In which I extend an olive branch...

[Yonivore]

Ive always enjoyed your takes, Yoni. I understand the premise behind this thread as I see your interactions with others, but I dont think it was necessary (even for self-interest's sake).

FWIW, props. I hope your conviction is as strong as your opinion.

Thanks, me too.

[exstatic]

You're a walking contradiction, Yoni. Social Conservativism is diametrically opposed to, and in direct conflict with individual liberty, unless you are strictly referring to your own. SC is about telling people what is fair and what is foul, what is good and what is bad, what they can and can't do.

[DarkReign]

Social Conservativism is diametrically opposed to, and in direct conflict with individual liberty, unless you are strictly referring to your own. SC is about telling people what is fair and what is foul, what is good and what is bad, what they can and can't do.

Your statement is true when it is applied to the current social application used in 21st century America.

While I realize that any indication of social bias must inherently be applied to modern interpretation, through hypothetical, one could be a social conservative without having that mantra applied across all 50 states.

Which would be a far better way of doing things instead of wholesale, sweeping national law on morality.

[Yonivore]

You're a walking contradiction, Yoni. Social Conservativism is diametrically opposed to, and in direct conflict with individual liberty, unless you are strictly referring to your own. SC is about telling people what is fair and what is foul, what is good and what is bad, what they can and can't do.

This is not an invitation ... to examine this post for contradictions and logical errors – although it probably will be done.

I'm not going to engage that debate. I know what I meant and it works for me.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going to engage that debate. I know what I meant and it works for me.

I agree and understand. Just because they cannot think outside the cardboard boxes they put themselves in doesn't mean others cannot.

There's believing in something to promote, or enforce. Promoting something does not infringe of others liberties.

[exstatic]

I'm not going to engage that debate. I know what I meant and it works for me.

Oh, I know exactly what you meant, and even made it a caveat in my original post. You're for your own personal liberties, but F everyone else's. That doesn't make you a libertarian, it just makes you selfish. Libertarians are interested in everyone's individual freedoms, not just their own. Social Conservatives are interested in limiting personal freedoms and actions based on their own personal tastes and preferences. Direct opposites.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I know exactly what you meant, and even made it a caveat in my original post. You're for your own personal liberties, but F everyone else's. That doesn't make you a libertarian, it just makes you selfish. Libertarians are interested in everyone's individual freedoms, not just their own. Social Conservatives are interested in limiting personal freedoms based on their own personal tastes and preferences. Direct opposites.

There's a whole range of socially conservative ideas. Exactly which ones do you think I hold that would deny anyone a personal liberty?

[Yonivore]

I guess I am going to engage the debate.

[nuclearfm]

Oh, I know exactly what you meant, and even made it a caveat in my original post. You're for your own personal liberties, but F everyone else's. That doesn't make you a libertarian, it just makes you selfish. Libertarians are interested in everyone's individual freedoms, not just their own. Social Conservatives are interested in limiting personal freedoms and actions based on their own personal tastes and preferences. Direct opposites.

I somewhat agree with this assessment, although it is an inherent problem many Libertarians. Ayn Rand talked about this a lot. It is the problem of how Libertarians define Liberty. It is often vague and destructive towards others. Sometimes, their interpretation can be without lack of a better phrase, evil. It does not exclude him from being strongly in favor of Libertarian views, however.

[spurster]

1) Protecting my inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of my legitimate labor (property) from being violated by those – foreign or domestic – who would seek to deprive me of them, without good cause, and over whom I cannot hope to prevail and who are not subject to the laws of my State government;

I agree, but I would add corporations to your list of foreign or domestic (which might be interpreted to apply only to governments).

2) Providing services, necessary for the public good, common to all States and where it is in the best interest of the various states, or individual American citizens, the federal government bring continuity and uniformity to the provision of that service, where the various states cannot agree on a method to accomplish continuity and uniformity to the necessary service or, where the various states (through the individuals’ duly elected representatives) decide it would be more effective or efficient for the federal government to provide that service and then, give it the specific authority to perform the service; and

I would replace "necessary for the public good" with "for the public good". I am not so devoted to states' rights. Having lived in a couple of states other than Texas, people in Texas place more importance as being citizens of Texas, evidenced by the Texas Pledge in schools and the secession talk. I don't think states should decide effectiveness or efficiency; I think the people should.

3) Settling disagreements, between the various states or between individuals, from two or more states, where the various states are unable to reconcile.

Again, I am not so devoted to states rights. The federal government should step in where states are denying the peoples' rights. I think governments (and corporations) should have responsibilities rather than rights, and if it's a question of government/corporation rights vs. a person, the person should have priority.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't really care about anyone else's ideological positions, how true they are to those positions on a regular basis, or why they hold those positions (or claim to) in the first place. To each his own; I hope that when I'm here, I'm willing to express my disagreement with others' views in a respectful and reasonable manner, with an implicit understanding that those who disagree with me aren't "wrong."

I agree with the notion that this forum has been (and, at times, remains) a useful place to discuss, sometimes in a heated fashion, political issues that might sometimes be unwelcome or incongruous in other social settings. It has certainly afforded me opportunities to think about issues, to try to articulate my views of those issues, to make arguments attempting to support my views, and to sometimes learn that my arguments might not be as unassailable as I had thought. I can't say that much that's been posted here has actually changed my mind, but it certainly has forced me to think more critically about issues through the diversity of viewpoints offered.

I haven't read or posted here as much as I once did -- in part, I've been blessed that my life has changed in ways that have limited the availability of time to check out the forum; and I've found myself less satisfied with the opportunities for actual discourse that are present here. Whether I'm here or not, I hope that there can be actual discourse that doesn't simply devolve into unrefusing entrenchment and name-calling. Unfortunately, as I've written a few times before, I think all political discourse (from both sides) has become about noise and quan y. By and large, our society doesn't actually discuss political issues -- we shout what we believe about an issue and then just try to shout louder and louder when others express a differing viewpoint. It's silly to think that either side is absolutely right on any issue (IMO) and it's ridiculous to think that neither side could learn from the other's approach to those issues.

To the extent that I've strayed from those principles in my time here, I hope to do better going forward and to be part of what I hope will be a solution.

[SpurNation]

What works for some doesn't work for others.

Government tries to make it work for what they think is good for everybody all the while reducing our ability to make free and concise decisions to self govern and truly help through donations and volunteerism.

If left alone as it was originally meant to be...we wouldn't be having the problems we have now.

But alas...some think they need to think and decide for others.

[Winehole23]

Yoni's actually more restrained than most posters in here, and much better at keeping his posts clean, until personally provoked. IMHO.

What he seems to have trouble with is not subs uting his own uber-uncharitable inferences for what people actually say; and he often responds with vicious ad hominems to what are fairly off-the-rack objections.

Yonivore is also a gifted at derailling, distracting and with the disinformation.

None of this makes him unusual, and he is often on the receiving end of the same.


If you'd like to disagree without the insane personalizations, Yoni, I'll make a good faith effort to do that.

[Yonivore]

Yoni's actually more restrained than most posters in here, and much better at keeping his posts clean, until personally provoked. IMHO.

What he seems to have trouble with is not subs uting his own uber-uncharitable inferences for what people actually say; and he often responds with vicious ad hominems to what are fairly off-the-rack objections.

Yonivore is also a gifted at derailling, distracting and with the disinformation.

None of this makes him unusual, and he is often on the receiving end of the same.


If you'd like to disagree without the insane personalizations, Yoni, I'll make a good faith effort to do that.

Nah. In fact, I've recently posted about that, myself. It's something I'm working hard to correct.

Ooops! I did that in this thread. Sorry, I thought we were in anothe thread and that you might have been unaware of this effort.

My bad.

[Winehole23]

Nah. In fact, I've recently posted about that, myself. It's something I'm working hard to correct.

Ooops! I did that in this thread. Sorry, I thought we were in anothe thread and that you might have been unaware of this effort.

My bad.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll take the olive branch. I know we don't see eye to eye on many issues, but such is America.

I do my best to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt, and not assume they're evil people trying to take down America. I think the forum might be better off if we all did that.

Of course, I have my fair share of snark, or just being pissy in general. It happens.

Anyways, appreciate the post Yoni. Cheers.

[101A]

I haven't read or posted here as much as I once did -- in part,

and for those of us who remember when you DID have more time; we miss you.

[101A]

BTW Yoni, good post.

[Winehole23]

and for those of us who remember when you did have more time; we miss you.

+1

[Spurminator]

I think a lot of people in here are capable of rational ideological discussions when they're not diverted into lazy punditry. People are more concerned with winning points for the team than having an actual exchange of ideas. This is most disappointing with people who are really capable of good insight, but their talents and intelligence are wasted on playing scoreboard.

It was a good post by Yonivore but I will be more convinced when he posts on any issue whatsoever with a take that registers as unexpected. As it stands, regardless of how he or we dissect his ideology, his position on anything can always be predicted based on how it relates to (R) or (D). Not that he's alone in here.

As for me, in the last year or so I have been prone to lazy posts that don't really contribute to heightened discussion here... I don't favor one party or the other, but I have become so jaded with the cheerleading that the better part of my input has devolved into insults. Frankly, it's not worth reading. So my own olive branch to everyone for the time I've wasted being a bitter prick. I'll try to do better not to be so predictable in my own way.

[Yonivore]

I'll take the olive branch. I know we don't see eye to eye on many issues, but such is America.

I do my best to give my opponents the benefit of the doubt, and not assume they're evil people trying to take down America. I think the forum might be better off if we all did that.

Of course, I have my fair share of snark, or just being pissy in general. It happens.

Anyways, appreciate the post Yoni. Cheers.

Back at'cha!

[Yonivore]

BTW Yoni, good post.

Thanks. It's been a long time coming.

[Yonivore]

I think a lot of people in here are capable of rational ideological discussions when they're not diverted into lazy punditry. People are more concerned with winning points for the team than having an actual exchange of ideas. This is most disappointing with people who are really capable of good insight, but their talents and intelligence are wasted on playing scoreboard.

It was a good post by Yonivore but I will be more convinced when he posts on any issue whatsoever with a take that registers as unexpected. As it stands, regardless of how he or we dissect his ideology, his position on anything can always be predicted based on how it relates to (R) or (D). Not that he's alone in here.

As for me, in the last year or so I have been prone to lazy posts that don't really contribute to heightened discussion here... I don't favor one party or the other, but I have become so jaded with the cheerleading that the better part of my input has devolved into insults. Frankly, it's not worth reading. So my own olive branch to everyone for the time I've wasted being a bitter prick. I'll try to do better not to be so predictable in my own way.

Fair enough...and Kum-bah-yah, dude.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, this is the same rationale I employ for plagiarizing content, with which I agree. Instead of spending an inordinate amount of my precious time coming up with an original way of saying something someone else has already said – probably better than I could have, anyway…I cut ‘n paste. I edit the information, to appear to be an original post, because experience has shown me that you are likely to fully read and respond to something you think a member wrote but will just as likely ignore “quoted” content.

I don't think that is too far off base, and always thought the slams on plagarism were a bit overmuch.

This is not strict acedemia, and if one agrees with the premise of an author, and pretty much everything in the piece, than that isn't altogether that deceptive in my mind.

I would not do it, though.

[Blake]

What happened that got your internet feelings hurt so badly that you had to post this thread on top of you almost leaving for good?