Progressivism?

Superfreak said:
Yes, I know how you feel, I didn't think the use of extreme hyperbole would need to be explained, but the lefties on the board hounded me on it non stop.

The problem with your above is that the term reasonable is subjective. Is it reasonable to enforce seat belt laws? to force motorcyclists and cyclists to wear helmets? probably... but even those are debatable. The TSA is over the line as its restrictions and regulations do not make air travel safe from terrorists. The potential ban on the size of soft drinks in NY is way over the line.
Click to expand...

And most agree that the latter is way over the line. That proposal has been met largely with ridicule.

It tends to be a societal consensus. If there were things that we couldn't live with, the politicians would know about it. The fact is, MOST can live w/ and don't have much problem w/ airport security as it is.

People use the term & concept of "infringement on liberty" much too loosely. A minor inconvenience just doesn't rise to that level. Liberty is the ability to do what you want to do; I can still fly wherever I want. I just have to take off my shoes for a minute to do so. It's not a big deal - and again, MOST do not see it as such.
 
Onceler said:
Please don't apply your usual paranoia to twist my words.
Click to expand...

then how does "Reasonable can only be defined as what the majority SEE as reasonable, and what they will accept." not mean majority rule? or is it going to be one of those 'unwritten' definitions to go along with those unwritten agreements that Rana said we have to live by?
 
Onceler said:
Please don't apply your usual paranoia to twist my words.
Click to expand...

then stop using 50 words to explain a simple sentence. now, either SF's explanation was pretty 'succinct' or you were being sarcastic, in which case we can only assume you're trying to obfuscate your answers to avoid acccountability.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then stop using 50 words to explain a simple sentence. now, either SF's explanation was pretty 'succinct' or you were being sarcastic, in which case we can only assume you're trying to obfuscate your answers to avoid acccountability.
Click to expand...

Or, the rejection of hyperbole was implicit in my statement as well as in my subsequent comments, and also in the general nature of debate.

I never expected the equivalent of "so, you'd like to be locked in a closet as long as you're safer" out of that. I'll try to overtly distance my words from every extreme scenario they could conjure at the outset next time.
 
Onceler said:
Or, the rejection of hyperbole was implicit in my statement as well as in my subsequent comments, and also in the general nature of debate.

I never expected the equivalent of "so, you'd like to be locked in a closet as long as you're safer" out of that. I'll try to overtly distance my words from every extreme scenario they could conjure at the outset next time.
Click to expand...

so you prefer vague and obtuse over specific and defined. how does an ordered society operate like that?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you prefer vague and obtuse over specific and defined. how does an ordered society operate like that?
Click to expand...

I prefer not to have my words mischaracterized & taken to extremes.

Clearly, you prefer to twist words & mischaracterize to fit your agenda. As long as that's established, it will serve us better going forward.
 
Onceler said:
I prefer not to have my words mischaracterized & taken to extremes.

Clearly, you prefer to twist words & mischaracterize to fit your agenda. As long as that's established, it will serve us better going forward.
Click to expand...

how is citing the constitution, verbatim, twisting words and mischaracterizing? I'm not the one advocating for 'reasonable restrictions' being defined as what the majority wants.
 
Onceler said:
And most agree that the latter is way over the line. That proposal has been met largely with ridicule.

It tends to be a societal consensus. If there were things that we couldn't live with, the politicians would know about it. The fact is, MOST can live w/ and don't have much problem w/ airport security as it is.

People use the term & concept of "infringement on liberty" much too loosely. A minor inconvenience just doesn't rise to that level. Liberty is the ability to do what you want to do; I can still fly wherever I want. I just have to take off my shoes for a minute to do so. It's not a big deal - and again, MOST do not see it as such.
Click to expand...

The majority have ridiculed TSA as well Onceler. For patting down grannie and the four year olds etc... Not to mention the stupidity of banning liquid carry ons. Do you honestly think that makes us safer? There are 100 ways I can think of that a plane could be taken down or a bomb snuck aboard. That is the problem with terrorists who are willing to die for their cause. There is always another way. Giving up more and more, albeit in small increments, each time an attempt is made in a different fashion is why the process is a bad idea.
 
Superfreak said:
The majority have ridiculed TSA as well Onceler. For patting down grannie and the four year olds etc... Not to mention the stupidity of banning liquid carry ons. Do you honestly think that makes us safer? There are 100 ways I can think of that a plane could be taken down or a bomb snuck aboard. That is the problem with terrorists who are willing to die for their cause. There is always another way. Giving up more and more, albeit in small increments, each time an attempt is made in a different fashion is why the process is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

And they changed TSA policy after that ridicule & public outcry.

Things are kept in check. I have yet to hear of a real infringement on liberty that most of the people were outraged about that carried on for any length of time. Even something like marijuana policy, which I consider to be egregious and out of step w/ American values, hasn't reached the majority tipping point yet. If enough people were pissed about it, the policy would change.
 
Onceler said:
And they changed TSA policy after that ridicule & public outcry.

Things are kept in check. I have yet to hear of a real infringement on liberty that most of the people were outraged about that carried on for any length of time. Even something like marijuana policy, which I consider to be egregious and out of step w/ American values, hasn't reached the majority tipping point yet. If enough people were pissed about it, the policy would change.
Click to expand...

Um... they STILL pat down old people and kids. They still force us to go through the XRAY. All to NO avail. It is not making us safer. It is however accomplishing some of what the terrorists want. For us to sacrifice our freedom in the name of being 'safe' from them. When in reality, that is not the case.
 
wanderingbear said:
Property is not socialism its capitolism.
Click to expand...

Really? Why do you think that I have a social responsibility to track down and imprison people who steal from you just because you were too weak to protect that which you call your own? Do you think I owe you anything? Why should society subsidize your weakness?

Property is the subsidization of weakness, I.E. socialism. All rights are socialim. Rightists want to protect the right of others, and of nature, to infringe on our rights as human beings. They want us all to be reduced to slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top