Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:44 am
Hm. Perhaps I jumped the gun. But why, if it does come to about 70% of registered voters, do the numbers still don't seem to add up? How do they get more than double cards cast then?Valhallen wrote:Since the presidential ballots counted are more like 70% of registered voters instead of 140%, do you concede that your linked article is much ado about nothing?
You mean a huge expansion of government intervention into our lives. It gives you a somewhat one-sided choice of either paying out money for health insurance or paying out money to the government. It forces insurance companies to cover things that may be against their religion (the whole Birth Control debate, et al). It creates new "task forces" which monitor the program to see how they can cut wasteful spending. It creates several new agencies. Most of the plan is not in effect until 2014, fully effective in 2020, but meanwhile it's still legal for them to collect the tax.Valhallen wrote:To the actual liberals in the world, most of Obama's policies as implemented are indeed very conservative. For example, Obama didn't even propose single-payer health insurance as a negotiating position, while Obamacare as implemented is a huge expansion of private insurance.
That's a rather bad interpretation of what they wrote. Geez, it's like we're reading two entirely different pieces. Here's a snippet that may help the situation.Valhallen wrote:And that's a terrible definition (not that it actually defines what Conservatism is). Conservatives don't want to pay for things they already bought (i.e. raise the debt ceiling or taxes), and they reject the notion of compromise out of hand? "...the core principles of a small government and fiscal responsibility..."?Rough Giraffe wrote:I think what it comes down to is a definition of Conservatism. We seem to be using different definitions.
The point is not "Conservatives do not compromise," and you seem to have missed it entirely. Are you not guilty of having steadfast ideology as well? Every time we debate, you always think your way is right, do you not? And if I offer a position counter to it, do you ALWAYS compromise between your position and mine? And if not, how do you differ from a Conservative such as how you describe above?If you believe that murder is evil, you do not compromise and say, “Well, I think murder is evil and you think murder is good, therefore we should compromise and say some murder is evil and some ok.” And absurd example, for sure, but it makes a solid point. If you have really thought out a number of issues, have seen their effects in the real world on real people, then you are going to be less inclined to surrender ground to ideas that perpetuate the very problems you are trying to solve. This certainly does not mean that every idea a conservative has is ideological, or true, or exempt from compromise. But, it does mean that the closer an idea comes to the core of your belief system the harder it is to compromise on it, the less inclined you should be to compromise on it, and the better for all that you articulate it well and often, and help everyone understand your view.
Or rather, might we say we are trying to conserve virtue, in a time where, just as an example, personal virtue is often cast aside to find a scapegoat for one's hardships?Valhallen wrote:I think that DaCrum was using something more like the dictionary definition: "1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Rather, I started working on it, but never got around to finish. Relevance aside, it is also extremely long. I suppose if I answer something here I can cut it from the other reply?Valhallen wrote:Please read that big post of mine. it really is terribly relevant.
I really, seriously hope I am wrong on this one. I hope it does not happen. But, IF it does happen... will you still support Obama?Valhallen wrote:He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?
Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:06 pm
to be fair, isn't it rather typical for presidents to leave more radical changes 'til the fairly likely second term? because then they don't have to worry about re-election because it ain't happenin anywayValhallen wrote:He's been President for almost four years now. If he really wanted to restrict gun rights, why wouldn't he do it in his first term rather than waiting for and gambling on the availability of a second term?
Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:43 pm
Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:44 pm
Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:12 pm
Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:43 pm
Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:01 pm
Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:14 pm
Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:06 am
Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:34 am
Rough Giraffe wrote:You seem to be throwing around a strawman argument here. It's not about which weapons are the "safe" ones. The right to bear arms is a right of a people to defend themselves and others. Now, what do I mean by that?
If someone has an AK-47 and all you have is a double-barreled shotgun (arguably more powerful), you fall within justification of using it ONLY if that person could be reasonably expected to do harm to you or others, AND if you can stop the threat without causing any further casualties (for example, you don't fire at him if he's surrounded by a big crowd of people).
Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:17 am
Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:15 am
No, what he is trying to get at is a simple question, nowhere did he say weapons exclusive for war use should not be allowed to be carried by civvies, what QU is asking is how do you classify/who classifies whether one type of weapon should be allowed to be bought by civilians or whether it should not, if the main purpose of the weapon is the same in either case? Why are some weapons considered okay by said laws, and some weapons aren't, even if the one that's legal could do more damage than the illegal option? Or how is it decided that a weapon is ok to be sold while others are not, if the purpose of said weapons depend solely on who buys it?I think what you're trying to get at is weapons that are normally considered to be used almost exclusively for the purposes of war should be out of the hands of civilians, correct?
Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:22 am
So, I'm not sure if I fully answered your question. Let me know I guess.
Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:08 am
Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:33 pm
Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:37 pm
Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:52 pm
Well if that's what he's asking, then it's really not something I can sufficiently answer. I mean, I don't make the gun laws, so I wouldn't really know what it is that makes a gun illegal in the eyes of a law-maker. I would imagine it's the threatening nature of the gun combined with the fear of what could happen if that gun fell into the wrong hands. Even so, often times the laws they try to pass are completely unreasonable and based largely in ignorance.Mir@k wrote:what QU is asking is how do you classify/who classifies whether one type of weapon should be allowed to be bought by civilians or whether it should not, if the main purpose of the weapon is the same in either case? Why are some weapons considered okay by said laws, and some weapons aren't, even if the one that's legal could do more damage than the illegal option? Or how is it decided that a weapon is ok to be sold while others are not, if the purpose of said weapons depend solely on who buys it?
Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:09 pm
Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:14 pm
Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:00 pm
They don't have to walk into Mordor to understand the dangers of doing so. As long as they've researched the topic thoroughly, or at least enough that they understand what they're trying to argue, I have no problem with them debating public policy.Whatis6times9 wrote:But it's okay for our drug laws or our abortion laws to be drafted by those who have never tried drugs or had an abortion?
I will when I have a moment. But is that really the excuse one should make for an elected representative? If you called out one of my favored representatives and I said "they baited him/her," is that really valid?Whatis6times9 wrote:Also, you should look up the congresswoman who said and understand more about her life and the context in which she made that statement and the baiting of the guy who asked it.
So, he wants me to define which weapons I would personally declare too deadly to allow non-government civilians to wield if I'm the guy in charge? I thought he just wanted an idea as to how I thought about the issue. Sure, I can do that. Though I wouldn't necessarily ban any weapon, here's the ones I would seriously consider implementing heavy restrictions.Valhallen wrote:RD, you talked about some of your principles regarding weapon legality, and Q.U. asked you to translate your principles into policies applicable to the real world. If you can't do that, you shouldn't argue about weapon legality on ideological grounds.
Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:23 pm
Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:01 am
Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:14 am
Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:47 am
Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:44 am
Sure. Do you? Always? If not, then why not? How do you measure that your ideology is right? How do you run an experiment on it? How do you form your conclusions? Would you like to discuss it with me? Seems more often than not you discuss things at me; you tell me what's right and why I'm wrong to disagree. It gets irritating.BeeAre wrote:okay, see, ruffdraft, i'm going to talk to you on point, and one point only:
do you use the scientific method when you talk about ideology?
I presented an article that spoke about what it is to be Conservative; it talked, among other things, about the idea of compromise, and why Conservatives might not compromise on a particular issue. He read the article and interpreted the message of the article to be "Conservatives outright reject the idea of compromise." This was contrary to what was written, and I explained why.BeeAre wrote:you complained earlier in the thread about Valhallen having a "bad interpretation". So there was clearly multiple ways to view whatever the fuck it is you two were talking about, I skimmed most of the posts because [REALLY DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT YOUR TOILET HABITS THANKS].
Guilty? Why would I feel guilty? I'm kind of feeling offended, actually. As if your irritable bowel is my doing. Did I give you Crohn's? Am I actively sucking the life out of you? Or did I engage you in conversation? I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with something you have to say. If we have a discussion, more often than not you reject the notion that my argument could have any merit at all---and without following the scientific method. And then you blow up at me. Personally I find it easier to I blame your illness than than to get angry at you in those cases. It causes you pain, pain causes emotional instability, and you become irrational. And yet your pain is something I caused, but shouldn't feel guilty about? I'm legitimately outraged by that.BeeAre wrote:I am not trying to patronize you, btw, because I want everyone to get a grasp on this, because well, every time you say something REALLY FUCKING STUPID (in my humble opinion) it gets me extremely unhappy and unhealthy. I don't blame YOU at all. (weirdly enough, right?)So you don't have to feel guilty.
So, for example, when I present evidence on something I have observed in the past (say, "grass is green,") and he asks for a citation ("prove that this is true"), and I provide ONLY observational facts behind it ("look at some grass, it is green"), that's me making a common sense argument, yes? Are you saying that's a bad thing? Always? If so, prove to me by the example I have just presented above that it is incorrect to use that method.BeeAre wrote:You and Valhallen's debates consist of citation VS citation. Noticeably more from Valhallen than yourself. You are relying more, on average, on what you might call common sense.
"Come on, everyone knows this."
But then doesn't that mean that stats and circumstances are equally important? Can't have stats without circumstances. Furthermore, what about the conclusions one draws from the statistics?BeeAre wrote:I think that you don't have a background in formal logic that is stronger than Valhallen's, and whenever I read a full exchange between you, you--on average--are more interested in the circumstances rather than the statistics.
Stats are more important than circumstance: stats are a large amount of circumstance by which we determine the Lowest Common Denominator.
And if you get anything wrong, the whole thing falls apart. The arrow flies crooked or doesn't sink into the target as accurately or deeply as you want it to, or the bow or string snaps with the slightest bit of tension.BeeAre wrote:The scientific method on anything typical is slow, but slow like shaping a bow, stringing it, fletching the arrow, sharpening its head to the desired wound outcome, pulling back, and letting the observation fly through the process easily to bullseye right down to the result.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes you can make a one-sided argument and still be completely correct. Do you think everyone who's ever made a good bow has always made one with a partner?BeeAre wrote:In an argument, you have to construct half of a bow, and keep working with your partner to get the boy right, then both of you must measure the string, the fletching, the arrowhead, the aiming, the pullback, the release.
Hey, I'm not going to say I always remember that. In fact, sometimes when I'm faced with an argument I find so adverse to my beliefs I forget that believers believe their beliefs are just as valid as I believe my beliefs to be. But do you not also admit that sometimes people are simply not going to agree on things for any number of reasons? And that sometimes the reasons by which someone disagrees can be completely rational and correct?BeeAre wrote:Because the point of an argument is to agree. I forget that sometimes. I think we all do. I try desperately to keep it on my mind, you know.