|
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 02 2017 02:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees. The 25 guy doesn't win Democratic primaries. He doesn't even get to the point where he's in general elections.
I might be totally ignorant, but I am not familiar with these scenarios. What congress/senate seats are we seeing 0 beat 25? I have a hard time believing certain areas of the rust belt would not benefit from the 25 guy. But I fully admit that I don't do as good a job of following elections as many people here.
|
how much moral compromise to engage in to achieve a victory you feel is necessary. an eternal question with no good answers (though several bad ones).
plenty of examples to examine though to see how they turned out.
on the case being brought up here; I just don't know.
|
On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Mohdoo, you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11. Styling themselves as realists and not letting virtue holding them back from doing the right thing. But in the end they did more damage to the US and didn’t make us any safer. Maybe don't make policy proposals a hot minute after an attack. Because guess what: this guy isn't a refugee. I see your point, but I don't think they are actually comparable. In the 9/11 case, there is a conscious decision to harm more humans temporarily for the sake of reducing net human suffering. In the scenario I describe, using bullshit numbers, there is *already* 100 people suffering. The guy asking for zero suffering keeps losing. I am saying let's see if we can at least get people on board with 25 people suffering. The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees.
There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start, but at least realize We're all fully aware there isn't a "0- suffering" elected official, but you're arguing that Democrats become more accepting of people's irrational bigotry than wherever non-zero number, but below Republicans, you would place them now.
I know the numbers themselves are meaningless but Republicans are hardly skill capped on their bigotry either. Lot's of room to grow more bigoted for both sides.
|
On November 02 2017 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:31 TheYango wrote:On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees. The 25 guy doesn't win Democratic primaries. He doesn't even get to the point where he's in general elections. I might be totally ignorant, but I am not familiar with these scenarios. What congress/senate seats are we seeing 0 beat 25? I have a hard time believing certain areas of the rust belt would not benefit from the 25 guy. But I fully admit that I don't do as good a job of following elections as well as many people here.
How do you think the Democrats pick candidates and their view points? Here is a hint: it isn't like the NFL draft.
|
On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:22 Nevuk wrote:
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless.
a) I would like a logical demonstration that there is value in meeting people halfway in a vacuum. I certainly don't believe that is the case, I think it's a tendency that can be exploited very easily by people who have firm and/or extreme beliefs.
b) how come the people that we should meet halfway are always on the right of the person speaking and never on the left of the person speaking
|
On November 02 2017 02:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. a) I would like a logical demonstration that there is value in meeting people halfway in a vacuum. I certainly don't believe that is the case, I think it's a tendency that can be exploited very easily by people who have firm and/or extreme beliefs. b) how come the people that we should meet halfway are always on the right of the person speaking and never on the left of the person speaking
Because that is no way to get those people who hate treating people equally on your side /s
|
On November 02 2017 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Mohdoo, you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11. Styling themselves as realists and not letting virtue holding them back from doing the right thing. But in the end they did more damage to the US and didn’t make us any safer. Maybe don't make policy proposals a hot minute after an attack. Because guess what: this guy isn't a refugee. I see your point, but I don't think they are actually comparable. In the 9/11 case, there is a conscious decision to harm more humans temporarily for the sake of reducing net human suffering. In the scenario I describe, using bullshit numbers, there is *already* 100 people suffering. The guy asking for zero suffering keeps losing. I am saying let's see if we can at least get people on board with 25 people suffering. The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees. There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start, but at least realize We're all fully aware there isn't a "0- suffering" elected official, but you're arguing that Democrats become more accepting of people's irrational bigotry than wherever non-zero number, but below Republicans, you would place them now. I know the numbers themselves are meaningless but Republicans are hardly skill capped on their bigotry either. Lot's of room to grow more bigoted for both sides.
In my mind, if democrats being more accepting of suffering saves those 75 people's lives, that is a good thing. What is the bad component? Is it that you see it as a case where saving 75 lives now actually harms 100 lives later sort of thing? Your argument makes total sense from an academic philosophy perspective, but I am still struggling to see the real world significance of what you are saying. It feels like what you are saying is "more racism? FULL STOP", which I can certainly understand. But I am asking you to flesh out why exactly the 25 instead of 100 scenario is a net negative. Saying "omg this is so dumb i can't even" is a not super great argument.
|
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view.
|
On November 02 2017 02:20 Ryzel wrote:
Refugees can't be equated with gun magazines.
IMO the best thing the Democratic population can do to sway votes is to spread to heavily Republican areas and begin integrating. Austin in Texas for example. If the rural South/Midwest lifestyle fosters a population that's resistant to liberal ideals, and you're liberal, then you should do your best to alter that prevailing lifestyle by mixing in your own.
Of course, that would be quite the sacrifice because you'll be surrounded by people you don't agree with (and, if you're not white, you'll deal with a host of other issues), but it would probably be the most effective way to change minds.
Eww, surrounded by people you don't agree with? How horrid!
Seriously, that's your idea of "quite the sacrifice?" I thought that was the parody version of people like you.
On November 02 2017 02:24 Velr wrote:
Yeah, liberals should just make themselves poorer, live in nowhereland abd be kind to the people that grew up there and never managed to get out.
Why not tell them to just shoot 2+ republicans before getting jailed?
Its about as sound a solution.
Speaking of image problems, we do talk about Democrats that think Republican states are poor places in nowhereland where everybody's goal is to manage to get out. I know we'll need some help winning coming elections, so please keep it up.
|
On November 02 2017 02:24 Velr wrote:
Yeah, liberals should just make themselves poorer, live in nowhereland abd be kind to the people that grew up there and never managed to get out.
Why not tell them to just shoot 2+ republicans before getting jailed?
Its about as sound a solution.
OK, so you and Plansix are essentially saying the lifestyle of these individuals in the rural South/Midwest is worse-off from a QoL standpoint than whatever liberal individual you both are envisioning. And that these worse-off individuals are irredeemable from a political standpoint because of it.
Then clearly that's a problem. What can we do to improve the QoL in these areas? Successful "liberal" companies can set up shop in some of these areas like rehabilitation. Set up some computer schools, provide some modern services, etc. Give them a taste of "liberal", "modern" lifestyle and let them make their own decisions which is more preferable to live.
|
On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view.
We all have a pretty good relationship with our boy here, so I’m sure he’ll let us know. But thanks for your concern.
|
On November 02 2017 02:50 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:24 Velr wrote:
Yeah, liberals should just make themselves poorer, live in nowhereland abd be kind to the people that grew up there and never managed to get out.
Why not tell them to just shoot 2+ republicans before getting jailed?
Its about as sound a solution. OK, so you and Plansix are essentially saying the lifestyle of these individuals in the rural South/Midwest is worse-off from a QoL standpoint than whatever liberal individual you both are envisioning. And that these worse-off individuals are irredeemable from a political standpoint because of it. Then clearly that's a problem. What can we do to improve the QoL in these areas? Successful "liberal" companies can set up shop in some of these areas like rehabilitation. Set up some computer schools, provide some modern services, etc. Give them a taste of "liberal", "modern" lifestyle and let them make their own decisions which is more preferable to live.
In no ways shape or form did I say that.
I said my super white home town of 900 people was very racist and very Republican due to not liking black people at all. I don’t speak for the rest other parts of the country, but I doubt my home town is unique.
|
On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view.
I do not feel even slightly mistreated. If someone thinks I am totally wrong, they should tell me I am totally wrong.
|
On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view.
I thought he'd get a better pass because he's pure on lib philosophy through it all:
1. He criticizes the makeup of the country, and makes them out to be the bigger group.
Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics.
2. Republicans are zenophobic. Like, almost totally zenophobic.
lose to guy who supports 90% xenophobia
3. Republicans want to end lives.
In my mind, if democrats being more accepting of suffering saves those 75 people's lives, that is a good thing
The party of purity tests. The Democratic party.
|
On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view.
I don't see how Mohdoo is being treated like crap. Unless you consider the fact that liberal posters are actually willing to engage intellectually with other liberal posters that they disagree with "treating them like crap", rather than just ignoring them when they go off the deep end.
Kind of how someone like Danglars never responds to you unless he's agreeing with you.
|
On November 02 2017 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
You guys are treating like Mohdoo like crap here and its not a pretty view. I do not feel even slightly mistreated. If someone thinks I am totally wrong, they should tell me I am totally wrong.
Okay thanks for the invitation.
|
I like this world that Danglars has created where even talking about xenophobia isn’t allowed. In this world, there is no way to even discuss racism or bigotry because that means that someone might be responsible for those acts and its unfair to accuse them of that. So we can never talk about it, ever.
|
@Danglars
When I made that comment, it was more in the spirit of "logically, given all else equal, it is easier to live/raise a family in an area where you are more likely to get along with your neighbors/community". For some really opinionated people, don't agree with == won't get along.
Personally, I've seen throughout my life plenty of situations where ideologically different people can find common ground and bond/be friends. Typically ideological discussions between these people are much more meaningful because they come from a starting point of mutual respect. Living in the same area would be a pretty good way to start working towards that mutual respect.
|
interesting point of contention from Danglars’ earlier post. are red states not relatively the poorer states? my understanding was that, again relatively, they were.
|
On November 02 2017 02:57 Plansix wrote:
I like this world that Danglars has created where even talking about xenophobia isn’t allowed. In this world, there is no way to even discuss racism or bigotry because that means that someone might be responsible for those acts and its unfair to accuse them of that. So we can never talk about it, ever.
Oh you can definitely talk about it, but as long as you don't ignore mathematical crime statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
