Are we too Calm?

[PJ Diaz]

Which liberties do Democrats wish to restrict? Don’t say taxation.

Last I checked Biden doesn't support our liberty to grow and consume Cannabis legally either.

 

[cannabineer]

COVID mandates ring a bell?

That is not a liberty. Kicking against vax and mask mandates is rogue behavior and as such is unacceptably selfish.

 

[PJ Diaz]

That is not a liberty. Kicking against vax and mask mandates is rogue behavior and as such is unacceptably selfish.

That's your opinion of what should be considered a liberty or not. I would argue that requiring such mandates of others is in itself selfish. If you want to be protected, then you are welcome to wear a mask and get a vax, but the moment that you mandate that others do the same, you have taken their liberty away. See how that works.

 

[cannabineer]

That's your opinion of what should be considered a liberty or not. I would argue that requiring such mandates of others is in itself selfish. If you want to be protected, then you are welcome to wear a mask and get a vax, but the moment that you mandate that others do the same, you have taken their liberty away. See how that works.

We disagree, but there is more there. Your stance causes more individual and societal harm. I see moral imperative overriding libertarian sentiment in this case.

 

[PJ Diaz]

We disagree, but there is more there. Your stance causes more individual and societal harm. I see moral imperative overriding libertarian sentiment in this case.

Thanks for proving my point, in that your idea of liberty does not swing both directions. You want your "liberties" but do not want others to have their liberties, if it is something which you disagree with. I hope that you see the issue there, but I expect you don't, due to your misguided biases.

Not that I agree with the sentiment, but your argument of certain liberties causing "more individual and societal harm" can also be used by Republicans who aim to end abortion rights, which I assume you would also disagree with. Maybe you can start to see the issue here, in that it's not really about "liberty" in your perspective, it's about opinions as to how one "should" live their lives or not.

 

[cannabineer]

Thanks for proving my point, in that your idea of liberty does not swing both directions. You want your "liberties" but do not want others to have their liberties, if it is something which you disagree with. I hope that you see the issue there, but I expect you don't, due to your misguided biases.

Not that I agree with the sentiment, but your argument of certain liberties causing "more individual and societal harm" can also be used by Republicans who aim to end abortion rights, which I assume you would also disagree with. Maybe you can start to see the issue here, in that it's not really about "liberty" in your perspective, it's about opinions as to how one "should" live their lives or not.

Where then do you draw the line? the irreducible minimum of shared moral imperatives that make for a healthy society? “None” is the recipe for the sort of libertarian nonsense that distinguishes a frequent poster here.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Where then do you draw the line? the irreducible minimum of shared moral imperatives that make for a healthy society? “None” is the recipe for the sort of libertarian nonsense that distinguishes a frequent poster here.

I'm not sure where you draw the line to be honest. It's a tricky question, especially considering that we never really know what the right answer to any given situation really is; all we can do is take a best guess approach at life. Think of how many things in human history that were at one time considered facts, were later discovered to be completely wrong. Certain things are cut and dry, while others clearly are much more complex. In those complex cases, it's generally best to err on the side of preserving the liberties which people have been used to possessing historically (ie: freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of autonomy, etc..).

 

[schuylaar]

States’ rights is the biggest blunder that the framers committed alongside not ending slavery at once.

The Repugs are using them in their ongoing assault on a pluralistic society. Once power swings back to small-d democrats and small-r republicans, its time to push for Constitutional amendments that would make it much harder for the many red-run states to engage in the current barrage of liberty-destroying legislation.

Imo the danger here is that we might not have time. Current Scotus is in bed with the insurrection. The GOP is solidly in the claws of its treason/overthrow contingent. If they manage to maneuver a more capable agent into the oval room, the Great Experiment arrives at our Rubicon.

And because the framers were imperfect, their words cannot be followed verbatim rather the essence of them to fit the time.

 

[PJ Diaz]

And because the framers were imperfect, their words cannot be followed verbatim rather the essence of them to fit the time.

Sure, but the essence of what they framed was to provide individual states with their own autonomy. They were smart enough to foresee that different regions would want their government tailored to their regional needs. It holds true today as much as it did back then. It does suck for people who live in states which pass laws which some people in said state may be opposed to. Ultimately that pushes folks with opposing viewpoints out of the those states, and creates the red vs blue dynamic we see today, and a lot less purple. Personally I hate the two party system, just as more and more folks are too. 2024 will be interesting, especially if a viable 3rd-party candidate emerges. I don't want either Trump or Biden in 2024, but it's crazy to me to see polls which show Trump with better numbers than Biden. Biden really is a mess though, he should just step down with dignity before he slips into dementia completely.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm not sure where you draw the line to be honest. It's a tricky question, especially considering that we never really know what the right answer to any given situation really is; all we can do is take a best guess approach at life. Think of how many things in human history that were at one time considered facts, were later discovered to be completely wrong. Certain things are cut and dry, while others clearly are much more complex. In those complex cases, it's generally best to err on the side of preserving the liberties which people have been used to possessing historically (ie: freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of autonomy, etc..).

Freedom of autonomy is the sticking point for me. I agree that it is very difficult to define and govern. But it is also associated with libertarian nonsense.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Freedom of autonomy is the sticking point for me. I agree that it is very difficult to define and govern. But it is also associated with libertarian nonsense.

Except that many liberal values are fundamentally based on the argument of freedom of autonomy. I'm fairly certain that's a foundational stance in the pro-reproductive-choice circles.

 

[Jimdamick]

Last I checked Biden doesn't support our liberty to grow and consume Cannabis legally either.

,
So what?
He's one man & when over 70% of the population want legalization, I think he'd sign the Bill.
Talk about taking away rights & who's doing what, the Republicans are on a roll now.
Restricting what you can read or not in all schools in Florida.
No LGBTQ rights & taking back what little they had in the 1st place.
No saying Gay
Restricting voting.

And the biggest take away of them all, the taking away from women the control over they're own body/self, not some Bible Thumping Zealots & Conservative Republicans.

 

[PJ Diaz]

,
So what?
He's one man & when over 70% of the population want legalization, I think he'd sign the Bill.
Talk about taking away rights & who's doing what, the Republicans are on a roll now.
Restricting what you can read or not in all schools in Florida.
No LGBTQ rights & taking back what little they had in the 1st place.
No saying Gay
Restricting voting.

And the biggest take away of them all, the taking away from women the control over they're own body/self, not some Bible Thumping Zealots & Conservative Republicans.

So I was responding to a specific question. Your comments aren't related to the question I answered. My mom brought me to my first pride parade back in the late 70's. How many have you marched in?

 

[CunningCanuk]

Peej. Rodeo clown by day, freedumb fighter by night.

 

[Jimdamick]

So I was responding to a specific question. Your comments aren't related to the question I answered. My mom brought me to my first pride parade back in the late 70's. How many have you marched in?

You sound like you think I insulted you.
If you think that, your wrong, I was just pointing out the differences between the Dems & the Pubes, the masters of cancel culture.
That was it
Have a nice day

 

[nuskool89]

That is not a liberty. Kicking against vax and mask mandates is rogue behavior and as such is unacceptably selfish.

says you.

See how that works? People have different opinions.

On this subject and others, you seem to forget millions of people are not you, and do not share your opinions. You deeming them selfish or declaring what is and isn’t rogue behavior doesn’t change the fact that they exist, and they disagree with you.

What exactly do you suggest be done to these large swathes of people you view as unacceptable? How do you plan on enforcing your opinion?

I disagree with most of your political sentiments and several others on the forum. Your world views come off as extreme to me; but I acknowledge you exist and have a right to your opinions. You know what’s best for you and Vice versa.

Example: I do not like the fast food industry. The segment of the population that eat it and support those businesses impact my life both directly and indirectly. People who consume it and abuse it, suffer consequences that become an avoidable burden on the healthcare system. It damages the environment we all live in, and creates an epidemic of wasted food, water, and resources. I view it as morally reprehensible to an extent.

Yet I would never tread on anyone else’s liberty to consume fast food in this free society we live in. I acknowledge liberty requires the space to agree to disagree. I do not view those individuals as untouchables or someone I wouldn’t be friends with or do business with. There are unavoidable yet necessary dangers we all have to navigate in a society that protects individual freedom. Dangers worth navigating if it means I am able to think for myself instead of a centralized power dictating societal norms

 

[cannabineer]

says you.

See how that works? People have different opinions.

On this subject and others, you seem to forget millions of people are not you, and do not share your opinions. You deeming them selfish or declaring what is and isn’t rogue behavior doesn’t change the fact that they exist, and they disagree with you.

What exactly do you suggest be done to these large swathes of people you view as unacceptable? How do you plan on enforcing your opinion?

I disagree with most of your political sentiments and several others on the forum. Your world views come off as extreme to me; but I acknowledge you exist and have a right to your opinions. You know what’s best for you and Vice versa.

Example: I do not like the fast food industry. The segment of the population that eat it and support those businesses impact my life both directly and indirectly. People who consume it and abuse it, suffer consequences that become an avoidable burden on the healthcare system. It damages the environment we all live in, and creates an epidemic of wasted food, water, and resources. I view it as morally reprehensible to an extent.

Yet I would never tread on anyone else’s liberty to consume fast food in this free society we live in. I acknowledge liberty requires the space to agree to disagree. I do not view those individuals as untouchables or someone I wouldn’t be friends with or do business with. There are unavoidable yet necessary dangers we all have to navigate in a society that protects individual freedom. Dangers worth navigating if it means I am able to think for myself instead of a centralized power dictating societal norms

People like you have been trampling the words opinion and liberty. There comes a point where this os no longer governed by personal opinion. Consider how many exercised a wrong opinion based on mis-and disinformation eighteen months ago. Civic duty must not become the victim of the libertarian lie, in which duty becomes opinion and thus discretionary. I object to your fallacy, and the red herring of what to do with those who hold “other opinions”. If those opinions confer societal harm, they are no longer opinion but subversive activity, such as operating a Fox station, or voting Treason Party.

 

[nuskool89]

People like you have been trampling the words opinion and liberty. There comes a point where this os no longer governed by personal opinion. Consider how many exercised a wrong opinion based on mis-and disinformation eighteen months ago. Civic duty must not become the victim of the libertarian lie, in which duty becomes opinion and thus discretionary. I object to your fallacy, and the red herring of what to do with those who hold “other opinions”. If those opinions confer societal harm, they are no longer opinion but subversive activity, such as operating a Fox station, or voting Treason Party.

so then you’ve decided it is you vs me. I’ll see you at the voting booth. Now what?

“people like you” sounds extra nazi btw. That’s back to that whole your world view seems extreme to me opinion I have of you……

 

[cannabineer]

so then you’ve decided it is you vs me. I’ll see you at the voting booth. Now what?

“people like you” sounds extra nazi btw

You have shown libertarian tendencies, and libertarianism is a delusion just like Maga. Why would you vote Treason Party? Don’t Hawley, Cruz, Abbott, De Santis, Boebert, Jordan, Greene, McCarthy and Moscow Mitch repel you? They are naked fascists.

 

[Fogdog]

says you.

See how that works? People have different opinions.

On this subject and others, you seem to forget millions of people are not you, and do not share your opinions. You deeming them selfish or declaring what is and isn’t rogue behavior doesn’t change the fact that they exist, and they disagree with you.

What exactly do you suggest be done to these large swathes of people you view as unacceptable? How do you plan on enforcing your opinion?

I disagree with most of your political sentiments and several others on the forum. Your world views come off as extreme to me; but I acknowledge you exist and have a right to your opinions. You know what’s best for you and Vice versa.

Example: I do not like the fast food industry. The segment of the population that eat it and support those businesses impact my life both directly and indirectly. People who consume it and abuse it, suffer consequences that become an avoidable burden on the healthcare system. It damages the environment we all live in, and creates an epidemic of wasted food, water, and resources. I view it as morally reprehensible to an extent.

Yet I would never tread on anyone else’s liberty to consume fast food in this free society we live in. I acknowledge liberty requires the space to agree to disagree. I do not view those individuals as untouchables or someone I wouldn’t be friends with or do business with. There are unavoidable yet necessary dangers we all have to navigate in a society that protects individual freedom. Dangers worth navigating if it means I am able to think for myself instead of a centralized power dictating societal norms

I know, we tend to get so upset when people voice their opinions.

Man Charged With Murder in Shooting at Protest in Portland
A 60-year-old woman was killed and five others, including the suspect, were shot during a confrontation near the man’s house, the authorities said.

The shooter was just voicing his opinion.

But yeah, fast food, yeah, we are really concerned about that.