Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Conservatism is my salvation from 'Neurotypical oppression'

Page 4 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

16 Apr 2017, 11:27 pm

SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
And this still doesn't have anything to do with NTs putting Aspies down.

Well-intentioned, neurotypical people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Well-intentioned liberal people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Two peas of the same pod wanting to control behaviors that they see as wrong.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people. If you mean the gun law, that applied to extremely mentally ill people, ones on the level of children mentally. Do you also think children should be able to own guns? For the record, I don't support a blanket gun ban, nor do most liberals. But I also don't think giving people the right to do something that is extremely likely to harm themselves in "sticking up" for them.

A recent liberal invention is the "soda tax".

Fat liberals like to lecture people about how they should eat.

So, these fat liberals put a tax on your food, in the wisdom that you will "wise up" and eat how they eat.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people.

And your constant straw manning is making you look really disingenuous. I'm starting to doubt that you are a serious poster.

The soda tax is intended to control people from drinking soda.

I thought that was clear.

The liberals who propose it tell us that it will have its intended effect of controlling behavior, and as such, will reduce obesity rates.

However, this is just one example from a mountain of regulations.



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 Apr 2017, 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ignotum
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 197
Location: Tennessee

16 Apr 2017, 11:31 pm

My point was that it is necessary for the government to have some control, and that not all of that control is harmful. I was trying my best not to bring liberals or partisanship into the debate. As to everything else, as I mentioned when it comes to government intervention causing harm, I feel it is the duty of the active citizen to protest or spread the information of said harm around. However, while harm can be caused by the points you mentioned, I still feel that the overall benefit outweighs the harm for each occasion. As for the coal regulations, the threat of climate change is very clear and imminent, so I think that it necessitates action, even if it ends in jobs lossed (keep in mind that, also, more jobs would be created due to the need for more clean energy). As for the gun regulations, incidents such as those are quite minor when compared to the effect that would be caused by its repeal, that is, thousands of criminals getting access to firearms. As for the airbags, it is estimated by these statistics that about 70 times as many people are saved by airbags than killed by them (18,319 : 262), so I will agree however that the airbags are quite harmful, but perhaps a better solution than simply removing them might be for the government to allocate resources in order to create airbags that are safer than the current ones.

So, in short, not everything the government does is necessarily good, but a calm inspection of risks versus rewards, and direct action if the risks outweigh the rewards, seems the best course to take.

P.S.: I'll be going to bed after this post, so I wont be able to reply until tomorrow, unfortunately. I do admit however that this debate thing is quite fun! Good to give one's mental faculties some exercise with a good argument every now and then.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

16 Apr 2017, 11:33 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
And this still doesn't have anything to do with NTs putting Aspies down.

Well-intentioned, neurotypical people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Well-intentioned liberal people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Two peas of the same pod wanting to control behaviors that they see as wrong.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people. If you mean the gun law, that applied to extremely mentally ill people, ones on the level of children mentally. Do you also think children should be able to own guns? For the record, I don't support a blanket gun ban, nor do most liberals. But I also don't think giving people the right to do something that is extremely likely to harm themselves in "sticking up" for them.

A recent liberal invention is the "soda tax".

Fat liberals like to lecture people about how they should eat.

So, these fat liberals put a tax on your food, in the wisdom that you will "wise up" and eat how they eat.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people.

And your constant straw manning is making you look really disingenuous. I'm starting to doubt that you are a serious poster.

The soda tax is intended to control people from drinking soda.

I thought that was clear.

The liberals who propose it tell us that it will have its intended effect of controlling behavior, and as such, will reduce obesity rates.

However, this is just one example from a mountain of regulations.

Another good example, the liberals fight violently against school vouchers for ASD schools.

They have control of the schools, and they fight hard before they relinquish it.



Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 Apr 2017, 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ignotum
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 197
Location: Tennessee

16 Apr 2017, 11:34 pm

Oh dear! I seemed to have moved the topic totally away from ND's and into political science I see. How inconsiderate of me :P



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Apr 2017, 11:53 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
Uh, saying something like the examples you listed to an Aspie isn't unique to liberals. Or conservatives for that matter. I have no idea what gave you that impression.

In the US, generally, liberals promote the idea of using government to control people's lives.

While generally, conservatives promote the idea of less taxes, less government, free markets, individualism.


Yeah, I know (although I'd argue the way you put it is a straw man), I'd say I know more about politics than 99+% of the US population. It's just the things you said aren't examples of government intervention. If anything I think people on the spectrum should trend towards liberal policies because liberals are more tolerant and supportive of diversity and minorities, including the disabled and differently-abled. FYI, liberals support government making economic interventions but not interventions into people's personal lives. Conservatives supporting government intervention in personal lives but not the economy. You've got it backwards.

In the US, liberals are fond of regulations that control people's behavior.

For example, liberals pass regulations to control people's health care, the banking sector, the gun industry, the auto industry, the oil industry , employment relations ....

Liberals want to control every aspect of your life.

Now conservatives want to eliminate these regulations.

For example, Donald Trump passed an executive order to eliminate two regulations for each new one. Liberals are not happy about losing control though.


Yeah as far as donald trump is concerned all federal lands should be given up to fracking and coal mining, but tons of people disagree with that. Also how does regulations on gun ownership and whatever you're talking about with the banking sector which is corrupt as hell(use a credit union if you have any sense). translate to controlling behavior while trying to prevent abortions, cracking down on legal marijuana states when at least 52% of the poplation thinks it should be legal, fighting gay marrige ect, doesn't?????


_________________
We won't go back.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Apr 2017, 1:36 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
And this still doesn't have anything to do with NTs putting Aspies down.

Well-intentioned, neurotypical people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Well-intentioned liberal people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Two peas of the same pod wanting to control behaviors that they see as wrong.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people. If you mean the gun law, that applied to extremely mentally ill people, ones on the level of children mentally. Do you also think children should be able to own guns? For the record, I don't support a blanket gun ban, nor do most liberals. But I also don't think giving people the right to do something that is extremely likely to harm themselves in "sticking up" for them.

A recent liberal invention is the "soda tax".

Fat liberals like to lecture people about how they should eat.

So, these fat liberals put a tax on your food, in the wisdom that you will "wise up" and eat how they eat.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people.

And your constant straw manning is making you look really disingenuous. I'm starting to doubt that you are a serious poster.

The soda tax is intended to control people from drinking soda.

I thought that was clear.

The liberals who propose it tell us that it will have its intended effect of controlling behavior, and as such, will reduce obesity rates.

However, this is just one example from a mountain of regulations.


No, it's just a means of raising revenue, as Republicans have cut taxes for the rich, leaving the rest of the country to find another means of raising money for the public good.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


SpreadsheetMaster
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Apr 2017
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 129
Location: Seattle WA

17 Apr 2017, 7:50 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
And this still doesn't have anything to do with NTs putting Aspies down.

Well-intentioned, neurotypical people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Well-intentioned liberal people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Two peas of the same pod wanting to control behaviors that they see as wrong.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people. If you mean the gun law, that applied to extremely mentally ill people, ones on the level of children mentally. Do you also think children should be able to own guns? For the record, I don't support a blanket gun ban, nor do most liberals. But I also don't think giving people the right to do something that is extremely likely to harm themselves in "sticking up" for them.

A recent liberal invention is the "soda tax".

Fat liberals like to lecture people about how they should eat.

So, these fat liberals put a tax on your food, in the wisdom that you will "wise up" and eat how they eat.


Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people.

And your constant straw manning is making you look really disingenuous. I'm starting to doubt that you are a serious poster.

The soda tax is intended to control people from drinking soda.

I thought that was clear.

The liberals who propose it tell us that it will have its intended effect of controlling behavior, and as such, will reduce obesity rates.

However, this is just one example from a mountain of regulations.

Another good example, the liberals fight violently against school vouchers for ASD schools.

They have control of the schools, and they fight hard before they relinquish it.


For your first post, I am sure you are aware that drinking soda is not something unique to ASD people. For this, vouchers are yet another way to screw over the poor. They often don't cover the full cost of education and parents are expected to make up the difference.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

17 Apr 2017, 10:01 am

There is a tax on cigs and booze,so why not a soda tax?How do you know the liberals that proposed this are fat?
I also think that sodas should not be purchased with food stamp funds.Soda isn't a food group.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

17 Apr 2017, 2:18 pm

A pretty simplistic view of liberty is being presented here. It is childish to presume that getting rid of laws will automatically make people more free. It will simply change who is able to control others.

For example, laws making it more expensive to run coal mines, and requiring that coal burning is relatively clean, prevent coal companies from dirtying the air and killing people, as well as combatting global warming. They increase freedom for most people by stopping coal companies from trampling over everyone else's freedom. You can cry and whine about your freedom to ruin other people's lives being taken away, but morally you never had that freedom. It's good for liberty that we have laws discouraging pollution, and that's why liberals support it. The clue is in the name.

Similarly, take healthcare. It's all very well and good saying that "keeping the government out of it" gives people "more choice", but that's entirely illusionary. If the poor cannot afford healthcare, then they don't have a choice. Make healthcare free by getting the wealthy to pay for it, and everyone has a choice. If you don't have the choice to get healthcare, then you lose out in other ways, too: you lose the ability to perform to your best and pursue opportunities. If you can just about afford it if you take a huge loan, then again, you lose your freedom: you are forced to take a loan and pay it off for years, depriving you of your liberty. America is a clear case of the free market failing when it comes to healthcare. Properly-funded government healthcare would increase everyone's liberty.

Usually, of course, people are perfectly capable of making decisions in their own best interests, and the government should keep its nose out. Free markets are great and government intervention can very easily go south. But the truth is that sometimes it is necessary for the government to intervene in order to protect freedom.



SpreadsheetMaster
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 3 Apr 2017
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 129
Location: Seattle WA

17 Apr 2017, 2:58 pm

Yeah, I don't think OP gets that one person's rights end where another's rights begin.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Apr 2017, 3:09 pm

SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
Yeah, I don't think OP gets that one person's rights end where another's rights begin.


This is the conservative mindset.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

17 Apr 2017, 4:29 pm

Misslizard wrote:
There is a tax on cigs and booze,so why not a soda tax?How do you know the liberals that proposed this are fat?
I also think that sodas should not be purchased with food stamp funds.Soda isn't a food group.


Soda is useless. It's also your inalienable right but please just don't buy it. Buy someone a drink instead maybe.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Apr 2017, 4:30 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
A pretty simplistic view of liberty is being presented here. It is childish to presume that getting rid of laws will automatically make people more free. It will simply change who is able to control others.

For example, laws making it more expensive to run coal mines, and requiring that coal burning is relatively clean, prevent coal companies from dirtying the air and killing people, as well as combatting global warming. They increase freedom for most people by stopping coal companies from trampling over everyone else's freedom. You can cry and whine about your freedom to ruin other people's lives being taken away, but morally you never had that freedom. It's good for liberty that we have laws discouraging pollution, and that's why liberals support it. The clue is in the name.

Similarly, take healthcare. It's all very well and good saying that "keeping the government out of it" gives people "more choice", but that's entirely illusionary. If the poor cannot afford healthcare, then they don't have a choice. Make healthcare free by getting the wealthy to pay for it, and everyone has a choice. If you don't have the choice to get healthcare, then you lose out in other ways, too: you lose the ability to perform to your best and pursue opportunities. If you can just about afford it if you take a huge loan, then again, you lose your freedom: you are forced to take a loan and pay it off for years, depriving you of your liberty. America is a clear case of the free market failing when it comes to healthcare. Properly-funded government healthcare would increase everyone's liberty.

Usually, of course, people are perfectly capable of making decisions in their own best interests, and the government should keep its nose out. Free markets are great and government intervention can very easily go south. But the truth is that sometimes it is necessary for the government to intervene in order to protect freedom.


This. ^^^^


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Apr 2017, 4:31 pm

cberg wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
There is a tax on cigs and booze,so why not a soda tax?How do you know the liberals that proposed this are fat?
I also think that sodas should not be purchased with food stamp funds.Soda isn't a food group.


Soda is useless. It's also your inalienable right but please just don't buy it. Buy someone a drink instead maybe.


I like Diet Coke; therefore, I will continue to buy it.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

17 Apr 2017, 11:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
SpreadsheetMaster wrote:
Uh, saying something like the examples you listed to an Aspie isn't unique to liberals. Or conservatives for that matter. I have no idea what gave you that impression.

In the US, generally, liberals promote the idea of using government to control people's lives.

While generally, conservatives promote the idea of less taxes, less government, free markets, individualism.


Yeah, I know (although I'd argue the way you put it is a straw man), I'd say I know more about politics than 99+% of the US population. It's just the things you said aren't examples of government intervention. If anything I think people on the spectrum should trend towards liberal policies because liberals are more tolerant and supportive of diversity and minorities, including the disabled and differently-abled. FYI, liberals support government making economic interventions but not interventions into people's personal lives. Conservatives supporting government intervention in personal lives but not the economy. You've got it backwards.

In the US, liberals are fond of regulations that control people's behavior.

For example, liberals pass regulations to control people's health care, the banking sector, the gun industry, the auto industry, the oil industry , employment relations ....

Liberals want to control every aspect of your life.

Now conservatives want to eliminate these regulations.

For example, Donald Trump passed an executive order to eliminate two regulations for each new one. Liberals are not happy about losing control though.


Yeah as far as donald trump is concerned all federal lands should be given up to fracking and coal mining, but tons of people disagree with that. Also how does regulations on gun ownership and whatever you're talking about with the banking sector which is corrupt as hell(use a credit union if you have any sense). translate to controlling behavior while trying to prevent abortions, cracking down on legal marijuana states when at least 52% of the poplation thinks it should be legal, fighting gay marrige ect, doesn't?????


1. Abortion - conservatives view it as murder ... It seems like murder to me too, if there is a heart beat.

2. Drugs - the attitudes towards marijuana is changing

Millenial conservatives support legalized marijuana by 71%

Image

3. Gay marriage
Again attitudes are changing
Image



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Apr 2017, 6:59 am

The_Walrus wrote:
If the poor cannot afford healthcare, then they don't have a choice.

Right.

Yet, at least they're free from coercion, which is what this topic is about.

We see this in US health care where the left wing Democrats mandated that people buy health insurance, while the conservatives fight for freedom from the very unpopular mandate.