Why are liberals so emotional and irrational?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#301 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

 

I see the other viewpoint and it's stupid and childish. When the hell did we start catering to the stupid so much in this country?

0rbs

I wish I could learn to be as non-emotional as you. It's truly a skill.

 

I simply do not like our country becoming the movie idiocracy is all.

We're more than halfway there.

#302 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="0rbs"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I wish I could learn to be as non-emotional as you. It's truly a skill.

jimkabrhel

 

I simply do not like our country becoming the movie idiocracy is all.

We're more than halfway there.

 

AND THEN A BIGGER FORCE CAME, THE UN, AND THE UN UN-NAZI'D THE WORLD

#303 Posted by KingKinect (540 posts) -

I think it's because they are mostly women or effeminate men. It's all to do with hormones.

#304 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I think it's because they are mostly women or effeminate men. It's all to do with hormones.

KingKinect

:roll:

#305 Posted by 0rbs (1947 posts) -

[QUOTE="KingKinect"]

I think it's because they are mostly women or effeminate men. It's all to do with hormones.

jimkabrhel

:roll:

 

lol don't feed the troll man

#306 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Again, not what you asked. For the third time, you asked how Social Security could be made sustainable with baby boomers retiring and birth rates dropping. I answered your question. It's solvent for a minimum of 20 years at full benefits with no changes whatsoever since it ran a surplus for decades, and with minor tweaks to the very richest among us going back up VERY SLIGHTLY to the Clinton era levels (where the economy was quite good) would be solvent indefinitely. You can now acknowledge I answered, and THEN maybe we can move onto talking about whether or not Social Security is a good thing or not. Concede the point that Social Security is already solvent for the next two decades and with very minor changes can be solvent indefinitely. In other words, it IS sustainable pretty much indefinitely.

You yourself proved it's not sustainable by pointing out that in the future people will only receive 75% (and this will only drop as birth rates drop and the numbers of people withdrawing it continue to increase), unless the government fundamentally changes how the program works and makes it a welfare program funded by the rich rather than a ponzi scheme as it is now. At that point it's not even social security anymore, it's just a new program with the same old name. No, being solvent for 20 years does not make it sustainable indefinitely. It is just coasting on surpluses made from the baby boomer generation. As more baby boomers are drawing social security now while the birth rate here continues to drop we are going to burn through that surplus until there's nothing left, and it will only get worse after that.

20 years from now will basically mark the HUNDRED YEAR anniversary of the program. By most measures, that's an insanely successful program. Nothing goes 100 years without some maintenance. Most private companies don't remain in existence that long. The fact that you utterly fail to concede the point that with minor tweaks the program can be made sustainable for another century or so proves, yet again, why any actually meaningful replies to you are a complete waste of time. Any program that does it's intended purpose for 100 years is a success. A program that has been successful for 100 years and can be made sustainable for another 100 with only small changes? HUGE success. You don't want to admit it because it goes against your Randian worldview. But if you can't acknowledge a point when one has been conclusively made and rubbed in your face several times, don't be surprised if most people continue to just decide to not even bother responding to you but instead just point and laugh.

Even if it lasts a hundred years, the program is inherently flawed because it depends on a high birth rate for it to be sustainable. A decreasing birth rate means that over time people will gradually receive less and less benefits relative to what they paid into it. Changing it from a ponzi scheme to a welfare program is not a minor tweak. That is a fundamental change to the purpose and function of the program. No ponzi scheme is ultimately sustainable. And even if it does fulfill its intended purpose for 100 years, the purpose itself is bad. It is absolutely absurd for the government to force person A to buy person B's retirement with the promise of person C paying for person A's retirement later. Persons A, B, and C should each be responsible for their own retirement plans.
#307 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

Secondly, I'm still waiting a serious answer to Ron Paul 's (and yours?) idea of simply doing away with Medicare/Medicaid completely. Because this...

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]1. If someone can't afford his own expenses then he should find someone who will voluntarily help him. Again, not being able to afford something you need is not a justification for theft.Kickinurass

Is not a realistic, plausible, or even serious solution to the current problems facing either program.

The current problem facing both programs is that they exist. People getting sick, not being able to afford medical care, etc. is an individual problem to be solved by each individual. It is not a public problem.

#308 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
>purpose is bad >poverty among the elderly has fallen from 1 in 3 to 1 in 8 since its inception
#309 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]>purpose is bad >poverty among the elderly has fallen from 1 in 3 to 1 in 8 since its inception

That's because 1 in 3 people are too irresponsible and short-sighted to financially prepare themselves for retirement.
#310 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
They don't deserve to have someone else pay for their mistakes.
#311 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
They don't deserve to have someone else pay for their mistakes.Laihendi
lol
#312 Posted by Lotus-Edge (50439 posts) -

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

#313 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

Lotus-Edge
How emotional of you to advocate against old people who have worked their entire lives dying in the street. Telling you guys he's on to something. If we let all the mentally handicapped, young, old and unfortunate die and then get rid of regulation in the meat industry we could solve world hunger. Morals are for emotional and irrational people you see.
#314 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3720 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

Ace6301

How emotional of you to advocate against old people who have worked their entire lives dying in the street. Telling you guys he's on to something. If we let all the mentally handicapped, young, old and unfortunate die and then get rid of regulation in the meat industry we could solve world hunger. Morals are for emotional and irrational people you see.

I wonder how the op will change his mind once he's out of the comfort of mommy and daddy's home.

#315 Posted by Kickinurass (3357 posts) -

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Secondly, I'm still waiting a serious answer to Ron Paul 's (and yours?) idea of simply doing away with Medicare/Medicaid completely. Because this...

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]1. If someone can't afford his own expenses then he should find someone who will voluntarily help him. Again, not being able to afford something you need is not a justification for theft.Laihendi

Is not a realistic, plausible, or even serious solution to the current problems facing either program.

The current problem facing both programs is that they exist. People getting sick, not being able to afford medical care, etc. is an individual problem to be solved by each individual. It is not a public problem.

Sickness is not an isolated thing though. The greater number of sick people presents a health risk to society at large. It is indeed a public problem - hence why public policy was enacted to solve it. Foreign trade in the shape of dock workers, freight handlers, maritime crews, etc introduce potentially dangerous vectors into the US public health system. Since the solution can't be to close our borders (I assume you're strictly free trade) simply allowing people to handle this on a case by case basis is a sketchy solution at best - completely ineffective at it's worse. Please, research the establishment of the Marine Hospital Service in 1792 which was enacted for this very reason.

At this point I have to assume you are either a troll, or simply very juvenile with regards to this issue. You seem to be ignoring or ignorant of the reason public health came into being, and every point you've suggested could potentially fell a society if historical markers are anything to go on. You're literally just talking now without and evidence or fully thought-out logic to balance your thoughts. This conversation is over until you prove you're capable of serious debate - not just reciting libertarian talking points indefinitely.

#316 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

Ace6301
How emotional of you to advocate against old people who have worked their entire lives dying in the street. Telling you guys he's on to something. If we let all the mentally handicapped, young, old and unfortunate die and then get rid of regulation in the meat industry we could solve world hunger. Morals are for emotional and irrational people you see.

I am not advocating for people to die in the streets, I am advocating people taking responsibility for their lives and seeing that they are prepared for retirement, rather than living off of money stolen from others. You are creating a false dichotomy where people either live off of money given to them by the government, or they die. If people weren't taxed so heavily then any responsible person would be able to adequately prepare/save for retirement, and would not need to rely on a check from the government. If you believe someone has a right to stolen money just because he squandered his own when he should have been saving it then you believe that someone has a right to live even if he makes absolutely no effort to sustain his life. You believe that he has a right to refuse responsibility for himself and live as an unwanted burden on others.You have no morals. The emotional and irrational are intellectually incapable of understanding morality.
#317 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

Laihendi
How emotional of you to advocate against old people who have worked their entire lives dying in the street. Telling you guys he's on to something. If we let all the mentally handicapped, young, old and unfortunate die and then get rid of regulation in the meat industry we could solve world hunger. Morals are for emotional and irrational people you see.

I am not advocating for people to die in the streets, I am advocating people taking responsibility for their lives and seeing that they are prepared for retirement, rather than living off of money stolen from others. You are creating a false dichotomy where people either live off of money given to them by the government, or they die. If people weren't taxed so heavily then any responsible person would be able to adequately prepare/save for retirement, and would not need to rely on a check from the government. If you believe someone has a right to stolen money just because he squandered his own when he should have been saving it then you believe that someone has a right to live even if he makes absolutely no effort to sustain his life. You believe that he has a right to refuse responsibility for himself and live as an unwanted burden on others.You have no morals. The emotional and irrational are intellectually incapable of understanding morality.

Responsibility or lack thereof is not the reason for the difficulty of living post-retirement. People are living longer these days so retiring at a typical age can mean having to have literally decades of saving for some. Savings that under your society would have to cover extremely expensive healthcare costs. A single heart attack could erase an individuals savings. You don't directly advocate people dying on the street but your ideas would lead to absolutely atrocious living conditions and the deaths of millions. Being told I have no morals by a person who believes babies should be viewed as property really doesn't have any sort of impact.
#318 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] How emotional of you to advocate against old people who have worked their entire lives dying in the street. Telling you guys he's on to something. If we let all the mentally handicapped, young, old and unfortunate die and then get rid of regulation in the meat industry we could solve world hunger. Morals are for emotional and irrational people you see.

I am not advocating for people to die in the streets, I am advocating people taking responsibility for their lives and seeing that they are prepared for retirement, rather than living off of money stolen from others. You are creating a false dichotomy where people either live off of money given to them by the government, or they die. If people weren't taxed so heavily then any responsible person would be able to adequately prepare/save for retirement, and would not need to rely on a check from the government. If you believe someone has a right to stolen money just because he squandered his own when he should have been saving it then you believe that someone has a right to live even if he makes absolutely no effort to sustain his life. You believe that he has a right to refuse responsibility for himself and live as an unwanted burden on others.You have no morals. The emotional and irrational are intellectually incapable of understanding morality.

Responsibility or lack thereof is not the reason for the difficulty of living post-retirement. People are living longer these days so retiring at a typical age can mean having to have literally decades of saving for some. Savings that under your society would have to cover extremely expensive healthcare costs. A single heart attack could erase an individuals savings. You don't directly advocate people dying on the street but your ideas would lead to absolutely atrocious living conditions and the deaths of millions. Being told I have no morals by a person who believes babies should be viewed as property really doesn't have any sort of impact.

If people are retiring when they still have decades of life left then they are retiring far too soon. Retirement isn't a vacation that everyone goes on when they turn 60. Retirement is what people do when they are too old to work anymore, or they have no need of working anymore. And if you want to pay for some stranger's heart surgery then feel free to, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to pay for it too. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.
#319 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not advocating for people to die in the streets, I am advocating people taking responsibility for their lives and seeing that they are prepared for retirement, rather than living off of money stolen from others. You are creating a false dichotomy where people either live off of money given to them by the government, or they die. If people weren't taxed so heavily then any responsible person would be able to adequately prepare/save for retirement, and would not need to rely on a check from the government. If you believe someone has a right to stolen money just because he squandered his own when he should have been saving it then you believe that someone has a right to live even if he makes absolutely no effort to sustain his life. You believe that he has a right to refuse responsibility for himself and live as an unwanted burden on others.You have no morals. The emotional and irrational are intellectually incapable of understanding morality.

Responsibility or lack thereof is not the reason for the difficulty of living post-retirement. People are living longer these days so retiring at a typical age can mean having to have literally decades of saving for some. Savings that under your society would have to cover extremely expensive healthcare costs. A single heart attack could erase an individuals savings. You don't directly advocate people dying on the street but your ideas would lead to absolutely atrocious living conditions and the deaths of millions. Being told I have no morals by a person who believes babies should be viewed as property really doesn't have any sort of impact.

If people are retiring when they still have decades of life left then they are retiring far too soon. Retirement isn't a vacation that everyone goes on when they turn 60. Retirement is what people do when they are too old to work anymore, or they have no need of working anymore. And if you want to pay for some stranger's heart surgery then feel free to, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to pay for it too. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.

You do know we're not aging any slower, right? We're just living longer. So a person who retires at the same age they would have 100 years ago is going to live longer now than then.
#320 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Responsibility or lack thereof is not the reason for the difficulty of living post-retirement. People are living longer these days so retiring at a typical age can mean having to have literally decades of saving for some. Savings that under your society would have to cover extremely expensive healthcare costs. A single heart attack could erase an individuals savings. You don't directly advocate people dying on the street but your ideas would lead to absolutely atrocious living conditions and the deaths of millions. Being told I have no morals by a person who believes babies should be viewed as property really doesn't have any sort of impact.

If people are retiring when they still have decades of life left then they are retiring far too soon. Retirement isn't a vacation that everyone goes on when they turn 60. Retirement is what people do when they are too old to work anymore, or they have no need of working anymore. And if you want to pay for some stranger's heart surgery then feel free to, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to pay for it too. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.

You do know we're not aging any slower, right? We're just living longer. So a person who retires at the same age they would have 100 years ago is going to live longer now than then.

A 60 year old on average is much healthier today than a 60 year old from 100 years ago. While it might have been completely understandable to retire by age 60 back then, it is generally not today. If you are going to live to be 90, then you are probably healthy enough to keep working (at least part time in some capacity) into your 70s. There is generally no excuse to just spend 30 years of your life doing nothing and living on checks from the government because you didn't save a decent retirement fund while you were working.
#321 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] If people are retiring when they still have decades of life left then they are retiring far too soon. Retirement isn't a vacation that everyone goes on when they turn 60. Retirement is what people do when they are too old to work anymore, or they have no need of working anymore. And if you want to pay for some stranger's heart surgery then feel free to, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to pay for it too. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.

You do know we're not aging any slower, right? We're just living longer. So a person who retires at the same age they would have 100 years ago is going to live longer now than then.

A 60 year old on average is much healthier today than a 60 year old from 100 years ago. While it might have been completely understandable to retire by age 60 back then, it is generally not today. If you are going to live to be 90, then you are probably healthy enough to keep working (at least part time in some capacity) into your 70s. There is generally no excuse to just spend 30 years of your life doing nothing and living on checks from the government because you didn't save a decent retirement fund while you were working.

We've gotten much better at fixing things in the last 100 years. However as far as a 60 year old doing the same job now compared to 100 years back being much healtheir, that really isn't true. You're more likely to live longer these days because things that were death sentences back then aren't now. However if you would have gotten cancer then you're still getting cancer now, same goes for heart issues and every other thing that tends to kill people after middle age. Those things cost money. Lots of money. Again you're assuming the issue here is irresponsibility and that is simply not the case. Rather than basing your view of reality on ideology I suggest you base your ideology on reality.
#322 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

Lotus-Edge

I really don't get that attitude that a lot of Americans have, there is no sense of community and no compassion for their fellow man. If all people felt that way society would crumble within days.

#323 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17054 posts) -

You know, it boggles my mind how people ***** about stuff like medicare and medicaid.

You do realize all this money goes directly back to the people, right? Maybe not you in particular, but does no one think of the fact that this money is all getting put into a system that happens to be employing numerous people.

Every single cent of that money is helping secure other peoples jobs. I will flat out tell you right now taking away medicare/medicaid would take away countless jobs and at the same time be completely detrimental to the population.

I swear, these people like Lainhandi who argue against such things have zero capacity to actually thing about these things. I also doubt they have any idea how EXPENSIVE healthcare is and how suddenly you can be thrown into thousands upon thousand of dollars of debt (which FYI I can gaurantee you no matter how well you save, coming down with cancer or some other detrimental condition is not going to be something your savings can cover).

To give you an idea of the type of crap I am talking about, I am working at a nursing home in the rehab wing and one of the residents we currently have there is a younger guy (mid to late 30's) who was working at a junkyard and had a freaking CAR fall on him, crushing his pelvis. Now he is unable to work for the time being and we really have no idea how long it will take him to recover. He has a halo around his pelvis keeping everything together and if that were to be messed with too much it would be devastating, so he currently can't do any sort of standing.

Now I don't know how he is paying for it, but are you going to tell me that someone like that deserves to be completely thrown under the bus and left in impossible debt? God it will be because of this treatment that he will EVENTUALLY be able to get back into the workforce again. We could lose worthwhile people with this idiotic mentality of "everyone fend for themselves! No assistance whatsoever!".

I really would love to see people like Lainhandi be thrown into a situation like this. Probably could use a good humbling.

#324 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17054 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

tenaka2

I really don't get that attitude that a lot of Americans have, there is no sense of community and no compassion for their fellow man. If all people felt that way society would crumble within days.

Don't let the vocal few mess with your perception of America. I think the ONLY program I see a decent amount of distaste for is wellfare and that's thanks to some misconceptions and some idiots who really do abuse the system...

#325 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Seems like we keep circling back to the ol' "let them die in the streets" argument....

LostProphetFLCL

I really don't get that attitude that a lot of Americans have, there is no sense of community and no compassion for their fellow man. If all people felt that way society would crumble within days.

Don't let the vocal few mess with your perception of America. I think the ONLY program I see a decent amount of distaste for is wellfare and that's thanks to some misconceptions and some idiots who really do abuse the system...

I don't understand how people like Laihendi expect all the benefits and advantages of living in a society but then don't want to contribute anything to support it. Seems to be a issue of self entitlement to be honest.

#326 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17054 posts) -

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I really don't get that attitude that a lot of Americans have, there is no sense of community and no compassion for their fellow man. If all people felt that way society would crumble within days.

tenaka2

Don't let the vocal few mess with your perception of America. I think the ONLY program I see a decent amount of distaste for is wellfare and that's thanks to some misconceptions and some idiots who really do abuse the system...

I don't understand how people like Laihendi expect all the benefits and advantages of living in a society but then don't want to contribute anything to support it. Seems to be a issue of self entitlement to be honest.

Yeah. It is a big problem here.

Hell, I will say I think the biggest issue this country has socially is that we really have lost alot of our sense of community (so I guess on second thought you are right).

#327 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
I am assuming by "sense of community" what you really mean is a tax code you approve of (low taxes for yourself, high taxes for the rich!) and government programs that you want, and that are all paid for by someone else.
#328 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

I am assuming by "sense of community" what you really mean is a tax code you approve of (low taxes for yourself, high taxes for the rich!) and government programs that you want, and that are all paid for by someone else.Laihendi

If you hate having to contribute to the society in which you live I would suggest you leave it.

Run off to the woods and become a hermit, grow and hunt your own food and be completely self sufficent, only then will you be free from the shackles of society.

#329 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am assuming by "sense of community" what you really mean is a tax code you approve of (low taxes for yourself, high taxes for the rich!) and government programs that you want, and that are all paid for by someone else.tenaka2

If you hate having to contribute to the society in which you live I would suggest you leave it.

Run off to the woods and become a hermit, grow and hunt your own food and be completely self sufficent, only then will you be free from the shackles of society.

I am not against society or cooperation. I am against coercion. I am against theft. I am against slavery. A society does not require any of those things. Cooperation does not require any of those things. You are making up stuff that has nothing to do with me and my ideas.
#330 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am assuming by "sense of community" what you really mean is a tax code you approve of (low taxes for yourself, high taxes for the rich!) and government programs that you want, and that are all paid for by someone else.Laihendi

If you hate having to contribute to the society in which you live I would suggest you leave it.

Run off to the woods and become a hermit, grow and hunt your own food and be completely self sufficent, only then will you be free from the shackles of society.

I am not against society or cooperation. I am against coercion. I am against theft. I am against slavery. A society does not require any of those things. Cooperation does not require any of those things. You are making up stuff that has nothing to do with me and my ideas.

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

#331 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

If you hate having to contribute to the society in which you live I would suggest you leave it.

Run off to the woods and become a hermit, grow and hunt your own food and be completely self sufficent, only then will you be free from the shackles of society.

tenaka2

I am not against society or cooperation. I am against coercion. I am against theft. I am against slavery. A society does not require any of those things. Cooperation does not require any of those things. You are making up stuff that has nothing to do with me and my ideas.

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

I am selfish. I also respect the rights of others. I respect the right others have to act in rational self-interest without being inhibited by others. I do not expected others to provide me with special favours. I will never steal from another person. I will never harm another person in any way. Your attempt to vilify me is absurd. I value my life. I have self esteem. I have pride. I do not believe in throwing away my life for someone else, because I do not assume that anyone's life is more valuable than mine by default. That fact that you consider these qualities to be bad makes you the destructive influence on humanity.
#332 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not against society or cooperation. I am against coercion. I am against theft. I am against slavery. A society does not require any of those things. Cooperation does not require any of those things. You are making up stuff that has nothing to do with me and my ideas.Laihendi

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

I am selfish.

I am glad we can agree.

#333 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -

I have been wondering this for a long time and it still does not make sense to me. Everytime I try to talk to a liberal about issues such as welfare, restrictive sex laws, restrictive gun laws, a politician he likes, etc. they always seem to get very emotional and agitated and it becomes impossible to have a calm, objective, and rational discussion.

For example I have had people say things like I don't care about children just because I am against pre-k in state schools since it is basically a babysitting service funded by tax dollars. Or when I wasn't happy about Obama being elected back in 2008 a bunch of people I knew said I was racist, including some family members even though I don't care about Obama's race at all. They all acted like we should be proud to have a black man elected president while completely ignoring the fact that he was the most unqualified president ever elected and his policies are just more statism like Bush.

These same people criticize conservatives for being "a bunch of old white guys" as if there is anything wrong with being old or white.

And then when you have someone like Ron Paul arguing against medicair and medicaid and saying you shoud just be responsible for your own medical expenses instead of having the government take your money and spend it for you, he gets accused of hating poor and old people. The things they say and believe are just very irrational.

Laihendi

liberals are brainwashed.

 

i don't hate liberals for what they believe though. i hate the people that brainwashed them.

#334 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

tenaka2

I am selfish.

I am glad we can agree.

Yes, just ignore the part about how I will never harm anyone in any way, so you can continue promoting the delusion that I am some evil monster who is destroying humanity by not being a content slave to the government and to the democratic masses.

Please tell me who I am hurting by being selfish. And please tell me why another man's life is necessarily more important than my own. Please tell me why it is good to help someone else - anyone else - but it is evil and wrong to help myself. What makes myself so different from others, that they deserve to be the beneficiaries of my labour, but I do not.

Or, put another way, please apply objective critical thinking to what you say/post.

#335 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am selfish.Laihendi

I am glad we can agree.

Yes, just ignore the part about how I will never harm anyone in any way, so you can continue promoting the delusion that I am some evil monster who is destroying humanity by not being a content slave to the government and to the democratic masses.

Please tell me who I am hurting by being selfish. And please tell me why another man's life is necessarily more important than my own. Please tell me why it is good to help someone else - anyone else - but it is evil and wrong to help myself. What makes myself so different from others, that they deserve to be the beneficiaries of my labour, but I do not.

Or, put another way, please apply objective critical thinking to what you say/post.

I think this says it all really, if you don't know the answer to this then you cannot be helped.

#336 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am glad we can agree.

tenaka2

Yes, just ignore the part about how I will never harm anyone in any way, so you can continue promoting the delusion that I am some evil monster who is destroying humanity by not being a content slave to the government and to the democratic masses.

Please tell me who I am hurting by being selfish. And please tell me why another man's life is necessarily more important than my own. Please tell me why it is good to help someone else - anyone else - but it is evil and wrong to help myself. What makes myself so different from others, that they deserve to be the beneficiaries of my labour, but I do not.

Or, put another way, please apply objective critical thinking to what you say/post.

I think this says it all really, if you don't know the answer to this then you cannot be helped.


You are ignoring the second part of the sentence that establishes the context of the first. Again, please apply objective critical thinking to what you post.

You are making it clear that you are incapable of reading a post, comprehending it, and forming an intelligent response. All you do is pick out one fragment of one sentence, ignore context, ignore everything else, and then create a straw man out of it.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please educate yourself.

#337 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes, just ignore the part about how I will never harm anyone in any way, so you can continue promoting the delusion that I am some evil monster who is destroying humanity by not being a content slave to the government and to the democratic masses.

Please tell me who I am hurting by being selfish. And please tell me why another man's life is necessarily more important than my own. Please tell me why it is good to help someone else - anyone else - but it is evil and wrong to help myself. What makes myself so different from others, that they deserve to be the beneficiaries of my labour, but I do not.

Or, put another way, please apply objective critical thinking to what you say/post.

Laihendi

I think this says it all really, if you don't know the answer to this then you cannot be helped.


You are ignoring the second part of the sentence that establishes the context of the first. Again, please apply objective critical thinking to what you post.

You are making it clear that you are incapable of reading a post, comprehending it, and forming an intelligent response. All you do is pick out one fragment of one sentence, ignore context, ignore everything else, and then create a straw man out of it.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please educate yourself.

I know what a strawman is, I watch Dr. Who.

It is just difficult to take you seriously.

Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for your fellow man could be indicative of a disorder of some type

#338 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think this says it all really, if you don't know the answer to this then you cannot be helped.

tenaka2


You are ignoring the second part of the sentence that establishes the context of the first. Again, please apply objective critical thinking to what you post.

You are making it clear that you are incapable of reading a post, comprehending it, and forming an intelligent response. All you do is pick out one fragment of one sentence, ignore context, ignore everything else, and then create a straw man out of it.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please educate yourself.

I know what a strawman is, I watch Dr. Who.

It is just difficult to take you seriously.

Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for your fellow man could be indicative of a disorder of some type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

#339 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
You are ignoring the second part of the sentence that establishes the context of the first. Again, please apply objective critical thinking to what you post.

You are making it clear that you are incapable of reading a post, comprehending it, and forming an intelligent response. All you do is pick out one fragment of one sentence, ignore context, ignore everything else, and then create a straw man out of it.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please educate yourself.

Laihendi

I know what a strawman is, I watch Dr. Who.

It is just difficult to take you seriously.

Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for your fellow man could be indicative of a disorder of some type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

lol seriously? You created a thread attacking individuals and you try to play that card?

#340 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7719 posts) -
[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I am not against society or cooperation. I am against coercion. I am against theft. I am against slavery. A society does not require any of those things. Cooperation does not require any of those things. You are making up stuff that has nothing to do with me and my ideas.Laihendi

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

I am selfish. I also respect the rights of others. I respect the right others have to act in rational self-interest without being inhibited by others. I do not expected others to provide me with special favours. I will never steal from another person. I will never harm another person in any way. Your attempt to vilify me is absurd. I value my life. I have self esteem. I have pride. I do not believe in throwing away my life for someone else, because I do not assume that anyone's life is more valuable than mine by default. That fact that you consider these qualities to be bad makes you the destructive influence on humanity.

How old are you?
#341 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You only have one idea.

 

Complete, self serving greed.

HoolaHoopMan

I am selfish. I also respect the rights of others. I respect the right others have to act in rational self-interest without being inhibited by others. I do not expected others to provide me with special favours. I will never steal from another person. I will never harm another person in any way. Your attempt to vilify me is absurd. I value my life. I have self esteem. I have pride. I do not believe in throwing away my life for someone else, because I do not assume that anyone's life is more valuable than mine by default. That fact that you consider these qualities to be bad makes you the destructive influence on humanity.

How old are you?

I'd guess still young enough to believe that his father knows everything.

#342 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

I wonder what the TC will do in retirement when something catastrophic happens medically, and the money isn't there to pay all the bills. Surely he wouldn't resort to using Medicaid, because it would be stealing from his fellow citizens. Surely death is preferably to stealing.

Yes, I am using an emotional argument. I've had a family member, a proud one, need to resort to Medicaid for help. It wasn't something that done happily or even willingly. It was necessary for survival, for the ill person and for the caretaker suddenly looking a a retirment fund that was going to evaporate in a year, rather than 20.

If you aren't old, TC, don't assume you know what it's like to have to deal with these situations.

#343 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
TC doesn't even pay for his own health care so I doubt he knows much about the daily struggles that are reduced via medicare/Medicaid
#344 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

TC doesn't even pay for his own health care so I doubt he knows much about the daily struggles that are reduced via medicare/Medicaid DroidPhysX

Mmmhmm.

#345 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17054 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]
You are ignoring the second part of the sentence that establishes the context of the first. Again, please apply objective critical thinking to what you post.

You are making it clear that you are incapable of reading a post, comprehending it, and forming an intelligent response. All you do is pick out one fragment of one sentence, ignore context, ignore everything else, and then create a straw man out of it.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Please educate yourself.

Laihendi

I know what a strawman is, I watch Dr. Who.

It is just difficult to take you seriously.

Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for your fellow man could be indicative of a disorder of some type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

I love the whining that a person isn't answering questions when you ignored my entire post that points out just how stupid you are.

#346 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I know what a strawman is, I watch Dr. Who.

It is just difficult to take you seriously.

Your complete lack of empathy and compassion for your fellow man could be indicative of a disorder of some type

LostProphetFLCL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

I love the whining that a person isn't answering questions when you ignored my entire post that points out just how stupid you are.

All you did was rant about how you hope I get some crippling devastating illness. Which is funny because you consider me a despicable person when I wish you and everyone else no harm, and you consider yourself a good person while you actively want people to suffer. You are a very confused person.
#347 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17054 posts) -

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

Laihendi

I love the whining that a person isn't answering questions when you ignored my entire post that points out just how stupid you are.

All you did was rant about how you hope I get some crippling devastating illness. Which is funny because you consider me a despicable person when I wish you and everyone else no harm, and you consider yourself a good person while you actively want people to suffer. You are a very confused person.

Way to completely fail to read my post! Tis what I expected though.

#348 Posted by Aljosa23 (24522 posts) -

TC doesn't even pay for his own health care so I doubt he knows much about the daily struggles that are reduced via medicare/Medicaid DroidPhysX

#349 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You still have not addressed any of the questions I asked you. I am wondering if this is intentional.

Laihendi

I love the whining that a person isn't answering questions when you ignored my entire post that points out just how stupid you are.

All you did was rant about how you hope I get some crippling devastating illness. Which is funny because you consider me a despicable person when I wish you and everyone else no harm, and you consider yourself a good person while you actively want people to suffer. You are a very confused person.

You have a very strange imagination.

#350 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

I love the whining that a person isn't answering questions when you ignored my entire post that points out just how stupid you are.

LostProphetFLCL

All you did was rant about how you hope I get some crippling devastating illness. Which is funny because you consider me a despicable person when I wish you and everyone else no harm, and you consider yourself a good person while you actively want people to suffer. You are a very confused person.

Way to completely fail to read my post! Tis what I expected though.

Well in your example if that guy had a car fall on him then he should sue whoever was responsible for the car falling on him and use the money to pay for his medical expenses. I shouldn't be forced to pay for his medical expenses via taxation because I am not responsible for the car falling on him.