Just Another Political Post.

[Occhidiangela]

Besides, our school system does a better job of preparing people for prison than for university. Make sense to spend the money where it will be used
[right][snapback]89771[/snapback][/right]

Brilliant, if cynical. :D

Occhi

[Archon_Wing]

I've tended to notice that Liberals (the capital "L" style ;) ) tend to view people as victims.  Then they rightly or wrongly assign blame to one group or another (frequently white male upper middle class/upper class folk).

It's just an observation but I'll don my Nomex suit just in case. :lol:
[right][snapback]89774[/snapback][/right]

I almost agree, but actualy it's more like they see themselves as victims. That might make things seem clearer. :whistling: :wub:

Add two cups of salt and some vinegar for those who don't like the taste.

[Occhidiangela]

And, as far as sane criminals...  :)  I get your point, but I was trying to draw a distinction between anti-social behavior of choice and sociopathic personality disorders.   Or, more simply there are people in our society who knowingly commit crimes by choice, and those who are insane who cannot control their behavior.
[right][snapback]89783[/snapback][/right]

I'll argue that the criminal can, in the main, control his behaviour, but chooses not to due to either a weakness in character, a system that excuses the choice, and/or a set of odds that makes the risk/payoff equation appealing to him . . . or her.

"If my lawyer will get me off, no skin of my arse" and "it ain't stealing of I am just getting my reparations from Whitey by my own means" are themes often tied together in cases where the race card is played to its fullest benefit for a criminal defendant.

My two centavos

Occhi

[Doc]

I'll argue that the criminal can, in the main, control his behaviour, but chooses not to due to either a weakness in character, a system that excuses the choice, and/or a set of odds that makes the risk/payoff equation appealing to him . . . or her.

"If my lawyer will get me off, no skin of my arse" and "it ain't stealing of I am just getting my reparations from Whitey by my own means" are themes often tied together in cases where the race card is played to its fullest benefit for a criminal defendant.

My two centavos

Occhi
[right][snapback]89786[/snapback][/right]

Well if the white folk would just willingly hand over what's rightfully owed, we wouldn't be in this mess...

Did I just go there?

[kandrathe]

I'll argue that criminal can, in the main, control his behaviour, but chooses not to due to either a weakness in character, a system that excuses the choice, and/or a set of odds that makes the risk/payoff equation appealing to them.

"If my lawyer will get me off, no skin of my arse" and "it ain't stealing of I am just getting my reparations from Whitey by my own means" are themes often tied together in cases where the race card is played to its fullest benefit for a criminal defendant.

My two centavos

Occhi
[right][snapback]89786[/snapback][/right]

That works for the stereotypical case of juvenile deliquents boosting cars to impress their friends, ending up robbing liquor stores type of criminal. Or, recreational drug user becoming a dealer to make enough bread to support his habit or again get the hot car/ lifestyle to impress his friends, etc.

I'm talking about the pathologic. Like the guy who wanted to kill my sister, because he decided he loved her and ... well, you know, crazy. He might have had moments of lucidity, but really he just had a head full of messed up wiring. Long story made short is that after the 2nd attempt on her life, my sister (then 17) decided to disappear by moving far, far away and this guy refixated on a new target (but luckily failed again) and ended up bouncing in and out of criminal psychiatric institutions for 20 years.

When its personal, it makes you think. There are many times when I contemplated that a bullet was the cheapest and best solution, but others when I felt pity for the psychotic frankensteinian monstrosity. Society still has to deal with him.

[Minionman]

Hi,
Yeah, a lot of people think that arguing about semantics is a waste of time.  However, if we cannot decide just what it is we are arguing about, then that is precisely when the argument becomes a waste of time.  If one of us uses 'liberal' to mean 'rabid pro-choice advocate' and the other to mean 'rabid anti-religion advocate' and we don't inform each other of our respective definitions, then we are not having a conversation.  We're merely carrying on two simultaneous monologues.

--Pete
[right][snapback]89779[/snapback][/right]

I made ths rule after noticing how arguments about particular issues seemed to fall apart into definition arguments. Oftentimes, these arguments would involve something along the lines of the effects of wars, the effects of different religious policy, where the words "liberal" "conservative" and such never showed up. They usually appeared towards the end of the argument, where people had run out of other things to argue about. When going by issue by isue, it seems less important ot talk about whatever major philosophies they are part of as muc has the effects of different viewpoints, how effective thy are, etc.

[Minionman]

Do you want to HEAR why it is so useful?

It kills evil people.  That is a good thing, in and of itself.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89782[/snapback][/right]

And that's why I argue against it. Killing these people vs. sending them to jail for a long time doesn't mean anything to anyone, except some enjoyment on the part of people who enjoy hearing about executions. The person can't do any more crimes, and is pretty much gone from the rest of society. Unless it actually reduces crime, the death penalty is mnothing except some entertainment vs. other things to do with a person.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you are going to ignore ordinary usage, then you ought to realize that the notion 'conservative' as it is applied to many Republicans today is . . .
[right][snapback]89780[/snapback][/right]

Go back and re-read my statement. I didn't address the issue of just what a Republican actually is in terms of liberal/conservative (or on any other axis). I simply pointed out that the common association of 'conservative' and 'Republican' combined with the behavior of the Republicans over the past decade or so will cause the odium addressed at the Republicans (and actually at the extreme right of that party) to become attached at the label *they* have assumed, i.e., 'conservative'.

Liberalism . . . is a set of beliefs based on different interpretation of the same principles, namely: liberty, equality, progress, individualism, property, democracy, etc.  Some liberals value individual liberty in a way that entails equality of opportunity among a society's members and envision progress in such terms.  Others believe the goal of progress to be best fulfilled by a less intrusive state, and this too is an interpretation of equality in terms of 'equality of right'. 

OK, how does your statement differ from, "The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible." Ultimately freedom is choice, and in your list of principles, (liberty, equality, progress, individualism, property, democracy, etc.) what form of 'liberal' is in favor of *reducing* the individual freedom in any of those principles?

What I don't agree with is your blanket contention that liberalism 'is and has always been' one particular thing.

If you disagree with my statement, why do you present an equivalent statement in rebuttal? Is it that I didn't use two pages to express a one line concept? I did not say that "in specific and fixed detail a liberal is, and only is, blah, blah, blah." That is what you specifically inferred and then ascribed to me. No thank you, that is your dog's breakfast -- you keep it. I proposed a general principle, not a specific incarnation of that principle. And, further, it is the principle that is supported by all definitions of 'liberal' (as opposed to 'Liberal') that I have found in my search through a number of dictionaries. The authority here is not me, but the usage of the word in the English language.

Do different liberals differ in just what and to what extent should be liberalized? Unless they are robots or clones, of course they do. Does any liberal want to *reduce* liberties? Does any liberal want a static situation? Not in my understanding, not in your statement. So, if a liberal does not want the status quo, and does not want to reduce liberties, what is left. And since liberties are freedoms are choices, then how is my *general principle* wrong?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Aye, add a touch o' the boucan for lunch when ye be done with the booty considerations.
[right][snapback]89686[/snapback][/right]

You do mean the original boucan, don't you? You know, thin slices of long pig toasted over embers on a grill of green twigs. The delicacy that gave the Caribbean its name :lol:

--Pete

[whyBish]

HA! I Win!  Where do I pick up my $1,000?
[right][snapback]89586[/snapback][/right]

Here, just click this redirect link... :P

[whyBish]

But he's so...right!

As for me, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty.  I like consistency.
[right][snapback]89621[/snapback][/right]

pro-choice is such a meaningless term. Take abortion for instance.

One side is pro-choice by giving the mother the choice to abort.
The other side is pro-choice by giving the child the choice to abort...

[Chaerophon]

The essence of being a liberal is to leave as much choice to the individual as possible.

Okay, I read you now. I still think that this particular statement is a bit misleading in that it can quite easily be read as implying a laissez-faire libertarianism. What I read into your post (and was apparently wrong in so doing) was that 'modern' capital L liberals are not really liberals due to the fact that they believe in state involvement as a means to 'equalizing the starting position' of those who are less well off.

To my mind, what differentiates these people (and 'social democrats' as opposed to 'democratic socialists') from socialists is that they do not hold to the famous "from each according to his/her ability to each according to their need" (or however it goes) but believe instead that, to a certain extent, the liberty/capacity of the individual to make choices in the future ought to be equalized, easing the inequality of 'initial positions'. They are not holding to a 'socialist' bundle of values in staking their case - it is made in liberal terms.

I have had to make this distinction on the lounge before; it appears that there was no reasons to make it to you, as the intent of your post was not to make such a claim! Semi-apologies for blowhardism. :)

[whyBish]

Gawrsh. Look what I did.

This was meant to be a joke people... Funny haha joke.

Way to wreck an intentional trolling satire thread.

Failures, the lot of you.
[right][snapback]89666[/snapback][/right]

I didn't think a Veteran lurker would bother trying to control the flow of a thread... that never goes well :)

[whyBish]

I am not yet so senile that I'll accept gobbledygook as correct usage.

--Pete
[right][snapback]89729[/snapback][/right]

That is one of my main problems as an engineer, the loose use of precise technical terms.

[whyBish]

Well if the white folk would just willingly hand over what's rightfully owed, we wouldn't be in this mess...

Did I just go there?
[right][snapback]89788[/snapback][/right]

You should come over to NZ to live. We have just had our elections and are in a 61/61 split between four left parties and four right parties. There are seats specifically allocated to Maori, and the four won by the Maori party currently look like they hold the balance of power (although it will take two weeks to know the final seat tally).
We have for years had a comission that pays out descendents for land confiscations that happened 150 years ago or so. We never had slavery here.
You would probably like the relaxed and inclusive atmosphere (We have a female primeminister, a transexual member of parliament about 10% population is Maori, 5% polynesian 10% asian, 3-4 Indian at a rough guess... I looked up the actual figures, but the census figures classify all non-polynesian as european ... go figure) over here, but you might not enjoy the lower wages, and the (anti) gun laws (I haven't seen a gun since I was a child, and only then it was my fathers duckshooting shotgun)!

You'd get (almost) free education, (almost) free healthcare, and if you choose not to work (i.e. are unemployed) you would get $NZ160~=$100US per week, more if you have a (married) partner and/ or children, plus the cost of living here is cheap.

Litigation is the last resort and usually results in small reparations.

You wont need to worry about the government response to a natural disaster, any major earthquake / volcano etc that affects one of our cities would likely wipe them all out ... ;)

.. and to top it off, our national sport is grown men running at full speed into each other, without helmets and padding like they do in the U.S. version of football...

Would you like me to send you a postcard? :)

[eppie]

I've tended to notice that Liberals (the capital "L" style ;) ) tend to view people as victims.  Then they rightly or wrongly assign blame to one group or another (frequently white male upper middle class/upper class folk).

It's just an observation but I'll don my Nomex suit just in case. :lol:
[right][snapback]89774[/snapback][/right]

In Holland the liberals are the right-wing guys... While conservatives are more religious.

[eppie]

Do you want to HEAR why it is so useful?

It kills evil people.  That is a good thing, in and of itself.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89782[/snapback][/right]

Muslim terrorism also kills evil people....at least that is how they think of it.....

[gekko]

Do you want to HEAR why it is so useful?

It kills evil people.  That is a good thing, in and of itself.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89782[/snapback][/right]

I also want to comment on this bit from you earlier, Occhi:

I don't lose sleep if a few dozen people in a year out of 300,000,000 are torched incorrectly. Do the people in car crashes all deserved to die? Not always, but ther are dead anyway. Dead. Dead. Dead. Life's tough, wear a helmet.

Just looking for a little clarification - just how many innocent people have to get torched before you would lose sleep? A hundred? A thousand? Half of those receiving the death penalty? Is it ok as long as we get one who's really guilty?

I don't mind one bit your belief in the death penalty; however, arguments like you've put here make me cringe. "Casualties of war" or "the price we pay for safety" are easy to believe in as long as it's not your relative or friend who's getting "torched incorrectly."

gekko

[Doc]

You should come over to NZ to live.  We have just had our elections and are in a 61/61 split between four left parties and four right parties.  There are seats specifically allocated to Maori, and the four won by the Maori party currently look like they hold the balance of power (although it will take two weeks to know the final seat tally).
We have for years had a comission that pays out descendents for land confiscations that happened 150 years ago or so.  We never had slavery here.
You would probably like the relaxed and inclusive atmosphere (We have a female primeminister, a transexual member of parliament about 10% population is Maori, 5% polynesian 10% asian, 3-4 Indian at a rough guess... I looked up the actual figures, but the census figures classify all non-polynesian as european ... go figure) over here, but you might not enjoy the lower wages, and the (anti) gun laws (I haven't seen a gun since I was a child, and only then it was my fathers duckshooting shotgun)!

You'd get (almost) free education, (almost) free healthcare, and if you choose not to work (i.e. are unemployed) you would get $NZ160~=$100US per week, more if you have a (married) partner and/ or children, plus the cost of living here is cheap.

Litigation is the last resort and usually results in small reparations.

You wont need to worry about the government response to a natural disaster, any major earthquake / volcano etc that affects one of our cities would likely wipe them all out ...  ;)

.. and to top it off, our national sport is grown men running at full speed into each other, without helmets and padding like they do in the U.S. version of football...

Would you like me to send you a postcard?  :)
[right][snapback]89804[/snapback][/right]

Bah, still white people living there. And no guns. I'll pass. :P

Please note, tongue planted firmly in cheek.

[Occhidiangela]

And that's why I argue against it.  Killing these people vs. sending them to jail for a long time doesn't mean anything to anyone, except some enjoyment on the part of people who enjoy hearing about executions.  The person can't do any more crimes, and is pretty much gone from the rest of society.  Unless it actually reduces crime, the death penalty is mnothing except some entertainment vs. other things to do with a person.
[right][snapback]89792[/snapback][/right]

Wrong again. It is revenge, it is pest extermination, but it is most defnitely not entertainment. For the religious, the truly Faithful and the hypocrites out there, it is commanded explicitly in the Old Testament in the Law of Moses, in the same book that yields the Ten Commandments. That is its cultural lineage in the West.

Now, I'd like to see all executions televised, like the hangings in the Old West in the town square. Nothing like a little blood sport to make people's day. But we don't, so be it.

Occhi