The Glade 4.0

Note that my objection wasn't to the policy preference being expressed (though I obviously disagree with that too), but to the emotional reaction of the audience. If one thinks it's preferable to let some people die of preventable causes rather than raise taxes to a point sufficient to cover that particular circumstance, so be it. Just don't applaud and cheer about it like you're at a **** football game.

But you have been given very reasonable and logical reasons as to why they were cheering. Your bias though just dismisses them. If you can't see past your own bias when given a good answer, why are you even asking the question? Just shake your head like a good condesending liberal and be done with it.

_________________
"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."

Or perhaps I fairly considered the reasons given and found them genuinely unconvincing, as evidenced by my continued engagement with the topic via follow-up comments and questions? In fact, how about responding to my counter-arguments? For instance, you thought Stathol's question about abortion rights was a good one, so what's your response to my counterpoint on that? Do you find the enthusiasm at pro-choice rallies morally offensive, or do you think it's perfectly fine because they're all just cheering for choice, not abortions?

No, I don't think you farily considered them. You heard a good reason(s) but did your whole liberal hand waving thing because it didn't jive with what your brain has been programmed with which is par for the course with you and most liberals. If it goes against your already pre-concieved notion, dismiss it.

As for your counter-argument...I don't know because I don't know those people personally so I'm not going to make a judgement against them. I'm sure the majority just support the right and I can see that even if I disagree with it.

_________________
"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 going to go with ...

Just another bad-faith anti-Republican pro-Obama thread from RangerDave.

After all, just look at the false dilemma RangerDave presents in his latest post ...

So black and white about things these days, RD ... so Manichean.

_________________

Not a false dilemma.

Uh-huh.

Feelings mutual.

_________________
"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."

Oh, it's not? You present the option that they are cheering for either choice or abortions. Several not-Democrat posters have indicated that people were cheering for personal responsibility, not death; yet, you reject that entirely?

Beyond being supremely presumptuous in this thread RangerDave, you're refusing to accept a politically inconvenient reality because it defeats the purpose of your trolling.

People were cheering because they liked the emphasis on personal responsibility, not because someone might die ...

People cheer at abortion rallies because they like the emphasis on reproductive freedom, not because they're considering the consequences of their actions ...

Wait, hold on ... didn't I post something pertinent to this kind of **** recently?

Oh, right ...



Stop looking for bogeymen ...

_________________

Oh, and I actually posted a serious response while you were busy proving my point oh so pointedly ...

Just going to dismiss Nitefox's comment because it's inconvenient to your trolling.

_________________

Re-read my posts. You failed at reading comprehension yet again.


Nitefox's comments weren't substantive. They were snarky dismissiveness (liberal bias! liberal condescension! liberal hand-waving!) coupled with a paean to open-mindedness that I found, shall we say, unconvincing, given the speaker.

I've read your posts, RangerDave. I've read the entire thread ...

So, let's post a few gems for you, since you seem to be reading some alternate-history thread I'm not familiar with ...... "smug sense of schadenfreude" ... "a real moral failing on display" ... "Letting uninsured people die is ... a stand-in for ... 'individual responsibility' ...That's all the evidence anyone needs to know you're not participating in this thread in good faith ...

Of course, you have a problem with the uncomfortable reality of this thread ...

You've even gone so far as to tell Nitefox he doesn't think what he think's and that other posters are lying about the interpretations and reactions to the statement.

So, you're just trolling, RangerDave ...

Just trolling trolling trolling along like you have of late ...

Kind of funny, really.

_________________

So says the person, who when given very reasonable and logical and most likely truthful reasons for the cheering, just waves his hands and says, nah...that's not it because I KNOW they love to cheer death so I must be right!

Ah the openmindness of a liberal. So refreshing to see.

_________________
"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."

Irrelevant. You claimed I was posing a false dilemma and entirely rejecting alternate explanations. None of the quotes you just posted have anything to do with that claim.

RD -

I really don't give the impression that you're giving a fair chance to the counter argument. I mentioned above that it made my stomach turn when I heard the cheers. But I can't in good faith assume their positions without discussing it, with each. The counterpoints mentioned are plausible enough if you consider them fairly. I suggest you always give people the benefit of the doubt.

As for others, he's hardly trolling. Repeated accusations of trolling to dismiss counter arguments is not productive, not accurate, not polite, and not conducive to any hope of an interesting discussion. There are valid reasons for disagreeing with him (oddly enough these are presented by the same poster dismissing him as a troll), so there's no need for the dismissal.

If you think he's trolling, don't respond. Such accusations are far more annoying than real trolls are.

You mean the part where I acknowledge the applicability of my critique to liberals as well and devote an entire post to endorsing and expounding upon said critique of a liberal viewpoint? Yes, I can see how that kind of openmindedness might strike you as refreshing in this thread.

Arathain:

Except, RangerDave is trolling and has been since the initial post. Look at the title and his initial text ...

Also, mind you, "Republican base" includes a whole bunch of people no where close to the events in this videos. RangerDave started the thread with an intentional and inflammatory hasty generalization; then, he spent 4 pages literally just dismissing any counter argument made.

He's trolling.

_________________

That's a fair point, which is why I acknowledged, early in the thread and ever since, the possibility that they were cheering the principles of personal responsibility and certain justice (as applicable to the two clips) rather than the deaths themselves, and modified my critique to note that even that was moral blindness to the context and effects of the the principle they were cheering. It is, in my view, a moral failure to cheer in response to a story about someone dying or a reference to actual people being executed, even if the support is actually just for some underlying principle, because the death involved should be perceived as a sobering and serious affair that tempers one's emotional response. If it doesn't, if instead it's just dismissed or ignored or otherwise has no emotional impact on the listener, that is a moral blindspot/failing in and of itself.

Incidentally, that aspect of my posts is the key point Khross missed in his eagerness to take potshots.

Sorry, I'm not convinced. Your chosen thread title is all I need to know about how you feel on the subject...

This. I think he gave 1% to a very weak if you twist my arm and bribe me and if I squint real hard I might be able to see it your way and 99% to nah, republicans and conservatives love death, end of story.

_________________
"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 don't see an inconsistency there, given that I also say, repeatedly, "It is, in my view, a moral failure to cheer in response to a story about someone dying or a reference to actual people being executed, even if the support is actually just for some underlying principle, because the death involved should be perceived as a sobering and serious affair that tempers one's emotional response. If it doesn't, if instead it's just dismissed or ignored or otherwise has no emotional impact on the listener, that is a moral blindspot/failing in and of itself."

In short, what's "wrong with the Republican base" is that they have a moral blindspot/failing that causes them to dismiss, ignore or otherwise be emotionally disconnected from the serious consequences of some of their policy preferences, as evidenced by these Republican audiences cheering in response to a story about someone dying and a reference to execution statistics simply because they agreed with the underlying principles involved.

And herein lies the problem...

Any thoughts on the actual explanation I gave?

I'm not buyin' what your sellin'

Fair enough, but what, then, do you think my actual view is? That I believe Republicans just like killing people and/or letting them die for shits and giggles?