Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#52 Aug 09 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Gbaji, you really need to get a life. Or a different, more productive hobby. There are real issues with someone who spends hours and hours arguing asinine points that absolutely no one reads through.
#53 Aug 09 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
While we can presumably agree in the abstract that if I normally beat you 10 times each morning, but then decide to only beat you 5 times today, that you are better off with the reduced beating, it's still wrong to view that as me actually helping you. I'm hurting you less.

That's still an absolutely horrible comparison. I have to wonder if you're deliberately picking these examples because you're substituting emotional impact ("Theft!", "Beatings!") for a realistic comparison because you know a real comparison wouldn't stand up or if it's because you honestly think your point is a rational one.

I suppose, assuming that you're sincerely making these comparisons, in your mindset paying taxes is a de facto "negative effect" akin to mugging and torture as opposed to being something that potentially provides for a number of positive benefits if properly administered. This brings us back to a point of having such different mindsets that it's not really worth debating and, in fact, ties right back into the "goverment as shadowy 'Other'" mindset I see so often in conservatives.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Aug 09 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's not about whether it's "theft", or "taxes", or "donations".


Yeah, it kinda is. I see paying taxes as part of being a good citizen. It's how we finance the common weal. You, apparently, see taxes as governmental pickpocketing.

This point of view, as much as anything, separates liberals and conservatives.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#55 Aug 09 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While we can presumably agree in the abstract that if I normally beat you 10 times each morning, but then decide to only beat you 5 times today, that you are better off with the reduced beating, it's still wrong to view that as me actually helping you. I'm hurting you less.

That's still an absolutely horrible comparison. I have to wonder if you're deliberately picking these examples because you're substituting emotional impact ("Theft!", "Beatings!") for a realistic comparison because you know a real comparison wouldn't stand up or if it's because you honestly think your point is a rational one.


I wasn't the person who picked taxes as the one example to focus on though. If you recall, I gave several examples of liberals confusing positive vs negative effects. Failing to provide free health care is equated to denying access to care. Failing to fund ESC research is equated to banning stem cell research. Failing to provide as much funds for student loans is denying students and opportunity for an education. Hell. Simply opposing schemes to forgive those loans is labeled as doing so as well.

Like I keep saying, you're getting too caught up on the specific words used, and attempting to posit some kind of emotional action or something. That's not my intent. My intent is to get you to realize that liberals tend to not a difference between actions which reduce harm versus those which create help. Similarly, they tend to not see a difference between actions which fail to help and those which cause harm. It doesn't matter what sort of examples we use, or what labels we apply. That inability to differentiate between those sorts of things is a common trait I've observed among liberals. It's certainly a trait that you have shown consistently for years.

Quote:
I suppose, assuming that you're sincerely making these comparisons, in your mindset paying taxes is a de facto "negative effect" akin to mugging and torture as opposed to being something that potentially provides for a number of positive benefits if properly administered. This brings us back to a point of having such different mindsets that it's not really worth debating and, in fact, ties right back into the "goverment as shadowy 'Other'" mindset I see so often in conservatives.


You're still missing the point. I'm not trying to create some emotional connection between "taxes" and "theft". I'm making the simple statement that in both cases, someone else takes something you own away from you. It's not about whether you or I or anyone else thinks one is justified or not. The core issue really is how we view those things and therefore make a decision about justification in the fist place. How can you decide what sort of actions are justified in the first place if you can't distinguish between positive and negative? If you can't determine a starting point (X is mine, Y is yours), but rather think in relative terms, then where is the base point? So on taxes, if you decide that the Clinton rates are the base we should use, then you can conclude that the rich have gotten richer because we weren't taxing them enough, so if we raise the taxes back, to that level, we're not hurting them, we're just removing an unfair advantage they've had. But if you decide that the Bush rates are the base, then everything is fine and the Clinton rates were too high and unfair. Also, if you raise the taxes back up to Clinton levels then you are harming the rich.


Isn't that completely arbitrary though? You are determining if something is harming someone, or merely removing undeserved help by setting an arbitrary point at which you think things should be. But that point could be anything you decide it to be. That makes it meaningless. I prefer that we set out baseline at what people actually have prior to *any* government involvement (within a given area anyway, since I don't want to be dragged into a side argument). If I earn X dollars, then those are mine. Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect. Any taxes I pay represents a negative effect on me. Period. Increasing those taxes increases the negative effect. Decreasing them decreases the negative effect. But those things don't ever represent some thing I'm gaining, much less gaining unfairly.

On the flip side, every benefit the government provides me is something that does help me. So when they build roads, that helps me. Schools help me. Police and fire help me. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, etc all help me (me being whomever is receiving them of course). If the government reduces the amount of funding for those things, it is not hurting me. It's simply helping me less. You can't "take away my welfare". It was never mine to begin with. You cannot own something someone else has to constantly give you. I suppose that's getting a little bit off the point, but it's somewhat related. If you can't understand base concepts of property ownership, then I suppose you can't establish those base points, and then you can't really determine when someone is helping you or hurting you less, or if they are hurting you, or helping you less. And it just seems like the entire political left has been infected with an amazing amount of confusion regarding this issue. I can only assume this is so they will more easily accept social policies which they might otherwise reject. After all, it's much easier to argue for increased funding for something if you're convinced that you're hurting people if you don't.


And yes, I happen to think that this difference is one of the core differences between modern liberals and conservatives. It is at the heart of nearly every single political difference. Pick an issue and you'll find that somewhere in there is a liberal saying "if we don't do this, it hurts group X", and a conservative saying "if we do this, we'll be helping group X at the expense of group Y". And while there often is a lot of fair and reasonable debate which can be had in these issues, I've found they are often muddled simply because both groups are almost speaking different languages. The conservative is looking at costs versus benefits, while the liberal is looking at harm done by failing to act.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Aug 09 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
And yes, I happen to think that this difference is one of the core differences between modern liberals and conservatives

Well, no argument there. Not that I agree at all with your philosophy or assessment but I'm complete certain that YOU believe it. Guess that's why I'm not a conservative.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Aug 10 2012 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Aug 10 2012 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?


That's gbaji's one redeeming quality: he really tees 'em up like that. Smiley: lol
#59 Aug 10 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?

Ooh, that's a "bingo"!

ITT: conservatives don't want infrastructure or any public services.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#60 Aug 10 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
What a bizarre perspective.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Aug 10 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?

Ooh, that's a "bingo"!

ITT: conservatives don't want infrastructure or any public services.


Completely false. The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive. I can then assess whether the negative's are worth the positives when making decisions. Liberals muddle them together and treat each internally as relatively positive or negative. So if taxes go up that may be negative if they think taxes are at a high enough level right now. Or they make think it's positive if they think they are too low. Similarly, funding increases or decreases may arbitrarily be considered positive or negative effects depending pretty much entirely on an arbitrary decision about what they should be.

Conservatives make a clear distinction between when someone does something that helps you versus something that hurts you. Liberals don't. They base those things on relative values compared to what they arbitrarily think they should be. So while a conservative will look at a program that gives people $200/month in food stamps as helping them. A liberal might think that it should be $300/month, so we're hurting them by denying them $100 worth of food. And if you stop and think about it, you should easily be able to think of examples of this going on around you all the time. Hell. Just think about the language surrounding Obamacare when it was being pushed.


As I sated earlier, I think that the liberal approach is problematic because it provides no "real" starting point from which to measure something. If you start with zero taxes and zero spending, you can look at how much is taxed and how much we get for those taxes and make an assessment. But if your starting point is "everyone should have health insurance paid for them", or "everyone should have the best education possible", you don't have a starting point. You have an end goal, but no real means to measure whether the end goal is worth the cost. Worse, the absence of that calculation means that costs will almost certainly be higher than they should be. So we not only have a government that attempts to do more things than it should, but it does so every inefficiently.

Kinda like what's happened over the last 3.5 years.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Aug 10 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#63 Aug 11 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
When I see taxes taken out of my paycheck, I see:
- Curiosity getting sent to Mars
- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement
- ******* 316 finally getting turned into the limited access road it should have been a decade ago
- Soldiers trying to raise families being able to afford decent housing in exchange for risking their lives
- Fellow students in my class being able to take out loans to get their master's degrees
- The kids next door finally getting a school bus route to come pick them up

The only theft I see under there was the massive bailout of Wall Street, to those who gambled with the economy and lost.
#64 Aug 11 2012 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
catwho wrote:

- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement


Well there's her problem. She's banging inanimate objects. They can't pay her for her services.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#65 Aug 11 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
TirithRR wrote:
catwho wrote:

- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement


Well there's her problem. She's banging inanimate objects. They can't pay her for her services.


Smiley: lol

She's actually found a seasonal job that will get her through until November, at which point she'll coast along to a retail job for Black Friday, no doubt. She's trying desperately to finish her culinary degree so she can get something a bit more permanent (and enjoyable.)
#66 Aug 11 2012 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive.
Oh, like a child complaining about the price of candy. Got ya.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Aug 12 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:

Conservatives make a clear distinction between when someone does something that helps you versus something that hurts you. Liberals don't.

The distinction is more correctly as something that doesn't help me, the conservative, is viewed as hurtful.

Your complete lack of empathy continues to amaze me.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#68 Aug 12 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive. I can then assess whether the negative's are worth the positives when making decisions.

Of course you can't, little fella. You have absolutely no capacity for that sort of analysis. It's too complex. You just want free benefits without the burden of being responsible in any way for the cost. Let's not overcomplicate things, it lends an importance to your miniscule tax burden that's ludicrously inappropriate.

The idea that you have the time or ability to determine that the $11 per year of your tax load that goes to fund bullet purchases for the county sheriff is too much sn't really a plausible argument. You have, literally, no idea if you get more value from services that you outlay in taxes (hint: YOU DO). You just ASSUME you pay too much. Why? Because it's your money. Obviously it would be better if your services were funded by other people's money.

Conservatives fear change. The idea that taxes redistribute their wealth somehow to those less well off is terrifying to them. Since the prevailing common trait of political conservatives is flailing insecurity and skittish abject terror, it's an easy sell to convince then that the $20k they pay in taxes is being handed to Aunt Jamima who runs off to Rent A Center and buys 6000 refidergerators on installments. Or whatever the articulated fear is. I can't really see that point of view, what with not being a giant xenophobic douchebag terrified that my modest accumulated wealth pile I've built by masterful money management skills like paying by check and buying used Grand Ams might be eroded. I have marketable skills. If I found out tomorrow that Nexa sold all of our possessions and gave the money away...I'd just go make more money. I can sort of see how it would be scary if I was tied to a fixed salary working a job I fell into primarily because of my ability to show up at the same facility each day with an abject lack of ambition...but not really.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#69 Aug 13 2012 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Aug 13 2012 at 3:16 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The idea that you have the time or ability to determine that the $11 per year of your tax load that goes to fund bullet purchases for the county sheriff is too much sn't really a plausible argument. You have, literally, no idea if you get more value from services that you outlay in taxes (hint: YOU DO). You just ASSUME you pay too much. Why? Because it's your money. Obviously it would be better if your services were funded by other people's money.


Wrong way to look at it though. I don't have to know whether I'm getting a good value on every single thing in the huge list of things that government does to decide if my taxes are too high for what I'm getting than you need to know the exact gross cost of every ingredient in the meal you ate in order to decide if that cost was too high for what you got. People have this amazing ability to compare experiences over time and make judgments about them. It's what allows you to decide that burger joint A is a better deal than burger joint B even in the absence of a breakdown of their entire business.

You really went in this direction? Weak sauce.

Quote:
Conservatives fear change. The idea that taxes redistribute their wealth somehow to those less well off is terrifying to them.


Which is it? Do we fear change, or do we fear a government that redistributes our wealth? Cause I'm thinking you did a bit of bait and switch there.

Quote:
Since the prevailing common trait of political conservatives is flailing insecurity and skittish abject terror, it's an easy sell to convince then that the $20k they pay in taxes is being handed to Aunt Jamima who runs off to Rent A Center and buys 6000 refidergerators on installments. Or whatever the articulated fear is.


Which is an interesting counter argument when we do have rampant corruption and fraud in our welfare system, we do have rampant abuse of public funds by our unions, and we do have rampant overspending on services by people who seem to have honestly adopted the very same nutty economic arguments that you have espoused repeatedly yourself. Or do you not recall the times you've stated that it doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends a whole hell of a lot of it (your were paraphrasing Krugman at the time I'm sure)?

When people like you actively and continually say "we're going to take your money and waste it", forgive me if I don't buy the whole "false fear" counter argument coming from you.

Quote:
I can't really see that point of view, what with not being a giant xenophobic douchebag terrified that my modest accumulated wealth pile I've built by masterful money management skills like paying by check and buying used Grand Ams might be eroded. I have marketable skills. If I found out tomorrow that Nexa sold all of our possessions and gave the money away...I'd just go make more money. I can sort of see how it would be scary if I was tied to a fixed salary working a job I fell into primarily because of my ability to show up at the same facility each day with an abject lack of ambition...but not really.


Ah! I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning. I'd like mine with a side of bacon please! Let me see if I've got this right. So because it's possible for people with the skills to make money to make more of it, then there's no reason not to take all the money they've earned so far. This is really your argument? Do you see why when people like you make the mistake of saying stuff like that, it sorta weakens your earlier arguments about conservatives having no legitimate reasons to worry about what liberals would do with sufficient control of the country?



And for the record: Yes. I do fear a government which cavalierly redistributes the wealth of its citizens. But not out of a selfish fear of my own fortunes, but out of a fear of what that does to the opportunities of others. Meaningful employment is a function of wealth held by potential employers. Redistributing that wealth may provide temporary benefits to "the poor", but the cost (yes, there's that cost thing again) is the opportunities they might have had otherwise. Government doesn't help people by providing those sorts of services. General public services (like fire, police, etc) sure. But direct assistance is harmful, not just to the economy as a whole, but directly to those receiving the assistance. If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie. Wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Aug 13 2012 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie.


If by "biggie" you mean "verifiable by a simple examination of history", sure.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#72 Aug 13 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning

It does beg the question of why you were arguing with Smash at 2:15 in the morning.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Aug 13 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which is it? Do we fear change, or do we fear a government that redistributes our wealth?
Both.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Aug 13 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning

It does beg the question of why you were arguing with Smash at 2:15 in the morning.


I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it. Just trust me that it was AWESOME!
#75 Aug 13 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it.

"Don't post anything good"?

Zing!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Aug 13 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it.

"Don't post anything good"?

Zing!!


Don't make me Twitter spam you.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 287 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)