If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   MSNBC host films a commercial saying that children don't belong to their parents or their families, but to their communities at large. This is an outrage, apparently   (redstate.com) divider line 457
    More: Interesting, MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry, state ownership, soylent greens, families  
•       •       •

2897 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2013 at 6:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



457 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 10:48:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Tell me, have you figured out how you can be amused by something without finding it funny or are you still pretending not to speak English?

I'm not the one who doesn't understand the definiton of "synonym," here, nor the definitions of "amused" and "funny"


"to entertain or occupy in a light, playful, or pleasant manner"
 
2013-04-08 10:50:13 PM

BMulligan: EvilRacistNaziFascist: someone else who can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy

They're just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid.


They are different ideologies altogether. Having a government and not having a government are two very different things.

No one over the age of 20 subscribes to either political philosophy without first suffering some sort of cerebral injury.

It is not an endorsement of either libertarianism or anarchy to point out that they are quite distinct, at least as much so as left- liberalism and Stalinism.
 
2013-04-08 10:50:20 PM

falcon176: isn't this the site that said "fark your reality I want to live in mine go away libs" if so then this is truly the greatest site on the internet and you libs should all bookmark it and visit it daily so you can be re-educated into being intelligent


Oh, you.
 
2013-04-08 10:50:22 PM

BMulligan: EvilRacistNaziFascist: someone else who can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy

They're just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid. No one over the age of 20 subscribes to either political philosophy without first suffering some sort of cerebral injury.


quoth the middle-aged self-described socialist ;)
 
2013-04-08 10:51:14 PM
Fart_Machine,

I might be willing to accept your assertion had Ms. Harris not preceded your quote with her proclamation that "children don't belong to families..."
 
2013-04-08 10:54:10 PM

Philbb: Mrtraveler01: So is there an intelligent argument on why I should be outraged about this?

No, none at all.

I find the conservative backlash a bit odd since it seems that conservatives are the ones that talk most often about the old days when people knew each other and you couldn't get away with anything in front of any neighborhood parent because they talked with your parents.


You find it odd?

The core group of conservatives really aren't very consistent with their belief system. It really does seem more like a "ok, tune into this website and find out what I believe in today" kind of thing.  I work really hard to be civil and try to discuss ideas as I do have right winger friends and they aren't bad people, but I swear they are so much more in step with each other than the lefties.

The ACA or Ronald Regan are pefect examples.  You can go from being the epitome of right wing ideals, to being some horrible liberal propaganda in the span of a decade.
 
2013-04-08 10:55:50 PM

maxalt: Huggermugger: maxalt: Why is it that always when some one sees something that says government isn't the be all end all they go crazy? My son was MY RESPONSIBILITY, I do not want someone who was indoctrinated by the state ie teachers telling me how to raise my children. So you take the most brain dead path, what about child abuse?  Child abuse is already illegal and is punishable by up to life in jail. My son is well adjusted and smart has a well paying job and independent. He only spent the last two years of high school in public abuse buildings. The public schools do not teach ANYTHING!!! They teach "feel good". When over 50% of inner city school kids cannot read at a 2nd grade level when they graduate high school you people want more of public education? I had my son doing algebra when he was in the 3rd grade. Take responsibility and work hard to raise you child to be ready to face the world. Leave the government out of the picture, just because someone works for the government does NOT make them an angel or smart, just someone who failed at all else. My parents who were both teachers used to say "Those who can do, those who can't teach". And yes I truly loved my parents and miss them every day.

If it wasn't for liberal do-gooders, child abuse would not be illegal.

That is not true.


It absolutely is true.

My grandfather was one of the pioneers of child welfare in the 20th century.  He started out his life being thrown into an orphanage at the age of five, along with his four brothers, because their father had died in the Far East in 1912 and it took their mother over five years to obtain enough documentation to collect on life insurance.  Grandpa's Dickensian childhood motivated him to work on passing laws to protect children from abuse.  He was a juvie officer, a parole officer, managed an orphanage himself, and earned a Master's in sociology, after which he was a Professor of Sociology at several Universities.

As for myself, I saw firsthand in the 1960s, living in the Deep South, that several kids in my school and in the community were being horribly abused by their parents, and everyone turned their backs on the situation: the teachers refused to get involved, the cops were afraid of interfering, and the "good people of the church" were the worst of all, they actually enabled it by proclaiming that a father was sovereign in his household and it was a sin for the state to interfere.  Later on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.  In all of those situations, the only people who actually tried to change the laws and who worked to protect the kids were liberal do-gooders who stood up to the status quo of law enforcement, the courts, and the church, all of whom enabled horrible abuse of children.
 
2013-04-08 10:56:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No not at all.
I am just pointing out that I agree with you.
You said "This post lacks effort".
I agree that you the post you created lacked effort.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-08 10:57:32 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Philbb: I find the conservative backlash a bit odd since it seems that conservatives are the ones that talk most often about the old days when people knew each other and you couldn't get away with anything in front of any neighborhood parent because they talked with your parents.

I'm not certain what your concern is here; conservatives appreciate the coherence of organic communities, but are suspicious of the claimed prerogatives of the State -- and the State is not a community. Traditional conservatives, as opposed to the mercenary right-liberals who increasingly claim the label of "conservative" today, believe that the ideal society would be bound together by ties of culture, values, and (as much as possible) kinship through shared descent. Since Western societies have become increasingly balkanized and atomized, many now look to government to provide us with things we either provided to ourselves in the past or were helped with by our neighbours, which is unequivocally a bad thing because the government is not made up of our neighbours or by people like us (unless you happen to live in Georgetown); the government does not love us or even have a fond regard for people like us, but patronizes us as ruling elites have perennially done to their subjects throughout the ages. As a result, its aid comes with far too many unwanted strings attached (and is very often unsustainable economically in the long term in any case).

I have no problem with the idea of my neighbours in a small and tight-knit community watching out for my children -- although naturally that would not mean that the neighbours had the same kind of claim upon or relationship with my children as I do; it doesn't "take a village to raise a child" so much as it takes parents to do so, with extended family and the wider community at large helping when necessary. I would however have a serious problem with a stranger from the State, who is by no means guaranteed to have anyone's best interests at heart, cl ...


I have to say, that I love how so many right wingers are now brushed off as "liberals" these days.

Serious question.  So do you think that like 90% of Americans are "liberals"? If all of democrats are, and so many republicans (like GW was super liberal!) then there really aren't many left to be true conservatives.
 
2013-04-08 10:59:46 PM

maxalt: Any way I tire of this, most young people are socialists, that is until the time comes when it starts to cost them money, then capitalism here I come.


The usual course of action is to pursue a typically consumerist lifestyle while continuing to espouse the same leftist values you did in your youth; that way, you get to enjoy the material benefits of capitalism while retaining the higher moral status that goes along with denouncing it. A certain amount of cognitive dissonance is involved and a few pangs of conscience and self-doubt may arise, but these are easily suppressed. It is after all tremendously rewarding to the ego to be able to feel superior both to those who are less politically enlightened than you are and to those who have less disposable income than you do.
 
2013-04-08 10:59:48 PM

skullkrusher: BMulligan: EvilRacistNaziFascist: someone else who can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy

They're just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid. No one over the age of 20 subscribes to either political philosophy without first suffering some sort of cerebral injury.

quoth the middle-aged self-described socialist ;)


Everyone who understands how markets work is a socialist, whether they actually embrace the label or not (most, in fact, do not).
 
2013-04-08 11:02:23 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: BMulligan: EvilRacistNaziFascist: someone else who can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy

They're just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid. No one over the age of 20 subscribes to either political philosophy without first suffering some sort of cerebral injury.

quoth the middle-aged self-described socialist ;)

Everyone who understands how markets work is a socialist, whether they actually embrace the label or not (most, in fact, do not).


we're playing real loose with terminology here I think, papi
 
2013-04-08 11:03:15 PM

keithgabryelski: BarkingUnicorn: keithgabryelski: indylaw: Children aren't property. However, as a general rule, it's the prerogative of parents themselves and not the nosy biatch down the street to raise children.

yes, but that nosy biatch down the road has some stake in your child's ability to become a productive member of society.
(your neighbors more than their neighbors -- but everyone gains a little)

Her stake is satisfied by the educational taxes she pays and her ability to elect school board members.

Probably not completely -- if the parents are abusing a child, for instance, he has enough stake to report such activity.
If some kids are getting in to trouble -- said nosey neighbor has stake in finding ways to keep idle hands occupied, whether
that is ensuring a community center is accessible and inviting or if he ad hoc coaches basketball on some local park's court.


Meh.  We're talking about education.  Sure, there are stakes in other aspects of a child's well-being.

But having a stake in something does not mean it belongs to you or that you have authority over it.  It means that it's in your interest to help take care of it.

What is that interest?  You take care of it because the act of doing so makes you feel good and you anticipate future results that will make you feel good.  Some people get off on taking care of kids; others don't but they like the future results, e. g., better workers to hire and be served by, fewer criminals to fear.

We getting better workers and fewer criminals than we would without education?  That's why educators need to sell, if they can.  Peddling ownership of other people's kids and responsibility for them is not going to work... at least, not in any way that's good for kids.

This "belong to" crap, repeated three times in 30 seconds, is a gift to opponents of public education.
 
2013-04-08 11:04:51 PM

BMulligan: I work for an Indian tribe, largely working with child welfare cases. It's interesting, because the community interest in the welfare and education of children is expressly written into our laws. For example, where a state court would apply the "best interest of the child" standard, the applicable standard in our system is "the best interest of the child and the Tribe."


That is interesting.  Are the two presumed to be synonymous?  If not, which is superior?
 
2013-04-08 11:04:55 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I Like Bread: The free market will sort it out. When word gets around that those parents starve their children, no one will want to buy children from them.

Look: someone else who can't tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy... I haven't read the whole thread, has anybody said the "LOL GO TO SOMALIA" thing yet? That one's a classic (and easily the modern equivalent of "if you don't like it here, go to Russia").


Those arguments may not be compelling, but neither are the ones we receive from the libertarians.  What strikes me is that this philosophy is all about what ifs, never about "this actually happened".

The reality is that private enterprise never developed the interstate system, didn't develop a railroad system without serious government help, didn't develop the internet etc. etc.

And that doesn't even touch on the insane levels of transaction costs that would be imposed upon every single transaction in society without government intervention. Sure the free market will make sure ultimately that Soda Brand X doesn't contain poison, but glazing over the few people killed for the market to learn that, do you guys really think anyone would try new products in that enviornment? Every single thing we did would be a long and drawn out process to mitigate the risk that government regulation mitigates for us.

No doubt government is in fact a non-producing drain on human enterprise, but in what it takes it absolutely can faciliate far greater growth as risks are reduced.  Yeah, I could take 29 different private highways to get around the US, but just dealing with the billing systems for 29 companies would cost me a fortune if I owned a trucking company.
 
2013-04-08 11:14:12 PM

skullkrusher: we're playing real loose with terminology here I think, papi


Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.

BarkingUnicorn: That is interesting.  Are the two presumed to be synonymous?  If not, which is superior?


Those are good questions, with no immediately obvious answer. I think the two interests are presumed to be more or less congruent more often than not. In the event of a genuine conflict, though, it might be a difficult call. It would probably depend to a large degree on how compelling the tribal interest is - if the matter went to the very survival and continuity of the tribe, the tribal interest might well trump.
 
2013-04-08 11:15:54 PM

BarkingUnicorn: keithgabryelski: BarkingUnicorn: keithgabryelski: indylaw: Children aren't property. However, as a general rule, it's the prerogative of parents themselves and not the nosy biatch down the street to raise children.

yes, but that nosy biatch down the road has some stake in your child's ability to become a productive member of society.
(your neighbors more than their neighbors -- but everyone gains a little)

Her stake is satisfied by the educational taxes she pays and her ability to elect school board members.

Probably not completely -- if the parents are abusing a child, for instance, he has enough stake to report such activity.
If some kids are getting in to trouble -- said nosey neighbor has stake in finding ways to keep idle hands occupied, whether
that is ensuring a community center is accessible and inviting or if he ad hoc coaches basketball on some local park's court.

Meh.  We're talking about education.  Sure, there are stakes in other aspects of a child's well-being.

But having a stake in something does not mean it belongs to you or that you have authority over it.  It means that it's in your interest to help take care of it.

What is that interest?  You take care of it because the act of doing so makes you feel good and you anticipate future results that will make you feel good.  Some people get off on taking care of kids; others don't but they like the future results, e. g., better workers to hire and be served by, fewer criminals to fear.

We getting better workers and fewer criminals than we would without education?  That's why educators need to sell, if they can.  Peddling ownership of other people's kids and responsibility for them is not going to work... at least, not in any way that's good for kids.

This "belong to" crap, repeated three times in 30 seconds, is a gift to opponents of public education.


I am pretty sure her point is that the education of kids is important for society at large and therefore it makes sense for society to collectively encourage it but holy crap that was a stupid way to say it
 
2013-04-08 11:17:22 PM

BMulligan: Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.


it can't be both. Hell, I support the "socialization" of electric utilities and I am nothing resembling a socialist. Not even a double secret one
 
2013-04-08 11:21:57 PM
MSNBC is just as bad as Fox news. Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV.
 
2013-04-08 11:22:41 PM
nocturnal001: I have to say, that I love how so many right wingers are now brushed off as "liberals" these days.

Really? By whom? I thought I was one of the few doing it. After all, if society is made up mostly of liberals and right wingers, and the right wingers are being "brushed off" as liberals, who's left to do the brushing off?

Serious question.  So do you think that like 90% of Americans are "liberals"?

In the sense that they subscribe to a false ideal of egalitarianism, yes.

What you have to keep in mind is that American society (and the West as a whole) is continually shifting towards the Left. If you don't believe that, consider that the opinions that are routinely denounced as "fringe", "extremist" or "hateful" today were the opinions held by most Americans and Westerners in 1960 -- or in some cases even in 1985, for that matter. (Who was for "gay marriage" in 1985, for example? Almost nobody. But now you're a horrible bigot if you're against it). What most "conservatives" believe today is simply what most liberals believed forty or fifty years ago. That isn't conserving anything.

If all of democrats are, and so many republicans (like GW was super liberal!)

I don't recall saying that Bush Jr., was "super liberal", but he was certainly not the arch-conservative he was made out to be by his detractors. For example, he was soft on illegal immigration, embraced the idea of civic nationalism (in which the national background of prospective immigrants was irrelevant), expanded the role of the State in providing prescription drugs, was extremely financially irresponsible (see Iraq), etc.

then there really aren't many left to be true conservatives.

No, there aren't. And this is the great gamble that American society is taking: that it can continue to radically transform itself as it has done over the past forty or so years -- all the while marginalizing the values and the intellectual legacy of those who chiefly built the country as being hopelessly backward and obsolescent -- while retaining its past strength, prosperity, and individual liberties. It won't succeed, and in fact the American experiment in progressivism is already visibly failing for those who have the honesty and courage to look at the situation honestly.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:31 PM

Huggermugger: As for myself, I saw firsthand in the 1960s, living in the Deep South, that several kids in my school and in the community were being horribly abused by their parents, and everyone turned their backs on the situation: the teachers refused to get involved, the cops were afraid of interfering, and the "good people of the church" were the worst of all, they actually enabled it by proclaiming that a father was sovereign in his household and it was a sin for the state to interfere.  Later on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.


Those were simpler times.  Freer times.
 
2013-04-08 11:29:12 PM

skullkrusher: BMulligan: Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.

it can't be both. Hell, I support the "socialization" of electric utilities and I am nothing resembling a socialist. Not even a double secret one


For some people socialism is a philosophy. I think it's better treated as a tool, though - a means for addressing inevitable market failures when they occur. Oh, and I also fully approve of tarring and feathering the investor class and their toadies in management, so there's that.
 
2013-04-08 11:30:25 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: No, there aren't. And this is the great gamble that American society is taking: that it can continue to radically transform itself as it has done over the past forty or so years -- all the while marginalizing the values and the intellectual legacy of those who chiefly built the country as being hopelessly backward and obsolescent -- while retaining its past strength, prosperity, and individual liberties. It won't succeed, and in fact the American experiment in progressivism is already visibly failing for those who have the honesty and courage to look at the situation honestly.


Uh, those guys chiefly built America as an experiment in progressivism.

Well, that, and to make money.
 
2013-04-08 11:30:43 PM

skullkrusher: BarkingUnicorn: keithgabryelski: BarkingUnicorn: keithgabryelski: indylaw: Children aren't property. However, as a general rule, it's the prerogative of parents themselves and not the nosy biatch down the street to raise children.

yes, but that nosy biatch down the road has some stake in your child's ability to become a productive member of society.
(your neighbors more than their neighbors -- but everyone gains a little)

Her stake is satisfied by the educational taxes she pays and her ability to elect school board members.

Probably not completely -- if the parents are abusing a child, for instance, he has enough stake to report such activity.
If some kids are getting in to trouble -- said nosey neighbor has stake in finding ways to keep idle hands occupied, whether
that is ensuring a community center is accessible and inviting or if he ad hoc coaches basketball on some local park's court.

Meh.  We're talking about education.  Sure, there are stakes in other aspects of a child's well-being.

But having a stake in something does not mean it belongs to you or that you have authority over it.  It means that it's in your interest to help take care of it.

What is that interest?  You take care of it because the act of doing so makes you feel good and you anticipate future results that will make you feel good.  Some people get off on taking care of kids; others don't but they like the future results, e. g., better workers to hire and be served by, fewer criminals to fear.

We getting better workers and fewer criminals than we would without education?  That's why educators need to sell, if they can.  Peddling ownership of other people's kids and responsibility for them is not going to work... at least, not in any way that's good for kids.

This "belong to" crap, repeated three times in 30 seconds, is a gift to opponents of public education.

I am pretty sure her point is that the education of kids is important for society at large and therefore it makes sense for socie ...


She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.
 
2013-04-08 11:32:10 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: BMulligan: Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.

it can't be both. Hell, I support the "socialization" of electric utilities and I am nothing resembling a socialist. Not even a double secret one

For some people socialism is a philosophy. I think it's better treated as a tool, though - a means for addressing inevitable market failures when they occur. Oh, and I also fully approve of tarring and feathering the investor class and their toadies in management, so there's that.


meh, it makes sense when it makes sense. Public works, for example. I have nothing against people who make a farkload of money by investing wisely. This can be done with a sense of morality. I suppose that is an important difference. I don't wanna tar and feather wealthy investors as a rule. Handling market failures is another thing. This can and should be done short of collectivizing the means of production.
 
2013-04-08 11:33:16 PM

badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.


I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.
 
2013-04-08 11:34:28 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: nocturnal001: I have to say, that I love how so many right wingers are now brushed off as "liberals" these days.

Really? By whom? I thought I was one of the few doing it. After all, if society is made up mostly of liberals and right wingers, and the right wingers are being "brushed off" as liberals, who's left to do the brushing off?

Serious question.  So do you think that like 90% of Americans are "liberals"?

In the sense that they subscribe to a false ideal of egalitarianism, yes.

What you have to keep in mind is that American society (and the West as a whole) is continually shifting towards the Left. If you don't believe that, consider that the opinions that are routinely denounced as "fringe", "extremist" or "hateful" today were the opinions held by most Americans and Westerners in 1960 -- or in some cases even in 1985, for that matter. (Who was for "gay marriage" in 1985, for example? Almost nobody. But now you're a horrible bigot if you're against it). What most "conservatives" believe today is simply what most liberals believed forty or fifty years ago. That isn't conserving anything.

If all of democrats are, and so many republicans (like GW was super liberal!)

I don't recall saying that Bush Jr., was "super liberal", but he was certainly not the arch-conservative he was made out to be by his detractors. For example, he was soft on illegal immigration, embraced the idea of civic nationalism (in which the national background of prospective immigrants was irrelevant), expanded the role of the State in providing prescription drugs, was extremely financially irresponsible (see Iraq), etc.

then there really aren't many left to be true conservatives.

No, there aren't. And this is the great gamble that American society is taking: that it can continue to radically transform itself as it has done over the past forty or so years -- all the while marginalizing the values and the intellectual legacy of those who chiefly built the country as being hopelessly backw ...


Are things like being against gay marriage really halmarks of conservative ideology? I've just never viewed true conservatism as having anything to do with cultural norms.

RE GW, when he was brought forward, he was championed as being the perfect conservative.  Now, maybe that was marketing used to win the election but still.  I literally saw him called a champion of conservatism to being brushed off as "he really was just a liberal" in a span of 8 years. His father had much of the same complaints, and I think Reagan would share that space as well if people really knew what he did.  Lefties may have celebrated Clinton and Obama for being "good" presidents or whatever, but they are not heralded as being paragons of liberalism.
 
2013-04-08 11:34:35 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: we're playing real loose with terminology here I think, papi

Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.

BarkingUnicorn: That is interesting.  Are the two presumed to be synonymous?  If not, which is superior?

Those are good questions, with no immediately obvious answer. I think the two interests are presumed to be more or less congruent more often than not. In the event of a genuine conflict, though, it might be a difficult call. It would probably depend to a large degree on how compelling the tribal interest is - if the matter went to the very survival and continuity of the tribe, the tribal interest might well trump.


Well, that's no different from the white man's view of things.  What's good for the child is good for society, until we need some cannon fodder.
 
2013-04-08 11:35:04 PM
These people will derp about anything, won't they?
 
2013-04-08 11:35:19 PM
img46.imageshack.us
                            ALL YOUR KID ARE BELONG TO US.
 
2013-04-08 11:35:53 PM

HeartBurnKid: These people will derp about anything, won't they?


she did choose her words in a most stupid fashion
 
2013-04-08 11:38:36 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: BMulligan: Of course. Also, being intentionally provocative. Not altogether kidding, though.

it can't be both. Hell, I support the "socialization" of electric utilities and I am nothing resembling a socialist. Not even a double secret one

For some people socialism is a philosophy. I think it's better treated as a tool, though - a means for addressing inevitable market failures when they occur. Oh, and I also fully approve of tarring and feathering the investor class and their toadies in management, so there's that.


Market failures and a large wealth divide aren't bugs, they're features.  Capitalism is supposed to work like that.

There's nothing to address!

Therefore, socialism is useless.  QED
 
2013-04-08 11:38:52 PM

skullkrusher: I have nothing against people who make a farkload of money by investing wisely. This can be done with a sense of morality.


Ehh.. it feels like the investor types got their money not through anything illegal or unethical, but it still skeeves me out on some level because they're not contributing anything useful to society. They're not creating a product or doing a useful service, they're just shifting money around.

It seems like the most chickensh*t way possible to make a buck.
 
2013-04-08 11:39:24 PM

HappyTheDog: MSNBC is just as bad as Fox news. Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV.


Blow up your TV
Throw away your paper
Move to the country
Build you a home
Plant a little garden
Eat a lotta peaches
Try to find Jesus on your own.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:06 PM

skullkrusher: badhatharry: She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.

I don't think she's saying that. If she is, she is welcome to this bag of dicks I save for just such occasions.


But... It takes a village to raise a child!
 
2013-04-08 11:40:09 PM

skullkrusher: I don't wanna tar and feather wealthy investors as a rule.


It's just a hobby, like golf.

The interesting thing, of course, is that our brand of capitalism is all about collectivizing the means of production. That's all corporations are - we don't think of them that way, though, because not everyone is invited to participate. It is no coincidence that corporate existence endures only at the pleasure of the state, you know. Nor is it a coincidence that such collectively owned enterprises enjoy significant legal benefits along with their state-issued charter, not least of which is limited liability. When people like me talk about socializing risk while privatizing return, this is part of what we're talking about.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:10 PM
I wish someone would take responsibility for their kids.

Parents these days sure aren't.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:12 PM
Children belong to themselves. Their parents do not own them, the state does not own them, the local community do not own them.

The cult of parental ownership which dominates many cultures leads to a lot of terrible things from the obvious and direct (abuse and exploitation) to the less obvious and/or indirect (poor or perverted education, indoctrination etc), though it also has benefits.. but a balance must be struck.  The community does not OWN children, but it has responsibilities to them and the right to make laws and institute systems which govern how children are raised.
 
2013-04-08 11:42:28 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Well, that's no different from the white man's view of things.  What's good for the child is good for society, until we need some cannon fodder.


Not exactly the same thing, but I see your point.
 
2013-04-08 11:42:41 PM

HappyTheDog: MSNBC is just as bad as Fox news. Do yourself a favor and turn off the TV.


Both spin, only one lies.

Liberals don't hate Fox because they're the official rightwing news network (it is), but because they  lie and make shiat up.
 
2013-04-08 11:43:24 PM
This is a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial fact in the civilized world today. Parents don't own their children - they're merely (usually) recognized as the actors charged with securing the child's interests. In cases where they clearly fail to do so, it is the duty of the state (or society, or whatever you want to call it) to step in.

But that isn't even what was being talked about there. It was the even more obvious (to the point of being trite and silly, almost) point that society should actively look out for all children rather than leaving that burden entirely on the parents.

The only way a person would be outraged by this to the point of comparing it to slavery (assuming he isn't trolling) is if he's literally retarded.
 
2013-04-08 11:44:31 PM

TsukasaK: skullkrusher: I have nothing against people who make a farkload of money by investing wisely. This can be done with a sense of morality.

Ehh.. it feels like the investor types got their money not through anything illegal or unethical, but it still skeeves me out on some level because they're not contributing anything useful to society. They're not creating a product or doing a useful service, they're just shifting money around.

It seems like the most chickensh*t way possible to make a buck.


I used to get confused by that, too.  Then I realized that most people are trained to equate "lazy" with "not productive," instead of "not hard working."

That is how you can have "lazy" poors work two minimum wage jobs, and "hard working" richies who sit on their fat asses all day.  The fat asses make more money, so they are working harder.

We parrot our bosses and measure ourselves by capital creation.  :\
 
2013-04-08 11:46:54 PM

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: These people will derp about anything, won't they?

she did choose her words in a most stupid fashion


Let's be honest here, they would derp about any choice of words. These just happen to be the ones she chose.
 
2013-04-08 11:47:00 PM

badhatharry: This "belong to" crap, repeated three times in 30 seconds, is a gift to opponents of public education.

I am pretty sure her point is that the education of kids is important for society at large and therefore it makes sense for socie ...

She is very smart and very clear. She believes we need to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents because it is not in the best interest of the collective. This is an old, bad idea.


Indeed it is old; upthread I quoted the good Dr. Benjamin Rush, who signed the Declaration of Independence and a strong advocate of public schools, saying explicitly that a student must learn that he does not belong to himself but to the state, and that he should love his family but be prepared to leave them to meet the state's needs.
 
2013-04-08 11:47:44 PM

nocturnal001: The reality is that private enterprise never developed the interstate system, didn't develop a railroad system without serious government help, didn't develop the internet etc. etc.


I've already established that I'm a conservative rather than a libertarian, but I'd just like you ask you a question: where do you think the all- benevolent State got the money from to pay for all these wonderful innovations? It is, regrettably, capitalist free enterprise that generates the wealth, that in turn creates the tax-base, that in turn makes government spending (whether well-directed or not) possible to begin with. And here's another question: what great enterprises has the government given us recently? And if there are fewer great enterprises in the US -- such as dams and power plants and space programmes, etc. -- than there have been in the past, why do you think that might be?

And that doesn't even touch on the insane levels of transaction costs that would be imposed upon every single transaction in society without government intervention. Sure the free market will make sure ultimately that Soda Brand X doesn't contain poison, but glazing over the few people killed for the market to learn that,

In reality, a vanishingly small number of people have ever died from drinking poison soda. But over the past one hundred years alone something like 125 million people have been directly murdered by their governments. This is why the idea of regarding governments as inherently benevolent entities whose only mission is to save us from ourselves is dangerously naive. Again, I am not a libertarian and I am not opposed to the reasonable regulation of foodstuffs -- but if you think the free market is anywhere near as great a danger to your health as uncontrolled levels of government, you are completely ignorant of history.

I'm sadly old-fashioned, so I tend to look at these issues from a moral perspective. I assume that individual human beings are naturally fallible and corruptible, and that when they join together to form associations and institutions the fallibility and corruptibility are correspondingly magnified. This is why (although no Utopia is ever possible) a decentralized society is ultimately preferable, because the amount of human evil and its potential for ill- effects are minimized at a local level. The reason why the free market, even with its flaws, is preferable to big government is because each merchant in a free market is a finite entity. You drink X soda, it tastes like sh*t, you don't buy it again; you switch to Y soda, which is better. (Or stick to drinking water, which is best of all!) But the government, with its monopoly of force, is theoretically infinite in its reach. It can offer a product -- no matter how shoddy -- and forbid anyone else from offering the same kind of product; it can even compel you to consume its product (e.g. as in those countries where public education is mandatory and private education and/or homeschooling are forbidden). The government is always the greatest potential abuser because of its authority to discipline and punish. And why, if we are willing to always assume the worst of a private company who cannot compel us to do anything, should we be so willing to always assume the best of a government which can compel us to do everything?
 
2013-04-08 11:51:44 PM

sendtodave: Huggermugger: ater on, in the 1970s, I knew several kids in my high school who lived in the orphanage in Raleigh, which was a snakepit of a place where kids had the shiat beat out of them, and several of them were even pimped out to local pedophiles.

Those were simpler times.  Freer times.


Nowadays social workers just place the kids in foster care instead, where the same kind of abuse takes place. Nothing has changed.
 
2013-04-08 11:52:14 PM

BMulligan: skullkrusher: I don't wanna tar and feather wealthy investors as a rule.

It's just a hobby, like golf.

The interesting thing, of course, is that our brand of capitalism is all about collectivizing the means of production. That's all corporations are - we don't think of them that way, though, because not everyone is invited to participate. It is no coincidence that corporate existence endures only at the pleasure of the state, you know. Nor is it a coincidence that such collectively owned enterprises enjoy significant legal benefits along with their state-issued charter, not least of which is limited liability. When people like me talk about socializing risk while privatizing return, this is part of what we're talking about.


corporate existence ONLY endures because of the pleasure of the state. However, collective ownership would exist regardless. I also want corporations held accountable for the misdeeds. Part of the reason I'd like to see corporations as we now understand them cease to exist. Fantasy, of course, but also very free market-y
 
2013-04-08 11:52:57 PM

skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: These people will derp about anything, won't they?

she did choose her words in a most stupid fashion


Did you notice all the cuts in the commercial?  They took a lengthy screed and edited it down to 30 seconds.  She was on a roll, and her true thoughts spilled out.  The foolishness lies in the editing.  Commercials are supposed to be scripted to avoid this sort of blooper.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:19 PM

TsukasaK: skullkrusher: I have nothing against people who make a farkload of money by investing wisely. This can be done with a sense of morality.

Ehh.. it feels like the investor types got their money not through anything illegal or unethical, but it still skeeves me out on some level because they're not contributing anything useful to society. They're not creating a product or doing a useful service, they're just shifting money around.

It seems like the most chickensh*t way possible to make a buck.


on the contrary, it's a pretty daring way to make a buck. You build tables for a living, you still have your tools and lumber if you can't sell any for a time. You make some bad decisions, *poof*, investment capital is gone.

Perhaps I'm partial working for a hedge fund and all and I fully understand where you're coming from in terms of direct contributions to society but it is what it is and as long as we have publicly traded corporations (best vehicle for growing wealth for pretty much everyone regardless of what you have to invest) it's going to exist.
I also fully support VCs. I just don't support loading corps with debt, raiding pension funds and then pawning the husk off.
 
2013-04-08 11:58:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: HeartBurnKid: These people will derp about anything, won't they?

she did choose her words in a most stupid fashion

Let's be honest here, they would derp about any choice of words. These just happen to be the ones she chose.


well perhaps but if tomorrow BO came out and said "I'm a Muslim socialist here for your white babies" I don't think we could really fault them for saying ummm wtf?
 
Displayed 50 of 457 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report