Sex can be "without consequence." Why even attempt to lie about that?
Because this guy named Shawn assured me in a thread called My Body, My Choice - For men too, that men must always assume that sex could lead to responsibility.
Another guy named bunge basically said you had better keep track of your sperm and be prepared for any consequences.
I attempted to convince both of these characters that sex should be for enjoyment and parenting a choice.
However they assured me that this could not be so for men.
trump, the examples that you use as exemplifying liberalism are insipid and absurd . . . what does an idiotic lawsuit against McDonald's have to do with Liberalism . . . or your 'speech code' issues . . . that's the same litany from the media campaign that branded the term "PC" in the late 80s . . . and it has very little to do with the average liberal.
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
It is just yet another leap of that infrastructure argument. Since society is expected to have each member do what they can to insure our future society, no one should drive SUV's, McDonalds should only sell health food, etc. If they refuse to do this, then they sue them and attempt to have class action status attached to it for the harm done to "society."
University speech codes are much the same idea. If you have the right to take from others to assure your pursuit of happiness, you also have the right to insure their speech does not cause you offense or unhappiness.
Quote:
I simply don't believe the Conservatievs when they say that they too 'want to build roads' . . . not realistically, and not with actual tax payers money . . . not with any actual organized plan, no simply cut all regulations and give it up to a corporation to pump money out of a culture that needs the services in question . . . . .a plan with the goal of actually benefitting the public would simply run counter to their 'cut taxes' ideology and we are seeing the proof of the pudding right in front of us . . .
Are you also seeing the "proof in the pudding" of what I claimed right here as well? That the second someone suggests roads, progressives will redefine roads to mean social services.
We have seen it right here in the forum. How could we doubt the same views exist in Washington, in our state capitals, etc.
I wonder how many times bond issues, sale tax increases etc. have been passed only to watch the money disappear to other causes. I already cited an example with the sales tax here in California. I have no doubt others exist. Likewise I wonder how many bills for infrastructure have ended up voted down when the endless social program riders attach themselvse to them.
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
Why do you always need to lie?
LIES.
I remember that thread clearly, and I do not believe that the same people in this thread argued that "people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat." That's a point that was universally conceded- that people must take at least some responsibility for what they eat. The point advocates in that thread tried to make was that McDonald's and fast food companies were liable in some capacity.
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
It is just yet another leap of that infrastructure argument. Since society is expected to have each member do what they can to insure our future society, no one should drive SUV's, McDonalds should only sell health food, etc. If they refuse to do this, then they sue them and attempt to have class action status attached to it for the harm done to "society."
University speech codes are much the same idea. If you have the right to take from others to assure your pursuit of happiness, you also have the right to insure their speech does not cause you offense or unhappiness.
Nick
These would be good points . . . if only they were true and more than mere emotional propaganda that sounds suspiciously like that everpresent slather that coats every surface of the media these days . . . do you really believe this slander?!?! Quote:
Are you also seeing the "proof in the pudding" of what I claimed right here as well? That the second someone suggests roads, progressives will redefine roads to mean social services.
We have seen it right here in the forum. How could we doubt the same views exist in Washington, in our state capitals, etc.
I wonder how many times bond issues, sale tax increases etc. have been passed only to watch the money disappear to other causes. I already cited an example with the sales tax here in California. I have no doubt others exist. Likewise I wonder how many bills for infrastructure have ended up voted down when the endless social program riders attach themselvse to them.
It is amazing that you conservatives have ridden this anti-Davis thing as far as you have without once recognizing the obviouse: if you blame him for all your problems then we are justified in blaming Bush for all of the rest of the countries problems. . . including those of California (paradox there hunh?!)
and why this refusal to see that the energy debacle was a major example of my whole point: deregulation naturally leading to price gauging and corporate strong arming of the public . . . and still, refusal to see it, and even after there has been conclusive evidence that Enron was directly linked to the whole debacle (not a big role but in there nonetheless) and still . . . blame Davis. talk about refusing responsibility?!
This is part and parcel of the attitude that will lead to our mediocrity and decline. Sell off our foundations to the pirates . . . well then, don't be surprised when the innevitable takes place . . .
I remember that thread clearly, and I do not believe that the same people in this thread argued that "people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat." That's a point that was universally conceded- that people must take at least some responsibility for what they eat. The point advocates in that thread tried to make was that McDonald's and fast food companies were liable in some capacity.
Wrong, I'm not going to argue the whole thread over but I'll leave it at this. Responsibility = you pay. People were arguing for taxes to pay for the costs of treating obesity.
If I even remember arguing that if people are not hit with the costs of their own actions, they won't change them. People just droned on about corporate responsibility to pay for the medical costs of treating obesity.
If you are responsible for what you eat, you make the choice and you pay. Since they can't pay, the government has to. Since the government has to, others argued that "Big Fat" had a responsibility to pay for the medical costs.
If a corporation has to pay for what an individual ate, just a hint, that isn't personal responsibility.
[B]These would be good points . . . if only they were true and more than mere emotional propaganda that sounds suspiciously like that everpresent slather that coats every surface of the media these days . . . do you really believe this slander?!?!
I haven't seen any links to disprove them. McDonalds was sued twice. An organization called FIRE has sued several universities because of first amendment violations.
You are welcome to prove that I made up
FIRE or their fight against university speech codes.
Quote:
It is amazing that you conservatives have ridden this anti-Davis thing as far as you have without once recognizing the obviouse: if you blame him for all your problems then we are justified in blaming Bush for all of the rest of the countries problems. . . including those of California (paradox there hunh?!)
and why this refusal to see that the energy debacle was a major example of my whole point: deregulation naturally leading to price gauging and corporate strong arming of the public . . . and still, refusal to see it, and even after there has been conclusive evidence that Enron was directly linked to the whole debacle (not a big role but in there nonetheless) and still . . . blame Davis. talk about refusing responsibility?!
This is part and parcel of the attitude that will lead to our mediocrity and decline. Sell off our foundations to the pirates . . . well then, don't be surprised when the innevitable takes place . . .
Was there something in the thread title about regulation vs. deregulation?
You are welcome to blame Bush for all the countries problems. Just don't be surprised if all the other states aren't in agreement with you or your vote. Davis made his own bed and will lay in it. He had energy cronies sitting on his committee that wrote up the long term contracts.
The guy is a political whore, even if your point were completely valid, he would not be the person you would want to prove it with. He is a total sellout.
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives.
This is BS.
Conservatives though are trying to convince the world that "Free Market Economy" = Democracy. That's crap too.
All I said is that welfare is a transfer payment and that's it's income redistribution which is EXACTLY what it is. Why do you think liberals talk about income inequality so much? They are making the case for redistributive programs like welfare. You don't know what you are talking about and yet you insist on arguing with me over this. Clearly, you haven't bothered to research this question for yourself. Time for you to start.
yes it does if you live in a place where this thought is an integrated part of society. Trust me. I am a sociologist.
Sociologists are just like anyone else. I assure I have read numerous socilogical texts for pleasure. Their opinions and conclusions vary about as much as is humanly possible.
In otherwords it would be like trusting what you say about the economy because you are an economist. I assure you I could find an economist that agrees with what I say.
Likewise this is true with sociologist.
Quote:
I have a feeling that because you disagrees with such a policy it cannot be infrastructure?
"I don´t like roads so they cannot be defined as infrastrucure"
"I don´t like potatoes so they are not food"
"I don´t like Bush so he is not a politician"
Of course your problem here is that all those statements are true where as the claims about social policy = infrastructure is not.
So you would have to add some like...
I don't like universal medical care so it is not infrastructure.
However even then it isn't whether someone likes it. Base foundation does not equal wealth redistribution, no matter how many times you care to repeat it.
So I suppose now we can stop all the wealth redistribution programs and direct the money toward infrastructure?
Republicans that I know are just fine with spending for infrastructure. It is when they take the infrastructure money, redirect it to poverty programs that you didn't vote for, and then start charging tolls, levys and other fees for something you thought you already paid for.
We have witnessed this yet again here in California. The governor is being recalled for in part, tripling the auto registration fees. We are told by him that 60 million is "wasted money that we do not have" to run the recall election. Yet 60 million to fingerprint everyone so illegal aliens can get drivers licenses isn't too much money.
They raised the sales tax a percent almost a decade ago to pay for the infrastructure repairs from the Northridge earthquake. They never took it back down and it is over 8% in most parts of the state. Now they wanted to raise it yet another percent to cover a budget shortfall.
Meanwhile at the school I teach at, they are sending out half a dozen copies of free lunch fliers begging people to sign up for the program.
Use the government as it was intended and amazingly even the most conservative person will see the common good. Use it to be Robin Hood and steal and watch it be neglected into dust.
Nick
Now we can just send all our money to Iraq.
I'll have to admit it's a different approach than Robin Hood.
That was from a definition by someone else to which I provided a link. Argue with them about it. The definition is accurate, though.
So, you don't believe in the things you link to? But then you say it's accurate? And you expect people to think you make sense?
Even you should be able to see that this doesn't make any sense at all. Welfare doesn't fit the definition you linked to. You used that definition as the basis for an argument. The definition is wrong so the foundation for your argument is invalid and thus your argument is crap.
So, you don't believe in the things you link to? But then you say it's accurate?
Would I say it was accurate if I didn't believe it was true? This isn't hard to figure out. Even you should be able to do it.
Quote:
You used that definition as the basis for an argument.
The basis of my argument is what I said - that welfare is a transfer payment. You needed further explanation so I provided it.
Quote:
The definition is wrong...
The definition isn't wrong. Mindlessly insisting otherwise isn't much of an argument. You could try and vindicate your position by presenting another definition of what a transfer payment is but you can't so you won't. Your argument is crap.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Sex can be "without consequence." Why even attempt to lie about that?
Because this guy named Shawn assured me in a thread called My Body, My Choice - For men too, that men must always assume that sex could lead to responsibility.
Another guy named bunge basically said you had better keep track of your sperm and be prepared for any consequences.
I attempted to convince both of these characters that sex should be for enjoyment and parenting a choice.
However they assured me that this could not be so for men.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
...could...be prepared...should...could....
Originally posted by pfflam
trump, the examples that you use as exemplifying liberalism are insipid and absurd . . . what does an idiotic lawsuit against McDonald's have to do with Liberalism . . . or your 'speech code' issues . . . that's the same litany from the media campaign that branded the term "PC" in the late 80s . . . and it has very little to do with the average liberal.
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
It is just yet another leap of that infrastructure argument. Since society is expected to have each member do what they can to insure our future society, no one should drive SUV's, McDonalds should only sell health food, etc. If they refuse to do this, then they sue them and attempt to have class action status attached to it for the harm done to "society."
University speech codes are much the same idea. If you have the right to take from others to assure your pursuit of happiness, you also have the right to insure their speech does not cause you offense or unhappiness.
I simply don't believe the Conservatievs when they say that they too 'want to build roads' . . . not realistically, and not with actual tax payers money . . . not with any actual organized plan, no simply cut all regulations and give it up to a corporation to pump money out of a culture that needs the services in question . . . . .a plan with the goal of actually benefitting the public would simply run counter to their 'cut taxes' ideology and we are seeing the proof of the pudding right in front of us . . .
Are you also seeing the "proof in the pudding" of what I claimed right here as well? That the second someone suggests roads, progressives will redefine roads to mean social services.
We have seen it right here in the forum. How could we doubt the same views exist in Washington, in our state capitals, etc.
I wonder how many times bond issues, sale tax increases etc. have been passed only to watch the money disappear to other causes. I already cited an example with the sales tax here in California. I have no doubt others exist. Likewise I wonder how many bills for infrastructure have ended up voted down when the endless social program riders attach themselvse to them.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
Why do you always need to lie?
LIES.
I remember that thread clearly, and I do not believe that the same people in this thread argued that "people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat." That's a point that was universally conceded- that people must take at least some responsibility for what they eat. The point advocates in that thread tried to make was that McDonald's and fast food companies were liable in some capacity.
Originally posted by trumptman
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives. If you are fat it is because McDonalds pandered to children and got them hooked on fast food. (There was a thread here on it and you can read many of the same folks from this thread proclaiming that McDonald's is evil and people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat.)
It is just yet another leap of that infrastructure argument. Since society is expected to have each member do what they can to insure our future society, no one should drive SUV's, McDonalds should only sell health food, etc. If they refuse to do this, then they sue them and attempt to have class action status attached to it for the harm done to "society."
University speech codes are much the same idea. If you have the right to take from others to assure your pursuit of happiness, you also have the right to insure their speech does not cause you offense or unhappiness.
Nick
These would be good points . . . if only they were true and more than mere emotional propaganda that sounds suspiciously like that everpresent slather that coats every surface of the media these days . . . do you really believe this slander?!?! Quote:
Are you also seeing the "proof in the pudding" of what I claimed right here as well? That the second someone suggests roads, progressives will redefine roads to mean social services.
We have seen it right here in the forum. How could we doubt the same views exist in Washington, in our state capitals, etc.
I wonder how many times bond issues, sale tax increases etc. have been passed only to watch the money disappear to other causes. I already cited an example with the sales tax here in California. I have no doubt others exist. Likewise I wonder how many bills for infrastructure have ended up voted down when the endless social program riders attach themselvse to them.
It is amazing that you conservatives have ridden this anti-Davis thing as far as you have without once recognizing the obviouse: if you blame him for all your problems then we are justified in blaming Bush for all of the rest of the countries problems. . . including those of California (paradox there hunh?!)
and why this refusal to see that the energy debacle was a major example of my whole point: deregulation naturally leading to price gauging and corporate strong arming of the public . . . and still, refusal to see it, and even after there has been conclusive evidence that Enron was directly linked to the whole debacle (not a big role but in there nonetheless) and still . . . blame Davis. talk about refusing responsibility?!
This is part and parcel of the attitude that will lead to our mediocrity and decline. Sell off our foundations to the pirates . . . well then, don't be surprised when the innevitable takes place . . .
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why do you always need to lie?
LIES.
I remember that thread clearly, and I do not believe that the same people in this thread argued that "people shouldn't be responsible for what they eat." That's a point that was universally conceded- that people must take at least some responsibility for what they eat. The point advocates in that thread tried to make was that McDonald's and fast food companies were liable in some capacity.
Wrong, I'm not going to argue the whole thread over but I'll leave it at this. Responsibility = you pay. People were arguing for taxes to pay for the costs of treating obesity.
If I even remember arguing that if people are not hit with the costs of their own actions, they won't change them. People just droned on about corporate responsibility to pay for the medical costs of treating obesity.
If you are responsible for what you eat, you make the choice and you pay. Since they can't pay, the government has to. Since the government has to, others argued that "Big Fat" had a responsibility to pay for the medical costs.
If a corporation has to pay for what an individual ate, just a hint, that isn't personal responsibility.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
[B]These would be good points . . . if only they were true and more than mere emotional propaganda that sounds suspiciously like that everpresent slather that coats every surface of the media these days . . . do you really believe this slander?!?!
I haven't seen any links to disprove them. McDonalds was sued twice. An organization called FIRE has sued several universities because of first amendment violations.
You are welcome to prove that I made up
FIRE or their fight against university speech codes.
It is amazing that you conservatives have ridden this anti-Davis thing as far as you have without once recognizing the obviouse: if you blame him for all your problems then we are justified in blaming Bush for all of the rest of the countries problems. . . including those of California (paradox there hunh?!)
and why this refusal to see that the energy debacle was a major example of my whole point: deregulation naturally leading to price gauging and corporate strong arming of the public . . . and still, refusal to see it, and even after there has been conclusive evidence that Enron was directly linked to the whole debacle (not a big role but in there nonetheless) and still . . . blame Davis. talk about refusing responsibility?!
This is part and parcel of the attitude that will lead to our mediocrity and decline. Sell off our foundations to the pirates . . . well then, don't be surprised when the innevitable takes place . . .
Was there something in the thread title about regulation vs. deregulation?
You are welcome to blame Bush for all the countries problems. Just don't be surprised if all the other states aren't in agreement with you or your vote. Davis made his own bed and will lay in it. He had energy cronies sitting on his committee that wrote up the long term contracts.
The guy is a political whore, even if your point were completely valid, he would not be the person you would want to prove it with. He is a total sellout.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes we are reading the bloody hell same sentence.
Base of foundation does not mean giving people those things that they want but cannot afford so that they can pursue freedom and happiness.
yes it does if you live in a place where this thought is an integrated part of society. Trust me. I am a sociologist.
Originally posted by trumptman
The leap is yours.
BTW what is your checking account number?
I haven't had enough happiness this weekend.
Nick
I have a feeling that because you disagrees with such a policy it cannot be infrastructure?
"I don´t like roads so they cannot be defined as infrastrucure"
"I don´t like potatoes so they are not food"
"I don´t like Bush so he is not a politician"
Originally posted by trumptman
Because the average liberal is attempting to convince the general populace that they personally are not responsible for any of the wrongs in their lives.
This is BS.
Conservatives though are trying to convince the world that "Free Market Economy" = Democracy. That's crap too.
Originally posted by bunge
Your definition of welfare is grossly inaccurate.
All I said is that welfare is a transfer payment and that's it's income redistribution which is EXACTLY what it is. Why do you think liberals talk about income inequality so much? They are making the case for redistributive programs like welfare. You don't know what you are talking about and yet you insist on arguing with me over this. Clearly, you haven't bothered to research this question for yourself. Time for you to start.
Originally posted by Anders
yes it does if you live in a place where this thought is an integrated part of society. Trust me. I am a sociologist.
Sociologists are just like anyone else. I assure I have read numerous socilogical texts for pleasure. Their opinions and conclusions vary about as much as is humanly possible.
In otherwords it would be like trusting what you say about the economy because you are an economist. I assure you I could find an economist that agrees with what I say.
Likewise this is true with sociologist.
I have a feeling that because you disagrees with such a policy it cannot be infrastructure?
"I don´t like roads so they cannot be defined as infrastrucure"
"I don´t like potatoes so they are not food"
"I don´t like Bush so he is not a politician"
Of course your problem here is that all those statements are true where as the claims about social policy = infrastructure is not.
So you would have to add some like...
I don't like universal medical care so it is not infrastructure.
However even then it isn't whether someone likes it. Base foundation does not equal wealth redistribution, no matter how many times you care to repeat it.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
This is BS.
Conservatives though are trying to convince the world that "Free Market Economy" = Democracy. That's crap too.
Care to cite some programs from liberals that encouraged and assumed personal responsibility?
Nick
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
All I said is that welfare is a transfer payment and that's it's income redistribution which is EXACTLY what it is.
GREAT SCOTT!!!
Actually, that's not all you said. What you said was that Welfare is 'a gift without anything being received or required in return.'
And I said that was inaccurate. Which is true.
Originally posted by trumptman
Care to cite some programs from liberals that encouraged and assumed personal responsibility?
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not exactly 'programs' per-se...
Originally posted by trumptman
So I suppose now we can stop all the wealth redistribution programs and direct the money toward infrastructure?
Republicans that I know are just fine with spending for infrastructure. It is when they take the infrastructure money, redirect it to poverty programs that you didn't vote for, and then start charging tolls, levys and other fees for something you thought you already paid for.
We have witnessed this yet again here in California. The governor is being recalled for in part, tripling the auto registration fees. We are told by him that 60 million is "wasted money that we do not have" to run the recall election. Yet 60 million to fingerprint everyone so illegal aliens can get drivers licenses isn't too much money.
They raised the sales tax a percent almost a decade ago to pay for the infrastructure repairs from the Northridge earthquake. They never took it back down and it is over 8% in most parts of the state. Now they wanted to raise it yet another percent to cover a budget shortfall.
Meanwhile at the school I teach at, they are sending out half a dozen copies of free lunch fliers begging people to sign up for the program.
Use the government as it was intended and amazingly even the most conservative person will see the common good. Use it to be Robin Hood and steal and watch it be neglected into dust.
Nick
Now we can just send all our money to Iraq.
I'll have to admit it's a different approach than Robin Hood.
Originally posted by bunge
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not exactly 'programs' per-se...
You are just stuck in that one line dismissive thing lately, aren't you.
I guess that is what I get for recommending decaffinated.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
GREAT SCOTT!!!
Actually, that's not all you said.
READ first and then post.
...Welfare isn't a service. It's a transfer payment. It's income redistribution... (link)
What you said was that Welfare is 'a gift without anything being received or required in return.'
That was from a definition by someone else to which I provided a link. Argue with them about it. The definition is accurate, though.
Originally posted by jimmac
Now we can just send all our money to Iraq.
I'll have to admit it's a different approach than Robin Hood.
You just hit the nail on the head
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
That was from a definition by someone else to which I provided a link. Argue with them about it. The definition is accurate, though.
So, you don't believe in the things you link to? But then you say it's accurate? And you expect people to think you make sense?
Even you should be able to see that this doesn't make any sense at all. Welfare doesn't fit the definition you linked to. You used that definition as the basis for an argument. The definition is wrong so the foundation for your argument is invalid and thus your argument is crap.
Sorry.
Originally posted by bunge
So, you don't believe in the things you link to? But then you say it's accurate?
Would I say it was accurate if I didn't believe it was true? This isn't hard to figure out. Even you should be able to do it.
You used that definition as the basis for an argument.
The basis of my argument is what I said - that welfare is a transfer payment. You needed further explanation so I provided it.
The definition is wrong...
The definition isn't wrong. Mindlessly insisting otherwise isn't much of an argument. You could try and vindicate your position by presenting another definition of what a transfer payment is but you can't so you won't. Your argument is crap.