Latest poll

Djarum300

Addicted Member


Why are Democrats adopting such philosophy?
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
59% of Democrats can get fucked! I wonder how many of them murdered people by spreading the flu over the years... hhhhhmmmmm
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
In all seriousness, I'm trying to understand the underlying philosophy here.

For example, I understand the the empathy that many have say, for homelessness or poverty. In that vein, I understand the push for entitlements like Medicaid, UBI, and high minimum wages on the premise that efforts by the government will solve this problem. Much of these government entitlements aren't necessarily rooted in constitution or our government. Much of these philosophies come from other countries because of a distinct difference in constitution and law, and that is fairly simple. T

he United States constitution says that we all have rights given by God ( or natural ) and that the constitution 1. Recognizes certain rights 2. protects certain rights from federal government, and 3. All recognized and unrecognized rights are governed by the State and individual. In most other countries rights are given by the government. Some of this also is the difference in philosophy of negative vs positive rights.

Getting to vaccination mandates and "unvaxxed" fines or confinement, the only way I can wrap my head around this is two fold. First, I think this is similar to gun laws. The left believes that there is a "right to safety" which is provided by the government. No where, federally, does the constitution give the right to safety outside of the military and the ability for the United States to defend itself. The right to safety, assuming it is a natural right, would be relegated to the State or individual. The fundamental issue with the "right to safety" is that this is a positive right. This right would require action by everyone else to provide safety, real or not, to provide that safety. For example, getting rid of the 2A would provide safety (not real, mind you). The problem is that requires the citizenry to give up their their rights. To some degree, states do have the ability to regulate gun ownership.

Fundamentally, the only real right to safety is the right that one can provide their self. Conservatives understand that.

So that's the only way I can wrap my head around this. That the left believe they have a right to safety, when constitutionally, that's never, outside of one's own actions, been a right given to them. Now, we also know that the left believes an individual has a right to something, or feel something even if everyone else's rights are taken and when the rights are taken, that the end result doesn't make them any safer. For example, if all guns are removed, gangs will still be doing drive by's. Will we have less "mass" shootings? Possibly. Will more people get hurt during B and E's because the citizenry can't protect themselves? Possibly. Just like removing all guns, forced vaccinations, fines, or confinement will not guarantee or make everyone safer from this virus.

In many ways for countries in Europe, Canada, and Australia, this makes some sense because, their citizens don't have natural rights. Their citizens overwhelmingly take safety or the guise of safety that is provided by the government because their rights come from the government.

The only other way that these sorts of things make any sense is just power and control.
 
Last edited:

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Dear Djarum300:

As a journalist and history major at Vanderbilt University, I commend you for the well-thought-out comments and valid statements expressed in your previous post.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Dear Djarum300:

As a journalist and history major at Vanderbilt University, I commend you for the well-thought-out comments and valid statements expressed in your previous post.
Lol. I'm an engineer. I'm actually terrible at articulating anything.

The question I bring up is a simple one, in that why are there people who believe they have a right to safety. I see all the time on Twitter about "I have a right to not to catch a disease". Yes, an individual has that right in as long as you aren't taking away someone else's right.

This comes from the same people who got rid of making it a felony (Cali) of an HIV individual not disclosing with someone they had a sex with their HIV status.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Lol. I'm an engineer. I'm actually terrible at articulating anything.

The question I bring up is a simple one, in that why are there people who believe they have a right to safety. I see all the time on Twitter about "I have a right to not to catch a disease". Yes, an individual has that right in as long as you aren't taking away someone else's right.

This comes from the same people who got rid of making it a felony (Cali) of an HIV individual not disclosing with someone they had a sex with their HIV status.
It's because liberals believe in a rubber constitution. They want have the ability to bend, twist and manipulate it at will, for whatever suits their needs at the time. The problem is with the conservatives. Not enough nads to stand up say ENOUGH. I firmly believe the problems are becoming worse by the generation due to the fact that testosterone levels are falling in males at an incredible rate. Can you think of anyone in the 19 to 25 year old range right now who would storm the beaches in WWII? The more wussified we become as a nation, the less the constitution means.
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
Never forget that it was all about getting rid of Trump. He was in the way of this scheme. So, they lied, cheated, and stole their way to the presidency and that is all that matters. Do they care that it is obvious? Not at all. Their scheme worked and the mission was accomplished. Trump is gone.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Never forget that it was all about getting rid of Trump. He was in the way of this scheme. So, they lied, cheated, and stole their way to the presidency and that is all that matters. Do they care that it is obvious? Not at all. Their scheme worked and the mission was accomplished. Trump is gone.
Yup. That's what I said before. The care not how blatant their lies and crookery are. They don't even try to hide anything anymore.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Totally with you DJ. I cannot understand the liberal mind. Some things yes, but then they do things like;

Support abortion, even up to 9 months, but think killing murderers is wrong.

Spout off about "trusting the science", until you try to apply science to gender identification.

Only support women/minority rights when it's a Republican violating said rights, while turning a blind eye and going silent when it's a Democrat violating said rights.

Public safety is only a concern when it comes to white men with guns. All other criminals should be set free to victimize their communities without reproach.

Finally, look at the disgusting filth they allow in areas of California. I cannot wrap my head around why liberals want to turn every place into a 3rd world shithole. Who in the fuck wants to live like that, or even live next to that?
 

REVerse °

Addicted Member
Yup. That's what I said before. The care not how blatant their lies and crookery are. They don't even try to hide anything anymore.
Many of us attempted to prompt "others" on the forum to explain why they supported this and could never get an answer. They just disappeared. I'm telling ya'll again; It was about getting rid of Trump and they know it! They freaking know and would rather quit the forum than answer the question(s.) I hope they are realizing now that they were wrong. Look at the state of the union. Pitiful. Laughing stock of the world. Wow. Just wow.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Good read here.

"This worldview goes by many names. Sometimes it’s called public health. At other times, it’s called the public interest, the general welfare, or the common good. These phrases may differ, but they are all rooted in collectivism, the idea that the group should take precedence over the rights of the individual.

What’s the problem with that? Well, one significant problem is that the “public interest” doesn’t actually exist. Consider the words of Ayn Rand.

“‘The common good’ (or ‘the public interest’) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as ‘the tribe’ or ‘the public’; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; ‘good’ and ‘value’ pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.”

It follows that “public health” doesn’t exist either, which actually makes a lot of sense. “Societies” don’t get sick. Only individuals get sick. Health is something that concerns people, not populations.

So, contrary to the collectivist paradigm, we are not a herd to be coddled and immunized and protected in the name of some “greater good.” We are individuals with rights. Now, that may sound selfish, but it’s really not. What’s actually selfish is demanding that other people bend over backwards to accommodate your personal risk tolerance
."

 
Top