The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(09-24-2017, 06:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(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.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  But I will say this about Thoreau, I have always found his works to be rather insipid, but then again Fredrick Douglas has always resonated with me more strongly than any of the trancendentalists who mostly scribbled what looks like woo-woo on the level that Eric posts every day.

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

Well knowing you Bob, you'd rather remove all doubt than not remove all doubt.  If the choice is between speaking and silence in a conversation between two other individuals to which I was not invited, I prefer to keep my silence.  It is far better to be silent and have people think you a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

(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.[/quote]

I don't think the Pope himself has the power to force his opinion on anyone, otherwise there would be no Protestants.  In any event, it does not take a doctorate degree to understand that title reflects one's education.  Given the choice between taking the mumbling of a drug addict councilor who may or may not deal with persons on the Spectrum in any professional capacity or desiring a diagnosis from a licensed specialist (and I assure you Michigan does require psychologists to be licensed) is not a matter of preference.

One is an at best educated guess, the other is an actual diagnosis.  What is telling is that PBR glommed onto this so-called diagnosis as soon as it was no longer reasonable for him to blame his parents for every single one of his failings.  Given his history I have every aspect that he was looking for a new excuse now that the old one was no longer feasible.

(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.[/quote]

If someone lies then they are a liar.  If someone actively seeks to take advantage of a weakness or weaknesses in others then they are a predator.  I try to avoid one of those behaviors.

My jump was not premature, it took me years to conclude that he is every bit exactly like the character Jerry from Rick and Morty.  The unfortunate aspect of this realization is that I'm essentially Rick.

I recommend watching the series if you can stomach adult cartoons.

(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. [/quote]

I did describe them accurately, and it also applies to the current crop of Dims too.  As for populist politicans, actually I haven't.  Daddy isn't a politician which is why the Swamp hates him.  

 

Quote:Banning or flaming against people who find politicians flawed would ban or flame a lot of people.

I'm going to "flame" whomever I choose to, for whatever reason I choose too.  If that hurts your fee fees I don't care.  Fuck your fee fees!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...id=5749210

As for banning...I'm not interested in banning anyone unless they're up on the forum posting tons of spam or porn or something.  

Quote:I personally think, assuming the US remains recognizable, that there will be more people paying into the system than abusing it.

This is a failure to understand basic economics that I assume Warren will bring up at some point.  Let me put it simply.  More people have to be working and paying taxes to pay for what we have now.  Otherwise it will collapse.  Socialism is inherently unstable, eventually you always run out of other people's money.

Quote: I oppose welfare of the employable as a way of life.  Make as many helpful suggestions as you please.

Yeah it is called get a job or go to school.  If one is able bodied and doesn't do either, then he isn't ENTITLED to shit.  I have no problem with welfare for the actually disabled (and no PBR being on the autistic spectrum doesn't fucking count), the very young, the very old and the very sick.  If my desire to have able bodied people in education or employment for their livelihood makes me a monster, so be it.

Quote: 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.

 I would say that it is you who needs to learn the difference, not myself.  My bullshit detector is in perfect working order, yours is suspect.

Quote:

(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.

This is merely projection.  Here you are doing precisely that and yet cliaming I'm doing so.  As I've said my views of other board members are based on their statements and posts through out the years.  It doesn't get more objective than that.

Quote:

(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.

Yeah well there not being a Soviet Union was once thought to be a "non starter" too, and yet here we are a quarter century without the USSR.  Seriously the dissolution of the USSR took Washington completely by surprise.  Perhaps a total collapse  of the welfare state will take you by surprise.

Quote: I know Trump is intuitive and unconventional, but that's beyond even him.

No it isn't.  He simply needs to not do anything and it will come down on its own.  That is precisely his plan with Obamacare, he is actually using the inability of the "conservative" side of the Uniparty to do anything against them.

Quote: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.

As Philip Johnson said:  The first complete sentence out of my mouth was probably that line about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds.

Quote: 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.

Are you stupid?  Government is force, it has always been force, and always will be force.  The main difference between a state's government and the mafia is that the government on occasion throws a public popularity contest where as the mafia has no need for such extravagances.

Man in his primordial state is in a state of anarchy.  Indeed I'd go so far as to say that anarchy is man's natural state, and wanting to have civilization yet remain as close to the natural state as possible I have slowly, accepted that minarchism is a requirement to maintain civilization.

As for your last question I don't think it possible for me to ever satisfactorily answer it for you.