The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I really shouldn’t break into other’s people’s striped exchanges.

Then don't.  I find that if two other people are having an A to B conversation it is prudent for me to C my way out of the area.  It saves a lot of headaches.

I am familiar with the method.  Once upon a time, a 'teacher' would give two bad options and try to force each student to embrace a bad choice.  C was practically required.  I still wonder what would have happened if I had encounter Thoreau's Civil Disobedience before he so kindly invited me down to the office for taking a quite defensible choice C.

But if the choice is be tween speaking and silence, C is not an option, and guess which choice is the more likely?

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:  Pbrower is doing fine his own way.

I that is true then we should hear less bitching from his end, or at least the standard blue "Trump is Hitler, ZOMG" bullshit.  Yet PBR is known to whine about the most asinine of things.

Feel free to jump on that.  Thing is, I don't see the logic as particularly partisan.  The red flavor just involves comparing a Democrat with an autocratic 20th century party or leader.  Generally, don't anticipate the old 20th century autocratic parties or leaders to match up with today.  It's a particularly bad sort of argument.  Jump on it.  You might get a "me too".

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you have called his councilor unqualified,

The fact that his councilor is titled "councilor" indicates that he is not a psychologist and thus not qualified to diagnose anything.  Ergo he is unqualified and PBR taking the at best educated guess of a somewhat astute amateur would be just the same as me taking medical advice as to my own health from the local veterinarian.

I'm no great expert, but there is a different sorts of folks qualified to treat mental disease.  Some prescribe drugs.  There is in many states a link of titles to roles.  If it is like other professions, the better the degree, the more compensation.  I wouldn't expect too much more than you pay for.

I can respect a decision to stick with the top of the list, but it is a personal decision, and your personal decision.  You are not the pope to try to force your options on all.

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: himself a liar-predator,

I've caught him in lies and he is a predator.  Unlike many stereotypical predators he uses pity rather than violence or psychological manipulation as his weapon of choice.

I won't say there aren't liars or predators out there.  People from different environments may have seem more or fewer.  Your jump is premature.

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: and maligned the motives of politicians.

Really?  Who?  Where?  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  If the eating results in controllable voting blocks that are kept at a minimal level of comfort on the verge of absolute destitution save they continue to elect their political masters then it becomes self-evident that even if the intent of the policy in question was morally positive the RESULT (which is what really matters) is morally negative.

In the case of welfare and entitlements we are far removed from when they were instated, and the politicians who created these programs are long out of office and in many cases long dead.

You describe well the Democrats of the Great Society era well, and point out that they were doing what politicians do... serve the people, and serve the people in an arguably harmful way that builds popularity and power.  Don't pretend you haven't advocated populist politicians.  Banning or flaming against people who find politicians flawed would ban or flame a lot of people.

I personally think, assuming the US remains recognizable, that there will be more people paying into the system than abusing it.  I oppose welfare of the employable as a way of life.  Make as many helpful suggestions as you please.  I have trouble with the extreme partisan who is always ready to see one extreme or the other, in this case always seeing liar predators on one side or innocent victims needing help on the other.  Let's learn to tell the difference and act accordingly.

 

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: To a great degree, you have done so without real evidence.  For the most part, you are running off stereotypes that come from your world view.  Rather than listen to the person who is at the center of the discussion, you assert your stereotypes as fact.  Your stereotypes become true because you assert them to be?

Great, we have another who can't come up with an original argument.  Back to your papal bull meme again.  When it comes to my view of PBR it is formed off of his statements and his actions.  Is my interpretation of those statements and actions influenced by my world view?  Yes, but whose isn't?  Certainly not yours.

You do dictate, confuse your opinions with objective reality more than most.  Yes, everyone's opinions will tend to follow their worldview.

(09-23-2017, 09:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: To a great degree, you have done so without real evidence. Some need a short period of help to get back in the game.  Some are fully and permanently disabled.  They can’t and won’t ever be in the game again.  With the latter sort of exception, welfare shouldn’t be a predator centered permanent way of life.  There is a definite difference between welfare providing a safety net, and a dole allowing lazy predators to live off others.  If I could make it so, promote the former, end the latter, I would.

In the former there is private and religious charity and social fraternities as there were in the 19th century.  In the latter there is of course the family.  After all, it is usually considered unconscionable to allow one's parents or children and so on starve.

Welfare as directed by the state must be a parasitic relationship though.  Why?  Because it is paid for by taking wealth from those who produce, by force (cause if you don't pay your taxes men with guns and blue uniforms show up and cart you off to a jail), and is given to those who do not.  As for those currently on the dole I would say that a large number of them are parasites living at the expense of the body politic, and furthermore have every reason to do so because a welfare mother with 3 children in section 8 housing and on SNAP would have to make around 68K/year to maintain the lifestyle that is provided by welfare.  Generally speaking such persons have neither the skills nor the resources to make that happen, otherwise they would.

Go back to the 19th century?  Really?  In this day and age, that is a non starter.  I know Trump is intuitive and unconventional, but that's beyond even him.

You are using the anarchy argument there.  If you don't obey, guys with guns will show up, yada yada yada.  If you are going to support the leader of the US Republican party, using the anarchy argument is inconsistent at best.  Granted, there is a great deal of truth to it.  The basis of all government is force.  This doesn't mean humankind isn't a political animal who will form groups, claim territory, make laws, etc...  Stepping back all the way to the anarchy argument is not to my mind appropriate.  It pretends to make people into non people.

***

As an aside, if you are going to invoke and respect conflicting values, if you are going to fight values lock, it is nigh on inevitable that you are going to encounter more simple values systems held by others.  A more nuanced system that respects more than one point of view will be unacceptable to a partisan looking to keep it simple.  Do you acknowledge the problem?