The Glade 4.0

I'm sorry, but while there are perfectly legitimate arguments for opposing universal health care and supporting capital punishment, cheering and applauding for the idea of letting uninsured people die and for executing large numbers of prisoners just shows a deep moral sickness and depravity of spirit.

As Andrew Sullivan put it:

The applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The applause is for returning to a society where the responsibility returns to the individual, and that nurtures and reinforces and values the notion of self-preparedness.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The first one is totally not about "letting someone die." It's quite clear that they clap after he says that people should have to take responsibility for themselves. There are a few people yelling out "yeah!" and such after the direct "should we just let them die" question, but I think it's telling that the video cuts out before Ron Paul responds to that question. I didn't watch the debate, but I'd be interested to know what his answer to that part was.

The questions in both videos are incredibly loaded though, there's a pretty heavy and obvious bias in both.

*edit - In fact, watching it again, the moderator asks: "Are you saying that society should just let him die?" You hear a couple people, at most, yell out yes; Ron Paul says a very clear no and the video cuts out before he gets any further. Love the clear bias from the video editing as well.

Deleted my other response.

Anyway, this. I've always stood by my opinion that libs ideas on personal responsibility is way, way, way, way down the chain of important things to live by. A lib being sickend by those responses and not understanding why they applauded just once again proves that(to me at least).

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'm not sure I agree - there's often a sense of smug shadenfreude that comes through in conversations about these things; a sense of satisfaction at the idea that the guy got what he deserved. That said, even under the more charitable interpretation you're suggesting, I think there's a real moral failing on display. "Letting uninsured people die" is perceived and applauded as a stand-in for the abstract idea of "individual responsibility"; "executing people" is a stand-in for "tough on crime"; "torturing people" is a stand-in for "tough on terrorism"; and so on. In each case, actual death and suffering of actual human beings is cheered...as a stand-in for some abstract talking point the base likes. At best, that's moral blindness.

_________________

That's just your lib blinders on dude. The vast majority of conservatives I know, on this board, all over have no real desire for anyone to die just to die. Those same folks though have a real desire for them, and everyone else to be held personally responsible for their lives. You've been brainwashed to believe that the majority of conservatives don't give a rip and want people to die. It's not true. It's just scare tactics that have been beat into your brain for so long you just assume it must be true.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'm for NAMBLA but there is a difference between treating a bleeding GSW and not worrying about the cost than checking five children because one of them had the the sniffles and having to pay for it. I'm certain there is a way to provide for one without having to indulge the other.

Of course, if you actually paid attention to what's being said, you'd know that. It's hardly the first time I've said as much.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

You're right, the applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The multiple shouts of "YEAH!" are.

So a few means the majority? If so, both sides can play that game.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

This just shows your ignorance.

Not even a little bit. Hell, you've proved it a ton on these boards over the years. I'm not the ignorant one here.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

So a few people have that mentality. I'm sure there are crazy people on your side of the isle that don't want us to cut down a single tree or drill for a single ounce of oil anywhere or want chimney sweeps to make the exact same yearly salary as a doctor. Doesn't mean it's everyone.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I don't think most Republicans (which is who I'm talking about, since I don't think "conservative" is really an appropriate label for the Republican base anymore) actually want people to suffer and die, and I know that in their personal lives, the vast majority are obviously decent, reasonably generous and compassionate people. However, in political discussions, it's like a switch gets flipped and callous disregard for death and suffering gets worn like a badge of honor while compassion is dismissed as bleeding-heart liberal nonsense.

Well it's good you think the former but the latter is still wrong. Or more correct to say, that's just your personal liberal bias coming through. There is no switch getting flipped. Most conservatives are pretty consistant that I know of. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility even for everyone, not just the other side. My parents love me, want what is best for me. Doesn't mean they are going to bail me out every time I get into trouble. I plan on doing that with my kids as well. If my parents and myself have that mentality with each other, why am I a monster if I have think the same with some person in Chicago I don't know? This also leads to the argument to lower taxes, get the goverment out of the way, and people will give more and help more. It's already been proven that conservatives give more than liberals anyway.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Compassion isn't bleeding heart nonsense, and I think very few people would view it that way.

However, compassion being mandated and guaranteed by the government is bad for society. Laws are in the business of Justice, not compassion. To do otherwise abrogates the necessity of personal responsibility, and since society is an amalgamation of personal behaviors, you end up with an irresponsible society as a result.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Why waste bandwidth trying to explain why this isn't "the Republican base" when the question should be "why is your view of Republicans allowing you to believe this is their base".

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

There's often a sense of smug schadenfreude that comes through about these things; a sense of satisfaction of the idea of taking away from rich fat cats and destroying businesses people that aren't even wealthy worked their entire lives to build.

See, I can make up things too!

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

You've all been trolled...

RD is getting pretty good at this...

Except I don't think that's made up, Raf; I think that's an accurate description of a very common attitude among the Dem base!

Conservatives will put forth that there are two, and only two, reasons for being poor:

1. The government **** with something.
2. Moral weakness or laziness on the poor person's part.

Conservatives advance that if you're poor, it's because you're lazy or because of government interference, pretty much without exception and thus you deserve everything that happens to you. You see, most conservatives are not willing to take the at least honest argument of, "yes, some people are poor through no fault of their own, and that sucks for them, but life isn't fair and we're overall better off without government programs to help them." They can't bring themselves to make such a "callous" argument, and will say that people who become poor through no fault of their own should receive help. But at the same time they don't want to give up their money, so the easy way out is to just demonize the entire group of poor/unemployed/uneducated individuals as lazy and useless and thus not deserving of assistance.

Actually it's more like:

"yes, some people are poor through no fault of their own, and that sucks for them, but life isn't fair and we're overall better off without government programs to help them. However there the privately run soup kitchen down the street and i'd be glad to drive you."

or more rightly: "If I paid less in taxes, some of that money could go to Pacific Garden Missions and they help way more homeless people for the dollar than the unwieldy government"

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Who? When? I'm conservative and I'm not only thinking those things. Maybe I'm not a real conservative?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Your posting history here would seem to indicate otherwise.

I see both sides as somewhat reprehensible. The liberal thinks government should mandate equality in some way, ignoring individual responsibility and effort and talent. The idea that if you are getting ahead of the masses, that you somehow owe it to them to pull them up with you is sickening. Recognize excellence, and reward it. Don't penalize it by making the successful responsible for the welfare of others as well.

But then...there is the other side of the equation. The conservative seems to think that effort alone, that planning and personal responsibility are what make a human successful, and that nobody worth anything can fall through the cracks of have misfortunes. The irony here, is this is at least one case where the Bible is right, and all those right-wing christian nutcases would do a good job of listening to it. (Not that any christian church has ever had any interest in what the bible really says.)

"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." ~ Ecclesiastes 9:11

This has not somehow changed over the ages. We have not changed society in such drastic ways that people now have control over their own lives where before they did not. Any control you think you have is an illusion. At best, your effort and skill and natural talent can help prod you along a useful path, but in the end, it's primarily luck (and I don't mean the superstitious kind - just the randomness of the universe) that determines most of where we are and what we have. King Solomon's words apply just as accurately in America as they did in ancient Israel.

I consider myself more libertarian in my economic outlook than anything else, but seriously, "personal responsibility" is great and all, from a value standpoint, but Personal Responsibility and a quarter will get you a local phone call -- if you're lucky enough to find a payphone these days.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █