Can Men & Women Get Along?

Quote: AZDuffman

Or in other words, how heterosexual men are portrayed in 2010.

Yeah, every single male lead character on TV is dumb, degraded and portrayed as stupid. I pity the poor youth of today, they just can`t get a strong role model from TV.

(eye roll).

Quote: thecesspit

Yeah, every single male lead character on TV is dumb, degraded and portrayed as stupid. I pity the poor youth of today, they just can`t get a strong role model from TV.

(eye roll).

Actually, this has been a bone of contention dating back to Ricky Ricardo. More often than not, the father on TV is portrayed as an idiot. The woman is strong and wise, the man is a dope. The reason is, you really can't make fun of women and get away with it. Its not believable. But a stumbling bumbling dopey man doesn't seem to offend anybody.

LOL! Just now on Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld said the difference between being single and being married is that you have to say "I'm sorry" at least 4 times a day more often after you're married. Shades of Charleton Heston..

Quote: EvenBob

Actually, this has been a bone of contention dating back to Ricky Ricardo. More often than not, the father on TV is portrayed as an idiot. The woman is strong and wise, the man is a dope. The reason is, you really can't make fun of women and get away with it. Its not believable. But a stumbling bumbling dopey man doesn't seem to offend anybody.

There are plenty of television shows where men are leaders as well, competent, well-adjusted, logical. These are not situation comedies though. In comedy, I think that women are portrayed far better then men are because situational comedies are built, ratings wise, to be targeted at women more than men. Men also have a tendency to be poked fun at because men can "take it" and can poke fun at themselves. Men are a less serious breed.

That is true in relationships, in general, as well. Men are far more forgiving (in general) then women are, but on the other hand, men (generally) do more things that can get them in trouble. Men don't really notice things because men (in general) are quite happy with the simpler things in life. They don't think about the complexities in relationships and don't overanalyze friendships. In general, things can roll off of them much more than women can. I think it's anthropological in nature. Women are wired for long term relationships to support their children, find a provider, etc, while men are wired to get laid and look for short term opportunities and therefore are far more willing to be short-term thinkers, and to let things go.

In a long term relationship, the dynamic sets up a situation naturally born for situational comedies (at times). Women are constantly overthinking (to men) problems and are looking for signs that things aren't right. Men are thinking short-term and are looking at short term opportunities. Men say "sorry" all of the time because we know that we are in it for the long haul and that saying sorry (and to do a deed to show that you are truly sorry) is the way to let them know that things are okay. Women screw up too, but because men know that they make mistakes all of the time, they don't put women up to the same standard that men do.

And women have alot of pressure in this society: the pressure to look good, the pressure to work, the pressure to raise a family. Their lives are filled with messages that they are not good enough. They are forced to participate in marriage, full knowing (or at least sensing) that their man is wired to look at other women which perpetuates the feelings on insecurity.

It's just a pendulum-swing ... it'll stop and hopefully mediate somewhere. The "infallibility" of sit-com women is already being cracked with shows like "The Middle" and "Modern Family." The bumbling stumbling husband is still there but at least it's more mutual. I would argue that it's this element that makes them successful ... or at least unique ... as opposed to washouts that follow the "strong-wife-idiot-husband" formula like "Hank."

I always remembered how much I liked "Lion King" as opposed to "Aladdin" or "Little Mermaid," and while I couldn't put a finger on it then, I think now it was because of the strong father figure. Men being masculine (not macho, overbearing, or bullying, none of which are masculine) is attractive. Eventually, when writers and executives can break their liberal steroetyping, I think this will become the norm.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Eventually, when writers and executives can break their liberal steroetyping, I think this will become the norm.

Naw, its not funny. In a sitcom you have to have a fall guy, and women just look pathetic when they do dopey things. Men are expected to be lazy, uncouth, liars, and to generally screw everything up. It will always be funny for the man to be the dope.

Quote: thecesspit

Yeah, every single male lead character on TV is dumb, degraded and portrayed as stupid. I pity the poor youth of today, they just can`t get a strong role model from TV.

(eye roll).

You clearly miss the point entirely. Portray a black in a bad way and there is an outcry. (Why is "Amos and Andy" nowhere to be found in reruns yet "The Three Stooges" and others are beloved?) Portray a gay in a bad way and the writers will never work again. Portray muslims as the bad guy and Jack Bauer must give a disclaimer. Portray women in a bad way and the feminists cry like little girs. (ooops)

I never said "every single male lead charachter." You need to learn how to have a discussion in generalities.

Quote: AZDuffman

You clearly miss the point entirely. Portray a black in a bad way and there is an outcry. (Why is "Amos and Andy" nowhere to be found in reruns yet "The Three Stooges" and others are beloved?) Portray a gay in a bad way and the writers will never work again. Portray muslims as the bad guy and Jack Bauer must give a disclaimer. Portray women in a bad way and the feminists cry like little girs. (ooops)

I never said "every single male lead character." You need to learn how to have a discussion in generalities.

Look where TV shows like 'F Troop' and 'All In The Family' are today. Once in awhile you might see AITF, but never the really good episodes. All those shows that were 'ahead of their time' in the 60's and 70's are so unpolitically correct today that we have to pretend they never existed.

Quote: mkl654321

The abolitionist movement, for example, was largely driven by women.

Really? In America?

Quote: thecesspit

Name one society that's been brought down by overly liberal attitudes? Just one (hint : communism is certainly not 'liberal' before we go there).

Ruling potential counter-arguments "out of bounds" certainly helps bolster your argument.

Quote: thecesspit

Inevitably? Name one society that's been brought down by overly liberal attitudes? Just one (hint : communism is certainly not 'liberal' before we go there). I could be wrong and have forgotten about it.

Well, leaving communism (and fascism for that matter) as examples of ultra-liberalism there are pelnty of examples. Ever seen the shape the City of Detroit is in? How about the State of California? Greece is falling apart with the other PIGS close behind. New York City was a place no one wanted to visit much less live in the 1970s and 80s.

The only way liberal plaes seem to survuve is when they by location (Hawaii)or natural resources (Norway) or some other similarly way are able to feed off a more productive society.

Quote: Calder

Really? In America?

Yes. Precisely. In America. Quaker (Friends) women were particularly active, as were church groups. It was one of the few political arenas that was considered "proper" for women to enter. Their impact and participation was also understated by the male-dominated media of the period.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, leaving communism (and fascism for that matter) as examples of ultra-liberalism there are pelnty of examples. Ever seen the shape the City of Detroit is in? How about the State of California? Greece is falling apart with the other PIGS close behind. New York City was a place no one wanted to visit much less live in the 1970s and 80s.

The only way liberal plaes seem to survuve is when they by location (Hawaii)or natural resources (Norway) or some other similarly way are able to feed off a more productive society.

Terrible argument, AZD. Detroit is not a "society". Neither is California. They are members of a larger society. Greece may be in a financial crisis, but that doesn't mean it's in a "downfall". The Greek society, nation and culture remain intact. And FWIW, many "conservative" societies have utterly collapsed, such as Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany.

Your natural resources argument also fails. Many liberal societies with few natural resources thrive (Switzerland, Finland, Denmark) while many nonliberal societies with abundant natural resources are failed nations (Nigeria, Somalia, Venezuela). A liberal nation (or any other) doesn't need to "feed off of a more productive society", as you put it. It merely needs to be able to provide for its own domestic consumption and to be able to engage in trade. Trade is a mutually beneficial activity, and doesn't constitute "feeding off of" anyone else.

Yeah, but can men and women get along?

Quote: mkl654321

Terrible argument, AZD. Detroit is not a "society".

Ever been to Detroit? Its a foreign country.

And I thought you were referring to those centerfolds in The Liberator.

Quote: mkl654321

Quaker (Friends) women were particularly active, as were church groups. It was one of the few political arenas that was considered "proper" for women to enter.

Were Quaker women any more active in this arena than Quaker men?

Quote: mkl654321

Their impact and participation was also understated by the male-dominated media of the period.

I'll concede the media may have been male-dominated, but I wonder how you determine that the participation of women in the movement was understated.

I'll concede the media may have been male-dominated, but I wonder how you determine that the participation of women in the movement was understated.

In a momentary fit of bad judgement mkl654321 divulged to me he is actually a Dowd, and has lived in this galaxy in one form or another for many thousands of years.

Maureen Dowd?

Nevermind, I surrender.

Quote: Calder

And I thought you were referring to those centerfolds in The Liberator.
Were Quaker women any more active in this arena than Quaker men?
I'll concede the media may have been male-dominated, but I wonder how you determine that the participation of women in the movement was understated.

Because a lot of it came to light only after the Civil War was over. Abolition was considered a radical political stance, even in the North, and even after the war was underway. It was not a particularly good idea for any politician to ally himself with that cause/movement; Lincoln, for example, in a speech during his 1860 Presidential campaign, specifically said he did NOT favor abolition. Even politicans at state and local levels would have been at risk to speak out in favor of abolition, though--it was a "fringe" movement right up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

The newspapers were then, as now, driven by the prevailing political winds of the time. They focused on people like John Brown, because he was male, loud, vocal, and violent. Quaker women holding prayer meetings weren't good news copy.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, but can men and women get along?

Only if they have a roulette system.

Quote: mkl654321

Even politicians at state and local levels would have been at risk to speak out in favor of abolition, though--it was a "fringe" movement right up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

Quote: mkl654321

Quaker women holding prayer meetings weren't good news copy.

So you don't actually have any evidence of your assertion?

Quote: thecesspit

Inevitably? Name one society that's been brought down by overly liberal attitudes? Just one (hint : communism is certainly not 'liberal' before we go there). I could be wrong and have forgotten about it.

Liberalism is not inherently evil, no more than conservatism is. And America is quite welcome to choose what sort of society and system they want. It's an important debate. What is the American dream, really? And yer at a cross roads on that. S'not my country, and I'm not ever going to live there.

To clarify, I should say a society "brought down" which is meant as the society has changed for the worse, not downfall as in burnt to the ground. Just because Rome is still there doesn't mean it never had some low points.

When these socially liberal views are counteracted or compromises are made, more of an equilibrium is reached. Not a dictatorship, not a liberal chaotic mess.

I never said liberalism is evil. The definition of good and evil is so relative that I wouldn't say that. But, for example, if you took some of my money to invest in your "bet on the big six/big eight craps betting system", you would be stupid and I would be mad. I probably wouldn't kill you and cause your downfall but me and everyone else would make some changes and not let you be in charge or make decisions anymore.

In fact from now on I will refer to liberals as "big six/big eight bettors"

Quote: Calder

So you don't actually have any evidence of your assertion?

Read any high-school level or higher history text.

I'm not going to post links to the relevant evidence for you. It's easy enough to find via any one of half a dozen resources. I would suggest the archives of any major Northern newspaper in the period 1855-1861.

Quote: clarkacal

To clarify, I should say a society "brought down" which is meant as the society has changed for the worse, not downfall as in burnt to the ground.

You do realize, that definition means that roughly half of the societies on earth are being "brought down" at any given moment? No matter what you consider "changed for the worse" to mean?

You have the narrow and incorrect view shared by many conservatives, that liberal policies result in a reduction of overall wealth. This is a commonplace for conservative commentators and bloggers, but it isn't true. There is no correlation between liberal vs. conservative social policies and wealth. Look at it logically (i.e., not through the distorted lens of an ideology): most "socially liberal" policies are redistributive. It does not change the overall wealth of a society/country to transfer wealth from some members to some others; the net effect is neutral.

Your craps analogy is faulty, because you deliberately chose the worst bet on the table to illustrate it. Your not-too-subtle message was that transfer payments amount to bad bets on the part of society. This is, as I said, debatable. The rich guy feels, of course, that money taken from him and given to all them no good welfare bums is a bad idea. The guy who receives the money doubtless thinks otherwise. Neither of them is liable to offer an unbiased opinion.

The conservative cannot imagine how the provision of basic necessities to those on society's bottom rung could possibly benefit HIM in the long run. That's because---he lacks imagination. All he can see is his tax bill. He doesn't see the reduction in crime rates, the reduced burden on emergency and medical services, or the fact that more of them lowdown no-good bums will remain alive and will continue to buy the cigarettes his factory makes. And of course, the conservative is TOTALLY unable to perceive the reduction in human misery that social welfare programs provide, nor would he place any value on that if he was able to perceive it. A conservative's sole viewpoint can be summed up by Pink Floyd: "I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off my stack."

Quote: mkl654321

You have the narrow and incorrect view shared by many conservatives, that liberal policies result in a reduction of overall wealth. This is a commonplace for conservative commentators and bloggers, but it isn't true. There is no correlation between liberal vs. conservative social policies and wealth. Look at it logically (i.e., not through the distorted lens of an ideology): most "socially liberal" policies are redistributive. It does not change the overall wealth of a society/country to transfer wealth from some members to some others; the net effect is neutral.

Wow, that could not be more wrong.

If it's helpful, take away the labels of "liberal" or "conservative" and think of it in terms of works/doesn't work. If there's one major lesson of 20th century policy, it's that redistribution doesn't create wealth, and capitalism does.

A "pure" system of either has never existed, but it's easy to pick out the ones that follow one more than the other ... maybe that's what you meant by "doesn't change overall wealth." But that's pie-in-the-sky thinking; redistribution always comes with government friction, and so wealth (as it's available to the general public) is always decreased.

So ... towards the end of creating (and not transferring or destroying) wealth, capitalism "works," while redistribution "doesn't work." Unless, of course, you're willing to tell me that Soviet Russia, Haiti, Cuba, etc. are richer than the USA. And that those governments were perfectly efficient in their redistribution.

Insofar as capitalistic policies are "conservative" or "liberal" is merely an assignment of labels.

Quote: mkl654321

You have the narrow and incorrect view shared by many conservatives, that liberal policies result in a reduction of overall wealth. This is a commonplace for conservative commentators and bloggers, but it isn't true. There is no correlation between liberal vs. conservative social policies and wealth. Look at it logically (i.e., not through the distorted lens of an ideology): most "socially liberal" policies are redistributive. It does not change the overall wealth of a society/country to transfer wealth from some members to some others; the net effect is neutral.

Your craps analogy is faulty, because you deliberately chose the worst bet on the table to illustrate it. Your not-too-subtle message was that transfer payments amount to bad bets on the part of society. This is, as I said, debatable. The rich guy feels, of course, that money taken from him and given to all them no good welfare bums is a bad idea. The guy who receives the money doubtless thinks otherwise. Neither of them is liable to offer an unbiased opinion.

The conservative cannot imagine how the provision of basic necessities to those on society's bottom rung could possibly benefit HIM in the long run. That's because---he lacks imagination. All he can see is his tax bill. He doesn't see the reduction in crime rates, the reduced burden on emergency and medical services, or the fact that more of them lowdown no-good bums will remain alive and will continue to buy the cigarettes his factory makes. And of course, the conservative is TOTALLY unable to perceive the reduction in human misery that social welfare programs provide, nor would he place any value on that if he was able to perceive it. A conservative's sole viewpoint can be summed up by Pink Floyd: "I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off my stack."

You have the shortsighted view shared by many big 6/big 8 bettors(liberals). Yes in the short term no wealth is destroyed but think about what you learned in middle school Biology. You cannot interfere in an ecosystem and add,subtract, or redistribute natural resources nor can you add a species or artificially "empower" one part of the ecosystem and expect that ecosystem to thrive. It ruins the natural balance, and that's what social liberalism does.

You have assumed my concerns are economic but they aren't. The future of society is what is at stake. You cannot make it easier to be a criminal serving a life sentence than a free man working for a living and expect crime to be low. You cannot make it tolerable to be a single mom with 5 kids from 5 men by giving scholarships, big tax "refunds", grants, etc. and expect the traditional family with 1 or 2 kids not to be quickly overrun. Don't even bring up the "those men are paying child support" because if they are unemployed to begin with who do you think foots the bill? Finally, you cannot grow a big gov. to efficiently and cost effectively administrate this society. When they have no incentive to be efficient or innovative because their survival is under no threat(like a private sector business is) you have a bloated, wasteful burden to the civilian population. If you don't believe that just visit your local DMV.

Quote: clarkacal

You have the shortsighted view shared by many big 6/big 8 bettors(liberals).

First of all, my rejection of conservative philosophies doesn't mean that I'm a liberal. I KNEW you would jump to that erroneous conclusion. In point of fact, I also vehemently disagree with many liberal tenets, and the truth is that there are many more than two points of view in the world.

You analogy with "interfering in an ecosystem" is inapt. Social and governmental policies are imposed from WITHIN. To "interfere in an ecosystem" can only be done by someone or something EXTERNAL to that ecosystem.

It is profoundly silly to say that "social liberalism destroys the natural balance". I have news for you: SOCIETY ITSELF destroys "the natural balance". And what is that natural balance? I see something I want, I take it. If you are in possession of it, I kill or injure you in order to get it. If I see a woman I want to mate with, I seize, overpower, and rape her. The one who is the best fighter gets to rule. Ah, the natural order of things! I can see why you might feel nostalgic for it.

It's also quite silly to assert that a criminal serving a life sentence is in a preferable situation to that of a free man working for a living. And as far as your little story about the woman with five kids (by five different men! STONE HER!), I can't believe that you don't understand that any social welfare/tax breaks/money ripped from the hands of God-fearin' honest hard-workin' folkses like MAHSELF is intended to benefit that woman's CHILDREN. She may also benefit, but that's incidental.

I guess the brick wall I keep running up against in your and others' thinking is that you are utterly blind to the benefits that a rich man gains from the assistance provided to the poor man. All the rich man can see is the reduced amount of money in his pocket. To give you a historical analogy that may help to crack the mortar, as it were, consider Victorian England. London was a center of great wealth. It was also, for the most part, a miserable, filthy, squalid, and dangerous place. It had no social welfare programs to speak of, and the streets were filled with extremely poor people. PUTTING ASIDE ALL CONSIDERATIONS of who "deserved" what, wouldn't it have been better to provide those people with some minimal basis of existence? Better, as in, less crime, less disease, a better-functioning city? You don't even have to factor in the reduction in human misery if you don't want to.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Wow, that could not be more wrong.

If it's helpful, take away the labels of "liberal" or "conservative" and think of it in terms of works/doesn't work. If there's one major lesson of 20th century policy, it's that redistribution doesn't create wealth, and capitalism does.

A "pure" system of either has never existed, but it's easy to pick out the ones that follow one more than the other ... maybe that's what you meant by "doesn't change overall wealth." But that's pie-in-the-sky thinking; redistribution always comes with government friction, and so wealth (as it's available to the general public) is always decreased.

So ... towards the end of creating (and not transferring or destroying) wealth, capitalism "works," while redistribution "doesn't work." Unless, of course, you're willing to tell me that Soviet Russia, Haiti, Cuba, etc. are richer than the USA. And that those governments were perfectly efficient in their redistribution.

Insofar as capitalistic policies are "conservative" or "liberal" is merely an assignment of labels.

Uhhhh...why are you coinstructing a straw man? Did I ever say that redistribution CREATED wealth? What I said--I'll repeat it for your benefit--is that it neither created nor destroyed it--it MOVED it.

I am aware of the phenomenon of "frictional loss" is redistributive programs--in fact, I referred to it in the Social Security thread when I said that future SS budgets would have to count for increasing frictional loss--but that is an artifact of government itself and how it functions, not redistibution per se. For example, the frictional loss of food stamp programs was greatly reduced when the disbursement method changed to preloaded debit cards.

In any case, I think I've figured out what is wrong here. You are failing to perceive that redistribution may increase overall UTILITY. I've discussed this elsewhere, but the basic concept is that a dollar means more to the person who has five of them then the person who has five million. It is true that redistribution does not create wealth, and at its worst, destroys it. But society's goal should be , NOT the maximization of WEALTH, but the maximization of UTILITY. It would not benefit society very much to double the number of billionaires. It would, however, benefit society greatly to halve the number of people currently living in poverty.

This is a subtle distinction, and the concept goes completely against the grain of conservative orthodoxy, so I'll only explicate this concept further if you are prepared to at least entertain it.

Quote: mkl654321

Yet another assertion that is emblematic of what is wrong with male-female relationships. (And a patronizing, self-serving, and full-of-crap assertion, at that.)

I agree. Either one of two things is at play here. Either 1 the man in question is one seriously shelfish asshole who does not understand women whatsoever. Or 2 he has chosen to be with a real bitch who is shelfish in her own way. I've been the ass, I've been with the bitch, and I've also been in both relationships and friendships with very wonderful women that went way beyond the call of duty to make my life easier and more pleasant.

These gross generalizations make me think that the commenters have not had a wide variety of interactions and relationships with the opposite sex.

Yeah, but can men and women get along...
...in Las Vegas?
...in a casino?
...playing craps?

Quote: mkl654321

Uhhhh...why are you coinstructing a straw man? Did I ever say that redistribution CREATED wealth? What I said--I'll repeat it for your benefit--is that it neither created nor destroyed it--it MOVED it.

There's no straw man here. Soviet Russia, Cuba, Haiti, etc., did/do exist, and they had a certain economic condition. They aren't imaginary boogeymen.

Quote: mkl654321

I am aware of the phenomenon of "frictional loss" is redistributive programs--in fact, I referred to it in the Social Security thread when I said that future SS budgets would have to count for increasing frictional loss--but that is an artifact of government itself and how it functions, not redistibution per se. For example, the frictional loss of food stamp programs was greatly reduced when the disbursement method changed to preloaded debit cards.

This statement seems to accurately identify that government can't redistribute efficiently, and yet still clings to efficient redistribution. But whatever, it's beside the point. It's not a matter of repackaging it or doing it differently than governments past. It's a matter of "works" and "doesn't work." No matter how many checks get turned into debit cards, it's still inefficient. Vehicles of redistribution are still redistribution, still inefficient, still remove incentive to excel, and are still subject to gross government inefficiency. Any form it takes or any person who sells it doesn't matter.

Quote: mkl654321

In any case, I think I've figured out what is wrong here. You are failing to perceive that redistribution may increase overall UTILITY. I've discussed this elsewhere, but the basic concept is that a dollar means more to the person who has five of them then the person who has five million. It is true that redistribution does not create wealth, and at its worst, destroys it. But society's goal should be , NOT the maximization of WEALTH, but the maximization of UTILITY. It would not benefit society very much to double the number of billionaires. It would, however, benefit society greatly to halve the number of people currently living in poverty.

UTILITY is meaningless in the sense that there's no objective measure. It's also a little scary in that someone outside of the direct stakeholders (people who own the wealth) decides who gets what. Some cadre of individuals sitting in government get to set who gets what. We already see that it doesn't work here with what is redistributed - the poor are still poor. If redistribution worked, there would be some point where there wouldn't be poor people any more. It's been over 75 years since FDR's first redistributive policies became law. It's a "doesn't work."

Here's what I mean. If a dollar means more to somewone with $5, then think how much more that dollar would mean if they only had $4! Or $3! Why not take everyone down to $3 instead of $5? They'll be so much happier with their free dollar! There's no low end here. It seems a little nefarious, but history tells us this is EXACTLY what redistributive governments do.

No. I would argue that a dollar that someone earns and can spend on their own is more meaningful. As we have seen time and time again from trust fund babies, people who are just given money appreciate it less than when they earn it. We also see people on welfare, significantly poorer than the Paris Hiltons of the world, who do not appreciate what they receive and have no sense of its value. As someone who spent many days serving Katrina refugees here in Dallas, I can tell you firsthand that a great many of those folks were not appreciative of the help they were receiving. In other words, appreciation is far more closely related to effort than to wealth.

Quote: mkl654321

This is a subtle distinction, and the concept goes completely against the grain of conservative orthodoxy, so I'll only explicate this concept further if you are prepared to at least entertain it.

I'm not sure what this means, but it comes across as, "I'll tell you about it if you promise to agree with me afterwards, and if you can't understand how smart I am and my grasp of subtleties, you're an idiot lockstep conservative."

There are certain indisputable conclusions that history can tell you are bad ways of doing things. Redistributive economies is one of them. Questions I know the answer to, I don't need to explore again. Another way to say it is, I've heard the arguments for redistributive economies; you're not saying anything I haven't heard before, or not debated in rigorous forums, nor seen in real history. There's nothing new in what you're saying. Been there, done that. There's nothing I'm failing to understand, no subltety I'm failing to grasp. I'm a pretty smart guy. I've heard the arguments, and I've seen the systems tried. And, I've rejected them. It's a "doesn't work."

I've told you why I think this way, but you just seem determined to assign my conclusions to something else (ideology or closed-mindedness or failure to grasp subtleties or whatever), so I don't guess you'll consider my reasoning now. But If Thomas Edison was right, then rejecting bad ideas is progress. I would argue that you're closed-minded because you're staring a historically failed philosophy square in the face and believing that, "if it can just be done better, by better people with better tools, it can work." It can't work. Never has, never will, no matter the packaging or execution of it. It's done. I'm simply rejecting a concept that's been shown to fail, time after time after time.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

It can't work.

First of all, it HAS worked, in the liberal democracies of western Europe. Those countries have both the highest standards of living AND the highest levels of happiness (as measured by a number of methods) in the world. To say that those countries, and the societies that comprise them, are anything BUT successes is to deny reality.

The US also has an at least partially redistributive economy, and it would be a tad unrealistic to call the US a "failure". (Nor would it be fair to call the policies that were thus implemented "failures". Inefficient, perhaps. But efficiacious? Indisputably.)

You show a frightening close-mindedness when you pooh-pooh the concept of utility. OF COURSE there is no objective measure of utility--utility is, BY DEFINITION, subjective! The very concept of utility means than all goods are worth more to some people than to others. That concept, in turn, impels trade, commerce, and indeed, all business--the holy grail of conservatives. To deny the importance of utility--particularly, as it differs from WEALTH--is to exhibit a lack of understanding of something fundamental to the very nature of economies. Of course, our exalted decision-makers show that same fundamental lack of understanding.

I realize that I said I wouldn't try to explain this concept any further unless I felt there was some hope of you understanding it, so I'll stop now.

Quote: mkl654321

First of all, my rejection of conservative philosophies doesn't mean that I'm a liberal. I KNEW you would jump to that erroneous conclusion. In point of fact, I also vehemently disagree with many liberal tenets, and the truth is that there are many more than two points of view in the world.

You analogy with "interfering in an ecosystem" is inapt. Social and governmental policies are imposed from WITHIN. To "interfere in an ecosystem" can only be done by someone or something EXTERNAL to that ecosystem.

It is profoundly silly to say that "social liberalism destroys the natural balance". I have news for you: SOCIETY ITSELF destroys "the natural balance". And what is that natural balance? I see something I want, I take it. If you are in possession of it, I kill or injure you in order to get it. If I see a woman I want to mate with, I seize, overpower, and rape her. The one who is the best fighter gets to rule. Ah, the natural order of things! I can see why you might feel nostalgic for it.

It's also quite silly to assert that a criminal serving a life sentence is in a preferable situation to that of a free man working for a living. And as far as your little story about the woman with five kids (by five different men! STONE HER!), I can't believe that you don't understand that any social welfare/tax breaks/money ripped from the hands of God-fearin' honest hard-workin' folkses like MAHSELF is intended to benefit that woman's CHILDREN. She may also benefit, but that's incidental.

I guess the brick wall I keep running up against in your and others' thinking is that you are utterly blind to the benefits that a rich man gains from the assistance provided to the poor man. All the rich man can see is the reduced amount of money in his pocket. To give you a historical analogy that may help to crack the mortar, as it were, consider Victorian England. London was a center of great wealth. It was also, for the most part, a miserable, filthy, squalid, and dangerous place. It had no social welfare programs to speak of, and the streets were filled with extremely poor people. PUTTING ASIDE ALL CONSIDERATIONS of who "deserved" what, wouldn't it have been better to provide those people with some minimal basis of existence? Better, as in, less crime, less disease, a better-functioning city? You don't even have to factor in the reduction in human misery if you don't want to.

Oh no mlk, I had you pegged as the devil's advocate from the beginning. You like to argue and that's fine. I am not crazy about the Republican party either if that's what you were thinking.

Those natural urges you cite(taking something you want, raping a woman, fight and the best fighter wins) are urges which are naturally BALANCED by resistance from the one who has what you want, the consequences you would face from a raped woman's family not to mention reproducing with a willing woman is a much more viable option for the offspring, and the best fighter doesn't get to rule if he is easily outsmarted.

Yes it is quite silly from our point of view to think living in prison is easier but we are not criminals (I'm assuming). There will always be a portion of a population who will try survive on those natural urges you spoke of and if they are not BALANCED with the proper consequences it will be more an more of a problem. I think the bigger problem is no consequences at all or a slap on the wrist for criminal behavior.

I guess the biggest point of disagreement I have with your thinking is exemplified with your assessment of the woman with 5 kids story. You call it a little story apparently questioning its' validity and dismissing it as fiction. I have done thousands of tax returns, and there are plenty of people who look at children as investments. They use and trade social security numbers of dependents like we use currency. "I'll give you 2 dependents for your tax return grandma but you give me half your refund." "I only get EIC for 3 children?! What about if I want a big family, that's not fair!" It's the entitlement issue. Once it is implemented that behavior is reinforced and people become dependent on it. Yes it keeps the children from starving but it's a problem that will grow exponentially. If you have 10 farmers who feed 50 people that basically just eat, in 100 years you will end up with 10 farmers and 500 starving people. If you don't think this is happening may I remind you the initial income tax rate was 1%. I'm sure you will dissect this and try to find some hole in it but really from a logic point of view there is no argument.

In your last paragraph, yes I agree laws and government definitely have a place to ensure the welfare of the people. It needs to be balanced and I just feel it has become unbalanced to the left.

Oh, and IT'sCalledSoccer for prez

Quote: clarkacal

I have done thousands of tax returns, and there are plenty of people who look at children as investments.

I don't see how you can possibly divine peoples' motivations from doing their tax returns. FWIW, I've done thousands of tax returns myself, and nowhere is there a line asking, "Are you claiming this person as a dependent because you're a lazy, worthless welfare cheat?" I would also gently suggest that people have children for reasons OTHER than what you suggest.

Your argument is based on a single premise--that those who receive social entitlements grow dependent on them. That's a dubious assertion at best. IDEOLOGICALLY, it's a wonderfully useful argument, because it justifies the complete abolition of such entitlements. I don't know where I would find recent figures, but I remember a study done about ten years ago that showed the average time a given person spent on welfare was relatively short--somewhat less than a year. If entitlement payments were such a powerful disincentive to work, then the percentage of people receiving such entitlements would have grown "exponentially", as you put it, over the last 50 years (consider the beginning date to be the date of implementation of LBJ's "Great Society"). Yet, the percentage of recipients has remained largely constant, and it certainly hasn't "exponentiated". The specter of such exponentiation is a slippery slope argument, and contains the logical fallacy common to all such arguments.

Quote: clarkacal

Oh, and IT'sCalledSoccer for prez

Golly! I accept! But ... I have to wait until I'm 35!

Quote: mkl654321

First of all, it HAS worked, in the liberal democracies of western Europe.

In the spirit of taking a discussion and over-distilling it down to a few words ...

... western European socialism is being WAY rolled back because ... umm ... it doesn't work.

Quote: mkl654321

The US also has an at least partially redistributive economy, and it would be a tad unrealistic to call the US a "failure".

Oh what the hell. Knocking a softball out of the park is always fun!

The US economy is partially redistributive, but that part is a DRAG on overall prosperity, not a contributor to it ... unless you're ready to say that welfare and food stamps made America what it is today. Always remember: redistribution never works!

One of us has examined historical alternatives and come to an undeniable conclusion. The other has spouted out academic double-talk trying to convince himself that failure somehow isn't really failure. Which one of us is denying reality?

Quote: clarkacal

Oh no mlk, I had you pegged as the devil's advocate from the beginning.

He lives to argue, about everything. If you post "I love hot weather" he'll go on and on about how he hates it. If you love cold weather, he hates it. Now he'll come and argue that I'm wrong. He's the smartassed teenager who always took the opposite point of view of his parents just because he thought it made him look smart.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

In the spirit of taking a discussion and over-distilling it down to a few words ...

... western European socialism is being WAY rolled back because ... umm ... it doesn't work.

Oh what the hell. Knocking a softball out of the park is always fun!

The US economy is partially redistributive, but that part is a DRAG on overall prosperity, not a contributor to it ... unless you're ready to say that welfare and food stamps made America what it is today. Always remember: redistribution never works!

One of us has examined historical alternatives and come to an undeniable conclusion. The other has spouted out academic double-talk trying to convince himself that failure somehow isn't really failure. Which one of us is denying reality?

Oh, come on. Now you're just sounding stupid. To say that those European nations haven't been successful...how idiotic. And by the way, I'd like to see some evidence from you that what you call "Western European socialism" IS, in fact, being "rolled back", and I'd also like a definition of what YOU think "rolled back" constitutes. In other words, don't just blurt out a dubious and undefined assertion--explain it. (Doing so without explanation is, by the way, double-talk.)

Obviously, you are depending on a VERY flexible decision of "works". Very, very, VERY flexible, in fact, because you're asserting that neither the US nor Western Europe DOES "work". So can you name a single country, that by your definition, "works"? Can you define "works"?

I'm not spouting double-talk, academic or otherwise. I agree that to someone who is ignorant and/or unwilling to consider reality, it might seem that way. You are blinded by your ideology. Your conclusion isn't "undeniable"--I am hereby denying it. You can call just about any endeavor a "failure", but I'd have to say, compared to what?

This is all I have to say on the subject to you, because you have manifested yourself as frighteningly obtuse, and emotionally driven to boot, at least as far as this particular issue goes.

Quote: EvenBob

He lives to argue, about everything. If you post "I love hot weather" he'll go on and on about how he hates it. If you love cold weather, he hates it. Now he'll come and argue that I'm wrong. He's the smartassed teenager who always took the opposite point of view of his parents just because he thought it made him look smart.

Sweet Jesus, EvenBob. Ignorance, I can tolerate, but the daily double of shithead/ignoramus you bring to the table is just a little too much to bear.

And yes, Bob, you ARE wrong about that. I was also wrong to unblock you. An error that, happily, I can easily rectify. I hereby toss you back into your right-wingnut delusional world. Please consider staying there--but if you re-emerge, I'll try to ignore you. You have absolutely nothing sensible to say.

Quote: mkl654321

Sweet Jesus, EvenBob.

Two lovely names..

I'm going to take a simple approach.

If you define socialism as the "redistribution of wealth", then let's call capitalism the "hoarding of wealth". Socialism, unbridled, turns in to communism, which clearly doesn't work. It leads to a dragging down of innovation, of flattening society so that its best don't have opportunities to shine, and corruption becomes rampant in order to get privilege or treatment that someone else doesn't get.

Capitalism, unbridled, yields a widening gap between the middle class and the rich because the rich can convince politicians to give them tax breaks and other incentives that will only make them richer, while the middle class are forced to eke out a living. Corruption doesn't work either, and that's what you see in Washington today. Plus, capitalism inherently leaves the disadvantaged aside to rot in say, Detroit, or some other inner city which once prospered (Flint, MI, Niagara Falls, NY) because their industry moved to another city or country where the tax rates or labor was cheaper.

A balance is required to reach a civilized society. To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.

Quote: boymimbo

I'm going to take a simple approach.

If you define socialism as the "redistribution of wealth", then let's call capitalism the "hoarding of wealth". Socialism, unbridled, turns in to communism, which clearly doesn't work. It leads to a dragging down of innovation, of flattening society so that its best don't have opportunities to shine, and corruption becomes rampant in order to get privilege or treatment that someone else doesn't get.

Capitalism, unbridled, yields a widening gap between the middle class and the rich because the rich can convince politicians to give them tax breaks and other incentives that will only make them richer, while the middle class are forced to eke out a living. Corruption doesn't work either, and that's what you see in Washington today. Plus, capitalism inherently leaves the disadvantaged aside to rot in say, Detroit, or some other inner city which once prospered (Flint, MI, Niagara Falls, NY) because their industry moved to another city or country where the tax rates or labor was cheaper.

A balance is required to reach a civilized society. To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.

A rap like that is just BEGGING for a fully refreshed Jerry L. to incorporate some sanity into!

The Obama administration is clearly more into socialism more than anything else. While the president's basically a good-intentioned man with a fine family, his presidency has been severely weakened by his minority-sympathetic endeavors along with that group of liberal Chicago radicals who, as many conservatives pointed out long ago, are categorically being weeded out by the pressures of a society that is too strong to be arbitrarily altered via twisted individual goals.

Capitalism is what has made this country great, and it is what's going to continue to make it the economic super power that is has nearly always been. Why? Because it motivates those willing to put in extraordinary efforts, and at the same time it weeds out the charlatans, the weak, and eventually rids itself of the bottom-feeders who think they can outsmart the system. So it creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor? Who gives a f***! A lazy ass who waits for others to give him handouts deserves every bit of misery that comes his way. If you think our gap is that bad, go look at the gaps in Egypt, Thailand, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.

Is our political system the absolute best in the world? That's open to opinion based on individual wants, needs, & wishes. But compared to the disasters-waiting-to-happen all over Europe with their massive entitlement programs run by liberals who I'm convinced are just waiting for the US to bail them out yet again once they get their tits in a wringer for the umpteenth time, we'e doing pretty darn well, even if we are in a so-called recession. Besides, in Nov. once Obama's nonsense is weakened the the Pelosi/Reid BS goes back to meaning what it was meant to mean all along---absolutely nothing, IT's CAPITALISM PARTY TIME ONCE AGAIN!!!

Quote: mkl654321

Oh, come on. Now you're just sounding stupid. To say that those European nations haven't been successful...how idiotic. And by the way, I'd like to see some evidence from you that what you call "Western European socialism" IS, in fact, being "rolled back", and I'd also like a definition of what YOU think "rolled back" constitutes. In other words, don't just blurt out a dubious and undefined assertion--explain it. (Doing so without explanation is, by the way, double-talk.)

Greece has a debt problem. France has an unemployment problem. France tried to roll back mandatory vacations. Great Britain is rolling back government payment of health care due to an abnormally high rate of cancer deaths. France and Germany elected conservative governments in the late 2000s (Sarkozy, Merkel). Thatcher took Great Britain out of the doldrums in the early 80s by privatizing several industries, a move that later, more liberal PMs like Blair hailed as the right decision.

But ... you say it is successful, a blurting out of a dubious and undefined ... not to mention nonexistent ... assertion. Name a major European redistributive economy that is wealthier than the USA's.

<crickets>

I thought so.

Quote: mkl654321

Obviously, you are depending on a VERY flexible decision of "works". Very, very, VERY flexible, in fact, because you're asserting that neither the US nor Western Europe DOES "work". So can you name a single country, that by your definition, "works"? Can you define "works"?

Is this one of those "racism isn't about race" and "global warming isn't about warming" double-talks? "Works" = the system yields greater wealth. "Doesn't work" = the system yields less wealth. Not sure how many more times I have to say it. Redistribution economies yield less wealth, therefore it doesn't work.

Quote: mkl654321

I'm not spouting double-talk, academic or otherwise. I agree that to someone who is ignorant and/or unwilling to consider reality, it might seem that way. You are blinded by your ideology. Your conclusion isn't "undeniable"--I am hereby denying it. You can call just about any endeavor a "failure", but I'd have to say, compared to what?

This is all I have to say on the subject to you, because you have manifested yourself as frighteningly obtuse, and emotionally driven to boot, at least as far as this particular issue goes.

Okay, so it's undeniable to anyone who's willing to learn the lessons of history. Those who are willing to repeat history's mistakes will deny it.

Again, I've told you why I have reached the conclusion, but you're hell-bent on assigning it to something other than what I've plainly said. Oh well. Your beef's not with me, it's with the results of history. Feel free to keep banging your head against that wall. Maybe some day it'll knock some sense into you.

Quote: boymimbo

A balance is required to reach a civilized society. To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.

Please tell me where I have and haven't traveled?

Quote: JerryLogan

A rap like that is just BEGGING for a fully refreshed Jerry L. to incorporate some sanity into!

The Obama administration is clearly more into socialism more than anything else. While the president's basically a good-intentioned man with a fine family, his presidency has been severely weakened by his minority-sympathetic endeavors along with that group of liberal Chicago radicals who, as many conservatives pointed out long ago, are categorically being weeded out by the pressures of a society that is too strong to be arbitrarily altered via twisted individual goals.

Capitalism is what has made this country great, and it is what's going to continue to make it the economic super power that is has nearly always been. Why? Because it motivates those willing to put in extraordinary efforts, and at the same time it weeds out the charlatans, the weak, and eventually rids itself of the bottom-feeders who think they can outsmart the system. So it creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor? Who gives a f***! A lazy ass who waits for others to give him handouts deserves every bit of misery that comes his way. If you think our gap is that bad, go look at the gaps in Egypt, Thailand, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.

Is our political system the absolute best in the world? That's open to opinion based on individual wants, needs, & wishes. But compared to the disasters-waiting-to-happen all over Europe with their massive entitlement programs run by liberals who I'm convinced are just waiting for the US to bail them out yet again once they get their tits in a wringer for the umpteenth time, we'e doing pretty darn well, even if we are in a so-called recession. Besides, in Nov. once Obama's nonsense is weakened the the Pelosi/Reid BS goes back to meaning what it was meant to mean all along---absolutely nothing, IT's CAPITALISM PARTY TIME ONCE AGAIN!!!

Damn.

Quote: JerryLogan

A rap like that is just BEGGING for a fully refreshed Jerry L. to incorporate some sanity into!

The Obama administration is clearly more into socialism more than anything else. While the president's basically a good-intentioned man with a fine family, his presidency has been severely weakened by his minority-sympathetic endeavors along with that group of liberal Chicago radicals who, as many conservatives pointed out long ago, are categorically being weeded out by the pressures of a society that is too strong to be arbitrarily altered via twisted individual goals.

Capitalism is what has made this country great, and it is what's going to continue to make it the economic super power that is has nearly always been. Why? Because it motivates those willing to put in extraordinary efforts, and at the same time it weeds out the charlatans, the weak, and eventually rids itself of the bottom-feeders who think they can outsmart the system. So it creates a huge gap between the rich and the poor? Who gives a f***! A lazy ass who waits for others to give him handouts deserves every bit of misery that comes his way. If you think our gap is that bad, go look at the gaps in Egypt, Thailand, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.

Is our political system the absolute best in the world? That's open to opinion based on individual wants, needs, & wishes. But compared to the disasters-waiting-to-happen all over Europe with their massive entitlement programs run by liberals who I'm convinced are just waiting for the US to bail them out yet again once they get their tits in a wringer for the umpteenth time, we'e doing pretty darn well, even if we are in a so-called recession. Besides, in Nov. once Obama's nonsense is weakened the the Pelosi/Reid BS goes back to meaning what it was meant to mean all along---absolutely nothing, IT's CAPITALISM PARTY TIME ONCE AGAIN!!!

Welcome back, Jerry?

Capitalism also has given rise to a Congress / Senate that accomplishes nothing effective because they are in corporate back pockets and is essentially corrupt, Democratic and Republican. Capitalism has also given rise to Enron (obscure accounting practices), Lehman, WorldCom (overinflated assets by 11B), Adelphia (hid 2.3 billion in debt), Tyco (embezzled 600m), WaMu, Chrysler, General Motors, all of which have declared bankruptcy and have cost actual real, ordinary Americans citizens billions and billions of dollars in lost investments, pensions, etc. Incredible, unbridled, capitalism that is deregulated has led to corruption, not to mention a US debt of 13 trillion dollars. Has the actions of those companies made this country great?

The strongest economy in the world today is China's, a communist country with an economic growth of 11 percent last quarter and has no signs of letting up anytime soon.

Corruption amongst companies as well as individuals will always occur anywhere under any system. But I'll take that, which always gets kept in check over time by a society that frowns on extremes, over giving it all away just to re-distribute the wealth of those who've worked hard to get it.

I believe China's gonna choke itself to death in due time. They're making a good run now but it won't hardly last. They've made the mistake of growing way too fast for their own good, and they've skipped many important life, business, and safety steps along the way. When this all catches up with them, it isn't going to be pretty.

Quote: boymimbo

A balance is required to reach a civilized society. To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.

Please tell me where I have and haven't traveled.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Name a major European redistributive economy that is wealthier than the USA's.

I hope you mean "wealthier PER CAPITA", because if you used total wealth, India would be "wealthier" than, say, Denmark. However, that would be the kind of gross distortion you seem to love (and you weasel out of defining the terms you use).

One such country is Norway, which has a highly redistributive, socialist, Godless pinko hippie commie economy. It can't possibly be "working". Yet, somehow, their GDP per capita is 125% of that of the US...strange....

Of course, I'm sure you have a "reason" why that is true that sidesteps the fact that theirs is a redistributive "yet" highly successful economy and society. (Or maybe we'll get to hear from you why Norway is a "failure". I can't wait.)

OK, now that I've done what you asked, please come up with some other asinine argument why distributive economies "don't work". By the way, your definition of "doesn't work" should be modified to "does not work as well as it could", but that's a pretty advanced English lesson that you might not be ready for.

Quote: boymimbo

The strongest economy in the world today is China's, a communist country with an economic growth of 11 percent last quarter and has no signs of letting up anytime soon.

They're not the strongest; they're just the fastest growing. That growth is in large part a function of the fact that until very recently, the vast majority of the population experienced a medieval standard of living. China's present per capita GDP is $6,600. The world average is $10,400. That of the US is $46,000. So China has a long way to go, and moreover, their rate of growth is unsustainable, because they have ignored environmental safeguards, their government is unsuited to addressing the needs of a dynamic economy, and there are growing social pressures associated with the emergence of a middle class that their society is ill-equipped to handle.

Something you should also be aware of is that China's explosive growth only happened after they quietly scrapped the communist economic model and enthusiastically embraced capitalism. They now have a bizarre hybrid of totalitarian rule and command-economy capitalism. I think the combination is unsustainable and inherently unstable, as economic freedom and political freedom cannot exist without each other. But recent experience does show that capitalism is a far superior economic model; it just has to be accompanied by a political environment where it can flourish.