|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2016 07:20 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:03 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:59 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant in politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Do you have any new evidence that hasn't already been dealt with to prove that hillary actually was that bad? I'm assuming not. So I will disregard that as the usual falsity. . Want dirt on Hillary? Get in line. Wait until Jan 20th once Trump is sworn in then his AG will double down investigating. Word of mouth is Trump wont make a move with the threat of Obama pardon so hes playing nice. an odd way to answer; I'll take that to mean you don't have any actual dirt on hillary and are just relying on the usual misinformation. Heh, nobody does. All we have is circumstantial evidence(bar email server) that allegedly links her to criminal behavior without proof of intent. Leave it to the professionals and unless she admits guilt so just wait until the 20th. Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:03 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 06:28 Noidberg wrote:On November 23 2016 06:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote:
To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? Hardly as theres no such thing as luck. Hes a businessman/entertainer/playboy who is somewhat ignorant to politics and is learning as he goes. Hillary was that just that bad(the scandals, emails) in fact the whole opposition was so horrendous Trump stomped all over them with his charisma alone. Yes Trump is not qualified for president in the textbook sense but he is the leader this country needs right now. He deserves a chance to prove himself. Not qualified is not qualified. Even your "playboy" claim is disproved by the rape tape and subsequent allegations. Dude never doubt for a second people in power are angels. I dont want to get into conspiracy here as this forum holds a standard but we had 2 choices this election and i firmly believe i choose the lesser evil.
In other words there is nothign and you have nothing, and since the professionals have already investigated, there will be nothing. And you're just asserting an unjustified belief in her guilt because you don't believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and think she did stuff based on some evidence which is questionable.
|
A 21-year-old woman was severely injured and may lose her arm after being hit by a projectile when North Dakota law enforcement officers turned a water cannon on Dakota Access pipeline protesters and threw “less-than-lethal” weapons, according to the woman’s father.
Sophia Wilansky was one of several hundred protesters injured during the standoff with police on Sunday on a bridge near the site where the pipeline is planned to cross under the Missouri river.
Graphic photographs of her injured arm with broken bones visible were circulated on social media.
“The best-case scenario is no pain and 10-20% functionality,” said Wayne Wilansky, Sophia’s father, who travelled to Minneapolis where his daughter underwent eight hours of surgery on Monday. He said his daughter had been hit by a concussion grenade thrown by a police officer and that the arteries, median nerve, muscle and bone in her left arm had been “blown away”.
Sophia will require additional surgery in the next few days and her arm may still have to be amputated, he added. “She’s devastated. She looks at her arm and she cries,” he said.
Sophia Wilansky is one of thousands of activists who have travelled to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota to attempt to halt the construction of the pipeline. Members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe established a “spiritual camp” on the banks of the Missouri in April. The tribe fears the pipeline will jeopardise their water supply and say that construction has disturbed sacred burial grounds.
The activists, who call themselves “water protectors”, have faced a heavily militarised police force. More than 400 protesters have been arrested by law enforcement officers who have deployed pepper spray, teargas, rubber bullets, Tasers, sound weapons and other “less-than-lethal” methods.
Following Sunday’s confrontation 26 protesters were taken to hospital and more than 300 injured, according to the Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council. Most of the injured had hypothermia after being hit by a water cannon in below-freezing weather.
Source
|
On November 23 2016 06:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:On November 23 2016 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
you aren't even willing to wait and see Hah. No one has to wait and see. He's already building up a queue of things that he's going to do ASAP which a portion of the country finds terrible. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholicshttps://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/textAssuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes. Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years. This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides.
Lets see this "putting his business life on hold." So far not much evidence of that.
|
On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too?
I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down.
For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself.
Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense.
|
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense.
That's an absurd generalization of both sides of the spectrum.
|
On November 23 2016 07:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A 21-year-old woman was severely injured and may lose her arm after being hit by a projectile when North Dakota law enforcement officers turned a water cannon on Dakota Access pipeline protesters and threw “less-than-lethal” weapons, according to the woman’s father.
Sophia Wilansky was one of several hundred protesters injured during the standoff with police on Sunday on a bridge near the site where the pipeline is planned to cross under the Missouri river.
Graphic photographs of her injured arm with broken bones visible were circulated on social media.
“The best-case scenario is no pain and 10-20% functionality,” said Wayne Wilansky, Sophia’s father, who travelled to Minneapolis where his daughter underwent eight hours of surgery on Monday. He said his daughter had been hit by a concussion grenade thrown by a police officer and that the arteries, median nerve, muscle and bone in her left arm had been “blown away”.
Sophia will require additional surgery in the next few days and her arm may still have to be amputated, he added. “She’s devastated. She looks at her arm and she cries,” he said.
Sophia Wilansky is one of thousands of activists who have travelled to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota to attempt to halt the construction of the pipeline. Members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe established a “spiritual camp” on the banks of the Missouri in April. The tribe fears the pipeline will jeopardise their water supply and say that construction has disturbed sacred burial grounds.
The activists, who call themselves “water protectors”, have faced a heavily militarised police force. More than 400 protesters have been arrested by law enforcement officers who have deployed pepper spray, teargas, rubber bullets, Tasers, sound weapons and other “less-than-lethal” methods.
Following Sunday’s confrontation 26 protesters were taken to hospital and more than 300 injured, according to the Standing Rock Medic & Healer Council. Most of the injured had hypothermia after being hit by a water cannon in below-freezing weather. Source
The authorities should just clear everyone out. That stupid protest has gone on long enough.
|
Especially with the winter setting in now and the snow they should clear everything out to make sure people don't die form the cold. Let them come back in the spring if they want to. same deal with OWS.
|
On November 23 2016 07:39 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense. That's an absurd generalization of both sides of the spectrum.
glad you think its absurd, it's just generalizations but that is how my thinking changed from liberal to conservative, I believe people are capable of making the right choice.
|
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself.
Conservative thinking: Everyone have guns constantly at ready. This will surely make us save. Especially once the shooting starts and everyone will surely be able to identify the person who started everything over all the other conservatives with guns shooting at other conservatives with guns.
Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Conservative thinking: Also avoid teaching teenagers anything about contraceptives, and make them as hard as possible to get because Jesus told you so.
No one is for abortions in the third trimester, EXCEPT in cases where there is major medical danger to the mother. Even in that case it is a hard question.
Also, your conclusion is nonsensical. Why is not banning abortion about changing society? Why is preventing other people from doing what they want to do about changing yourself? The conservative stance on abortion is explicitly about telling other people what to do, not about changing yourself. You can always choose not to have an abortion for yourself, you don't need laws for that.
Thus, i would posit that your conclusion that conservatism is about changing yourself, and american liberal thinking is about changing society is incorrect, as shown on your own examples, where the both positions swap sides on the changing yourself/changing society axis.
|
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense.
that's one way of doing conservative vs liberal; individualist vs collectivist, another pov is that it's deontological vs consequentialist.
certainly there are many axes from which to view things; but I'm not so sure your claim of what conservative vs liberal thinking is, in the American tradition and meanings, that accurate. there are certainly numerous instances that would go contrary to your description, so it surely must be a fairly incomplete description.
It is quite observable in general that a fair number of people won't control themselves adequately.
If you don't know whether you're more correct then or now, how would you determine that? how much effort would it be worth taking to figure out?
you also have a factual error: liberal thinking isn't a woman's right to chose up to third trimester in general.
also, conservatives do a fair bit to prevent effective use of contraceptives, and do interfere in a social sense rather than an individualist sense. not to mention the number that don't classify it as morally ambiguous. a so-called conservative approach that fits your description would be about leaving it up to the individual to address, not establishing laws and rules to decide the matter, and simply encourage people to be responsible. that does not match what they are in fact doing.
As to people controllign themselves, how would you determine whether (and when) people can control themselves to an acceptable degree? what if their failure to control themselves harms others?
|
On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense.
This is why education is so important so we get to keep our freedoms such as the right to bear arms. This is also why i believe the degradation of morals in our current society is a major issue today which fuels all sorts controversy and strife. For example homosexuality might as well be considered a flaw in the human psyche but people deserve to be treated with dignity even if their sexual orientation is built that way. It's only when perversion of homosexualy becomes the norm which infringes upon our morals and society as a negative. Same can be said about any other human instinct and function we live in a civilized society and should retain it the best we can.
|
On November 23 2016 07:53 Sermokala wrote:
Especially with the winter setting in now and the snow they should clear everything out to make sure people don't die form the cold. Let them come back in the spring if they want to. same deal with OWS.
Spray them with cold water so they don't die of cold--brilliant! Aside from that, if anything is being a nanny state, this is. I really don't understand why the police are so confrontational about it, especially since the construction isn't scheduled to go on right now anyway.
|
On November 23 2016 08:02 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense. This is why education is so important so we get to keep our freedoms such as the right to bear arms. This is also why i believe the degradation of morals in our current society is a major issue today which fuels all sorts controversy and strife. For example homosexuality might as well be considered a flaw in the human psyche but people deserve to be treated with dignity even if their sexual orientation is built that way. It's only when perversion of homosexualy becomes the norm which infringes upon our morals and society as a negative. Same can be said about any other human instinct and function we live in a civilized society and should retain it the best we can.
could you clarify/elaborate on what oyu meant by this part:
"It's only when perversion of homosexualy becomes the norm which infringes upon our morals and society as a negative."
as to degradation of morals, which measure of morality are you using? there are many, some decreasing, some increasing, and few points of morality that are little disputed.
|
On November 23 2016 07:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Conservative thinking: Everyone have guns constantly at ready. This will surely make us save. Especially once the shooting starts and everyone will surely be able to identify the person who started everything over all the other conservatives with guns shooting at other conservatives with guns. Show nested quote +
Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Conservative thinking: Also avoid teaching teenagers anything about contraceptives, and make them as hard as possible to get because Jesus told you so. No one is for abortions in the third trimester, EXCEPT in cases where there is major medical danger to the mother. Even in that case it is a hard question. Also, your conclusion is nonsensical. Why is not banning abortion about changing society? Why is preventing other people from doing what they want to do about changing yourself? The conservative stance on abortion is explicitly about telling other people what to do, not about changing yourself. You can always choose not to have an abortion for yourself, you don't need laws for that. Thus, i would posit that your conclusion that conservatism is about changing yourself, and american liberal thinking is about changing society is incorrect, as shown on your own examples, where the both positions swap sides on the changing yourself/changing society axis.
I'm not christian and don't subscribe to any religion so I vehemently disagree with all of that jesus shit. People should be educated on contraceptive use. So this is an area where people will be limited by government and so you have to work around it, by making smart choices and taking responsibility. Not having a bail out.
When I was a student in a OB/GYN clinic, the number of women I saw come in for their multiple abortions (sometimes even 5th) was staggering. It was essentially people using abortions as a contraceptive, and it made me sick. So many planned parenthood referrals.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On November 23 2016 08:02 Noidberg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself. So I can see that if you think people in general are shit and can't really control themselves and take personal responsibility then yeah Liberal thinking makes more sense. This is why education is so important so we get to keep our freedoms such as the right to bear arms. This is also why i believe the degradation of morals in our current society is a major issue today which fuels all sorts controversy and strife. For example homosexuality might as well be considered a flaw in the human psyche but people deserve to be treated with dignity even if their sexual orientation is built that way. It's only when perversion of homosexualy becomes the norm which infringes upon our morals and society as a negative. Same can be said about any other human instinct and function we live in a civilized society and should retain it the best we can.
Genuinely curious what you mean here. What does 'perversion of homosexuality becomes the norm which infringes upon our morals and society as a negative' mean? Are you afraid that acceptance of homosexuality is going to make homosexuality 'the norm' or what?
|
|
|
On November 23 2016 08:03 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:53 Sermokala wrote:
Especially with the winter setting in now and the snow they should clear everything out to make sure people don't die form the cold. Let them come back in the spring if they want to. same deal with OWS. Spray them with cold water so they don't die of cold--brilliant! Aside from that, if anything is being a nanny state, this is. I really don't understand why the police are so confrontational about it, especially since the construction isn't scheduled to go on right now anyway.
I'm saying that they shouldn't be doing that they should just clear out the protesters camp and be done with the protests for the public health. People coming in from warmer climates will die if they're unprepared during a cold snap.
Tachion you clearly have a problem with comprehension because I repeatedly said nothing about you comparing the alt right to the KKK I was attacking your shitty post and the way you were arguing in bad faith.
But we've already covered how there are neo nazies and kkk-lite people in the alt right, Its not news and it just makes you look dumb. Its like me comparing feminists to anti male activists, its just bad faith arguing.
|
On November 23 2016 08:08 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 07:57 Simberto wrote:On November 23 2016 07:33 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:51 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:47 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:41 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 06:38 biology]major wrote:On November 23 2016 06:24 zlefin wrote:On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote:
fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. I disagree; cnn isn't actually shilling for people, despite unfounded accusations to the contrary. How can you distinguish good journalism? how do you tell which is which? do you understand the structural issues which make things the way they are? how do you prove to other people that these things are the case? not to say that cnn is that good these days, but they're not shilling, and they are trying to do journalism, just being generically kinda poor and clickbaity. Which people on fox do you consider to give balanced and reasonable analysis? also, fox is bad, because they lie about it, and pretend they're journalists sometimes when they're not. Back in the day when I used to be liberal many years ago, I used to watch fox with the same attitude most people in this thread have. Now I see them as reasonable, and I'm not sure if it's because I was ignorant then or I am ignorant now, or it's neither and I just like reinforcing my own narrative, but O'Reilly, megyn kelly, baier, CW are all good. On CNN the only person I can even tolerate is anderson cooper, I think he's pretty professional and unbiased. He was the only person who didn't have a fucking meltdown during the election night when everyone revealed their true colors. has your narrative/beliefs changed in that time? i.e. did you used to be liberal and now you are pretty conservative? yep, it's an odd feeling thinking about how if I had posted when I first made this account I would have probably been a Plansix. I'm glad I am now more conservative in my thinking. Whether you would be a plansix hasn't changed; that's largely separate from political affiliation/stance. How do you know you're more correct now than you used to be, rather than less correct or equally correct? Why are you glad about it? Surely many other people have gone either liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal and they all feel they were correct and are glad they changed. Have your standards in cleanliness changed too? I don't know if I'm more correct now or back then, but I can tell you that it takes a philosophical shift of epic proportions to go from liberal to conservative or vice versa. Conservative thinking is about individual responsibility, and liberal thinking is about society at large. One starts bottom up and the other is top down. For example: guy shoots up mall with a gun. Liberal thinking --> restrict weapons, ammunition etc. Conservative thinking --> protect yourself with either self defense or a weapon of your own. One attempts to change society, and the other is more about changing yourself. Conservative thinking: Everyone have guns constantly at ready. This will surely make us save. Especially once the shooting starts and everyone will surely be able to identify the person who started everything over all the other conservatives with guns shooting at other conservatives with guns.
Abortion --> Liberal thinking: woman's right to choose sometimes even up to third trimester. Conservative thinking: morally ambiguous ethical dilemma, why risk having to make this choice when there are ways to protect yourself in 99.9% of cases with contraceptive use? If you don't have access to contraception and don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Same thing again, one is about changing the rules and society, the other is about changing yourself.
Conservative thinking: Also avoid teaching teenagers anything about contraceptives, and make them as hard as possible to get because Jesus told you so. No one is for abortions in the third trimester, EXCEPT in cases where there is major medical danger to the mother. Even in that case it is a hard question. Also, your conclusion is nonsensical. Why is not banning abortion about changing society? Why is preventing other people from doing what they want to do about changing yourself? The conservative stance on abortion is explicitly about telling other people what to do, not about changing yourself. You can always choose not to have an abortion for yourself, you don't need laws for that. Thus, i would posit that your conclusion that conservatism is about changing yourself, and american liberal thinking is about changing society is incorrect, as shown on your own examples, where the both positions swap sides on the changing yourself/changing society axis. I'm not christian and don't subscribe to any religion so I vehemently disagree with all of that jesus shit. People should be educated on contraceptive use. So this is an area where people will be limited by government and so you have to work around it, by making smart choices and taking responsibility. Not having a bail out. When I was a student in a OB/GYN clinic, the number of women I saw come in for their multiple abortions (sometimes even 5th) was staggering. It was essentially people using abortions as a contraceptive, and it made me sick. So many planned parenthood referrals.
I generally agree that using contraceptives is vastly superior to abortion. From what i hear, abortions are psychologically very taxing on women (Neither am i a woman, nor was i ever involved in an abortion, so i don't really have a lot of experience here), so there must be a reason why those women you are talking about who clearly don't want to have children did not use contraceptives. Without knowing the case, it is hard to know those reasons, but i would guess that they fall along either religious lines, lack of education or monetary issues (How does one acquire contraceptives in the US health system?)
My stance on abortion is "We should have sex ed in school, and make contraceptives cheap and easy to acquire, and thus reduce the number of abortions by a lot, while still keeping abortions possible as a last resort (preferably early, or after rapes, or when there are medical concerns with the pregnancy)". Would you agree with that?
But a big problem in the US is that the people who are against abortion, and especially the politicians who campaign against it, generally do not have a stance like that. Their stance is more often than not routed in religious concerns, and thus they are not only against abortions, but also against contraceptives and against teaching teenagers anything about sex except "don't do it before marriage", which has been proven not to work.
|
|
|
On November 23 2016 08:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 08:03 ZapRoffo wrote:On November 23 2016 07:53 Sermokala wrote:
Especially with the winter setting in now and the snow they should clear everything out to make sure people don't die form the cold. Let them come back in the spring if they want to. same deal with OWS. Spray them with cold water so they don't die of cold--brilliant! Aside from that, if anything is being a nanny state, this is. I really don't understand why the police are so confrontational about it, especially since the construction isn't scheduled to go on right now anyway. I'm saying that they shouldn't be doing that they should just clear out the protesters camp and be done with the protests for the public health. People coming in from warmer climates will die if they're unprepared during a cold snap. Tachion you clearly have a problem with comprehension because I repeatedly said nothing about you comparing the alt right to the KKK I was attacking your shitty post and the way you were arguing in bad faith. But we've already covered how there are neo nazies and kkk-lite people in the alt right, Its not news and it just makes you look dumb. Its like me comparing feminists to anti male activists, its just bad faith arguing.
What you call bad faith arguing, I call seeking verification of personal observations. And it looks like my observations line up pretty damn close to the truth 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
