Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote?

It would be nice to disenfranchise welfare recipients and government employees (school teachers, bureaucrats, cops, firefighters).

Why?

[Wolf DeVoon]

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

Newly hired NYPD officers can expect to receive nearly $2.2 million in pension payments and City paid health benefits over 32 years of retirement, based on the current average salary including overtime pay and other compensation. [NYPD website]

[Darrell Hougen]

This is generally fallacious for it's all nature vs. nurture and you seem to be 100% nurture. When it comes to one or the other what we choose is mostly but not completely out of our genetically determined nature. There are a lot of homosexuals who want to be straight--I've never heard of the opposite problem--but there's no switch for them to throw and make it so. The species is supposed to reproduce, afterall, but their genes don't help them do that so that's that. Too much human variability but still billions of people. This does make homosexuality inferior to heterosexuality to some extent, but the latter helps out the former by marriage and family. Mom and Dad made Tad. If gays want to imitate striaghts with marriage, let them; they've got it tough enough. Underneath sexual choice and physical sex is the simple human desire for a partner--someone to be with and share one's life with. It is many straights who can't see or admit this hard-ass truth: they're much, much more like the queers than not, way down deep where it counts. They are so cowardly they run away to homophobia land where they sit and fester if not come out and assault the object of their fears--words and deeds. They refuse to see that accepting gays won't get them thrown out of the heterosexual tribe, for heterosexuals generally don't have this hangup, so they seek to avoid banishment thinking the type of people they surround themselves with are not a small minority--not a sub-tribe.

The nature vs. nurture dichotomy is itself a false dichotomy and a fallacy. It's nature vs. nurture vs. choice and I'm definitely coming down on the side of choice. That's not to say that I don't think both nature and nurture play important roles, but ultimately it comes down to the choice of the actor.

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

So because they might vote themselves "higher payouts", we ought to pre-emptively disenfranchise them?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Which party do you think they vote for, dear?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Which party do you think they vote for, dear?

I understand that people sometimes vote in a way that you don't agree with.

But you didn't answer the question. Is it acceptable to disenfranchise someone because they might vote for policies that violate the individual rights of others?

EDIT: And don't call me "dear".

[Darrell Hougen]

It seems that Darrell is basing his views, about homosexuality being a choice, solely on his own personal experiences or preferences. He seems to believe that what is true of him is therefore true of everyone, or of "most people."

But, contrary to Darrell's opinion, "most people" are not "capable of having erotic desires for people of either sex," but, rather, are revolted by the idea of engaging in sexual activity with the gender to which they are not naturally attracted (through no choice of their own). It appears that Darrell has not personally experienced that revulsion and therefore cannot believe that "most people" do experience it. He can't grasp that others don't have a choice.

I don't really think that's true, at least for gay people. Although a lot of straight people find the idea of homosexual sex revolting, the reverse isn't usually the case. Most so-called "homosexuals" have had or will have sex with members of opposite sex during their lives. Just this morning I flipped on the TV and heard a guy talking about the fact that his dad was gay. It's not that unusual for women to have a same-sex fling and then go back to a straight lifestyle.

If you look at the Wikipedia page for the Kinsey Report, you'll see that Kinsey concluded that "sexuality is prone to change over time." Although there could be more than one explanation for that observation, one conclusion could be that people's values change over time.

It is also not true that a visceral response is only associated with innate distaste. A person can have a powerful gut reaction response to events that can only be understood on a conceptual level. A person can be sick to his stomach when he loses a pile of money in the stock market. On the other hand, a Coroner learns to deal with dead bodies without becoming excessively nauseated. I'm reminded of the opening credits on the old Quincy show where the veteran Coroner unveils a corpse and a line of resident doctors faints.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Well, if I don't tell at least three lies a day either I'm not talking very much or have an acute need for some introspection. (What am I doing wrong?)

I always tell the truth on OL: I lie all the time. I probably first lied when I first cried. No way for me to know. But by five I had it down pretty good. By 11 or 12 I understood the necessity. You have to lie in the army because they want you to lie to keep the wheels turning. I told my very best lies in the army. I couldn't keep it up, though, so I didn't reup. My standards are very high. It is true that the farther away you are from authoritarianism the less need for it. I'm much more casual about it now; not so important for a free adult. I'm contemplating rehab even, biting the bullet, becoming lie free. (Methadone maintenance?)

--Brant

pants on fire, momma!

[Wolf DeVoon]

I understand that people sometimes vote in a way that you don't agree with.

That's not the issue. If a person has no income other than government handouts, they should have no vote in picking my pocket.

[Brant Gaede]

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

Newly hired NYPD officers can expect to receive nearly $2.2 million in pension payments and City paid health benefits over 32 years of retirement, based on the current average salary including overtime pay and other compensation. [NYPD website]

I once knew a NYC police officer who said if he were offered a bribe of $200,000, he'd have to talk it over with his partner. According to this data, he would have been risking a lot for a little. Heard he was kicked off the force. I don't know why. Once he did get into some trouble because "he beat up a nigger in plain sight." (Quote is from a detective who knew him.)

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I understand that people sometimes vote in a way that you don't agree with.

That's not the issue. If a person has no income other than government handouts, they should have no vote in picking my pocket.

So if a person does have a source of income other than government handouts and receives government handouts, then they should be allowed to vote on picking your pocket?

[Wolf DeVoon]

So if a person does have a source of income other than government handouts and receives government handouts, then they should be allowed to vote on picking your pocket?

You mean thieves and drug dealers? -- but generally speaking, the Federal government and all 50 states are in a death spiral of declining tax revenue, deficit spending, increasing entitlement liabilities, and unpayable debt. It is inevitable that interest rates must rise; it cannot stay at ZIRP + QE indefinitely. When rates rise, it's game over. Less than half of all households pay income taxes. Unless we restrict who votes, this country is going to go down in flames. And since that won't happen (we can't even require voter ID), the Republic is doomed. We voted ourselves out of business with Hope and Change.

[Darrell Hougen]

What does it mean to be a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge be homosexual or engage in homosexual acts a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge to be an auto mechanic or fix cars an auto mechanic? I just don't understand how you can separate being homosexual from making choices.

You've made so many eloquent points, Darrell... and this one stands out. Whenever behavior is involved, there is always a choice. This is our essence as uniquely moral beings, in that we are capable of freely choosing to act contrary to our thoughts and emotions.

Regarding homosexuality itself... there is another seldom mentioned factor, and that is the trauma of childhood sexual molestation and its ability to imprint the victim with the sexual identity of the perpetrator through the victim's own emotional reactions to being violated. It is the victim's own hatred is what makes the imprinting stick. And when that hatred is too ugly to face, it becomes covered over with a layer of false "love" of the imprinted identity similar to the Stockholm syndrome. This creates the angry militant leftist homosexual political activist who is determined to make the world believe that either homosexuality is normal... or that it is not a choice.

Childhood sexual molestation is the foundation upon which homosexuality rests.

Greg

Greg,

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it is the foundation, but it does seem to play a large role. In a recent interview, Camile Paglia talked about homosexuality and mentioned her observation that most male homosexuals come from messed up families. A relative of mine announced that he was gay a couple of years after his father died and a friend of my son announced that he was gay a few years after his parents divorced. On the other hand, one of my cousins was gay and his family was normal as far as I know. These observations are statistical or anecdotal, not causal. People that are perfectly normal in outward appearance and from perfectly normal families may nevertheless end up being gay and many people from messed up families or victims of sexual abuse may end up in opposite sex relationships.

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So if a person does have a source of income other than government handouts and receives government handouts, then they should be allowed to vote on picking your pocket?

You mean thieves and drug dealers? -- but generally speaking, the Federal government and all 50 states are in a death spiral of declining tax revenue, deficit spending, increasing entitlement liabilities, and unpayable debt. It is inevitable that interest rates must rise; it cannot stay at ZIRP + QE indefinitely. When rates rise, it's game over. Less than half of all households pay income taxes. Unless we restrict who votes, this country is going to go down in flames. And since that won't happen (we can't even require voter ID), the Republic is doomed. We voted ourselves out of business with Hope and Change.

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Suppose that I was the only one who was allowed to vote. Do you think that I would elect politicians who promised me a billion dollars in cash every year, or that I would elect politicians who promised to create a sensible fiscal policy with low taxes instead? (Hint: it's the one where I get more money)

[Darrell Hougen]

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's hear it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

Edited June 6, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's here it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russian during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

You do realize that people were only allowed to vote for the communist party in the USSR, right?

[Darrell Hougen]

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

Newly hired NYPD officers can expect to receive nearly $2.2 million in pension payments and City paid health benefits over 32 years of retirement, based on the current average salary including overtime pay and other compensation. [NYPD website]

I wonder how that compares with the LAPD's double dipping program, officially call DROP, Deferred Retirement Option Plan.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's hear it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

You do realize that people were only allowed to vote for the communist party in the USSR, right?

I was talking about how the USSR came into being, not what happened afterwards.

Darrell

Edited June 6, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

So because they might vote themselves "higher payouts", we ought to pre-emptively disenfranchise them?

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Spoken like a true Democrat. Let's hear it for majoritarian rule. Just remember, the majority got its way in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. It may be funny to poke fun at any anti-democratic suggestions, but the consequences are anything but funny.

Darrell

You do realize that people were only allowed to vote for the communist party in the USSR, right?

I was talking about how the USSR came into being, not what happened afterwards.

Darrell

Might that be because its a perfect illustration of what happens when you're only allowed to vote one way?

So they can't vote themselves higher payouts, free health care and fat retirement benefits.

Total U.S. Government Employees = 21,869,000

Total number of Americans on welfare = 12,800,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps = 46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment = 5,600,000

Total number of Americans on SS and disability = 63,664,000

data: St. Louis Fed, US Dept. of Commerce, HHS, SSI

So because they might vote themselves "higher payouts", we ought to pre-emptively disenfranchise them?

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

[Brant Gaede]

There never was a communist revolution in Russia.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Unlimited, majoritarian democracy?

You might try studying the role of the House of Lords in English history.

It wasn't until the House of Lords lost most of its power that Socialism really took root in the UK.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

There never was a communist revolution in Russia.

--Brant

Would you like to expand on that claim?

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Why is that?

--Brant

Do you think it could be otherwise? If we had a government that was unaccountable to the people, do you think it would waste its resources protecting their rights, or would it rather exploit them to pay off the thugs that keep it in power?

Which is more fundamental, freedom or democracy?

Darrell

I think that democracy is a logical precondition for freedom.

Unlimited, majoritarian democracy?

You might try studying the role of the House of Lords in English history.

It wasn't until the House of Lords lost most of its power that Socialism really took root in the UK.

Darrell

No, not unlimited majoritarian democracy, a representative republic with universal suffrage will do just nicely. (Although, I think an unlimited majoritarian democracy would gradually transform into a representative republic)

Do you know anything about what GB was like before the House of Lords lost most of its power?