Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

No, value judgments aren't subjects of "proof". He is making a moral judgment that a person who doesn't want to raise a child is precisely the kind of person who *shouldn't* have a child; you can say that you have a different concept of "should" but it is not a question of some fact to be shown. Your claim that sexual assault, vandalism, or murder can substitute freely here is just nonsensical: no, nobody thinks that the kind of person who wants to assault others is the kind of person who "should" be allowed to do so, etc. It sounded as if you just didn't get the point of what was being said to you.

He has yet to say why he believes life starts when the baby goes out the womb.

No one believes that. A fetus is clearly living. It's just the issue of whether it's "alive" or not is morally irrelevant.

After all, a tumor is alive, but no one seriously believes that that means that we should therefore cease excising tumors.

[Rick Rollin]

He has yet to say why he believes life starts when the baby goes out the womb.

When "life starts" is completely irrelevant to the absolute fact that modern abortion is possibly the most important medical advance in human history. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a person and as such neither has nor deserves any rights whatsoever. If a fetus did have rights, those rights would not be a defense against a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

I'm not going to debate this with you, because there is no debate to be had. I am right, your side is wrong. There's no view you can take about your positions that will make them any less wrong. You have no argument or standing, and really you should be glad anybody ever engages with you beyond pointing out that you are wrong.

I never disagreed with you. And you seem to be very obnoxious. Welcome to the club!

[Grave_n_idle]

Says the guy with both hands on my jimmies.

The leftists who disagreed with the OP have been quite cordial, given what he has accused them of, and have had cordial discussions with right-wingers who disagreed with the OP. You, on the other hand, have chosen to double-down on what the OP.

You didn't have to. You have a long record here as a partisan operative.

So what comes next? The liquidation of those predators? Huh? You've made it pretty clear that you think we can't be reasoned with. Sounds to me like you want a final solution to the liberal question.

Had to look up "jimmies' in the online urban dictionary. My hands aren't anywhere near your donut sprinkles or condoms. So quit with the African-American jail "saggin" fashion, 'cuz I ain't interested.

You know, most folk might have gotten a kick out of being compared to a top-of-the-food-chain wild predator, or even laughed at the zombie reference. A staunch liberal is a firm believer in the justness of their cause and the eventual success of their belief system. You look seem to look at such comparisons as if I'd called you a child molester. Really, it ain't that dirty unless you have a guilty conscience.

Even by your standards, comparing someone to child molester, and then telling them that if it offends them, it means they ARE a child molester... that's a new level.

[Grave_n_idle]

Welfare is already limited. You don't live the high life(well speaking for the US).

Charity solving the rest is a myth. It can't keep up with demand.

Now your ignorance.

Seriously hamburger and TVs? You probably belive the myth of the welfare queens.

According to http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html, welfare pays more than many other jobs. What is more, people can take a part-time job to receive even more money. I am not against the abolition of welfare, I simply do not want it wasted on people who do not need it (like twenty year-old couples).

Turns out, age doesn't actually directly correlate to employment.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

Sure. Why not?

[Van Dalia]

No one believes that. A fetus is clearly living. It's just the issue of whether it's "alive" or not is morally irrelevant.

After all, a tumor is alive, but no one seriously believes that that means that we should therefore cease excising tumors.

Wait, you don't support tumor rights? I thought the days of such bigotry were behind us! SAVE THE TUMORS!

[Rick Rollin]

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

Sure. Why not?

You just fell into a false dilemma's trap. I'd just ignore the guy unless you have joke to make.

[Occupied Deutschland]

He has yet to say why he believes life starts when the baby goes out the womb.

When "life starts" is completely irrelevant to the absolute fact that modern abortion is possibly the most important medical advance in human history. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a person and as such neither has nor deserves any rights whatsoever. If a fetus did have rights, those rights would not be a defense against a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

I'm not going to debate this with you, because there is no debate to be had. I am right, your side is wrong. There's no view you can take about your positions that will make them any less wrong. You have no argument or standing, and really you should be glad anybody ever engages with you beyond pointing out that you are wrong.

To the underlined:
"fact" as it is currently defined perhaps, but in such cases "facts" are hardly anything to go on because at one time blacks were defined as not being people so the "fact" was they weren't.

Seriously, both sides on the abortion debate act like a pair of children in the back side of a car "I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "No, I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "You shutup!" "No, you!" "I asked you first." "Well I say you shut up times a zillion-billion!" "Well I'm rubber and you're glue..." etcetera.

You can claim your side of the debate is "right", you can even claim the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, hell, you can claim that the other side of the debate are puppets of the evil velociraptor Illuminati that control the Federal Reserve and are watching us from Neptune, but to outright deny there is any debate to be had is arrogant to the extreme (and BOTH sides are just as guilty of it). So, I guess to keep in with the previous analogy: "So help me I will turn this car around and make you visit with Aunt Greta for another three days if you little bastards don't behave!"

[Grave_n_idle]

Sure. Why not?

You just fell into a false dilemma's trap. I'd just ignore the guy unless you have joke to make.

Ah, no - you see, I honestly don't care.

I have some very wealthy friends. Some of them work really really hard for it, but some of them are young and rich, and do nothing.

Those people choose to do nothing, although they certainly could (and in the same position, I would) - but it's apparently 'okay'. Apparently, not wanting to do a damn thing is only immoral if you're not really wealthy.

So I just don't care. It's not a moral question to me. Which means it's purely pragmatic - and paying even half the population NOT to fuck shit up, may well be the most sensible investment.

[Rick Rollin]

When "life starts" is completely irrelevant to the absolute fact that modern abortion is possibly the most important medical advance in human history. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a person and as such neither has nor deserves any rights whatsoever. If a fetus did have rights, those rights would not be a defense against a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

I'm not going to debate this with you, because there is no debate to be had. I am right, your side is wrong. There's no view you can take about your positions that will make them any less wrong. You have no argument or standing, and really you should be glad anybody ever engages with you beyond pointing out that you are wrong.

To the underlined:
"fact" as it is currently defined perhaps, but in such cases "facts" are hardly anything to go on because at one time blacks were defined as not being people so the "fact" was they weren't.

Seriously, both sides on the abortion debate act like a pair of children in the back side of a car "I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "No, I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "You shutup!" "No, you!" "I asked you first." "Well I say you shut up times a zillion-billion!" "Well I'm rubber and you're glue..." etcetera.

You can claim your side of the debate is "right", you can even claim the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, hell, you can claim that the other side of the debate are puppets of the evil velociraptor Illuminati that control the Federal Reserve and are watching us from Neptune, but to outright deny there is any debate to be had is arrogant to the extreme (and BOTH sides are just as guilty of it). So, I guess to keep in with the previous analogy: "So help me I will turn this car around and make you visit with Aunt Greta for another three days if you little bastards don't behave!"

Exactly!

[New England and The Maritimes]

When "life starts" is completely irrelevant to the absolute fact that modern abortion is possibly the most important medical advance in human history. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a person and as such neither has nor deserves any rights whatsoever. If a fetus did have rights, those rights would not be a defense against a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

I'm not going to debate this with you, because there is no debate to be had. I am right, your side is wrong. There's no view you can take about your positions that will make them any less wrong. You have no argument or standing, and really you should be glad anybody ever engages with you beyond pointing out that you are wrong.

To the underlined:
"fact" as it is currently defined perhaps, but in such cases "facts" are hardly anything to go on because at one time blacks were defined as not being people so the "fact" was they weren't.

Seriously, both sides on the abortion debate act like a pair of children in the back side of a car "I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "No, I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "You shutup!" "No, you!" "I asked you first." "Well I say you shut up times a zillion-billion!" "Well I'm rubber and you're glue..." etcetera.

You can claim your side of the debate is "right", you can even claim the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, hell, you can claim that the other side of the debate are puppets of the evil velociraptor Illuminati that control the Federal Reserve and are watching us from Neptune, but to outright deny there is any debate to be had is arrogant to the extreme (and BOTH sides are just as guilty of it). So, I guess to keep in with the previous analogy: "So help me I will turn this car around and make you visit with Aunt Greta for another three days if you little bastards don't behave!"

Not really. When one side is actually right, and the other side is actually wrong, I see no need to pretend I'm in a debate. It's like "debating" slavery. All you do by pretending the issue has two sides to it is legitimize the bad guys.

[Rick Rollin]

To the underlined:
"fact" as it is currently defined perhaps, but in such cases "facts" are hardly anything to go on because at one time blacks were defined as not being people so the "fact" was they weren't.

Seriously, both sides on the abortion debate act like a pair of children in the back side of a car "I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "No, I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "You shutup!" "No, you!" "I asked you first." "Well I say you shut up times a zillion-billion!" "Well I'm rubber and you're glue..." etcetera.

You can claim your side of the debate is "right", you can even claim the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, hell, you can claim that the other side of the debate are puppets of the evil velociraptor Illuminati that control the Federal Reserve and are watching us from Neptune, but to outright deny there is any debate to be had is arrogant to the extreme (and BOTH sides are just as guilty of it). So, I guess to keep in with the previous analogy: "So help me I will turn this car around and make you visit with Aunt Greta for another three days if you little bastards don't behave!"

Not really. When one side is actually right, and the other side is actually wrong, I see no need to pretend I'm in a debate. It's like "debating" slavery. All you do by pretending the issue has two sides to it is legitimize the bad guys.

[Occupied Deutschland]

To the underlined:
"fact" as it is currently defined perhaps, but in such cases "facts" are hardly anything to go on because at one time blacks were defined as not being people so the "fact" was they weren't.

Seriously, both sides on the abortion debate act like a pair of children in the back side of a car "I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "No, I'm right because of my personal opinion on the matter!" "You shutup!" "No, you!" "I asked you first." "Well I say you shut up times a zillion-billion!" "Well I'm rubber and you're glue..." etcetera.

You can claim your side of the debate is "right", you can even claim the other side doesn't know what they're talking about, hell, you can claim that the other side of the debate are puppets of the evil velociraptor Illuminati that control the Federal Reserve and are watching us from Neptune, but to outright deny there is any debate to be had is arrogant to the extreme (and BOTH sides are just as guilty of it). So, I guess to keep in with the previous analogy: "So help me I will turn this car around and make you visit with Aunt Greta for another three days if you little bastards don't behave!"

Not really. When one side is actually right, and the other side is actually wrong, I see no need to pretend I'm in a debate. It's like "debating" slavery. All you do by pretending the issue has two sides to it is legitimize the bad guys.

Except YOU DON'T GET TO SAY THAT YET.

Abolitionists couldn't be all "Slavery is bad. It ends now." because that attitude did nothing to advance their cause or build up a consensus on the matter. Similarly, pro-choice (or pro-life) people of today can't say "my side is right! History shall vindicate me!" today because, well, it's one of those a priori statements (think that's the word for 'em). They have no proof that their side is right, they just say it is and claim the other side is barbaric or backwards. This may be right by the standards of future society X years from now, but I don't think I have to begin to tell anyone about the problems of applying present-day morality to centuries-old situations do I? THAT'S what it seems like is being done a LOT and it only succeeds in getting heretofore pleasant and virtuous people pissed because people don't like people they perceive to be arrogant. (Apologies for any offense this may cause, but it isn't directed directly at you)

Edit: Imagine if you will, I said "Greed is right. Greed is good. Greed works. Compassion is actually wrong. It's barely even a real emotion anyways. To pretend it is only legitimizes the commies and pinko red idiots that undermine our great society."

Doesn't exactly help my case does it?

[Wikkiwallana]

This is why I'm considering to not even bother posting sources anymore. Everytime I do they're greeted with the same "HOGWASH PROPAGANDA" response. Despite the fact that liberals post bias articles all the time.

Lets breakdown the facts presented in said articles though;

Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on vacations, strip clubs and casinos. This represents a huge misallocation in resources that could of been potentially invested privately into ventures that would of provided jobs or new innovations that could have increased the standard of living. It could of went anywhere, but instead the money was stolen (through taxes and inflation) and wasted.

Also, let me give you a personal experience of when I was a cash register attendee at a grocery store I worked for in my neighborhood. A good portion of the people who tried to use EBT were often rude, and unsightly. More often than not they used their welfare benefits to purchase cigarettes and other unnecessary items.

Well he does have a point. News is not like the old days where they would bury you with facts and data. It's about sensationalism. Hell Fox News made a fortune selling opinion pieces as News stories.

Posting a movie as proof was not exactly a good tactic.

Newsmax? For some reason I am getting thoughts of it being a credible as Fox. But, that is my scraggly memory so can't make the claim.

Finally, I would want to see their data and how they came to the conclusion of millions. Sounds like estimations.

Probably not too credible because even people who support welfare would want things fix if there was such fraud.

Newsmax wishes they were as credible as Fox, just FYI. It would be a step up for them.

[Wamitoria]

Newsmax wishes they were as credible as Fox, just FYI. It would be a Fstep up for them.

Just so Black Forest gets it, Newsmax makes FOX look like the Associated Press.

[Wikkiwallana]

Newsmax wishes they were as credible as Fox, just FYI. It would be a Fstep up for them.

Just so Black Forest gets it, Newsmax makes FOX look like the Associated Press.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I mean, it's Newsmax, not WorldNetDaily.

[Socialdemokraterne]

More than one state actually. Lets not forget though California is a very liberal state, so it's interesting to see how the liberal ideology is bankrupting the state.

Yes. It's actually two states that have noteworthy problems, California and Washington. My error, not yours. Even still, I recommend you look outside the United States for your models of left-wing politics in action. Also, it's not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that the problem is pervasive. Your Pennsylvania article provides an ample number of states with effective welfare abuse controls and streamlining measures in place, such as Florida and South Carolina.

Sure it helped, but the costs of welfare is still raising and the amounts of abuse are still significant. If we scrapped the programs all together there would be 0 instances of fraud and abuse, because rather than the pain being spread out collectively poor decisions would strike the individual.

You're dodging the issue. I asked you to demonstrate that welfare abuse is a pervasive problem. Your Pennsylvania source demonstrates that abuse can be controlled, and you've yet to demonstrate that abuse is a pervasive problem rather than an inconvenience we can control but not eliminate. As a consequence, your suggestion to eliminate the welfare system outright comes off as unnecessary and unreasonable.

Also, the pain of a large portion of the population suddenly finding itself homeless, jobless, and starving? That sends pangs throughout the entirety of society you don't even want to think about. You can't limit the damage of poverty exclusively to the impoverished. It's literally impossible. For example, since there is a positive correlation between poverty and crime it's reasonable to expect that crime rates would increase exponentially in the event of the welfare system's sudden elimination. This would add incredible strain to law enforcement agencies, prisons/jails, and the judicial system. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes they [anecdotes] do [constitute evidence of widespread welfare abuse].

How? How does your story serve as evidence? I'm just supposed to take you at your word? And how does your anecdote, even if I assume it to be true, provide evidence that there is large-scale abuse rather than abuse in your immediate surroundings? There's allegedly a lot of abuse in your area, therefore abuse is a pervasive enough problem to destroy the entire welfare system? I don't think so.

[Khadgar]

Not really. When one side is actually right, and the other side is actually wrong, I see no need to pretend I'm in a debate. It's like "debating" slavery. All you do by pretending the issue has two sides to it is legitimize the bad guys.

Except YOU DON'T GET TO SAY THAT YET.

Abolitionists couldn't be all "Slavery is bad. It ends now." because that attitude did nothing to advance their cause or build up a consensus on the matter. Similarly, pro-choice (or pro-life) people of today can't say "my side is right! History shall vindicate me!" today because, well, it's one of those a priori statements (think that's the word for 'em). They have no proof that their side is right, they just say it is and claim the other side is barbaric or backwards. This may be right by the standards of future society X years from now, but I don't think I have to begin to tell anyone about the problems of applying present-day morality to centuries-old situations do I? THAT'S what it seems like is being done a LOT and it only succeeds in getting heretofore pleasant and virtuous people pissed because people don't like people they perceive to be arrogant. (Apologies for any offense this may cause, but it isn't directed directly at you)

Edit: Imagine if you will, I said "Greed is right. Greed is good. Greed works. Compassion is actually wrong. It's barely even a real emotion anyways. To pretend it is only legitimizes the commies and pinko red idiots that undermine our great society."

Doesn't exactly help my case does it?

The problem being the pro-choice side has evidence on it's side, and the pro-lifers have emotional appeals only.

[Laerod]

Don't. Personal accounts do not serve as evidence of pervasive abuse of the welfare system.

Yes they do

It's exactly this kind of bullshit why right-wingers get a bad rap here.

[The USOT]

Except YOU DON'T GET TO SAY THAT YET.

Abolitionists couldn't be all "Slavery is bad. It ends now." because that attitude did nothing to advance their cause or build up a consensus on the matter. Similarly, pro-choice (or pro-life) people of today can't say "my side is right! History shall vindicate me!" today because, well, it's one of those a priori statements (think that's the word for 'em). They have no proof that their side is right, they just say it is and claim the other side is barbaric or backwards. This may be right by the standards of future society X years from now, but I don't think I have to begin to tell anyone about the problems of applying present-day morality to centuries-old situations do I? THAT'S what it seems like is being done a LOT and it only succeeds in getting heretofore pleasant and virtuous people pissed because people don't like people they perceive to be arrogant. (Apologies for any offense this may cause, but it isn't directed directly at you)

Edit: Imagine if you will, I said "Greed is right. Greed is good. Greed works. Compassion is actually wrong. It's barely even a real emotion anyways. To pretend it is only legitimizes the commies and pinko red idiots that undermine our great society."

Doesn't exactly help my case does it?

The problem being the pro-choice side has evidence on it's side, and the pro-lifers have emotional appeals only.

Even the pro-choice side works on emotional appeal. If you think that a woman has a right to her own body, that value, and dislike of the other viewpoint is certainly emotionally charged.

[Khadgar]

The problem being the pro-choice side has evidence on it's side, and the pro-lifers have emotional appeals only.

Even the pro-choice side works on emotional appeal. If you think that a woman has a right to her own body, that value, and dislike of the other viewpoint is certainly emotionally charged.

True, but emotional appeal with evidence trumps emotion appeal without.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Also, the pain of a large portion of the population suddenly finding itself homeless, jobless, and starving? That sends pangs throughout the entirety of society you don't even want to think about. You can't limit the damage of poverty exclusively to the impoverished. It's literally impossible. For example, since there is a positive correlation between poverty and crime it's reasonable to expect that crime rates would increase exponentially in the event of the welfare system's sudden elimination. This would add incredible strain to law enforcement agencies, prisons/jails, and the judicial system. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You're right. Initially a lot of people will suffer, but this is only necessary to rid them of their bad habits and their dependence while simultaneously encouraging new habits that create wealth. The answers I'm giving aren't instant pleasure or short term answers they're long term answers that are meant to be sustainable and profitable. In the long term people will learn to walk, but they can never learn to walk if they aren't allowed to fall.

How? How does your story serve as evidence? I'm just supposed to take you at your word? And how does your anecdote, even if I assume it to be true, provide evidence that there is large-scale abuse rather than abuse in your immediate surroundings? There's allegedly a lot of abuse in your area, therefore abuse is a pervasive enough problem to destroy the entire welfare system? I don't think so.

Trust me it does. Also, obviously it's a personal experience, so you don't have to take it as evidence of anything if you don't want to.

[Khadgar]

Trust me it does. Also, obviously it's a personal experience, so you don't have to take it as evidence of anything if you don't want to.

1) I don't trust you.
2) Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of any kind. There have been about a billion studies done backing this up. It's amazing and horrifying that the court system puts so much faith in witness testimony.

[New Chalcedon]

What's the alternative? Letting the kids starve?

No, but having a child is a choice and not something everyone else is obliged to pay for - there is no sense in increasing benefits for people who choose to have another child.

I want a cat, can you and the rest of the taxpayers please stump up? (see how ridiculous that sounds)

Right. Because a cat will grow up, get an education, pay taxes and generally play a part in ensuring the future viability of society. Suuuuure....the two are equivalent. Not.

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

And you're assuming that everyone on welfare chooses not to work. Untrue.

Trust me it does. Also, obviously it's a personal experience, so you don't have to take it as evidence of anything if you don't want to.

1) I don't trust you.
2) Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of any kind. There have been about a billion studies done backing this up. It's amazing and horrifying that the court system puts so much faith in witness testimony.

Well, for specific events, there is frequently nothing better. No studies, after all, are conducted on specific random murders.

[Celephais]

Right. Because a cat will grow up, get an education, pay taxes and generally play a part in ensuring the future viability of society. Suuuuure....the two are equivalent. Not.

A cat can't grow up to be (much of) a drag on the state, a threat to others, and a cause of social dysfunction either.