Thanks to SOMS students who said no to Paul Ryan

dave23 said:

terp said:  Furthermore, this person is perceived to be outside their group or herd, and thus this person is most likely evil in some way. 

You fall back on this lazy straw man too often.

You think so?

ml1 said:

it's really not much of an exaggeration that if you are poor, sick or disabled, Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan thinks you should **** off and die. 

That's the real and very dangerous hatred. From a man with real power. 

How about an Ayn Rand tangent? Love what Gore Vidal said about her: "She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society."

Her juvenile sensibility and mediocre writing help explain the current state of the right.

I do. 

terp said:

dave23 said:

terp said:  Furthermore, this person is perceived to be outside their group or herd, and thus this person is most likely evil in some way. 

You fall back on this lazy straw man too often.

You think so?

ml1 said:

it's really not much of an exaggeration that if you are poor, sick or disabled, Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan thinks you should **** off and die. 

That's the real and very dangerous hatred. From a man with real power. 

Paul Ryan is the leader of a GOP House that includes members who hesitate when asked if people are entitled to eat. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/...

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

I wonder how many gotchya questions cause this congressman to hesitate.  What an amatuer!  

Remember that secretary of state who said it was worth it that Iraqi sanctions may be associate with the death of 500,00 children?  What party was she affiliated with again?  I don't remember her hesitating fwiw.

ml1 said: Paul Ryan is the leader of a GOP House that includes members who hesitate when asked if people are entitled to eat.  http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/...

weirdbeard said:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

It's the simplistic and selfish Libertarian viewpoint.

Do you demonize those who think differently at home?  Do you teach your children to summarily reject those they disagree with politically overtly?  Or do you just lead by example?

sprout said:

weirdbeard said:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

It's the simplistic and selfish Libertarian viewpoint.

It's not a tough question. And he never said people were entitled to eat.  He said it was "essential." Of course it is. 

Do you think people are entitled to eat?

terp said:

I wonder how many gotchya questions cause this congressman to hesitate.  What an amatuer!  

Remember that secretary of state who said it was worth it that Iraqi sanctions may be associate with the death of 500,00 children?  What party was she affiliated with again?  I don't remember her hesitating fwiw.

ml1 said: Paul Ryan is the leader of a GOP House that includes members who hesitate when asked if people are entitled to eat.  http://www.npr.org/2017/05/27/...

Terp, once again you appear to be exactly what you despise. Your posts demonstrate just what you attack others for.

Who have I attacked?

dave23 said:

Terp, once again you appear to be exactly what you despise. Your posts demonstrate just what you attack others for.

You attacked my parenting simply for summarizing your statement factually and within its political context. I didn't "demonize you".

terp said:

Do you demonize those who think differently at home?  Do you teach your children to summarily reject those they disagree with politically overtly?  Or do you just lead by example?

sprout said:

weirdbeard said:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

It's the simplistic and selfish Libertarian viewpoint.

Is that what happened?  

You characterized my opinions as simplistic and selfish.  You basically reduced me to a caricature.  This is clearly an attempt to dehumanize me and thus render my opinion null and void.  This is a classic rhetorical tactic that tends to be used against against someone perceived as being outside the herd...which I clearly am.

Thus, I asked if this is how you act at home and if this the example you set for your children.  I think this is a fair question considering the topic of this thread.  

I did not attack you.  You attacked me.  It is likely that nobody will come to this realization or at least voice it because I do not subscribe to your doctrine.  

sprout said:

You attacked my parenting simply for summarizing your statement factually and within its political context. I didn't "demonize you".

terp said:

Do you demonize those who think differently at home?  Do you teach your children to summarily reject those they disagree with politically overtly?  Or do you just lead by example?

sprout said:

weirdbeard said:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

It's the simplistic and selfish Libertarian viewpoint.

Yes... but you can play the 'I'm an outcast' victim card if you want to.

terp said:

Is that what happened?  

I'm not playing the victim card at all.  I'm here of my own free will.  I'm just pointing out how people who are indoctrinated treat those who don't subscribe to their doctrine. 

Nice bubble. Anyone who critiques Libertarianism is 'indoctrinated'. Got it.

@sprout, I am writing in response to your earlier post about Libertarians being "simplistic and selfish."  In light of  your statement, please help me understand your POV by listing those issues, proposed policies or philosophy arising from Libertarianism that you consider simplistic or selfish (and why).

===========================================================

Wikipedia describes libertarianism as follows:

"[Libertarianism] is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership.[2][3][4][5][6]

Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions."  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

sprout said:

weirdbeard said:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

You seem to imply that this is sole standard by which a person should measure a leader in government.  If so, this is an awfully narrow viewpoint in my opinion.

It's the simplistic and selfish Libertarian viewpoint.

A critique from a complex systems perspective:

What’s the Matter with Libertarianism?
Its models of human nature and society are terminally deficient.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Excerpt:

One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society. 

Also, Terp's quote clearly states that these kids should evaluate policy on a self-serving basis, which he says is simple. So... I summarized as simplistic and selfish.  Here it is again:

terp said:

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point.

I made the point that the vast majority of these children are not equipped to determine whether the policies proposed by this person or by his opposition will result in increasing their standard of living or decreasing it.  I think its a rather simple and clear point. 

Unless you are privy to the social and political conversations happening in the "vast majority" of households here in S.O., your point is invalid. 

As @sprout mentioned, there are kids in our area who are directly affected by the policies of this administration. I would deem knowing someone you love being hurt by certain policies would make you "equipped to determine" how these policies are harmful to friends and families. 

@terp, you appear to presume to know what fraction of 8th graders can form an opinion independent of their families or peer groups. You also appear to presume to be able to tell those children from the rest. At what point does a child get the benefit of your doubt? You use the term "vast majority" so at least one child formed an opinion in a way you find respectable, correct? If so, why paint all 8th graders with a broad brush, downplaying their reasoning and intellect because of their ages or their town of residence or whatever reason you have? Isn't that the basis of bigotry, assuming that all people in a group act the same, disregarding individual differences?

We are all influenced by our herd, so to speak. Sometimes that's bad, and sometimes it's good, and sometimes, it's somewhere in the middle.

I don't think anyone here or among the 8th grade called Ryan evil. That's your choice of words, which means you are raising a strawman argument. You used the word "evil" first in this thread, except that @ml1 used the word "evildoers" in a sarcastic way.

You are a vociferous opponent of government and the bad things it can do, and that is a good thing. Yet you don't want 8th graders to join you? Because they're immature? When will you approve of their actions and opinions? And why does it matter?

terp said:

I wonder how many gotchya questions cause this congressman to hesitate.  What an amatuer!  

Remember that secretary of state who said it was worth it that Iraqi sanctions may be associate with the death of 500,00 children?  What party was she affiliated with again?  I don't remember her hesitating fwiw.

It wasn't OK for Clinton to say that, just as it isn't OK for Congressman Smith to dodge the fact that cutting food stamps can starve people. Citing which party people are in doesn't lessen the bad things people say and do. I don't think Scott Simon's question was a gotcha question. It's at the heart of the matter. If it surprised Smith, shame on Smith, not on Simon.

Britain is seriously considering making 16 the voting age. Most 8th graders at the end of the year are 14. So they are not that far off from what many consider a proper age to allow the vote. Everyone is influenced to some extent by their family (some follow and some love to be contrary) but it is wrong to say that 14-year olds do not have political opinions well enough formed to make judgments.

Well put, @Gilgul.

Tom_Reingold said:

terp said:

I wonder how many gotchya questions cause this congressman to hesitate.  What an amatuer!  

Remember that secretary of state who said it was worth it that Iraqi sanctions may be associate with the death of 500,00 children?  What party was she affiliated with again?  I don't remember her hesitating fwiw.

It wasn't OK for Clinton to say that, just as it isn't OK for Congressman Smith to dodge the fact that cutting food stamps can starve people. Citing which party people are in doesn't lessen the bad things people say and do. I don't think Scott Simon's question was a gotcha question. It's at the heart of the matter. If it surprised Smith, shame on Smith, not on Simon.

seriously.  He was there to answer questions about farm subsidies, and food stamps are an indirect subsidy to the people who produce our food.  So he should have been ready for some questions about it.

And it's only a "gotcha" question if you're inclined to answer "no, people are not entitled to eat."  If you're inclined to say that people are entitled to have food on their tables, it's not a gotcha question.

these are benefits that go overwhelmingly to people who work.  for instance, according the U.S. Census, at last count 23,000 military families received food assistance from SNAP.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

you'd think it would be easy to say that those families are entitled to eat.

And I suppose any libertarians reading my Paul Ryan wants you to **** off and die if you're poor, old, or sick maybe have taken that as a personal attack.  But it's not.  First of all, unless one of the anonymous posters here is actually Paul Ryan, it's not personal to them.  Secondly, I don't know why a libertarian would take it personally when Ryan is criticized. The AHCA was not a libertarian bill.  It essentially takes our current health insurance system and doesn't fundamentally change it.  It just makes it inaccessible to millions of people.  People who are poor, sick, and old (but not old enough for Medicare).  And the actuaries look at that data, and conclude that thousands of people will put off medical care as a result, and die earlier.  And Paul Ryan was jubilant about passing that bill.  Hey, he was looking forward to cutting Medicaid since he was in college.  

Was it rude, blunt, and impolite for me to say I think Paul Ryan wants the poor, sick and old to **** off and die?  Yes it was.  I was wrong.  I don't know that he actually wants that to happen.  But he obviously doesn't think too much about whether or not it does.  So Paul Ryan (apparently a devout Roman Catholic by the way), simply doesn't give any thought to whether you're going to **** off and die if you're poor, sick or old.

Cristabel said:

Oh yes. It must have been when President Clinton had consensual affairs. trump's affairs were fine. 

Too bad your pearls were broken when trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. You might have clutched them when he mocked a disabled person. 

If you are waiting for mtierney to be upset about sexual assault by a conservative man you should cut your losses now, it ain't going to happen.

"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

IMO, from those I know to be "Devout" or "Born Again" somehow usually end up doing the opposite of WWJD when it comes to lending a hand to your fellow man, peace on earth and good will.

What Would Jesus Do?

I'm actually kind of impressed that you dug that far back in the Psychology Today archives to find such a vapid piece.  That person does not seem to understand libertarians at all.  He constructs a straw man based on what seems like a superficial understanding of a group of people and knocks it down.  It's no wonder you like it.

Let's look at another passage:

One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society.  The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in which cooperationand sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. (This scenario is reviewed in my books The Fair Society and Holistic Darwinism.)  We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man).

So we are not, after all, like bumper cars in a carnival, where we all range freely, and, if we cause "harm" by crashing into others, we simply say "excuse me" and move on.  Rather, we are (most of us) embedded in an exceedingly complex network of social relationships, many of which are vital to our well-being.  Every day we confront issues relating to the needs and wants of others and must continually make accommodations.  And in addressing these conflicting interests, the operative norm is - or should be - fairness, a balancing of the interests and needs of other parties, other "stakeholders."

Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests.  For instance, the canonized conservative economist Friedrich Hayek posited a stark choice between two alternative models - either a "free market" of atomized individuals rationally pursuing their self-interests in transactional relationships or an authoritarian, coercive "state" that seeks control over us. In Hayek's words, "socialism means slavery.

I think just about every libertarian I know understands that we are social animals who rely on each other and that we create very complex social networks.  I think the question libertarians raise is "Should these complex relationships be centrally managed?  Is it even possible to centrally manage these relationships effectively?"  Most would say that by doing so you do more damage than you do good. 

You know the term liberal has its roots in libertarian too.  As we are liberals...just the classical kind.  I will make a blanket statement here.  Libertarians all favor voluntary action over coerced action.  They believe in voluntary association, voluntary commerce, voluntary speech, etc.   

The attempt to boil everyone down to one model, label a group of people that hold a myriad of views about how to achieve these ends as utopian and then knock down your straw man is a really bad argument.  It's not one I would choose to associate with. 

That being said, as bad as this argument is, it does fit one criteria.  It fits your narrative.  Thus, I suppose you thought it would be a good idea to go back to 2011.  

sprout said:

A critique from a complex systems perspective:

What’s the Matter with Libertarianism?
Its models of human nature and society are terminally deficient.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...


Excerpt:

One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society. 

I never made the argument below.  

My central point was that it is unlikely that 8th graders are able to assess Ryan's positions.  It is much more likely that they have been indoctrinated.  

If the 8th graders would like to stand up for their individual right of self-determination free of government coercion, I would applaud and gladly join them.  I'm pretty sure that's not what they're doing.  

Rewarding indoctrination at a young age could lead to participation in acts like this.  

Tom_Reingold said:

@terp, you appear to presume to know what fraction of 8th graders can form an opinion independent of their families or peer groups. You also appear to presume to be able to tell those children from the rest. At what point does a child get the benefit of your doubt? You use the term "vast majority" so at least one child formed an opinion in a way you find respectable, correct? If so, why paint all 8th graders with a broad brush, downplaying their reasoning and intellect because of their ages or their town of residence or whatever reason you have? Isn't that the basis of bigotry, assuming that all people in a group act the same, disregarding individual differences?

We are all influenced by our herd, so to speak. Sometimes that's bad, and sometimes it's good, and sometimes, it's somewhere in the middle.

I don't think anyone here or among the 8th grade called Ryan evil. That's your choice of words, which means you are raising a strawman argument. You used the word "evil" first in this thread, except that @ml1 used the word "evildoers" in a sarcastic way.

You are a vociferous opponent of government and the bad things it can do, and that is a good thing. Yet you don't want 8th graders to join you? Because they're immature? When will you approve of their actions and opinions? And why does it matter?