Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2019, 04:42:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How anti-liberalism went global on: August 05, 2018, 05:37:08 pm
@ BoAtlantis,

I think we’ve both said our peace on the issue. It’s obvious that we have radically different conceptions of rights and interpretations of how individual vs group rights should function. I’m simply not an individualist and have never claimed to be; I prioritize society over the individual, but not to the extent of disregarding individual rights. But, you nearly exclusively prioritize individual rights. That is simply incompatible with all evidence suggesting what is required for a healthy society to function. In my opinion, your belief system is deeply flawed and grounded in selfish desires.

I'll respectfully disagree, and leave it at that.

See how many and what kind of immigrants are merely "qualified" to even apply every year. The qualification is damn stringent to the point that asking for "legal immigration" is to be hiding behind the real issue.

Facilitating legal immigration is the real way to prevent illegal immigration. I think America can function well by giving a majority of them legal residence status only.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How anti-liberalism went global on: August 05, 2018, 05:15:21 pm
Quote
The issue of rights is a complicated one. The ones you listed are relatively self-obvious (at least in current Western society). What becomes more complicated is defining the rights of groups, such as the rights of Americans as citizens. Aversion to change is not a right, of course, but possessing the power to control and shape your destiny (as a group), within reasonable limits, certainly strikes me as a right. It’s the right of Americans, Germans, Japanese, Congolese, Jews, and so on. Each group has the right to set group standards and pursue policies or enforce social pressures to ensure group survival and success.

Here is a problem. (Apologies for including this in my previous post too late.)

What if I deem that foreigners fit my cultural needs better? What if I need foreigners to survive? What if there is no American willing to marry me, or willing to sell me goods or willing to help me but foreigner is willing to? And what if I want to invite the person? Why must the country stomp on my right to disassociate with an American and associate with a foreigner instead in America?

The American community is justified in preventing just because of their view of survival and success? What if I don't like it? Again, this brings us back to mob rule. Saying "too bad, then get out" is not a proper answer. There has to be a reasonable way for people to disassociate if they wish. Confining me based on brute social force is not a right.

I have my parcel of land (home) and you have yours. If the society determines I cannot invite the foreigner, then I don't really have a right to my home. But neither does any American. Everything is based on collective view and ownership.

If you believe that our homes are collectively owned by all Americans, then we can technically prevent any American from traveling to anywhere, even within the country, because none of us have ownership to our home. If you want to go home to your family, then 51% of Americans can decide to vote on it to prevent it. Would that be ok with you?

How can the country collectively own it, even though I paid for it with my money?

Quote
The reason we’re having this fundamental disagreement stems from our understanding of the issues of nationality, citizenship, individual, group, and human rights. You, if I am understanding you correctly, essentially view rights as largely universal and should apply to all humans relatively equally; barriers, such as borders and citizenship, are tantamount to violations of another individual’s superior rights to personal autonomy and desire for self-actualization. Borders and cultural groups that often define their in/out limitations through borders and citizenship laws are socially constructed hinderances to personal desire and, therefore, tantamount to a violation of human rights.

Your view of me is accurate. Human rights are relatively pretty equal though I don't claim that someone with communicable diseases or terrorist record must also have the rights to immigrate. If consequence is terrible, the state is justified in preventing it.

The fact that someone was born in another land does not seem to me sufficiently convincing. Unless proven otherwise, I stand by it.

Quote
However, I disagree with that. I believe rights are more hierarchical and complex. The desire of the outsider to enter into the group, whether that means simply crossing borders, obtaining citizenship, or being welcomed as a member of the ingroup, does not supersede the right of group self-determination. I, as an American, do not have the right to go to Italy and be allowed permission into Italian society, whether it’s to work, permanently resettle, or anything. It’s the right of Italians to decide who they want to allow into their society, for how long, and how many. Our representative democratic models assume that elected officials speak on behalf of (or represent) the citizens, therefore whatever the Italians decide to enshrine into law regarding immigration via the state is an expression of their collective will and an act of self-determination. As a foreigner, that doesn’t violate my rights because I possess no inherent right to be in their society, regardless of how it affects me.

Why not? My statement applies not just to America but to other countries.

I agree that there is no inherent right to be in a certain society. But there IS a right for the person to move to the person's home if the homeowner consents because landlord is willing to. There is a consent. Movement is a right to me. Just like you can walk to your groceries, school or work.

If a country can do so, then so can state and cities. Wouldn't the culture of NY be violated if someone from NJ decided to move to the state? Can New Yorkers collectively prevent him?

This mentality only seems to apply to country's needs. Therefore, it's your burden to prove what the country's boundary represents to the point that overwhelmingly exceeds the needs of states and cities.

Quote
In short: yes, it is saying that foreigners’ rights are less important. That does not make them less important as human beings, endowed with basic human rights, but it does mean that when a foreign individual’s rights are placed against the interests or desires of the ingroup into which they’re attempting to enter, they are of secondary importance.

With that said, it should be understood that this does not mean a foreigner should automatically be denied entry, their rights ignored, or to be forced to remain in a dangerous situation in their homeland. As a (hopefully) humane society, we would open our doors for foreigners and invite them in; whether it’s for temporary shelter or as permanent members of our society. But, that should remain, at the end of the day, the choice of each society.

Yes, their rights are perhaps less important. But what about millions of Americans' rights to associate with foreigners? Even granting that your view may be correct, once an American invites them, foreigners' rights become bolstered because they gained a permission from an American homeowner.

This only complicates rights. I prefer not to probe into when the natural rights to a land started. If I bought it using my money, I can do most things inside my home that doesn't harm others, including foreigners. And inviting foreigners doesn't seem like an immoral, criminal activity to me, just because the state says so.

The state making me wait a decade on the grounds I don't have the proper paperwork seems to me the more immoral action.

Quote
Of course the Constitution can change; if it comes into conflict with the interests of present society, then we have the right (legally and otherwise) to change our governing documents. But, constitutional laws are not all there is to morality and rights; it addresses only a portion. The rest is up to individuals and our society to determine.

On what grounds are they entitled to that though? I do not seek to keep anyone living in poverty or the looming threat of danger, I’d like to help personally and I’d like our country to help as well (inviting in more refugees, increasing foreign aid, stop the deadly and destabilizing wars). But, there simply is no reason for me to conclude that every person has the right to access the society established, maintained, and governed by members of a particular culture against the members of that society’s will.

Again, individuals do have rights, groups have rights, and foreigners have rights. But, they can often conflict; it’s the job of each society and its members to work out how they want to strike a balance. Do they want to completely ignore foreigners? Do they want to curtail the rights of individuals within their society to engage in consensual prostitution or expand rights to ensure every person has access to healthcare for free? That’s for each society and its members to decide. That’s the entire point of democracy, constitutional rights, and so on.

They do have that right, if they gained consent though. I'm a homeowner and so are millions of Americans. Not everyone wishes to invite a foreigner but I'm willing to.

Yes, if they do conflict, then we can carefully introspect to determine which rights are superior. How do I know so? See the grocery example earlier. If hundreds of people used mob rule to prevent you from buying goods, would that be ok?

Quote
You live in a society. It’s not just about you and your wishes. If you wish to run around naked and have consensual sex with others in front of a school, should you be allowed? It’s consensual, you aren’t physically harming anyone, and you aren’t restricting anyone’s rights in the process. If anything, by the law denying that to you, it’s restricting your rights as an individual. But, I think we can all agree that two consenting adults engaging in sex acts in public in front of minors should be a criminal offense, despite the restrictions it places upon individual pursuit of self-actualization and happiness. And those limitations will be imposed by the will of the society in which you live, and justified through the moral definitions of right and wrong shaped by that society’s culture.

Basically, there are limits to individual rights, wherein group rights supersede. Do you not agree? If you want to help foreigners financially or through volunteering, there’s nothing stopping you from contributing to charities, writing your Congressman on behalf of such issues, engaging in grassroots activism to persuade your fellow citizens to support or oppose your position on an issue, or traveling overseas, such as in the Peace Corps. In order to help, you don’t have to force a society that may be opposed to immigration and refugees to “tolerate” it.

There’s no mob mentality about it, unless you consider democracy a mob mentality.

Sorry, I tolerate naked consensual sex; not that most would do such things. It's admittedly somewhat cringy to my eyes but if that's their enjoyment, who am I to stop them?

I only claim that collective mentality must supersede it if the consequences are terrible. If million Americans were to face a risk of allowing someone with communicable diseases, then we must prevent it.

Otherwise, individual right must triumph over mob rule. A group's right right to construct society is not an inherent right; and even if it was, they cannot stop someone from moving from places to places, especially knowing there is someone welcoming them. No one has ever said that democracy is perfect, hence my disagreement.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How anti-liberalism went global on: August 05, 2018, 03:29:26 pm
Quote
While I’m by no means anti-immigrant or immigrant reductionist in my stances, I nevertheless feel the need to confront these arguments.

You do realize that society is more than mere individuals, right? Humans do not exist in a vacuum; each of us springs forth from a particular culture, which is composed of particular habits, beliefs, and customs passed onto use by family, friends, peers, elders, educational systems, and other institutions in society. We are not humans, as properly understood, without this socialization; thus, we are not mere individuals nor do we have a self-crafted identity. We are the product of our individual psychology interacting with external social forces.

A person’s desire to self-actuality does not supersede a society’s right to decide whether it wants to welcome that person into their society. Nor does it override the right of that society to maintain and enforce expectations of cultural norms and continuity. That’d be a violation of not only the rights of that group, but of the individuals that compose said group. It really doesn’t matter what market forces or contractual arrangements between private individuals and/or businesses may seek to ignore the desire of the community; those are secondary and should be subservient to the interests of those it both directly and indirectly affects.

I’m summary: the desire of the individual does not override the will of the community. Period.

As usual, your summaries are eloquently written.

Can you prove that it is a right to preserve what you have described? A right to me seems to be relatively simple: to breathe, to speak, to practice religion, to buy or sell etc. Aversion to changes is not a right.

Moreover, let's say that I, like ICE, stopped you from walking to groceries to buy food for your family; I tell you my reason for restraining and handcuffing you was that I don't like your customs, beliefs, appearance, and my desire that's been passed down from my family, friends and peers justifies my terrible action.

Does this seem ok to you? If not, why must we enforce this to others?

Quote
Disagreements with or deviations from such cultural examples does not imply sufficient reason to “excommunicate” a person from their inherited culture. Cultures evolve and change - ideally, they do so organically. Part of American culture has been the freedom to disagree, express disagreement publicly, and also not be sheltered from the consequences of those disagreements.

To compare that to what you previously said is absurd - and you know it (or you should

So you're asserting that different cultural pov that's evolved internally is different from the one that's grown externally. Is this not just a nuanced way of saying foreigners' rights are less important?

Why is it absurd? American citizens should not be any more or less immune from being criticized for deviating away from the cultural norm. For example, if we force foreigners to speak fluent English before living here, then it would be appropriate to test Americans' literacy and kick them out if they don't sufficiently meet the standards.

There are Americans that burn the American flags but they have the right to stay here. I have a hard time believing that it is moral to prevent many respectful would-be immigrants that deserve to be here when we already keep the rights of flag burners.

Quote
It’s something that was contractually and legally agreed upon through our nation’s Constitutional framework, and through years of cultural development wherein it was taught that dissent is a legally sanctioned aspect of America life that deserves protection.

Certain things are widely shared morals that do not have to be written in the constitution. And if the Constitution violates human rights, then it is our duty to challenge, and override it through commonly shared morals. Saying "i merely follow the orders" is only something an authoritarian would justify.

If Americans can dissent from such norm, so can foreigners. Do foreigners not have human rights to practice or like certain aspects of life?

I can grant that Americans should perhaps have more access than foreigners do.
Perhaps Americans who have naturalized for 10+ years may be entitled to greater amount of welfare or disability checks; perhaps they can vote; perhaps they may be subject to less taxes. These things can be more like "club membership" privileges and benefits that club members can enjoy.

But as for the basic needs such as the rights to live, buy or sell common goods, or speak, they are entitled to every bit of that right as Americans do, because there are other Americans willing to associate with them.

Quote
Why is it our “duty” to not prevent the majority of immigrants from coming? Why is it that everyone must celebrate mass immigration? Why is denying the aspirations of one (or numerous outsiders) more important than denying the views of many or most of the “insiders”?

Why do they “have to tolerate it”? If the overwhelming majority of Americans felt passionately that they want all current and future immigration to cease indefinitely, would you rather their democratic voices be ignored or overruled, or would you prefer to abide by democratic norms?

I do not claim we have to celebrate it.

See above again. A vast majority of foreigners would have succeeded in meeting their basic living requirements. Do they not have the right to live? Must they suffer in poverty in their homeland?

You can object that their misfortune is not our fault. Again, that is not my claim. You do not have to land a hand to a homeless person. But if I want to give him my money to assist him, then it's my right to. Why do you prevent me and others who may want to help foreigners?

Also, what if I deem that certain foreigners fit my cultural needs better than some Americans would? You're strongly presuming that I have the duty to prioritize my community. Not everyone likes their community. But they can invite foreigners to perhaps shape their community in more positive manners.

So why can I not with my resources, invite them and engage in voluntary exchanges to suit my needs? Why must community override my happiness? What if someone from a foreign country is willing to live with me, and I as a homeowner want to invite the person? The state is justified in screening for cultural needs, and making the person wait for possibly decades?

Are you not justifying mob mentality? The same mentality that made people opposed to interracial marriage? A white man can marry a black woman he wants to marry even if 99% of white and black community opposes it. Period.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How anti-liberalism went global on: August 04, 2018, 10:20:28 pm
Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  



Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

But people have the right to determine what culture they want, especially if they find that the one that they knew either is vacant or has 'scorpions in its soul'.  

Quote
A neighborhood that’s overwhelmingly Christian has no right to prevent someone from building a mosque, for example.

True, but it has the right to resist a whorehouse. This said, I do not have to like Islam to say something like "better the mosque than the whorehouse".

Quote
A blue neighborhood cannot prevent a Trump voter from moving into their town.

Moving into my neighborhood was not the problem. I felt very lonely when all of my neighbors had "TRUMP/PENCE"  yard signs, and I had only the yard sign for my congressional representative. Those signs stayed up into the winter as a reminder of how 'wrong' I was to not believe in Donald Trump.
 
Quote
I won’t address how much influx of immigration is acceptable because that part is unclear to me.

Is Hispanic culture that different from WASP culture?

Quote
Culture is definitely one of the weaker arguments, and I do not feel empathy for people who try to stomp on prospective would-be immigrants’ rights by hiding behind cultural preservation.

The center of Western Christian Civilization has moved from Europe to Latin America. For purposes of defining culture, Latin America now includes large sections of the United States

Quote
But people have the right to determine what culture they want, especially if they find that the one that they knew either is vacant or has 'scorpions in its soul'.  

Two points,

1) I agree everyone has the right to determine what culture he wants. But whose culture? His own?
If so, I agree. I can only determine my culture, such as what music I like or what language I wish to speak. I have no right to determine how you or others display your own culture.

Why exactly must collective culture supersede immigrant's rights to move? There are many landlords that would happily rent to them and vendors that would buy and sell with them. It's your right to disassociate with them but you can't tell me that I cannot associate with common would-be immigrants.

Are you saying our mere minor discomfort of cultural yield outweighs people's natural rights to seek their destiny?

2) Also, if collective culture is important, then we must first work on kicking out Americans that don't conform to our culture. Let's start out by kicking peaceful Americans who may not watch football or may not speak English fluently or may not recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Does this seem ok to you?

Quote
True, but it has the right to resist a whorehouse. This said, I do not have to like Islam to say something like "better the mosque than the whorehouse".

Is this not pretty much like opposition to SSM few years ago? I am a Christian as well but I sure have no right to force a whorehouse from not being built from a rightful property owner.

Quote
Moving into my neighborhood was not the problem. I felt very lonely when all of my neighbors had "TRUMP/PENCE"  yard signs, and I had only the yard sign for my congressional representative. Those signs stayed up into the winter as a reminder of how 'wrong' I was to not believe in Donald Trump.

If you're not in metro Detroit or Ann Arbor, I would imagine it was common to see Trump signs. People in living in apartments don't exactly put up Hillary sign. In fact, I hardly remember seeing a Hillary sign in Manhattan.

By the way, I don't claim that we must grant immigrants the rights to vote. I simply state my case that we have just one simple duty of not preventing majority of them from coming.

Quote
Is Hispanic culture that different from WASP culture?

Even if it was, it wouldn't matter too much, would it?

Quote
The center of Western Christian Civilization has moved from Europe to Latin America. For purposes of defining culture, Latin America now includes large sections of the United States

This isn't necessarily a bad thing at least in my view.

But let's just grant that you and millions of others think that it's bad. I would like to add that I don't expect Americans to embrace other's culture. They only have to tolerate it.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How anti-liberalism went global on: August 04, 2018, 05:26:03 pm
Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  



Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

A neighborhood that’s overwhelmingly Christian has no right to prevent someone from building a mosque, for example.

A blue neighborhood cannot prevent a Trump voter from moving into their town.

I won’t address how much influx of immigration is acceptable because that part is unclear to me.

Culture is definitely one of the weaker arguments, and I do not feel empathy for people who try to stomp on prospective would-be immigrants’ rights by hiding behind cultural preservation.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump goes after LeBron on: August 04, 2018, 03:24:21 pm
Quote
Melania Trump praises LeBron James after her husband bashes NBA star.

Melania Trump broke sharply with her husband on Saturday, after the president maligned NBA star LeBron James' intelligence on Twitter late Friday night. The first lady praised James for his work with children, even saying she is open to visiting the school for underprivileged children he founded in his hometown of Akron, Ohio.

... "It looks like LeBron James is working to do good things on behalf of our next generation and just as she always has, the first lady encourages everyone to have an open dialogue about issues facing children today," the first lady's spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, said in a statement. "As you know, Mrs. Trump has traveled the country and world talking to children about their well-being, healthy living, and the importance of responsible online behavior with her Be Best initiative. Her platform centers around visiting organizations, hospitals and schools, and she would be open to visiting the I Promise School in Akron."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/melania-trump-praises-lebron-james-after-president-trump-bashes-him-2018-08-04/


Looks like the Orange Tangerine's "great plan of attack" has backfired. Even with his own wife.
Oops.

LOL
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump cancels Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) visit to the White House on: June 05, 2018, 08:15:20 pm
As an Eagles fan, I’ll take the disinvitation as a badge of honor.

NBA champion, whether it be Warriors or Cavs won’t go either. If I was Curry or LeBron, I’d try to meet up with Obama for BBQ just to piss off Trump.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NFL bans kneeling during the national anthem on: May 23, 2018, 07:10:34 pm
I have a better idea, let's just stop playing the national anthem at sporting events altogether. If I'm watching a sporting event, I want to watch the sport, not some (probably) bad musician turn The Star-Spangled Banner into ear rape (which, IMO, is far more unpatriotic than some barely visible player on the sidelines kneeling).
I’m fine with no anthem myself. Most other countries don’t play anthem either. It is only Americans that are somehow convinced that playing excessive amount of the anthem and reminding us of how much freedom we have is a display of patriotism. Many countries have freedom, some even greater and more admirable than that of US.

Patriotism comes through other methods, such as helping people vote, aiding communities, and educating them on our history.

Those people are more of patriots than holier-than-thou nationalists that can put their hand over their heart.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump approval ratings thread 1.3 on: April 13, 2018, 10:55:48 am
CA-49, SurveyUSA: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-congress-polls-20180412-story.html

Approve - 46
Disapprove - 49

Clinton won this district by 9 points in 2016.

Wonder if state-level sanctuary city issues being front and center in southern California at the moment is causing wealthy, educated whites in the region, who supported trump by a much smaller margin than republicans in the past, to "rally" around him because of this issue.

A part of it may be due to revert to the mean and/or that they're starting to see the effect of tax cut. And wealthy, educated people, if anything, are more libertarian than the average American. They're more likely to be sympathetic to sanctuary city and supportive of immigration reform.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Anti-Muslim bigotry is mainstream among Republicans on: April 10, 2018, 02:20:46 pm
It amazes me that so-called liberals celebrate the crumbling of Secular Modern Western Progress. After all the effort to eradicate religion from the public sphere, here it is creeping back. Give them an inch, a mile is taken.

It amazes me how much people that are racist refuse to admit it and smother themselves in the flag and liberty.
Wanting to protect women and gays =Racist. Good to know.

If your logic is based on solely consequentialism, then we should first start out by expelling evangelical Christians here that believe gays should be stoned to death. Or women that should go back to kitchen. We have many of those here in our country too.

We protect the rights of communists, KKK members, Scientologists and various groups that arguably dilute the American culture at a greater rate.

So, why then, should we not protect the rights of Muslims?
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NYPD: Man with pipe fatally shot by officers in Brooklyn on: April 07, 2018, 01:00:38 am
And yet whites with actual loaded guns are being arrested without harm, a cop should be able to tell the difference between a gun and a pipe, period. Funny how this man likely had a mental illness but his complexion doesn't afford him that excuse.


If the title was: “Police see man holding gun and pointing it at them, and shoot him”
Would you say: “They shouldn’t have shot a guy with a mental illness.”?

Police can’t tell in a split second decision if someone has a mental illness. If a man points a gun or an object that looks like a gun at police officers, he will be shot. I’ve always been taught to respect police officers, not to move at them except at a slow walk, and to always be sure they can see your hands. I have a white aunt who saw my mother pulled over by a cop many years; she was pregnant at the time, had her husband circle around to behind the cop, and she jumped out and started running to explain to the cop what had happened. The police officer drew his gun and almost shot her - the only reason he didn’t is because she was visibly pregnant and nearly waddling. The point is, you don’t move in a manner that could possibly be taken as threatening around cops. You don’t duck your head so they can’t quite look at you. You don’t suddenly move or suddenly stick your hands in your pockets. Police are preemptive, cautious, and vigilant, because they know that every day they go to work, they might not return to their families.

Seems like slave mentality.

If a cop puts his hand in the pocket to take something out, is an individual allowed to shoot him? Where is our self-defense rights by that logic?

For example, we are not allowed to shoot someone that might be holding a brick in an odd way from a considerable distance. We can't shoot a bystander that moves strangely coming toward us. You can't coldly murder someone then claim self-defense as a cop out. Self-defense is defense against clear aggression.

If your retort is that those don't show aggression but that cops can't take chances, then you have the burden to prove why cops should not enjoy the same moral standard. Are our lives inferior to cops' lives? Should people not get to go home to their family as well just because they don't comply with people that behave similarly to Nazi Germany?
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NYPD: Man with pipe fatally shot by officers in Brooklyn on: April 07, 2018, 12:31:07 am
Well, from what we know about him, he wasn’t in his right mind; however, based on the images, it looks fairly apparent that the way in which he held and pointed the showerhead looked like—and was intended to look like—a gun.

And yet whites with actual loaded guns are being arrested without harm, a cop should be able to tell the difference between a gun and a pipe, period. Funny how this man likely had a mental illness but his complexion doesn't afford him that excuse.

^^^^ This.

I think a major part of what we're learning with all these shootings is that police need a lot more training if we're going to have them be the first responders to psychotic breaks. As someone who has had relatives have psychotic breaks, the cops are who you're told to call when it's dangerous to you or others, and if it's not dangerous to you or others, there's not anything anyone can do unless you can convince them to get help voluntarily. Sorry, slight rant.

Anyway, the police need more training if we're going to continue to put them in these positions of quasi-counselors, etc. There's been a study that shows in stressful situations, people fall back on their training, which is generally good. However, most police have the most training in how to shoot someone, not how to deal with mental health issues or how to deescalate properly. Then, of course, there is also the race issue which is extremely problematic, and while no amount of training can solve racism, I think it might help, especially if coupled with much more vigorous deescalation training.

Tl;dr: Training isn't a panacea, but police need to have significantly more training in deescalation techniques, mental health, and various other issues before we send them out. It won't solve these issues, but it would be a start.

Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that police have no legal duty to protect individuals; they only need to protect the public at large. (See Warren v. District of Columbia)

If the court punishes cops behavior for abuses, more of them will be afraid to act abusively. The root of the problem starts from our government and legal system that give cops too much authority. Training doesn't really mean a whole lot if they don't want to take even an ounce of risk. Thus it becomes citizens' duty to fully obey or potentially die. Unfortunately, that's the way courts seem to view it.

Warren wasn’t a Supreme Court case.

You're right. I misremembered it.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NYPD: Man with pipe fatally shot by officers in Brooklyn on: April 06, 2018, 10:55:33 am
Well, from what we know about him, he wasn’t in his right mind; however, based on the images, it looks fairly apparent that the way in which he held and pointed the showerhead looked like—and was intended to look like—a gun.

And yet whites with actual loaded guns are being arrested without harm, a cop should be able to tell the difference between a gun and a pipe, period. Funny how this man likely had a mental illness but his complexion doesn't afford him that excuse.

^^^^ This.

I think a major part of what we're learning with all these shootings is that police need a lot more training if we're going to have them be the first responders to psychotic breaks. As someone who has had relatives have psychotic breaks, the cops are who you're told to call when it's dangerous to you or others, and if it's not dangerous to you or others, there's not anything anyone can do unless you can convince them to get help voluntarily. Sorry, slight rant.

Anyway, the police need more training if we're going to continue to put them in these positions of quasi-counselors, etc. There's been a study that shows in stressful situations, people fall back on their training, which is generally good. However, most police have the most training in how to shoot someone, not how to deal with mental health issues or how to deescalate properly. Then, of course, there is also the race issue which is extremely problematic, and while no amount of training can solve racism, I think it might help, especially if coupled with much more vigorous deescalation training.

Tl;dr: Training isn't a panacea, but police need to have significantly more training in deescalation techniques, mental health, and various other issues before we send them out. It won't solve these issues, but it would be a start.

Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that police have no legal duty to protect individuals; they only need to protect the public at large. (See Warren v. District of Columbia)

If the court punishes cops behavior for abuses, more of them will be afraid to act abusively. The root of the problem starts from our government and legal system that give cops too much authority. Training doesn't really mean a whole lot if they don't want to take even an ounce of risk. Thus it becomes citizens' duty to fully obey or potentially die. Unfortunately, that's the way courts seem to view it.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should police officers act is someone is threatening them? on: April 05, 2018, 10:23:03 am
I can't heavily fault the officers in this case. They'd been called in to deal with someone who'd been reported as acting dangerously with what might be a gun, and the guy pointed that metallic pipe thingy at them. I don't see it at all unreasonable that they would act under the presumption that it actually was a gun. At most, they might should've shown more restraint, but I certainly can't say they should've waited for him to actually fire his gun before shooting themselves.

Your logic would make sense if the reverse was allowed. Can a peaceful citizen do the same if a crazy police officer pointed a gun at him for no reason? You probably know the answer to that. So why, then, should citizens be expected to take the same risk that police officers must not take?

What happened to All Lives Matter? Self-defense rights in accordance to risk aversion apply to everyone.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump approval ratings thread 1.3 on: April 03, 2018, 09:12:38 am
Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.newsweek.com/men-trump-more-after-stormy-daniels-accusations-poll-shows-869601?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

"Following allegations by the adult film star that she and Trump had an affair in 2006—shortly after his wife Melania gave birth to the couple’s son Barron—the president’s approval rating among men rose from 50 to 53 percent compared with last month, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

But female voters are not impressed. The poll, conducted from March 27-29, showed that among women the president’s approval rating dropped from 41 percent to 35 percent, in what the poll’s co-director dubbed “the Stormy effect.”



While I think some of it could be due to other confounding variables, I find it too good to be a coincidence that there is a big gender divide in a short period of time.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Laura Ingraham is mocking a Parkland survivor for struggling to get into college on: March 29, 2018, 07:02:30 pm
So suddenly the right likes college? After decades disparaging "liberal professors" you think they'd be happy.

Can you imagine if a liberal anchor mocked a pro-gun guy that got rejected by UCLA?
Conservatives would have retorted "college is a liberal cesspool anyway".
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Laura Ingraham is mocking a Parkland survivor for struggling to get into college on: March 29, 2018, 11:18:59 am
Gee! I really do wonder why young people hate the Republican Party!


Must not have had very good ACT/SAT scores.

Not necessarily. I applied to UCLA with a 3.98 GPA and a 33 ACT and got waitlisted. Got into everywhere else I applied to my senior year though.


Not getting into UC's is nothing to be ashamed of anyway.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Laura Ingraham is mocking a Parkland survivor for struggling to get into college on: March 29, 2018, 11:01:47 am
Weren't conservatives the ones saying college is just a place of liberal bubble?
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: On Earth 2, a male pornstar is suing President Hillary Clinton... on: March 27, 2018, 11:11:28 pm
Political environment would be healthier if we began by admitting flaws in each candidate we support rather than rationalizing them.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Politico: Census to add controversial question on citizenship status on: March 27, 2018, 11:02:45 pm
Maybe, consider it a difference of how I view representation. These people are here whether you like it or not, and they are vital cogs in the economy, whether you like it or not. Representatives should represent the people in their district, undocumented or not.

I am not trying to start a fight on this, but I'm legit curious: Is there evidence to suggest that having non-citizens as neighbors makes you more likely to vote in a way that represents the interests of non-citizens?  Has this been studied?  Because even if you are apportioning seats based on total population, it's only the actual citizens of voting age in those districts who are doing the voting.

What if, hypothetically, the evidence actually went the other way?: That living near non-citizens made people more racist, and therefore more likely to vote in representatives who advocated policies that non-citizens didn't like?  Would that change the calculus?


I don't know about policies per se but there seems to be some evidence that high number of immigrants force natives to vote more conservative/Republican. This seems to be the case in almost every country.

It doesn't quite answer your question but I would find it hard to believe that natives would not become more racist and less tolerant.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Upshot: A ‘Blue’ Florida? There Are No Quick Demographic Fixes for Democrats on: February 05, 2018, 10:46:20 am
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/data-blue-states-getting-redder-red-states-getting-redder/

Almost all states for which the data are available are seeing net increase in voter registration for Republican versus Democrats.

It seems to me that two things are happening.

1) Conservative Democrats are switching parties.
2) New 18+ year olds are becoming Trumpians.

Democrats may very well win the popular vote again. But as long as they continue to flock toward cities, they will have tough time winning EC.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: America is becoming MORE homophobic (new polls) on: January 30, 2018, 01:30:59 pm
I don't think they are homophobic because of gay people themselves, rather the LBGT movement has gotten quite over the top lately. No, there are only 2 genders, and no, we are not referring to you as xi/xir.

Where do you think the LBGT movement has gone "over the top?" Why does it matter how many genders there really are? If someone feels it right for them to do something in-between or whatever, what is the problem with just letting them do it? How does that represent a public policy problem? I personally know "women" who have become "men," and are doing just fine, and as far as I can tell, really seem like men. Modern medicine is quite miraculous sometimes.

If you are a man, and think you are a woman, you are not a woman. I don't give a crap about what you think you are. And I don't think most of America does either.

You didn't answer my question. Rather you made clear that you don't give a damn about the challenges folks unhappy in their own bodies, etc., face. Screw them. Why is it so hard and difficult to just let them do their own thing?

As someone who sympathizes with LGBT community, the only objection I have against is the demand that we must use the pronoun transgender individual feels comfortable with, something I personally have no problem doing. But no one is morally obligated to call others in a courteous manner.

If LGBT community as a whole decides to form a protest against the person who refused to use the pronoun, I'd be ok with that too.

Speech to me is supposed to be like free market. Know your expectation and results.
I'm against coercion of speech.
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you terminate a pregnancy if the pre-natal test was positive for DS? on: January 26, 2018, 04:07:48 pm
They've already done research on this. And most people indeed do choose to terminate pregnancy if they the test came back positive.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00109.x/abstract

23%-33% of prospective parents said they would terminate
46%-86% of parents with increased risk would terminate
89%-97% did terminate when they received positive diagnosis.

What people say and do are two different things. I somewhat lean against not terminating myself but I don't blame people that would terminate.

The last figure also puts me in doubt that 40-50% of people are truly "pro-life".
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump offers pathway to citizenship in return for border security wishlist on: January 26, 2018, 02:56:23 pm
Make legal immigration a lot easier and accessible. But do a background check on them for health and criminal records.

Don't make the wait process like decades. And you'll have fewer people wanting to immigrate illegally.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: America is becoming MORE homophobic (new polls) on: January 25, 2018, 02:58:56 pm
A part of me wonders if social desirability has been in effect.

It's possible that social conservatives or leaners weren't directly expressing their true feelings but after Trump's win, they're more comfortable admitting that they're not supportive of LGBT.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 32


Login with username, password and session length
Logout


Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies
 

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines