Tough Political Questions

[CHONGS]

This is mostly my mistake in poorly expressing myself.

Honestly every major issue seems pretty easy at first but is actually complicated.  If it weren't complicated then everyone would just believe that thing and it wouldn't be contentious.

This statement (which is in practice overwhelmingly accurate), just sat with me oddly (actually just the last sentence).  The implication (which I read into it and possibly not Emo's intent) which bothered me is that complication is a prerequisite for contentiousness.  I think something can be contentious even if the underlying matter is simple, mostly because people like to be contrarian. I would almost say that being contrarian in innately human, there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.

What makes you think this is my POV?

Because you wrote it?

Must I believe everything I write?  Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated? 

Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it.  That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.

Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers.  Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light.  Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red."  Both would be incorrect using objective data.

Well you must not have seen the sky yesterday looking west from Wichita.

[catastrophe]

If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.

Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.

I'll take your word for it, but to be clear I'm strictly talking about people who do not take any drugs for religious reasons (not because they are ignorant).

[catastrophe]

there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.

Disagree.

[8manpick]

If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.

Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.

I'll take your word for it, but to be clear I'm strictly talking about people who do not take any drugs for religious reasons (not because they are ignorant).

Ah, I don't know then, I don't think that data exists

[CHONGS]

there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.

Disagree.

[Emo EMAW]

Contrarians usually just make those contrarian arguments to force the lock-step people to think more deeply about their own views or to consider alternative views.

[michigancat]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.

Ha, you just knew emo was going to somehow steer the conversation to hunting/public land use

[CHONGS]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause. 

That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence.  But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area.  I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons.  I don't think that's an incoherent position to take.  But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.

But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.

[slobber]

FYI, the sky is not blue. It can be blue.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause. 

That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence.  But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area.  I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons.  I don't think that's an incoherent position to take.  But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.

But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.

I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason.  It's kind of mumped up. 

[TCUHornedFrog]

This statement (which is in practice overwhelmingly accurate), just sat with me oddly (actually just the last sentence).  The implication (which I read into it and possibly not Emo's intent) which bothered me is that complication is a prerequisite for contentiousness.  I think something can be contentious even if the underlying matter is simple, mostly because people like to be contrarian. I would almost say that being contrarian in innately human, there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.

I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that HCGMFP is better the HCBS.   

[CHONGS]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause. 

That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence.  But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area.  I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons.  I don't think that's an incoherent position to take.  But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.

But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.

I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason.  It's kind of mumped up. 

Wow, I didn't get that at all initially, but it gives me good idea of where you are coming from and how you approach things.

[Kat Kid]

What percentage of anti-vaxxers do it for religious reasons?  Is this really the prime motivation?  Demographic data based on the locations that are experiencing declines in vaccinations certainly don't seem to suggest that.

[CHONGS]

A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.

[TCUHornedFrog]

A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.

Yes.  In my experience the anti-vaxxers tend to be leftist conspiratards or righty religitards.

[Emo EMAW]

Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal.  Is it relevant to this thread?  Maybe?

The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die.  We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause. 

That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence.  But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area.  I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons.  I don't think that's an incoherent position to take.  But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.

But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.

I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason.  It's kind of mumped up. 

Wow, I didn't get that at all initially, but it gives me good idea of where you are coming from and how you approach things.

I didn't at first intend to tie it back to vaccinations, that was just an example. 

[star seed 7]

Today I learned Emo wouldn't care if the neighbor was having sex with a toddler, as long as it's not babyemo

[Emo EMAW]

 

[star seed 7]

Today I learned Emo is OK with isis beheading people because it's not his head

[cfbandyman]

A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.

Yes.  In my experience the anti-vaxxers tend to be leftist conspiratards or righty religitards.

While I generally agree it's most leftist, plenty of rightist conspiracist feel that way too, namely my commissioning boss.

[sys]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crippling-hold-of-old-law-1459536718


good article.  didn't want to start a new thread, this one will do.

[DQ12]

I still struggle with interventionism

[steve dave]

reminded me of this.

I'm 100% irl ok with taking these children away, allowing them to be vaccinated, and either putting their negligent parents under the burden of proving they will be good parents from now on or helping the children find loving forever homes.

https://twitter.com/sallyKP/status/1209506098690056197

[Spracne]

reminded me of this.

I'm 100% irl ok with taking these children away, allowing them to be vaccinated, and either putting their negligent parents under the burden of proving they will be good parents from now on or helping the children find loving forever homes.

https://twitter.com/sallyKP/status/1209506098690056197

What am I looking at here, Stave?