Election 2017 Thread

[PokerPacker]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thanks.  

 

My wife actually hates that about me.  She calls it "right fighting".  She gets mad because I will go to war over something because I think it is right where letting it go would make things easier.  And I am always confused because I don't understand where fighting for "right" is a bad thing.  I once spent more than a few hours and actually held a mini-protest outside of a restaurant because they overcharge me $0.12.  I got my money back though.  She was not amused.

Did you toss a dime and two pennies on the ground and walk away when all was said and done?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, PokerPacker said:

Did you toss a dime and two pennies on the ground and walk away when all was said and done?

No.  Though if there was a homeless person out front I may have done that.

[Predicto]

6 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

 

1.  It ignores basic biology and the collective experience of thousands of years of recorded human civilization (in other words you can want it  to happen and encourage it, but it is not reasonable to expect it is going to happen as a general rule because it never has before)

2.  It punishes innocent children who had no ability to prevent themselves from being born but have become the surplus population anyway

3.  It creates an underclass, which is bad for society as a whole

 

there are plenty more but those three are a good start

[Predicto]

quote is not edit

[techboy]

6 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

 

I'd actually go further than Predicto, but I'm going to generalize it and you can decide if this comment fits you or not.

 

Most people wouldn't dream of looking down on someone that has a physical disability, and in fact the law requires society to pay a little extra to accomodate... Wheelchair ramps in restaurants, etc.

 

Far too many people, though, have absolutely no problem in denigrating or minimizing mental disabilities. There is a stigma, for example, about having bipolar disorder or schizophrenia that simply does not exist for cancer or hemophilia.

 

It goes deeper than that, though. NOBODY chooses to be stupid. Nobody decides to have poor impulse control. Few make a conscious decision to be poorly educated.

 

And yet, far too many people are smug enough to look down on the less intelligent or less educated like it was their fault.

 

This problem is exacerbated in a setting like this one, where the posters tend to be disproportionately more intelligent, well off, and educated than the average person. Decisions that might come easily to you or me might be significantly more challenging to another.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a little more empathy and compassion, and a little less judgement, all around.

 

Now time to lose the liberals nodding along... It's just as disgusting to me the way many Trump voters are villified... You take someone who's poor, angry, poorly educated, neglected by the system, and then act like it's a crime that this person voted for him, especially after considering the cognitive biases and tribalism that we ALL operate under? Really?

 

Scorn for the leaders, sure. Flay Franklin Graham alive (figuratively... I guess...). 

 

Empathy.

 

P.S. Of course, recognition that some people aren't always capable of living up to one's standards can lead one down the path to forced sterilizations and other eugenics. And has. Right here in Virginia, in the 20th Century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell. That case was never overturned, by the way.

 

Of course, should one's thoughts drift in that direction, one should not be surprised to hear the word "Nazi". Because that is literally Nazism.

 

 

[Elessar78]

5 hours ago, Predicto said:

 

1.  It ignores basic biology and the collective experience of thousands of years of recorded human civilization (in other words you can want it  to happen and encourage it, but it is not reasonable to expect it is going to happen as a general rule because it never has before)

2.  It punishes innocent children who had no ability to prevent themselves from being born but have become the surplus population anyway

3.  It creates an underclass, which is bad for society as a whole

 

there are plenty more but those three are a good start

Such an American mindset. Most of the world produces hard working, decent people with a fraction of the income and resources available to 90% of Americans. 

 

It shouldnt be a means test but a basic skills of parenting test. Can you get to work on time? Do you know what a nutritious meal looks like? 

[Going Commando]

6 hours ago, Predicto said:

there are plenty more but those three are a good start

 

Here's two more:

 

- If a household has a full time worker, they should be able to afford to raise children.  It is a barbarous society where that is not the case.

 

- If the cutoff for being able to afford to raise children without falling into poverty is the upper middle class, then that societies death rate will exceed it's birth rate.  This is a disaster for any society.  It creates instability that eventually leads to conflict, scarcity, and hardship before the society's eventual collapse and depopulation/abandonment of settlements.  It's happened in many places throughout human history.  It almost happened to Russia after the end of the Cold War but they reversed the trend after about a decade and a half.  The only way to stave off the consequences of a disastrously low birth rate is to bring in a massive amount of immigration and that leads to the transformation of a society.

[Elessar78]

15 hours ago, The Sisko said:

 

 

The elephant in the room is automation. That’s what’s really killing Cleatus’ jurbs. But keep telling him it’s the fureinurs’ fault. It gets GOP’ers elected, demonizes POC and keeps Cleatus poor. Everybody wins!!

Bang touched on it too, but this is the case. Who shipped your jobs overseas? Who makes the business decisions? 

[skinsmarydu]

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thanks.  

 

My wife actually hates that about me.  She calls it "right fighting".  She gets mad because I will go to war over something because I think it is right where letting it go would make things easier.

We have the same issues.

edit, removed...

[LD0506]

8 hours ago, techboy said:

P.S. Of course, recognition that some people aren't always capable of living up to one's standards can lead one down the path to forced sterilizations and other eugenics. And has. Right here in Virginia, in the 20th Century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell. That case was never overturned, by the way.

 

And then you see people like this and wonder, hmmmmmm, is it REALLY such a bad idea?

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

12 hours ago, Predicto said:

 

1.  It ignores basic biology and the collective experience of thousands of years of recorded human civilization (in other words you can want it  to happen and encourage it, but it is not reasonable to expect it is going to happen as a general rule because it never has before)

2.  It punishes innocent children who had no ability to prevent themselves from being born but have become the surplus population anyway

3.  It creates an underclass, which is bad for society as a whole

 

there are plenty more but those three are a good start

1.  I don't buy that.  Biology makes it harder to make change but not impossible.  Someone mentioned japan earlier.  Than managed to discourage breeding with needing some biological change (no I'm not saying we should be exactly like japan).

2.  This is a valid issue.  But this is already happening with children being born into homes that really had no business having children.  I do agree we need a better way to help them.

3.  Already exists.  If anything, I would say discouraging breeding by people who have no business doing it would actually shrink the underclass.

 

11 hours ago, techboy said:

P.S. Of course, recognition that some people aren't always capable of living up to one's standards can lead one down the path to forced sterilizations and other eugenics. And has. Right here in Virginia, in the 20th Century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell. That case was never overturned, by the way.

 

Of course, should one's thoughts drift in that direction, one should not be surprised to hear the word "Nazi". Because that is literally Nazism.

 

 

Not saying the comparison is totally off base but the merits of what the Nazi's were trying to do were basically based of a blonde hair and blue eyes requirement.  It had to thought of actual societal value.  And the massacre of everyone that didn't look like them isn't being suggested here either.  Suggesting that 2 poor as dirt hillbillys should be discouraged from having 10 kids isn't exactly Nazism in my opinion.

 

5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Here's two more:

 

- If a household has a full time worker, they should be able to afford to raise children.  It is a barbarous society where that is not the case.

 

- If the cutoff for being able to afford to raise children without falling into poverty is the upper middle class, then that societies death rate will exceed it's birth rate.  This is a disaster for any society.  It creates instability that eventually leads to conflict, scarcity, and hardship before the society's eventual collapse and depopulation/abandonment of settlements.  It's happened in many places throughout human history.  It almost happened to Russia after the end of the Cold War but they reversed the trend after about a decade and a half.  The only way to stave off the consequences of a disastrously low birth rate is to bring in a massive amount of immigration and that leads to the transformation of a society.

I flat disagree with your positions.  But I think there also needs to be a discussion on what is NEEDED to raise a child and do households that are strapped for cash do well in prioritizing (generally speaking) what they spend their money on.  Are they driving a nicer car then they need, buying the latest Iphone, spending money at Starbucks, etc?  Then complaining because they don't have money for their child to attend a YMCA camp?  ****before anyone yells at me for generalizing a part of society, what I just stated is literally what happened with my other sister.  I stopped giving her money until she let me help her set up a budget.  And saw all of this going on******

 

 

 

^^^^^^Watch that video above and tell me that the thought of controlling who breeds doesn't at least cross your mind?

[visionary]

 

[Going Commando]

52 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I flat disagree with your positions. 

 

My second statement isn't a position, it's a flat statement of fact about what happens to societies whose birth rate drops and stays below their death rate.  They either:

 

1 - face a massive social upheaval, violent conflict, economic collapse, and eventually the failure of the society, depopulation, and the abandonment of settlements.

 

2 - turn to massive immigration to increase their population and stave off all of those things.  But that too leads to widespread social upheaval and conflict.

 

There are myriad historical examples demonstrating this to be the case.

 

You cite the example of Japan as a positive model, but do you realize they're headed for a demographic crisis?  They're screwed if they don't either open the country to unprecedented immigration or enact significant social and economic reforms to spur a baby boom. The same thing is happening in Western Europe.  And these countries aren't exactly welcoming to immigrants.

 

If you actually disagree with the position in my first statement--that a society is barbarous if a household with a full time working parent can't afford to raise children--then we really have nothing else to argue about.  Because I believe that we should live in a successful, sustainable, modern society where the citizens enjoy basic human dignity and can hope to leave their children better off than they were.  You would apparently believe we should live in a doomed laissez faire hellhole with permanent underclasses that will consume itself and eventually be destroyed and reset.

[TheGreatBuzz]

16 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

My second statement isn't a position, it's a flat statement of fact about what happens to societies whose birth rate drops and stays below their death rate.  They either:

 

1 - face a massive social upheaval, violent conflict, economic collapse, and eventually the failure of the society, depopulation, and the abandonment of settlements.

 

2 - turn to massive immigration to increase their population and stave off all of those things.  But that too leads to widespread social upheaval and conflict.

 

There are myriad historical examples demonstrating this to be the case.

 

You cite the example of Japan as a positive model, but do you realize they're headed for a demographic crisis?  They're screwed if they don't either open the country to unprecedented immigration or enact significant social and economic reforms to spur a baby boom. The same thing is happening in Western Europe.  And these countries aren't exactly welcoming to immigrants.

 

If you actually disagree with the position in my first statement--that a society is barbarous if a household with a full time working parent can't afford to raise children--then we really have nothing else to argue about.  Because I believe that we should live in a successful, sustainable, modern society where the citizens enjoy basic human dignity and can hope to leave their children better off than they were.  You would apparently believe we should live in a doomed laissez faire hellhole with permanent underclasses that will consume itself and eventually be destroyed and reset.

Well you had said something about the cutoff for raising children without being in poverty as having to be upper middle class.  I don't think that position is correct.  It's why I said " I think there also needs to be a discussion on what is NEEDED to raise a child and do households that are strapped for cash do well in prioritizing ".  And I did not cite Japan as a country we should model ourselves after.  I was using it as a counter point about fighting biology.  That's why I said "no I'm not saying we should be exactly like japan".

 

Now do I think a household where the parents are both 20 years old and the dad is a burger-flipper and the mom is a stay at home mom shouldn't have an issue financially raising 3 kids?  No, they absolutely are expected to have issues.  And they are dumb for putting themselves in that position.  If that makes me barbarous, well then........I guess I need a sword and a loincloth. 

 

EDIT:  And the bolded line shows a lack of class in what was an attempt at civil discussion.  I guess you are right, we really have nothing else to argue about if that is the way you choose to characterize another persons opinions.

[The Sisko]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

1.  I don't buy that.  Biology makes it harder to make change but not impossible.  Someone mentioned japan earlier.  Than managed to discourage breeding with needing some biological change (no I'm not saying we should be exactly like japan).

2.  This is a valid issue.  But this is already happening with children being born into homes that really had no business having children.  I do agree we need a better way to help them.

3.  Already exists.  If anything, I would say discouraging breeding by people who have no business doing it would actually shrink the underclass.

 

Not saying the comparison is totally off base but the merits of what the Nazi's were trying to do were basically based of a blonde hair and blue eyes requirement.  It had to thought of actual societal value.  And the massacre of everyone that didn't look like them isn't being suggested here either.  Suggesting that 2 poor as dirt hillbillys should be discouraged from having 10 kids isn't exactly Nazism in my opinion.

 

I flat disagree with your positions.  But I think there also needs to be a discussion on what is NEEDED to raise a child and do households that are strapped for cash do well in prioritizing (generally speaking) what they spend their money on.  Are they driving a nicer car then they need, buying the latest Iphone, spending money at Starbucks, etc?  Then complaining because they don't have money for their child to attend a YMCA camp?  ****before anyone yells at me for generalizing a part of society, what I just stated is literally what happened with my other sister.  I stopped giving her money until she let me help her set up a budget.  And saw all of this going on******

 

 

 

^^^^^^Watch that video above and tell me that the thought of controlling who breeds doesn't at least cross your mind?

So Nazism is bad because they based their criteria on race but fascism-lite using class as the criteria is OK? What about other factors like genetic disease? Shouldn’t society prevent “defectives” that would only raise healthcare costs from being conceived? Sorry, but it’s a slippery slope.

[techboy]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Not saying the comparison is totally off base but the merits of what the Nazi's were trying to do were basically based of a blonde hair and blue eyes requirement.  It had to thought of actual societal value. 

 

Nope, that's totally incorrect. You might want to read a bit about the Nazi eugenics programs before rejecting the comparison. This Wikipedia article has a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

Here's a relevant excerpt:

 

Those humans targeted for destruction under Nazi eugenics policies were largely living in private and state-operated institutions, identified as "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including prisoners, "degenerates", dissidents, people with congenital cognitive and physical disabilities (including people who were "feebleminded", epileptic, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, deaf, blind) (German: erbkranken), homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while more than 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.^[3][4][5][6]

 

Now, you're not advocating for people to be killed in these posts, but your reasoning leads to exactly this.

 

Imagine a pregnant woman finds out her child has Down's Syndrome... What a drain on societal resources! She is forced to have an abortion.

 

A soldier is made a quadreplegic in combat... He's a hero, but a hero wouldn't want to be a useless eater, drain on societal resources,,, A hero's euthenasia!

 

Even if it never goes beyond forced sterilization, that's repugnant enough. And you're a conservative. Do YOU trust government to decide who gets the needle? Really?

 

These are humans, that deserve dignity and respect. And the biggest measure of US as humans is how we treat others that are less well off than we are.

 

This is not hunter/gatherer society. Civilization has advanced to the point where we can afford to support those less fortunate. Not everyone needs to work to support the tribe these days... we can pay someone millions of dollars to throw a leather ball.

 

We can afford it, and we should.

 

Also, Predicto and Steve are right too... Morality aside, you don't want to live in a society with a repressed underclass. There aren't any guillotines in this country, but I'm sure the plans are on the internet.

[The Sisko]

4 minutes ago, techboy said:

Also, Predicto and Steve are right too... Morality aside, you don't want to live in a society with a repressed underclass. There aren't any guillotines in this country...

...yet.? The way things are going these days it’s a distinct possibility.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

23 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

So Nazism is bad because they based their criteria on race but fascism-lite using class as the criteria is OK? What about other factors like genetic disease? Shouldn’t society prevent “defectives” that would only raise healthcare costs from being conceived? Sorry, but it’s a slippery slope.

I actually started a thread based loosely on what you mention called "What is fair to expect from our healthcare system".  Now I haven't brought up forced sterilization at all though others seem to like to act like I did.  I'm talking about encouraging people who shouldn't be having more children or can't afford more children to NOT have more children.  How to encourage that is up to discussion.  And I'm talking about adults making the decision to not have children they can't afford.  And that is Nazism.............

 

18 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

Nope, that's totally incorrect. You might want to read a bit about the Nazi eugenics programs before rejecting the comparison. This Wikipedia article has a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

Here's a relevant excerpt:

 

 

 

 

Now, you're not advocating for people to be killed in these posts, but your reasoning leads to exactly this.

 

Imagine a pregnant woman finds out her child has Down's Syndrome... What a drain on societal resources! She is forced to have an abortion.

 

A soldier is made a quadreplegic in combat... He's a hero, but a hero wouldn't want to be a useless eater, drain on societal resources,,, A hero's euthenasia!

 

Even if it never goes beyond forced sterilization, that's repugnant enough. And you're a conservative. Do YOU trust government to decide who gets the needle? Really?

 

These are humans, that deserve dignity and respect. And the biggest measure of US as humans is how we treat others that are less well off than we are.

 

This is not hunter/gatherer society. Civilization has advanced to the point where we can afford to support those less fortunate. Not everyone needs to work to support the tribe these days... we can pay someone millions of dollars to throw a leather ball.

 

We can afford it, and we should.

 

Also, Predicto and Steve are right too... Morality aside, you don't want to live in a society with a repressed underclass. There aren't any guillotines in this country, but I'm sure the plans are on the internet.

Sorry.  I made a general statement about what the Nazi's did.  I didn't think I needed to recount their entire history.  See above for what I am discussing.  And I still hold that if we could find a way to encourage those that already are "underclass" (for lack of a better term) from breeding and creating more underclass, then the size of the "repressed underclass" would shrink. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Third world countries have found that when girls are educated, the birth rate drops. Support for education is imperative, especially in our country. 

 

Republicans are trying like hell to limit education.  Why?

[techboy]

19 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I would not be against forced sterilization in some instances but that would be a whole different discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Not saying the comparison is totally off base but the merits of what the Nazi's were trying to do were basically based of a blonde hair and blue eyes requirement.  It had to thought of actual societal value. 

 

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Sorry.  I made a general statement about what the Nazi's did.  I didn't think I needed to recount their entire history.

 

First, you DID talk about forced sterilization... see above.

 

Second, you did make a general statement, but it is flatly wrong. You stated (again, above) that the Nazis had no thought of actual societal value. They absolutely did... They saw the physically and mentally disabled (even just the stupid) as a drain on society, and argued that society would benefit as a whole by removal of these undesirables, both by flat out killing them and by forced sterilization.

 

Finally, the blowback you're getting is also because your comments, and other cracks like "bleach in the gene pool", are often used as dog whistling for more explicit practices. That might not be how you mean it, but that is how it comes off. 

[visionary]

This is getting pretty off topic....

[techboy]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

This is getting pretty off topic....

 

That's the nature of the internet, but I don't think it's as off topic as it would first appear. The Alt Right is actually for the policies that are being criticized here (some openly, some dog whistling), and they are doing their best to introduce themselves (and eventually these policies) into our political system.

 

Fortunately, the elections of 2017 (the actual topic!) seem to be mostly pushing back against that.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[techboy]

They're going to determine the balance of power in the Virginia House of Delegates by drawing a name from a hat.

 

Crazy.