeed feminist academics. Your critique is predicated on the idea that feminist are fundamentally ideologically tinged and thus incapable of commentary because of that - while neglecting that evolutionary psychology isn't incapable of being ideologically motivated. Differences between feminists notwithstanding. As I have stated before - see the Bell Curve.

Criticism of scientific studies isn't oppression or censorship. As I have explained - in the realm of academia the capability of real censorship is infinitesimal. But feminist criticism or outrage by feminist posters -  it's not the Catholic Church disallowing the distribution of Bibles. It's not the FCC setting up content regulations, swear bleeping, and blurs for nudity. That's censorship. The quoted section is predicated on scientism assuming the superiority of its position. That's to be determined by honest discourse, not presupposition.

I'm applying general mainstream currents of morality to politics in which I happen to agree with some. For example: equality.

Sure. First, it's not a problem if men pay more because younger men have a considerably lower incidence of hospital or emergency visits, so high deductible plans aren't so bad for them. Regarding car insurance - your question is predicated on the idea that there's significant enough of a gap between motor skills required for driving by between genders that it becomes more fair to skew the burden of insurance costs. Incidentally, the framing of your question presupposes that men are at a significant disadvantage in motor skills (ceteris paribus - no alcohol, stress, etc, our laws don't protect drunk driving), because women would be taking on a higher burden.

Your question on equality - I am not necessarily applying equality to everything. Make everybody pay the same exact burden and such. Virtually no left wing person supports the idea of a flat tax burden; many on the left recognize that some people have different capabilities to contribute. Some on the right do too actually, as not every right wing person wants to torch welfare. Regarding the old-young Obamacare burden--I've posted somewhere here about lamenting Baby Boomer generation. In any case, not all older people retire with livable income for the rest of their life, and Social Security is predicated on this idea, same with the subsidies. The other thing is younger generations generally take on fewer obligations than the older ones. Children (a massive financial sink), cars, home ownership, to start. People don't live with the same obligations as youth as they do in the future necessarily. This is why the Obamacare system is predicated on operating in perpetuity even though no one can necessarily make the call; one day the baby boomers are dead, and we're the older generation who got previously shafted but could do with some financial assistance, especially if there is some economic disaster. And the younger generation (at the moment that they are young) has the higher wage-earning capability, including the benefit of more time to earn. Student loans also have refinancing and deferment options (they typically allow six months after graduation of grace) options - especially the federal ones (though I acknowledge that I remember hearing the interest rates could go up on these). This not to say that problems like massive tuition hikes and student loan system are not problems, because they have BS. I want more people to go to college because learning is fun and the social atmosphere is usually great, minus the exorbitant costs. But even then, Obamacare tried to address that circumstance with the parent's employer-coverage provision.

Which is not to say that I think everything about Obamacare is great, as usual. I'm sort of meh on it on the whole.

For somebody who pays out of pocket for college, like myself, the bill literally does nothing to benefit me and actually harms me....

Let me guess? Subsidies?

That's a failure of the system, to address your situation in my opinion. I don't know how old you are either. Assuming the use of as many grants/student loans/scholarships as possible, there should be a Work Study program on campus that gives you additional money. I don't know if you would qualify for welfare or something, that is depending on certain circumstances. There is such a thing as the Tax Benefits for Education program - designed for people who are paying their own way in higher education and offers tax subsidies. There exist means of assistance outside of the healthcare system.

The law does indeed benefit private hands, else there would be more backlash on the part of private insurers, who more or less aren't resisting. Anyway, don't call the subsidies bullshit because you're not benefiting (have you seen what subsidies you might qualify for under Obamacare, beyond just looking at the average rate increase?). Remember that we ended up with this mediocre system because Congress is resistant to radical change.

Straw man?...

It's not: informed by your stance on gun control, you supported a more or less unconditional resisting legislative change in the face of strong popular opinion movements. Hence "people were emotional then, they weren't logical, that means it undermines their position." Remember that I brought that up in the first place in response to your suggestion that Obama makes "emotional appeals."

Murder would cause uncertainty in markets and economy if allowed to run rampant, political systems could become completely unreliable due to assassinations. There are some reason-based arguments for outlawing murder, albeit weak ones they are more concrete than "It's wrong". Draw your own conclusions for the others.

Yeah...among other reasons. Social costs being one of them. I don't think you understand how much of a hellhole the world would be without some form of moral regulation; I find it alarming that you can't just admit murder for its own sake is wrong.

Also, no, I can just the same come up with reasons why the other things I listed are bad (or good); it was supposed to analyze your moral sensibility. the point is that unconditional free will would be terrible for society on the whole and you don't seem willing to actually acknowledge it simply for the sake of preserving the sanctity of free human will---and that free will isn't sufficient justification for simply allowing any of those things to be exempt from force of law or social derision. If free human will were all that mattered to making a functional society were people didn't get screwed over, life would be different. Free human will can't resolve the issue of why it was massively douchey for Americans to colonize America in the way they did. Free human will accepts it as an expression of itself. I simply find it troubling that people can't have moral codes without deferring to some absolute authority that expresses morality, beyond recognizing certain things as moral issues. To say nothing of the concept of moral hazard.

You need to reread that, and not just the part you bolded.

Yeah, it was indeed wrong in the sense that my response conflated "free will" as a factual argument. You are right on that front.

Otherwise the complaint is the same--you don't realize that you can make both factual and moral arguments for both sides of most any position (including the "right to commit suicide") without any one side being bullshit prima facie on every single issue. I also learned recently that you do in fact have responsibilities to pay your college education, and it seems likely that you either pay rent or own a home, so, I who have responsibilities to no one is thinking that shouldn't have been indulged (and even as an off-the-cuff remark, for the purposes of this discussion it merited dissecting). This is basically only true for people who live in total isolation.

The rest is the same, with regards to supporting an assault weapons ban. This is stupid:
http://mom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/0x600.jpg

Hence why I support an expanded death with dignity law that could resolve some of these issues with suicide....

RE: death with dignity---you weren't addressing the prospect of counseling or curing people with suicidal tendencies, but it was probably part of whatever conditions that the distribution of assisted suicide comes from.

As for my gun stance, have I already not stated that one of my reasons for being anti-gun is because they...cause unnecessary death? And that I believe public gun ownership necessitates that accidents like this happen?:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/12/pa_dad_accidentally_shoots_kil.html

That's the cost of public handgun ownership--accidental discharge mortality. I don't think a law to protect the ability of people to own guns at the cost of deaths like these (which aren't uncommon but shouldn't happen at all anyway) is worth having, and even if I did love guns I wouldn't want to protect my "right" to have one at the expense of the deaths caused by mismanagement or accidental discharge from others. I have actually enjoyed speeding; I don't want laws to do away with the speed limit--because it's highly dangerous and my satisfaction for it doesn't necessarily account for the ways it puts others at danger.

Yet again, you employ misleading rhetoric ("you just dislike them though") considering the ways I attacked it in one of my earlier posts.

I assume you feel personal enjoyment and sportsmanship aren't valid reasons for legalizing handguns/automatic weapons?

That's a different issue. I don't mind controlled environments, actually. I don't mind hunting grounds, shooting ranges, stuff like that. I don't mind target practice in a regulated environment. I don't mind games of skill. Outside of that, personal enjoyment and sportsmanship aren't valid reasons for legalizing these weapons.

[inthesky]

Had no choice but to split the post. Excuse the double post, please.

Yet (and here's where I always find contradictory views in the folks who are anti-gun) I wonder where you stand on the personal enjoyment alcohol and tobacco and drug legalization do/would provide? Do you support banning alcohol and tobacco for the deaths they cause? ...

I support laws against drunk driving, prohibitively high sin taxes, health information labels on alcohol, and lowering of the drinking age/general cultural education to decrease the unease some people feel towards them compared to European countries (there's nothing wrong with sips of wine for children, as European countries tend to show. I support environments, like the home, where alcohol is consumed in moderation especially while children are growing up, to show them more moderate use. I support the legalization of marijuana for medical and commercial use, which but for the fact that it's illegality precludes its commercial use, seems to be less harmful on the whole than tobacco. We also can properly deal with an industry that might try to be as destructive as the tobacco industry in its advertising power and cultural/financial capital. I don't support Prohibition, but I do support well-defined smoking areas especially in public places.

You again are oversimplifying things--there's a purpose to alcohol, tobacco and marijuana smoke, beyond the threat implied or otherwise of harm to other people. Guns only offer that deterring purpose; it's certainly the only reason someone would regularly carry them around with them in public, beyond novelty/showing off. Guns are weapons. The others are not weapons. It's not like I don't know that alcohol abuse and tobacco abuse are problems and cause more deaths. As I said before--it's not purely about the number. The items you're comparing are totally different your suggestion here is a red herring.

Let's not even get to the fact that alcoholism is a medical issue and nicotine is addictive, while guns aren't "addictive" in any relevant way. Let's not ignore that gun use is much more restricted in some countries, thus skewing the representation of "gun deaths" on a global scale. You can't think you can directly compare alcohol use and gun use and treat them equally

"Or do you acknowledge that the only reason you want guns banned is because you dislike guns and as such your view is entirely irrelevant due to an immense bias?" Cute. As if you aren't informed by "bias", do not have an opinion, and are perfectly neutral. When you take a stance, you cease to be neutral. Your word choice is frequently dramatic. Even if I disliked guns, if I brought up salient points my personal stance would be irrelevant. Similarly, even if I liked guns, if I brought up salient points my personal stance is irrelevant. And even still, even if I liked guns, if I brought up nonsensical points my personal stance is irrelevant.

If you want to decrease gun violence, end the drug war and legalize and regulate narcotics. Use taxes generated from such programs to fund rehabiliation clinics and education; it's been a far more successful anti-drug policy when instituted well. ...

Yeah but see, I already support ending the War on Drugs, and excessively punitive sentences. I support the legalization/taxation of marijuana. I support viewing more things as medical issues or issues requiring rehabilitation than prison punishment per se. I know that the lawlessness of much drug trafficking is a highly dangerous environment.

So otherwise, I more or less already agree with what you're saying in the quoted. It doesn't mean it's a refutation of public gun ownership, considering that my previous post was that it's not just about homicides, but accidental discharges, the inconsistency of the self-defense position, etc.

So you do or don't believe the US would attack it's own citizenry? ...

The point of this is that it's a highly contrived scenario. The US wouldn't. No sensible, otherwise stable, economically developed country's government would want to go scorched earth on its citizenry. With the advent of economic globalization, war on the soil of a first world country is highly pyrrhic and disastrous. When our economy is terrible, it affects the DAX, Nikkei, Hang Seng, CAC, etc., and the lives of people in those countries. The EU's economic problems posed problems for problems for the US in the past because of our trade relationships. "Nuclear Call" is a decision made by the President--as he has the authority to make that decision. I don't believe the US would actually use nukes in the event of a rebellion just as much as I believe that the US citizenship to any significant degree would organize itself into a rebellion in the first place. The point is, in a hypothetical localized conflict (confined to a few areas) this is very cut and dried. On a larger scale, the firepower and resources of one side is easily superior. Many of the individual killing sprees covered in the news we've had over the past year lost to the organization of federal forces (and I say many just in case I miss one, otherwise it is all.) And the "holy war" critique is an attack on the idea that the US govt never has the authority to open fire on its citizens. It does and it has---domestic terrorists. The holy war critique undermines the idea that just because a citizenship organize into a rebellion, it is justified. Justification is about the circumstances, not some universal law.

It's not as though I can prove you wrong on what the course of action would be other than I highly doubt such an event would occur. Nor could you prove me wrong...

Negative proofs are logical fallacies. The "likelihood" is a totally circular discussion. It's like "Does God exist?" "you can't prove that He doesn't!" "but how likely is that, and why is his existence plausible, especially as he is defined and in the context of the history of religions?" "you still can't prove it because it's not outside the realm of possibility/you don't have the capability to perceive Him as truly exists"

No offense to people who believe in God, even if I don't. That's not the purpose of that example.

Neither were large portions of the viet cong or al qaeda, they still proved formidable in combat and staved off the US military...

That's oversimplifying it. First, the Viet Cong supported peasant uprisings for the sake of recruitment, and in fact also did terrible things (internment, Hue Massacre). Though often using guerilla warfare tactics, they were still a sophisticated political organization and powerful political organization centered around Marxist nationalism and populism, and in fact received significant assistance from China and Russia.

Al-qaeda's origins started with the Soviet Afghan war--again this is paranoia about communism, as the US saw a victory for Russia as Russian expansion of influence. As you likely know, this involved US supporting a faction of that opposition which came to be Al-qaeda. In the aftermath of that war, bin Laden as a radical religious terrorist wanted to expand his influence and part of this included attacking the perceived imperialism of the US. This started with the current Saudi Arabian leader allowing US forces to assist Saudi Arabia in their defense from Iraqi forces. This upset bin Laden--as a radical religious leader--who perceived the US presence there as reprehensible. Understand that with the Middle East in constant turmoil, and often stratified by the presence of nationalized oil corporations and allegiances to other stronger first world countries (with geopolitical and energy interests) Al-qaeda is no longer some purely grassroots movement. It is a sophisticated terror network, which has had about two decades to develop. I don't think these situations are similar to a highly organized and prolific "citizenship militia" that currently does not exist in the US. Otherwise I agree with the last sentence.

This post for me is kind of the final straw...

You don't have to have a victim complex per se. One can have an anger outburst without having temper problems--it's all about the right circumstance. You also didn't merely say that a moral code can stifle conversation but it's better to address this and the quote below.

Full quote of my original statement for those to see what he was replying to:

I don't see how you can read a victimized/defensive behavior into this, it smacks of desperation that you would try to discredit the point by retrofitting it in this manner. You can find the post yourself, it was in a thread about Anna Anthropy (I think that's their name) and I have the same username there.

I wish I could've kept everything in the quote boxes, because I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything. I did otherwise hit the character limit in my previous post.

I am not discrediting your "point" whichever one you were talking about My point was that you didn't offer the original post--and that by and large you weren't merely just repeating the facts of the situation but characterizing and editorializing the situation. This is partially why I objected to the Oscar Wilde citation--after you mentioned that you got a temporary ban, you didn't provide the whole story and in fact presented it in a vacuum (all I said was something about XX/XY chromosomes and the scientific record, and I got banned!) without context or reference to what topic or the content of the post you might have been responding to. I also don't know what else you said, if anything, beyond just something about chromosomes and the scientific record. Which isn't to say that you might necessarily be wrong even! but you decided to report in an incomplete way. How's this:

I received a one-week ban on NeoGAF much earlier in this year, under a different username (Greenhowse) for meta-commentary. A user had earlier made a topic about reflexively dismissing FOX News by NeoGAF posters, and the treatment of conservatives by some GAFfers, to speak generally. It is sometimes the case that discussions about conservative ideas turn into discussion about GAF's (broadly speaking) treatment of conservatives. With regard to the "treatment" question, sometimes people ask the question of whether or not users are being too hard on them, and how to promote better discussion. It is documented more or less that, especially with the politically savvy/read, left wing inclinations are much more represented than the right wing on the userbase. Diversion aside, I posted in that topic about how laughing about FOX News isn't necessarily harmful or destructive to conversation in itself, and felt that restricting that ability to poke fun would be bad. I also made a statement saying that my view was that in most political threads the more informed posters are attracted to the topics and generally elevate the discussion anyway, thus averting the need for worrying about thread-shitting. Meta-commentary, to explain, is the practice of referring to a user or a group's characteristics to preempt analysis of their positions ("InTheSky is a pinko commie scumbag, of course that's what he's going to say, better watch out for his posts" for example). It is a practice that had become prevalent on NeoGAF around that time and had been derailing certain discussions. It was more of a unique phenomenon to GAF itself at the time, similar in the way that some places (including GAF) ban comments on port-begging, because it ruins an otherwise good discussion. With that explained: shortly later, certainly less than a couple days later as I recall, a separate topic involving the Daily Show dissecting a statement made by FOX news came out. I made this post "inb4 (a nickname for the poster who previously made the other topic at the beginning of this paragraph.)" I later edited the post, partially in fear of banning and later realizing I could be in trouble; the edit talked about the Daily Show/Comedy Central's streaming. I was banned shortly after, along with a couple of other posters. It was not a mass culling, that thread. It appears that since then, the meta-commentary rule is more laxly enforced, but it is also much less prevalent than it was previously.

Now, that was excessively dry in tone, and I could've done that without being so scholarly, but it was much less editorialized. In my opinion, I thought my post was harmless and the nickname was "affectionate" (it referenced someone poking fun at the poster's Bubble Bobble avatar in a Mega Man thread much longer ago). We're not friends or anything though, but I didn't shit on him or anything. Then again, I received a light sentence. I didn't want to be banned because I had a certain obligation to keep posting in a special thread, so I was more unhappy than I otherwise would have been. This feels excessive, but here's a link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55700620&highlight=#post55700620

And, I don't feel desperate at all. I think you weren't sticking to the facts, ironically.

And I'll close this by saying, let me be clear. I don't think you're actually a dishonest scumbag. I don't think actually think people who disagree with me are selfish scumbags etc. What I think is: on the issue of the GAF banning, you were using more editorializing than I was comfortable with, and being a little acquainted with Mumei's banning (he doesn't ban all non or anti feminists reflexively), I became distrusting of the reporting of that ban. I actually don't even know who banned you to be honest. People just tend to assume it might be Mumei seeing he is a feminist, but GAF has a strong anti-LGBT discrimination policy agreed upon by the mods.

[tarpmortar]

I'm gonna assume you cannot read since you reread the part I asked you to and still didn't get why you were wrong. It's not because stated free will was a fact; nice try to cover your ass, if you'd let your ego drop and just admit you read it wrong (though my grammar wasn't the clearest) initially, you might be easier to take seriously. Furthermore paying for a college education isn't a responsibility if you aren't attending, nor is rent if you no longer live in the rented abode. Your views on equality are interesting since you claim it's ok to charge people for services they don't use, maybe that's why you'd think it was my responsibility to pay rent if I lived nowhere and pay tuition if I attended no school /s. You also have decided that I inferred men had inferior motor skills, how you've done this? I don't know.

Furthermore, I don't need an explanation of how negative proofs represent logical fallacies, you clearly don't understand hypothetical scenarios, so I'll explain: in such a scenario, we can only reliably base predictions of future events given scenarios that have represented themselves in the past. I said, and you cut, that during rebellions militaries often fracture. That's just an undeniable reality; the fact you're trying to bring up logical fallacies in a hypothetical scenario based upon historical realities is misguided, your comparison to god being fake proves your naivety.

It might be a valid comparison if god showed up often in reliable recorded history, did a bunch of shit that thousands of people saw, and more recently, reporters took pictures of and video taped as well as reported on and then people talked about what he might do in the future based on what he'd already done in the past.


His quote below:

Negative proofs are logical fallacies. The "likelihood" is a totally circular discussion. It's like "Does God exist?" "you can't prove that He doesn't!" "but how likely is that, and why is his existence plausible, especially as he is defined and in the context of the history of religions?" "you still can't prove it because it's not outside the realm of possibility/you don't have the capability to perceive Him as truly exists"

No offense to people who believe in God, even if I don't. That's not the purpose of that example.

Gun stuff: It's not a red herring (please learn what this means, it's actually a diversionary tactic that seeks to derail the conversation, given my tobacco/alcohol comparison was inclusive of gun rights and never left it behind, it's not a red herring) to compare gun deaths and alcohol/tobacco deaths because at the end of the day the core argument is the same; unnecessary items and a large quantity of dead. Is the item unnecessary and on paper how many does it kill? I'm comparing gun deaths in the US to tobacco/alcohol deaths in the US, because this discussion pertains to the US, your mention of guns globally means little. I'm saying that if we support tobacco and alcohol despite the deaths they cause, and despite the fact that they are unarguably unnecessary and only serve to provide personal enjoyment/pleasure, then the same reason is just as valid for gun ownership on the basis that it causes a similar number of deaths.

Addiction isn't some catch all, the fact that you've fallen back to the argument that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal due to the related health issues isn't a strong or reasoned argument at all. Lots of prescription drugs are addictive, should we slap those on shelves too? Or should we make alcohol/tobacco prescription drugs?

Your position on this is rather hypocritical. At the end of the day, your opposition to guns on the basis they cause death falls flat when you can support the legal status of other unnecessary items that cause nearly as many (alcohol) or far more (tobacco) deaths.

Sorry I broke my word and re-entered the thread, you'll be added to whatever ignore list there is on the site to avoid breaking my word once more

Bye.

edit: just to explain to any readers out there why inthesky is incorrect on the gun and tobacco/alcohol comparison being a red herring, I'm gonna quickly explain an inductive argument:


    P and Q are analogous
    P has x property/properties
    Therefore, Q has property/properties x also.


    Gun Ownership and Tobacco (or alcohol) are analogous
    Gun Ownership isn't objectively necessary and causes many deaths
    Therefore Tobacco (or alcohol) isn't objectively necessary and also causes many deaths.

This is an inductive argument by analogy using the typically relied upon modus ponens logic. University of North Carolina has a good, easy to understand, write up on this. as does University of Michigan, which also more explicitly stated the deductive form my argument took:

Premise 1 (analogy) controversial case A is relevantly like less controversial case B [see above]

Premise 1a (similarity) the relevant similarity is that both A and B share feature y [see above]

Premise 2 (claim) You think x about B [inthesky thinks B, tobacco/alcohol, shouldn't be banned]

Premise 2a (principle)  x is true of all cases that have feature y  [tobacco/alcohol shouldn't be banned despite similarities]

Conclusion: Therefore, you should think x about case A [therefore you should think the same of gun rights]

You'll note that InTheSky really couldn't form a relevant counterargument here, he attempted a weak disanology counterargument and knowing that it would fail, wrote my argument off as a "red herring" due to his inability to correctly counter it. 

A Red Herring is actually a diversionary tactic (as I stated) that seeks to derail conversation and avoid the original topic altogether, as an argument from analogy always maintains the original topic as a condition of its argument, it cannot be a "red herring".

[inthesky]

Ignore me if that's what you'd like. You don't need to use the ignore function to do so, in any case. I already understand where you're coming from with regards to me as a person and my posts. However, I'll respond in the interest of analyzing the arguments, and in the interest of defending myself.

I'm gonna assume you cannot read since you reread the part I asked you to and still didn't get why you were wrong. It's not because stated free will was a fact; nice try to cover your ass, if you'd let your ego drop and just admit you read it wrong (though my grammar wasn't the clearest) initially, you might be easier to take seriously.

I already admitted that I conflated that particular reply of yours as free will with fact in my first response to the post in question. "Yeah, it was indeed wrong in the sense that my response conflated "free will" as a factual argument. You are right on that front." That what was made one of my previous posts erroneous, by misreading it. If there was a problem with what I was addressing beyond that, you could have just saved both of us a lot more trouble by being more direct and clear about your intended meaning instead of saying "learn to read." I did reread it--

"Why shouldn't one have the right to kill themselves, can you craft a factual argument why for example I? Who has no responsibilities to anyone, shouldn't have the right to end my own life? That's my decision if we operate on the basis of free human will. Of course, it's also a moral one but none the less a factual argument could be made against a right to suicide. Hence why I support regulating and legalizing suicide via an expanded death with dignity law which could help resolve some of the major potential counterarguments. (edited our gun part because it's a little less relevant to the discussion at hand)"

You turned this into a circular discussion; that's the consequence of a moral code that holds free human will as its highest maximum. "Why shouldn't I have the right" -> "but it's my right: on a moral level, if I uphold freedom as the maxim, you can't refute my right". You can't refute anyone's rights on anything then, effectively making a mess of various laws! I repeatedly spent time, in the original reply and elsewhere, explaining why the framing of the question "why shouldn't I have the right to kill myself" and moral system framed around the language of "rights" and positive freedoms is flawed. It's part of the reason I'm against libertarianism. It's not about moral rights in themselves. On the level of the legal system, "the right to kill myself" is unenforceable; the furthest it gets is social stigma. And, the whole thing about "I who have no responsibilities to anyone" is the language of seeing oneself in a vacuum, glossing over see the interconnectedness of society.

Furthermore paying for a college education isn't a responsibility if you aren't attending, nor is rent if you no longer live in the rented abode. Your views on equality are interesting since you claim it's ok to charge people for services they don't use, maybe that's why you'd think it was my responsibility to pay rent if I lived nowhere and pay tuition if I attended no school /s. You also have decided that I inferred men had inferior motor skills, how you've done this? I don't know.

Why bring up "I'm paying out of pocket for college" as a reason why Obamacare is worse for you then? I even looked up benefits.gov and tried to guess what might apply to your situation for you. You most certainly are going to school though, because you said as such. That's a responsibility--you can't just do that for free if you are indeed paying for it out of pocket. I assume you may be working part time or have it subsidized in some way. Obviously rent is not an obligation if you don't live in a place where rent is the compensation, but I'm assuming you live somewhere that isn't subsidized by the government, therefore of course you would pay for your dwelling to some entity. That is quite clearly a responsibility.

My views on equality/services people don't use--public education is funded by property tax. I don't know if you went to public school, but I spent only two years there out of thirteen, and I'm not complaining because I didn't get any benefits out of it. I've paid taxes for Social Security and yet I'm not in a position to reap benefits--I'm not going to complain about it or call for the system's overhaul. You may never visit a public library in your lifetime if you already haven't, and yet some of your taxes will go to it. Some of your taxes will pay for roads that you won't drive on, congress people that you don't vote for, a host of other scenarios. As I believe I've posted to max cady about, tons of people understand that there's a certain prohibitively and unrealistically difficult threshold for establishing "ownership" over individual use of services, and where competition/exclusion is undesirable. That's the point of a public good. (edit: I forgot to add--the left wing conception of equality is generally that social and economic stratification, especially via class, is to be mitigated, hence the higher taxing of the rich, producing a more equal outcome. Remember that communism desires a "classless, stateless, society". I am not necessarily communist though)

I did not say anything about your responsibility to pay rent if you lived nowhere and pay tuition if you attended no schools. I am taking issue with you or anyone who sees themselves in a vacuum, and I am saying you very likely do have legal and social responsibilities (unless you don't go to school and don't live in the middle of nowhere, which as we know is very likely untrue!) As for the motor skills on men thing, that was just an observation of your hypothetical. I don't actually know what you think about men's motor skills; the point is the logical consequence of women paying more for the car insurance of men, following the underlying assumptions of having the more capable/less at risk pay for the less capable/more at risk, is that men would have some significant degree of worse motor skills. You don't have to have that opinion; the point is, that's the underlying assumption that such a system is built on if the burdens are different. Obamacare didn't pull the distinction of who to pay more out of its ass; it chose the more capable. "from each according to their ability" except not exactly

Furthermore, I don't need an explanation of how negative proofs represent logical fallacies, you clearly don't understand hypothetical scenarios, so I'll explain: in such a scenario, we can only reliably base predictions of future events given scenarios that have represented themselves in the past. I said, and you cut, that during rebellions militaries often fracture. That's just an undeniable reality; the fact you're trying to bring up logical fallacies in a hypothetical scenario based upon historical realities is misguided

First, I already commented on this earlier, but I hit the character limit with my posts, but it doesn't mean I reply to your posts after editing them, obviously. Every time I've replied to your posts I've made comments about me hitting the character limit just to be clear about it.

I understand hypotheticals. The idea of a government of a first world country attacking its citizenship, as I have repeatedly said, is an asinine consideration. There is also no relevant parallel between al-qaeda or the viet cong to any currently existing citizenship-based militia in the United States--hence, no rebellion to be targeted by the US. As for military fracture, as I have also said with regards to Egypt--the military became a more or less independently existing political body separate from the current administration (that they just overthrew, for one) with the goal of advancing its own interests. If your relevant examples to military fracture are unstable countries that aren't first world (hence, the relevance of me citing economic globalization/interdependence of first world countries, as the costs become shockwaves) those aren't as relevant. A first world country having anything close to a civil war in this day and age would either be abandoned by the other first world countries or become a debtor country. This is why I keep saying your scenario is contrived, the presupposition of either side having the moral high ground notwithstanding. This would only make sense with large global unsettling on a massive scale.

your comparison to god being fake proves your naivety.

It might be a valid comparison if god showed up often in reliable recorded history, did a bunch of shit that thousands of people saw, and more recently, reporters took pictures of and video taped as well as reported on and then people talked about what he might do in the future.

Naive? The whole point was about proving a negative.

Your criticism is presupposed on the fact that in a first world country like America your military-breaking-off to support a citizenship militia (that doesn't significantly exist in America) is a legitimate observation, when as I have expressed above, it's not. You are looking to examples that have little relevance to the context at hand, and the more one adds theoretical conditions to make it plausible, the further it moves away from any perceivable current reality.

Gun stuff: It's not a red herring to compare gun deaths and alcohol/tobacco deaths because at the end of the day the core argument is the same; unnecessary items and a large quantity of dead. Is the item unnecessary and on paper how many does it kill? I'm comparing gun deaths in the US to tobacco/alcohol deaths in the US, because this discussion pertains to the US, your mention of guns globally means little. I'm saying that if we support tobacco and alcohol despite the deaths they cause, and despite the fact that they are unarguably unnecessary and only serve to provide personal enjoyment/pleasure, then the same reason is just as valid for gun ownership on the basis that it causes a similar number of deaths.

First, the point of the global comparisons is that gun restrictions are effective in decreasing gun violence. You want this discussion to only be about the US; you want to ignore other countries' success in those measures, and for what purpose? It's totally relevant. There's only more resistance partially because culturally in America guns are more liked and less stigmatized. I think few other countries have things like "God Guns and Automobiles" or "God Guns and Freedom"

Yes it is a red herring, else every European and Asian country, alongside Canada, that imposed significant gun restriction on the basis of decreasing gun related deaths is inconsistent since they (especially the European countries) tend to have more open cultural views on such things as alcohol consumption (see: the occasional consumption of wine by children).

Guns exist only as weapons. Alcohol and tobacco can be consumed in moderation, can be regulated and isolated in personal use, and the social costs managed more effectively than the private and public use and ownership of guns.

You repeatedly make the primary issue of whether or not guns should be outlawed a question of "how many people does it kill?" Much earlier on I responded with a litany of reasons why I was against it. It's not just about the number, which you already acknowledge is higher for guns over alcohol.

Addiction isn't some catch all, the fact that you've fallen back to the argument that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal due to the related health issues isn't an argument at all. Lots of subscription drugs are addictive, should we slap those on shelves too? Or should we make alcohol/tobacco prescription drugs?

What in the world is "addiction isn't some catch all mean?" supposed to mean? The whole point was that the nature of gun use and alcohol and tobacco use are clearly different. Your desire to compare alcohol/tobacco use to gun use is based on grounds that are too superficial. Yes, there are subscription drugs are addictive, but they actually address medical symptoms (thereby I support "slapping on the shelves" ones that are effective and have manageable addictive tendencies/ones that can be mitigated), so I don't know why you brought that up. Can guns, alcohol, or tobacco effectively treat depression or ADD?

Your position on this is rather hypocritical. At the end of the day, your opposition to guns on the basis they cause death falls flat when you can support the legal status of other unnecessary items that cause nearly as many (alcohol) or far more (tobacco) deaths.

Causing death is just one objection. You rag on my reading comprehension--but you ignored my other objections. Anyway, this is a statement that presupposes you being right, where as I speak about above, you are wrong.

Sorry I broke my word and re-entered the thread, you'll be added to whatever ignore list there is on the site to avoid breaking my word once more

Bye.

edit: I cannot find the ignore list, I'll look into it tomorrow.

Au revoir.

 ;D