MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, October 31, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 33.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

The Immigration Debate

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby pjbogart » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:08 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
snoqueen wrote:About certain things, I am with you more often than probably anyone else who writes here.

I used to have a lot more sympathy for many libertarian arguments until I started trying to have rational conversations about them with our resident libertidiot. Arturo has done more to convince me that it's a dead-end political philosophy than any other single factor. I never want to be as horrible of a person, nor as disconnected from reality as he seems.


I second that remark. I used to feel a bit more cozy with Libertarians than Republicans, but the Great Bandini has taught me time and time again that his philosophy is little more than mental masturbation. It's all theory and idealism, if you ever pull him out of his endless rhetorical arguments. If you wanted to buy a small island and fill it with only approved citizens, you might make Libertarianism work... might. But we don't have that luxury, we have to deal with all of the citizens, and most of us aren't willing to watch people starve in the streets just so Arturo can keep his lovely, lovely money.

When you really break down the Randian philosophy, it's nothing more than an attempt to feel good about being incredibly greedy. Life's too short to be an insufferable cockmunch.

Or as Doppel would call it, a douche.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:09 pm

snoqueen wrote:Same goes for a few other topics. Still, I believe we will always have a government, we might as well have one we can participate in and help run, and that government can be a force for good. So somewhere in between the marriage thing and that global statement, we part company.
But I thought we agree on the global open-borders thing, at least conceptually? I was just pointing out that Europe is not the model of civil freedoms that many people think it is.

Government can be a force for good in the pursuit of the protection of inherent/negative rights. However, in the areas we are talking about, government is actively violating your negative rights. Without government efforts to intervene, gays could marry and people could migrate freely without legal interference. Government should be protecting your freedoms, not violating them. I recognize that, in many areas, our government does protect our freedoms, and I'm thankful for that.

We'll probably always have a government of some form, sure. But I see this differently than you do; consider that we'll also always have disease, violence, and evil people, at least to some degree. It may be impractical or impossible to fully eradicate these things, but that doesn't mean that we should embrace them as positive components of society.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:22 pm

pjbogart wrote:I second that remark. I used to feel a bit more cozy with Libertarians than Republicans
There are lots of different ways that people approach libertarianism (small "L"), you don't have to choose between D, R and ArturoBandini's libertarianism - we can disagree and you can still say that you have libertarian opinions, I'm fine with that.
pjbogart wrote:But we don't have that luxury, we have to deal with all of the citizens, and most of us aren't willing to watch people starve in the streets just so Arturo can keep his lovely, lovely money.
Keeping my money is not the point. The point is creating as much wealth as possible for everyone.
Regarding people starving in the streets - which nations have more people actually starving in the streets - capitalist nations, or those having collectivist/redistributivist governments?
pjbogart wrote:When you really break down the Randian philosophy, it's nothing more than an attempt to feel good about being incredibly greedy.
Rand hated libertarians, but I'm sure you already knew that. I pick and choose tidbits from Rand in my personal opinions, but overall she is not a significant influence on my worldview.
pjbogart wrote:Life's too short to be an insufferable cockmunch.
I LOL'ed*.

*edit: Since I called out someone on this before and there's nothing that bothers me more than logical inconsistency: "cockmunch" is homophobic, don't use it as an insult. Do you have a problem with people who munch cock?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:25 pm

pjbogart wrote: If you wanted to buy a small island and fill it with only approved citizens, you might make Libertarianism work... might.

Coincidentally...
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Bland » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:00 pm

ArturoBandini wrote: Since I called out someone on this before and there's nothing that bothers me more than logical inconsistency: "cockmunch" is homophobic, don't use it as an insult. Do you have a problem with people who munch cock?

I see the problem. You are lookin gfor logical consistency in the English language. Good luck with that.
I mean, when someone says "you're an asshole" (something I imagine you hear quite a lot) do you actually believe they are attempting to accurately describe your appearance or function? When someone calls you a "dickhead" (see previous parenthetical) do you honestly think what they mean is that you have a penis where your skull should be? When someone suggests that you are a "dipshit" (I'll stop now) do you think they are..... well, I don't know how you would interpret that one, but hopefully by now you see my point. Because when pj calls doppel a "douche", I don't think he means that doppel literally flushes vaginas, do you?

Insults are a colorful, slangy part of language and are not meant to be taken literally. And any fartlicker who isn't a total fuck-knob knows this, ya moose-witted camelhumper.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:03 pm

Bland wrote:I see the problem. You are lookin gfor logical consistency in the English language.
No, I am trying to achieve logical consistency in my interpretation of the language of others. If using the word "faggot" as an insult is wrong (it is), then so is calling them a "cock muncher" or "cocksucker". To give further examples, I think the same goes for misogynist insults like "cunt" or "twat", whether directed at males or females.
Bland wrote:I mean, when someone says "you're an asshole" (something I imagine you hear quite a lot) do you actually believe they are attempting to accurately describe your appearance or function? When someone calls you a "dickhead" (see previous parenthetical) do you honestly think what they mean is that you have a penis where your skull should be? When someone suggests that you are a "dipshit" (I'll stop now) do you think they are..... well, I don't know how you would interpret that one, but hopefully by now you see my point. Because when pj calls doppel a "douche", I don't think he means that doppel literally flushes vaginas, do you?
The issue is not whether the insulter is making a literal comparison to inanimate (douches) or animate (cocksuckers) objects, but rather the negative value ascribed to those words when used as an insult. It's not that much of a problem because literal douche bags and dipshits don't have feelings or social status to degrade, but human beings do. When you call someone a "faggot" as an insult, it's implicit in that statement that being a homosexual is a bad thing. The same reasoning applies for terms related to fellators, whether male or female.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:19 am

I think it's absolutely adorable that Arturo cares about people's feelings being hurt because of insulting language, but not whether those same people have access to food, healthcare, jobs, housing, the internet, postal service, highways, and all the other things his douchey social theories would deny them.

But at least he's logically consistent.

Of course, there's absolutely no reason why anyone should actually listen to his pleas for more sensitive language, as the last thing he would ever do is try to compel people to do anything they don't feel like doing.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Mad Howler » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:58 am

Bland wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote: Since I called out someone on this before and there's nothing that bothers me more than logical inconsistency: "cockmunch" is homophobic, don't use it as an insult. Do you have a problem with people who munch cock?

I see the problem. You are lookin for logical consistency in the English language. Good luck with that.
I mean, when someone says "you're an asshole" (something I imagine you hear quite a lot) do you actually believe they are attempting to accurately describe your appearance or function? When someone calls you a "dickhead" (see previous parenthetical) do you honestly think what they mean is that you have a penis where your skull should be? When someone suggests that you are a "dipshit" (I'll stop now) do you think they are..... well, I don't know how you would interpret that one, but hopefully by now you see my point. Because when pj calls doppel a "douche", I don't think he means that doppel literally flushes vaginas, do you?

Insults are a colorful, slangy part of language and are not meant to be taken literally. And any fartlicker who isn't a total fuck-knob knows this, ya moose-witted camelhumper.


As a first generation United States citizen, I like the above. Immigrant babies such as I may be kind of weird, but I know where I am. And, thank you Bland for pointing something out somewhere else and in the past. Your advice may not nessessary be working, yet, for me. Although I am aware that has nothing to do with being a newbie. It's probably just the Canadian in me, ya know 'we're kind of slow, ehh?'.

MH

p.s. - piss off dumb dumbs.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:57 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:I think it's absolutely adorable that Arturo cares about people's feelings being hurt because of insulting language, but not whether those same people have access to food, healthcare, jobs, housing, the internet, postal service, highways, and all the other things his douchey social theories would deny them.
You are arguing in bad faith. I care whether people have decent lives (all the things you described), but I disagree on what's the best way to get there.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Of course, there's absolutely no reason why anyone should actually listen to his pleas for more sensitive language, as the last thing he would ever do is try to compel people to do anything they don't feel like doing.
Persuasion is not compulsion.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby snoqueen » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:32 pm

I care whether people have decent lives (all the things you described), but I disagree on what's the best way to get there.


Unfortunately, I get the impression you think tough, strong, smart people ought to get decent lives, but sick, weak, less smart, unlucky, uninformed, or otherwise disadvantaged people are pretty much on their own and can sink or swim.

I don't think this is the way to run a society where we generally do have adequate resources and are basically working out the questions of their distribution.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11660
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:07 pm

snoqueen wrote:Unfortunately, I get the impression you think tough, strong, smart people ought to get decent lives, but sick, weak, less smart, unlucky, uninformed, or otherwise disadvantaged people are pretty much on their own and can sink or swim.
Simply put, you have the wrong impression.
snoqueen wrote:I don't think this is the way to run a society where we generally do have adequate resources and are basically working out the questions of their distribution.
I know that this wasn't your main point, but I want to point out that your implicit assertion that we have "adequate resources" is a fallacy. In general, scarcity is an inescapable condition of material reality. There will never be enough resources, natural, human, capital, or otherwise, to satisfy all needs or wants. I'll concede that "scarcity" is more suitably the converse of "abundance", not "adequacy", and that "adequate" is somewhere in the middle. However, "adequacy" is entirely subjective, based on whatever goal you're trying to achieve.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby rabble » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:58 pm

ArturoBandini wrote: I want to point out that your implicit assertion that we have "adequate resources" is a fallacy. In general, scarcity is an inescapable condition of material reality. There will never be enough resources, natural, human, capital, or otherwise, to satisfy all needs or wants..

Except there is.
Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That's enough to feed 10 billion people, the population peak we expect by 2050. But the people making less than $2 a day -- most of whom are resource-poor farmers cultivating unviably small plots of land -- can't afford to buy this food.

In reality, the bulk of industrially-produced grain crops goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the 1 billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people.

They aren't starving because food is scarce. They're starving because the profit's better elsewhere.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6316
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Mad Howler » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:13 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I know that this wasn't your main point, but I want to point out that your implicit assertion that we have "adequate resources" is a fallacy. In general, scarcity is an inescapable condition of material reality. There will never be enough resources, natural, human, capital, or otherwise, to satisfy all needs or wants. I'll concede that "scarcity" is more suitably the converse of "abundance", not "adequacy", and that "adequate" is somewhere in the middle. However, "adequacy" is entirely subjective, based on whatever goal you're trying to achieve.


OK 'Uncle Milton' keep drilling down on that notion an see where it gets ya. Your point advances a critical discussion that hasn't seen serious attention for roughly half a century.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Sandi » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:23 pm

No inequality has nothing to do with it. The only equality to be concerned with is equality of opportunity in education and non-discrimination.

The left likes to push financial equality, but free men and women are not equal, and equal men and women are not free.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby DCB » Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:30 pm

rabble wrote:They aren't starving because food is scarce. They're starving because the profit's better elsewhere.

I'd gladly share my food with the starving persons. If you make it worth my while, of course.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar