What Tea Partiers Really Want

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Kewangji » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:50 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:You are misunderstanding. That picture, or that text, or that speech, is information. There is a thought behind it. And if thoughts are sacred, how can I curtail them from roaming free and interacting with other thoughts? But a blow to the body is not a thought, nor is a jail cell. They are inferior entities to human thought. And as such I can, and I declare should, curtail their interference of thought.

What is enjoyment? How does it differ from thought? If less discrimination happens, the discriminator is not enjoying himself anymore. Here's the difference between discrimination and murder. Whichever party is favored, someone is not going to enjoy themselves, either the discriminator and the murderer, or the discriminatee and the murder-victim. But in the latter case, the murderer is the direct cause of the victim's non-enjoyment and suffering. In the former, the discrimination victim might lose out on money and have to forgo a luxury, or he may even freeze or starve. But the discriminator didn't set the rules that say one can't produce matter from nothing or that people must eat and keep warm to survive. Those are facts of nature and as such are amoral.
If I push someone close to a well, gravity is a fact of nature that pulls them down and kills them. People need intact heads to survive, and that's just how it is, no fault of mine. That is what your argument sounds like. I know you separate verbal action from physical action, but at the same time you equate laws with guns, even though the laws are 'just information'.

Discrimination costs lives, and if you make people not discriminate, they can find other forms of enjoyment. And actually, if less discrimination happens, the discriminator could be enjoying themselves just as much as before – discrimination is not enjoyment. More equality makes everybody more happy. If you can use the potential of previously discriminated-against groups, their employers will be more happy (better results than if you just pick the people conforming to what you think a good worker looks like), and the employees will be more happy (can afford central heating, going above the poverty-line, etc).

If one group is discriminated against, and they won't find work anywhere, that costs them lives. If no-one is discriminated against, people will find work eventually. Or maybe, it will be like what the Tea Partiers Want: the lazy, stupid people will become poor and dead. If you allow discrimination, there will be unfair distribution in work. Human life is necessary for human thought. Do you want to make human life unfairly distributed, causing people to unjustly die early, not being able to think anymore?


Steroid wrote:
kewangji wrote:I think human thought is wonderful, too, but you can't just zoom in on laws and declare that no-one should change them because that'll change people's thoughts. Everything does that, and if the thoughts are really 'morally neutral', it shouldn't matter to you. Unless you have a beef against going meta, in which case I'm not sure why you're debating things that are meta, if it's not just betraying your principles to spread them.
Again, by arguing my thoughts I do no ill to anyone. If I killed or robbed to enforce these arguments, I would be hypocritical.
I'm not sure how this is a reply to what I said. I may be missing some vagaries, do explain more.



Through this thread, you have not specified, as far as I can tell, what it is you don't want other things to change human thought from. I think you're just a friend of the status quo, afraid of change, and these are excuses you built around that.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:36 pm UTC

ehhhhhh... In a hypothetical future where you couldn't just disappear into the woods or the vastness of Antarctica and never interact with a government agent again? I suppose. But I'm not terribly worried about it; if you can't get enough people with similar views to all move to some tiny government and vote it into your utopia, your views probably don't deserve to have that level of power. This does not prevent you from buying up a bunch of land and keeping to yourself while you hunt humans for sport or play Bejeweled or whatever else it is that every other society on Earth frowns upon.


I assume you can see why turning private land into a private hunting preserve would merely qualify as an act of war(if its done through kidnapping) instead of a simple act of kidnapping.

I am only half-joking when I say that's fine as long as you can do what every other seceding chunk of land has done--win a war against your parent nation. And even then you'd have to win it with enough good feelings left over so that the surrounding country would trade with you. Basically I don't think it's a good idea. Even if you're no longer taking in new "imports" like internet or water, everything you have you got from the country around you. At the very least you should start with empty land, then build after you've seceded... It's kind of a silly example (see: that one episode of Family Guy). I would rather it not happen; I'm sure the parent governments would in practice not let you do it unless you could somehow best their military force; but I'm not sure either of those provides a legal or moral reason why it shouldn't technically be possible.


Its a bad argument, they will beat me up if I do something they don't like does not mean I have no right to do what they will beat me up for.

The big underlying assumption under the "buy land, then secceed" plan is that just buying land should be enough to give you the moral and legal rights to do anything you want on that land.

But if you buy land in a country there are loads of things you are not allowed to do on that land, with good reasons too. Just because it is your land doesn't mean you can build toxic factories on it, or kill people who enter the land, or start a stolen stolen goods emporium. But a seccession implies you do claim such rights from then on. I don't see why such rights should just be granted to anyone who bought a piece of land.


As to toxic waste, you certainly have the right to pollute your own land however you see fit; and pollution of another country merely becomes an international matter. A stolen goods emporium falls under the same thinking.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:Or maybe, it will be like what the Tea Partiers Want: the lazy, stupid people will become poor and dead.

Wow. Troll much?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:As to toxic waste, you certainly have the right to pollute your own land however you see fit; and pollution of another country merely becomes an international matter. A stolen goods emporium falls under the same thinking.

Oh, it's not at all certain.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Malice » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:03 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
ehhhhhh... In a hypothetical future where you couldn't just disappear into the woods or the vastness of Antarctica and never interact with a government agent again? I suppose. But I'm not terribly worried about it; if you can't get enough people with similar views to all move to some tiny government and vote it into your utopia, your views probably don't deserve to have that level of power. This does not prevent you from buying up a bunch of land and keeping to yourself while you hunt humans for sport or play Bejeweled or whatever else it is that every other society on Earth frowns upon.


I assume you can see why turning private land into a private hunting preserve would merely qualify as an act of war(if its done through kidnapping) instead of a simple act of kidnapping.


Only if you get caught. My meaning was, if you don't have enough like-minded friends to start your own government, you can at least pretend to buy into one of the less objectionable ones and in the meantime live how you want out of sight.

I am only half-joking when I say that's fine as long as you can do what every other seceding chunk of land has done--win a war against your parent nation. And even then you'd have to win it with enough good feelings left over so that the surrounding country would trade with you. Basically I don't think it's a good idea. Even if you're no longer taking in new "imports" like internet or water, everything you have you got from the country around you. At the very least you should start with empty land, then build after you've seceded... It's kind of a silly example (see: that one episode of Family Guy). I would rather it not happen; I'm sure the parent governments would in practice not let you do it unless you could somehow best their military force; but I'm not sure either of those provides a legal or moral reason why it shouldn't technically be possible.


Its a bad argument, they will beat me up if I do something they don't like does not mean I have no right to do what they will beat me up for.


But it doesn't mean you do have the right, either. What gives you that right, exactly? And even if we agree that you have that right, does it matter when you will get beat up for it anyway?
Image

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:43 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Kewangji wrote:Or maybe, it will be like what the Tea Partiers Want: the lazy, stupid people will become poor and dead.
Wow. Troll much?
How is that trolling? It fits perfectly with a Libertarian outlook. If you don't want to do the work required by the employers in an area (or move or earn money from bare earth or something) and you aren't clever enough to think of an alternative or be nice enough to the people that they give you money for free, the only alternative is to starve to death.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Kewangji » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:43 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Kewangji wrote:Or maybe, it will be like what the Tea Partiers Want: the lazy, stupid people will become poor and dead.
Wow. Troll much?
How is that trolling? It fits perfectly with a Libertarian outlook. If you don't want to do the work required by the employers in an area (or move or earn money from bare earth or something) and you aren't clever enough to think of an alternative or be nice enough to the people that they give you money for free, the only alternative is to starve to death.

Yeah. I was paraphrasing something said earlier in the thread. I think it went something like this: "It's not 'if you're poor, you must be lazy and stupid.' It's more: 'If you're stupid and lazy, why aren't you poor?'"

Edit:

Quoth Steroid: And the complaint isn't, "If you weren't lazy and stupid you wouldn't be poor," it's "if you *are* lazy and stupid, why aren't you poor?"
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:24 pm UTC

Ah. I thought that was spun from whole cloth. "What do Tea Partiers really want? They want you poor and dead!" I missed Steroid's comment.

Although adding the "dead" part wasn't necessary, and still implies that the Tea Party is out to kill people.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby sophyturtle » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:30 pm UTC

Well, what are all those guns they carry around for if not to kill people?
I hear that's what guns do.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:40 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:Well, what are all those guns they carry around for if not to kill people?
I hear that's what guns do.

Silly Sophy. That's just what the guns black people own are for.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:41 pm UTC

Guns don't kill people, Death Panels kill people.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:43 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Guns don't kill people, Death Panels Jan Brewer kills people.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:49 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Guns don't kill people, Death Panels Jan Brewer kills people.

Speaking of which, I applied for the job as Head Inquisitor of the 9th District Death Panels Commission and they still have yet to get back to me. Stupid government.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:01 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Guns don't kill people, Death Panels Jan Brewer kills people.

Wait, immigrants are people!? Science damn you Fox News!!

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Triangle_Man » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:07 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Guns don't kill people, Death Panels Jan Brewer kills people.

Speaking of which, I applied for the job as Head Inquisitor of the 9th District Death Panels Commission and they still have yet to get back to me. Stupid government.


That's because you have to start out as a low ranking inquistor and work your way up.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:08 pm UTC

The 90 (ish?) people who will die because Arizona's Medicaid program will no longer pay for transplants based largely on fraudulent claims by a United Health Care subsidiary are.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:40 pm UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Guns don't kill people, Death Panels Jan Brewer kills people.

Speaking of which, I applied for the job as Head Inquisitor of the 9th District Death Panels Commission and they still have yet to get back to me. Stupid government.


That's because you have to start out as a low ranking inquistor and work your way up.


But I already have experience in judging people! I grade student papers! Plus, I have no ethical qualms!

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Kewangji » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:02 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Ah. I thought that was spun from whole cloth. "What do Tea Partiers really want? They want you poor and dead!" I missed Steroid's comment.

Although adding the "dead" part wasn't necessary, and still implies that the Tea Party is out to kill people.

That wasn't my intention. I was implying that poor people die more easily, especially in USA.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Dauric » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:31 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Ah. I thought that was spun from whole cloth. "What do Tea Partiers really want? They want you poor and dead!" I missed Steroid's comment.

Although adding the "dead" part wasn't necessary, and still implies that the Tea Party is out to kill people.

That wasn't my intention. I was implying that poor people die more easily, especially in USA.


No "Especially in the U.S.A." about it. Impoverished peoples around the world and through history have always been on the short end of the lifespan. If anything U.S. emergency rooms being mandated to give care to everyone actually improves lifespans for the impoverished, as opposed to third-world nations where the disparity between the lifespan of the wealthy and the poor is vastly greater.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Kewangji » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:No "Especially in the U.S.A." about it. Impoverished peoples around the world and through history have always been on the short end of the lifespan. If anything U.S. emergency rooms being mandated to give care to everyone actually improves lifespans for the impoverished, as opposed to third-world nations where the disparity between the lifespan of the wealthy and the poor is vastly greater.

Compared to my country, Sweden, the poor people in America seem far worse off. I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking very far.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Only if you get caught. My meaning was, if you don't have enough like-minded friends to start your own government, you can at least pretend to buy into one of the less objectionable ones and in the meantime live how you want out of sight.


Okay, I think we can agree though this isn't important in regard to whether you can start your own one person country?

But it doesn't mean you do have the right, either. What gives you that right, exactly? And even if we agree that you have that right, does it matter when you will get beat up for it anyway?


If I don't have the individual right to live outside of society(that is control my own life to the extent I am not acting against other humans), how does society(a group of individuals) have the right to decide how I will live*?

*and to be clear, this is in a case where I explicitly am choosing not to exist under any sort of social contract; not even the case of me complaining about the terms of the government I choose to live under.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Malice » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:47 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Only if you get caught. My meaning was, if you don't have enough like-minded friends to start your own government, you can at least pretend to buy into one of the less objectionable ones and in the meantime live how you want out of sight.


Okay, I think we can agree though this isn't important in regard to whether you can start your own one person country?


No, you're right. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can start your own one-person country, for the very good reason that it wasn't responding to that question at all. It was responding to a different question posed in the same post, namely, "What if no society on Earth is available which shares your views?"

But it doesn't mean you do have the right, either. What gives you that right, exactly? And even if we agree that you have that right, does it matter when you will get beat up for it anyway?


If I don't have the individual right to live outside of society(that is control my own life to the extent I am not acting against other humans), how does society(a group of individuals) have the right to decide how I will live*?

*and to be clear, this is in a case where I explicitly am choosing not to exist under any sort of social contract; not even the case of me complaining about the terms of the government I choose to live under.


I'm not talking about the right to live outside of society; I'm talking about the right to start your own one-person nation in the middle of another society. The proposed inherent right to Family Guy-esque secession is what I'm questioning, here.

In answer to your question, though... You have the right to live outside of society as long as you are actually outside of it. Hence the issue with declaring "the three square acres around my house in the DC suburbs is no longer part of society"; you are still in the midst of that group, affecting and affected. I don't think many people would begrudge you the freedom to declare yourself completely outside all social contracts as long as you stayed in the deepest jungle or the coldest tundra and never saw or interacted with another living soul.

Even then, I'd argue there's a base morality that we all share--I'm imagining my hypothetical hermit finding a species of beetle in the jungle which could potentially cure cancer, and deciding to step on each and every one of them personally until the species is extinct. Even without the cancer part in there, it still seems wrong to suggest one has the right to destroy entire species, even if no human being is around to complain about or curtail that destruction.

Outside of such extremes, however, I'd say it's possible to isolate oneself fully from all human contact, and should you be successful I believe you have the right to do it. But staying where you still interact with society comes with it that society's (not unlimited) say in what you can and cannot do.
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: solune and 20 guests