Conservatives stupid hatred of 'big goverment' [Archive]

Rydar8

May 21st, 2016, 08:12 PM

lyhom

May 21st, 2016, 08:53 PM

Transgender bathrooms: yeah, my sisters shouldn't have to walk into a bathroom and see a man in there who claims to be "female". you're either male or female and nothing else. no one should have to risk being sexually assaulted by the opposite gender in your bathroom, and that works for both genders

does this really happen that often, though? I'm pretty sure that the type of person who would sexually assault people in bathrooms wouldn't care about the symbol on the door in the first place but whatever

who can enter the country: its a safety thing! if there was a bowl of m&ms but I told you 5 would kill you would you still eat them? no!

I agree that there should be at least some form of screening to check who's a terrorist or who's potentially dangerous, but lmao at the whole m&m's argument

StoppingTom

May 21st, 2016, 08:57 PM

does this really happen that often, though? I'm pretty sure that the type of person who would sexually assault people in bathrooms wouldn't care about the symbol on the door in the first place but whatever

I agree that there should be at least some form of screening to check who's a terrorist or who's potentially dangerous, but lmao at the whole m&m's argument

1) Nope. You have more former Speakers of the House arrested for sexual assault of children than transgendered people raping "the 'lil chilldruns!!" in the bathroom.

2) It's not a good argument. "5 M&M's in a bowl will kill you", more like.. one in a million, MAYBE.

phuckphace

May 21st, 2016, 09:57 PM

http://i.imgur.com/AMIwM8d.jpg

Vlerchan

May 22nd, 2016, 03:08 AM

the court used the 14th amendment to ignore the 10th which stated all rights not listed in the constitution are states rights.
The case being discussed didn't extend new rights and as such didn't ignore the 10th. It discussed the legitimate application of then-established rights that states must adhere to under the 14th.

I don't care if the decision was liberal or conservative. The legal reasoning is tight.

Stronk Serb

May 22nd, 2016, 03:53 AM

Make the drugs legal and there will be no cartels, I agree with your list but I would add caring for the people. Giving free healthcare and getting the homeless shelter. I also think a Goverment should not only look inwards, but outwards and care about those drowning trying to flee war and other countries harmful policies. Such as the lack of gun control in the USA or the forced labour in Qatar.

No, do not make drugs legal. You will just "legalize" the cartels. Also "free healthcare" doesn't exist. Everyone pays for it, be it NHS or others. Homeless people should with shelter also get a job to keep them off the streets, a job should be something they specialize. The government should look only for the state's and peoples' interests. Something should be done only if it is in the interest of the state and the people, since the peope are the ones for whom the government should care, not some Ahmed who goes to Germany for Euromonies. With so much illegal weapons, the only way I see tightened gun control working is if the police went from door to door searching for illegal firearms, confiscating them and taking out the distributors, which will not happen.

Flapjack

May 22nd, 2016, 05:21 AM

Marriage: well the supreme court should have never gotten involved in the same sex case. it was a states right and the liberal controlling government got involved. the court used the 14th amendment to ignore the 10th which stated all rights not listed in the constitution are states rights. but the supreme court interprets the law of the land so if they say its ok, then I have to respect that.

Transgender bathrooms: yeah, my sisters shouldn't have to walk into a bathroom and see a man in there who claims to be "female". you're either male or female and nothing else. no one should have to risk being sexually assaulted by the opposite gender in your bathroom, and that works for both genders

who can enter the country: its a safety thing! if there was a bowl of m&ms but I told you 5 would kill you would you still eat them? no! same goes with the Syrian refugees (which I think Is what you are referencing, If its not them sorry) I'm sure most of them just want a better life here, but you saw the attacks in Europe caused by the "refugees". until we can figure out a way to know whos a terrorist and who isn't, no one should be allowed to come in to protect American citizens from being killed too.

big military: the USA is a superpower and that puts us at risk. if we are attacked, we need to be ready to fight back, and fight back hard, enter a war we wont lose. as someone who wants to join the military I support that.

money for the poor: yeah that's just socialism, taking money from the rich deprives them of the work they did to become rich. and I'm not rich, I'm very low middle class, but that doesn't mean I dream to become rich. but if I find out the government is just gonna take my money and give it to the poor who aren't trying or other things, then well I'm not gonna try to become rich, I'm just gonna sit around and wait for the free money (that will hopefully never come because I don't deserve it)

"offending people": if you are offended by what conservatives say than it is your own fault, nothing more to say about that.
1.Yes omg how dare the supreme court stopthe opression of gay rights!

2. Yes becase sexual preditors were just waiting for this oppotunity! The opression of the trans community has nothing to do with keeping women safe, infact rather ironically but forcing trans people into the bathrooms of the sex they was born as... You are putting men in the woman's bathroom.Do you want these men in the bathroom
with your sister?
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1120/5128/files/Screen_Shot_2016-02-03_at_3.46.34_PM_large.png?11117719083332361576
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1120/5128/files/Screen_Shot_2016-02-03_at_3.46.47_PM_large.png?16890985107213315176
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1120/5128/files/Screen_Shot_2016-02-03_at_3.45.38_PM_large.png?2022708747157971062
Allowing the trans community to use the bathroom of the gender they identify, as they are already doing will increase sexual crime. This is just an excuse used by Conservatives to opress them.

Let me guess... you believe in trickle down economics?

Also helping the poor is not socialism... just saying:')

Yes, hundreds of thousands of people are freeing a horrific war but we shouldn't let them in because you have seen that racist image comparing refugees to a candy. Newsflash! Terrorist are not going to give up attacking the USA if that is what they want to do. They could use an American citizen to commit the terrorist attack, and thanks to the easy access to guns it won't be hard for them.

The USA wastes sooooo much money on the military. With billions and sometimes trillions going towards projects that are never finished and private arms companies that lobby the goverment to enter more wars.

This money could go towards injured veterans, rebuilding the countries the USA has destroyed so they don't have to invade in another 10 years, towards the crumbling education system or provide free healthcare for the people, like every other developed country.
This seems to be a really dangerous attitude that has emerged out of the movement to legalize weed.

Weed isn't that bad--as in, it's not much worse than smoking and it's definitely not as bad as heavy alcohol consumption, both of which are legal. It is said that weed should be legalized for various other reasons as well, but that's not my point.

My point is that not every drug should be legalized. There are drugs that will kill people if you allow everyone to have them. They're dangerous substances and the legalization of them does literally nothing but harm people(it might have economic value, but that which is given, lives, is worth much more than that which is gained, some money for drug companies).

I'm referring of course to illegal drugs in the USA such as cocaine, meth, etc.

I personally think every drug should be legal unless it can be used as something like a poision or date rape drug. I think this because then it would be easier for them to get the help and support they need to get off the drugs.

Weed should be completly legal to smoke and sell whereas I think heroin should be legal to consume but highly illegal to sell as this incentivises dealers to get people on the drug.

I don't see why people shouldn't have the freedom to consume what they want, especially when the USA does not even have free healthcare.

No, do not make drugs legal. You will just "legalize" the cartels. Also "free healthcare" doesn't exist. Everyone pays for it, be it NHS or others. Homeless people should with shelter also get a job to keep them off the streets, a job should be something they specialize. The government should look only for the state's and peoples' interests. Something should be done only if it is in the interest of the state and the people, since the peope are the ones for whom the government should care, not some Ahmed who goes to Germany for Euromonies. With so much illegal weapons, the only way I see tightened gun control working is if the police went from door to door searching for illegal firearms, confiscating them and taking out the distributors, which will not happen.

Nooo you can regulate the industry of growing the drugs, make sure no one under the age of 18 buys them, make sure they are grown properly and handled hygienically. If those cartels want to set up a legal shop, good for them!:) I suspect when the war on drugs end, it will be similar to when the prohibition of alcohol ended and the powerful gangs disappered as they got most of their money from selling illegal alcohol.

Oh iI think every gun should be highly illegal, there is no reason to own a gun. The only reasons I can think of is hunting, sports and collectors and I don't think any of these are good enough reasons to own a gun.

I understand the 'free' healthcare is not really free but it helps those with very low incomes. They may pay a little in taxes for it, but the vast majority of their bill will paid for by the rich.

It is not always easy for a homeless person to get a job, they may be suffering with personal issues such as addictions and getting over abuse and they may have no qualifications or skills. The govement should provide these people with food and shelter and if they can't get a job, give them a job in the public sector building roads or something. This will also give them the skills to enter the public sector.

Judean Zealot

May 22nd, 2016, 06:05 AM

It owes nothing to the planet or mankind?

I mention this because it seems clear that it's in the long-run interests of certain states - Russia and Canada, for example - for climate change to continue at its current pace. Would you, as such, believe it permissible, if not justifiable, that such states pursue policies that facilitate an increase in the global temperature insofar as it occurs at the net benefit of the State or Nation.

I know you're an environmentalist so I wonder whether I'm misinterpreting.

The mistake you're making here is that you're not taking into account my humanist backdrop to my nationalism. The nation is itself an organ of humanity in general; it is merely the harnessing of a particular group's unique genius towards the development of humanity. Government, however, is merely the tool to regulate the nation and defend it from outside depredations, and as such doesn't hold any explicit duties outside of the national development.

Thus while the government may have an environmental prerogative, it only holds such duties indirectly, through the destiny of the nation which it serves. Meanwhile, the nation itself is bound by the rights of war and peace, and to actively pursue goals which damage other nations must be as justified as any other form of aggression.

Flapjack

May 22nd, 2016, 06:21 AM

The mistake you're making here is that you're not taking into account my humanist backdrop to my nationalism. The nation is itself an organ of humanity in general; it is merely the harnessing of a particular group's unique genius towards the development of humanity. Government, however, is merely the tool to regulate the nation and defend it from outside depredations, and as such doesn't hold any explicit duties outside of the national development.

Thus while the government may have an environmental prerogative, it only holds such duties indirectly, through the destiny of the nation which it serves. Meanwhile, the nation itself is bound by the rights of war and peace, and to actively pursue goals which damage other nations must be as justified as any other form of aggression.

Any goverment should care for more than what affects itself. We re all humans and that dosen't chang whether you are from the USA or the middle east. If a goverment can influence world events for the better, it should.

Judean Zealot

May 22nd, 2016, 06:27 AM

Any goverment should care for more than what affects itself. We re all humans and that dosen't chang whether you are from the USA or the middle east. If a goverment can influence world events for the better, it should.

As I've said before, while that's a noble creed for an individual or even a community, it's wrong for the centralised power of government. The government is granted power by the people for the express purpose of developing the nation, and to exercise that power otherwise is to fly in the face of the social compact on which Republicanism rests.

Flapjack

May 22nd, 2016, 07:07 AM

As I've said before, while that's a noble creed for an individual or even a community, it's wrong for the centralised power of government. The government is granted power by the people for the express purpose of developing the nation, and to exercise that power otherwise is to fly in the face of the social compact on which Republicanism rests.

Of course a goverment should put their own countries needs first, but if they can help I see no reason why they shouldn't! I would like to think it is the people's wish to help other people.

Helping other countries out is also good for the country that is helping as 10 years later when they need help, more countries are likely to provide that help.

I see you are from Israel, I'm sure you appreciate the help you have recieved from countries like the USA? Unfortunately however it seems most of that help is because you also do not like Iran and the USA wants a powerful ally in the region.

I am from the UK and the UK has of course recieved help from the USA. In the cold war the UK hosted US nuclear weapons as a deterant preventing the USSR from attacking. Whilst again this is in the USA's best interests, it benefited the UK.

However not all aid has to be war related, or directly benefit the donating country. :) The EU has offered money to the UK for food banks and natural desasters and the UK has given aid to countries in Africa.

phuckphace

May 22nd, 2016, 09:04 AM

since drug legalization was mentioned it's time for me to point out the enormous mastodon in the room:

http://i.imgur.com/j9RIW1y.gif

all drugs were once fully legal and the above pic contains a clue on how this was possible without widespread negative consequences. I'll give you this one for free: imagine a time where 95% of the children born every year looked like Tommy and Sally up there. also imagine that most people practiced something called "personal restraint" that was enforced by their personal beliefs and/or strong social conventions.

really is the sweetest irony - the one social arrangement that makes full-bore legalization possible (homogeneous white conservative society) is the same one that social liberals are in such a hurry to see go extinct. when enough people in your society practice personal restraint and therefore avoid drug abuse as a vice, a handful of individuals getting fucked out of their minds on laudanum from the friendly neighborhood druggist is a perfectly manageable state of affairs. you can count me as someone who wishes he could buy tincture of opium over the counter, but at the same time I'm not dumb enough to imagine that legal heroin in 2016 would be anything other than a huge disaster. to wit:

1.) socially conservative societies frown on hedonism and overindulgence. the inverse is true today: Americans are hedonists to the extreme. we already self-medicate with junk food and banal entertainment - adding dangerous narcotics to this mix is the social equivalent of napalm on a forest fire.

2.) conservative social conventions teach people to manage their own behavior which removes the need for external suppression in the form of more cops, more prisons and wars on drugs. the latter are much less efficient and effective, but that's what we ended up with once the former conventions broke down (thanks Obama)

drug legalization shills are almost always individualists of some sort, liberal, libertarian, minarchist, whatever - because individualists don't know or care to understand the vital importance of social cohesion before all else. first they want duty-free individualism, and then they want widespread availability of the deadly vices people use to self-medicate their misery caused by living in an individualistic society. truly reprehensible.

Vlerchan

May 22nd, 2016, 11:40 AM

truly reprehensible.
The United States had a pretty awful opiate problem in the 1800s. Even amongst the the ever-glorious WASP-society (actually especially amongst these people).

By 1858, Harper’s reported, 300,000 pounds of opium were arriving on American shores each year, with an estimated 90 percent reserved for recreational use. Half a century later [1900], when the U.S. at last addressed the addiction crisis, the rate of addiction to opiate-based medication was three times higher than it would be in the 1990s.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/heroin-addictions-fraught-history/284001/

The basic logic behind drug legalisation is that it's better to incorporate broken people into an environment where they can be surveyed and helped, then leave them to their own devices, funding criminal organisations.

There are drugs that will kill people if you allow everyone to have them. They're dangerous substances and the legalization of them does literally nothing but harm people(it might have economic value, but that which is given, lives, is worth much more than that which is gained, some money for drug companies).
Hard-drugs are prone to something called inelastic demand. That means when the price goes up, such as it does under criminalisation, demand remains roughly constant. Look at the rates of usage since the war-on-drugs started.

Legalisation incorporates people into an environment where it is possible to help them - and furthermore undermines criminal organisations, allows us to regulate dosages, and also happens to be self-funding.

Thus while the government may have an environmental prerogative, it only holds such duties indirectly, through the destiny of the nation which it serves. Meanwhile, the nation itself is bound by the rights of war and peace, and to actively pursue goals which damage other nations must be as justified as any other form of aggression.
Does this mean the state can facilitate the actions of individuals, or communities, but cannot in itself take action. I'm not sure, for a lot of goals, on what grounds that's operable, but I'll attempt to get the theoretics correct first. If that's incorrect would you mind expanding with policy examples?

On the second point, I presume you don't conceive it an issue where a nation aiming to benefit itself harms others. This would include immigration-restrictions and trade-restrictions (or subsidising exporters). Environmental pollution falls within that, there's explicit benefits for the Russians and Canadians, and in the process it hurts other nations. In both cases there's also a keen realisation that there's a negative impact on others.

---

Editing to include more, because why not.

Let me guess... you believe in trickle down economics?
Trickle-down economics doesn't exist. It's a pejorative term used by the left-wing critics, usually non-economists, to refer to economic policies you don't like.

If you mean reasonably free-markets, generally low taxation on production, and so on: I find that all quite supportable.

Yes, hundreds of thousands of people are freeing a horrific war but we shouldn't let them in because you have seen that racist image comparing refugees to a candy.
No, we shouldn't let them in because it creates considerable issues with regards to incentives.

The more we let in - and the more generous we are - the larger the incentive there is for more to come. Now, this is unsustainable for a number of reasons (bounded housing and education sectors, continuing debt-crisis's, etc.), and at some stage we will need to get tough: and the longer this persists, the tougher we will need to get, to void the pre-commitments that is implicit in the current policy-framework. This means that future death is almost-necessitated, because expectations are set in the previous period.

It's also questionable that absorbing refugees help the refugees actually achieve autonomy. Most of them end up being heavily-marginalised, from both being a non-native and owning to them having a difficult time integrating into restrictive European labour markets (employment rate for refugees is much lower than other groups). In other words, accepting refugees doesn't seem to go a huge distance in helping alleviate the issues that refugees face (fundamentally, a lack of control over their own lives).

Furthermore, immigrants tend to impose a considerable social cost on natives (Putnam 2000 [Edited Link] (http://archive.realtor.org/sites/default/files/BowlingAlone.pdf)).

This leads the current policy of mass-acceptance being pretty suboptimal, and that's the reason I've suggested charter cities for refugees.

I don't see why people shouldn't have the freedom to consume what they want[.]
Drugs are of a fundamentally different nature to smarties and popcicles. Their addictive character alters the true intentions of the individual: use - and not the individual, guides use.

Flapjack

May 22nd, 2016, 04:40 PM

Trickle-down economics doesn't exist. It's a pejorative term used by the left-wing critics, usually non-economists, to refer to economic policies you don't like.

Yeah and I am a left-wing critic and not an economist so you got that down!!:'D

I was refering to the idea that by giving money to the rich and reducuing regulation it will boost the economy, when the opposite is true. Yeah regulated free-markets and low tax on production I am all for:)

No, we shouldn't let them in because it creates considerable issues with regards to incentives.

The more we let in - and the more generous we are - the larger the incentive there is for more to come. Now, this is unsustainable for a number of reasons (bounded housing and education sectors, continuing debt-crisis's, etc.), and at some stage we will need to get tough: and the longer this persists, the tougher we will need to get, to void the pre-commitments that is implicit in the current policy-framework. This means that future death is almost-necessitated, because expectations are set in the previous period.

It's also questionable that absorbing refugees help the refugees actually achieve autonomy. Most of them end up being heavily-marginalised, from both being a non-native and owning to them having a difficult time integrating into restrictive European labour markets (employment rate for refugees is much lower than other groups). In other words, accepting refugees doesn't seem to go a huge distance in helping alleviate the issues that refugees face (fundamentally, a lack of control over their own lives).

Furthermore, immigrants tend to impose a considerable social cost on natives (Putnam 2000 (https://www.saddleback.edu/faculty/agordon/documents/Bowling_Alone.pdf)).

This leads the current policy of mass-acceptance being pretty suboptimal, and that's the reason I've suggested charter cities for refugees.

My friend, I entially understand that allowing so many people into a country at once is crazy expensive and it will be very difficult to allow them to become productive citizens!

However, I do not believe it is right to leave them in such a horrifc warzone and there are simple, cheaper thing that can be done. For example, the UK's navy is currently turning back migrants to prevent them taking the risky journey in boats that barely float. The navy could easily transport this people across the sea and the UK goverment could fund Refugee camps in countries like Greece and Turkey.

I think countries like the UK and the USA must do their part to help these people. They are willing to spend the money bombing to fight the extremists but not take in or help the innocent civilians caught in the middle.

'Drugs are of a fundamentally different nature to smarties and popcicles. Their addictive character alters the true intentions of the individual: use - and not the individual, guides use.'
Yes they are but it would be better to help the addict than put him in prision and destroy their lives even further.

Vlerchan

May 22nd, 2016, 05:00 PM

I was refering to the idea that by giving money to the rich and reducuing regulation it will boost the economy, when the opposite is true.
I believe that cutting top income taxation rates and deregulating markets both have a positive impact on economic growth.

Higher-income people make more efficient use of their income. That's because most of this is saved, where it can be lent out to investors at a cheaper rate, and the resources can then be allocated to activities with the highest-vale economic use, which results in the largest efficiency-gains.

It's also hard to make broad-based statements about deregulation as a whole. In a lot of cases, regulation is poorly devised, and significant efficiency gains can be gathered from it's removal.

Can you list me the states where you feel the opposite is true?

---

By production I also mean labour and capital income. I believe that we should have a flat tax on labour income, a low-ish tax on capital income that declines with the investment horizon, and zero corporation tax.

However, I do not believe it is right to leave them in such a horrifc warzone and there are simple, cheaper thing that can be done.
I'm the same (you'll find I'm actually a pretty strict minority here in agreeing with you). Though rather than put them in camps:

I'd argue the free market is large enough for all.

I'm of the opinion that refugees should be placed in camps - not cities - and then the camps should be designated as exclusive economic zones, deregulated and the incidence of taxation on investors reduced. Firms can invest in these areas so long as these firms agree to aid in the construction of infrastructure and so on. This will be in their interests regardless. It won't require too large a space, it's quite possible to pack hundreds if not thousands of people into a square kilometre.

If this sounds like I'm promoting the construction of new cities, then the reader is on track. Building cities is something that we've been doing for centuries - and entirely spontaneously at that. It might require a small gvt. investment to begin with but the historical returns on the construction of city's is colossal - Evidenced in the fact that land values in-and-around cities tend to explode. It will of course occur under stable governance of Westerners: Urban planners, Urban and Industrial Economists. Our middle eastern friends will all be conservatives, so social excesses will be minimised.

It's also the case that movement outside of these zones for refugees won't occur except under special conditions. So our less, inclusive, let's say, peers, won't even have to se them.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3260430&postcount=27

I think we should help them to help themselves. Sitting them in camps for several years before shipping them back home, robbed of their skills, to their bombed-out homelands doesn't seem too fantastic to me.

Rydar8

May 23rd, 2016, 10:05 AM

1.Yes omg how dare the supreme court stopthe opression of gay rights!

2. Yes becase sexual preditors were just waiting for this oppotunity! The opression of the trans community has nothing to do with keeping women safe, infact rather ironically but forcing trans people into the bathrooms of the sex they was born as... You are putting men in the woman's bathroom.Do you want these men in the bathroom
with your sister?
Allowing the trans community to use the bathroom of the gender they identify, as they are already doing will increase sexual crime. This is just an excuse used by Conservatives to opress them.

Let me guess... you believe in trickle down economics?

Also helping the poor is not socialism... just saying:')

Yes, hundreds of thousands of people are freeing a horrific war but we shouldn't let them in because you have seen that racist image comparing refugees to a candy. Newsflash! Terrorist are not going to give up attacking the USA if that is what they want to do. They could use an American citizen to commit the terrorist attack, and thanks to the easy access to guns it won't be hard for them.
.

1. its not that it was wrong to stop oppression, it was that the supremem court should have never gotten involved because marriage was a state right. one big federal government controlling how i live is not good for American society. plenty of states had previously legalized it, they could have just gone to another state for a while or even lived there, but now gays are being married in christian churches where being gay is a sin and the churches dont like that and as liberals say a lot "we can't oppress people for their viewpoints"

2. first i never said just woman. i said this was a problem both ways. not allowing the opposite sex will decrease sexual crime (which you said was just an excuse) but if it means one less person gets sexually abused (which is a crime by the way, as you said) then why are we not enforcing it beter?

3. and let me guess... you'll move to canada if Trump wins?

4. yes helping the poor is essentially socialism, where else will the money come from, the other poor? you taking money from the rich to give to the poor creates "equality" but when it reality it just hurts the working class and rich class.

5. ok first the only person who brought race into this was you. i never said nything about race. i dont care if the refugees were white or any color, if they are a terror threat then they shouldnt be allowed in. The easy access to guns means nothing. Liberals will blame everything they can on a terrorist attack except the terrorist. its not the guns fault or the constitutional right for citizens to have them, its terrorists. banning guns wont stop terrorists from getting them. they are criminals and do not follow laws, thats why we refer to them as terrorists.

Flapjack

May 23rd, 2016, 11:50 AM

1. its not that it was wrong to stop oppression, it was that the supremem court should have never gotten involved because marriage was a state right. one big federal government controlling how i live is not good for American society. plenty of states had previously legalized it, they could have just gone to another state for a while or even lived there, but now gays are being married in christian churches where being gay is a sin and the churches dont like that and as liberals say a lot "we can't oppress people for their viewpoints"

2. first i never said just woman. i said this was a problem both ways. not allowing the opposite sex will decrease sexual crime (which you said was just an excuse) but if it means one less person gets sexually abused (which is a crime by the way, as you said) then why are we not enforcing it beter?

3. and let me guess... you'll move to canada if Trump wins?

4. yes helping the poor is essentially socialism, where else will the money come from, the other poor? you taking money from the rich to give to the poor creates "equality" but when it reality it just hurts the working class and rich class.

5. ok first the only person who brought race into this was you. i never said nything about race. i dont care if the refugees were white or any color, if they are a terror threat then they shouldnt be allowed in. The easy access to guns means nothing. Liberals will blame everything they can on a terrorist attack except the terrorist. its not the guns fault or the constitutional right for citizens to have them, its terrorists. banning guns wont stop terrorists from getting them. they are criminals and do not follow laws, thats why we refer to them as terrorists.

1. How was the federal goverment controlling how you live?? It was just allowing gay people to have the same rights as you!
2. Where do you think transexual people have been going? How many cases of preditors dressing up as a women are there? Also have you thought about how you would enforce it? Would you check everyones junk? Because these laws are forcing people to go into the wrong bathrooms looking like the opposite sex where they could get attacked or they could go to the right bathroom where they could get arrested.
3. I do not live in the USA currently anyways.
4.. *facepalm* XD socialism is basically when the state owns stuff, often production and factories. How much is state owned can very. For example would you want to hire a private company instead of a state run military? Of course not so don't be one of the conservatives that jump when they hear the scary S word:'D

Socialists often help the poor but if it is a private company doing the helping, funded by either charity or the goverment. It is not socialist:)

5. I never said you said anything about race :lol: I said I saw the same image you have... and that image is racist. I have no reason to believe you would judge another person by the amount of melanin in their skin.

Well I am a liberal... and when someone shots someone yes I blame the shooter!! Goshhh someones been listening to fox newsXD

I do however think it is fair to criticise the stupidly easy access to guns as well.

No I disagree... banning guns willl stop a lot of terrorists. Will it stop them all? No, but it will at least decrease the rate of the attacks in the USA. It will also reduce accidental deaths.

I believe that cutting top income taxation rates and deregulating markets both have a positive impact on economic growth.

Higher-income people make more efficient use of their income. That's because most of this is saved, where it can be lent out to investors at a cheaper rate, and the resources can then be allocated to activities with the highest-vale economic use, which results in the largest efficiency-gains.

It's also hard to make broad-based statements about deregulation as a whole. In a lot of cases, regulation is poorly devised, and significant efficiency gains can be gathered from it's removal.

Can you list me the states where you feel the opposite is true?

Okay well I think it depends very much on the industry:) I'm sure you'll agree regulations on food standards and car safety are a good idea? However a bad regulation is Philadelphia forcing bloggers to pay a $300 licence fee. I think regulations are important as it stops corperations doing bad business tactics but it is very specific to the industry.

I see why you think that buddy and tbh I used to think the same. I believe it is better for the poorer and middle class to get more money and for this to be taken away from the rich in higher taxes. I think this because of economic velocity, poorer people have a much higher economic velocity, boosting the economy.

The IMF has also said similar stuff.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/economy/trickle-down-theory-wrong-imf/

I think corperation tax should be done in brackets like personal income. The small corner shop should have a low or even zero tax rate, but companies that make billions every year should have a veryyyy high tax on their net profits. If they need to spend money to grow, this money shouldn't be included.

I'm the same (you'll find I'm actually a pretty strict minority here in agreeing with you). Though rather than put them in camps:

I'd argue the free market is large enough for all.

I'm of the opinion that refugees should be placed in camps - not cities - and then the camps should be designated as exclusive economic zones, deregulated and the incidence of taxation on investors reduced. Firms can invest in these areas so long as these firms agree to aid in the construction of infrastructure and so on. This will be in their interests regardless. It won't require too large a space, it's quite possible to pack hundreds if not thousands of people into a square kilometre.

If this sounds like I'm promoting the construction of new cities, then the reader is on track. Building cities is something that we've been doing for centuries - and entirely spontaneously at that. It might require a small gvt. investment to begin with but the historical returns on the construction of city's is colossal - Evidenced in the fact that land values in-and-around cities tend to explode. It will of course occur under stable governance of Westerners: Urban planners, Urban and Industrial Economists. Our middle eastern friends will all be conservatives, so social excesses will be minimised.

It's also the case that movement outside of these zones for refugees won't occur except under special conditions. So our less, inclusive, let's say, peers, won't even have to se them.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3260430&postcount=27

I think we should help them to help themselves. Sitting them in camps for several years before shipping them back home, robbed of their skills, to their bombed-out homelands doesn't seem too fantastic to me.

Yeah that sounds really good buddy, my only concern is that they may want to go home after the war ends.:)

sqishy

May 23rd, 2016, 06:56 PM

I'm not participating much in this at least for now, but I'll say two things that come to mind.

The argument against trans people using bathrooms they prefer, with backing that it attracts sexual predators, is having a paranoid view that also thinks a system should be taken down (rather than the abusers of it) when it gets abused.

Also, I feel that the same title of this thread could be said but with "liberal's" instead and with supporting views contained within. I was more surprised it wasn't that but this - maybe I'm drifting a bit into stereotypes again.

TheFlyer

May 23rd, 2016, 07:43 PM

So I've been thinking, conservatives would love to tell you who to marry, what bathrooms transgender people can use, what religion you can follow, where people can travel, who can enter the country and build a giant military but any money for stuff like supporting the poor and lowering reoffending they hate! Oh and of course what drugs you can smoke.

Side note- They're in bed with private prisions so thats why they love reoffending and they introduced the war on drugs to target hippies and black people.

What do you guys think of conservatives and their 'big goverment'.

Your generalizing a bit, don't you think? Liberals would love to tell us that the signs on our washrooms are meaningless, that marriage is not important anymore, and that violent cults should be able to run amuck. And of course they think that a national defence system is completely evil, and serves no purpose to us. We would never get attacked by anyone, or have any national disasters anyway.

You see? Oh, and I find it incredibly insulting you would group Conservatives and racists together, that is completely immature and shows everyone how narrow minded you are. If you want to debate issues, go ahead, but you literally just listed what one conservative may believe, not all of them. I also find it incredibly entertaining that you think that Liberals (regardless of the country) want to legalize marihuana and other narcotics to help there people and reduce crime. They don't, they just want more money. Cartels will not go away when any drug is legal, in fact it will only encourage them to strive for more profit, and be more drastic.

I don't know about your country, but in our country, the "liberals love the poor" philosophy is completely reverse. Our Liberal government in Canada, which is made up of stereotypical leftys, send all tax money abroad to support foreigners, and don't do no nothing to help there own homeless, jobless, sick, veterans, etc etc. The Conservatives on the other hand actually try to help.

I suppose if any point can be drawn from what I said, is that asking what people think of an unrealistic portrayal of conservatives, is worthless, because not all conservatives are like that. I would say I am about very moderately right, but I'm not racist, I don't hate gays. Fun fact: The Conservative party of Canada, when in power actually legalized gay marriage. That's weird, hey? :eek:

I personally think every drug should be legal unless it can be used as something like a poision or date rape drug. I think this because then it would be easier for them to get the help and support they need to get off the drugs.

Weed should be completly legal to smoke and sell whereas I think heroin should be legal to consume but highly illegal to sell as this incentivises dealers to get people on the drug.

Oh iI think every gun should be highly illegal, there is no reason to own a gun. The only reasons I can think of is hunting, sports and collectors and I don't think any of these are good enough reasons to own a gun.

I am seriously having issues comprehending this horrible, blind, philosophy. You believe that, by legalizing drugs, people will be able to get off them easier? So by making people able to purchase drugs, with no risk, they will seek help? What kind of logic is this? Also, how do you make something illegal to sell, yet legal to consume? And also, you say all drugs should be legal, but then say heroic should be illegal? I honestly can't tell if you were being ironic. I assume you weren't though.

And the guns. Wow, you nailed it. Guns are horrible evil contraptions. I shouldn't use a gun to kill animals or shoot targets. That would be morally wron-- no. Just no. Ok, so assume all guns are illegal, from a .22LR to a AK47 to a 1911 pistol. I'll buy a bow, target practice with that. I'll shoot animals with that, sure, it will probably cause them more pain, because I can't hit them precisely, but animals don't deserve rights, they can suffer, because the liberals say guns are evil, that there is no reason to hunt, or sport. Hunting is a sport just as much as soccer or baseball or football. And I guess I can't use guns for target practice either, because somehow, that hurts people.

Now, my dear left leaning friend, ignoring the self defence argument, why would using guns for hunting and targeting, and collecting, not reason enough to have guns? I am genuinely confused by your statement.

Merged double posts. Please use "Multi-Quote" next time.
~P&S

lyhom

May 23rd, 2016, 11:49 PM

Fun fact: The Conservative party of Canada, when in power actually legalized gay marriage. That's weird, hey? :eek:

actually it was legalized nationwide in 2005, when the liberals were in power, although after a failed attempt to reopen the issue in 2006, stephen harper never visited the matter again.

DriveAlive

May 24th, 2016, 10:34 AM

This just became my favorite thread! Let me start with three big ones:

1. Drugs (I am not talking about weed) are seriously the most destructive thing in our society. Not only do they destroy lives, but they also destroy the economy. People are turned from productive members of society into zombies. Legalizing drugs would promote this pain and suffering. We need to be cracking down harder then ever on the drug trade and funding rehab for users.

2. Transgenders using the bathroom of their choice is not a matter of gender freedom, but a matter of thought. In effect, legislating trans people to use the bathroom of their choice is legislating a perception of reality that does not coincide with reality.

3. Gun rights are at the foundation of America and any attempt to corrupt them would equally corrupt the country. Background checks are proven to be ineffective at preventing criminals from getting guns and are only a burden for law abiding citizens. Any gun registration could be used by the government to target certain groups (such as Jews). Concealed carry is a right of Americans to protect themselves and should be reciprocated to all 50 states just like a driver's license. If you really wanted to stop gun violence, you would severely increase the penalties for gun crime, not punish gun owners.

Judean Zealot

May 24th, 2016, 11:58 AM

Flapjack

May 24th, 2016, 12:29 PM

Your generalizing a bit, don't you think? Liberals would love to tell us that the signs on our washrooms are meaningless, that marriage is not important anymore, and that violent cults should be able to run amuck. And of course they think that a national defence system is completely evil, and serves no purpose to us. We would never get attacked by anyone, or have any national disasters anyway.

XD Moans at me for generalizing.... generalizing liberals in next sentance..XD When did I say any of that??:D
Liberals would love to tell us that the signs on our washrooms are meaningless

Didn't say this but they are. Unisex bathrooms should be more common.
that marriage is not important anymore
Never said this!! Also where did this stereotype come from? Supporting gay marriage ≠ think marriage is not important. I personally don't think it is that important. Marriage is beautiul and I would love to get married, but its not for everyone and who cares what other people do with their lives, they're not hurting anyone.

violent cults should be able to run amuck
Another weird steryotype?? Never said this??
And of course they think that a national defence system is completely evil, and serves no purpose to us.

Againnnnn never said this.
We would never get attacked by anyone, or have any national disasters anyway.

Nopeeeee never said this either.

Liberals (regardless of the country) want to legalize marihuana and other narcotics to help there people and reduce crime. They don't, they just want more money. Cartels will not go away when any drug is legal, in fact it will only encourage them to strive for more profit, and be more drastic.

Ya know who you sound like?? The people that supported the prohibition of alcohol.
Here is links to articles about how Nixon's aide says what the real reason for the war on drugs is. Also even if you do belive weed is the worse thing in the world, do you think the punishments are appropiate?

The cartels might do other illegal stuff but they get a lot of their income from the sale of drugs and with that gone most of them will fade away.

Yeahhh I'm a liberal and I don't want more money, I want to help people:')

coYUFJLSOm8

I don't know about your country, but in our country, the "liberals love the poor" philosophy is completely reverse. Our Liberal government in Canada, which is made up of stereotypical leftys, send all tax money abroad to support foreigners, and don't do no nothing to help there own homeless, jobless, sick, veterans, etc etc. The Conservatives on the other hand actually try to help.

My friend, I know nothing about the politics in Canada and I am not trying to persuade anyone to support parties or policies just because they're liberal. It seems you have a problem with people that identify as liberal instead of debating the issues.

If your goverment is not helping the homeless and the veterans etc then I would like them too. Just because somebody is 'liberal' does not mean they blindly follow liberal leaders or support liberal policies.

How would your conservatives help the homeless then?

I suppose if any point can be drawn from what I said, is that asking what people think of an unrealistic portrayal of conservatives, is worthless, because not all conservatives are like that. I would say I am about very moderately right, but I'm not racist, I don't hate gays. Fun fact: The Conservative party of Canada, when in power actually legalized gay marriage. That's weird, hey? :eek:

I know the title of this thread is aimed at conservatives but it is really aimed at the peope that believe the rubbish I mentioned in the OP. Just so happens the vast majority of them are conservatives.

I am seriously having issues comprehending this horrible, blind, philosophy. You believe that, by legalizing drugs, people will be able to get off them easier? So by making people able to purchase drugs, with no risk, they will seek help? What kind of logic is this? Also, how do you make something illegal to sell, yet legal to consume? And also, you say all drugs should be legal, but then say heroic should be illegal? I honestly can't tell if you were being ironic. I assume you weren't though.

Okay this is my fault. I think weed should be legalized so it can be legally sold and consumed. All other drugs I think consuming them and even possessing small amounts should be decriminalized so the addict can go get help ect. The dealers should be punished sorry that is my fault for not using the right language.

And the guns. Wow, you nailed it. Guns are horrible evil contraptions. I shouldn't use a gun to kill animals or shoot targets. That would be morally wron-- no. Just no. Ok, so assume all guns are illegal, from a .22LR to a AK47 to a 1911 pistol. I'll buy a bow, target practice with that. I'll shoot animals with that, sure, it will probably cause them more pain, because I can't hit them precisely, but animals don't deserve rights, they can suffer, because the liberals say guns are evil, that there is no reason to hunt, or sport. Hunting is a sport just as much as soccer or baseball or football. And I guess I can't use guns for target practice either, because somehow, that hurts people.

Now, my dear left leaning friend, ignoring the self defence argument, why would using guns for hunting and targeting, and collecting, not reason enough to have guns? I am genuinely confused by your statement.

I was reading the first sentance and was like yeahhh we agree on something!!!:metal::metal::metal: then you go break my heart:P

Yep I think all guns should be banned!! Oh and don't worry about causing animals more pain because I would ban that too. Also just saying.... I doubt any hunter actually cares about what the animal feels because if he did... he probablyyyy wouldn't be shooting it:D

Yeahhh just because hunting is a sport dosen't mean it is okay!! Ya know if that was a thing I could make bank robbing a thing or drowning people:') (Don't get mad dude I'm joking I know they're apples and oranges.)

Nope shooting targets dosen't hurt anyone!! But that is hardly a reason for people to possess weapons designed to kill people. These guns can obviously be used is a shooting or one of the many, many accidental shootings.

3. Gun rights are at the foundation of America and any attempt to corrupt them would equally corrupt the country. Background checks are proven to be ineffective at preventing criminals from getting guns and are only a burden for law abiding citizens. Any gun registration could be used by the government to target certain groups (such as Jews). Concealed carry is a right of Americans to protect themselves and should be reciprocated to all 50 states just like a driver's license. If you really wanted to stop gun violence, you would severely increase the penalties for gun crime, not punish gun owners.
heyy drivealive!! Never spoken to you beforeee:')

I have addressed your other points elsewhere in this post so I shall only focus on 3.

Firstly, the BECAUSE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION argument is sooo bad.

Slavery was in the constitution but that was changed because it was wrong.
Also, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: 'the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' Just because the founding fathers supported the right to guns (if you're in a well regulated militia which every gun nut forgets to read:D) does not mean we should have guns today. You could argue that all the automatic weapons and giant mags wasn't around back then so maybe the types of weapons should be limited buttt I want all guns banned.

any attempt to corrupt them would equally corrupt the country.
Ahhh just like all the other countries in the world that got corrupted... oh wait... that never happend!

Ironically, it is the NRA lobbying the goverment stopping the gun control that 90% of americans want. Kindaaa corrupt!

DriveAlive

May 24th, 2016, 12:49 PM

Ironically, it is the NRA lobbying the goverment stopping the gun control that 90% of americans want. Kindaaa corrupt!

Let me focus on the point of gun control for a bit. The question in that survey is rather vague and responsible for the skewed numbers. I am sure that almost all Americans would agree that criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns. Moreover, some sort of law or regulation that would prevent them from getting guns while also not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens would also be good.

However, this is not the kind of gun control legislation being pushed by politicians. The current background check system has proven to be ineffective and burdensome. Attempts to create a national firearms registry would trample on the rights of gunowners and could potentially endanger minority groups. For example, when purchasing a gun, there is a mandatory question about your ethnicity and then a second mandatory question to identify yourself as Hispanic. If I was Hispanic, I would certainly feel targeted by the government for buying a gun.

Clearly, the idea of some sort of gun control makes sense and is supported by a majority of Americans and gunowners. But the gun control legislation that the NRA has lobbied against does not prevent criminals from getting guns and infringes on the rights of citizens.

Flapjack

May 24th, 2016, 01:03 PM

Let me focus on the point of gun control for a bit. The question in that survey is rather vague and responsible for the skewed numbers. I am sure that almost all Americans would agree that criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own guns. Moreover, some sort of law or regulation that would prevent them from getting guns while also not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens would also be good.

However, this is not the kind of gun control legislation being pushed by politicians. The current background check system has proven to be ineffective and burdensome. Attempts to create a national firearms registry would trample on the rights of gunowners and could potentially endanger minority groups. For example, when purchasing a gun, there is a mandatory question about your ethnicity and then a second mandatory question to identify yourself as Hispanic. If I was Hispanic, I would certainly feel targeted by the government for buying a gun.

Clearly, the idea of some sort of gun control makes sense and is supported by a majority of Americans and gunowners. But the gun control legislation that the NRA has lobbied against does not prevent criminals from getting guns and infringes on the rights of citizens.

Alright, so remove the ethnicity question if it makes you uncomfortable.

Them lobbying against ineffective gun control does not make them good ya know? I'd take some improvement over none.

sqishy

May 24th, 2016, 01:08 PM

In effect, legislating trans people to use the bathroom of their choice is legislating a perception of reality that does not coincide with reality.

I could put my opposing view in response but you probably already know about it, because I have it lying around so to speak.

There's a lot of variety with what one can use as an example of laws that don't coincide with 'reality', and how one can argue for them:

Gun ownership laws - allows freedom to defend yourself with firearms because we live in a dangerous world, that being the perception of reality; actual reality is that we don't live in such a dangerous world to need guns to defend ourselves.

Anti-surveillance laws - denies freedom of a government to electronically watch over its citizens and their actions, the perception of reality (in one angle) being that terrorists can live anywhere in any manner, so we need to be on the watch for them in every way we can; actual reality is that terrorists won't be this good at hiding unless we're already restricting them to that option by using mass surveillance.

- - - - - - - -

My point is that there's so many ways one can argue for or against laws on ground of if they reflect some objective reliable reality or not. Perhaps it's one way the realm of Law is so complicated, because so many people have different ideas on how law should reflect their view of reality, and everyone thinks their one is the right reality.

Would it not be better if laws reflected common grounds through social co-operation, rather than attempting to make them stand against 'the actual reality as I see it' which will only open up more conflict in ideas?

Otherwise, it's too powerful to have a certain groups' ideology be seen to deserve special higher importance over others to the level of social interaction. Let us do the ideology stuff in a world where we are at least given a common ground of adequate social cooperation where minimal harm is done to anyone - everything else can come after that.

We don't annihilate our opponents without at least giving both us and them respect on the level of having a field to stand on before further conflict. That field is social cooperation.

(Hope this makes sense.)

Rydar8

May 24th, 2016, 08:38 PM

1. How was the federal goverment controlling how you live?? It was just allowing gay people to have the same rights as you!
2. Where do you think transexual people have been going? How many cases of preditors dressing up as a women are there? Also have you thought about how you would enforce it? Would you check everyones junk? Because these laws are forcing people to go into the wrong bathrooms looking like the opposite sex where they could get attacked or they could go to the right bathroom where they could get arrested.
3. I do not live in the USA currently anyways.
4.. *facepalm* XD socialism is basically when the state owns stuff, often production and factories. How much is state owned can very. For example would you want to hire a private company instead of a state run military? Of course not so don't be one of the conservatives that jump when they hear the scary S word:'D

Socialists often help the poor but if it is a private company doing the helping, funded by either charity or the goverment. It is not socialist:)

5. I never said you said anything about race :lol: I said I saw the same image you have... and that image is racist. I have no reason to believe you would judge another person by the amount of melanin in their skin.

Well I am a liberal... and when someone shots someone yes I blame the shooter!! Goshhh someones been listening to fox newsXD

I do however think it is fair to criticise the stupidly easy access to guns as well.

No I disagree... banning guns willl stop a lot of terrorists. Will it stop them all? No, but it will at least decrease the rate of the attacks in the USA. It will also reduce accidental deaths.

1. it was a general statement but it still applies, the federal government thinking they can control a states rights issue sets a dangerous precedent, allowing them to think they can have total control in the future.
note. I never said I was opposed to gay marriage, all opposition of it should die off with the generation currently in power, I am however opposed to how it was legalized.

2. I'm not going to argue that with you because you are trying to play with my emotions (which is what liberals to do get what they want) instead of using facts and logic. come back when you have a real argument.

3. if you don't live in the USA why does any of this concern you? that confuses me.

4. "scary "s" word" so much for liberal tolerance.
socialism can not be enacted in a capitalist society. to use your definition, the state shouldn't own anything, that's just government control a capitalist society doesn't need.

5. please, explain how at all the m&m metaphor is racist, ill tell you now its not because I will use it on all races if it explains to uneducated people the threat the refugees bring to us.
yes I have been listening to fox news. I have a freedom that allows me to do that and fox news has freedom of the press that allows them to say basically whatever they want.
the "stupidity easy access" as you put it should always remain in place. everyone has the right to own guns, why stop it? I, nor does anyone in my family, own a gun but just because I don't have one doesn't mean I'm going to make everyone else not have one. its within their rights, so I don't care.

6. accidental gun deaths were only 0.019% last year so I do not see accidental gun deaths as a problem, considering of every 310 million gun in the US (which is every 9/10 people). if guns were really a problem, shouldn't 310 million people be dying by the hands of a gun? let me answer that for you, no. in 2013, 33,636 people died as a result of gun violence, and sadly about 65% was suicide. but in that same year, 33,804 people died in car crashes, so if cars are more dangerous, shouldn't we be banning them instead? no, especially since the USA constitution defends the right own firearms and not cars.

DriveAlive

May 25th, 2016, 12:04 AM

Alright, so remove the ethnicity question if it makes you uncomfortable.

Them lobbying against ineffective gun control does not make them good ya know? I'd take some improvement over none.
I want to know what you mean by not "good." The NRA is funded by its members with the mission of stopping ineffective, burdensome, or unconstitutional gun laws. That is exactly what they do. The fact that politicians refuse to propose actual improvements is not the fault of the NRA because that is not their job.

DriveAlive

May 25th, 2016, 12:14 AM

I could put my opposing view in response but you probably already know about it, because I have it lying around so to speak.

There's a lot of variety with what one can use as an example of laws that don't coincide with 'reality', and how one can argue for them:

Gun ownership laws - allows freedom to defend yourself with firearms because we live in a dangerous world, that being the perception of reality; actual reality is that we don't live in such a dangerous world to need guns to defend ourselves.

Anti-surveillance laws - denies freedom of a government to electronically watch over its citizens and their actions, the perception of reality (in one angle) being that terrorists can live anywhere in any manner, so we need to be on the watch for them in every way we can; actual reality is that terrorists won't be this good at hiding unless we're already restricting them to that option by using mass surveillance.

- - - - - - - -

My point is that there's so many ways one can argue for or against laws on ground of if they reflect some objective reliable reality or not. Perhaps it's one way the realm of Law is so complicated, because so many people have different ideas on how law should reflect their view of reality, and everyone thinks their one is the right reality.

Would it not be better if laws reflected common grounds through social co-operation, rather than attempting to make them stand against 'the actual reality as I see it' which will only open up more conflict in ideas?

Otherwise, it's too powerful to have a certain groups' ideology be seen to deserve special higher importance over others to the level of social interaction. Let us do the ideology stuff in a world where we are at least given a common ground of adequate social cooperation where minimal harm is done to anyone - everything else can come after that.

We don't annihilate our opponents without at least giving both us and them respect on the level of having a field to stand on before further conflict. That field is social cooperation.

(Hope this makes sense.)
Sorry, but I am a little lost with what you are trying to say here. Let me try my best with what I think you are getting at. You are saying that reality is relative and it is just to legislate a certain understanding of reality because it makes the most sense currently?

Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for this response, but I find it very convincing:

"Demonizing transgender people is unfair in any light...It's not a fight against people. It's a fight about reality, and whether or not the government can dictate a certain version of it. Ultimately, it's a fight about freedom of thought.

America's burgeoning bathroom wars, so silly and banal on the surface, are actually quite deep: They fling together two conflicting, wildly incompatible streams of thought. On the transgender side, identity is everything. If gender is truly fluid, and yet truly knowable, then the denial of one's gender identity is a hurtful denial of one's very being or self.

This is also why the bathroom issue provides such a massive spark point: If the government agrees that trans men and women can access the bathrooms of their choice, they are officially validating the view that gender is no more than what you feel or believe it to be. They are ruling this view, in their own way, a fact — and if it's a fact, can anyone really rightfully disagree?"

TheFlyer

May 25th, 2016, 12:21 AM

XD Moans at me for generalizing.... generalizing liberals in next sentance..XD When did I say any of that??:D

Didn't say this but they are. Unisex bathrooms should be more common.

Never said this!! Also where did this stereotype come from? Supporting gay marriage ≠ think marriage is not important. I personally don't think it is that important. Marriage is beautiul and I would love to get married, but its not for everyone and who cares what other people do with their lives, they're not hurting anyone.

Another weird steryotype?? Never said this??

Againnnnn never said this.

Nopeeeee never said this either.

Ya know who you sound like?? The people that supported the prohibition of alcohol.
Here is links to articles about how Nixon's aide says what the real reason for the war on drugs is. Also even if you do belive weed is the worse thing in the world, do you think the punishments are appropiate?

The cartels might do other illegal stuff but they get a lot of their income from the sale of drugs and with that gone most of them will fade away.

Yeahhh I'm a liberal and I don't want more money, I want to help people:')

coYUFJLSOm8

My friend, I know nothing about the politics in Canada and I am not trying to persuade anyone to support parties or policies just because they're liberal. It seems you have a problem with people that identify as liberal instead of debating the issues.

If your goverment is not helping the homeless and the veterans etc then I would like them too. Just because somebody is 'liberal' does not mean they blindly follow liberal leaders or support liberal policies.

How would your conservatives help the homeless then?

I know the title of this thread is aimed at conservatives but it is really aimed at the peope that believe the rubbish I mentioned in the OP. Just so happens the vast majority of them are conservatives.

Okay this is my fault. I think weed should be legalized so it can be legally sold and consumed. All other drugs I think consuming them and even possessing small amounts should be decriminalized so the addict can go get help ect. The dealers should be punished sorry that is my fault for not using the right language.

I was reading the first sentance and was like yeahhh we agree on something!!!:metal::metal::metal: then you go break my heart:P

Yep I think all guns should be banned!! Oh and don't worry about causing animals more pain because I would ban that too. Also just saying.... I doubt any hunter actually cares about what the animal feels because if he did... he probablyyyy wouldn't be shooting it:D

Yeahhh just because hunting is a sport dosen't mean it is okay!! Ya know if that was a thing I could make bank robbing a thing or drowning people:') (Don't get mad dude I'm joking I know they're apples and oranges.)

Nope shooting targets dosen't hurt anyone!! But that is hardly a reason for people to possess weapons designed to kill people. These guns can obviously be used is a shooting or one of the many, many accidental shootings.

heyy drivealive!! Never spoken to you beforeee:')

I have addressed your other points elsewhere in this post so I shall only focus on 3.

Firstly, the BECAUSE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION argument is sooo bad.

Slavery was in the constitution but that was changed because it was wrong.
Also, in the words of Thomas Jefferson: 'the earth belongs in usufruct to the living' Just because the founding fathers supported the right to guns (if you're in a well regulated militia which every gun nut forgets to read:D) does not mean we should have guns today. You could argue that all the automatic weapons and giant mags wasn't around back then so maybe the types of weapons should be limited buttt I want all guns banned.

Ahhh just like all the other countries in the world that got corrupted... oh wait... that never happend!

Ironically, it is the NRA lobbying the goverment stopping the gun control that 90% of americans want. Kindaaa corrupt!

Wow. Ok, here we go. 80% of what you just said was unnecessary as you obviously did not understand the first part of my response. I was being ironic, you were generalizing, so I retorted in an ironic way to show how ridiculous you sound.

Also, with regards to the gun laws. Many guns now are/were designed to kill animals. Not humans. Most people in North America own guns for three reasons: 1. To hunt animals, for sport, hide(fur), and meat. This is a legitimate reason to own a gun, people have done this for millennia in order to provide fir their families. Also, you once again generalize that hunters do not care about the well being if animals. That simply is not true, and you obviously have no experience or knowledge on the subject. Being a avid hunter and fisher myself, I care very much about the suffering if animals. I do not wish to see them flop around on the ground, grasping at air. I would much prefer have a clean shot so they feel as little pain as possible. I am not the only hunter that does this too. You ask any real hunter what they think about poachers, or those who kill outside of season and I assure you you will be in for a rant much like this one, with the added language of a sailor. 2. Collecting. People collect ancient Indian arrow heads, old coins, stamps, leaves, and guns. That in no way whatsoever harms anyone, and because most antique guns are disable or don't work, they don't even pose accidental threat. 3. Self defence. This is extremely common in certain parts of the US, however it is not very common unfortunately in Canada. People have the right (Universal right, not nation specific) to life. They also have the right to protect their life. If you say that guns should be banned, you take that right. If people wish to protect themselves they should be able too.

The "because it is in the constitution argument" is great. Without it, you have no laws. It is effectively anarchy. You have to have something to argue off of, and the is where it starts.

Also, I do admit to making a mistake about the gay marriage thing. I don't know why I thought that. Makes sense though.

DriveAlive

May 25th, 2016, 12:26 AM

Wow. Ok, here we go. 80% of what you just said was unnecessary as you obviously did not understand the first part of my response. I was being ironic, you were generalizing, so I retorted in an ironic way to show how ridiculous you sound.

Also, with regards to the gun laws. Many guns now are/were designed to kill animals. Not humans. Most people in North America own guns for three reasons: 1. To hunt animals, for sport, hide(fur), and meat. This is a legitimate reason to own a gun, people have done this for millennia in order to provide fir their families. Also, you once again generalize that hunters do not care about the well being if animals. That simply is not true, and you obviously have no experience or knowledge on the subject. Being a avid hunter and fisher myself, I care very much about the suffering if animals. I do not wish to see them flop around on the ground, grasping at air. I would much prefer have a clean shot so they feel as little pain as possible. I am not the only hunter that does this too. You ask any real hunter what they think about poachers, or those who kill outside of season and I assure you you will be in for a rant much like this one, with the added language of a sailor. 2. Collecting. People collect ancient Indian arrow heads, old coins, stamps, leaves, and guns. That in no way whatsoever harms anyone, and because most antique guns are disable or don't work, they don't even pose accidental threat. 3. Self defence. This is extremely common in certain parts of the US, however it is not very common unfortunately in Canada. People have the right (Universal right, not nation specific) to life. They also have the right to protect their life. If you say that guns should be banned, you take that right. If people wish to protect themselves they should be able too.

You have provided almost no legitimate argument, other than your generalization in OP, about Conservatives and their "big government".

Just to add to this, I have hunted in Africa before, and you will never find a group of people more passionate about conservation and more angered by poaching. Quite regularly, poachers will be shot on sight with no warning provided. There is zero tolerance for poaching amongst serious hunters.

TheFlyer

May 25th, 2016, 12:34 AM

Just to add to this, I have hunted in Africa before, and you will never find a group of people more passionate about conservation and more angered by poaching. Quite regularly, poachers will be shot on sight with no warning provided. There is zero tolerance for poaching amongst serious hunters.

Yes, and that brings up another good point about hunting. People seem to forget that humans are animals as well. Lions eat zebras, just as humans eat beef. However we are also prey. In many villages in Africa, children and woman who are unarmed are killed and eaten by lions. Just like Cecil the lion, who had ravaged villages before being put to death by the badass dentist. Yet these environmentalist freaks seemed more worried about the poor kitty then the children.:confused::rolleyes:

Flapjack

May 25th, 2016, 12:46 PM

2. I'm not going to argue that with you because you are trying to play with my emotions (which is what liberals to do get what they want) instead of using facts and logic. come back when you have a real argument.

3. if you don't live in the USA why does any of this concern you? that confuses me.

How is it playing with your emotions? Is that how you respond to serious moral issues?

Also, how would this be enforced?
There are already girls getting arrested because they might be a trans girl when they're not.
Trans women look, sound and behave like ordinary women. So how would you check?
Why not have unisex bathroom?
Aside from religious people forcing their religion down people's throat, I see no reason to be transphobic.

People suffering in any country concerns me, whether it is China, North Korea or the USA. Just because people are born on different sides of a made up border does not make them any different.

I want to know what you mean by not "good." The NRA is funded by its members with the mission of stopping ineffective, burdensome, or unconstitutional gun laws. That is exactly what they do. The fact that politicians refuse to propose actual improvements is not the fault of the NRA because that is not their job.
Noooo the NRA only cares about selling more money. This is shown by them opposing progress in gun control and opressing smart guns.

Also, with regards to the gun laws. Many guns now are/were designed to kill animals. Not humans. Most people in North America own guns for three reasons: 1. To hunt animals, for sport, hide(fur), and meat. This is a legitimate reason to own a gun, people have done this for millennia in order to provide fir their families. Also, you once again generalize that hunters do not care about the well being if animals. That simply is not true, and you obviously have no experience or knowledge on the subject. Being a avid hunter and fisher myself, I care very much about the suffering if animals. I do not wish to see them flop around on the ground, grasping at air. I would much prefer have a clean shot so they feel as little pain as possible. I am not the only hunter that does this too. You ask any real hunter what they think about poachers, or those who kill outside of season and I assure you you will be in for a rant much like this one, with the added language of a sailor. 2. Collecting. People collect ancient Indian arrow heads, old coins, stamps, leaves, and guns. That in no way whatsoever harms anyone, and because most antique guns are disable or don't work, they don't even pose accidental threat. 3. Self defence. This is extremely common in certain parts of the US, however it is not very common unfortunately in Canada. People have the right (Universal right, not nation specific) to life. They also have the right to protect their life. If you say that guns should be banned, you take that right. If people wish to protect themselves they should be able too.
.

If other people don't own guns, you don't need to. In the UK the poilice don't even carry guns.

I am sorry but I can not picture an animal lover shooting animals for no reason other than sick satisfaction. As for food, thankfully we have a civilised society where people don't need to possess deadly weaponry to get food, they can buy it from a shop.

If a gun can kill a person, it should be illegal. Even if you wouldn't go this far I am sure you can agree that semi and fully auto guns should be ilegal, as well as large mags and other stupid unnecessary stuff that make school shootings easy.

DriveAlive

May 25th, 2016, 01:54 PM

How is it playing with your emotions? Is that how you respond to serious moral issues?

Also, how would this be enforced?
There are already girls getting arrested because they might be a trans girl when they're not.
Trans women look, sound and behave like ordinary women. So how would you check?
Why not have unisex bathroom?
Aside from religious people forcing their religion down people's throat, I see no reason to be transphobic.

People suffering in any country concerns me, whether it is China, North Korea or the USA. Just because people are born on different sides of a made up border does not make them any different.

Noooo the NRA only cares about selling more money. This is shown by them opposing progress in gun control and opressing smart guns.

If other people don't own guns, you don't need to. In the UK the poilice don't even carry guns.

I am sorry but I can not picture an animal lover shooting animals for no reason other than sick satisfaction. As for food, thankfully we have a civilised society where people don't need to possess deadly weaponry to get food, they can buy it from a shop.

If a gun can kill a person, it should be illegal. Even if you wouldn't go this far I am sure you can agree that semi and fully auto guns should be ilegal, as well as large mags and other stupid unnecessary stuff that make school shootings easy.

First, as I have just stated, opposes gun control that is ineffective and burdensome. In the past, the NRA has endorsed gun control laws that are effective and constitutional, but politicians want to take these laws further and infringe on rights. That is when the NRA began to oppose current gun control legislation. Also, smart gun technology is utterly ridiculous. It is incredibly burdensome for legal gunowners and could be handily disabled by criminals. Not to mention, if the system fails (as technology is one to do) then a person could be left unarmed in a dangerous situation when they need the firearm the most. Smart guns were just another anti-gun ploy attempting to punish gunowners.

Second, you claim that hunting is cruel and sadistic because in today's society one can simply buy their meat from a grocery store. Of course, this is because slaughterhouses are the epitome of humane animal treatment. Right? The fact of the matter is, the majority of hunters are responsible conservationists that respect the animals. The prevailing attitude amongst many is that they hunt the animal like the Native Americans did, which means that they respect the animal for it's sacrifice and use the food it provides for sustenance and conservation. So I ask you this: is it more humane and respectful to kill an animal that has lived a good life in nature, or kill hundreds of animals crammed into a filthy slaughterhouse and subjected to suffering their whole life?

sqishy

May 25th, 2016, 02:42 PM

Sorry, but I am a little lost with what you are trying to say here. Let me try my best with what I think you are getting at. You are saying that reality is relative and it is just to legislate a certain understanding of reality because it makes the most sense currently?

No, I'm saying that the nature of reality outside of the social realm is irrelevant. We set a common social cooperation ground such that minimal harm is done between people. It is after and elsewhere that we engage in opposing viewpoints that don't seek to alter social cooperation.

Of course, it's impossible for any idea to not affect the social world in some way, but we can still hold social cooperation as a given at the least.

Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for this response, but I find it very convincing:

"Demonizing transgender people is unfair in any light...It's not a fight against people. It's a fight about reality, and whether or not the government can dictate a certain version of it. Ultimately, it's a fight about freedom of thought.

If you make reference to no-platforming, then I'm against that - ideas shouldn't have basic communication grounds be pulled from under them, analogous to what I just said.

America's burgeoning bathroom wars, so silly and banal on the surface, are actually quite deep: They fling together two conflicting, wildly incompatible streams of thought. On the transgender side, identity is everything. If gender is truly fluid, and yet truly knowable, then the denial of one's gender identity is a hurtful denial of one's very being or self.

I would not say that gender identity is everything for trans people. Gender identity doesn't hold up the totality of one's self, it only occupies (the still very important) role of gender expression to others, and also ourselves indirectly. That doesn't mean everything to anyone unless they are obsessive with it, which is not part of being trans by definition or necessity.

Is it incompatible to view fluidity in the gender expression aspect of oneself, with seeing oneself as having a self? Our self is not static, it's fluid over time with at least age; sure, some of it either doesn't change at all or changes very slowly from noticing, but it's not an atomic permanent entity. The label of it may well be, but the label is not the same as what it labels.

This is also why the bathroom issue provides such a massive spark point: If the government agrees that trans men and women can access the bathrooms of their choice, they are officially validating the view that gender is no more than what you feel or believe it to be. They are ruling this view, in their own way, a fact — and if it's a fact, can anyone really rightfully disagree?"

I approach this in one way, which is that the functional importance of an entity only expressible to us, disappears when it cannot be expressed. What part of gender that matters to our lives functionally lies outside experience?

DriveAlive

May 25th, 2016, 10:49 PM

No, I'm saying that the nature of reality outside of the social realm is irrelevant. We set a common social cooperation ground such that minimal harm is done between people. It is after and elsewhere that we engage in opposing viewpoints that don't seek to alter social cooperation.

Of course, it's impossible for any idea to not affect the social world in some way, but we can still hold social cooperation as a given at the least.

If you make reference to no-platforming, then I'm against that - ideas shouldn't have basic communication grounds be pulled from under them, analogous to what I just said.

I would not say that gender identity is everything for trans people. Gender identity doesn't hold up the totality of one's self, it only occupies (the still very important) role of gender expression to others, and also ourselves indirectly. That doesn't mean everything to anyone unless they are obsessive with it, which is not part of being trans by definition or necessity.

Is it incompatible to view fluidity in the gender expression aspect of oneself, with seeing oneself as having a self? Our self is not static, it's fluid over time with at least age; sure, some of it either doesn't change at all or changes very slowly from noticing, but it's not an atomic permanent entity. The label of it may well be, but the label is not the same as what it labels.

I approach this in one way, which is that the functional importance of an entity only expressible to us, disappears when it cannot be expressed. What part of gender that matters to our lives functionally lies outside experience?

Once again, I think you have lost me. I am not so used to this philosophical type of discussion lol. Let me try to state again what I am saying and then see where you are on it.

Basically, reality dictates that people are born either biologically male or female. Transgender people feel as if they should be the other gender. Since this feeling does not match reality, they choose to modify themselves physically to better meet their perception of reality. In addition, they want the government to legally recognize their perception or reality and not the way things physically are.

This is where I have the problem with these laws. It is asking the government to legally deny the physically objective reality of the world in favor of appeasing a small minority. It's as if we had to pass laws that forced everyone to pretend that the color red was actually grey because some people are colorblind.

I am not saying that transgenders are bad people or that they should be discriminated against. If a person chooses to change their gender for whatever reason, that is their choice. I just do not believe that the ROLE of government is to legislate perceptions.

sqishy

May 28th, 2016, 01:51 PM

Once again, I think you have lost me. I am not so used to this philosophical type of discussion lol. Let me try to state again what I am saying and then see where you are on it.

I can get technical so I apologise for that.

Basically, reality dictates that people are born either biologically male or female. Transgender people feel as if they should be the other gender. Since this feeling does not match reality, they choose to modify themselves physically to better meet their perception of reality.

Reality 'dictates' that most people are born biologically male or female (again, intersex people cannot be left out of here, and they are more common than you think).

I would also say that reality 'dictates' that the neurobiological build of someone is such that it develops in certain ways to XX or XY chromosomes as a trend, not a necessity, but this is the disagreement we got going on.

In addition, they want the government to legally recognize their perception or reality and not the way things physically are.

I think it is more of a matter of wanting legislation that guards against having issues with the bathroom they go to, because it's been a problem; it's reactionary.

This is where I have the problem with these laws. It is asking the government to legally deny the physically objective reality of the world in favor of appeasing a small minority. It's as if we had to pass laws that forced everyone to pretend that the color red was actually grey because some people are colorblind.

This is where I fail to see how you get here, I also don't get your colour analogy and am not sure how to respond without trying to analyse your view here, so I'm just going to give a counterargument.

Is it more important for everyone to adhere to 'objective physical reality' than have everyone have a better state of mind? I don't see what problems come up with the bathrooms if we let the trans people have their request met. Is the violation of objective physical reality in your view going to be an issue? I don't have issues with people who have different worldviews than mine to the point that it's uncomfortable, offending or just emotionally not good, nor do I see how it should be. This doesn't touch off the view of what objective physical reality is even.

I am not saying that transgenders are bad people or that they should be discriminated against. If a person chooses to change their gender for whatever reason, that is their choice. I just do not believe that the ROLE of government is to legislate perceptions.

It's a matter of a government legislating against avoidable conflict between people and experiences of them, not of perceptions on how the world 'out there' is.

Judean Zealot

May 28th, 2016, 04:07 PM

Does this mean the state can facilitate the actions of individuals, or communities, but cannot in itself take action. I'm not sure, for a lot of goals, on what grounds that's operable, but I'll attempt to get the theoretics correct first. If that's incorrect would you mind expanding with policy examples?

You read me correctly, and you are right; such a policy doesn't give the state much of a place in fixing the world. That is not it's function. Of course, where cost is insignificant there's no reason why the state shouldn't help others, but they are in no way obligated to do so.

On the second point, I presume you don't conceive it an issue where a nation aiming to benefit itself harms others. This would include immigration-restrictions and trade-restrictions (or subsidising exporters). Environmental pollution falls within that, there's explicit benefits for the Russians and Canadians, and in the process it hurts other nations. In both cases there's also a keen realisation that there's a negative impact on others.

I appeal to the necessity of a valid casus belli as an indicator that there is a distinction between passively maintaining sovereignty to the detriment of other nations (such as trade policy, immigration, and environmental regulation) and proactively undermining the sovereignty of another nation for your own benefit. The first is the purpose of the state, while the second is subject to international norms and regulation.

----

I might add that my environmentalism is more focused on nature and wildlife preservation than manipulating industry to create or maintain a particular weather state. Although there is significant overlap between the two, it pays to make that distinction.

-----

And finally, why is no one here bothering to address the real issue here, which is what function government serves? Instead we're squabbling about the utility of various pieces of legislation - we're kind of missing the point here.

DriveAlive

May 29th, 2016, 01:17 AM

I can get technical so I apologise for that.

Reality 'dictates' that most people are born biologically male or female (again, intersex people cannot be left out of here, and they are more common than you think).

I would also say that reality 'dictates' that the neurobiological build of someone is such that it develops in certain ways to XX or XY chromosomes as a trend, not a necessity, but this is the disagreement we got going on.

I think it is more of a matter of wanting legislation that guards against having issues with the bathroom they go to, because it's been a problem; it's reactionary.

This is where I fail to see how you get here, I also don't get your colour analogy and am not sure how to respond without trying to analyse your view here, so I'm just going to give a counterargument.

Is it more important for everyone to adhere to 'objective physical reality' than have everyone have a better state of mind? I don't see what problems come up with the bathrooms if we let the trans people have their request met. Is the violation of objective physical reality in your view going to be an issue? I don't have issues with people who have different worldviews than mine to the point that it's uncomfortable, offending or just emotionally not good, nor do I see how it should be. This doesn't touch off the view of what objective physical reality is even.

It's a matter of a government legislating against avoidable conflict between people and experiences of them, not of perceptions on how the world 'out there' is.

More importantly, it is not transgenders asking not to be discriminated against, but rather asking for the government to legitimize their perception of reality over others. This is not the role of government.

Flapjack

May 29th, 2016, 05:19 AM

More importantly, it is not transgenders asking not to be discriminated against, but rather asking for the government to legitimize their perception of reality over others. This is not the role of government.

Nooo the feds wasn't involed until republican states started introducing stupid oppressive and discriminatory laws.

Judean Zealot

May 29th, 2016, 05:20 AM

Nooo the feds wasn't involed until republican states started introducing stupid oppressive and discriminatory laws.

Such as?

Flapjack

May 29th, 2016, 05:23 AM

Such as?

Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom acording to what is on official papers. Where they would cause alarm and are likely to be attacked.

Judean Zealot

May 29th, 2016, 05:39 AM

Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom acording to what is on official papers. Where they would cause alarm and are likely to be attacked.

There is nothing oppressive about that. If they look enough like the gender they were born most people wouldn't notice or care, and if they look like the gender they've assumed then nobody would notice if they used the other bathroom. This is a stupid non-issue about people with such a weak notion of self that it becomes a psyche shattering event to walk through a door labeled 'men'.

It's rich what you people call 'oppressive'. Have you ever been told at a high school interview that there's no need to take the exam as they already filled their quota of your ethnicity? Has a teacher ever told you that you are an inferior race? Have you been beaten in the street for your ancestry? I have. Transgender people may be oppressed by society, but having to use their cisgender bathroom is nothing even remotely oppressive.

Flapjack

May 29th, 2016, 06:20 AM

There is nothing oppressive about that. If they look enough like the gender they were born most people wouldn't notice or care, and if they look like the gender they've assumed then nobody would notice if they used the other bathroom. This is a stupid non-issue about people with such a weak notion of self that it becomes a psyche shattering event to walk through a door labeled 'men'.

It's rich what you people call 'oppressive'. Have you ever been told at a high school interview that there's no need to take the exam as they already filled their quota of your ethnicity? Has a teacher ever told you that you are an inferior race? Have you been beaten in the street for your ancestry? I have. Transgender people may be oppressed by society, but having to use their cisgender bathroom is nothing even remotely oppressive.
What bathroom to use is a difficult issue for those in transition. Now there are issues for cis people who do not look enough like their gender.

If a trans man goes into the womens bathroom, it will cause panic and there have been many cases of people being attacked in situations like this.

For the record, I am not transgender.

No I have not experienced any of the issues you have suffered with but your issues do not make the trans communities issues any less valid. You can't dismiss others problems because you've had it worse.

Stronk Serb

May 29th, 2016, 06:47 AM

What bathroom to use is a difficult issue for those in transition. Now there are issues for cis people who do not look enough like their gender.

If a trans man goes into the womens bathroom, it will cause panic and there have been many cases of people being attacked in situations like this.

For the record, I am not transgender.

No I have not experienced any of the issues you have suffered with but your issues do not make the trans communities issues any less valid. You can't dismiss others problems because you've had it worse.

He absolutely can. The sign is not some magic barrier, while the barrier he experienced is pretty real. Besides, if they are so alarmed by it, fucking carry a portable potty. For Serbia, transgender is not an issue to begin with. When the LGBT movement organises a protest, people go to the counter-protest just because they have it way worse and are sick of their bitching. The LGBT movements here get a lot of foreign aid and the members live like princes compared to us. They get angry when people openly start telling them to fuck off because when you look at Serbia, LGBT is not even an issue. The standard of living rappidly dropped since 25 years ago, unemployment is on the rise, people are dying from starvation, people are dying due to a lack of medical care, we have cebsorshio concerning the current ruling party, journalists are getting fired, public workers are getting fired for refusing to vote for the Progressives, police brutalizes people with impunity. This *insert*gender and orientation crap is absolutely unimportant. This is just a way to draw your attention from the real issues, issues some are experiencing every day.

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 09:18 AM

More importantly, it is not transgenders asking not to be discriminated against, but rather asking for the government to legitimize their perception of reality over others. This is not the role of government.

What about legislation allowing same-sex marriages? Is this not, in your view, the government acting out a role of legitimising a perception of reality?

Again, I'm saying the bathroom issue is reactionary - if any view is being put 'over' another, it's the restriction of people to one specific gender bathroom by if they have XX or XY chromosomes (also problem for intersex people, which isn't being mentioned much here though it should be).

The problem goes away when we either have bathrooms that are not gender-specific, or we just let trans people go to the one they want to. It doesn't have to be so difficult.

- - - - - - - -

If they look enough like the gender they were born most people wouldn't notice or care, and if they look like the gender they've assumed then nobody would notice if they used the other bathroom.

The problem is that some people are neither of the two situations you outline, and others react to it offensively.

This is a stupid non-issue about people with such a weak notion of self that it becomes a psyche shattering event to walk through a door labeled 'men'.

It is a stupid issue that there is so much resistance to just letting people go to the bathroom they want (or no gender-specific bathrooms).

I say 'no' to the latter part of this.

- - - - - - - -

He absolutely can. The sign is not some magic barrier, while the barrier he experienced is pretty real. Besides, if they are so alarmed by it, fucking carry a portable potty. For Serbia, transgender is not an issue to begin with. When the LGBT movement organises a protest, people go to the counter-protest just because they have it way worse and are sick of their bitching. The LGBT movements here get a lot of foreign aid and the members live like princes compared to us. They get angry when people openly start telling them to fuck off because when you look at Serbia, LGBT is not even an issue. The standard of living rappidly dropped since 25 years ago, unemployment is on the rise, people are dying from starvation, people are dying due to a lack of medical care, we have cebsorshio concerning the current ruling party, journalists are getting fired, public workers are getting fired for refusing to vote for the Progressives, police brutalizes people with impunity. This *insert*gender and orientation crap is absolutely unimportant. This is just a way to draw your attention from the real issues, issues some are experiencing every day.

Wherever one group is given unjustified privilege over another, it's wrong. In the case of LGBT people getting this, it's also wrong, of course.

I'm not defending any of that for the record. I'm only defending resistance against having just having people go to the bathroom they want in this case, nothing more.

Excess LGBT can and does take away attention and action for other problems in society and that, yes. The presence of it is not the same as the excess of it.

Judean Zealot

May 29th, 2016, 10:42 AM

The problem is that some people are neither of the two situations you outline, and others react to it offensively.

Legislation that allows for a possible situation wherein someone gets offended is not oppressive. Government bears no responsibility for someone insulting someone else.

It is a stupid issue that there is so much resistance to just letting people go to the bathroom they want (or no gender-specific bathrooms).

You're absolutely correct - which is why I truly don't care how the issue is resolved. I see no reason for gendered bathrooms to begin with. What annoys me it that both sides have turned this nonsense into an issue of titanic proportions.

TheFlapjack

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 10:56 AM

Legislation that allows for a possible situation wherein someone gets offended is not oppressive. Government bears no responsibility for someone insulting someone else.

I meant offence in both verbal and physical form (sorry for me not specifying before). I'm talking about the absence of legislation that guards against offence being taken at some people. If this doesn't sound reasonable, then why is assault not legal?

You're absolutely correct - which is why I truly don't care how the issue is resolved. I see no reason for gendered bathrooms to begin with. What annoys me it that both sides have turned this nonsense into an issue of titanic proportions.

Alright.

DriveAlive

May 29th, 2016, 11:01 AM

What about legislation allowing same-sex marriages? Is this not, in your view, the government acting out a role of legitimising a perception of reality?

Same-sex marriage is government issue becuase of the role of taxation and legal benefits associated with it. Transgenders being offended by having to use their birth-assigned bathroom does not.

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 11:19 AM

Same-sex marriage is government issue becuase of the role of taxation and legal benefits associated with it. Transgenders being offended by having to use their birth-assigned bathroom does not.

Public bathrooms are under control of either a company or a city/county/etc council. In the former, the company complies with laws set by the government of the country. In the latter, the councils are under control of the government. It is a government issue, however small or trivial it seems to people.

This is a side point and what I said in response to Judean Zealot recently here is my main point on this. It does not need to be a problem.

DriveAlive

May 29th, 2016, 11:22 AM

Public bathrooms are under control of either a company or a city/county/etc council. In the former, the company complies with laws set by the government of the country. In the latter, the councils are under control of the government. It is a government issue, however small or trivial it seems to people.

This is a side point and what I said in response to Judean Zealot recently here is my main point on this. It does not need to be a problem.

Based on what you just said, should it not be a company policy? Why must the government get involved?

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 01:20 PM

Based on what you just said, should it not be a company policy? Why must the government get involved?

Do you have a problem with the government getting into this, in general?

DriveAlive

May 29th, 2016, 01:35 PM

Do you have a problem with the government getting into this, in general?

Yes. While I personally think that a person cannot decide their own gender, I also do not think that the government has any right to tell businesses how to devise their own bathroom policy.

Judean Zealot

May 29th, 2016, 02:00 PM

I meant offence in both verbal and physical form (sorry for me not specifying before). I'm talking about the absence of legislation that guards against offence being taken at some people. If this doesn't sound reasonable, then why is assault not legal?

In which case the correct measure is to consider such assault a hate crime and penalise it accordingly.

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 02:06 PM

Yes. While I personally think that a person cannot decide their own gender, I also do not think that the government has any right to tell businesses how to devise their own bathroom policy.

Is it unreasonable to let the govt have a right to legally guard against offensive reaction to some people going to a certain-gender bathroom?

Thereafter it can be up to companies, if the bathroom is owned by them.

DriveAlive

May 29th, 2016, 03:10 PM

Is it unreasonable to let the govt have a right to legally guard against offensive reaction to some people going to a certain-gender bathroom?

Thereafter it can be up to companies, if the bathroom is owned by them.
If a person enters the bathroom that they clearly are not the right gender for, then there obviously will be a problem. However, any sort of violence should be prosecuted. There is no excuse for it, but that also does not entitle transgenders to get protected status.

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 04:18 PM

If a person enters the bathroom that they clearly are not the right gender for, then there obviously will be a problem.

We come back to the start of the debate.

The part that I don't get is that this view is so interested in the biological sex of some people who go into 'your' bathroom, more than aspects of their appearance, like hair and eye colour, that is much more present to you. Why the need for restriction?

This is the reason I prefer the solution of no gender-specific bathrooms at all, more than just letting people go to whichever bathroom.

However, any sort of violence should be prosecuted.

Yes.

Judean Zealot

May 29th, 2016, 04:23 PM

We come back to the start of the debate.

The part that I don't get is that this view is so interested in the biological sex of some people who go into 'your' bathroom, more than aspects of their appearance, like hair and eye colour, that is much more present to you. Why the need for restriction?

This is the reason I prefer the solution of no gender-specific bathrooms at all, more than just letting people go to whichever bathroom.

While I really don't care for gendered bathrooms, as I've made clear above, this objection seems disingenuous. Most people, as far as I'm aware, don't mind letting the guy who ripped his genitalia off use the women's room. The problem is when you have a bearded dude with full equipment who claims to identify as a female. Contrary to what SJWs would tell you, you can't rape someone with your eyes.

sqishy

May 29th, 2016, 04:51 PM

While I really don't care for gendered bathrooms, as I've made clear above, this objection seems disingenuous.

No disingenuity is intended.

Most people, as far as I'm aware, don't mind letting the guy who ripped his genitalia off use the women's room.

Taking your way of putting it, you're not 'most people' evidently.

The problem is when you have a bearded dude with full equipment who claims to identify as a female.

I was not aware that claiming an identity was different to having an identity.

For unusual circumstances as these for trans people (trans people do actually try to change their appearance, it kind of helps getting their identity through), perhaps non-gendered bathrooms would put you at rest.

Contrary to what SJWs would tell you, you can't rape someone with your eyes.

I wasn't bringing this into the topic. I haven't heard of this much too, so I am guessing you mean that a judgemental look at a trans person in a bathroom is not the same as a kind of rape; alright. Could do without the judgemental look though - I'm guessing most if not all people avoid doing this for people who are unusual in appearance in general (scars from injury, bright hair dye, whatever).

Vlerchan

May 31st, 2016, 06:16 AM

I'm categorising by user.

I'm sure you'll agree regulations on food standards and car safety are a good idea?
I agree that governments should regulate in cases where market failures persist - in particular where information asymmetries persists, i.e., where one party in a transaction has an informational advantage inducing a dishonest exchange.

So, car safety standards usually, since the consumer is at an information disadvantage vis-a-vis the expert-producer.

Food-standards, it broadly depends on what the standard is.

I believe it is better for the poorer and middle class to get more money and for this to be taken away from the rich in higher taxes. I think this because of economic velocity, poorer people have a much higher economic velocity, boosting the economy.
I presume 'economic velocity' refers to the poor having a higher propensity of consumption. This is true.

Nonetheless, with regards to output growth, aggregate demand is relatively neutral in the long-run*.

Sustained improvement in economic conditions is the product of capital investment (bounded, as at some point the rate of depreciation will equal the rate of return) and technological improvements.

---

* relatively because investment remains a function of demand, but this relationship seems weaker than it persisting as a function of the rate of interest.

The IMF has also said similar stuff.
Would you mind linking the actual paper, I never trust news sites to report correctly on academic publications (it just so rarely gets it correct).

I'd also question what sample the authors used.

It claims that an increase in inequality results in under-investment in education and healthcare. The first point to note is that in developed countries, education and healthcare tend to be products of the poor. The second point to note, is that the relationship being discovered probably relates from inequality occurring through the bottom-half becoming poorer, which is the actual problem.

Furthermore, I'd question where it tracks government changes. The IMF published a more famous paper connecting the idea that more unequal societies to electing more left-wing governments, which undermined growth, a few years later. Whether that is skewing outcomes here, is worth looking into.

Nonetheless, I'll finalise all these original thoughts when I can see the paper.

The small corner shop should have a low or even zero tax rate, but companies that make billions every year should have a veryyyy high tax on their net profits. If they need to spend money to grow, this money shouldn't be included.
The important point to realise about corporations is that they never pay taxation, they pass it on to either shareholders, suppliers, or labour.

The largest issue I have with corporation tax is that it is primarily levied on the lowest-skilled workers, who have the least chance of outside options. That is, it's past on to labour. Thus, it's essentially a tax on the poor that constrains their wage growth.

But further, tiered rates would discourage expansion, or create a structural incentive to offshore.

On a final point, if you want to tax funds that aren't being used for expansion, then consider taxing where these funds actually go. The regime you're proposing would be an administrative nightmare.

y only concern is that they may want to go home after the war ends.
The hope is that they have the skills to do so successfully. I want to help these people to help themselves.

:)

[...] send all tax money abroad to support foreigners [...]

International assistance accounts for approx. 2% of the 2015 federal budget spending. Up from 1.75% of budget expenditure in 2014. Foreign aid or ODA accounts for 0.28% of Canada’s gross national income (GNI) in 2015. Up from 0.24% in 2014.

http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/

In your country, how do they define 'all'?

So by making people able to purchase drugs, with no risk, they will seek help?
By not treating drug addicts as a criminal issue, and rather as a health issue, these people will have an easier time approaching government institutions for help. I also tend to support government sale - registries - and the use of this schema to get people into help-programmes.

I wrote a post to Microcosm in the last page.

Also, how do you make something illegal to sell, yet legal to consume?
You realise under law at the moment, there is already different treatments for users and sellers. You can use the same framework.

why would using guns for hunting and targeting, and collecting, not reason enough to have guns?
Please note that I'm fine with guns being legal outside my state.

Gun-use undoubtedly restricts individual liberties and the welfare of some subset of individuals, but through a decreased homicide rate promotes greater societal welfare. That gun-prevalence is associated with violence and death holds when we account for socio-economic statues, racial-fragmentation, and so on.

The "because it is in the constitution argument" is great. Without it, you have no laws.
I'm a law-student, and this is no argument to defend the social persistence of an ideal. I can agree with the idea of a strong constitution - I can agree with the application of a part of this constitution in a certain legal case - but it provides no backing as to what is actually socially-optimal in a given society.

In effect, legislating trans people to use the bathroom of their choice is legislating a perception of reality that does not coincide with reality.
You'll find that all social legislations, such as: I have a right to bare arms: or, private-property right claims are valid, legislates for a social perception rather than a social fact.

The only facts that can be stated to exist are those appropriated through sheer force. Everything else is perception.

it was a general statement but it still applies, the federal government thinking they can control a states rights issue sets a dangerous precedent, allowing them to think they can have total control in the future.
I explained that this was not a states-rights issue.

Furthermore, states-rights are still upheld in the constitution. If you're fearful of such encroachment, be more concerned about the direction legal thought is taking (in such a case, we can have an actual debate).

One can plausibly put forth the argument that the second amendment's 'right to bear arms' is implicitly predicated on the preceding 'well-regulated militia'.
It's actually worth reading the history behind the laws introduction, as is summarised in the defining case-law on the issue.

Each state was intended to have a militia, and members were expected to have their own arms for participation in the militia that they themselves purchased. It must be remembered that post-revoloution, the United States was surrounded by enemies (France to the West [Louisiana], Spain to the South [Florida]* and Britain to the North [Canada]) but despite this the new government had a difficult time attaining funding from it's own people, esp. central-funding, and for that reason had a very limited standing army (esp. when compared to relative levels of mobilisation amongst the great powers).

So, these self-funding militias were intended to be a novel solution to this issue.

---

* I could have Spain and France the other way around. I recall that Napoleon sold Louisiana to the US to fund the wars in 1803 or so, but I can't remember what year France and Spain re-exchanged their North-american territories. I'm quite certain it was before the collapse of the Bourbon's in France.

Of course, where cost is insignificant there's no reason why the state shouldn't help others, but they are in no way obligated to do so.
I'm more-or-less in agreement with your stance then.

I tend to imagine it in more a direction that departures from short-run utility-maximisation are legitimate insofar as long-run (life-time) utility remains relatively undisrupted.

The rest of the post also all makes sense to me. In response to the last remark, I'd imagine most people take the modern conception of legitimate political competition for granted. I largely do too, I'll admit.

Government bears no responsibility for someone insulting someone else.
I agree with this. That's the reason I don't believe state governments should be legislating on this either, i.e., enforcing bathroom segregation.

If some firm, or institutions, or whatever, insults you, that's not an issue you should be taking up with your local representative.

Nonetheless, if I remember correct, the provisions are being challenged because they violated the priorly established rights of public-sector employees, and not because they offend anyone.

What annoys me it that both sides have turned this nonsense into an issue of titanic proportions.
I agree with this too.