Originally Posted by Odin

I have mentioned elsewhere that Boomers on both sides seem to be obsessed with sexual morality in a really sick way.

Social issues or values really weren't covered during the debate. (With the exception of Michelle Bachman sneaking it in a back handed way. After all, she wasn't complaining about the fact that children are required to be vaccinated against measles. A non sexually transmitted disease) I suspect the social or moral issues weren't covered because most of candidates and the audience don't really differ to much on their stances when it comes to social issues. Remember this was a Tea Party debate, and most Tea Party candidates are pretty outspoken about their conservative views. So it would have been like preaching to the choir in this setting. But I do wonder if someone like Rick Perry does become the Republican candidate, how his views will play with the rest of America when these topics come up. And they will come up in debates between the Republican candidate and Obama. I just think a lot of people will have a problem with Perry using his religious and moral views as the way he governs.

This is why I question people feeling like Rick Perry has the best chance of beating Obama. Yes, Perry is popular in Texas but it's a heavily Republican conservative state so he plays well in Texas. I'm just not so sure that the whole good old boy cowboy imagine, and the deeply evangelical thing is going to appeal the vast majority of people outside of the region. After all, a lot of people don't really Texas all that much in the first place.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...-for-perry.php

The Third Rail: PPP National Poll Shows Social Security Already A Drag For Perry

...Public Policy Polling (D) released their latest national poll on Tuesday, and it seems that calling Social Security a “ponzi sceme” has not been particularly productive for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Only 20 percent of voters nationally agree with that sentiment, against 70 percent who do not. Just to drive the point home, 82 percent don’t agree with ending the popular entitlement program, versus 12 who do. The results mirror a CNN poll on the issue, which showed that 72 percent thought Perry’s comments on Social Security were “not accurate.”


The issue seems to have galvanized some wayward Democrats who had previously remained uncommitted to President Obama. The PPP poll showed Obama above 50 percent in a matchup against Perry, besting him 52 - 41, outside the margin of error. Obama remains locked in a statistical tie with Romney however, with a lead in the poll of 49 - 45. But PPP Pollster Tom Jensen noted the shift in Democrats:

The president’s more solid standing in the Perry and Romney horseraces comes from consolidating his party support. He was losing 13% of Democrats to each candidate in August, but only 11% to Romney and 9% to Perry now. Obama has meanwhile upped his own crossover support, from 5% to 9% of Republicans versus Romney and 10% to 11% against Perry. The president leads Perry by ten points with independents, but Romney tops Obama by two with them.

The poll also noted that Perry’s views on global warming and evolution, calling both into question, are solidly at odds with Americans generally. The same number of Americans don’t believe in them, 37 percent each, against majorities of over 50 percent who do. Perry’s views have been playing rather well with conservatives in GOP primary states like South Carolina and Iowa, but of course how they would play with general election voters was always going to be another matter.

Perry’s favorability remains low in the PPP poll after his first month in the race, falling to 30 percent favorable against 50 who have an unfavorable view. Again, Gallup has shown that GOP voters are very likely to have a favorable view of Perry, and Romney for that matter, but as the GOP candidates duke it out, their positions are starting to sour their poll numbers in a direct matchup with the President. “In just three weeks Barack Obama has nearly doubled his lead over Rick Perry,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “That would seem to be an indication that Perry’s comments about Social Security are giving him trouble with swing voters.”

Again, politically, the best thing to happen is for Perry to win the nomination - Obama would sweep the floor with him.

However, I'm intrigued by Romney winning the nomination as the protector of SS and then going on to beat Obama. His need to follow-through and protect SS in the face of the end of the payroll tax (i.e., permanent "extension" of tax holiday) could be the catharsis needed for our society to grasp the understanding that SS's (i.e. the government's) ability to pay benefits is not dependent on tax revenues. Obama's loss may be a small price to pay for ending the abundance of the exceedingly-harmful ignorance and stupidity regarding federal spending and deficits.

A couple of responses to the above:

1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, pretty much cut and paste, in rather extreme form. I think he would refer to himself as a Taft Republican (pre-New Deal). He's an isolationist. He thinks the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and he seems to support returning to the gold standard. He is no left winger, and his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes from an entirely different place.

2) The controversy over Perry's executive order mandating HPV tests for young girls was one of government over-reach (a key issue at a Tea Party sponsored debate). That's the grounds on which his decision was attacked, and he called it a mistake.

The issue of Social Security really is one where the American people will show whether they're ready to face up to our problems or not. If Romney's (and/or Obama's) cowardly approach wins out -- "it's fine, I won't do a thing to change it" -- then America still has a lot of hard lessons to learn in the years ahead.

I'm not overly enthused about any of the candidates, but I've seen enough in the last two debates to feel relatively comfortable with Perry. I would enthusiastically support Herman Cain if I thought he could win.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not overly enthused about any of the candidates, but I've seen enough in the last two debates to feel relatively comfortable with Perry. I would enthusiastically support Herman Cain if I thought he could win.

Ha, I've joked that Cain is too normal, makes to much sense, doesn't spin enough and not a neo con, to become an official candidate.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not overly enthused about any of the candidates, but I've seen enough in the last two debates to feel relatively comfortable with Perry. I would enthusiastically support Herman Cain if I thought he could win.

You have the right to vote how ever you choice, but I would advise you to look a little deeper into Perry before coming to your final decision. He isn't exactly how he appears. But then, on the other hand, perhaps he is your guy.

Among other things, the main thing that turned me off about Perry was when he stood up at a Tea Party rally and said if Washington didn't go along with what the Tea Party people in Texas wanted, then maybe we should think about seceding from the union. To me, this was just irresponsible talk out of a governor. It almost borders on treason. Personally, I was astounded when he managed to get himself re-elected in Texas after that comment. But then in Texas, all you really need to win an election is just be the Republican candidate.

Interesting article in the Washington Post about 2012 and electoral history:

Whatever you believe about FDR’s policies, a more international perspective will disabuse you of the notion that the golden age for the Democratic Party was an ideological triumph rather than an accident of history. As Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University, has written, globally, the pattern is clear: Whichever party was in power when the Great Depression hit was booted out of office, and whichever party was in power when the global recovery took hold reaped huge political benefits.

“In the U.S.,” wrote Bartels, “voters replaced Republicans with Democrats and the economy improved. In Britain and Australia, voters replaced Labor governments with conservatives and the economy improved. In Sweden, voters replaced Conservatives with Liberals, then with Social Democrats, and the economy improved.

“In the Canadian agricultural province of Saskatchewan, voters replaced Conservatives with Socialists and the economy improved. In the adjacent agricultural province of Alberta, voters replaced a socialist party with a right-leaning funny-money party created from scratch by a charismatic radio preacher . . . and the economy improved.

“In Weimar Germany, where economic distress was deeper and longer-lasting, voters rejected all of the mainstream parties, the Nazis seized power, and the economy improved. In every case, the party that happened to be in power when the Depression eased dominated politics for a decade or more thereafter.”

Originally Posted by ASB65

You have the right to vote how ever you choice, but I would advise you to look a little deeper into Perry before coming to your final decision. He isn't exactly how he appears. But then, on the other hand, perhaps he is your guy.

Among other things, the main thing that turned me off about Perry was when he stood up at a Tea Party rally and said if Washington didn't go along with what the Tea Party people in Texas wanted, then maybe we should think about seceding from the union. To me, this was just irresponsible talk out of a governor. It almost borders on treason. Personally, I was astounded when he managed to get himself re-elected in Texas after that comment. But then in Texas, all you really need to win an election is just be the Republican candidate.

I'm concerned about his positions on immigration, and I'm concerned that he's a phony who will change course when he gets in office. But overall he's probably the best option. If he has a Republican controlled Congress, there should be less chance of him going off the rails.

Originally Posted by ASB65

1. It is quite apparent that regardless of what Republican candidate you are talking about, the main thing the Republicans want to do is to beat Obama so they can repeal health care reform. They seem to blame health care reform for the reason for the national debt. Which is kind of silly considering we were in debt prior to Obama taking office and the two big things that really put us in the hole were the bail outs and the stimulus package (both which happened prior to the passage of health care reform.) So I'm not connecting the dots the same way these candidates and the audience seemed to be.

Not accurate. Obamacare is one of the primary things standing in the way of economic recovery and hiring. When it fully goes into effect, it will dramatically increase the cost of each employee a business has. They are not hiring in anticipation of that change, and if it's repealed, they will start hiring again. There is also the Dodd-Frank legislation (which I believe was also mentioned last night), which is tying up credit and making it harder for people to get loans.

Obamacare unquestionably will continue to explode the debt if it goes into full effect, but the negative impact on the economy began as soon as it was enacted.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Interesting article in the Washington Post about 2012 and electoral history:

I thought this back in 2008 and assumed it would be the Democrats since, Bush was in office when the financial crisis started. But...

....anyway, when you look back at the previous 4T's it seemed like the party with the most progressive ideas wins. Progressive, meaning a forward and non 3T way of thinking, not necessarily progressive which usually means the left.

So which party do you guys think is more forward thinking?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The issue of Social Security really is one where the American people will show whether they're ready to face up to our problems or not. If Romney's (and/or Obama's) cowardly approach wins out -- "it's fine, I won't do a thing to change it" -- then America still has a lot of hard lessons to learn in the years ahead.

Are you talking about one of the major "deficit-dumb problems" - i.e., that SS will run out of dollars?

If so, could you please explain to me how a federal program "runs out of dollars?" You know, since our federal government are the only ones in the world with a monopoly on issuing dollars, how exactly do they "run out of something that they issue?" Do they run out of paper/ink (the minor means for their issuing dollars) or do they run out of electrons (the major way they issue dollars)?

The lesson for Americans to learn is not that hard, unless of course, you work for the S&P Credit-Rating Agency.

I await your enlightenment.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A couple of responses to the above:

1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, pretty much cut and paste, in rather extreme form. I think he would refer to himself as a Taft Republican (pre-New Deal). He's an isolationist. He thinks the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and he seems to support returning to the gold standard. He is no left winger, and his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes from an entirely different place.

True.

2) The controversy over Perry's executive order mandating HPV tests for young girls was one of government over-reach (a key issue at a Tea Party sponsored debate). That's the grounds on which his decision was attacked, and he called it a mistake.

Paradoxically, the HPV vaccination is something that I endorse. One can't predict when a girl (at that age, the word is not sexist) will become sexually active and vulnerable to HPV. He may have decided upon it for the wrong reasons, but that happens at times. I am more concerned about Rick Perry's endorsement of "Public-private partnerships" that give giant corporations excessive control of the economy.

The issue of Social Security really is one where the American people will show whether they're ready to face up to our problems or not. If Romney's (and/or Obama's) cowardly approach wins out -- "it's fine, I won't do a thing to change it" -- then America still has a lot of hard lessons to learn in the years ahead.

What needs be done? Remove the cap for Social Security on any employment, including executive compensation.

I'm not overly enthused about any of the candidates, but I've seen enough in the last two debates to feel relatively comfortable with Perry. I would enthusiastically support Herman Cain if I thought he could win.

Comfortable with Rick Perry? For calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme? If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every life-insurance company.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm concerned about his positions on immigration, and I'm concerned that he's a phony who will change course when he gets in office. But overall he's probably the best option. If he has a Republican controlled Congress, there should be less chance of him going off the rails.

LOL...His position on immigration was the one area that I agreed with him on. Since Perry grew up in Texas and has been the governor of a border state all these years, I believe he understands the issues and problems we are dealing with a whole lot better than those other candidates who don't live with it every day like he has.

After living in Texas for the past 5 years, I think I have a good handle on how the people of this state feel about different issues (whether I agree with them or not), and do believe the people of Texas aren't as freaked out by the illegal aliens as the people of Arizona are. They just kind of accept it as a fact of life but don't live in fear of them. They understand that the drug lords or other criminals in Mexico don't want to come here to live. They have it way too good in Mexico. (I'm not saying that they don't come across the border to sell their drugs but they don't want to take up residence here.) No, the illegal immigrants coming across our border are coming here to escape the violence, corruption, and poverty in Mexico. They actually are trying to keep a very low profile and not cause any trouble since they don't want to be deported. Mostly they work as migrant workers, landscapers or other domestic help. You know, the jobs other American born people living here don't want. These are not people to be afraid of. So if Perry seems soft on immigration, it may just the Texas viewpoint. Texas has always had a good relationship with Mexico and it's people.

When I think of these kids he was referring to, I think of a little boy named Alfonzo. Alfonzo is a friend of my son. He is so sweet and so cute, that he is one of those little kids you just want to go up and hug every time you see him. Last year while volunteering in my son's classroom I worked a lot with Alfonzo one on one with this reading. See, he is bright boy and obviously well cared for and loved in his home but he doesn't have anyone in his household who speaks or reads English that he can practice reading with. And Alfonzo's reading really improved over the course of the school year last year. Personally, I want Alfonzo to grow up and go to college. I want that sweet little boy to become a productive citizen and have a decent life one day.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Interesting article in the Washington Post about 2012 and electoral history:

Whatever you believe about FDR’s policies, a more international perspective will disabuse you of the notion that the golden age for the Democratic Party was an ideological triumph rather than an accident of history. As Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University, has written, globally, the pattern is clear: Whichever party was in power when the Great Depression hit was booted out of office, and whichever party was in power when the global recovery took hold reaped huge political benefits.

“In the U.S.,” wrote Bartels, “voters replaced Republicans with Democrats and the economy improved. In Britain and Australia, voters replaced Labor governments with conservatives and the economy improved. In Sweden, voters replaced Conservatives with Liberals, then with Social Democrats, and the economy improved.

“In the Canadian agricultural province of Saskatchewan, voters replaced Conservatives with Socialists and the economy improved. In the adjacent agricultural province of Alberta, voters replaced a socialist party with a right-leaning funny-money party created from scratch by a charismatic radio preacher . . . and the economy improved.

“In Weimar Germany, where economic distress was deeper and longer-lasting, voters rejected all of the mainstream parties, the Nazis seized power, and the economy improved. In every case, the party that happened to be in power when the Depression eased dominated politics for a decade or more thereafter.”

Would the German Communist Party have gotten analogous results had it taken over instead of the National-Satanists?

.....

The 2006 and 2008 elections show some ambiguity of result. Democrats took over Congress in 2006 in the wake of scandals and military debacles of the Presidency before the economy collapsed, and Barack Obama was elected as the economy went into collapse in 2008. Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives, Democrats hold the Senate, and the President is a Democrat as the economy falters in 2011.

The political scene of 2012 will likely resolve the political ambiguity -- and gridlock - that we now know.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

True.



Paradoxically, the HPV vaccination is something that I endorse. One can't predict when a girl (at that age, the word is not sexist) will become sexually active and vulnerable to HPV. He may have decided upon it for the wrong reasons, but that happens at times. I am more concerned about Rick Perry's endorsement of "Public-private partnerships" that give giant corporations excessive control of the economy.

Haven't you noticed that any time one of the Republican candidates has done or said something you and I might agree with, they get trashed for it in the debate? Perry at least didn't back down, and for once I agree with him. Not that I would vote for him.

By the way. .. I just had my annual physical. Nothing wrong at all, but going to the doc has become a completely different experience in the last dozen years or so. . .sigh. However, I got a real emotional lift, when I was offered the shingles vaccine. Vaccines were very hot when I was a kid. I was in the first Salk polio crop, for instance. And I was delighted to be spared another disease at the price of a shot. Funny.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

True.



Paradoxically, the HPV vaccination is something that I endorse. One can't predict when a girl (at that age, the word is not sexist) will become sexually active and vulnerable to HPV. He may have decided upon it for the wrong reasons, but that happens at times. I am more concerned about Rick Perry's endorsement of "Public-private partnerships" that give giant corporations excessive control of the economy.



What needs be done? Remove the cap for Social Security on any employment, including executive compensation.



Comfortable with Rick Perry? For calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme? If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every life-insurance company.

It is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's a scheme whereby today's workers pay for today's retirees. End of story. Now it's true that the ratio of workers to retirees could change and reduce benefits but it's still the program and there will always be money going into it. The idea that it's a Ponzi scheme is an unusually dumb piece of Republican propaganda.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There is more than one way (or in this case your interpretation of Justin's way) to interpret the world. Expressing displeasure with the existence of alternative views makes it no less true that they exist. It only makes the other party look silly that they are so easily threatened by the existence of views other than their own.

No, that's not what I said. Alternative views are fine. But when a person says something, they themselves do mean a specific thing when they say it. Sometimes others who hear it think that the person who said it meant something else. With me so far? It happens a lot. When it becomes clear to the speaker that he was misunderstood, he may try to explain further that "I didn't mean that, this is what I really meant." So, what's more important, the idea the speaker meant to convey (which, being human, they might not have chosen the best words to say it, or weren't aware of other ways it could be taken), or just what it sounded like to you? I mean, in normal, polite conversation, people would generally say, "I see, okay, that's what you meant", and then maybe respond to the idea the speaker meant to convey. Right?

Nothing to do with with being "threatened by the existence of views other than their own", just with understanding what that view was the person was trying to convey. Which you seem to have no interest in. (And no one understands what they were trying to say better than the person who tried to say it.)

It is not the responsibility of the other person to prevent someone from getting frustrated.

So go ahead then, when people try to explain themselves and what they said, continue to beat them up for the fact that it could be interpreted another way. Or tell them what they meant is irrelevant. Maybe we should start doing that to you and see how long it takes to get you frustrated. Would you like others to insist you meant things you didn't, even after you tell them you didn't?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

If a person says they meant a certain thing when they said something, you should accept that that's what they were meaning to say.

Originally Posted by Summer in the fall

That would necessarily mean the end of critical thinking as we know it and the death of human intelligence.

What?!? Better understanding of what someone was trying to say would lead to the death of critical thinking? We can still critically assess the idea the speaker meant to convey. That's what I'm interested in, when I have a conversation or argument: clearly understanding what the one I'm speaking with is trying to say. I can then argue with them if I will (or agree if I will), but at least I'm not accusing them of meaning something different that they didn't mean, and that they told me they didn't mean. You seem to think that "critical thinking" requires that we talk past each other. (???)

If you are seeking an echo chamber, I recommend talking to yourself in the bathroom.

No, I'm just seeking to be better understood. As we all are. And to better understand those I speak with. Believe it or not, I'm doing my level best trying to understand you now. But I think to continue this "conversation", such as it is, we need to agree that what a speaker means to say is important, and that seeking that understanding is the foundation to productive conversation. And that the person who says a thing knows better than anyone else what they meant to say, and so if they try to explain to you what they meant you should listen, unless you want to accuse them of lying about their intentions.

Rani, do you understand what I'm trying to tell Summer? Is it not reasonable? Do you empathize with me as well here?

The internet is necessarily the forum for the coming together of a multitude of ideas. And there is no guarantee that those ideas will never be disagreeable to you. The attempt to achieve otherwise leads to censorship -- something your bullying tactics appear intended to do -- and censorship leads to an unchanging of thought (which ironically is what Justin claims to be against).

I don't want to censor you. I just wish you wouldn't keep accusing people of meaning things they say they didn't mean. Just a small modicum of not just civility, but basic conversational functionality. And suggesting that you'll do better with people here, even people who disagree with your particular ideas, if you refrain from doing so.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Haven't you noticed that any time one of the Republican candidates has done or said something you and I might agree with, they get trashed for it in the debate? Perry at least didn't back down, and for once I agree with him. Not that I would vote for him.

That was the other area I agreed with him on too. Allowing any child who has lived in the Texas of state for 3 years to get in state college credits regardless of where they may have originally come from, and requiring girls to get that vaccine. Like he said, it may save their lives one day.

So I stand corrected in my reply in JPT. I agreed with 2 things he said.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's a scheme whereby today's workers pay for today's retirees. End of story. Now it's true that the ratio of workers to retirees could change and reduce benefits but it's still the program and there will always be money going into it. The idea that it's a Ponzi scheme is an unusually dumb piece of Republican propaganda.

Precisely. It's JPT who, like Rick Scary, suggests that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I compare Social Security to life insurance companies because those are the only imaginable analogues to Social Security ... and they would not be up to the job. Life-insurance companies have costs of administration far higher than is so for Social Security. Privatization of Social Security would require that the government mandate payments into (mostly) privately-owned life insurance companies. Government would decide which life insurance companies could collect premiums, creating the potential for major corruption.

Insurance companies have no incentive for paying people who earned low and erratic incomes through their working lives an amount capable of supporting anyone's survival. Because of the higher overhead in life insurance companies, the payout could never be as generous. Privatization of Social Security would be a boon only for entities which could get investment capital cheaply from persons obliged to pay in and from Social Security itself.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

When postmodernism first came on the scene, there were kids in the class who used sign language, and everyone just ignored their "weird gestures." And there were kids in the class with cerebral palsy, and everyone just ignored their "lazy" slurred speech. And there were kids in the class who used wheelchairs, and everyone just assumed they must have nothing to say. And then postmodernism came along and said, "Hey, we should listen to everyone. That kid with the gestures, that's sign language, he's talking. That kid with the slurred speech, listen to what she says, not how she says it. That kid in the wheelchair, don't write him off without even giving him a chance to talk!" And at the time, that's just what we needed.

And I've always, absolutely believed that everyone has something to say, no matter who they are, and that it is wise as well as basic respect to listen as best you can. And I've had severe mental disability in my family--and I know my uncle had plenty of thoughts and observations going on in his head, he just never developed language to communicate those as we do. But you could see it in his gestures and murmurings and especially his laughter, or when he looked sad. And he did respond, in his way, to what people were saying around him and to him. If there's a heaven, hopefully I can hear more clearly what the man has to say when I see him again there.

No, my "gold star" comment had to do with rejecting the whole notion of objective reality--which imposes a standard some find difficult to accept, some very willfully reject, or some don't feel they have to pay any attention to.

Even today, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between writing someone off unfairly because of invalid, socially-constructed assumptions...and simply having standards and refusing to give them a gold star just for showing up. So if someone gets all postmodern on you, do consider if you might be doing the former without meaning to. Don't automatically assume you are, but don't assume you aren't either.

Is it an "invalid social construction" that for optimal conversation, the intended meaning of each speaker is sought after and heeded by the other speakers? Summer seems to think that it is irrelevant what someone else meant to say, that if Summer thought they meant something else, and the speaker says "no, I meant this", that it doesn't matter--and (s)he'll continue arguing with what she first thought you meant, not what you meant. I see this as a breakdown in communication, and a willful one on the part of the person who doesn't care what the other intended to say at all. I.e. it's not an "invalid social construction", but essential to people expressing ideas to each other using the not-always-that-precise tool we call language. Sometimes we do misunderstand each other, the question is how we choose to deal with that--in good faith and respect, or total lack thereof. I guess that's a standard I'm setting, but it's really a pretty basic one that doesn't require intellect or some type of social standing, just basic mutual courtesy and respect.

If this is a feature of postmodernism, it seems to be the denial that anyone knows what they mean to say, that no one knows their own mind, and that statements as to the content thereof are all as equally valid from anyone else as from the owner of that mind. I can see how that can dovetail from the denial of the existence of reality. Anything goes, and real communication becomes meaningless if not impossible.

Maybe we should do a thread on postmodernism. I'll admit I know little about it, as I was never into the lit-crit thing where it seemed to have first blossomed. Sorry for all the meta here, but Summer will either get it or she won't, and it will be the last I have to say about it if she doesn't, even if she does charicaturize me as some guy who only wants people to agree with him--I felt that definitely needed a response because that ain't me at all, so I gave it, and that will be that. If she still chooses not to understand me (at this point, with my amount of explaining, it is a choice), the conversation will be over.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

No, that's not what I said. Alternative views are fine. But when a person says something, they themselves do mean a specific thing when they say it. Sometimes others who hear it think that the person who said it meant something else. With me so far? It happens a lot. When it becomes clear to the speaker that he was misunderstood, he may try to explain further that "I didn't mean that, this is what I really meant." So, what's more important, the idea the speaker meant to convey (which, being human, they might not have chosen the best words to say it, or weren't aware of other ways it could be taken), or just what it sounded like to you? I mean, in normal, polite conversation, people would generally say, "I see, okay, that's what you meant", and then maybe respond to the idea the speaker meant to convey. Right?

Nothing to do with with being "threatened by the existence of views other than their own", just with understanding what that view was the person was trying to convey. Which you seem to have no interest in. (And no one understands what they were trying to say better than the person who tried to say it.)



So go ahead then, when people try to explain themselves and what they said, continue to beat them up for the fact that it could be interpreted another way. Or tell them what they meant is irrelevant. Maybe we should start doing that to you and see how long it takes to get you frustrated. Would you like others to insist you meant things you didn't, even after you tell them you didn't?





What?!? Better understanding of what someone was trying to say would lead to the death of critical thinking? We can still critically assess the idea the speaker meant to convey. That's what I'm interested in, when I have a conversation or argument: clearly understanding what the one I'm speaking with is trying to say. I can then argue with them if I will (or agree if I will), but at least I'm not accusing them of meaning something different that they didn't mean, and that they told me they didn't mean. You seem to think that "critical thinking" requires that we talk past each other. (???)



No, I'm just seeking to be better understood. As we all are. And to better understand those I speak with. Believe it or not, I'm doing my level best trying to understand you now. But I think to continue this "conversation", such as it is, we need to agree that what a speaker means to say is important, and that seeking that understanding is the foundation to productive conversation. And that the person who says a thing knows better than anyone else what they meant to say, and so if they try to explain to you what they meant you should listen, unless you want to accuse them of lying about their intentions.

Rani, do you understand what I'm trying to tell Summer? Is it not reasonable? Do you empathize with me as well here?



I don't want to censor you. I just wish you wouldn't keep accusing people of meaning things they say they didn't mean. Just a small modicum of not just civility, but basic conversational functionality. And suggesting that you'll do better with people here, even people who disagree with your particular ideas, if you refrain from doing so.

One of the main defense mechanisms of the left these days, when confronted by someone who disagrees with them, is to deliberately misinterpret what that person said, and then use that false interpretation to attack them for having said things they didn't say. It's so common I'm surprised it requires mentioning, but I applaud your efforts to discredit that kind of discourse.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Precisely. It's JPT who, like Rick Scary, suggests that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I compare Social Security to life insurance companies because those are the only imaginable analogues to Social Security ... and they would not be up to the job. Life-insurance companies have costs of administration far higher than is so for Social Security. Privatization of Social Security would require that the government mandate payments into (mostly) privately-owned life insurance companies. Government would decide which life insurance companies could collect premiums, creating the potential for major corruption.

Insurance companies have no incentive for paying people who earned low and erratic incomes through their working lives an amount capable of supporting anyone's survival. Because of the higher overhead in life insurance companies, the payout could never be as generous. Privatization of Social Security would be a boon only for entities which could get investment capital cheaply from persons obliged to pay in and from Social Security itself.

Social Security is a welfare program. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is an analogy, and an accurate one. Continuously printing money to keep it going will make that money worthless, which ends in the same result (worse actually) than receiving no payout at all.

Originally Posted by Galen

The question is what could they use if the government wasn't there? The answer is the one United States started with, and that was limited government and competing jurisdictions.

So things like a minimum wage, child labor laws, basic work safety standards, etc., which do ameliorate exploitation to some degree--what do you think of those kinds of government measures? The conditions they addressed became real problems when we entered the industrial age, and they weren't solving themselves during the Guilded Age.

"Government" isn't monolithic--there are all sorts of things it tries to do (some quite effectively), and since all kinds of competing interests participate in it, some of these things even work against each other--sometimes, as today, dysfunctionally so. But I don't begrudge it trying to set minimal standards of safety or compensation in the workplace, or trying as some of its sectors do to advocate for people at the bottom who have no one else with any power to advocate for them. I want it to do those things better, because I don't like seeing people get shit on, even if that is all part of "evolution"--we've also "evolved" to see the wrong in some of these things.

Your quote from Von Mises in your sig: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." I see some of the truth in that, but that both good and bad actions can come from either, and there's nothing wrong with good actions seeking to stop bad actions: that no one is perfect, and we all need to check each other when we get out of line, especially to the point it negatively affects many others. If some force gets too powerful and starts doing destructive things out of moral weakness, some other force needs to rise up and prevent that. Basically, we need to find a way to keep people honest--and the market doesn't always do that by itself. Likewise, the government (you know) doesn't just keep itself honest either, which is why it is good to have the input of We the People, ideally, to keep it honest. We should leave neither totally to its own devices.

Why are you so obsessed with me? This discussion ended a long time ago. How many times do I have to tell you, "I don't have those same kinds of feelings for you."

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There is more than one way (or in this case your interpretation of Justin's way) to interpret the world. Expressing displeasure with the existence of alternative views makes it no less true that they exist. It only makes the other party look silly that they are so easily threatened by the existence of views other than their own.

No, that's not what I said. Alternative views are fine. But when a person says something, they themselves do mean a specific thing when they say it. Sometimes others who hear it think that the person who said it meant something else. With me so far?

Lets recap:

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Look out the window, Justin. Is the sky falling? Have we gone 10 days and nights without sun? So why the hell are you talking like it's the apocalypse?

Uh, the death of the Sun from exhaustion of hydrogen fusion is not estimated to occur for another 4-5 billion years. So no, the sky isn't falling today, Justin didn't say it was, and (as usual) you are hitting strawmen of your own making. For someone "against combativeness", you sure like to find excuses for being combative, don't you. Have fun with that.

Thank you bringing it to my attention. But your interpretation is not what I was aiming for. And I pretty much accepted a long time ago that it was not going to be grasped. Best...

How about his "interpretation" of what he was trying to say?

You seem to be saying that I'm supposed understand your misunderstanding of what you think I misunderstood about Justin when I made that statement. Hmmm... Sounds like a mind-cluster-f@$% way of saying "screw you." Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

It is not the responsibility of the other person to prevent someone from getting frustrated.

So go ahead then, when people try to explain themselves and what they said, continue to beat them up for the fact that it could be interpreted another way. Or tell them what they meant is irrelevant. Maybe we should start doing that to you...

Have you been following this thread? It's just that when I get misunderstood I don't call people names and put them on ignore lists. See the difference?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Originally Posted by Alioth68

If a person says they meant a certain thing when they said something, you should accept that that's what they were meaning to say.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That would necessarily mean the end of critical thinking as we know it and the death of human intelligence.

What?!? Better understanding of what someone was trying to say would lead to the death of critical thinking?

Better understanding of what someone is trying to say is not the same as accepting that what someone says is what they meant. Don't be disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

If you are seeking an echo chamber, I recommend talking to yourself in the bathroom.

No, I'm just seeking to be better understood. As we all are. And to better understand those I speak with. Believe it or not, I'm doing my level best trying to understand you now. But I think to continue this "conversation", such as it is, we need to agree...

If you require that people make agreements adhering to guidelines of standards of conduct that you yourself set, that is not "conversation" you are seeking, but obedience.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

The internet is necessarily the forum for the coming together of a multitude of ideas. And there is no guarantee that those ideas will never be disagreeable to you. The attempt to achieve otherwise leads to censorship -- something your bullying tactics appear intended to do -- and censorship leads to an unchanging of thought (which ironically is what Justin claims to be against).

I don't want to censor you. I just wish you wouldn't keep accusing people of meaning things they say they didn't mean. Just a small modicum of not just civility, but basic conversational functionality. And suggesting that you'll do better with people here, even people who disagree with your particular ideas, if you refrain from doing so.

Alioth, I'm growing weary of your strange one-sided view of reality. You have not lectured any other on the name-calling or personal attacks. You have pointed to no instance of me engaging in such practices and have in fact practiced a bit of your own...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

I'm afraid I might be feeding a troll.

Instead you have chosen this transparent public flogging when you could have easily written to me privately if you sincerely were " doing [your] level best trying to understand [me] now."

We have two options here: censorship or taking responsibility for ones own emotions. Either you tune me out or you grow up. Those are the options, kid.

Best...

P.S. Not necessarily telling you to PM me. (Frankly, I got better things to do.) So I think growing up is the best way to go. Cheers.

Alioth: Actually, as I pointed out to Galen sometime back, the correct analogy is not between unregulated capitalism and government, but between unregulated capitalism and unregulated government -- arbitrary government, government outside the rule of law. We apply checks and balances, public accountability, and rules and limits to government precisely because people are fallible and power is not to be trusted unchecked. The same truth applies to business as well, wealth being another source of power.

Here's a nice cure for the deliberate blindness of the MSM, who would have us all believe that the range of ideas and options being presented run only from the Obama jobs plan to the intransigence of the Republicans. This is the result of all the town-hall meetings conducted across the country over the past few months as well as Internet outreach. Consider it well. It's a little short on specifics, but let's not pretend any more that we have no voices on the left, and if you get that impression from the MSM -- draw the appropriate conclusions.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index....,61&itemid=404

After listening to the debate last night; one thing came to my mind; what the heck does the Tea Party stand for and why the heck are they still eating up the Neo-Con message. They attack Paul on his rationale with Muslims and 9/11 (He is correct in his opinion which I share as well). Bachmann the Subsidy Queen along with Romney with Romneycare, it was a hoot watching who could deface their base the best. With that, Obama will get his second term.