Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Reply to BigDave's Slut-Shaming Post

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll keep this one brief. Shame on you for a post advocating shaming people (with a special sexist focus on modern women who by your anti-feminist lights deserve society's scorn because of their alleged abuse of their newfound sexual freedom). What next, bringing back "modesty" by rebuking young ladies in miniskirts with hateful and derogatory descriptors such as "whore"; or combating the obesity epidemic by using insulting words like "pig" and "fat a**" to deter children from overeating; or perhaps ramping up shaming into full-on public humiliation by bringing back the pillory? At any rate, the essence of authentic morality is kindness and compassion, which cannot be promoted by cruel practices such as shaming. Shaming merely trains people to abide by their group's norms, it doesn't teach true, inner decency. That is, it encourages people to do the the supposedly right thing for the wrong reason, which as Oscar Wilde pointed out is the greatest treason; in this case a treason against, or denial of people's potential for genuine moral goodness, as shaming is a practice that certainly doesn't tap into and develop that potential.

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal. In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings, promoting genuine moral values such as sensitivity, respect, and unselfishness is. Perhaps when you've grown up a bit and have outgrown the satisfaction that you apparently derive from calling women "sluts" you'll realize this. (And be honest, would you be so disapproving of "sluttiness" if "slutty" hot girls were generously bestowing their "sluttiness" on you? In other words, isn't your anti-slut stance to some extent merely a poignant case of sour grapes? Come on, lighten up and go watch a Miley Cyrus video.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:33:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Mother, and of the Daughter, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal. In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings,

You appear to be saying that shaming is categorically bad.
Is shaming not a good way to punish children?
Isn't saying you are disappointed in their behavior an effective tool in discipline?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:40:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The word "slut" is a consolation prize for guys who can't get laid.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:56:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:38:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal. In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings,

You appear to be saying that shaming is categorically bad.
Is shaming not a good way to punish children?
Isn't saying you are disappointed in their behavior an effective tool in discipline?

I never said that shaming doesn't work as a form of behavior modification and social control, or that a limited and sensitive use of shaming (in the form of a parent expressing disappointment with a child's conduct, not a parent telling a child that it's morally dirty and should be ashamed of itself) in the context of child rearing doesn't have any legitimacy, clearly it does. Rather, my points are that such methods of behavior modification as shaming and public humiliation applied for the control of the conduct of adults are primarily effective at circumscribing external behavior and actions, not nuturing true inner moral development. And, shaming can take cruel forms that are actually antithetical to authentic moral decency, and counterproductive to promoting it, if morality is understood in terms of qualities and values such as compassion. Furthermore, the practice of socially conditioning behavior by shaming can often be used quite amorally, merely to condition and enforce conformity to bigoted and sexist attitudes. All in all, shaming is a quite dubious and frequently destructive practice, usually more geared to producing conformity than growing character.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

Which libertarians favor welfare for white, wealthy, male Christians?

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:16:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:14:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

Which libertarians favor welfare for white, wealthy, male Christians?

Rand Paul, Cruz, et al. support oil subsidies, so that covers a lot of ground.

"Male Christians" refers mostly to the Republican base who, for the most part, display their disdain for anyone who isn't exactly like them. But as for welfare, tax exemptions for churches are a fine example -- in fact, that also covers "wealthy."

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The mind of those who "slut-shame" is rooted in a primitive mentality where sex is something to be regarded as something fearful and shameful, rather than a perfectly natural part of life that also happens to provide a great deal of fun.

I regard them as baffling curiosities, belonging to an increasingly antiquated, and simply foolish, past. Much like the dinosaurs, if the dinosaurs weren't as cool and were just lame.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:16:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:14:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

Which libertarians favor welfare for white, wealthy, male Christians?

Rand Paul, Cruz, et al. support oil subsidies, so that covers a lot of ground.

And you have a source, I'm sure? Mind you your claim encompasses Paul and Cruz being libertarians (debatable), them supporting Oil Subsidies, and their support for Oil Subsidies coming from their support for wealthy, white, male Christians (a perplexing claim considering Cruz is Hispanic and Oil industry workers tend to be blue collar).

"Male Christians" refers mostly to the Republican base who, for the most part, display their disdain for anyone who isn't exactly like them.

Libertarians aren't Republicans, so you're attacking the wrong people. Either way, the same can be said for liberals, or any grouping. Do you have any evidence that Republicans are disdainful of non male Christians, and if you do how does this compare to disdain liberals have towards others (A good example being the things you've just said about Libertarians and Republicans)?

But as for welfare, tax exemptions for churches are a fine example -- in fact, that also covers "wealthy."

Tax exemptions are not welfare.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:41:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'll keep this one brief. Shame on you for a post advocating shaming people (with a special sexist focus on modern women who by your anti-feminist lights deserve society's scorn because of their alleged abuse of their newfound sexual freedom). What next, bringing back "modesty" by rebuking young ladies in miniskirts with hateful and derogatory descriptors such as "whore"; or combating the obesity epidemic by using insulting words like "pig" and "fat a**" to deter children from overeating; or perhaps ramping up shaming into full-on public humiliation by bringing back the pillory? At any rate, the essence of authentic morality is kindness and compassion, which cannot be promoted by cruel practices such as shaming. Shaming merely trains people to abide by their group's norms, it doesn't teach true, inner decency. That is, it encourages people to do the the supposedly right thing for the wrong reason, which as Oscar Wilde pointed out is the greatest treason; in this case a treason against, or denial of people's potential for genuine moral goodness, as shaming is a practice that certainly doesn't tap into and develop that potential.

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal. In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings, promoting genuine moral values such as sensitivity, respect, and unselfishness is. Perhaps when you've grown up a bit and have outgrown the satisfaction that you apparently derive from calling women "sluts" you'll realize this. (And be honest, would you be so disapproving of "sluttiness" if "slutty" hot girls were generously bestowing their "sluttiness" on you? In other words, isn't your anti-slut stance to some extent merely a poignant case of sour grapes? Come on, lighten up and go watch a Miley Cyrus video.)

Wow. Great response. Much insight. Such refutation. Such smart.

This whole "why are you slut-shaming!!111!!!!!" is just utterly perverted. I wonder if the next hipster thing to complain about will be "murder shaming." I can see it now: "OMG why are you murder-shaming?!?! You're like so bigoted and heartless!! Like, be compassionate and like kind! He probably had a good reason for murdering someone, don't judge!"

Look, carp-for-brains; the reason that being sexually loose is frowned upon is because it is irresponsible and because doing so is to shirk one's obligations to conduct their sexual activity in such a way that takes the interests of any children one may beget first. Sex, after all, is procreative and unitive in nature. Indeed, pregnancies often result even when contraception is used. Keeping this in mind, then, it would be just to any children one may beget to conduct their sexual activity in a context that is almost indistinguishable from marriage. And by this, I just mean that sex only ought to be had with someone with whom you are committed to for a lifetime and to someone who is a responsible spouse and parent with whom you can share the common project of raising any children that may come from your sexual union.

One reason that being "slutty" is wrong, then, is the fact that such a person is conducting their sexual activity irresponsibly, often with someone to whom they are not committed to for a lifetime, and often with someone who is irresponsible and who is not a fit parent. For justice to the child would be to be attached to his biological mother and father who can attend to their responsibilities to raise their child qua parents. Is it any surprise, then, that "sluts" often turn to abortion to kill children that they had when they engaged in sexual relations with someone to whom they weren't committed to for a lifetime, or with someone who is in no shape to be a parent?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:41:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:21:37 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
The mind of those who "slut-shame" is rooted in a primitive mentality where sex is something to be regarded as something fearful and shameful, rather than a perfectly natural part of life that also happens to provide a great deal of fun.

Excellent point.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:47:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:23:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:16:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:14:21 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

Which libertarians favor welfare for white, wealthy, male Christians?

Rand Paul, Cruz, et al. support oil subsidies, so that covers a lot of ground.

And you have a source, I'm sure? Mind you your claim encompasses Paul and Cruz being libertarians (debatable), them supporting Oil Subsidies, and their support for Oil Subsidies coming from their support for wealthy, white, male Christians (a perplexing claim considering Cruz is Hispanic and Oil industry workers tend to be blue collar).

You're blowing this out of proportion, but sure, here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org...

Mind you, there's a clip and the full quote in that link.

And both support Keystone, which is a boon to the oil companies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

The two self-identify as libertarians, so it's difficult to argue that they're not. I always find it astonishing that the only thing two libertarians can ever agree on is that the other person is not a libertarian.

Your point on oil industry workers as "blue collar" doesn't make much sense. Workers may be, sure, but the intention isn't to benefit them. They're not giving breaks to Exxon
to benefit blue collar workers, I assure you.

"Male Christians" refers mostly to the Republican base who, for the most part, display their disdain for anyone who isn't exactly like them.

Libertarians aren't Republicans, so you're attacking the wrong people. Either way, the same can be said for liberals, or any grouping. Do you have any evidence that Republicans are disdainful of non male Christians, and if you do how does this compare to disdain liberals have towards others (A good example being the things you've just said about Libertarians and Republicans)?

Libertarians--Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, some would argue Paul Ryan--have been running as Republicans, and are effectively conservatives. If you want to make the case that they're not libertarians, be my guest, but this is the libertarian streak that we're currently dealing with.

You keep asking me for sources. Where are yours that I'm wrong?

I have an overwhelming amount of evidence about Republicans showing disdain for non male Christians. One of them is what this thread was based on: attacks on Sandra Fluke issued by Rush Limbaugh, Republican hero. The GOP attack on the birth control mandate was one thing. Then there have been the numerous state-wide efforts to limit abortion rights, with a record number of legislation over the past year or so, including a law in Texas that unconstitutionally banned abortion after 20 weeks. Then there's the recent law in Arizona that Jan Brewer hasn't given a position on yet -- pushed by a GOP state representative -- that allows companies to discriminate on the basis of religion. Then there's every single thing Republicans said about rape -- from Akin, to Murdock, to Trent Franks, to Paul Ryan -- or about gay people (plenty of good quotes from Cruz, Bachmann, Santorum, and friends). There's also Louie Gohmert, who claimed that the "reason he came to Congress was to prevent mothers from having children to take advantage of the system," or that "Muslims are coming into this country disguised as Hispanics." Or Gohmert, Bachmann, and friends who accused Huma Abedin and others of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood who infiltrated the Department of Homeland Security. How about Ted Nugent -- campaigning with Texas Governor hopeful, Greg Abbot, whom Sarah Palin just endorsed -- who called Obama a "subhuman mongrel"? Or Glenn Beck who called Obama racist?

Disdain liberals have for others? That's peculiar since you're grouping "liberals" together as though there's a coalition of liberals who act in unison. You may even believe in the conspiracy theory that liberals supposedly have a monopoly on the media or academia -- which, of course, is simply wrong, and people like Greg Mankiw, Glenn Hubbard et al. demonstrate is simply wrong.

But as for welfare, tax exemptions for churches are a fine example -- in fact, that also covers "wealthy."

Tax exemptions are not welfare.

So you would disagree with Mitt Romney that the "47 percent who pay no federal income tax" are abusing the system? You would disagree with the notion that the Earned Income tax credit, child care tax credit, education credit, et al. are welfare?

Of course they're welfare, particularly when they go to extremely wealthy people who are able to heavily influence politics and perpetuate inequality. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that subsidizing oil companies -- the most profitable companies in the world -- is not a form of welfare. You can't tell me that holding down the minimum wage so that full-time Wal-Mart employees needs to depend on food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid for survival is not taking advantage of the system.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.

But yeah, here's some links. I don't know if I covered everything, since I'm not going to go and find literally every offensive thing conservatives have said over the past few years. For goodness' sake, I'd be here all day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.politico.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://wonkette.com...
http://www.politifact.com...
http://www.salon.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.msnbc.com...

For goodness' sake, that's enough. You get the point. There's a LOT of evidence.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:50:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anyway, this has gotten completely off-topic, so I'm not going to respond again. There are a few things we can all learn from this heated exchange -- again, if you came here for Sandra Fluke, ignore this:

1. Self-professed libertarians are hardly libertarians, say libertarians.
2. Republicans have had a REALLY bad few years, so much so that I'd run out of characters if I even tried to document everything.

That is all.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:47:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

You're blowing this out of proportion, but sure, here you go:

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion, I'm just having a dialogue with you. That's the purpose of this site. To be frank, I just really *really* hate it when people simply call their opponents names or lump them together in an attempt to discredit them like you just did. It's incredibly bad for political dialogue, so sorry if it came off snippy.

http://thinkprogress.org...


Alright, cool. Now let's get to the part of your attack that actually annoyed me: where's the proof that they support this because they want to help white, Christian, men? You do realize that there are literally millions of Republicans/Conservatives who are not wealthy, not white, not Christian, not male, and all four?

Mind you, there's a clip and the full quote in that link.

And both support Keystone, which is a boon to the oil companies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...


Supporting something that happens to help oil companies isn't cronyism or racism. Come on man.


The two self-identify as libertarians, so it's difficult to argue that they're not. I always find it astonishing that the only thing two libertarians can ever agree on is that the other person is not a libertarian.

I've actually never seen Cruz identify as a Libertarian (and he's my senator mind you). All I've seen is the media claiming he is one but he seems pretty generically conservative to me.

You keep asking me for sources. Where are yours that I'm wrong?

You're the one making claims, not me.


I have an overwhelming amount of evidence about Republicans showing disdain for non male Christians. One of them is what this thread was based on: attacks on Sandra Fluke issued by Rush Limbaugh, Republican hero.

Unless Bill Maher is a progressive hero, Limbaugh is not a Republican hero. Either way, calling her a slut because she wants to force companies to put contraceptives in her health plan is a dumb attack and bad for dialogue, but it doesn't show wealthy, white, Christian supremacism, try again.

The GOP attack on the birth control mandate was one thing. Then there have been the numerous state-wide efforts to limit abortion rights, with a record number of legislation over the past year or so, including a law in Texas that unconstitutionally banned abortion after 20 weeks.

That's conservatives being conservatives. There are plenty of non-white, non-Christian, and female opponents of abortion. Hispanics in particular are opposed to abortion, and banning abortion does nothing to help further white males.

Then there's the recent law in Arizona that Jan Brewer hasn't given a position on yet -- pushed by a GOP state representative -- that allows companies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Allowing private entities to discriminate is not inherently racist.

Then there's every single thing Republicans said about rape -- from Akin, to Murdock, to Trent Franks, to Paul Ryan -- or about gay people (plenty of good quotes from Cruz, Bachmann, Santorum, and friends).

So, to you, stupid Republicans being offensive to gays and raped women means that all Republicans and (somehow) all Libertarians are racists who only want to help whites? Duly noted.

There's also Louie Gohmert, who claimed that the "reason he came to Congress was to prevent mothers from having children to take advantage of the system," or that "Muslims are coming into this country disguised as Hispanics."

This Gohmert fellow sounds like an idiot.

How about Ted Nugent -- campaigning with Texas Governor hopeful, Greg Abbot, whom Sarah Palin just endorsed -- who called Obama a "subhuman mongrel"?

And who was among those who condemned the remarks? Rand Paul.

Or Glenn Beck who called Obama racist?

You mean the *exact same thing* liberals do to their opponents all the time?


Disdain liberals have for others? That's peculiar since you're grouping "liberals" together as though there's a coalition of liberals who act in unison. You may even believe in the conspiracy theory that liberals supposedly have a monopoly on the media or academia -- which, of course, is simply wrong, and people like Greg Mankiw, Glenn Hubbard et al. demonstrate is simply wrong.

.......literally, all I did was the exact same thing you were doing except I flipped it on liberals, extrapolating your bigotry to liberals as a whole. The same as you did to libertarians.


So you would disagree with Mitt Romney that the "47 percent who pay no federal income
tax" are abusing the system?

Yes. Romney himself also said the remarks were stupid.

You would disagree with the notion that the Earned Income tax credit, child care tax credit, education credit, et al. are welfare?

I wouldn't view it as such, no. Tax credits are the government taking less of the money that you've already earned, where as a direct subsidy would be taking money from someone else to give to another. Tax breaks are indirect subsidies, yes, but they can't be termed welfare in my book because it's simply taking less of money that's already there.


Of course they're welfare, particularly when they go to extremely wealthy people who are able to heavily influence politics and perpetuate inequality. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that subsidizing oil companies -- the most profitable companies in the world -- is not a form of welfare. You can't tell me that holding down the minimum wage so that full-time Wal-Mart employees needs to depend on food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid for survival is not taking advantage of the system.

"Holding down the minimum wage"? What kind of rhetorical nonsense is this?

Yeah, so you have links that Republicans have said stupid sh!t. So have people of every party and ideology, but I'm not going to waste my time gathering links of things liberals have done--I don't have the time, nor patience, and your utter disdain for those of differing opinions speaks for itself in showing how liberals, too, can be offensive and dumb.

The point is, you saying that since some Republicans are idiots therefore all libertarians are "adverse to facts, nuance and reality." and are racists who only support things that help wealthy, white Christians simply does not follow logically and is bad for political dialogue. Attack your opponents positions, don't make sweeping generalizations about an entire ideology just because of a few bad apples. Don't liberals pride themselves on being open minded?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:08:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'll keep this one brief. Shame on you for a post advocating shaming people (with a special sexist focus on modern women who by your anti-feminist lights deserve society's scorn because of their alleged abuse of their newfound sexual freedom). What next, bringing back "modesty" by rebuking young ladies in miniskirts with hateful and derogatory descriptors such as "whore"; or combating the obesity epidemic by using insulting words like "pig" and "fat a**" to deter children from overeating; or perhaps ramping up shaming into full-on public humiliation by bringing back the pillory? At any rate, the essence of authentic morality is kindness and compassion, which cannot be promoted by cruel practices such as shaming. Shaming merely trains people to abide by their group's norms, it doesn't teach true, inner decency. That is, it encourages people to do the the supposedly right thing for the wrong reason, which as Oscar Wilde pointed out is the greatest treason; in this case a treason against, or denial of people's potential for genuine moral goodness, as shaming is a practice that certainly doesn't tap into and develop that potential.

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal.

Shame's being replaced by something else did not cause the rise of the Japanese Imperial Army, and even if it did, the kind of shame in Japanese culture differs starkly from our experience of it in the west.

In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings, promoting genuine moral values such as sensitivity, respect, and unselfishness is. Perhaps when you've grown up a bit and have outgrown the satisfaction that you apparently derive from calling women "sluts" you'll realize this. (And be honest, would you be so disapproving of "sluttiness" if "slutty" hot girls were generously bestowing their "sluttiness" on you? In other words, isn't your anti-slut stance to some extent merely a poignant case of sour grapes? Come on, lighten up and go watch a Miley Cyrus video.)

I agree that calling women sluts is uncalled for, but your examples against the practice are a bit outlandish.
Tsar of DDO
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:52:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 5:47:04 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

You're blowing this out of proportion, but sure, here you go:

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion, I'm just having a dialogue with you. That's the purpose of this site. To be frank, I just really *really* hate it when people simply call their opponents names or lump them together in an attempt to discredit them like you just did. It's incredibly bad for political dialogue, so sorry if it came off snippy.

Fair enough. I apologize, too, for the hyperbole. I'm certainly not describing ALL libertarians or ALL conservatives. Instead, the primary figures that we tend to see today -- from O'Reilly, to Levin, to Hannity, to Limbaugh, and friends -- are in fact repugnant.

Alright, cool. Now let's get to the part of your attack that actually annoyed me: where's the proof that they support this because they want to help white, Christian, men? You do realize that there are literally millions of Republicans/Conservatives who are not wealthy, not white, not Christian, not male, and all four?

Sure. Again, I'm referring to the bulk of prominent figures, many of whom I cited. In fact, a number of them ran for president in 202.

Supporting something that happens to help oil companies isn't cronyism or racism. Come on man.

I didn't call it racism. You're jumping to conclusions awfully quickly. This was part of wanting to help the affluent (read: their donors). It's interesting that you've called me dumb, yet can't seem to hold more than one thought in your head simultaneously.

I've actually never seen Cruz identify as a Libertarian (and he's my senator mind you). All I've seen is the media claiming he is one but he seems pretty generically conservative to me.

I'd agree with you that he does indeed seem very conservative. Mind you, even Alan Dershowitz, having taught Cruz at Harvard, remark that Cruz was or appeared libertarian.


You're the one making claims, not me.

Fair.


Unless Bill Maher is a progressive hero, Limbaugh is not a Republican hero. Either way, calling her a slut because she wants to force companies to put contraceptives in her health plan is a dumb attack and bad for dialogue, but it doesn't show wealthy, white, Christian supremacism, try again.

Well first, you can't compare the two. Bill Maher is a comedian, while Rush is not. Certainly you'd acknowledge that Bill has a lot more leverage than Rush. Has Bill gone too far at times? Of course. I was pissed when he poked fun at Sarah Palin's son.

Next, Rush has a stranglehold on the GOP. In the 2012 election, the candidates were asked to condemn Rush's comments. None of them did. Even Romney said "that's not how I would've worded it."


That's conservatives being conservatives. There are plenty of non-white, non-Christian, and female opponents of abortion. Hispanics in particular are opposed to abortion, and banning abortion does nothing to help further white males.

Again, we're discussing more than one point. These are deliberate attacks on women. Just because some women happen to support them doesn't mean that they're not attacks. People vote against their own interests all the time.

Then there's the recent law in Arizona that Jan Brewer hasn't given a position on yet -- pushed by a GOP state representative -- that allows companies to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Allowing private entities to discriminate is not inherently racist.

Why do you keep using the term "racism?" How curious is it that you're accusing me of overusing the term, when I've applied several labels to conservatives?

It's using religion as a means of oppression. Yes, allowing private entities to discriminate against people is bigoted, which is why Rand Paul received so much heat when he came out core tenets of the Civil Rights Act (and then flip-flopped later) on the basis of "freedom."


So, to you, stupid Republicans being offensive to gays and raped women means that all Republicans and (somehow) all Libertarians are racists who only want to help whites? Duly noted.

No. Again, I'm referring to how core players in the GOP have been highly offensive to people who do not represent a certain mold. Even looking at the 2012 Convention proves my point.

This Gohmert fellow sounds like an idiot.

He is.
How about Ted Nugent -- campaigning with Texas Governor hopeful, Greg Abbot, whom Sarah Palin just endorsed -- who called Obama a "subhuman mongrel"?

And who was among those who condemned the remarks? Rand Paul.

Cool.
Or Glenn Beck who called Obama racist?

You mean the *exact same thing* liberals do to their opponents all the time?

Actually, you're the one who has been using the word. I applied several labels and provided extensive evidence.


.......literally, all I did was the exact same thing you were doing except I flipped it on liberals, extrapolating your bigotry to liberals as a whole. The same as you did to libertarians.

You're calling me a bigot? That's hilarious. I admit that I got out of hand because, frankly, I'm getting tired of rampant stupidity -- which, yes, is highly prevalent on the right, though not all Republicans or libertarian subscribe to. But no, there is no comparison here. You cannot find nearly as many "stupid things liberals say" as I can for conservatives. I hardly mentioned Sarah Palin. I could write a book on the nonsense she alone has said.

Yes. Romney himself also said the remarks were stupid.

He still said it, and he chose as his running mate Paul "takers or makers" Ryan who took his cues from Ayn Rand then attempted to disavow her. Clearly he only claimed it was stupid because he was caught.

I wouldn't view it as such, no. Tax credits are the government taking less of the money that you've already earned, where as a direct subsidy would be taking money from someone else to give to another. Tax breaks are indirect subsidies, yes, but they can't be termed welfare in my book because it's simply taking less of money that's already there.

Actually, some people get more money back from credits than they pay in taxes. But this is a reasonable policy disagreement, so I'll leave it at that.


"Holding down the minimum wage"? What kind of rhetorical nonsense is this?

Well, the minimum wage is worth less today in real dollars than it was in 1980. Sure, it's not the best rhetoric. I have a lot of other things to get and I'm typing quickly. But my main point on the minimum wage and Wal-Mart as a welfare queen stays.

Yeah, so you have links that Republicans have said stupid sh!t. So have people of every party and ideology, but I'm not going to waste my time gathering links of things liberals have done--I don't have the time, nor patience, and your utter disdain for those of differing opinions speaks for itself in showing how liberals, too, can be offensive and dumb.

Again, calling me dumb is resorting to ad hominem and demonstrating to me that you really don't have much of an argument. Please try to gather some links. You won't find nearly as many as I did. And frankly, there are a lot more where that came from. For goodness' sake, the RNC just attempted to teach Republicans how to talk to women and minorities. They have a problem.

The point is, you saying that since some Republicans are idiots therefore all libertarians are "adverse to facts, nuance and reality.:

Nope, those were separate thoughts. I was referring to my extensive discussions with BigDave and people who agree with him.

and are racists who only support things that help wealthy, white Christians simply does not follow logically and is bad for political dialogue.:

Again, separate thoughts, which I backed up thoroughly.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:41:11 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
I'll keep this one brief. Shame on you for a post advocating shaming people (with a special sexist focus on modern women who by your anti-feminist lights deserve society's scorn because of their alleged abuse of their newfound sexual freedom). What next, bringing back "modesty" by rebuking young ladies in miniskirts with hateful and derogatory descriptors such as "whore"; or combating the obesity epidemic by using insulting words like "pig" and "fat a**" to deter children from overeating; or perhaps ramping up shaming into full-on public humiliation by bringing back the pillory? At any rate, the essence of authentic morality is kindness and compassion, which cannot be promoted by cruel practices such as shaming. Shaming merely trains people to abide by their group's norms, it doesn't teach true, inner decency. That is, it encourages people to do the the supposedly right thing for the wrong reason, which as Oscar Wilde pointed out is the greatest treason; in this case a treason against, or denial of people's potential for genuine moral goodness, as shaming is a practice that certainly doesn't tap into and develop that potential.

A good historical example of the dangerous consequences of a shame-oriented morality, btw, is the behavior of many members of the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII. That is, Japanese society relied heavily on shame for socially disciplining its members, consequently when Japanese soldiers found themselves outside of their society and no longer subject to its system of shame-based social checks their stereotypical Japanese politeness and civilized manners promptly flew out the window and they became ultra brutal. In short and in conclusion, shame is simply not the effective, preferred way for society to produce better human beings, promoting genuine moral values such as sensitivity, respect, and unselfishness is. Perhaps when you've grown up a bit and have outgrown the satisfaction that you apparently derive from calling women "sluts" you'll realize this. (And be honest, would you be so disapproving of "sluttiness" if "slutty" hot girls were generously bestowing their "sluttiness" on you? In other words, isn't your anti-slut stance to some extent merely a poignant case of sour grapes? Come on, lighten up and go watch a Miley Cyrus video.)

Wow. Great response. Much insight. Such refutation. Such smart.

Hmm, quite sophisticated sarcasm. NOT!

This whole "why are you slut-shaming!!111!!!!!" is just utterly perverted. I wonder if the next hipster thing to complain about will be "murder shaming." I can see it now: "OMG why are you murder-shaming?!?! You're like so bigoted and heartless!! Like, be compassionate and like kind! He probably had a good reason for murdering someone, don't judge!"

A rather egregious and lame appeal to extremes.


Look, carp-for-brains;

Hmm, comparing someone's gray matter to fish, is this a new insult?

the reason that being sexually loose is frowned upon is because it is irresponsible and because doing so is to shirk one's obligations to conduct their sexual activity in such a way that takes the interests of any children one may beget first.

I see, so you deny the existence of a rather massive number of people who take a negative view of "sexual looseness" merely because of their own cultural programming or uptightness and prudishness? And you don't at all suspect that perhaps some people simply choose to interpret being sexually repressed as a virtue because it allows them to enjoy a sense of moral superiority?

Sex, after all, is procreative and unitive in nature.

Unitive =/= procreative. Sex-sans-any-intention-of-producing-offspring can be engaged in for the sheer joy and spiritual experience of union, of physically actualizing and knowing the connectedness that is the fundamental ontological truth of things. Yes, the more meaningful the relationship the more profound and ecstatic will be the experience of connectedness that sexual relations involves, but the pleasure of even a casual coupling is a taste of the bliss of union, a valid if small sample of self-transcendence.

Indeed, pregnancies often result even when contraception is used. Keeping this in mind, then, it would be just to any children one may beget to conduct their sexual activity in a context that is almost indistinguishable from marriage. And by this, I just mean that sex only ought to be had with someone with whom you are committed to for a lifetime and to someone who is a responsible spouse and parent with whom you can share the common project of raising any children that may come from your sexual union.

Or, rather than being controlled by fear of pregnancy (and putting a sanctimonious spin on such fear-driven "moral responsibility") one can engage in practices other than vaginal penetraton, or one can take advantage of the availability of the morning after pill and abortion. (And you do realize that your fundamental argument that sex outside of marriage is heinously immoral because it can eventuate in unintended conception doesn't apply to homosexuals. Does this mean that gays should get a free pass to engage in unbounded hedonism, to have all of the sexual fun that they can handle without being subjected to the moral judgmentalism of righteous folks such as yourself? But then I suppose that someone of your views has other rationalizations for viewing gays as sinners, that they spread AIDS and whatnot. But does this mean that when a cure is discovered for AIDS that homosexuality will no longer be a high moral crime in your book?)

One reason that being "slutty" is wrong, then, is the fact that such a person is conducting their sexual activity irresponsibly,

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines "slut" as a promiscuous woman; it defines "promscuous" as: "having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships"; and "transient" as: "lasting only for a short time; impermanent". None of these definitions connotes irresponsible conduct, this is an element that your own moralistic mentality is contributing to the definition of the word "slut". That is, your prudish and sexist psyche villainizes the sexually-liberated behavior of modern people and uses the word "slut" to reproach the girls and women whom you view as naughty nymphos destroying the moral fiber of our society. You, my friend, have issues, not values.

often with someone to whom they are not committed to for a lifetime, and often with someone who is irresponsible and who is not a fit parent. For justice to the child would be to be attached to his biological mother and father who can attend to their

Nowadays we have contraception, morning after pills, and abortion clinics, sex needn't be potentially procreative, it can be purely pleasurable.

responsibilities to raise their child qua parents. Is it any surprise, then, that "sluts" often turn to abortion to kill children that they had when they engaged in sexual relations with someone to whom they weren't committed to for a lifetime, or with someone who is in no shape to be a parent?

So, you're also anti-abortion, i.e. you would condemn the innocent fetuses whose inadvertent conception you moralistically denounce to come to term and experience the existence of, in many cases, unwanted, neglected, abused, poverty-stricken children who grow up to become inmates in penal facilities. Irony of ironies, if your morality is ever implemented, and abortion is outlawed, it will become complicit in the misery and social evils that it decries.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:23:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, let me make clear that my dislike of "sluts" has nothing to do with personal experience with girls. It has everything to do with my view of morality.

Anyways, when I say slut shaming is okay, I don't mean we put sluts on a stand and stone them. Instead, I mean it is okay that people look down upon them for being sluts. You may find it hard to believe that somebody actually believes people having constant casual sex is bad for society, but I actually think we need to have some basic moral framework.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:25:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.

Where to start. First, it was hardly a rant. It was a short post laying out my position on the matter.

Second, forcing an employer to cover birth control is the problem here. Somebody is still being forced to cover somebody else's birth control, which is simply wrong.

Third, libertarians don't favor subsidies to White, Wealthy, Male Christians. That is simply wrong.

Fourth, libertarians actually base their worldview on logic and evidence unlike the blind faith in statism. Stop calling the kettle black.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Progressive, we already talked it over in PM but I should say so publicly that I'm sorry for saying/implying you were dumb and a bigot.

As for the rest of your post, well, we can agree to disagree (or probably actually agree on more than disagree). I am not going to spend my time defending the Republican party because--frankly--the Republican party sucks, and you're right that it's often the mere mouthpiece for big business.

Sorry for derailing your thread, Charles.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:26:12 PM, thett3 wrote:
@Progressive, we already talked it over in PM but I should say so publicly that I'm sorry for saying/implying you were dumb and a bigot.

As for the rest of your post, well, we can agree to disagree (or probably actually agree on more than disagree). I am not going to spend my time defending the Republican party because--frankly--the Republican party sucks, and you're right that it's often the mere mouthpiece for big business.

Sorry for derailing your thread, Charles.

I'd like to publicly apologize to you, as well, for getting overheated, and to Charles, too.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:30:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:25:19 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.


Where to start. First, it was hardly a rant. It was a short post laying out my position on the matter.

Depends on how you define a rant.
Second, forcing an employer to cover birth control is the problem here. Somebody is still being forced to cover somebody else's birth control, which is simply wrong.

We discussed this thoroughly on the other side. We disagree, but this was probably the most civil part of our disagreement. We have a difference of opinion as to what the role of government should be. Let's leave it to that. I told you that I find calling Ms. Fluke a "slut" is offensive and counter-productive, yet you insisted.

Third, libertarians don't favor subsidies to White, Wealthy, Male Christians. That is simply wrong.

We can have a long debate over who is actually a libertarian and who isn't. I frankly don't want to have another huge debate over this. People masquerading as libertarians do. I'll leave it at that.

Fourth, libertarians actually base their worldview on logic and evidence unlike the blind faith in statism. Stop calling the kettle black.:

It's not even close to "blind faith." For goodness' sake, I'm an atheist. I don't base anything on blind faith.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:42:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:30:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:25:19 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.


Where to start. First, it was hardly a rant. It was a short post laying out my position on the matter.

Depends on how you define a rant.
Second, forcing an employer to cover birth control is the problem here. Somebody is still being forced to cover somebody else's birth control, which is simply wrong.

We discussed this thoroughly on the other side. We disagree, but this was probably the most civil part of our disagreement. We have a difference of opinion as to what the role of government should be. Let's leave it to that. I told you that I find calling Ms. Fluke a "slut" is offensive and counter-productive, yet you insisted.

Third, libertarians don't favor subsidies to White, Wealthy, Male Christians. That is simply wrong.

We can have a long debate over who is actually a libertarian and who isn't. I frankly don't want to have another huge debate over this. People masquerading as libertarians do. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough. But, I can assure you that I am not "masquerading as a libertarian".


Fourth, libertarians actually base their worldview on logic and evidence unlike the blind faith in statism. Stop calling the kettle black.:

It's not even close to "blind faith." For goodness' sake, I'm an atheist. I don't base anything on blind faith.

I'm not going to discuss Religion here, but the fact that you're an atheist has nothing to do with your views on, for example, economic policy.

I'm a Christian (full disclosure). I know a lot of atheists. I also know that my Christianity is a matter of faith (although my belief in a God is based on logic). Regardless, atheists tend to have very unscientific views on economics.

Indeed, the entire progressive economic agenda is based on a blind faith in government despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:42:26 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:30:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 7:25:19 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 2:57:18 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Geez, you went a lot further than I did. I only pointed out that his rant was counter-factual and that he has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about since the birth control mandate that Sandra Fluke spoke in favor of did not involve taxpayer subsidies. Then again, libertarians tend to be adverse to facts, nuance and reality. Oh, and welfare, unless it goes to white, wealthy, male Christians.

But yeah, it was a stupid, offensive post.


Where to start. First, it was hardly a rant. It was a short post laying out my position on the matter.

Depends on how you define a rant.
Second, forcing an employer to cover birth control is the problem here. Somebody is still being forced to cover somebody else's birth control, which is simply wrong.

We discussed this thoroughly on the other side. We disagree, but this was probably the most civil part of our disagreement. We have a difference of opinion as to what the role of government should be. Let's leave it to that. I told you that I find calling Ms. Fluke a "slut" is offensive and counter-productive, yet you insisted.

Third, libertarians don't favor subsidies to White, Wealthy, Male Christians. That is simply wrong.

We can have a long debate over who is actually a libertarian and who isn't. I frankly don't want to have another huge debate over this. People masquerading as libertarians do. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough. But, I can assure you that I am not "masquerading as a libertarian".

As I'm sure you know, I wasn't accusing you of masquerading as a libertarian. That's directed at the Ted Cruz's of the world, who said that the advancement of gay rights made him "weep."


Fourth, libertarians actually base their worldview on logic and evidence unlike the blind faith in statism. Stop calling the kettle black.:

It's not even close to "blind faith." For goodness' sake, I'm an atheist. I don't base anything on blind faith.


I'm not going to discuss Religion here, but the fact that you're an atheist has nothing to do with your views on, for example, economic policy.

I'm a Christian (full disclosure). I know a lot of atheists. I also know that my Christianity is a matter of faith (although my belief in a God is based on logic). Regardless, atheists tend to have very unscientific views on economics.

Indeed, the entire progressive economic agenda is based on a blind faith in government despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Again, it's not blind faith even in the slightest. There's a pretty extensive case study, both in the US and in Europe, proving my case. I'd love to have an extensive debate with you on this stuff at some point, preferably in a few weeks (Spring break for me) so I can actually devote the time it deserves. We've been going back and forth in thread after thread, and we should settle this somehow. How about it?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:59:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:08:56 PM, YYW wrote:

Shame's being replaced by something else did not cause the rise of the Japanese Imperial Army, and even if it did, the kind of shame in Japanese culture differs starkly from our experience of it in the west.

I didn't say that the Japanese shame-oriented approach to socialization had anything to do with "the rise of the Japanese Imperial Army", or Japanese fascism, etc. Nor did I say that shame Japanese style is identical to shame as it's experienced in the West. Your observations don't really touch on my criticisms of a shame-oriented morality.

I agree that calling women sluts is uncalled for,

It's more than merely "uncalled for", it's cruel and bigoted and therefore immoral.

but your examples against the practice are a bit outlandish.

Hmm, you don't see how shaming can lead to cruelty? And I'm sorry, but you seem to have somewhat misconstrued the inclusion in my argument of the example of the failure of the Japanese shame-oriented approach to socialization to restrain Japanese soldiers from cruelty during World War Two as a case in point of the potential hazards of a shame-based morality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:23:02 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
First, let me make clear that my dislike of "sluts" has nothing to do with personal experience with girls.

I'm sincerely glad for you.

It has everything to do with my view of morality.

And what, one might wonder, does your view of morality have to do with, underlyingly, etiologically, that is? Which is to say, what psychological and cultural causal factors might explain your preference for a "moral worldview" in which immoral cruelty is acceptable? Or are we to buy that someone who defends an unlovely practice such as shaming does so merely out of the moral goodness of his character and worldview?

Anyways, when I say slut shaming is okay, I don't mean we put sluts on a stand and stone them. Instead, I mean it is okay that people look down upon them for being sluts. You may find it hard to believe that somebody actually believes people having constant casual sex is bad for society, but I actually think we need to have some basic moral framework.

Firstly, not to be a prig myself , but "anyways" is not actually a word. Secondly, equating being morally righteous with "looking down" on sinners betrays a rather primitive concept of moral righteousness. Thirdly, I too think that we've evolved an oversexed culture in which sex has become a substitute gratification, substituted for genuine human fulfillment and spiritual joy. No, I'm certainly not an apologist for hedonism and our oversexed society! I merely don't view shaming as the correct response, for reasons given in my OP. And lastly, that our society needs a moral foundation does not entail a need for practices such as shaming, therefore of course the need for a moral foundation does not amount to an argument for your point of view.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:34:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 7:26:12 PM, thett3 wrote:

Sorry for derailing your thread, Charles.

Apology accepted, you're welcome to elaborate your thoughts on "slut"-shaming.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.