Triple damn!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
Triple damn!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm hardcore in favor of immigration. I hold the Teddy Roosevelt view: bring in people who want to be American.
We can't get enough of people who love America and Americanism. We can get too many who don't.
Maybe Trump being so whiny is the reason he can't fully defeat the whiny losers of the media.
Did you see the clip where a reporter threw him a soft ball and cried foul like a pro soccer player hitting the dirt?
Something like,
What do you have to say to Americans during this time?
How dare you! The people need hope!
You could provide that hope.
Fake News!
I didn't. Got a clip?
If I spent time listening to Trump speak, I'd probably not like him much.
If there was a Democrat who promoted legalizing more things among consenting adults, I'd probably support him/her.
The news, to a degree, reflects what viewers want to believe.
This is the most fair, IMO, as it shows both Trump and Pence's answer to the "same" question.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th1k8_aZwK8
I know this guy. Colonel Bernie, they call him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://i.imgflip.com/115891.jpg
There's no "to a degree" in American news.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If there's a news agency with journalistic integrity in the US, please for the love of all that's good, tell me what it is.
Given the bad reporting, I wouldn't say Trump's response makes it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The response certainly hits me emotionally. Doom and Death reporting causes great suffering.
Associated Press.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
In what ways does he press for legalizing more interactions between consenting adults?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What are you playing at? The reporter was just saying, "during this time of epic crisis, what would you like to say to the American people?"Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Did you not hear the part where the reporter says, "You can give them that hope?"
Did you miss the part where Pence answers the question in the spirit it was asked?
I'm a little baffled that you can hear that question and call it doom and death reporting. There's an epidemic going on, and that was the topic of the press conference.
LGBTQ+ equality for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I noticed his expert opening sales technique:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Americans are scared. 200 dead. 14000 who are sick. Millions who are scared right now. What do you say to Americans who are scared?
What are some details?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How about what Pence said? Or do you think 'stop being terrible and reporting facts' is a more presidential answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Pence's is probably better. It could have been so much better than that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Don't be lazy, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://berniesanders.com/issues/lgbtq-equality/
We're in the middle of an epic crisis, and he was setting the stage for the President to slam dunk a message of hope, in the exact way that Pence did. OK, it wasn't poetry, but it was at least diplomatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And Trump just imploded.
I mean... what about that is leadership in a time of crisis to you?
I've read it all. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm hoping for your own thoughts on how Bernie's policies increase that which is legal behavior between consenting adults.
You're 100% right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
His leadership on this crisis has been utter trash. Overall it's better recently, but at first it was so bad.
Because not having equal rights and protections under the law due to a choice made between consenting adults is persecution.
Removing those restrictions and granting equal rights to those individuals is pressing "for legalizing more interactions between consenting adults."
Wuf wants the ghey.
It's been "recently" - in the past week - that he said he's withholding aid to certain governors for "not being nice" to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Americans are going to die over his pride if that keeps up.
It's been recently that he questioned the sudden request for tens of thousands of ventilators to be some kind of conveniently timed hospital fraud.
It's been recently that he's said he was calling it an epidemic before anyone else, despite a million examples of him denying it was an epidemic for weeks on end.
It's been recently that when asked why wealthy people seemed to have more access to testing and adequate healthcare that he replied, "Maybe you should ask them."
It's been recently that he claimed news reporting on the severity of the epidemic is a ploy to make him look bad for the coming election.
C'mon with the leadership talk. When it comes to the epidemic, he's a train wreck.
What is a specific policy or two?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Read the link I posted earlier, man. Or search the web for something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not a good advocate for Bernie to talk to if you want these answers.
You asked a question and I've already answered it. If you want to dig deeper into the issue, then by all means do so.
If you find something interesting to talk about, then post it and we'll talk.
I'm certainly not spending any of my time trying to understand an irrelevant candidate's positions.
I've gone through the link and have trouble finding much that isn't forcing some people to do a thing against their consent.
I'll open the question to others: do you know of examples of policy from a politician or party you like that make more interactions between consenting adults legal, or make more individual decisions legal?
I know of one: marijuana legalization, which has somewhat been enacted (but needs more).
Another: medical psychadelics. We're a long ways off from this, but I do recall Yang saying he's open to it.
I'm wholly in favor of legalizing more interactions between consenting adults, where these interactions don't harm anyone else. I'd probably prioritize these in my criteria for a presidential candidate currently below the top dozen-ish.
I'm curious, did you use this same criteria in the previous election and which were the main ones that Trump was championing/has enacted?
Yes I did!Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Excellent question BTW.
This is my most important criteria, and I HOPE to always stay true to it, that I will always vote for a person because I believe he/she will increase what is legal between consenting adults (and with oneself). As you point out, it also must be that others are not directly harmed.
I voted Republican over Democrat because the GOP Party generally removes restrictions on commerce (interactions between consenting adults) that Democrats generally don't. And Democrats generally add restrictions that the GOP generally doesn't.
Two examples I like are two of Trump's first actions as President: ordering momentary halt of new federal regulations and policy that for every new regulation, two must be eliminated. Those are extremely hamfisted and not adequate alone, but I like the direction and intent.
In the grand scheme of things, Trump and the GOP are meager when it comes to allowing people the right to consent. I'd love to see some real competition from the Democrats on this.
My interest heightened tremendously when Yang said he's very open to legalizing psychadelics for medicinal use. That's making more things legal for consenting adults, and on a subject that I think is super important (mental health). AND it's something that Trump would never go for (but the liberty side of the GOP would).
Some will see this virus and the responses as clear signs of massive government failure. Others will see them as government successes.
What times we live in!
Ah yes, I forgot that corporations are legally considered consenting adults over there.
So Trump had basically two things going for him in this regard, 1) momentary halt of new federal regulations and 2) a policy for general deregulation. Those aren't really explicitly or even implicitly about personal freedoms or even economic freedoms though, are they? No offense, but looking at your stated criteria and the examples, there seems to be some disconnect. If I think about "legalizing things between consenting adults" the first things that spring to mind are human rights, specifically for sexual minorities. When I think about the economic side of this, the first things would be consumer protections. Maybe I just see things differently, but I wouldn't think my perception here is unique or unorthodox.
You're not crazy. I thought the same thing. Then when wuf countered that increasing rights for sexual minorities was somehow decreasing the freedom of consenting adults, I just tapped out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I wonder what a good way to discuss this would be. Because we're interpreting what allowing people to consent means antipodally.Quote:
When I think about the economic side of this, the first things would be consumer protections. Maybe I just see things differently, but I wouldn't think my perception here is unique or unorthodox.
What rights for sexual minorties are you referring to? Some of them ARE about making consent legal. Some others are about making consent illegal.
For "consumer protections", can you provide examples of some that come by making consent legal?
Could you provide an example of one of these Bernie policies that make consent legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yeah I think we're talking about different things, but the wording you used seemed to suggest, apparently both to me and MMM, something else than you meant. I figured you were talking about, essentially, that everyone should be able to do what they they, be "they" a private citizen, a business-owner or a multinational corporation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I was referring to legal rights pertaining to equal treatment according to the law, the same marital and adoption rights and taxation etc.
What exactly do you mean by making consent legal?
Not granting those rights is persecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Granting those rights is making their consenting conduct legal.
I'm a big fan of this. The government can't have different policies for different people.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
One example is legalizing psychadelics for medicinal use. That allows the doctor, consumer, supplier, and other relevant parties to legally consent commercially on the selling/buying of the psychadelics.Quote:
What exactly do you mean by making consent legal?
Another example is that it is not legal for most people in the US to purchase catastrophic-only health insurance. That's the kind I want to buy, and it's a kind companies offered to people like me before the government made it illegal. The mechanism by which it is illegal is the government reducing what people are allowed to consent to.
A third example, I'll pull directly from an industry I work in, and it's the city governments that reduce the legal consent.
We contract with consumers to provide a service, but the contracting parties are not allowed to consent unless the city government is in on it. The government takes time and money away from the business, which is all passed on to the consumer. Over a life time, this one policy probably costs each person living in the city $500-1000.
If we were to attempt to provide the service that all parties consent to without having the city government in on it, the city government would shut the business down and be able to throw us in jail if we attempted to continue working.
You're probably thinking, well, what does the city government actually do? Is it for safety? The answer is no, not for safety.
They justify their policy by saying its for consumer protection, but the policy literally has nothing to do with consumer protection. They go to the job site, briefly look at something "for safety" that has no effect on safety, collect their $100s, then wait for the next time people in the city try to enter into a mutually consenting agreement so they can say it's illegal unless it includes giving them $100s again.
For this service, typically all contracting parties prefer to consent without the government involved, but that's illegal and the consumer has to pay for it.
What specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://berniesanders.com/issues/lgbtq-equality/Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Pick one. Let's understand it.
I really don't care about Bernie's policies. I don't understand how offering equal rights to consenting adults is in any way contrary to your ask. If that's not what you meant, then fine. It's just hard to imagine anyone in common parlance would interpret your statement as meaning, "Legalize prescription psychedelics so doctors can do what they think is best without unnecessary restrictions."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sorry if posting the Colonel Bernie meme made it appear like it wasn't the first time I googled Bernie's web page.
It was.
Still... From what I understand of ol' gramps, that's pretty in line with the kind of thing he'd stand for.
But again... I'm not endorsing Bernie or really trying to understand an irrelevant candidate's positions.
I'm just pointing you in as close a direction as I can to answer the question you asked.
I mean, if it was Sanders v Biden, I'd take Sanders all day, with any VP, even if doctors and psychics agreed that Bernie would not serve more than 2 years.
But that doesn't require much research.
Sanders has a vision for America.
Biden doesn't.
Trump has vision all day, or can at least talk like he does. Biden either doesn't have it or can't convey it.
That's why Biden is a shit choice to go up against Trump, IMO.
I'm looking for the ones that do that. Many of his relevant proposals require some parties to act against their consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So... bigoted people who don't consent to granting equal rights is enough reason to not grant equal rights to consenting adults to touch each other's sexy bits?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Like... that's forcing bigots to act against their consent?
I'm not sure what you're saying, and ... I guess I doubt it's that, but...
What are you even saying?
To me it sounds like you're for legalizing certain things that are currently illegal/restricted, and reducing government oversight. These aren't a surprise, I figured you'd support those. I was just thrown off by the framing of "legalizing consent", never seen those terms used in this context.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sounds like a poorly implemented policy, which aren't too uncommon. If it incurs additional costs higher than its benefits, it should be reworked or removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I was gonna ask if the gay wedding cake-gate is what's the underlying issue here.
We can remove people not directly or proximally affected from the equation. Let's talk about people entering into exchanges.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you have a specific policy in mind? Would you like me to bring one up?
What do you think about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/exas...d-67953809.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Nah.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Got any physics questions?
Are there people who bastardize the concept of consent so much that they think that not wanting others to do something that doesn't remotely involve them means they have any relevant consent to give (or withhold)?
If they do exist, I would like to laugh at them.
You mean like immigration, abortion, drug use or gay marriage?
I've never personally seen somebody argue for or against one of those things because they don't consent to others doing them.
The consent concept is about the people involved directly and proximally in interactions. The concept loses any meaningful use if it extends to anybody anywhere with an opinion on what others should do or how it might have some externality effect on them down the road somehow maybe.
The concept of consent is meaningful here:
Person A: "Wanna fuck?"
Person B: "Sure"
^^ Is consensual
Person A: "Wanna fuck for money?"
Person B: "Sure"
^^ Is also consensual but the government has made that consent illegal.
Person A: "Wanna fuck?"
Person B: "Sure"
Person C: "I don't want those two people to fuck" <--- Person C is not relevant regarding consent in this matter.
And yet it was wuf who said Bernie's policies concerning equal rights for political minorities (LGBTQRS+) are somehow forcing nonconsenting adults into something.
When asked directly what you mean, you just start talking in circles.
That's why I tapped out. Not because there's no conversation to be had, but that if you aren't being intellectually honest in it, then it's not the type of conversation I'm interested in.
I've asked for one specific policy so we could discuss this on YOUR terms. Instead of me picking any of the many that reduce legality of consent, I truly want to see what you think is one that increases legality of consent.
I bet he has some too.
That said, I'd be happy to start, so here's one of Bernie's specific ideas:
Health providers (and funders) have to pay for gender affirming surgeries.
Would this increase how equally people are treated? Maybe (that's a different topic). Is it an example of equal treatment under the law? No. Is it an example of increasing legality of consent? No.
This policy reduces consent by requiring providers (and funders) to cover something.
My initial thoughts were wouldn't it be nice to live in a world without religious zealots and narrow-minded pricks. We don't though, so shit like this happens. Like I said, I'm absolutely for equal treatment under law for everyone, and absolutely against prejudice and bigotry. The gay couple's rights are being infringed, but not very severely. There are likely other places that serve them, and as material loss the worst is maybe missing deadlines. The emotional damage shouldn't be overlooked though, being discriminated is not fun. The bigot cake-bakers rights would also be infringed, if he were to be forced to serve them. If he were providing a public service, he should absolutely be forced to serve them, but being a private small business it's a bit more debatable. It also depends on the service, and the outcome for the encroached. Being denied a wedding cake is inconvenient, not life-threatening. Being denied a cab service at night 20 miles from the nearest building could be close to life-threatening, but that would (or should) probably fall under criminal negligence. I think in this case, overall, the infractions against the gay couple are probably a bit more severe than forcing the baker to serve them would be. However.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I definitely wouldn't vote for a law forcing everyone to provide their services to everyone under all circumstances.
I wouldn't vote for a law making it categorically illegal to be a bigot against someone.
In this particular case, I would personally probably let the cake bigot walk, and hope no one does business with him anymore. In a slightly different case I might have a different opinion, so I'd definitely not rule in favor of the bigoted ass bitch by default either.
I believe everybody should be free to do anything as long as it doesn't impede the freedom or safety of others. I also firmly believe in: Don't be a fucking baby... so if someone feels like their freedom is being curtailed by selling a cake, then they should just stop being such a baby.
Which would make sense if I was a Bernie supporter and not someone who posted a meme for giggles.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Since the situation is the latter, I find it intellectually dishonest for you to require me to do homework just to understand what you've already said. We're "friends" and I asked you a question. If you don't want to answer it, then fine.
Telling me that before you will explain yourself, I need to spend an hour reading some redundant politician's positions... just c'mon. That's not cool.
You see? I agree with you that requiring cosmetic surgery to be covered by health insurance providers is insulting to freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm willing to give cake guy the benefit of the doubt and say his religion forbids him selling cake to a gay wedding. It's not a life-or-death decision like coco said. I also don't think it's even worth a mention on the back page of any newspaper and it's annoying that some libs have chosen this as an excuse to get outraged; it's not. It's stupid, but it's not malicious. Cake guy is just a religious goof. Buy your gay cake somewhere else and get on with your life.
I'm pretty sick of the argument that religions support bigotry, so people have a right to be bigots, if they just say God told them to be jerks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Cake guy is an asshole. Not everyone in his religion is such an asshole.
Hiding behind his religion as an excuse to be an asshole is not an honest depiction of his reasons.
His religion tells him gay=bad. So it conflicts with others' beliefs. That doesn't mean he isn't sincere in his belief, does it?
If you start people they have to go with the majority on every issue you're curtailing their freedom, aren't you?
I'm not saying cake guy doesn't have a legal right to be a jerk.
I'm saying I don't believe religion is the reason he's a jerk.
I'm not going to try to read cake guy's mind, but I suspect he thinks he's being 'righteous' (however that applies) more than anything.
I don't doubt that he's the hero in his telling of his story.
I just don't see why that matters.
I think his interpretation of his actions is more important than yours or mine, for example. If he's doing it to be a jerk, then he's in the wrong. If he's doing it to worship his Jebus, then he's got at least some moral leg to stand on. It might be different from the moral leg I would use (let them eat gay cake) but it's defensible.
I think the objective reality is more important than any interpretation.
Where you can trip me up is if you question whether a store that is "open to the public" has the right to discriminate which members of the public it caters to.
If it was a private, members only, cake club, then I no longer care.
If it's a public store front, then "no gays allowed" is no different than "no blacks allowed."
I tend to agree, except that it's a bit more specific than that, as in 'no gay weddings served'. If he were asking all his customers their sexual orientation and refusing to serve anyone who answered LGBTQXYZ and/or K (I'm just making these up), it'd be more of an issue. The only reason it became an issue is because they asked for a gay cake, which presumably is not a common thing.
So yeah, I do agree with you on one level. I also think though that until secularism overrides religious rights, then his right to be a bigot based on his religion has some theoretical value. Although if the KKK was a religion I don't think the same argument would work. Eh, what do i know.
IDK what a "gay cake" is. The entire idea of confection is kinda gay, IMO.
lol
I just googled, "what did the gay cake say?" and got multiple results.
Turns out this whole gay wedding cake issue is not limited to one case.
Idiots citing Leviticus as their reason to be jerks.
Leviticus also says a man's worth to the lord is 50 shekels, and a woman's worth is 30 shekels.
It also says not to wear clothes of more than 1 fiber.
It also says not to sow your field with more than 1 seed.
It also says tattoos are an affront to the lord.
And that people with disabilities are not worthy of God's food.
Citing Leviticus as a moral code is absolute BS.
Yeah well, not a hill I'm gonna die on.
All I can is what Ray says here "its open to interpretation, it's the Bible":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71HVyYXnP8
Nice.
Your views mirror mine so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You've added another line of deep thought, about how if it was a life-threatening situation, maybe our rationale should be different. That's a point worth giving great consideration to.
About letting the cake bigot walk and not doing business with him, yeah man, it can be a useful way of looking at the world. I want to know who the losers are so I can avoid them and reward the cool people. There's a philosophical principle in economics for why this allows people the most ability to make positive change in society.
Good stuff, great thinking.
I like this way of looking at it. Also I think THEY like this way of looking at it, even though it would ultimately probably lead to a change in their values.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar