Schwarzenegger signs anti-slavery bill, Republicans outraged - Polidicks

[QUOTE=s0beit;25170234]Freedom does not mean you don't have to worry. Freedom can be extremely good and it can be extremely bad. It is a wild force.[/QUOTE] Freedom isn't a force.

[QUOTE=Paramud;25170258]Freedom isn't a force.[/QUOTE] Are you aware of how many definitions the word "force" contains, or what context i was using it in? This is a pretty stupid thing to nit-pick about.

[QUOTE=TH89;25170240]Hey RinVII here is why you are dumb: There is no objective standard by which to measure a system of government, therefore you cannot be "more right" by dickriding Ayn Rand or Karl Marx[/QUOTE] Yeah there is it's called the truth.

[QUOTE=RinVII;25170247]So what medical advancements has Canada provided since it adopted it's healthcare program?[/QUOTE] Are you really going to go into this? Your country has the worlds largest pharmaceutical industry, hell, it's one of the biggest things in your country, of course your medical revolutions are going to be more apparent than ours, not to mention we are a much smaller nation. Your question is baseless and fucking stupid. Also, we've given the world a lot of shit. [editline]12:09AM[/editline] [QUOTE=RinVII;25170277]Yeah there is it's called the truth.[/QUOTE] Troll alert. [editline]12:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=RinVII;25170206]That's cool I once met a former Canadian who told me he had to wait weeks to see a doctor for two broken fingers. I also have another friend who's father was a doctor and they immigrated to America due to our medical system. [editline]07:02AM[/editline] Maybe if your lucky ill say something about black people so you can pretend you're black and ban me.[/QUOTE] Doctors who only do it for the money, aren't the doctors I want working on me, and those are the ones that go to the states. Yeah, that's a cool horror story, where'd he live? Yellowknife? I was in a car crash when I was 12, it shattered my sternum, broke 3 ribs, and left a number of bones in my body broken, and collapsed a lung. My parents couldn't have paid for this has this been in the states, within an hour, I was in ICU and getting fixed up because two broken fucking fingers [b]will be ignored compared to more serious conditions[/b]. The states system is "Who paid first, goes first". Our system is "he's bleeding more, fix him first.".

[QUOTE=RinVII;25170277]Yeah there is it's called the truth.[/QUOTE] So, what, you're saying a government should be judged based on how truthful it is? On what objective basis can you say that?

The form of government you choose as "the best" is based upon your preconceived notion of what is most important. There is no "right" or "truth".

[QUOTE=s0beit;25170318]The form of government you choose as your is based upon your preconceived notion of what you hold most important. There is no "right" or "truth".[/QUOTE] Exactly.

[QUOTE=TH89;25170310]So, what, you're saying a government should be judged based on how truthful it is? On what objective basis can you say that?[/QUOTE] No, he's saying that the "truth" is that leftist governments are wrong, and right governments are right. [editline]12:15AM[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;25170318]The form of government you choose as "the best" is based upon your preconceived notion of what is most important. There is no "right" or "truth".[/QUOTE] Hey, Rin sees his view point as objective, so he's obviously totally right in his view point, because that's subjective. But that'll go over his head.

[QUOTE=RinVII;25170135]Agreed on the fiscal conservatism. However I do believe the health care act is a huge example of taxation without representation. Do you remember voting on it? Socialized health care is straight up Canada shit yo and we all know what Canada's like. Inb4 livings condition/gdp[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.offexploring.com/journal/region_images/canada_ontario_toronto_canada.jpg[/img] [B][I][U] THE HORROR[/U][/I][/B]

Thatsthejoke.jpg

[QUOTE=RinVII;25170396]Thatsthejoke.jpg[/QUOTE] oh im sorry you just set the bar for incredulity so high with your "taxation without representation" jargon that it became impossible for me to notice your sarcasm.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25170429]oh im sorry you just set the bar for incredulity so high with your "taxation without representation" jargon that it became impossible for me to notice your sarcasm.[/QUOTE] When someone fails with a point, they often go with stupid sarcasm that just fails.

00:29 He's got his rape face on.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25170278] Yeah, that's a cool horror story, where'd he live? Yellowknife? [/QUOTE] Hey, fuck you. :C Yellowknife is cool, and our doctors are fine. I lived there for 10 years, dammit.

[QUOTE=Libertas;25170639]Hey, fuck you. :C Yellowknife is cool, and our doctors are fine. I lived there for 10 years, dammit.[/QUOTE] I literally never thought I'd see the day a yellowknife jab would come back after me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25170658]I literally never thought I'd see the day a yellowknife jab would come back after me.[/QUOTE] Welcome to Facepunch, enjoy your stay.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25170658]I literally never thought I'd see the day a yellowknife jab would come back after me.[/QUOTE] Now you know the feeling I had when I was accosted by that fellow from Butfuc Kansas.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25170676]Now you know the feeling I had when I was accosted by that fellow from Butfuc Kansas.[/QUOTE] I'm so happy you reminded me about that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25170676]Now you know the feeling I had when I was accosted by that fellow from Butfuc Kansas.[/QUOTE] I'd ask for a link, but after almost two years, I know better :S

[QUOTE=Libertas;25170724]I'd ask for a link, but after almost two years, I know better :S[/QUOTE] He was quite cross, apparently I mispronounced it "But-Fous". The Butfucans are a proud lot, I gather. Anyway, enough of that! Republicans bad, Democrats good!

REAGAN SMASH. And all that jazz.

Wait, can't a system of governance/politics be judged at least somewhat objectively based on how good the results it turns out are? I know we each have our own definitions of what's important and what would constitute a good or bad thing in governance and policy but there are pretty objective general things that a government can accomplish that anyone in their right mind regardless of political preference or affiliation would think of as good. Objective things like lower mortality rates, increased overall lifespan, increased levels of population happiness, small class divide between the rich and the poor, reduced levels of poverty in urban areas etc. All these things can be measured, and often are in polls of national statistics and that sort of thing. And all of the above things and more are (or can be) the direct result of the implementation of certain political policies are they not? Who would honestly argue that any of the above are bad things? If a policy is implemented that works, then you can't really argue with the results. I would very much like to hear a response to this, if anybody has one. Do I have this all wrong? Am I somehow crazy? I say this not to corroborate Rin mind you, in fact I heavily disagree with him.

[QUOTE=Lithe;25171667]Wait, can't a system of governance/politics be judged at least somewhat objectively based on how good the results it turns out are? I know we each have our own definitions of what's important and what would constitute a good or bad thing in governance and policy but there are pretty objective general things that a government can accomplish that anyone in their right mind regardless of political preference or affiliation would think of as good. Objective things like lower mortality rates, increased overall lifespan, increased levels of population happiness, small class divide between the rich and the poor, reduced levels of poverty in urban areas etc. All these things can be measured, and often are in polls of national statistics and that sort of thing. And all of the above things and more are (or can be) the direct result of the implementation of certain political policies are they not? Who would honestly argue that any of the above are bad things? If a policy is implemented that works, then you can't really argue with the results. I would very much like to hear a response to this, if anybody has one. Do I have this all wrong? Am I somehow crazy?[/QUOTE] If it really was possible, don't you think the fact that the Scanadavian countries are happier, better moral, healthier, and a multitude of other features we consider to be vital to human life would be touted everywhere? No, republicans and conservatives who are aware of their success STILL say "Nope, bad countries" due to the fact they just disagree with it. To them, a country needs different rules.

That seems to me just Rin and people like him not being able to admit that the facts in fact stand against their preconceived viewpoint. The information hasn't changed, only their reaction to it. If he had the facts to back up his viewpoint, then why not try to argue them here and present why he believes what he believes the best he can? I think he believes things for a reason, and that reason can be good or bad. If it's a good reason, like if his arguments hold intellectual water or are firmly grounded in reality then that's more for his case. If it's a bad reason, then it's evidence towards him being deluded or ideologically invested in some way.

[QUOTE=Lithe;25171730]That seems to me just Rin and people like him not being able to admit that the facts in fact stand against their preconceived viewpoint. The information hasn't changed, only their reaction to it. If he had the facts to back up his viewpoint, then why not try to argue them here and present why he believes what he believes the best he can? I think he believes things for a reason, and that reason can be good or bad. If it's a good reason, like if his arguments hold intellectual water or are firmly grounded in reality then that's more for his case. If it's a bad reason, then it's evidence towards him being deluded or ideologically invested in some way.[/QUOTE] He argues them the best he can, it just turns out that he argues somewhat like a handicaped kid in a china store with marbles on the floor. He just breaks everything and says nothing that makes any sense in his attempts to stay balanced.

True, which leads me to believe he has no good reasons for his beliefs. I re-read what he said over the past few pages, and it's mostly debased assertions and meaningless Randian fanboy shit. But that's not what I'm concerned with. He says that reality exists independently from your perceptions or mine, which is his way of saying "I'm right no matter what you say" but I digress. My point is, he thinks there are objectively better ways to run a society. Given that belief (if he does truly believe that), wouldn't he be a fan of Sweden and such instead of a Randian acolyte? Also, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Liberals and Progressives, at least by the standards of the era. They were also not Christian, the majority of them being at most deists, and a few being outright Atheists. The whole Republicans-Democrats swap happened if I can remember correctly with the great American political upset of election year 1948. The Democratic nominee ran his campaign on a platform of Civil Rights which at the time shook things up and basically ended up with Republicans going to the Democrats and Democrats going over to the Republicans. The Democrats were originally a Southern party I think, advocating things like States rights and a support for Slavery and the like. Not 100% certain on these things, my American histories class, though headed by an unforgettable and vocal teacher, was a while ago.

[QUOTE=Lithe;25171667]Wait, can't a system of governance/politics be judged at least somewhat objectively based on how good the results it turns out are? I know we each have our own definitions of what's important and what would constitute a good or bad thing in governance and policy but there are pretty objective general things that a government can accomplish that anyone in their right mind regardless of political preference or affiliation would think of as good. Objective things like lower mortality rates, increased overall lifespan, increased levels of population happiness, small class divide between the rich and the poor, reduced levels of poverty in urban areas etc. All these things can be measured, and often are in polls of national statistics and that sort of thing. And all of the above things and more are (or can be) the direct result of the implementation of certain political policies are they not? Who would honestly argue that any of the above are bad things? If a policy is implemented that works, then you can't really argue with the results. I would very much like to hear a response to this, if anybody has one. Do I have this all wrong? Am I somehow crazy? I say this not to corroborate Rin mind you, in fact I heavily disagree with him.[/QUOTE] If we had found the "best" form of government which lead to the good treatment of [b]all[/b] individuals we would no doubt be using that one. When i say good treatment i mean that, not best results, not gifts from the government and not even freedom, not everyone agrees that your "best results" result in the best government. That too, is subjective. Some would rather sacrifice some things to receive more of another. What you define as good results is tainted, too. [QUOTE=Lithe;25172112] Also, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Liberals and Progressives, at least by the standards of the era. They were also not Christian, the majority of them being at most deists, and a few being outright Atheists. [/QUOTE] Another misconception, [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1008558]check out this thread on the Tea Party here[/url], where we discussed the same matter. (I speak about their political beliefs and not their belief in a deity, personally, i don't care what people believe. It is when you try to force me to conform to your beliefs that i am bothered.)

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;25161476]Guess who's not invited to the Christmas party[/QUOTE] But he's the party pooper.

Not necessarily, although I kind of know what you mean. If a governing system made it so that things were not fair and stacked a few people at the top with most of the wealth, then in that case yes I could understand that those people would want to keep things that way. But that's rather transparent. Maybe it's my fault because it's late that I cant at this moment come up with something better, a subtler and more nuanced example, so please do so if you could. Also I sometimes find it hard to read and understand your posts s0biet. Not for the spelling, rather for the grammar and sentence structure. Besides, I believe we were talking about different things. The numbers reported from national statistics and humanitarian organizations, those are pretty objective. The system that brings good objective results like that around would therefore be widely considered to be a good system. There is not a person out there that has reasonably functioning mental faculties that would not say that national happiness and prosperity are bad things. They might disagree with the ways that the system achieved those things, but the results are pretty damn hard to dispute. Also, the founding fathers' position at the head of the war for independence against the British define them as progressives. Oh, and the Great Emancipator? That guy was pretty forward-thinking what with all that slave emancipation, even though he owned some.

[QUOTE=Lithe;25176147]Not necessarily, although I kind of know what you mean. If a governing system made it so that things were not fair and stacked a few people at the top with most of the wealth, then in that case yes I could understand that those people would want to keep things that way. But that's rather transparent. Maybe it's my fault because it's late that I cant at this moment come up with something better, a subtler and more nuanced example, so please do so if you could. Also I sometimes find it hard to read and understand your posts s0biet. Not for the spelling, rather for the grammar and sentence structure. Besides, I believe we were talking about different things. The numbers reported from national statistics and humanitarian organizations, those are pretty objective. The system that brings good objective results like that around would therefore be widely considered to be a good system. There is not a person out there that has reasonably functioning mental faculties that would not say that national happiness and prosperity are bad things. They might disagree with the ways that the system achieved those things, but the results are pretty damn hard to dispute. Also, the founding fathers' position at the head of the war for independence against the British define them as progressives. Oh, and the Great Emancipator? That guy was pretty forward-thinking what with all that slave emancipation, even though he owned some.[/QUOTE] The definition of "Liberal" back then is not even close to what you think it means today, I doubt you would see them call themselves progressives though. Ye Olde definition of "Liberal" was more akin to that of today's "Libertarian" party members. Freedom for all, Free market for all. [QUOTE=Lithe;25176147]Not necessarily, although I kind of know what you mean. If a governing system made it so that things were not fair and stacked a few people at the top with most of the wealth, then in that case yes I could understand that those people would want to keep things that way. But that's rather transparent. Maybe it's my fault because it's late that I cant at this moment come up with something better, a subtler and more nuanced example, so please do so if you could.[/quote] That's not the only instance i mean though. I speak of some people preferring to give up rights so that they may be safe, or so that the poor may eat. Not everyone wants to make that sacrifice or they disagree on how it could be better handled. Some people would choose to give up years of their lives to smoke or to eat in a more gluttonous fashion. Things that are important to you aren't always important to others. You have to remember that because humans have a habit of surrounding themselves with like minded individuals and rarely peek into the psyche of others, and when they do they become alienated. Like the despise you no doubt feel for Republicans and the despise they no doubt feel for you. [QUOTE=Lithe;25176147]Also I sometimes find it hard to read and understand your posts s0biet. [/quote] Heh, yeah, i often edit my posts many times to portray my thoughts elegantly and easily. The first revision is not always the best read, as seen in TH89's quote above (in contrast to the content it contains now). [QUOTE=Lithe;25176147] Also, the founding fathers' position at the head of the war for independence against the British define them as progressives. Oh, and the Great Emancipator? That guy was pretty forward-thinking what with all that slave emancipation, even though he owned some.[/QUOTE] Thomas Jefferson denounced the slave trade in his first "draft" of the Declaration of Independence, he freed his slaves when he died and was rumored to have had sexual relations with his slave to the point where she bore children. He was about as anti-modern-liberal as you could possibly be. Borderline Anarchist.