Ain't No Time for Hate

[subbie_333]

I'm sorry. I haven't read many news stories about people being hung on fences to die because they said to their fraternity "you shouldn't kill that faggot."

If you can provide examples, I'm all ears.

<silliness>

OK, we can go back to blaming the media - just for arguments sake. Those stories are far a few between, but, they scare people. And, people decide it is easier for them to blend in - some call that a copout. Is the media to blame for that result? If so, is that something sinister that was planned?

</silliness>

But, yes, justice is served in the vast majority of the time. The point is that people get sucked in by the *perception*. The reality has become totally lost - perhaps even on this thread. People have gotten to the point of not trusting anyone to protect them. So, some give up to the point of not voting. Some clutch to their guns. Some want the government to protect them and fix everything. Some become haters on talk radio.

eh

 

[subbie_333]

So... what you're doing to solve the problem is speaking out on behalf of a more reasonable alternative. Urging people to vote Libertarian. Is that right?

One of the things

Have you been beaten up yet for spreading this view? Had the government raid your home, lock you up, whatever?

Nope

 

[JMohegan]

Doesn't "well we don't want to stand up to these people because they're scary and violent" prove my point that there's a statistically significant number of scary and violent MF's who are a problem from this political direction?

I'm not saying ONLY from this political direction. But let's just stay with what's here for a second, not with what's everywhere else.

Yes, this proves the point exactly!

You can't have it both ways. You can't respond to objections over the collective power of right-wing hate-mongers by saying PETA HATES TOO, and then turn around and say you're too scared to stand up to the culture warriors.

 

[subbie_333]

So the GI Bill was a miscarriage of governmental authority. I'm just checking here. So are food stamps. It's better to just let the weak ones die off of starvation. Why do we even have schools?

GI Bill and food stamps is comparing apples to oranges.

Re: schools. Some believe that schools should be run by states and local governments, as opposed to the federal government, cus they will do a better job given the context of their community.

 

[subbie_333]

Yes, this proves the point exactly!

You can't have it both ways. You can't respond to objections over the collective power of right-wing hate-mongers by saying PETA HATES TOO, and then turn around and say you're too scared to stand up to the culture warriors.

So, some people are wimpy. And, you don't like that. You have the right to say that. But, is that the end of the story?

My point was that simply being wimpy doesn't give the haters on either side the right to take away the rights of the wimpy. Condemn the wimpy and the pacifist all you want, even be a hater and call them bad names like wimpy. But, in the United States they have the right to be wimpy, and, have the right to be left alone.

 

[JMohegan]

One of the things




Nope

Good to know.

However, this leaves me confused to your earlier response. When I asked: "Why are so many good Americans silent?" you responded: "Because those that speak up get attacked, and, in many cases, get their privacy/rights violated. And, in too many of those cases, justice is not served in response to those violations of privacy/rights."

You and I speak up without getting attacked. So I'll my question again.

If Edmund Burke is right, and “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” then why are so many good Americans silent?

 

[Netzach]

GI Bill and food stamps is comparing apples to oranges.

Re: schools. Some believe that schools should be run by states and local governments, as opposed to the federal government, cus they will do a better job given the context of their community.

Aren't they kind of run by both in tandem as it is now? Federal to hand out some extra cash and impose some kind of standard? (I think NCLB isn't ideal, but I don't think it's the satanic monster a lot of people think it is)

 

[Netzach]

Good to know.

However, this leaves me confused to your earlier response. When I asked: "Why are so many good Americans silent?" you responded: "Because those that speak up get attacked, and, in many cases, get their privacy/rights violated. And, in too many of those cases, justice is not served in response to those violations of privacy/rights."

You and I speak up without getting attacked. So I'll my question again.

If Edmund Burke is right, and “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” then why are so many good Americans silent?

Because they agree on some level.

Or they're going "well, too bad. Better you than me."

 

[subbie_333]

Good to know.

However, this leaves me confused to your earlier response. When I asked: "Why are so many good Americans silent?" you responded: "Because those that speak up get attacked, and, in many cases, get their privacy/rights violated. And, in too many of those cases, justice is not served in response to those violations of privacy/rights."

You and I speak up without getting attacked. So I'll my question again.

If Edmund Burke is right, and “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” then why are so many good Americans silent?

Because they are wimps. Why isn't that a good enough answer for you?

 

[subbie_333]

Aren't they kind of run by both in tandem as it is now?

Yeah, what government has morphed into.

Federal to hand out some extra cash and impose some kind of standard? (I think NCLB isn't ideal, but I don't think it's the satanic monster a lot of people think it is)

One of the inherent problems with any entity that gets too big is that there are inconsistencies and contradictions. What do we do? Can you say "change"?

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, what government has morphed into.




One of the inherent problems with any entity that gets too big is that there are inconsistencies and contradictions. What do we do? Can you say "change"?

To what? Smaller and more local. OK, where do they get the money from? The same money I'm paying to feds now goes to my already higher state taxes and new higher city taxes for children (who still aren't mine, I'd like to point out) but who I do believe should not be running around feral because I live in a society with people.

Why is government on any level involved in the educating children racket when you don't think it should be in the feeding or providing health care for them racket?

Or are we going to have the Medtronic company school and store again?

 

[JMohegan]

Because they are wimps. Why isn't that a good enough answer for you?

Because I think that's the wrong answer.

I agree with Netzach. The correct answer is: because they agree on some level, or are happy to throw gays, Mexican immigrants, scapegoats du jour under the bus. They're apathetic because it's not them.

 

[Netzach]

Because I think that's the wrong answer.

I agree with Netzach. The correct answer is: because they agree on some level, or are happy to throw gays, Mexican immigrants, scapegoats du jour under the bus. They're apathetic because it's not them.

We still live in an economic powerhouse.

Between the private AND public sector no one has to be under the bus. No one.

 

[Netzach]

Because I think that's the wrong answer.

I agree with Netzach. The correct answer is: because they agree on some level, or are happy to throw gays, Mexican immigrants, scapegoats du jour under the bus. They're apathetic because it's not them.

They're involved even when it IS them (Cheney)

ETA in the interest of evenhanded backbiting, Wellstone voted for DOMA. If you could ever fall in love with someone of the same sex, you remain expendable from all sides.

 

[Homburg]

Yes. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

This is why social services are a BARGAIN, fiscally, no one wants to see it that way.
The cost of getting someone extensive job training versus the cost of incarcerating the same person is NIGHT AND DAY.

Figuring this out was why I no longer consider myself a libertarian, even though they're closer to what I agree with. At the end of the day, top-level measures sometimes just make more sense.

And, as usual, "Preventative > Palliative" in just about every situation.

Boortz uses the "roof on fire" talk to discuss this, and does a great job of it. This is doubly pertinent, as he tends towards libertarian as well, but doesn't get there.

--

eh perhaps the difference in one making blanket statements versus addressing individual issues. In this politically correct world, it has become too tiring to explain one's self *so* thoroughly as to never offend anyone. Yes, i understand your point and agree with it in general. And, the idea of labels seems to get people in such a tizzy, like whether one is Republican, Libertarian, socialist, slave, or, sadist. To bastardize a saying i used a few days ago, one can't swing a label around here without hitting somebody who is offended by that label.

I don't think there is a need to explain to avoid offense. Screw that. I am positing that there is a need to explain if you do not buy in completely.

----

So how is it a stretch from this position to think that government ought to have some role in protecting the economically weak as well as the socially weak?

No doubt. While it might make some sort of low-level logical sense to say that I have no responsibility towards my neighbours per se, the Broken Windows Theory is very much alive and goes beyond what I might think as an individual.

It is actually within my own self-interest to see that my neighbour succeeds, as it will influence the quality of my life. Government is one way to do this, and certainly the least personally burdensome, as much as it might seem odd to say that.

 

[Netzach]

Figuring this out was why I no longer consider myself a libertarian, even though they're closer to what I agree with. At the end of the day, top-level measures sometimes just make more sense.

And, as usual, "Preventative > Palliative" in just about every situation.

Boortz uses the "roof on fire" talk to discuss this, and does a great job of it. This is doubly pertinent, as he tends towards libertarian as well, but doesn't get there.

--



I don't think there is a need to explain to avoid offense. Screw that. I am positing that there is a need to explain if you do not buy in completely.

----



No doubt. While it might make some sort of low-level logical sense to say that I have no responsibility towards my neighbours per se, the Broken Windows Theory is very much alive and goes beyond what I might think as an individual.

It is actually within my own self-interest to see that my neighbour succeeds, as it will influence the quality of my life. Government is one way to do this, and certainly the least personally burdensome, as much as it might seem odd to say that.

You're the only Libertarian type I'd stop paying taxes for. I'd even get a gun and homeschool my dogs.

 

[00Syd]

So the GI Bill was a miscarriage of governmental authority. I'm just checking here. So are food stamps. It's better to just let the weak ones die off of starvation. Why do we even have schools?

Social Darwinism, woohoo! It's about time someone brought it back.

 

[00Syd]

Aren't they kind of run by both in tandem as it is now? Federal to hand out some extra cash and impose some kind of standard? (I think NCLB isn't ideal, but I don't think it's the satanic monster a lot of people think it is)

having actually gone to a NCLB era high school... I do think it is a satanic monster.

 

[Netzach]

having actually gone to a NCLB era high school... I do think it is a satanic monster.

You've got a better perspective on it. I just think that having some kind of accountability and standard one can apply uniformly isn't necessarily a bad thing - not that this iteration's a good one.

 

[DVS]

Yes. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

This is why social services are a BARGAIN, fiscally, no one wants to see it that way.
The cost of getting someone extensive job training versus the cost of incarcerating the same person is NIGHT AND DAY.

I agree, but such a blanket statement can't be considered ideal for all offenses. Sure, some offenders are maybe able to re-enter society after some social or mental help. But some will just be glad to be out on the streets again, and return to their old ways.

Many offenders are subject to the yo-yo effect or the revolving door, which was partly why the "3 strikes and your out" rule was started. It was geared towards repeat offenders. With some, it's just not possible to change, for whatever reason.

But, we do need to get more "in tune" with the human brain and its tendencies, so we can understand who and when someone is going to snap and go on a shooting spree. Too many times, this seems to be the answer for someone who's down on his luck, pissed at the established norm, or just mad because his girlfriend dropped him.

There has to be a gene or something that makes some people more likely to snap and act this way, when the bulk of us don't...even after the same influences, like video games, rap music, porn, etc.

And, is it a gene, or just some people are more susceptible to outside influence by nature? Or, maybe they're just using this defense, because they don't want to take responsibility for their lack of self control?

OK, I'm just thinking out loud here, but it's not as simple as it seems. But, I agree, it's cheaper, and makes more sense, if we can accomplish a result.

 

[00Syd]

You've got a better perspective on it. I just think that having some kind of accountability and standard one can apply uniformly isn't necessarily a bad thing - not that this iteration's a good one.

Accountability is great, but the idea of one standard being applied to every student is like forcing a square peg in a round hole. In my opinion, a better way to do it would be to give the schools more funding and more leeway to teach students in the way that fits them best. Of course there should be some standard, but we can't assume that everyone will fit that standard. Giving a child with ADD 10 more minutes on every test just isn't enough.

I could go into the way schools are punished for low test scores too, but I won't. Suffice to say, its not exactly helping.

 

[00Syd]

I agree, but such a blanket statement can't be considered ideal for all offenses. Sure, some offenders are maybe able to re-enter society after some social or mental help. But some will just be glad to be out on the streets again, and return to their old ways.

Many offenders are subject to the yo-yo effect or the revolving door, which was partly why the "3 strikes and your out" rule was started. It was geared towards repeat offenders. With some, it's just not possible to change, for whatever reason.

But, we do need to get more "in tune" with the human brain and its tendencies, so we can understand who and when someone is going to snap and go on a shooting spree. Too many times, this seems to be the answer for someone who's down on his luck, pissed at the established norm, or just mad because his girlfriend dropped him.

There has to be a gene or something that makes some people more likely to snap and act this way, when the bulk of us don't...even after the same influences, like video games, rap music, porn, etc.

And, is it a gene, or just some people are more susceptible to outside influence by nature? Or, maybe they're just using this defense, because they don't want to take responsibility for their lack of self control?

OK, I'm just thinking out loud here, but it's not as simple as it seems. But, I agree, it's cheaper, and makes more sense, if we can accomplish a result.

My issue with the three strikes rule is that I don't think some kid who steals a pair of sneakers, is found carrying a little pot, and then maybe steals another pair of sneakers deserves to be locked away for good.

 

[DVS]

My issue with the three strikes rule is that I don't think some kid who steals a pair of sneakers, is found carrying a little pot, and then maybe steals another pair of sneakers deserves to be locked away for good.

I agree. The rule needs revamping. Maybe three of the same offenses would get you back in the pokie? And simple stealing wouldn't be on the list. Just hard core crime. Just a thought.


EDITED TO ADD: But simple stealing a lot of the time is a result of a different crime, such as drug abuse. People adicted need money to feed their habit. If we could find a way to help those people, then some of the simple stealing would go away. I know...easier said than done.

 

[Netzach]

I agree, but such a blanket statement can't be considered ideal for all offenses. Sure, some offenders are maybe able to re-enter society after some social or mental help. But some will just be glad to be out on the streets again, and return to their old ways.

Many offenders are subject to the yo-yo effect or the revolving door, which was partly why the "3 strikes and your out" rule was started. It was geared towards repeat offenders. With some, it's just not possible to change, for whatever reason.

But, we do need to get more "in tune" with the human brain and its tendencies, so we can understand who and when someone is going to snap and go on a shooting spree. Too many times, this seems to be the answer for someone who's down on his luck, pissed at the established norm, or just mad because his girlfriend dropped him.

There has to be a gene or something that makes some people more likely to snap and act this way, when the bulk of us don't...even after the same influences, like video games, rap music, porn, etc.

And, is it a gene, or just some people are more susceptible to outside influence by nature? Or, maybe they're just using this defense, because they don't want to take responsibility for their lack of self control?

OK, I'm just thinking out loud here, but it's not as simple as it seems. But, I agree, it's cheaper, and makes more sense, if we can accomplish a result.

I'm saying you get to people before they're ever "offenders" at all in the system. Drug Dealer is not a top career pick if you actually have examples of other ways to vault yourself into the middle class right there walking around living and breathing in your neighborhood.

There are always going to be anti-social people, but there are anti-social rich people who put their pregnant wives into landfill, too.

 

[Netzach]

I agree. The rule needs revamping. Maybe three of the same offenses would get you back in the pokie? And simple stealing wouldn't be on the list. Just hard core crime. Just a thought.


EDITED TO ADD: But simple stealing a lot of the time is a result of a different crime, such as drug abuse. People adicted need money to feed their habit. If we could find a way to help those people, then some of the simple stealing would go away. I know...easier said than done.

Definitely. And you'll also prevent a lot of DV if you can get people treatment, a lot of kids being brought up having the shit kicked out of them nightly aren't starting with anything like equal footing.