How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 May 2013, 9:29 am

Ancalagon wrote:

marshall wrote:

The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive.

I'm not arguing with your point, I'm pointing out that this is no reason to suspect the motives of people who disagree. Even if we assume you're just plain right and they're just plain wrong, it's no reason to suspect their motives. Just because someone is wrong about something doesn't mean they came to their opinion dishonestly or from bad motives.

I don't suspect that they have bad motives. I suspect that they are oblivious to the horrible consequences for people I know and even myself if they had their way. Also many outright state that even if they turn out to be wrong in their hope that everything will turn out honky-dorey with an extreme minimal government, they simply DO NOT CARE because "freedom" is FAR more important to them. Also, I'm not talking about moderate libertarians like Dox47, I'm talking about the extremists, which from my interactions seem to be the majority and constitute the US Libertarian Party platform as well. The fact that the DO NOT CARE is a little bit unnerving to me. I wouldn't suspect that Mao necessarily had evil motives, but he was an absolutely stubborn sonofabitch who rigidly INSISTED on sticking to his utopian vision even as it lead to famine and starvation for millions of people.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 May 2013, 9:30 am

PsychoSarah wrote:

Spiderpig wrote:

marshall wrote:

Not necessarily. As long as you manage to provide for your own needs, it’s all a matter of defending your life and property. Don’t hesitate to shoot dead any trespasser. Eventually, most of that desperate underclass will either starve to death or be killed when they try to steal something. Afterwards, the underclass will stay at a minimum, composed only of the few individuals coming from regular society who, for some reason or other, fail to make an honest living. Nearly everybody will agree they deserve their fate, and, in any event, it’s nobody else’s business.

Many people who cannot provide for themselves have mental illness. The medications to treat them are too expensive, so they end up on the street. Does a schizophrenic person who cannot afford the medication to treat their illness deserve their fate? This is a common bias called "the just world phenominon". As a result of being told that "what goes around comes around", people tend to assumen that unfortunate people deserve their misfortune.

He has to be being sarcastic. I certainly hope he's not serious.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2013, 10:23 am

PsychoSarah wrote:

Does a schizophrenic person who cannot afford the medication to treat their illness deserve their fate?

Not particularly.

There is more than one way to reach this conclusion, though. One way is to feel emotional about schizophrenic people you've never met, whether it's because you're schizophrenic yourself, because you have people close to you who are schizophrenic, or because you're an emotional person in general. Another way is to compare the costs of giving schizophrenic people medicine to the costs of letting them become homeless. I don't have any numbers on this, but it seems pretty likely that the ratio of the entire population to schizophrenics is large enough that the cost of giving them medicine are lower than the costs of not doing so.

marshall wrote:

Also many outright state that even if they turn out to be wrong in their hope that everything will turn out honky-dorey with an extreme minimal government, they simply DO NOT CARE because "freedom" is FAR more important to them.

They might similarly be appalled by your simply not caring about freedom.

Would it matter if they held the exact same opinions and supported the exact same policies, but went out of their way to say how much they cared?

If their policies were enacted, and were as bad as you fear, and they were really weepy about it, would that make it better? If their policies were enacted, and were as good as they hope, and they weren't very emotional about it, would that make it worse?

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 May 2013, 11:20 am

Ancalagon wrote:

marshall wrote:

They might similarly be appalled by your simply not caring about freedom.

They are free to be appalled that people vote for a government that tells them they have to do certain things, but I'm also not going to be totally unemotional when they propose policy that threatens the well-being of me and people I know. For me opposing libertarianism extremism is self-preservation.

Quote:

Would it matter if they held the exact same opinions and supported the exact same policies, but went out of their way to say how much they cared?

If their policies were enacted, and were as bad as you fear, and they were really weepy about it, would that make it better? If their policies were enacted, and were as good as they hope, and they weren't very emotional about it, would that make it worse?

No. If they really cared I think they would change their extreme priorities and become more moderate. Being forced to pay taxes is not as much of a threat to their existence as terminating all social programs and protective regulations would be. I'm guessing the majority would cease being extreme libertarians if it turned out their plan wasn't working and tons of people were suffering. What would be a problem is if they decided to create a government of "technocrats" committed to ideological purity, a ruling party that eschewed democratic representation because "freedom" and an extremely dogmatic interpretation of the US constitution was considered more important. At that point I wouldn't consider them any different from Maoists or Stalinists who insisted on imposing economic models that failed to meet peoples needs and generally made people unhappy.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 May 2013, 12:35 pm

marshall wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'll still put more faith in the Dems, for all their faults, than I ever will in the Repubs who seem to take delight in working against those in need.

The problem here is the word 'seem'. I think there is a real psychological difference between conservatives and liberals, to some extent at least, and that liberals are more concerned with warm, fuzzy emotions and that conservatives are more concerned with cold, hard facts. That makes conservatives seem cold-hearted to liberals, and liberals seem empty-headed to conservatives.

That's an annoying characterization of liberals. Conservative beliefs are based on emotions too. Reacting with fear to the idea of government telling people what to do is also based on emotion, and can even be irrational. Also, conservatives are too quick to dismiss nuances or degrees of things and prefer black-and-white answers to everything. You guys don't ever like things that can't be strictly defined. This doesn't exactly conform to the "cold hard facts" of the real world which is complicated.

Conservatives are interested in facts- if they fit their ideology and agenda. A current, relevant example is the muzzling of scientists, librarians and journalists we have going on here in Canada. None of the three groups offer much support for our conservative government's policies, or they outright oppose them, and they are getting rewarded through defunding or direct government intervention.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:02 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I didn't say you were a Republican; rather I was only stating why I am a Democrat.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Because you only see two choices?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:16 pm

marshall wrote:

We don't believe the purpose of business is to provide jobs.

Maybe not you personally, but I've argued with liberals recently who seem to believe exactly that; Goonsquad comes to mind, though we don't really see him down here too often. I also think that it is more common on the left to not really "get" the whole entrepreneurial thing, with the way the business community is often treated as the enemy. I think this leads to some fundamental misunderstandings of the motivations of business people, and the resulting poor policy preferences.

I think the biggest one is people just not understanding how risky and difficult starting a business is and the razor thin margins that often spell the difference between success and failure, and uncritically supporting various policies that make it even harder to succeed as an entrepreneur, which I think you'd agree is counterproductive for everyone. Basic safety regulations are one thing, but when it takes several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a simple restaurant in Washington DC because of the gauntlet of codes and regulations that has to be run, it's hard to argue that the community is being well served by that system.

Don't even get me started on taxi cabs and the medallion system...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2013, 2:21 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I didn't say you were a Republican; rather I was only stating why I am a Democrat.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Because you only see two choices?

In as much as the Democrats are the only serious alternative to the Republicans at this time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

06 May 2013, 2:28 pm

marshall wrote:

PsychoSarah wrote:

He has to be being sarcastic. I certainly hope he's not serious.

I was being only a little sarcastic. My ideas are quite fuzzy about these matters, but I was just commenting on the assertion that suppressing welfare measures would lead to big problems for everyone and lawlessness. I don’t exactly like this “solution” of letting people starve (not to mention I could very well be one of them) or die fighting, but this doesn’t mean those who do well in life actually need to partake in the problems of those in trouble. The only problem they’d have is crime, so they only need to worry about defending themselves from it. Most survivors would tend to be property owners who went through this situation and vigorously defended their possessions, and people working for them. I think the whole experience would probably reinforce their disdain for those who have trouble supporting themselves, so, in the new society, the latter would face a grimmer prospect than they do now, and would be more widely despised.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:32 pm

marshall wrote:

I don't usually accuse anyone of explicitly "wanting" that outcome, but I often get the impression from a lot of libertarians (definitely NOT you in particular) that MANY of them simply wouldn't CARE if their proposed policies lead to extreme inequality and a desperate suffering underclass. This is because whenever I argue with them, rather than giving good logical explanations for HOW an extreme minimum state will benefit everyone and provide for everyone's needs, they tend to change the entire direction of the discussion. Instead of explaining how their economic ideas will work for the benefit of all in the real world, they start hammering me over the head with their subjective opinions on "rights" and "liberty". This kills the debate since I don't agree with their notion of absolute rights and there's nothing left to discuss.

Well, those libertarians are doing a poor job of representing the philosophy, but I don't think it's fair to tar the whole group because of a few bad apples. I'll readily acknowledge the unfortunate Ayn Rand branch of libertarianism, who I regard about the same as I do any group that bases their entire life philosophy around a work of fiction, but they're hardly the only, or even mainstream, line of libertarian thought. It's not as if every other ideology doesn't have their own black sheep.

That whole "hammering with subjective opinions" thing sounds familiar from somewhere, where have I heard that before... :wink:

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

In as much as the Democrats are the only serious alternative to the Republicans at this time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Only because people like you continue to believe that.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2013, 2:39 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In as much as the Democrats are the only serious alternative to the Republicans at this time.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Only because people like you continue to believe that.

Then give an example of an alternative political party that's a serious contender for local, state, and national office.
Please don't say Libertarians, because they might as well be just pro-pot Republicans who masturbate while reading Atlas Shrugged.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:42 pm

marshall wrote:

The issue is if people's needs aren't provided for in a society you start to have BIG problems. People will end up having to fight and breaking the law if that is what is required just to survive. What is the use of having an orderly society with laws if it is impossible for some to live under them? To not have people needs provided is the path towards anarchy. To make sure people's needs are met is the reason human beings created collectives in the first place. Humans are social animals. We are not like lions or wolves. We cannot survive on our own. We have to cooperate. It's not optional. I'm talking pragmatics here, not values.

The thing is, I can agree with your assessment and disagree with your prescriptions to fix it, and I don't think that disagreement should subject me to a moral judgment. If we're in agreement on the goal, I feel we should be able to rationally argue the methods without ripping each others' throats out, but everyone needs to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt about their intentions.

marshall wrote:

The point is I already know their opinion. Telling me what I have already heard for the umpteenth time leads absolutely nowhere. I'd suggest the reasons our opinions differ in the first place is due to personality or psychological differences. If there is no common ground there really is nothing to argue about.

Do you? I think that's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, and awfully prone to lead to confirmation bias. I'd also suggest that experience has a role to play in a persons politics and philosophy as well, for good or for ill.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

06 May 2013, 2:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Then give an example of an alternative political party that's a serious contender for local, state, and national office.

That's my point, that there are none because people like you only see politics as a binary. You're so afraid of the Republicans that you stick with the sub-optimal at best Democrats regardless of how badly they let you down, and continue to defend them when they're indefensible. When the only reason you stick with someone is "well, at least they're not as bad as those guys", then perhaps it's time to explore other options. Obama is further right than Nixon, is that really what you want in a president? Or is it enough for you that he says nice things while stabbing everyone in the back?

Kraichgauer wrote:

Please don't say Libertarians, because they might as well be just pro-pot Republicans who masturbate while reading Atlas Shrugged.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bill, please don't insult my intelligence with a clumsy attempt at baiting me.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 May 2013, 2:54 pm

Spiderpig wrote:

marshall wrote:

PsychoSarah wrote:

He has to be being sarcastic. I certainly hope he's not serious.

I'm thinking there would be worse than just crime. There would probably be riots as well. You can count that people would not be happy and keeping them in check would require a massive police state. In the past (like 19th century and prior) people who couldn't make a living by working for others tended to become homesteaders and live off the land. A large percentage of people were farmers. Now farming is so automated and efficient that very few people own farms and those who do own huge plots of land and expensive equipment. It's impossible for people to attempt to live off the land these days as there's hardly any free land available. In the 18th and 19th centuries there was little unowned land available in Europe which is why people moved to the new world. Since the beginning of the 20th century there hasn't really been any new "frontier" for people to settle. I believe this is the reason why so much social change occurred in the 20th century, with government becoming more and more involved in the economy.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 May 2013, 2:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Then give an example of an alternative political party that's a serious contender for local, state, and national office.

Kraichgauer wrote:

Please don't say Libertarians, because they might as well be just pro-pot Republicans who masturbate while reading Atlas Shrugged.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bill, please don't insult my intelligence with a clumsy attempt at baiting me.

I'm not baiting you - that's my opinion of most Libertarians.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People Post Reply New Topic

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People