ParanoiA

This is a very nebulous and ill defined group you've just sentenced to death, and yet you have the audacity to call others the extremists?

Nebulous and ill defined would be fabulous clues as to why I haven't sentenced anyone to death. No one has died by my hand, or ever will. However, I have suffered at the hands of those I have described. And I won't apologize for supporting their suffering they may experience at the hands of someone else they were trying to bully. They get what they deserve.

My focus is on getting you creepy control freaks out of my personal space, and appealing to the general benefits of diversity and extending it to ideas rather than just skin color, sex, nationality, blah blah blah...there's more to diversity than identity politics. And like any human being I feel anger and resentment and I struggle to achieve my ends.

You are the extremists. Your willingness to use men with guns - to initiate the force - to micro-manage everyone's lives, most of which you have *never* met, is infinitely more extreme than my position to not force you to do anything. We're talking about retirement choices. Not pillaging neighborhoods. We're talking about health insurance, not killing puppies. You kidnap people and put them in cages that you have built...for pot - medical pot at that, not for violating any body else's rights or hurting or taking from someone else.

You people are nuts if you think I'm extreme for not making you do anything at all, and not doing anything to you and wishing for the same in return. Seriously...do you hear yourself?

Care to explain that? Which group(s) of innocent people would you like to see die?

 

Sure. Anyone who dreams up ways to increase their liberty at the expense of mine, or to trim my liberties to make society for palatable for their dumb culture they think is so important and "special". I would like all of them to suffer greatly, as they have caused countless others.

As far as individual freedom, I know some say they would prefer utter anarchy, but I don't think they really know what they are asking for. Why would Texas have any less control of an idividual? Seems to me the conservatives, by definition, would ply more control.

No, they don't know what they're asking for. Anarchy would promote a lot less freedom. Freedom at the expense of others would be wholesale.

It's always a toss up as to which sucks the most to live around: conservatives or liberals. Conservatives aren't socially open minded and free, but they are far more tolerant of contrary political ideas. Liberals will let you smoke a joint, but not without taxing the shit out of it and they are intolerant to contrary political ideas.

This forum is the most tolerant liberal tank I've ever contributed to. Anecdotally speaking, liberals and democrats are intolerant assholes that try to shut down anyone's contrary view - uber quick with the shutdown cards, racism, sexism, bigotry, no matter what is being said and who is saying it. I've been completely shocked over the last few years to find I have a better relationship, and fulfilling dialogue with people described as intolerant bigots.

You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know that you can count me out

Oh come on that's not the lyrics John and you know it...Lennon says "Don't you know that you can count me out..in". Did you forget that "controversy"?

A little perspective for those of you locked in your bubble: If I decide to, say...thumb my nose at *your* ideas for *my* retirement and refuse to participate in the social security system, you will initiate force to make me implement *your* ideas for *my* retirement. Were not talking about me ignoring your laws to go rape women. No, Im talking about ignoring your laws to turn around and do nothing to anybody.

You will eventually send men with guns to my house to make me participate in your ideas for my retirement. Even if it means putting me in a cage you have built, you will do it.

Sorry, but who is acting in the extreme here? I dont put people in cages for refusing to implement my ideas for their lives. Nor do I pull guns on them and make them do things I think are best for them.

This is what happens when control freak federalists check control freak federalists. Youve built a cocoon of delirium that would make Fox News jealous. Seriously, that is some funny shit. Tell me more...

That's an interesting perspective, and conundrum. You could "vote with your feet", as they say, but moving to some destination carries with it an implied (or explicit) consent to follow the government's rules, otherwise you would not have moved there. Only by staying within a system with which you are not satisfied can you adopt a position that the government isn't the boss of you. Immigrants being granted citizenship have to swear an oath to support and defend the constitution of the US, among other things, but the average citizen* by birth does not.

 

*military and civilian government employees swear an oath of office

Yeah, that "vote with your feet" bit is real cute when you've taken more land than you can use and occupy. That's why I keep bringing it up. We have a choice like we have a choice for presidents....as in, not really. I don't vote *for* living in any nation on the freaking planet - but I don't get that choice now do I? It's all been taken by other control freaks. Then pretend like it's a "choice" to choose which cobble of assholes you want to be subjected to.

No, that's a set up, not a choice. We're well aware of how the deck is stacked. Controlling humans dominate everywhere. We know. The only reason I'm even against terrorism is the targets they typically choose.

Like the earth itself?

The earth is a nation group?

Are you getting to be more of an extremist intentionally, or is it just the natural outcome of your recent reading habits on the subject of libertarianism? I wonder if you realize just how deeply unhealthy thoughts like this are in a group society like ours. I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel the way you do. Of course you do. I'm just pointing out some of the ramifications of this type of thinking. Sounds like you'd sooner shoot your neighbor than stand with them, and you're one of the saner and more rational ones out there TBH, so that's scary stuff.

No, I haven't read anything "libertarian" lately, other than to browse reason.com from time to time. Instead, I torture myself with mainstream media in a perpetual state of anger, moving from one extreme pile of assumptions to the next..

Do you think owning a man is extreme? There was a time when that was a common position. From history's perspective, it was pretty extreme.

That you and your countrymen's desire to regulate me is common, doesn't escape extremism. From your perspective, I'm very extreme, and a threat. From history's perspective, I don't feel I'm exteme at all.

As I've said, and many libertarians have reminded, the days of convincing you to remove the chains from me will be traded for days of physical violence to remove the chains from ourselves. And that's human nature. I feel about as motivated to convince you to let me be free as a slave felt motivated to convince his master he should be free. Sorry you think this is normal behavior, but it isn't and we are growing tired of pretending like we should have to argue about it. As Goldwater once said, we consent to be governed, we do not elect to be ruled.

I am not obligated to you and the whims of your dumb little nation group because I was born "nearby", or inside some wild imaginary perimeter of land you over-claimed for yourselves. I am a person. Not a widget.

If you get into actual history and research the time of the Salem and other witch trials, delving into the motivations of the people who blamed those women of being witches is *essential* in understanding why this happened and what *actually* happened. Many of these women weren't even remotely related to anything metaphysical -- they were either women who were stronger and showed some (god forbit) leadership, or were insubordinate to the strict male-dominated religious society of the time.

 

Very few of those women actually practiced anything even resembling 'witchcraft', even by the definitions of the time (like chemistry or medicine). Sure, some practiced medicine, but there were men who practiced medicine too and weren't burned as witches. The reason, then, was not what they *did* -- it's the fact they were women who dared stapping out of the social definition of where their "proper place" is.

 

Those are (mostly) the motivations behind the people who burnt witches.

Those are essential to understand if you want to discuss that piece of history, especially if one wants to consider making a law that supports (or bans) the burning of witches.

Well, my point is about questioning stated motives in the context of discourse. Sure, their motives for burning these women are important to understand what was going on - but even their stated intentions didn't pass the bullshit test. To attempt to convince others that burning witches is a good idea does not require these motivations to be known, or understood, only that the stated, conspicuous intention is wrong.

And, quite possibly any arguments about their "real" motivations - ie..insubordinate women in a male dominated society - would have moved any arguments even further from logic and reason and into emotional ego threatening accusations, even if accurate. Because challenging motivations - as if the stated ones are dishonest - provokes the ego.

And yes, of course you can prove motivation, by simply turning the argument away from the "symptomatic" cover-up claims and concentrating on these motivations. You shift away from the surface and go into the core, and the people who discuss matters have no choice but to examine their own motivations.

 

I agree that jumping to the conclusion of WHAT the motivations are is the wrong thing to do, but you are absolutely justified in trying to stop dancing around the bush and, instead, go into the core. Using something like "So is X what you're actually saying?" is a good way of doing that, and forces your opponent to either expose their motivations if they were trying to hide them (which happens a lot with religious people) or it forces your opponent to CONSIDER their motivations in case they weren't fully aware of them.

 

Either way, that's a good transition, and it's the only way to truly discuss solutions that are supposed to be rational.

Ok, but let's distinguish between stated motivations and I guess, secret ones. My point is about "secret" motivations, I suppose. If you're taking their word on what their motivations are, attempting to argue them, then that is not "questioning" their motives, in my opinion. Certainly not what I'm talking about anyway. You're just having an honest discussion, which is what I want an ALL political matters.

I'm saying it is unhealthy, and downright terrible for a society to be built that questions each other's motivations and holds such deep distrust of each other. There is no way to verify intentions and motivations that are not freely shared, and thus only provides a path to mutual destruction - and it isn't necessary. That should not be confused with openly talking about our stated intentions - because that is not "questioning" or distrusting someone's position, rather that is just more discussion that should be honored.

A great example is the american republican and democratic parties. Neither trusts the stated motivations and intentions of the other. When one talks, the other recites what is "meant". All positions are disparaged to mean the worst of all intentions, no matter the admitted complexity of a given issue.

And look how great they get along! Real american *progress* huh? They represent the american people a lot better than they realize. We don't trust each other and things are only getting worse.

Because when you validate and hold suspicion and unprovable attributes in higher reverence than decent, provable attributes, it's the *only* result you can expect: dysfunction.

I understand lots of people believe a fetus is a person - but that doesn't mean they are right.

 

Quite frankly, lots of people believe evolution is a lie. That doesn't mean they're right. In fact, fighting democratically for the right of the children they insist on brainwashing (that is - fighting to teach evolution and not some religious non-alternative) seems to be an advance towards freedom, doesn't it?

No, that's not an advance toward freedom to circumvent parents to get ahold of their children because you are convinced that you are right about something. That's a big step back. And, it's a huge, dangerous assumption that you can't prove.

Science doesn't prove things. Never. Notta.

We are merely extremely impressed with science. We feel like it explains our reality as we've interpreted it. We are impressed with repeated tests that fail to falsify a hypothesis we've fabricated from inside the test box. And so what? It proves nothing. You have no objective advantage to know that you are right and therefore justified in circumventing people's children for your claim of "truth". What's that saying...follow those who claim to seek truth, run away from those who claim to have found it?

Brainwashing children with science? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. People have a right to believe what they want, and you can't even prove you exist, let alone prove science is more "correct" than religion. We've never even seen an atom. We use instruments to interpret this mass reality, and we are restricted by our ability to imagine what part of reality is detectable, and how to make instruments to detect it. Tell me..if you never had a sense of taste, would you have thought you could build an instrument to "taste" a tree?

We are so full of shit and not nearly humble enough for the universe we occupy. We have no idea just how much there is to reality, what parts of it we are missing, right in front of our faces.

That's the main issue in my opinion. The religious folk insist on removing a woman's right to choose over her own body in a case where science clearly does not consider the blastocyst life because they insist on being inconsistent in their definition. That makes no sense to me.

 

On top of the purely and obviously-religious claims against abortion, there are social claims against abortion and metaphysical claims against abortions.

 

The metaphysical claims (about the potential for a soul, mostly, etc) have the same type of problem as the religious one. They get inconsistent really fast.

The social claims boil down to pure misogyny and condescension (we should protect women from themseves, so they don't run to get an abortion just because they forgot to ask the man for a condom) and hence do not hold merit in my book.

 

Either way, according to this, if we move away from the religious, the metaphysical and the misogynistic, we're giving a woman a right to choose over her body, and we are moving towards freedom.

And it makes no sense to them to inject science into the debate. Weird huh? This is a problem with fantasy, in my opinion. Religion is big on fantasy.

I mostly agree with you, I just don't apply misogyny to the mix. We get a little carried away with the hate terms. I can condescend, look down on you, and still love you to pieces. I can think you are misguided on god's word and not hate you.

But restoring a woman's right to choose what lives and dies in her body is a huge advancement toward freedom. For sure.

I don't have a drop of love for this shit hole. Perhaps if the American piggies here just took the land they could actually occupy and put to use, like maybe 10% of the 2.3 billion acres they've claimed, the rest of us could enjoy it here too. Hard to compete with such "morals" and "ethics" like that...

And now citizens of the city of Austin, Texas have filed a petition to secede from Texas and thus remain part of the greater USA in the event that Texas succeeds in seceding!

That sounds tricky...

How is this any different than the poor babies who think they should succeed from the Union because they can't get the vote to force all their control issues onto others?

It's different because they wish no ill to you, or to take from you, only to be allowed to separate so they can live how they like and so you can't force your control issues onto them. They wish for amicable divorce, not to throw you out of *your* home, or enjoy seeing you suffer.

Play the game my way or I take my ball and go home...

Exactly. They don't wish to ruin your game, only to be allowed to leave the field. You could relate if the electoral map turned 90% red, and republicans owned the entire government for perpetuity. Suddenly, you'd get it real quick. You would be calling for secession to get away from the religio nightmare you've been trapped in. And no amount of ridicule is going suddenly make you happy living under neo-conservative rule.

It would be the beginning of crazy, young people would tend to opt out, old people would scream to included once they got old and realized what a mistake had been made.

 

Do you let citizens die because they were foolish enough to opt out (many would you know due to it being cheaper) turn them away from medical needs?

 

I remember being young and thinking I didn't need insurance of any kind, fortunately i was working for someone who provided those things for free as part of my wages, later on after I saw how much money I was saving by having insurance I keep it going long after i was paying for most of it.

 

it seems to me that both conservative and liberal ideals mostly orbit around what they should require people to do, it's a lot more complex than that in the real world but the basics of it are in there. Freedom and responsibility don't really figure into it except on a ideal non real world model...

Right, like I said it's a starting point for the conversation. You have to commit to it before we can work it out. If you're not interested in your countrymen being happy, and you simply want them to adhere to your values and fight about it every couple of years, then yeah it will make no sense to you. People with control issues never see the sense in it. Hence why republicans and democrats suck so bad and ruin it for everybody.

While I'm sure there are issues where this applies, I don't see what technology needs to be developed that will make people assent to gay marriage, or abandon other religion-before-constitution views.

First thing that comes to mind is virtual statehood, or something along those lines. Where we group up and collect by a different method than location. That may be impossible, just a preliminary thought...

Because some of the contentious issues and attitudes don't break down that way.

 

Take gay marriage, for example. From the left, this is an issue of equal rights everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. But that right is denied some people. On the right, this is an issue of religion, and they wish to prevent certain people from pursuing happiness by marrying. It is impossible for both to coexist.

It is impossible the way we govern ourselves presently, the way we think and approach group cooperation, ie..our geographical allocation of authority and etc.

Prior to 1961, we said "we can't go to the moon". And that was correct. JFK moved the conversation to "let's go to the moon". We could not begin the process of figuring out how to do it until we decided to it, faithfully.

In that same vein, we will never figure out how to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, providing for a more individualized experience until we commit to figuring it out. The conversation has to move there.

But it's as if we're saying since we can't go to the moon presently, and we can't immediately imagine how to do so, then it's an impossible pipe dream of the simple minded. (Not you, but the general American discourse)

I don't think this is the best we can do, not by a long shot. We have not seen every type of government there is to offer.

The dialog could proceed along the lines of how one reconciles the forcing a religious belief on others being supported by the Constitution (IMO it isn't), but usually the rhetoric is about traditional values. The thing is, a lot of "traditional values" suck, and the "good old days" weren't good for a lot of people. Slavery was a "traditional value". Inequality is a "traditional value". Bigotry and hatred each have a long history of being a "traditional value". It's not enough to appeal to traditional value. One has to question whether they are values to which we should aspire. Instead of values, how about ideals? An American ideal is equality. While there is a slice of people whose pursuit of happiness is to deny equality to others (or whatever mutually-exclusive positions that exist), I don't think you are going to be able to implement everybody's ideas.

Yeah, certainly there's no doubt that happiness at the expense of others cannot co-exist while providing happiness for those others. It still requires a winner and loser (ethics and morals aside).

But many subjects can find immediate resolution, like marijuana laws, safety-net programs and legislation, social security..etc - many of these can provide a unique arrangement for each citizen. I might share a bank with thousands of others, but I don't have the same loans, CD's, deposits, credit rating...we each have a unique business relationship with the bank.

This happens already with citizens and government, as some of us access more help than others, or utilize more of the laws than others. Maybe this could be expanded, further still?

Take Ron Paul's 10% initiative for instance (that quickly faded away after the primaries) that gave citizens the option to "opt out" of all government services and programs for a 10% tax rate. You only pay 10% and you don't get social security, and don't apply for food stamps, student loans, public schooling, and etc... You aren't a drain on the collective because you have opted out, yet you are still protected by constitution and the laws of the land, and you pay 10% for that.

It's not perfect and has plenty of issues, but it's an example of beginning a different kind of conversation.

http://nymag.com/dai...d=twitter_nymag

 

Even now it might be hard to pick up more than a few senate seats with this gambit. If you look at the county election map, there are sections of blue

http://i.imgur.com/2Qi6I.jpg

and dividing up into states is probably less prone to the exceedingly odd election district shapes from gerrymandering, and those borders would be fixed once that happened. It would likely make gerrymandering the congressional districts harder, too, since they wouldn't cross the new state lines.

 

So, the GOP would pick up a few senate seats now (4 perhaps, if the new ones broke 6-2), but could potentially subsequently lose 6-8 in the next decade as the demographics change.

 

edit: it also says "which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution" which implies that the new states would need to be approved by Congress, and this would take a little time. And then elections would have to happen. All the while, getting bluer by the year.

Well done swansont. I think this is an excellent analysis. And informative, thanks.

Yes, especially given how here in Austin we're a bit like silicon valley with MAJOR employers like Dell, AMD, Freescale, Facebook, Google, 3M, Texas Instruments, Applied Materials, and others. These companies, and the countless others in the service and support industries that assist them, likely wouldn't appreciate the added burden of having to engage in international border regulations just to sell stuff to people in Oklahoma or Louisiana.

I was hoping this would be the prevailing sentiment. I think too many take the request of secession too personally.

I personally don't feel secession is viable as Texas relies far too much on help from the federal government for border security, help with poverty and education, and healthcare. The big one is obviously border security. The national guard and army and marines who are in Texas are part of the United States military and would remain with the United States, thus leaving Texas defenses and military resources decimated if a secession took place.

Yeah, the first thing I thought was...how do you protect yourself from Mexico? Do you have the state resources to militarize large enough to keep the peace and prevent an invasion? Not saying Mexico would want to but...

Indeed. The idea that it's legally okay for Texas to leave is a myth... one that is often repeated, but a myth all the same. For Texas to secede, there would have to be a new agreement put in place and agreed to by all parties, or another civil war where Texas somehow manages to win and cause the United States (proper) to stand down and concede a loss.

And the number of Texans that believe that myth is rather high, like 1/3 I thought I read?

Texas could probably pull off a war victory with the US if they fought it the same way the US military is being challenged in the middle east. Similar to our revolutionary war formula. Will Americans be willing to accept the specter of Texans being slaughtered and leveled and subsequently occupied in an perpetual war environment where Texans become "terrorists"? I'm not sure.

I've never understood the politics of secession - even if you have a 75% majority wanting to secede, how do you tell patriotic, hard working war veterans and the families of those who died for the stars and stripes that they have to choose between giving up their home and everything they've built... or accept that they no longer can fly the American flag, are no longer protected by the US Constitution, and will simply be annexed by an entirely new government.

 

While people who fit that bill may be a minority and of course, the demographic is loaded with qualifiers to maximize emotional appeal - I cannot imagine a solution to political conflict that simply discards the concerns of such people.

And didn't that happen, on some scale, when the republic of Texas voted to become part of the union? Didn't they have the same issues with the minority voters being annexed by an entirely new government - a federal government - giving up their previous identity and the sacrifices made for that identity?

It's a tough issue.

I doubt that a plebiscite on secession would garner 7.5%, let alone 75%, of the vote. This is just post election silliness.

Agreed. But I do see a divided country between two life philosophies. I do not believe it's an advancement to force us in the same space, so about half of us are necessarily miserable at all times. That isn't a "great experiment". It sucks. And it's unnecessary. I don't wish to force liberals and collectivists to live conservatively and independently, and I'm not sure why they want to force conservatives and individualists to live liberally and collectively. I like chocolate, he likes vanilla. Why does half the country have to lose?

Until we find a way to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, it's always going to suck. When we move the conversation from "my political ideas are better than yours" to "how can we implement your political ideas for you, while I enjoy mine", then we can start to pursue happiness again instead of this weird allegiance to performance and production.

Another interesting petition being signed...

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/strip-citizenship-everyone-who-signed-petition-secede-and-exile-them/ZbMjcwPf

Funny, but kind of hateful too. Kicking the spouse out with just the clothes on their back because it hurt their feelings that "I don't want to be with you anymore. I would like an amicable divorce". Poor babies. Must hurt somethin' special they are not wanted. So, toss the constitution and punish them for wanting to leave you. Talk about whiny brats...

If we would construct two islands, and conduct the experiment, I would see little problem. If all participants are volunteers, then the only concern that comes to mind would be the cost of this, which would probably be quite feasible.

Ah, probably seasteading then. Although they all seem to be libertarian experiments so far, or at least the ones I read about. I have zero faith in living on a manmade construction on the water. Screw that.

Regarding the lack of Romney supporters: The fact that this is not an American forum, but rather an international forum might distort things in comparison to the election results. For example: the large majority of Europeans support Obama (and the democrats in general), according to these sources. The same goes for India.

 

It seems that the English speaking world (excluding the USA) simply favors Obama, not Romney. It's not very strange that this is also what we find at this forum.

Ha ha, we aren't talking about "less" or even "way less" or even "way way way less" or even a "major major minority" - we are talking 0. 21 Obama's last I checked, 2 Gary's (Ecoli and I) and 0 Romney's.

The english speaking world is not 21:0 Obama to Romney. You are capsizing.

Like I said, I think it's hilarious. And the rationalizations are just as fun. Please keep them coming!

There is no reason to assert that - no evidence, no argument. They apparently don't. This is quite clear in their centuries of repeated, verifiable, recordable, physically incontrovertible, behavior. The entire fields of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, child mortality and disease, cemetary layout, EMT responses, industrial pollution regulation, and how many others, would be significantly and visibly different, if they held any such belief or ever had.

You appear to deny any option of stupidity or ignorance. First assumption this makes is that they are downstream logically consistent - such that when downstream logic fails to support their upstream belief, then it must be because their intentions are evil, wrong, whatever, and no possibility of being stupid or logically challenged. I'm sorry. But I've been around too long to assume everyone is smart, logically sound subtending their beliefs.

And religion specifically denies ones own logic to be deployed throughout their ideologies. What they come to believe is a mixture of fixed principles and values they are not allowed to think around, with applications and consequences they must try to logically reconcile. Ie..god has a plan, and everything bad that happens to you is god's will. Leaving the suffering worshiper to try to come to grips with why god wanted this for them, etc.

Logical inconsistency is precisely what you will get by that design, while faithfully believing in all of it. So evidence of said inconsistency is hardly any evidence or argument that they don't really believe it.

Do you have an answer to the observations and reasoning above, other than the assertion that "heavy assumptions" (unspecified, we note) and personal circumstances explain the lot?

No, because it requires making a subjective judgment about something entirely irrelevant that can't be known. I don't burn witches, and make any claims to truth such that I can pretend to objectively observe someone's intentions and motivations. Anything you observe has multiple explanations. Like gravity. Newtonian gravity seemed to explain it...until Einstein provided another.

Like I said, we are all in the same test box overtone. For the same reason science does not prove things, you cannot prove intentions and motivations. You can disprove them, but you can't verify. Multiple explanations can describe the same phenomena. And it's much easier to test and disprove the physical world, than the thoughts in someone's head.

I said nothing of the kind.

Sorry, I meant to say waging war would "likely" create an obviously false conclusion for you, appearing to conflict directly with pro-life principles. I was demonstrating how your interpretation of someone's logic is not proof of their logic. The possibilities are endless. And an increase in ignorance also increases the possibilities.

Remember, you have no objective advantage over anyone. You are just another sack of tissue really impressed with what you've come to believe. We all are.

What I observe to be obviously false is the claim of a common human belief, scientific conclusion, or evidence based physical reality, that a three week embryo is a person.

Your opinion that it's obviously false, yes.

When false motives are claimed and people abused on that basis, motives become central. Motives are not irrelevant in choosing appropriate responses to this stuff. In particular, the actual motives of those who are trying to ban abortion in the US are critical to choosing a response, and largely unknown, maybe, especially to themselves.

But you can't prove motives. How's this any different than burning witches? They couldn't prove that either. How are you more enlightened than them?

As I demonstrated before, freedom of speech can be a cover for racism. I can choose to logically conclude that anyone who supports freedom of speech is doing so, so they can practice their racism. Because we see people using freedom of speech to do exactly that, and anyone who supports their right to do that cannot logically claim otherwise. Yet, I can also choose to conclude that anyone who supports freedom of speech is doing so, so they can fight racism and bigotry. Because we see people using freedom of speech to do exactly that.

So which one are you? How do I know which one you are? If I observe you to be defending freedom of speech in the context of some KKK controversy, do I assume your motivations are racist? Or do I infer that you honor the principles of free speech, and are simply demonstrating the depth to understand that everyone has a right to say even hateful things?

Further, you still haven't demonstrated *why* motives are central when people are being abused. Tell me why it's the least bit relevant beyond academic curiousity. If people are being abused, we can simply examine the philosophy that supports the apparatus that is abusing them, and cancel it on that basis. We don't need to know what is inside anyone's heart, and since we can't know, it's a giant red herring.

White men in 1st world countries have a much less tendency to know what it is like being on the "weaker" end of discrimination, as a whole, on average, by far. That was the point of mentioning it in that context.

That's a fair point. I didn't see how "white" was valid beyond racism, but I see how it applies now.

So, ParanoiA, I request that you read what I wrote above, about women, and mostly-white-men, and statistics, and the relevancy of these (and my intentions, which were by no means racist or even racial on their own) and I offer a single apology to you, for jumping defensively for the wrong reasons rather than trying to see if the source of the frustration was, indeed, my own doing.

I sent you a PM on this, but let me publicly repeat how impressed I am with you and your strength - it takes great strength to be humble. I sincerely appreciate it, and yes, Anders will not lose any sleep over it. You've done all a person can be asked to do in evaluating themselves or their actions, and I'm not sure I could ever be equal to it.

You are a bad ass. (In metalhead circles, this is a compliment)

It seems sometimes my vagina allows me an ounce of reflection, but only when I'm out of the kitchen and not doing the laundry.*

If my wife frequented this forum, she would just adore you.

First point: Anyone inside your house who will otherwise do to you against your will what a developing embryo will do to a pregnant woman, you can kill in self defense, anywhere in the US.

Correct. But that's not remotely what I meant when I brought up that point. I see how you would think that though, let me clear it up.

The pretext that the "person" is in the womb of another person is analogous - only - to a person being in my home in that both scenarios require extending rights to people, regardless of where they are located. So, I can't just kill my friend Bob, or rob him, when he's in my house and claim that you must violate my property rights in order to grant him the right to not be murdered or mugged. He has the same constitutional rights when he's inside my property perimeter and he does when he's walking down the sidewalk.

To that same end, if one truly believes a "person" is inside another person, then one will likely still believe that the person inside you has the same constitutional rights as if they were outside of you, just like if they happened to be inside your house.

In other words, their location is irrelevant, when they truly believe they are people. Inside, outside of whatever, they have the same rights.

This actually works against my argument on the matter, and I'm none too happy about it!

Second point: by all the evidence we have, no one actually believes a third or fourth month human embryo is a person. Traditionally, over the centuries, they are not counted or treated or referred to as people in any situation other than legal abortion.

Well, with all due respect, about half the country (USA) believes they are a person. I defer to science, as is my choice, my belief. But others do not, and that is theirs. We are all on equal footing when it comes to beliefs. No one has an objective view of reality over anyone else - we're all in the same test box.

We are under no obligation to treat arguments based on that claimed belief as if they were honest. The belief is at best very, very rare. We are entitled to question the motives of people who wrap so much of their rhetoric and emotional intensity around something so obviously false - what are their real issues?

You make some pretty heavy assumptions. "Obviously false" is an opinion you have, based on your sensibilites and your life experience that has led you to the kind of thinker and processor you are. If your genetics were slightly altered, your environment completely changed, your sensibilities would be shaped by a completely different life experience and you would process reality differently.

Religion is extremely intense for people, particularly when raised with it. Their principles are mostly simple, while their application requires complexity. Pro-life, while waging war in the middle east creates an "obviously false" conclusion for you. But when one accepts the complexity of practical reality and processes this more thoughtfully, one can easily see how a person can believe in sanctity of life while killing others in what they believe to be "self defense", or "world defense". War can then be seen as saving untold lives in the future - honoring the sanctity of life - by expending the evil bent on killing exponentially. A net gain of life.

This is why religion is so dangerous. Yet still not as dangerous as wholesale question of motives. That can arrest a country of any progress whatsoever, fueling distrust and uncertainty far more dangerous than we've experienced here before.

You can't verify motives. Just like criminal law, you can never be sure you have the right guy. Never. And mistakes are made necessarily because of it - it can't be 100%.

And since motives are largely irrelevant, why invite such a gloriously dysfunctional method to discourse? Who cares why someone fights for property rights - even if they harbor a secret racist side, so what? The arguments either work or they don't.

Maybe you want the right to free speech so you can promote your racism, or abortionism - but the concepts and philosophy of free speech are sound. Your motives are irrelevant, and are dynamic across the populous. Non-racist people will still support free speech for the same arguments you may have offered.

I see no value in questioning each other's motives. I see greater value in a little more trust in our fellow man. Most people are trustworthy actually.

!

Moderator Note

ParanoiA,

 

For the last time, drop this silly issue you have with something someone said pages ago, stop cherry picking small comments about race and running miles with them and get back on topic. Any more comments that have nothing to do with abortion, I will be deleting.

 

 

I do apologize. I would happy to drop it, but replies kept coming in...sorry. And I'm not sure how off topic it is when they are making charges about Anders being racist within the argument of abortion. It's spectacular how no one can accept his position as he presents it - and therefore cannot fathom how the holocaust or slavery might compare as a result. And then use that to even further disparage his position as bigotry. Unbelievable in a science forum.

Because of this, you aren't really talking about abortion. Not at all. And you won't, until that stops.

I'll bow out. I made my point. Again, sorry.

Interesting story on a unique card Texas can play, out of the 1845 Annexation Agreement, that could possibly work.

"[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

 

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature.

So what does that mean? Well, Texas could field another 8 senators if they divided themselves into 5 states. That would tip the balance of power to republicans, maybe for perpetuity with that kind of edge, if one can assume Texas states would stay red.

And according to Tom Delay:

"If we invoke it, the United States Senate would kick us out ... because they're not going to allow 10 (sic) new Texas senators into the Senate. That's how you secede."

That's 8 new senators, Tom, you already have 2.

I'm quite sure most would dismiss Texas as redneck whiny brats, but I think that's oversimplifying and a bit flippant since this is an old streak of theirs. Thirsting for independence shouldn't be disparaged out of hand, after all, Americans thirsted for independence in 1776 and they were similarly dismissed as bratty children. Feel free to vent about that, but I was hoping not to get bogged down too much on that argument.

I'm more interested in this: If Texas did secede, would you still want to be on good terms with them and trade and ally as friends? Do you think this division trick would even work for secession, or do you think the US congress would deny the request and accept 8 new senators?

I think I may have made this point before.

I'm unfamiliar with the system by which the US pays out state benefits to those who need them ( the unemployed, elderly, sick and so on).

However I presume that they need to present some form of ID in order to claim.

I suggest that that ID is good enough to be used as voter ID.

It would save a lot of money because many people already have this sort of ID and wouldn't need another ID card.

 

I wonder what the Republicans would think about that

They would need to present ID for the initial claim with the government. Then they would need ID to cash any checks they may have received.

And the republicans would love it, because it is the ID they are looking for - driver's license, or state issued ID.

The problem is, as cheap as that ID is, it still requires enfranchisement. You are going to need a birth certificate, maybe some other documents I don't know. And then you are going to need money and transportation. And then you have buy it again every two years when it "expires" (I've never understood how my age, height, weight, and all that suddenly "expires", this is just a government screw with fees, they love that shit here in the US).

Not to comment on that, specifically, but turn that sentiment around: how much deviation from the rules, e.g. use of logical fallacies, refusal to support arguments with facts, etc., do you tolerate in order to support diversity? If, hypothetically, someone shows up and starts insulting everyone, should that person not be banned simply because s/he is a rare right-winger on a science site?

But that's just it isn't swansont? Deviation from the rules being applied to opinions. I remember those days well. A certain somebody who overuses "myopic" and likes to pretend opinions aren't valid. Ah, good times.

I have not seen an increase in quality in the politics forum. I've seen a decrease in intensity with poor ole rigney - who is wholly unprepared for this level of discussion - trying to fight a forum full of political experts.

No, you had great ones on here. You ran them off. Doesn't bother me, it's kinda funny really.

maybe the easiest thing to do would be get a group of like minded people together and buy an island, make sure every one is armed to the teeth and choose up sides and fight it out over who has the best political system, make sure you have web cams all over the island so the rest of us can watch the fun...

Or maybe..I don't know...get two groups of passionately political people that would love to be a part of such an experiment and a couple of islands and let them create societies and stuff?

Actually, we might just be able to use seasteading, but I'm not volunteering for that one.

See, I'd actually support voter ID laws on the condition that they find ways to ensure they are made available to the elderly, to those who are not very mobile, to those who don't drive, and anyone else that may struggle to get to a government office to obtain one.

 

Also, I'd support them on the condition that the calls to ensure everyone have one (to make it a requirement) take place outside of the election cycle, and not just 2 or 3 months before people are scheduled to cast their vote.

 

Do it now. Immediately after an election. Not immediately before. Take steps to ensure it's easy for everyone to have one, and take steps to ensure everyone does get one even if they're not aware or not mobile. I can get behind that. Even Mexico has a solid voter ID program...

Oklahoma's voter ID law apparently allows the voter ID card to be the ID. It is mailed out to everyone, for free. Still, messing with voter laws just doesn't sit well with me.

I've always rejected the "impact everybody" solution models we use for things. If some element is slipping through some proverbial crack, then we usually dream up an impact everybody solution that requires 100% of the participants to add a new step, like providing an ID, or what not. I prefer something a bit more creative than flow chart solutions that impact the entire membership. I can't believe we can't investigate - successfully - voter fraud without screwing with voter laws and requiring new steps for voters.

Yes, I inferred, but I did so based on logic. I did so based on the text that was written, the images that were posted and, admittedly, on the unique poster's general attitude overall in the entire forum. My inference was, apparently, not all that illogical, seeing as other people seem to agree with me.

There's a reason why Joe Biden says to never question a person's motives. This inference you are practicing can be practiced by all, and is, and look how well that is working out for everyone. Neither of you are debating each other's actual positions, but rather rhetorical caricatures of each other's positions. Bravo.

And since you believe that the presence of logic is validated by other people agreeing with you, then Anders also enjoys this edge since the entire republican party agrees with him. How sad.

And I do want to point something out here; This thread discusses abortion, but it also delves into what people should and shouldn't do with decisions regarding women's bodies, and how far up their genitalia law should go when discussing the decision women are allowed to make.

 

This might earn me a claim of being emotional. Maybe that's true, but you should take into account that while most of you here are talking *about* women, I am talking about my body. I am not sure how clearly it shines through the amount of condescending claims about women's abilities to think for themselves or control menial things like their own vaginas, how they are being used, and why, but maybe if some of yo put your pink glasses on, it may become a bit clearer.

 

I am a mostly-rational woman. I might hold a different opinion than some of you, but I actually own a vagina, which I carry with me throughout my life. And, if I move to certain states in the USA I am not just discussion what "should be done" with vaginas, I will actually have to physically submit it to the probing and poking of mostly-white mostly-religious mostly-old men who want to make sure I am not stupid enough to not consider the implications about my own body.

I couldn't agree more. It's quite condescending. Of course, if one truly believes there is a person inside you - like if someone believed a person was inside my house - I think their exact location in America will take a back seat to their rights. Again, if someone actually believes people are inside you.

Now um..can you explain the "mostly-white" bit? What is the purpose of one's race in that statement, or its application? I can understand the application of religion and age, since they feed traditionalism which includes elements of female oppression. But white? What is uniquely negative about white, and how is that not a racist comment? Note that I did not make the charge, but I am questioning you, absolutely.

So, yes. When claims are tossed around that women are unable to control themselves because sex is cheap, as if my vagina is just this purse I bought in the mall and I don't mind sharing it with the nearest man that will buy me a new lipstic, I wonder if the poster understands what he's saying.

 

And yes, when claims are raised that equate the holocaust, a radically horrific event that purposefully eradicated millions - part of my family with it, by the way - to *my* personal decision to control *my own body*, I have to wonder if this is a real discussion or if this is just trolling.

 

And yes, when cheap low-blow emotional appeal exaggerations are raised in an attempt to equate me, a pro-choice vagina holder, with the Nazi mass murderers, it is no longer about opinion, and no longer about respect.

 

Where's my apology?

So that's a no, then. You are incapable of critical thinking and understanding the arguments and positions of others. Noted.

And that proves my point. You will never understand him, you will always infer him a bigot and then by extension be offended by his analogies with scalable atrocities. And 4 people so far agree with you.

Meanwhile, I understand your position. And I understand his. I never thought such a thing was that unique, or rare. How said..again.

Obamacare started as a Heritage Foundation idea: See http://www.heritage....r-all-americans. You can't get any more conservative than the Heritage Foundation. Cap and trade started with the 2000 Bush campaign as an alternative to the much more onerous ideas floated by the Democrats at that time.

Not sure I can get on board with cap and trade as a republican idea, since it sounds more like a compromise to something they felt was more insidious. But wow, the Obamacare bit. I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am. Yeah, Heritage Foundation is about as conservative as you get.

That's only because you are perhaps extremely extreme? The Republicans need to dump their Ron Paul faction and their religious right faction. The Tea Party has ruined the Republican Party. The sooner the Republicans split from the Tea Party, the better. The Tea Party had their brief populist moment in the Sun, and that Sun has set.

Yeah I am quite sure classcial liberalism is viewed as extreme by tyrannical democracy asshats that regulate the living shit out of each other. No surprise there. I wear my tolerance for your freedoms as a badge of honor. Even if you deny mine. The day will come however, when I quit taking orders from the American pigs that have taken 2.3 billion acres of land they cannot wholly occupy, or use, and then procede to tell me how to live cuz I was born in their dumb little perimeter. Go ahead, lecture me on moral and ethics and tell me how extreme it *isn't* to invent laws to preempt the choices of over 300 million people - and the billions in posterity. Why? Cuz your slave owning forefathers planted a flag? Give me a break.

Tell me how extreme it *isn't* to assume no American of the 300 million, nor any American born in the next hundred years could possibly have an opinion that would trump yours. To deny even the possibility that you could be wrong about your beliefs and intentions forced onto others. That's what laws are. They make the assumption, that we don't need to hear you to know you're wrong. There is nothing anybody is going to tell us, now or in the future that is going to prove this logic wrong - and we don't even need to hear you to verify that.

Talk about hubris. And extreme. You'd think with those kinds of assumptions you'd have small list of laws. But no...thousands upon thousands..so many the federal government cannot give us a quantity. *That* is extreme. Thousands upon thousands of documents pruning, abridging, editing, narrowing, removing choice after choice after choice...until we are all exactly the same. How fucking boring.

Yes, I'm just sure this is how we get happiness. Beat everyone into it. Yeah, that's real moderate...of course it feels that way, when you are raised and conditioned in it, taught how to judge and regulate each other from day you were born. I'm not surprised. Most people cannot challenge the assumptions that have defined their lives, as they are inferior to such humility.

The Tea Party got screwed by Fox News neo-cons very early in the movement. I jumped ship the moment I saw Neil Cavuto at a Tea Party Rally. Hello Neil, the movement was anti-conservative and anti-liberal. It was anti-status quo, very libertarian envisioned but pragmatically aimed at tax and spending. It was great...for about 2 days. Since then, I don't know how it happened, but they've been invaded, hijacked, marginalized, defamed...all at once. You had "tea partiers" making fools of themselves on TV, obvious fox news conservatives trying to pretend like they're mad at republicans. Please...

No, we need a slow, steady, sustained philosophical shift in the republican party (since 3rd party is out). A Rand Paul revolution that is thoughtful and deliberate. Someone to protect me from you. Someone to stop you from ruining the only life I get. Someone to stop your rationalizations, push you back to regulate your own life and stop hogging the rest of ours.

Someone to inform you that D H, just because I was born..uh, near you, doesn't obligate me to you, nor do I have any responsbility to you. Someone to let you know, that voluntary cooperation is all we are interested in, and that your overbearing, creepy invasion of my personal space will not be tolerated.

If I interpreted his words incorrectly it can be simply resolved by him telling me otherwise. Since me acknowledging from the outset that this could simply be a 'misunderstanding' is not enough for you, after this post I'll gladly fall on my sword.

It's plenty good enough for me Zapatos, but you've been defending mooey ever since I posted. That's fine, but don't act like I'm badgering you - you stepped into this, as my post was directed squarely at mooey.

And, if this bothers you so much, then please address my point. You had two possible interpretations - that he meant abolition of slavery, or "civil rights" (as he wrote). That he meant abolition of slavery had no evidence or data to support it. That he meant civil rights had pages of evidence and data, even on the same page FFS. But you chose the pro-slavery interpretation and called it misspeak. I understand that since you've seen clear to acknowledge he's not really pro-slavery, but you still initially chose that interpreation. That choice only makes sense if you're more interested in being hostile to someone's position, more interested in shame than actually discussing a topic with the intention of resolution, or at least understanding.

Did you read any of my previous post? If not, let me repeat one part of it: "I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery."

I did, and I believe you. My comment was about misspeak, not taking you to task for the pro-slavery charge again.

If you have managed to interpret my posts in such a negative manner, I have to believe that you harbor some prejudices yourself.

I explained what I interpreted negative, and it wasn't much. I think most of these things are unconscious choices, and I'm just as guilty as anybody else. I thought we were supposed to point these things out, always trying to make ourselves a little better, understanding that we aren't perfect. And no one is equal to their own rhetoric.

It's unfortunate to argue with you because I really appreciated your defense of my 401K tax and fine bitch fest. For you to support my position required maneuvering around a lot of assumptions and established norms. I really appreciate someone who can challenge assumptions like that. It's hard to find, and we need so many of you. I wasn't kidding when I said I do believe you are a fair minded, logically driven fellow. (At least I'm going to guess you are a fellow).

Fine. "The rights of business owners" was to descriminate against black people at their businesses.

My point still stands, and so is the ridiculous logic.

 

We are discussing the issue of women's rights and abortions, and are being confronted with an exaggerated emotional fallacy-salad using race and Godwin's law (the holocaust.. really?) and *I* am the one who's low?

 

I am not American, so excuse me if I mistakenly understood the racist comments as a different kind of racism. Regardless, it doesn't change my point.

Saying that by granting EQUAL rights to black people you actually took away the rights of business owners to discriminate against them is misunderstanding the meaning of rights in a society. And then comparing it to the "rights" of the so-called fetus is just mixing the subjects into an emotional appeal while setting up a false premise.

 

I have little tolerance for racism, ParanoiA. While I usually try to be polite when I criticize (though not always successfully so) when things like these blatant racist claims come up, I save no blow.

 

Just like I will not ask for an apology for the blatant abuse of the holocaust just to reduce the argument to cheap low-blow emotional appeal, I will hand out no apologies for criticizing the flawed logic as I've seen it, and the fact that I might have misunderstood the TYPE of racism doesn't change the overall meaning, or the point I was making.

This is the problem mooey: you inferred the racism. You did that. Take responsibility.

This is an example of how polarized the country is because we refuse to be honest about other's opinions and argue on that basis. Instead, we disparage their position and infer motives and intentions and argue those. He has said nothing racist at all. You infer racism because you appear to lack the depth and honesty to argue the actual philosophical difference of opinion: personal property rights.

I want you to think on this and give me a careful answer: Do you have the right to discriminate who enters your personal home?

If the answer is yes, then you clearly are capable of distinguishing your position as racism neutral, understanding that others have a right to be racist tools even if it offends you. They have a right to disallow entry into their home based on sexism, racism, whatever and your advocation of that right doesn't therefore make YOU a racist tool does it?

As I said before, if you see a partition between personal property and business property, then Civil Rights laws are equal rights to you. I get that. And, if you do not see a partition between personal property and business property, then Civil Rights laws are a transfer of rights from the owner to all of society. Do you get that?

Anders Hoveland, some conservatives and the entire libertarian ideology simply does not see business property any differently than personal property. How about arguing about that? Why do you have to spin this position, import racist intentions and motivations and ruin any chance of precise, honest debate?

This is going on all over the country. It's why we're divided. We don't want to talk, discuss, and work it out. No, we want to disparage, shame, fabricate, marginalize and defeat the happiness of others. No need for evidence, no just assume other's motivations based on the results.

So...with this new dysfunctional approach you like so much, I can only assume democrats are racist and are actively trying to disenfranchise illegal immigrants by keeping them illegal. They say things like "Americans won't do those jobs", and stand against any immigration reform attempted by the states to resolve it, and bring the labor market back to legal, legitimate status. But no, they vote this stuff down, and vote to keep them illegal, unprotected by the labor laws the rest of us enjoy. They like them to get paid shit wages, and they like it even more that they have earned their vote for this mistreatment and refusal to accept them as equals.

Does that sound like an honest take? Of course not. The immigration reforms proposed have always included disgusting "show me your papers" like laws, and mass deportations, with little appreciation for those that have established lives here. But, I could just ignore all that, pretend like democrats are racist tools, beat you all about the head with it, and what we have to show for it? More division, and bitterness.

Had enough of that yet? Apparently not. Hello perpetual gridlock.

Using (rather, abusing) emotional appeals with a huge addition of racism just to make the people who are so-called "pro choice" sound like low-life murderous bastards is the low blow, ParanoiA. My pointing out that this is a cheap trick with faulty crappy logic? That's just a response showing that these methods are ridiculous in a discussion that's supposed to at least be somewhat rational.

How is that any different than making libertarians out to be racists that use philosophy as cover? Huge emotional appeals to make the people who are so-called "pro personal property rights" sound like low-life racist bastards. Yes, that's a low blow.

And I'm sorry, but his arguments are consistent with his beliefs. If you truly believe the fetus is alive - a point of contention - then of course you would believe the fetus' rights have been violated in favor for the mother. Can't you see that? And of course you would believe this is an atrocity. Can't you get that? And further, you would likely see it as mass murder, especially if they think a blastocyst is a person. It would easily compare to slavery, the holocaust and so forth. Absolutely. If you truly believe these are people being murdered in the womb, then the scale is astonishing and comparisons to other astonishing atrocities is entirely reasonable.

I can't believe you really can't flex yourself to understand what pro-lifers believe and get how the logic flows once you accept their set of assumptions over your own. It's called critical thinking, and I know you're damn good at it. So give it a whirl here, will ya?

Personally, I'll take science's word on it. If you say it isn't alive, I believe you. I read a tiny bit on how life is defined, and it's more complex than I would have guessed. Not surprising, but not my point of contention anyway. My position simply doesn't rely on such things.

If it can be taken away by simple-majority legislation, it's not really a right, IMO. It's a privilege.

 

(related: it boggles my mind that states can and will amend their constitutions by simple majority votes)

I can accept that argument. But consider that it took more than simple majority legislation, it also took the supreme court to expand legislative authority by interpretation. The first part was not possible without the second. Of course, this is why judicial activism is such a polarizing issue. In that case, people unelected - just 9 of them in the whole country - can take our rights away. That's a by-god major-major-minority there my friend. Don't misunderstand though, it's not as if I don't appreciate the institution and how it's set up. They don't initiate and write law, after all...

I wholeheartedlly agree with that related bit. What is the point of constitutions if simply majority votes can change them?

But that right hasn't been lost. It's your business that's affected, and the constitution grants the power to the government to regulate this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Civil_rights

And via Wickard V Filburne the constitution grants the power to regulate your flower bed or build furniture in your garage. Roscoe Filburn lost his right to grow wheat and consume it because it effected how much wheat he would have bought on the open market.

We had the right to discriminate concerning our personal property. After civil rights legislation, we lost that right if that property happened to be a place where humans trade stuff and do commerce, as opposed to watching TV and having sex. And after Wickard V Filburn, some savvy lawyer just needs to convincingly argue that not letting someone into my house effects how much shelter they would have bought in the market, and thus, they can create laws to regulate who enters my home.

These are rights that were taken away by legislation and expansive supreme court interpretations of the constitution.

Obamacare, cap and trade, immigration reform: All of these were originally Republican ideas, and all of them suddenly became evil when Democrats decided to embrace these Republican ideas as their own. Obamacare suddenly became evil when the Democrats pounced on it as a compromise vehicle to achieve something they've been after for decades. Cap and trade similarly suddenly became evil when Democrats saw it as a smart way to address some of the causes of global warming. Finally, immigration reform. Centrist Democrats prevailed over their extreme elements who were against immigration reform.

No contention here, but I'm curious about the claim these were republican ideas. When was Obamacare or cap and trade ever part of the republican ideology? Could you elaborate on that? Immigration reform has been their major issue, however I doubt very seriously their idea of reform resembled democrat's ideas of reform. Just the title phrase is shared.

One big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats, at least lately, have been able to hold their extreme elements in check. The Democrats try not to let ideology rule over common sense and reality. That's not the case with the Republicans, who instead went on a whole slew of RINO hunting expeditions. There is no common sense left in that party.

I'm always amused by this notion of extreme. The republican party is far from extreme. They are devoted central planning federalist big spenders of slightly different stripe than their demoncrat siblings. They say "states rights" on about, what, 3 issues? Romney had to pretend like he had a different foreign policy than Obama and no one could figure out what was different about it. They spend like demoncrats want to, and aside from taxes they mostly just argue about god and abortion. They love regulating the happiness right out of their fellow man as much as their tyrannical liberal counterparts.

No, they aren't extreme at all, and largly becoming irrelevant. Demoncrats might even enjoy a resurge in libertarian voters for a bit, who knows. I would like to see Rand Paul take over the party and give us an actual governing difference.

You may want to reread the posts. I never said his position was unclear, I simply suggested he may have misspoke in his most recent post.

When I read your quote below, including that last bit where you made the "leap" yourself, suggests you weren't clear. You had to make a "leap" to connect business owners and civil rights to mean slave owners and civil rights. But now you offer that you were always clear, and suggested he misspoke when you - you mind you - "leaped" to associate business owners and civil rights as a statement about slaveowners and slaves. If it was clear, why was the leap necessary? Makes no sense...

That was pricesly my issue. You (and mooey) had two possible interpretations, and one of them had supporting evidence and data in the same thread on the same page, on the very issue. Yet you chose the other interpretation that had none. Looks like republicans and Benghazi to me. Nothing to see here unless you spin it.

Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights".

 

He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong?

 

I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad.

Regardless, I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery. But if he misspeaks the penalty should go to him, not to the person who responds to what he said.

I have yet to see any misspeak. I have yet to read anything from him to suggest pro-slavery. He's using slavery as a moral analog, and since he's conservative his opinion is considered "criminal" and his motivations questioned. Conservatives and libertarians are not given the respect due when arguing for rights - their arguments are considered cover for bigotry. So, I am not surprised that interpretations to Ander's posts would mirror the caricature of racist republicans.

When I attempt to do the same to liberals and statists and suggest their position on immigration and lack of immigration reform is racism, favoring immigrant status to remain "illegal" and not protected by labor laws so they can be exploited in the labor market, they get pretty pissy about it too.