I've noticed something about "Republican" people here in America

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

That's not a problem of those military operations, it's a problem of American culture clashing with well-prepared and decently executed peacekeeping efforts. For instance the poor training of US soldiers which focuses on obedience and combat, and neglects peacekeeping efforts, it's a direct result of American culture. Conformism results in expectations about how an army should be run, that disable a mindset needed for peacekeeping missions.

Example: my life was saved by an Afghan farmer warning us of an IED. He blocked the road and ran towards us. Little doubt, Americans would've shot him, fearing a suicide bomber, and then drove right across the actual bomb. We didn't because we never had a paranoid fear of bombers instilled in us like US military training does; it makes no sense for a suicide bomber to first reveal himself openly and then charge towards us, so we waited, called for an interpreter, and found out a while later we would've been blown to smithereens if we'd driven on. Turns out the guy has no love for the Taliban and wouldn't let lives be lost.

As a result of Iraq and Afghanistan's problems being due to American culture, the answer to this problem should not be isolationism, but reforming America's conformist culture. And as you know, libertarians aren't exactly big on that, so they're likely not the best choice for you if you'd like US military efforts to be more effective.

Besides, not everything can be prevented. Iraq's religious civil war would've happened sooner or later. The best one could achieve is dampen the effects of it somewhat. Short of destroying religion, nothing would've prevented it. Again, the libertarians and their heavy conservative Christian agenda may not be the best choice for a person who sensibly thinks religious civil wars are a bad thing.

Revnak:
My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE.

Yeah, so that's what I said: total ban on gay marriage.

I don't care what excuses he wraps it in, that's the effect his ideas will have.

Firstly, Iraq was a war that did not need to happen. Period. It is not that we fought it wrong it is that it should have never been fought. Every reason we had for being there was either mental or a lie. Secondly,seriously man!?! SERIOUSLY?!? My state just changed the wording in their constitution from rights to liberties. Did I just lose all my rights? No, that would be bullshit semantics. Thirdly, nothing is preventing them from having a non-religious ceremony or a religious ceremony at a church that recognizes gay marriage. Anyone can call themselves married once it is a totally meaningless phrase legally, and their personal definition is what will matter. Fourthly, religious conservatives were never going to recognize gay marriage anyway. Even if they were legally married as such, they would never say they were really married.

And I hate all wars. I hate religious ones just as much. You know next to nothing about me in this regard apparently, despite how stupidly obvious I have made my opinion on the matter in this thread.

GunsmithKitten:
Yea, problem though; the pay is a lot lower in the country too.

I'm in a skilled trade, and I pull in barely more in the boonies than a McDonald's worker does in Boston or NYC.

Minimum wage in Texas is 7.25 per hour. Even if you work standard urban hours (40 hours per week) you have paid rent in less than two weeks. You have to work about 3 weeks to pay for my current apartment.

Must not be MY 'country' because up here in the hills, they'll find any excuse they can to can you. They always have family they can give the jobs to anyway. and usually do.

Apparently you live in an area with plenty of workers and plenty of family members. I do not.

farson135:
snip

Y'know I wish I had the time and effort to keep this back and forth going as it is hilarious, but seen as I don't I'll just spell it out for you.
You have been using logical and practical arguments to try and disprove my opinion that republicans often lack compassion. That is not something that can be done, not only is compassion an irrational, emotive response, that is rarely logical. Some might even (me not included) say it's a subjective term, and each individual might interpret compassion differently.

"Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others." That is the standard definition of compassion, if you don't believe me look it up. If you are caring about the masses, the rich etc. you are not compassionate. Only caring for those who are in need, those who are suffering is compassionate.
Many of the points you made were no doubt pragmatic, no doubt reasonable, and possibly the right thing for the country to do. But none were compassionate.
Example? You say free healthcare should not be introduced for the needy as it could have a negative effect for the masses than can already afford it. Even if you could prove there would be a negative effect with 100% certainty it would still be uncompassionate not to implement a free healthcare system as it would be the needy, those who a suffering who miss out, no matter how few they may be.

Smeatza:

At least one, during the great depression. I didn't even have to research to know that.
In fact that was why the welfare system was created, to stop people dying in droves from hunger like they were during the great depression.

Surely not.

Firstly, this sort of thing would hardly go unnoticed. The fact we are not inundated with stories of Americans dropping dead of hunger suggests it didn't happen. Furthermore, we would also observe a large increase in the mortality rate. However, the mortality rate of the USA throughout the Great Depression follows the trend of before and after.

There may be a blip in the population growth of the period, but this is much more likely to be a decrease in the birth rate because prospective parents delayed or declined to have children if they felt they did not have the resources to support them.

We might suspect that plenty of Americans in the period suffered some degree of undernourishment, however. Even then, it is unlikely to have been absolute food scarcity, instead that people did not have the money to buy enough.

Smeatza:

farson135:
snip

Y'know I wish I had the time and effort to keep this back and forth going as it is hilarious, but seen as I don't I'll just spell it out for you.
You have been using logical and practical arguments to try and disprove my opinion that republicans often lack compassion. That is not something that can be done, not only is compassion an irrational, emotive response, that is rarely logical. Some might even (me not included) say it's a subjective term, and each individual might interpret compassion differently.

"Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others." That is the standard definition of compassion, if you don't believe me look it up. If you are caring about the masses, the rich etc. you are not compassionate. Only caring for those who are in need, those who are suffering is compassionate.
Many of the points you made were no doubt pragmatic, no doubt reasonable, and possibly the right thing for the country to do. But none were compassionate.
Example? You say free healthcare should not be introduced for the needy as it could have a negative effect for the masses than can already afford it. Even if you could prove there would be a negative effect with 100% certainty it would still be uncompassionate not to implement a free healthcare system as it would be the needy, those who a suffering who miss out, no matter how few they may be.

So let me get this straight, compassion is not rational (agreed) but instead it is whatever YOU want to define it as and therefore you define Republicans as lacking in compassion. That sounds fair. It also backs up my earlier point. Your compassion only extends so far as it assists your selfish need to do something and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

For example, you say you must by necessity implement a free healthcare system to be compassionate. Beyond the obvious idiocy in that statement you add a second layer by stating that negative effects are irrelevant. So, if the poor get "free" healthcare under your system and the entire healthcare system becomes so shitty that thousands of other people who would have survived died, that is all irrelevant. What complete and utter bullshit. Charity would provide medical care to the poor and we can continue to save the same number of people that we do not but no. MY system is the uncompassionate one. Fuck it. If you are that fucking biased then this conversation is pointless.

farson135:
So let me get this straight, compassion is not rational (agreed) but instead it is whatever YOU want to define it as and therefore you define Republicans as lacking in compassion. That sounds fair. It also backs up my earlier point. Your compassion only extends so far as it assists your selfish need to do something and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

No, re-read my post, I explicitly state that compassion has a definite meaning. I will paste it again seen as you're really bad at picking up on things you read.
"Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others."

farson135:
For example, you say you must by necessity implement a free healthcare system to be compassionate. Beyond the obvious idiocy in that statement you add a second layer by stating that negative effects are irrelevant. So, if the poor get "free" healthcare under your system and the entire healthcare system becomes so shitty that thousands of other people who would have survived died, that is all irrelevant. What complete and utter bullshit. Charity would provide medical care to the poor and we can continue to save the same number of people that we do not but no. MY system is the uncompassionate one. Fuck it. If you are that fucking biased then this conversation is pointless.

This conversation (at least in the way you were approaching it) was always pointless, that was my damn point.
You'll realise if you re-read my post again that I even said:
"Many of the points you made were no doubt pragmatic, no doubt reasonable, and possibly the right thing for the country to do. But none were (commonly exclusive to republicans) or compassionate. (aka. sensitive to those who are currently suffering)"

Now let's re-read my original post:
"The only thing I've ever found all republicans/conservatives to have in common is a lack of compassion.
The idea of sharing with those who need it more than you and that the value of a human life is more than expendable seem to be alien concepts to them. What do I know though? I'm happy to admit I have a liberal bias and I'm not so closed minded I think they're all inherently bad people. I just cannot understand the lack of compassion."

So we're agreed that compassion is not rational. And it's obvious that my issue is with the lack of compassion in common republican policy.
Yet you've attempted to dissuade me from my view with logical, rational arguments on the practicality of common republican policies, and written little to nothing on compassion within mainstream (or any) republican view.

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed reading your posts immensely and you've definitely given me some food for thought, but little to none of it has been related to my post.

Smeatza:
No, re-read my post, I explicitly state that compassion has a definite meaning. I will paste it again seen as you're really bad at picking up on things you read.
"Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others."

Actually you have proven yourself to be even worse at reading for content.

The definition is irrelevant because you are just applying your own interpretation to it. Having a definition does not exculpate you from bias especially when the definition is so open ended.

So we're agreed that compassion is not rational. And it's obvious that my issue is with the lack of compassion in common republican policy.

A lack of compassion that you have yet to prove exists.

Yet you've attempted to dissuade me from my view with logical, rational arguments on the practicality of common republican policies, and written little to nothing on compassion within mainstream (or any) republican view.

So in other words you will accept nothing that shows their compassionate policies because their policies can be explained in a rational way. What complete and utter horseshit. That is just a way of ignoring the fact that average Republicans are as compassionate as any other average American and any other average person. Socialized healthcare, you attempted to defend using logical arguments. Where was your vague unknowable compassion then? By what measure do you even define something as compassionate?

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed reading your posts immensely and you've definitely given me some food for thought, but little to none of it has been related to my post.

Because you do not want it to be related. You are defining compassion as whatever YOU want it to be. Socialized healthcare is compassionate but the LDC Humanitarian Services is not because YOU say it is not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked