advocates social contract theory
becomes incensed over victim-blaming
advocates social contract theory
becomes incensed over victim-blaming
Not mad, just disappointed.
Gosh, I see those on cars all over the place. It’s like it’s some kind of point of pride for liberals to slap one on their car. Nevermind that they’re depreciating the vehicle—it’s important to them that everyone knows where they stand.
I agree. And I’d like to submit the following for you all. Show your support of Obama and have these printed so you can put them on the back of your car with pride.
Seriously. Seriously. Who of you is stupid enough to vote for this jackass in 2012? Anyone? Anyone?
One of my first posts was about this. Let’s get this straight: human rights =/= animal rights (where “animal rights = non-existent and “human rights” = existent). If you’re still at this stage in your reasoning, just reading up on the matter—and not smugly seeking rebuttal against your ethics 101 queries from anyone more informed than you until you have—will probably help you.
So I take it you’re opposed to child abuse laws? Remember: the principle is that child > fellow. It doesn’t work the other way around.
Actually, the thought experiment was originally formulated as a defense of abortion—you know, the Defense of Abortion. So you don’t really have much room to complain about intent here.
“Life doesn’t exist in hypotheticals?” Care to elaborate on that one, Rousseau?
OK, I’ll humor you. Even if pregnancy is a fetal infringement on a woman’s rights, does that necessarily mean she has the right to kill to be rid of it?
There’s a famous philosophical hypothetical called “The Famous Violinist.” It goes: a famous violinist is unconscious and in a coma. Doctors and music lovers everywhere decide that you’re the only one that can save him, by being hooked up to him for the next 9 months. And one night while you’re asleep, they break in and hook the violinist up to you. If you unhook him, he’ll die. He’s innocent in all this (he was unconscious, and therefore unknowing when it happened)—so the question is, are you morally justified in unhooking him (and therefore killing him) simply because you don’t wish to be burdened with this for the next 9 months?
Many would say yes. It’s not something you want, and his right to life doesn’t trump your liberty interest in not hosting him for 9 months. However, is that valid? The flipside of that coin is—a burdened right to liberty is better than a deprived right to life. Because let’s face it—the pregnancy is temporary and the abortion is permanent. Whose rights outweigh whose?
Try applying the theft argument as an excuse to stop caring for an extrautero product of your conjugal exertions and its absurdity will become clear. Consider the principle behind child abuse/neglect. We consider it a criminal offense to purposefully harm or refuse to care for your child. Now, obviously it’s not the same as having it physically attached to you—but caring for a child is kind of a pain in the ass. It’s a major upheaval in life that demands your time and energy and attention, and it taxes your health, autonomy, and finances. But, if you don’t do it—we consider that wrongful and offensive to the child’s rights. Pregnancy is similarly a pain in the ass. Now, obviously, the big flaw here is equating a child with a fetus. But for sake of argument, if they are the same, does the proximity of the child really matter in terms of the parental duty to care for one’s progeny?
Not that I’m accusing you of this, but it’s supremely ironic that this argument usually comes from proponents of affirmative duties—the sort who’ll call you a monster for not wanting your taxes going to welfare programs, or for valuing your own time over someone else’s safety. I’d like to see one of them try to justify that contradiction.
Theft entails that no consent was given, which, except in the case of rape (which accounts for less than 1% of all abortions), it was.
As an adjective. The word is also a noun. So I guess we’re both right (sort of).
I posted to a thread in a forum I visit this morning called “It’s the 4th of July.” The OP was just a one-line entry: “Who’s gonna blow some shit up?”
First, I feel compelled to mention that I never cared for fireworks. Whether they are huge shows over a monument, or a bunch of kids with some bottle rockets—it is just not my thing. Every time I think about fireworks on Independence Day, I am reminded of Apu’s remark to Homer Simpson: “Celebrate the independence of your nation by blowing up a small part of it!” It just seems stupid.
Anyway, I replied to the post:
Not me. That’s my least favorite aspect of Independence Day. BBQ’s and swimming pools. A celebration of independence. That’s what it’s all about.
Also, it annoys me when people call it “4th of July.” ENGLAND has a 4th of July. And a 5th of July, and a 6th of July.
I always wonder if the majority of Americans know why this day is so important. Wanna try something fun? Approach a stranger and ask him to hum the tune of the national anthem (or, hell, if they even know its name.)
Hell, for that matter, ask him/her what the day is named for.
That really does tick me off, by the way. It is called “Independence Day.” Not the “4th of July.” Respect the name, because the name identifies what it is about and how important it is.
Anyway, it really bothers me that so many Americans are so ignorant of their own culture and history. Oh sure, we will prattle on for days about respecting other cultures (especially ones in which they have ancestry)—but what about our own? We never seem to see that anymore.
But I set myself up an interesting little experiment there that I was eager to try out. If there’s one thing I never cease to get a kick out of, it is exposing people’s ignorance and stupidity, and making them feel really bad about themselves for being ignorant, stupid morons. And then ridiculing them afterwards.
So yesterday I recruited a buddy of mine to help me out. We went to a couple grocery stores to pick up fixin’s for the weekend’s poolside BBQ and then we would get in line and pretend to be conversing about the subject. Later, we also tried it on a few barflies at a local sports bar. I set it up real non-chalantly too, like, I was trying to remember it myself and it was on the tip of my tongue, so I was asking my friend. He would feign ignorance as well, which would give us cause to ask the person next to us (and the cashiers and bartenders). I asked a few people, “How does the National Anthem go? Like, I can’t even remember the tune. Do you know how it goes?” And then I would ask them, “Fuck, what’s the name of the National Anthem? Why can’t I remember that? God I feel stupid!”
We did this to about fifteen people. Boy, we got some interesting answers. Among the more pathetic and sadly hilarious were:
Only ONE person, an elderly man, knew the answer to both questions (and, as it happened, we spotted him getting in his car which had one of these on it.)
I mean, my god people. We sing this song before every professional (and, usually, every minor league and high school) sports game, virtually any time the Blue Angels do a flyby, most televised political ceremonies, and (at least when I was in grade/middle school) before school assemblies. How do people not know it? How do they not even know its name?
It is called “The Star-Spangled Banner.” And it starts, “O, say can you see, by the dawn’s early light….” Be honest (yeah, right)—how many of you actually knew that?
Oh well, all is not lost for this useless culture of mouthbreathing idiots. I was thoroughly impressed yesterday by a user, immigrant, and self-identified Blue Dogger (bet you don’t know what that means either without googling it) who remarked, “This is my adopted country. I could never have achieved what I have in my life were it not for the opportunities and values of American society.”
I’ve always said that immigrants, legal or not, are the best people in America. We all started that way, and we all came here because we knew it was a better place. Incredible how many people now show it disrespect and take it for granted.
Two-hundred and thirty-six years ago, a group of people representing thirteen colonies officially declared that they would no longer consent to being under the oppressive boot of a tyrant across the ocean. They declared that they were free, independent states—and that the people they represented, not just of this great nation, but of all nations, have unalienable rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
Do me a favor, Americans—before the BBQs and swimming pools, before the fireworks—sit down and read the Declaration of Independence. Listen to the National Anthem. It will take you ten minutes. Do it, and remember what this country is supposed to be about. Do it, and remember why this holiday is the most important holiday our country observes. Do it, and remember just exactly what it is you are celebrating. Your life, your liberty, your pursuit of happiness—your independence.
Failed Policies of the Past
Definition: Limited government, free markets, personal responsibility, liberty.
We Are All In This Together
Definition: For the love of God who do we tax back to the stone-age to get out of this!?
Definition: Any attempt by conservatives and libertarians to rein in the unsustainable spending of out of control government.
Definition: A word used to motivate making sure outcomes do not match abilities or effort. Note: pre-1970 usage meant roughly the opposite.
Definition: Redistribution based on group affiliation, regardless of anything the actual individuals in question did, or even their specific ancestors did, but instead based on the actions of other individuals in the past who just kind of looked vaguely like those in the relevant groups being discussed now, both victim and oppressor. Also applies to redistribution of any kind, whether based on actual unfairness, or on simply outcomes liberals do not like.
Alternative definition: Unspecific. Just a meaningless phrase that screams “I am liberal and this phrase sounds liberal and nice with just a hint of revolutionary sexiness.”
“Deny Access to…”
Used in a sentence: “It is unfair to deny access to healthcare to 26 year olds living off their parents.”
Definition: When a person isn’t given something they want for free, and they have not found a way to steal it yet, they have been “denied access” to it. In general it is the “1%” that “denies access.” See “1%” below.
Definition: Something provided by other men and women’s labor that some claim as their right, sometimes claiming to have paid for it during their lifetime, when all forms of modern mathematics and accounting reject that notion.
Used in a sentence: “I have a right to healthcare.”
Definition: A more extreme form of “entitlement” defined above. Note that modern usage throws out the long tradition of natural rights only of a negative nature, that is, the right not to have something done to you, for rights of a positive nature, that is, the right to certain goods and services, like health care, Apple products, and soy milk. Since, no matter how important these items are, these modern positive rights must still be produced and taken from others, essentially the word “rights” now often stands for a system of slavery and theft.
Definition: A place liberals used to ridicule as Mayberry but now pretend to love.
Definition: People who support me.
Definition: People who support you.
Definition: Something a politicians calls someone with 3x more money than the median voter who supported the politician in question.
Alternative Definition: Someone the same exact politician hits up for cash.
Definition: Those who pay more than 1/3 the total federal income tax and are never thanked for it. More generally, they are responsible for all evil in the world today (unless they work in Hollywood or hi-tech in which case they are “honorary 99%-ers” regardless of income, tax rate, and lifestyle).
Definition: A focus-group tested better word than “the poor” for progressives to use to advance their statist schemes. Some speeches by progressives now consist of just saying it over and over again in different hypnotic musical tones.
Definition: What occurs when a free and productive economy includes people with different abilities, work habits, and, of course, luck. Also, one of the main reasons anyone actually works at anything.
A Fair Tax System
Definition: One in which the “rich” (i.e., those making more than the speaker of these words, or those voting for the speaker) pay 50% more than they currently pay, and the speaker and his constituents get to pay 50% less than they currently pay. These figures remain unchanged despite any starting tax rates. If this change pushes the “rich” to over 100% or the non-rich to below 0% more the fairer.
Definition: The person living the ideal progressive life where no responsibility is taken, no risk is taken, the government perks are endless, you never see who pays for it, and the tyrannical hand of big-brother never makes it into the cartoon narrative.
Definition: The ultimate evil Supreme Court decision (narrowly defeating Dred Scott) which expanded free speech, thus allowing those with money to, uh, speak freely.
Definition: A delicious breakfast treat that goes well with English Breakfast tea and clotted crème. Conservatives prefer theirs in the traditional 9 pack—liberals enjoy up to 15.
Definition: Any brilliant scholar who both thinks we can fix the U.S. financial system simply by adding another giant bureaucracy with near unlimited power, and who can, by dancing vigorously in a circle, make it rain. Both equally likely.
The IMF and/or the World Bank
Definition: Nobody knows. See SMERSH and CHAOS for similar definitions.
The European Financial Crisis
Definition: A complex multi-year dance whose sole purpose is to see how much money can be shaken out of the German middle-class.
Universal Health Care
Definition: The system formerly known as single payer.
Single payer Health Care
Definition: The system formerly known as socialized medicine.
Definition: Something Democrats claim they don’t want, as they simply want Universal Health Care.
Nobel Peace Prize
Definition: A prize awarded to the left’s favorite person that year.
Antonym: Any prize having anything to do with actual Peace, or frankly accomplishment of any kind.
Definition: Taking money from current and future Americans to undertake projects that didn’t make sense before, don’t make sense now, will net cost jobs as the stimulus must be paid for privately, but since the job losses will be hidden, and the direct hires put on the evening news, might let those in charge keep their cushy jobs a bit longer.
World War II
Definition: Mainly important as proof that Keynesian stimulus works (side note: also led to defeat of Nazis and Imperial Japan). Since it is the only such “proof” ever, and we all have nuclear weapons now, different options are being considered for future stimuli. Actually, since World War II ending did not crash the economy as Keynesians predicted at the time, frankly we’re rethinking the whole thing.
Cash for Clunkers
Definition: What we came up to replace World War II as stimulus. Many perfectly good cars destroyed, no Nazis defeated.
Definition: The act of printing pieces of paper to purchase other pieces of paper and thinking it matters at all for anything. See “dogs chasing cars” for related examples.
Definition: Spending much more than ever before but slightly less than you had once thought you might spend which itself was a completely insane amount to spend.
Definition: A Hollywood monster which kills and devours old people simply by showing them a preliminary reasonable plan to grow spending slower than we currently are, while keeping any obligations already made to the elderly.
Definition: An agreement to raise taxes now while tacitly agreeing to waive the corresponding spending cuts later. Usually done in at least a 10:1 ratio as waiving 10x the future cuts is a particularly effective amount of waiving.
Definition: To make something (e.g., government) bigger, more intrusive, less efficient, and more dictatorial.
Definition: We found one old sap from the other party dying for one last shot at relevance who will add his name to our highly partisan effort.
Definition: A verb: to “Dodd-Frank” something is to use the perpetrators of a major crime to fix things for next time. Like taking ex-computer hackers and putting them in charge of your security (this example is not perfect as this might actually work). Used in a sentence: “We really Dodd-Franked that financial reform.”
See also “Searching for the real killers.”
Right Wing Extremist
Definition: Someone objecting in any way to left wing extremism.
Definition: When applied to yourself, conveys an instant halo of goodness that does not have to be justified with actions, logic, or even the slightest examination of what the policies you support have wrought. Works particularly well for rich hypocrites (Wall Street) and rich morons (Hollywood).
Definition: A rebranding of “liberal” post-Dukakis, going back to an older word, that means essentially the same thing, but contains the very positive word “progress” within it, and the always welcome “ive” ending.
Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.
The Party of No
Definition: Legislators who are rightly demonized by the press and progressives for being elected to bring down the size of government and then actually trying to do so. Sons of bitches.
Synonyms: Obstructionists, Do-nothing Congress
The Buck Stops There
Definition: Something Barack Obama says about George W. Bush.
Definition: A process where the USA makes amends to the rest of the world for being more successful than them, footing many of their bills, and shedding our blood to keep them safer and freer.
Definition: Something progressives get misty over when Henry Fonda is being denied it on the silver screen and when in power they deliver at the end of an explosive drone after Judge David Axelrod pronounces the target guilty.
Definition: A non-linear chaotic system that is a near-perfect example of something that is very very difficult, even using modern methods, to explain or forecast. This in no way takes away from the possible reasonableness of man-made climate change described below. Though, one might note, we get frustrated by weathermen as they can’t forecast the climate today.
Definition: What we now call “climate change”. Global warming was phased out as it also leads to things being too cold, and sometimes being just right. Mama Bear has been replaced with a highly volatile mix of all three bears.
Definition: The fact that over time the climate, uh, changes.
Man-Made Climate Change
Definition: The entirely reasonable idea that seven billion industrialized humans may be affecting the climate.
Krypton Seven Seconds Before Kal-El Was Launched Into Space
Definition: The stage liberals are certain the Earth is at.
Definition: The amount progressives will spend to combat man-made climate change without any assessment of the costs and benefits of these actions.
The Green Agenda
Definition: The additional use of man-made climate change, even if it’s fully true and it makes economic sense to sacrifice to fight it, to have government and its anointed priests take over much more of our lives. Any questioning of it is absolute proof of evil. Children must be indoctrinated in it in grade school before reading or writing or arithmetic. They must then be sent to spy on and lecture their parents.
Trickle Down Economics
Definition: A brilliant marketing phrase for denigrating the truth: that a freer economy helps everyone. Not to be confused with “trickle up poverty,” socialism.
Definition: An excellent form of government where if you can cobble together 51% of the people, by promising them other people’s stuff, or scaring them that you’ll take away their stuff, you can rule as a dictator. It is decidedly not the form of government originally chosen by the United States of America, which is a constitutional republic with limited government. Thankfully we’ve mostly done away with that nonsense.
Definition: A hate crime if used about an American politician who wants us to be more like Europe. Or, alternatively, a word used by many European politicians to define themselves.
…Unless you’ve been pregnant/handicapped yourself, you have no right to voice your opinion on those matters.
Then to use your logic:
If you’ve never been in combat yourself, you have no right to voice your opinion on Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you’ve never served your country, you have no right to voice your opinion about the military.
Unless you make over $250,000 per year, you have no right to voice your opinion on the rich.
Unless you’ve ever owned and operated a business, you have no right to voice your opinion on creating jobs.
Unless you’ve ever been in law enforcement, you have no right to voice your opinion about the police.
If you’ve never been a thief, you have no right to voice your opinion about Democrats.