The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[afleitch]

What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

But are these unchangeable 'gifts'? Do you not have a right to petition the state and for the state to make decisions based on the shared benefit of it's citizens? Because I don't really see what your problem is with the state promoting equality?

[Sol]

He was a great foreign policy President

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

That's not how 'rights' work.

[H. Ross Peron]

Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

That is the strangest argument I've heard all week.

Well, my point, if a little over-zealously expressed, was that I do not buy into your view that equality is something which is always good. Therefore, until an event occurred which could indisputably make clear that, in all cases, equality is an objectively good thing, there is no real reason for me to help society work towards your view of equality.

Is it an objectively good thing that if you broke the law you would be given a trial like the man next to you, or would you prefer that such equalities didn't exist so that you could be thrown in jail and forgotten about?

That is equality before the law. In my criticisms, I've tried to include the terms objectively and 'in all cases' to qualify my position. I do not believe that equality is objectively a bad thing, things like simple equality in the courts are by and large good things. However, my beef is with this idea that equality is some kind of 'light upon the hill', a societal state that should be promoted and striven for. We are not all equal, we are rendered different by circumstances of our birth, abilities, and, yes, occasionally the patronage that we may have received in life. Its not just things like equality before the law that flow from the broader idea of 'equality', no, there is a whole stream of BS that flows from it, from 'equality of outcomes' to the use of the phrase 'because equality'. I take issue with this idea that all humans, by simple virtue of their humanity and nothing else, are automatically able to access a laundry list of 'rights'. No, no, no I say enough. What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

So then would you not complain about not being able to express your political views or to keep your property or worship openly if you lived in some sort of a totalitarian Stalinist state?

[Cassius]

Until God, or perhaps more appropriately, Jesus, descends from the Heavens and nails to my door an exact definition of 'equality' and why it is an objectively good thing, I see no reason as to why I should acknowledge it as something that I should be helping society work towards.

That is the strangest argument I've heard all week.

Well, my point, if a little over-zealously expressed, was that I do not buy into your view that equality is something which is always good. Therefore, until an event occurred which could indisputably make clear that, in all cases, equality is an objectively good thing, there is no real reason for me to help society work towards your view of equality.

Is it an objectively good thing that if you broke the law you would be given a trial like the man next to you, or would you prefer that such equalities didn't exist so that you could be thrown in jail and forgotten about?

That is equality before the law. In my criticisms, I've tried to include the terms objectively and 'in all cases' to qualify my position. I do not believe that equality is objectively a bad thing, things like simple equality in the courts are by and large good things. However, my beef is with this idea that equality is some kind of 'light upon the hill', a societal state that should be promoted and striven for. We are not all equal, we are rendered different by circumstances of our birth, abilities, and, yes, occasionally the patronage that we may have received in life. Its not just things like equality before the law that flow from the broader idea of 'equality', no, there is a whole stream of BS that flows from it, from 'equality of outcomes' to the use of the phrase 'because equality'. I take issue with this idea that all humans, by simple virtue of their humanity and nothing else, are automatically able to access a laundry list of 'rights'. No, no, no I say enough. What 'rights' we have, or as I might call them 'privileges', are the gift of the state, the Church, whatever organisational unit we happen to be dealing with. We should mold ourselves to these boundaries, not expect them to fit us perfectly.

So then would you not complain about not being able to express your political views or to keep your property or worship openly if you lived in some sort of a totalitarian Stalinist state?

Ah, well this is where we get into murkier waters. The problem is, if the right people don't have power, then it inevitably falls into the hands of the wrong people (the Stalinists that you mentioned above). My political beliefs, such as they are, are largely shaped around preventing this from happening. I do not view Stalinism as a legitimate ideology of government, and thus I certainly would fight against it. Nevertheless, I would not be so naïve as not to expect resistance from the other side, which may view me and 'my sort' as being the wrong people. These things depend very much on your own point of view. Nonetheless, I believe that you should still fight your corner, and, if it has to come to that, get your hands dirty in the process.

[Mordecai]

Because Teddy Roosevelt was a left-winger who was really a Republican in name only.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Race is a social issue more than an economic issue. But yes let's remind ourselves of the racism of 19th century politicians as if it weren't already bleeding obvious.

ITT: People excusing racism and imperialism.

[PJ]

FF for wanting to take a more limited approach to Reconstruction than the Radical Republicans. 

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Can someone please bump the Oldiesfreak thread?

Here's a link, because I'm not doing it.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168757.100

[ElectionsGuy]

Sounds like a Republican paradise. Gay hating and emailing business opportunities is effectively unregulated. Only problem is that most people are black.

On Nigeria.

[politicus]

Sounds like a Republican paradise. Gay hating and emailing business opportunities is effectively unregulated. Only problem is that most people are black.

On Nigeria.

Obviously a joke - and not a bad one.

[Horus]

Well, not that I sympathise with this man a lot, but even so, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to simply use a wooden platform and a rope (preferably with a long drop to break the neck).

[Cassius]

Well, not that I sympathise with this man a lot, but even so, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to simply use a wooden platform and a rope (preferably with a long drop to break the neck).

From what I'm told, breaking the neck is actually a more humane method of hanging than strangulation.

[homelycooking]

Well, not that I sympathise with this man a lot, but even so, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to simply use a wooden platform and a rope (preferably with a long drop to break the neck).

From what I'm told, breaking the neck is actually a more humane method of hanging than strangulation.

And wouldn't a far more humane punishment still be life imprisonment? That's a slightly disingenuous thing to say when it so clearly seems (please correct if wrong) that the humanity of the method of punishment is a far less important consideration for you than whether the punishment exacts retribution or vengeance for a wrong committed.

I suppose I should put the question to you this way: Is it of any importance to you whether an executed death-row inmate dies (relatively) quickly and painlessly or lingers for an extended period of time and in great agony on his journey to Hades, so long as the State fulfills its mission to make both a retributory public statement and lethal private statement about the value and importance of human life?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

People are letting their antipathy toward Cassius get in the way of seeing his post makes a good point about the hypocrisy of the way the death penalty is practiced in the United States.   

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Re: Andy Johnson

FF for wanting to take a more limited approach to Reconstruction than the Radical Republicans. 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Re: Andy Johnson

FF for wanting to take a more limited approach to Reconstruction than the Radical Republicans. 

Thats not absurd or ignorant at all. Reconstruction as it happened was the maximum extent it could have gone without totally ripping the country apart again. The only better President we could have had in the 1865-1869 period would have been Lincoln himself.

[Mordecai]

Glad to see so much of the country is finally waking up to one of the greatest hoaxes in recent history



Perhaps 100 years from now, we'll all look back and have a laugh at those crazy radicals who tried to tell us arctic ice would be gone by 2012

[Oakvale]

#420NO

One of my favorite Govs, and her stance on marijuana makes it better!

Why on Earth would you be opposed to Marijuana legalization?

I'm all for high tax rates (particularly on incomes and corporations) to increase revenue, but Governor Hassan is thinking in the best interests of the state here. Yes, it's a fact that nobody has ever died from an overdose, but marijuana is known to have caused physical and mental health issues and even accidents which can result in deaths as reported by The Washington Post. I might come around in support of medical marijuana in the near future, but I'll always be against recreational marijuana.

[Horus]

I am fiercely loyal to my country of birth, but I am under no such illusions that they will always have the same loyalty to me.

Anything can happen when you're a controversial 2% of the population. It feels good to know there's an option.

[LeBron]

#420NO

One of my favorite Govs, and her stance on marijuana makes it better!

Why on Earth would you be opposed to Marijuana legalization?

I'm all for high tax rates (particularly on incomes and corporations) to increase revenue, but Governor Hassan is thinking in the best interests of the state here. Yes, it's a fact that nobody has ever died from an overdose, but marijuana is known to have caused physical and mental health issues and even accidents which can result in deaths as reported by The Washington Post. I might come around in support of medical marijuana in the near future, but I'll always be against recreational marijuana.

How is this absurd? It's technically an opinion and unlike some others out there who are against marijuana legalization, I backed it up with facts and a valid (Washington Post) article.

Now this is a gem for absurdity:

Hillary

Nah, I don't vote for candidates of the sociocratic party. However, if they are Democratic Party candidates, like say Schweitzer, I'll gladly vote for them.

[TNF]

#420NO

One of my favorite Govs, and her stance on marijuana makes it better!

Why on Earth would you be opposed to Marijuana legalization?

I'm all for high tax rates (particularly on incomes and corporations) to increase revenue, but Governor Hassan is thinking in the best interests of the state here. Yes, it's a fact that nobody has ever died from an overdose, but marijuana is known to have caused physical and mental health issues and even accidents which can result in deaths as reported by The Washington Post. I might come around in support of medical marijuana in the near future, but I'll always be against recreational marijuana.

How is this absurd? It's technically an opinion and unlike some others out there who are against marijuana legalization, I backed it up with facts and a valid (Washington Post) article.

Now this is a gem for absurdity:

Hillary

Nah, I don't vote for candidates of the sociocratic party. However, if they are Democratic Party candidates, like say Schweitzer, I'll gladly vote for them.

Because Marijuana is harmless.

[TNF]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

[Sopranos Republican]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

Making my eyeballs bleed. Especially as someone who drives himself to school and everywhere else I need to be at any given time at 17.

[Oakvale]

Anti-fun brigade in the house

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

[Frodo]

Well, not that I sympathise with this man a lot, but even so, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to simply use a wooden platform and a rope (preferably with a long drop to break the neck).

From what I'm told, breaking the neck is actually a more humane method of hanging than strangulation.

And wouldn't a far more humane punishment still be life imprisonment? That's a slightly disingenuous thing to say when it so clearly seems (please correct if wrong) that the humanity of the method of punishment is a far less important consideration for you than whether the punishment exacts retribution or vengeance for a wrong committed.

I suppose I should put the question to you this way: Is it of any importance to you whether an executed death-row inmate dies (relatively) quickly and painlessly or lingers for an extended period of time and in great agony on his journey to Hades, so long as the State fulfills its mission to make both a retributory public statement and lethal private statement about the value and importance of human life?

Considering how prevalent prison rape is, I doubt life imprisonment (especially for those of a smaller build) is really any more humane than the death penalty.  In fact, it can be argued to be even worse.