1. AAB SEASON THREE

    Sign up now!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Anime Awards for 2017 part 3 commences with genre awards! Please leave a vote or comment in one of the following competition threads!

    1 2 3 4 5 6
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Stop Scrolling!
    Attention - When discussing new chapters of an anime or manga, please use a source from the official list of approved sources. If you would like to contribute to the list, please do so in the suggestions section.
    Dismiss Notice

Conservatives Are Whining Because No One Wants to Date Them

Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Normality, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. WorkingMoogle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    463
    Reputation:
    But, what if I'm being attacked by a LOT of people in body armor?
    [/NRA]
     
  2. Eros 同性愛者

    Messages:
    15,029
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    894
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    France
    Catdank Faction:
    If ifs and buts were beer and nuts, we'd have a hell of a party. That's a rather unlikely scenario. I suppose such restrictions could be lifted during an invasion, which is when such a problem is most likely to occur.
     
  3. WorkingMoogle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    463
    Reputation:
    I think the chances of being attacked by one person wearing body armor and many people wearing body armor are almost identical.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  4. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    It's fine. It's always good to find someone here who doesn't throw all "conservatives" in the same box.

    I am a traditional conservative, the kind that actually read Burke (the father of conservatism himself) and agrees with most of his ideas -- which are basically: a principle of safe transmission of values, respect to the old morals, political skepticism, oposition to revolutions, small state, freedom and laissez faire. In no way this paints a picture of Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to be particularly conservative in the Burkenian sense.

    I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably have voted for Donald Trump -- because I found him the far lesser of the two realistic evils, the other one being obviously Hillary Clinton --; even though I disagree strongly with him in a lot of things, including his weird personality cult, his protectionism, his cutting of taxes without cutting expenses, for instance. Yet some people here seem to think that if I voted Trump, then I gave him "complicit support for his policies", despite this being completely absurd as a notion.

    I'm a Christian, and apparently, conservatives and Christians are all about forcing others to accept Chrisitanity. Well, I don't want the state to enforce Christian views upon others, and most conservatives and Christians I know don't want such a thing either, they want Christianity and Christian values to be the responsibility of believers, not of the state.

    So yeah, thank you for thinking that not all conservatives are "racist twats" and "extreme, religious fundamentalist, corporate drone, white supremacist radicals". Apparently, here, this actually means a lot.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Sad! x 1
    • List
  5. DemonDragonJ Hey, Hey, What Can I Do?

    Messages:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    669
    Trophy Points:
    818
    Reputation:
    I have no difficulty admitting that I am wrong, but this is not a situation where I believe that I am wrong.

    Who does not want to be a hero in an action movie? And yes, I do very much think that weapons are cool, but, if I did own any (I currently own several swords and daggers, but no firearms), I would always use them very responsibly and lock them away when I was not using them, a habit that I learned from my father.

    My father is a member of the NRA and owns several firearms (the exact number and nature of which I myself do not know), but he is an exemplar of responsible gun ownership; he always keeps his firearms locked in a safe when he is not using them, he removes them from that safe only to clean or use them, and always promptly returns them to the safe when he is finished using them; he never leaves them lying around. Not only that, he has not revealed the location of the safe to anyone other than myself, my brother and my mother, and none of us know where he keeps the key to that safe. When he does use his firearms, he always keeps the barrels pointed away from any other people and never consumes alcohol before using them, nor has he ever threatened another person with his firearms. He was very adamant about teaching my brother and I proper gun handling and safety procedures, so, if I ever were to own any firearms, I would be certain to observe such safety measures, as well, although I am not certain if I could handle the responsibility of owning firearms, just as I am not certain that I could handle the responsibility of having pets or children.

    From what I have observed, the majority of gun owners are like my father: responsible and rational; it is only a small percentage of gun owners who engage in violent behavior and are stigmatizing all other gun owners.
     
  6. Eros 同性愛者

    Messages:
    15,029
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    894
    Reputation:
    Flag:
    France
    Catdank Faction:
    But the scenario of people using armor piercing rounds to kill police officers is just as likely, if not moreso. 128 police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2017. I don't know how many of them were shot, but I'm sure a lot of them were. There has to be a balance somewhere. Giving people unlimited access to bullets they're unlikely to need that can also be used to murder police officers is not a good idea.
     
  7. WorkingMoogle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,508
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    463
    Reputation:
    I quite agree.

    In fact without access to numbers I would guess that an armor piercing bullet in civilian hands would be 1000 times more likely to be used against a police or military target than it would be against a hypothetical armored criminal.
     
  8. Benedict Cumberzatch Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon

    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,794
    Flag:
    Denmark
    How many states have you been to? How many gun owners have you spoken to?
     
  9. Benedict Cumberzatch Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon

    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,794
    Flag:
    Denmark
    The issue is Trump has been recorded saying - and I'm not providing a litany - racist, homophobic, anti-mentally handicapped, & misogynistic remarks. You're saying you would have taken none of those into account when you voted? You are complicit. If your boss is a known black hater who uses the N word; says all blacks live in hell; and was active in a discriminatory program to disbar blacks to live with whites, something you 100% know yet you continue to work for him, then you are complicit. You are giving consent to his views.
     
  10. Mr. Black Leg The Ordeal of Love

    Messages:
    11,742
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    564
    Reputation:
    You pretty much talked about parts of the problem as if they were solutions. Kevlar vest easy to buy ? Part of the problem. API and AP bullets ? Part of the problem.



    In theory, yes it would. But again, the reason why no individual is allowed to have that is because of how dangerous it is.
     
  11. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    I don't.

    I'm 25 years old. My passions don't include "walking away from an explosion" and "gunning down terrorists." They're more along the lines of "own a home," "have a fulfilling career," and "do my part to give back to the world."

    I imagine most people my age feel the same way.

    It would be nice if everybody thought was responsible like that, but that's simply not how the world works. I'd also like to point out that you're talking about how you think you'd act, not how you've acted. These aren't necessarily the same thing. Even if you're a responsible gun owner, one slip-up could mean people dying.

    Your father isn't the problem.

    Yes, and that violent behavior is enough to say "we need stricter laws to make sure these violent people don't get guns." It's also enough to say "maybe some weapons shouldn't be in the public's hands because even one person using them wrong is one too many."

    Also:

    This is never going to happen.

    For one thing, we have a giant thermonuclear reactor in the sky called the sun. It's cheaper and safer to put solar panels everywhere than to miniaturize nuclear reactors and put them everywhere.

    Nobody does this. Somebody can be conservative but not support Donald Trump or the Republican Party; the problem is that a lot of conservatives in America do support these groups.

    I'm friends with plenty of fiscal conservatives, for example, and while I think their viewpoints are absurd, I'm able to maintain my friendship with them because (for the most part) their beliefs don't infringe on who I am as a person.

    My deal breaker is when the policies somebody supports would negatively impact my life in a severe way. At the moment, mainstream conservatism is that deal breaker by virtue of its rhetoric and its overwhelming support for the repeat of Obamacare.
     
  12. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    Politics are coercitive. You may vote for many reasons, including because you disagree more with one side than another -- there is nothing "complicit" about it. Someone might give you a choice between being raped or getting robbed. It doesn't mean that you are being complicit if you choose "getting robbed".

    Jobs in a free society are not coercitive. If you don't want to work for such a boss, then don't. Even if you do, it only means you are working for him -- probably I woudln't, but that's personal matter --, not that you are consenting with anything. You only consent with his views if you actually, you know... consent with his views.

    A = A. Consent = consent. Working for someone is not the same as consenting with his views.
     
  13. Benedict Cumberzatch Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon

    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,794
    Flag:
    Denmark
    No, comparing a citizen's right to vote with a hostile choice of electing between getting mugged or rapped is a disingenuous, ludicrous comparison. The coercion you mention is vastly different in kind.

    No, by electing Trump, you are saying, I can ignore his moral integrity because he will introduce policies I like. You are giving someone a free pass for being a terrible person. This is how Evangelicals have rationalized their voting for a debauchery, manwhoring, sin-ridden fellow. He gave them a pro-life Justice, so they will ignore his hatred. You are complicit.
     
  14. Benedict Cumberzatch Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon

    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,794
    Flag:
    Denmark
    You had the choice to say, As a human being, even if I agree with tax cuts, I cannot support a man who said all Mexicans are rapists. You had that choice. You ignored it; ergo, you value that less than your tax cuts, ergo you are complicit in propagating the behavior. There were plenty of Republicans who chose to vote for third-party because they didn't want Hillary to win but couldn't stomach supporting Trump's ideals.
     
  15. Yami Munesanzun I am now having ALL teh segzy.

    Messages:
    14,617
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    563
    Reputation:
    You can still do these four things, tbh. :ufdup

    But yeah, go buy that shape-up shack first.
     
  16. Jakers Eniram's, Bitches!

    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    404
    Reputation:
    You're damn right we do, son.

     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  17. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    It's not, because it's this is a subjective judgement of value. If I find having Trump as a president as bad as being robbed, and having Hillary as a president as bad as being raped, and yet either one or the other must be chosen... then I can only choose between something as bad as being robbed and something as bad as being raped.

    Again: A= A

    No. Come on. Logic 101: Law of Identity.

    By voting Trump, what I'm doing is: voting Trump. The most I'm saying is that I'd rather have him as a president than otherwise for some reason.

    By saying "I can ignore his moral integrity because he will introduce policies I like", I'm saying "I can ignore his moral integrity because he will introduce policies I like.".

    There is no reason why one should equate to the other.


    Do I have a choice of giving neither Hillary nor Trump such a "free pass"? I guess not. Then The choice isn't actually free, and I had to choose among choices that I wouldn't naturally pick and will be forced upon me whether I want them or not. Voting for the libertarian candidate wouldn't have made a difference, and not voting would not have made a difference, one would still have either Trump or Hillary. One can be complicit in things he actually chose; not in things where none of his actual choices are not available and one is forced something he never wanted.

    You are using freestyle semantics.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  18. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    You do have a choice. You have a lot of choices, actually.

    I'll even list them for you:
    • Vote Hillary.
    • Vote Donald.
    • Vote third party.
    • Make a joke vote.
    • Don't vote.
    If you vote for either of the major candidates, you give them your complicit support by virtue of none of their policies being a deal breaker for you. You are also, by virtue of voting against a candidate, rejecting their policies. If you vote third party, you reject both major candidates but give your complicit support to the likelihood of either of them winning. Lastly, if you vote Harambe or some other joke candidate or don't vote at all, you give your complicit support to whatever outcome occurs by virtue of not speaking up.

    There are many, many things about Hillary that I didn't like. For example, I don't like her ties with Wall Street bankers, but in comparison to Trump's policies, that is not a deal breaker for me. However, by voting for Hillary, I gave her and her banker friends my complicit support.

    None of these choices are favorable for a lot of people, but at the same time, one of these choices says that Mexicans are rapists, tried repeatedly to ban Muslims from coming to America, and advocated for repeal without replacement of Obamacare.
     
  19. Aduro Definitely not a villain.

    Messages:
    4,506
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Reputation:
    Honestly, I think rejecting someone as a girlfriend based on what they believe in is pretty much the least shallow and most mature reason.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want a girlfriend who will agree with me on everything. Life is more interesting if you have someone who will challenge you and help you understand if you yourself are wrong about something every now and then. Or pushes you to have an open mind about things. People who never disagree with you are incapable of making you a better person so that would be a pretty pointless relationship.

    But there are plenty of beliefs and attitudes that are instant dealbreakers for me. I wouldn't be able to date someone who voted for Trump. Or i guess voted UKIP in the last general election since I live in the UK. I couldn't date a bigot or a homophobe. Or someone who likes the live-action DC movies more than the animated ones.
     
  20. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    I said it wasn't actual free choice. If the choice isn't actually free, then you can't have actual complicity; you have something called in Laws "inexigibility of a different conduct".

    This is how democracy works: you can't choose not to participate at all, as not voting doesn't change anything for you, you will still have to submit. Democracy has a "-cracy" to denote a coercion that one can't oppose. In all likelihood, either Trump or Hillary would be chosen, with or without my hypothetical spite vote (because, again, I'm not American). However, my point isn't to bash democracy, it's just that one might very well be in a situation that he must choose between the lesser of two evils, and his choice would be just that: a choice between the lesser of two evils; not any more, not any less.

    Here is the deal, then: I dislike Hillary even more so than I dislike Trump.

    For the complicit support part: that's you, man, not me. If you consider yourself Hillary's accomplice, then that's that; I'd give Trump my spite vote against Hillary, at most. Whether I voted for him or not, my opinion is still mine, and I'd only support Trump in the things that our opinions coincide.
     
  21. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still responsible for the lesser evil.

    And yes, that's a lose-lose situation. The world isn't sunshine and rainbows where everything works out; the American government is currently in a bad state, and that's something the American people have to reconcile.

    You're moving the goalpost.

    I never said that you have to explicitly support everything that the candidate you're voting for says. I said that by voting for them, you give them your complicit support.

    Maybe the problem here is that you don't know what complicit means. Nobody is saying that when you vote, you wholly support everything that candidate says. What is being said is that when you vote for a candidate, your vote says "none of their policies are deal breakers for me and that if all of their policies come into fruition, that's better than any alternative." That's complicit support.
     
  22. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    Then you seem to agree that this is a choice between lesser evils, not a free choice.

    Then you have to answer this as well: Why should the responsability of someone be attributed to another when the said other had no actual free choice and didn't want to choose it in an ideal situation? The responsibility for Trumps's acts is, you know, Trump's responsability -- as is the responsability of any adult individual in his right mind.

    The most you could argue is that those who support him voluntarily in the things he did are also responsible for giving him power.

    Neither did I. I don't know what you're talking about.

    The goal post is the same for the "complicity support" part: I'm not Trump's accomplice, he doesn't have my support for a lot of things, and I wouldn't have voted for him (hypothetically, again) in an ideal situation.

    Complicity and its cognates mean the same thing in every language I know. No, I'm not Trump's accomplice, nor does he have my support in most things.

    Again, when you vote, you vote. The "none of their policies are deal breakers for me and that if all of their policies come into fruition, that's better than any alternative." is your interpretation of the action; and I don't see any logic in such a interpretation. A vote is a vote, and can happen for a thousand of reasons, including the one you came up with while not excluding others.

    Anyway, this is going in circles. You'll keep saying that I gave Trump complicity support, and I'll deny it, so this is the last answer unless you have something new. At least you're not saying that I'm a white supremacist or a fascist just for having an opinion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  23. Benedict Cumberzatch Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon

    Messages:
    19,147
    Likes Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    1,794
    Flag:
    Denmark
    @Intus Legere, What exactly is it that you like about Trump's policies? And what are the deal breaker policies of Hillary?
     
  24. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    A choice between the lesser of two evils is still a choice, and because of that, you are still responsible for it. My belief is that if you elect a candidate, you are partly responsible for his or her actions.

    That said, I think there is a difference between how we're using the term complicit. Specifically, you're using the term accomplice alongside complicit, but that's not appropriate in this context.

    When I say complicit, I'm referring to how it's used in contemporary American discourse, not in the dictionary sense of being an accomplice in a crime. In the context I'm using it, I'm saying that voters are at least partly responsible for the actions of the individuals they elect to government.

    Which brings us back to the lesser of two evils argument: yes, I believe that even if there are limited choices, you're still responsible for how you use your vote. There's no "get out of jail free" card here; every single American voter shares some responsibility of the state of our government, some more than others.

    This, in turn, brings us to my opinion on conservatism in America: if you support mainstream Republican politicians, I believe you are responsible for the policies they enact or attempt to enact.

    As for the rest of your post, you're right. We're basically going in circles, so I hope you don't mind if I don't bother repeating myself.
     
  25. Intus Legere ̣#TeamHisoka

    Messages:
    7,778
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    338
    I'm not American, and I don't care enough about Trump to see what he has been up to.

    - The only positive point I can award Trump from the top of my head is his initiative to cut regulations in general over business and enterpreneurship.
    - Tax cuts are fine and dandy by me, but not so nice when he has no plan to cut government expenses. I'm not sure what Trump or his staff were thinking when they did it.

    As for reasons why I wouldn't vote Hillary, you can assume them from my position as a conservative:

    - I dislike welfare state immensely, and there was a lot of that in her policies.
    - Migration is also something sensitive topic; I feel for migrants, and in my opinion people should be able to go anywhere they like; however, in countries with big welfare systems and "generous" governments, it usually means taxpayer's money being thrown out the window and social problems arising from it. Trump might be a jerk about the issue, but at least he did view migration as something problematic (and yes, the wall is a stupid idea).
    - Hillary seems to be horribly corrupt.
    - The most negative thing that Hillary could do is pass more regulations... which considering who Hillary was and her connections, would probably be the case.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  26. reiatsuflow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,399
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    318
    Reputation:
    This complicit rhetoric pops up everywhere and it's stretched thin.

    If you see someone having a crime committed against them outside your window and you have the ability or resources to intervene, and choose instead to draw your curtains and turn your headphones up to drown out the screams, you're arguably complicit and that's worth debating. Or if you run a website offering anonymizing services that are consequently used exclusively by criminals breaking the law, and you're made aware of it but do nothing because you're not committing any crimes yourself, you're arguably complicit.

    You're called complicit because your actions or inactions are directly allowing crimes / immoral things to be committed. Voting is one of the hardest areas to do that. The majority of people are disconnected from the political system by design. Politicians deliberately obfuscate, deceive or misdirect to win votes. Politicians also delegate responsibility, and even when they directly effect policies they too may be making that choice because they were deceived from donors or interest groups, who also deliberately obfuscate and misdirect to push their cause. Politics is also dealing with debatable domestic and international policies, so even if a policy is a failure and causes suffering, that wasn't necessarily the intent because it's not settled science. And people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons. A trump voter might be immoral or just misinformed. Or a one issue voter. Or for some other reason.

    You have to do some elaborate mental calculus that supposes dozens of variables to corner people into any significant complicity for voting after a political candidate. Even donald trump.
     
  27. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    I believe you're morally complicit in most of those examples, yes.

    I also believe that people are responsible for researching their candidates and informing themselves. And yes, when the politician in question wants to take away my access to healthcare, I consider his voters complicit in that.

    Also, I feel the bolded part is disingenuous. We're not talking about a bunch of policies which might cause suffering. We're talking about policies which directly lead to human suffering.

    Additionally, you might notice that all of the Trump examples I brought up were things he's explicitly stated. We're not talking about people who got tricked into thinking the man was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We're talking about people who voted for him knowing about his proposed the Mexico wall, Muslim ban, and his intention to repeal Obamacare.
     
  28. reiatsuflow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,399
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    318
    Reputation:
    But you still have people who voted for trump rightly assuming the wall would never happen because nothing about it made any logistical sense, or noticed trump had all kinds of crazy and contradictory statements and rightly assumed he wasn't going to fulfill on everything he said on the campaign trail, or rightly judged obamacare as a fuckup and then made a judgment call about the better or even more feasible healthcare alternative, and for all sorts of possible reasons beyond something awful (poor people don't deserve healthcare).

    The muslim ban... If you're a muslim or have muslim friends, value their inclusion or just really did not like the divisive rhetoric of trump, it's reasonable to look into it if your date brings 'muslim ban' up as a reason why they voted for trump. Maybe that is telling. What it's telling of, you won't know until you engage them.

    ...generally speaking. If your date talks like a king of the hill character, pulls up in his confederate flag shirt, turns off alex jones and gets triggered a half hour into black panther because he realized martin freedman isn't the lead, you can throw away that phone number and I'm sure voting for trump won't be the worst thing about him.
     
  29. Island In the Sun

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    513
    Reputation:
    We came precariously close to repeal without replacement last year, so there's that. Regardless of one's opinion on Obamacare, the alternative is millions of people without healthcare.

    Again, regardless of why somebody might support that, I consider it a deal breaker.

    Or if you care in the slightest about human rights.
     
Loading...