The hopes and aspirations of gang rapists are to have forced carnal knowledge of their unwilling victims.

Hopes and aspirations, with no greater context, inform us of nothing useful.    That is the empty soaring rhetoric of this latest stuffed shirt/poser/emperor wannabe.

The worst, most un-American president in my lifetime.   Maybe in history.

Eva:

What 'the' people? 

regards,

Fred

We are taking his SOTU way too seriously;  it was distraction and deflection, to get the focus off of his smoking turd, ACA, and his other problems.    For all his talk about MW, what he unilaterally did was,  symbolically raise MW for 16,000 federal contractors who are working nowhere near MW.   As if.      It was symbolic nothingness, meant to do what it has done; take the focus off of his massive unfolding failure with ACA.   If Obamacare was anywhere -near- being able to be spun as a win, it would have been front and center in that SOTU.   Instead we got "ACA who?"    Please, someone, make the argument that this is this guy's monumental modesty that is keeping that from happening.

He needs to make up his mind; one second, he is telling American businesses that 'they didn't build that' and the next second he is bloviating about making sure those that work hard get what they deserve-- as if he had anything to say about either.   He thinks he was handed a scepter; he needs to look a little harder,  because what he was awarded was more like a plunger and a sacred obligation; Mr. President, keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing, and while you are at it, fulfill your obligation to defend the nation from enemies both foreign  and domestic and preserve freedom.

That is, when he isn't busy being one of the domestic enemies of freedom, selling it out in the name of his fave pet Soc grad school theories.

regards,

Fred

Eva,

If we can agree that the electon was fair,  Obama represents a (slim) majority. As to what good is does to call the 51% 'gang rapists' is beyond me.

 

No way did Fred call the 51% who voted for Obama 'gang rapists' - what he said was that the use of forced association is what happens at a gang rape.  That is a powerful way to demonstrate that a decision isn't automatically right because it was made by a majority.  He is saying that the standard by which one judges right versus wrong in these contexts is to examine for free versus forced association, and that the percentage of the population that voted/chose is not a magical maker of moral right.

Are you going to tell me that you can't grasp that?  Really?

Steve:

Is it impolite for any of us to recognize a worn out formula in action?   When there is no response forthcoming, fall on the ground and feign injury.

I am calling people 'rapists' now, as opposed to illlustrating the characteristic of rape that makes it rape, which is precisely the forced association nature of it.   (There is no other aspect of rape that distibguishes it from what humans regularly willingly, joyfully, and even eagerly engage in, including, for some who so freely choose, violent sexual acts.   It is an example of forced association, to be distinguished from free association.   There are those some of us still left who not only find rape, etc., objectionable, but actually understand why that is)   

And when I refer to her and I(meaning all of us) being instructed from birth, I get accused of claiming it was just her who was instructed from birth.

As if from some page of a book; when all else fails, fall down and claim injury.

It would be the first time I've seen this tactic ... today.

If it is impolite of me to notice the tactic for what it is, then I am indeed an impolite boor.  Somehow, I will sleep at night under the moon I am baying at.

Or, maybe she is just ...can it be....mistaken?

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/03, 12:42pm)

Eva,

You're saying that all forced associations are 'like' gang rape in some way.

This shouldn't be so hard. Gang rape IS a kind of forced association. So is theft, so is the ObamaCare mandate.

So, are all forced associations 'like' gang rape in some way?   Only in that they are a 'kind' of forced association - an association that a person isn't free to not engage in.

'Forced associations' is the major category, and gang rape is a single example of that category. When a kid shoplifts a comic book from the corner store that is a kind of theft, and so is a bloody armed robbery of a bank where money is taken. They are both examples of theft, but they aren't 'like' one another in intensity or in many other ways.

I think that Fred's gang rape metaphor is blunt, and powerful, but it is also quite eloquent in pointing out that a democratic vote would not make gang rape into something moral and acceptable. If that person didn't agree to the sex, it is a forced association. And there are circumstances where an individual voluntarily agrees to take on multiple sex partners at once, and that isn't gang rape. The metaphor of 'gang rape' captures the very essence of forced association (the violation of free choice) while taking away any excuse that a popular vote could make it okay. That's a hardworking metaphor that no one should feel they can't put to use in an open, democratic society.

Fred,

Part of me really does want people to stop using this or that illogical tactic in arguments... but then another part of me likes figuring out how people keep themselves and/or others from seeing that they have no logical argument in a particular post (or, if they do, they don't want to use it.)  

(And I have no doubt that I come across to many as a major pain in the butt with my criticisms and perhaps look like a know-it-all attitude.)

I like finding what it is wrong with an argument in the logic, or in the psychology.  I like that you caught the conflation of the identity of a rapist with the characteristic of rape.  And I like that you describe the tactic of a feigned injury that could only exist if part of your argument was misunderstood - purposely or not, that's how that one works - it attempts to lend the passion of an injury to an argument that wouldn't even exist without the misstatement.  Like misstating your argument to create a straw-man who is then set on fire to denote the alleged injury.

I think that civility is about how you point out errors - not that you don't point them out.  Not pointing out errors deprives others of the chance to grow, and the motivation to raise their game.  To not point out these things would, in this environment, be a kind of enabling, and, to me, it would be spitting on justice.

I appreciate the knowledge people have, and I love the intelligence they display... but more than anything I respect those who won't cave in to the temptation to fudge the logic, or finesse the terms, or misdirect the focus, or go all ad hominem just to 'win' as if anything was ever won by an irrational argument.

Steve,

No, I wasn't suggesting that 'gang-rape' as meant for me. Again, I can understand a generic 'you'.

As for my style, I do try to capitalize all legitimate political and social ideologies in private. You are, however, correct in saying that, in per-reviewed or graded papers, the distinction must be made.

I never use caps for entire words....

In brief--and beyond the vulragity!-- the problem is that your mertaphor is misplaced.

* Rape is a legal term

* Rape is a physical act

* 'Rape' occurs, thefore, as guilty as accused in a court of law.

OTH..

#Paying more taxes than what you think is fair is dissimilar because there are no objective standards as to what 'fairness' in taxation is. You're imagining an assumed natural level of taxation that exists only in your head.

# Historically, people have payed more taxes, or less, as particular cases might be. Therefore you cannot claim a priori un-fairness even with respect to what is measured as historical norm. In other words, what you call 'gang-rape' is, in essence the way governments have gone about governing for the entire measure of recorded history.

# Comparitively speaking with respect to other industrialized nations, america pays far less. This means that all other nations gang-rape their population into submission by offering universal health-care and college education.

in other words, lot of gang-raping, yes?

My suggestion, then, is to find a term more specific to the uniqueness of what you understand the present to be.

Eva

Steve,

Yes, 'given' a certain set of tasks that you feel it's the job of the government to perform, there's a certain cost associated with these-- ergo, taxes.

But assuming different 'tasks' would mean a different "given"--ergo, different levels of taxation.

The point is that you have not supported your level of taxation by re-asserting your 'given' as to what the proper role of government consists. That other givens exist is a fact of life. This means that the means and ends of government are precisely what's being discussed.

Some of my fellow Libs try to escape this conundrum by declaring. "Well, we Libertarians believe such and such." Fine and well; but what you're saying is (probably) true because someone who calls him/herself a Lib can explain why, and enter into polemic with those whose (ahem!) 'givens' are different.

Again, this is --so far--the distinction I see between Libs and Objectivists. Push a Steve into the same  rhetorical corner and he'll cry, "gang rape!"

Objectivists also seem to envisage a world in which force is never used, that everything is voluntary. Yes, this is pretty black/ white. Arguably, anything differing from that--ie that we should try to use coercion as little as possible--is indeed 'progressive'.; or, perhaps 'realistic'?

Eva