Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:17 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:33 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Well that's certainly an added value.

It reminds me of what Dennis Miller said: "I like Palin because so many people I don't respect hate her".
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:23 PM
Undertoad Undertoad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Valley Forge Natl Park
Posts: 25
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Palin is adored because of how deeply she's hated, and that she has played on this. I don't think she's made her various gaffes on purpose, but she's been purposefully coy about running for President. She's put herself out there in the big painted bus, constantly being attention-whorish, and she's been making a mint from it all.


I used to listen to Mr. Miller's show, but that was one of the statements he made that caused me to stop. At first he was all like, I want the show to be a salon, I want it to be a forum for ideas. At some point it changed, and the Palin point was evidence that he was changing to being "tribe against tribe" and no longer about ideas.

At first he was engaging the callers that disagreed with him. At some point he started to mock the callers that disagreed with him. It was a very disappointing moment for me, I shut his show off and feel very good about that decision.

Last edited by Undertoad; 08-21-2011 at 01:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:25 PM
dman dman is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Does Obama deserve to be re-elected? Civil liberties, really, that's what's most important, 2011-2012? I'm sure a third party candidate will be coming along that will suit your needs, and the other 0.0009% of voters.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:26 PM
T.G.G.P T.G.G.P is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 278
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Way to put the national-interest of your country and wellbeing of its citizens first, Miller. And the rest of those nearsighted "conservatives".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:30 PM
Undertoad Undertoad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Valley Forge Natl Park
Posts: 25
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Precisely, TGGP (see my late edit)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:34 PM
Hal Morris Hal Morris is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Well that's certainly an added value.

It reminds me of what Dennis Miller said: "I like Palin because so many people I don't respect hate her".
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's why we supported Saddam Hussein, the Tallaban, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, and endless other examples. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, as in the alliance with Stalin in WWII, and courting China to weaken the USSR (though there's usually a big cost), but I think the previous examples show that, more often, what you get is less than nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2011, 03:33 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Conor has always intrigued me in his apparent cluelessness on many issues, I'm grateful to him for finally acknowledging that the reason is other than the 'extreme security' reaction to 9/11 he really doesn't care, especially about domestic issues. That's a lot not to care about. From now on hopefully he will resist from commenting on these topics is he isn't interested enough to learn the facts or ramifications. That little snippet around the 20 min mark explained alot. What an astounding lack of curiosity, I wonder if (in a moment of honest relfection) he would call it 'Palin-like'.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2011, 03:39 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
At first he was engaging the callers that disagreed with him. At some point he started to mock the callers that disagreed with him. It was a very disappointing moment for me, I shut his show off and feel very good about that decision.
That's interesting and I agree, it's too bad. I like Miller but I've never listened to him on the radio. He was especially hilarious when he was doing color commentary on NFL Sunday. The problem was that he was too oblique in his comedy and I don't think a lot of the people got him.

One of the best ones was when one of the refs (who looked just like Alfred Hitchcock) stepped out on the field and Miller said, in that Hitchcockian voice, Good evening! This might have been too subtle for the Budweiser crowd.

Anyway, I have noticed a difference in him lately. He just ain't as funny anymore.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2011, 03:42 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Morris View Post
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's why we supported Saddam Hussein, the Tallaban, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, and endless other examples. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, as in the alliance with Stalin in WWII, and courting China to weaken the USSR (though there's usually a big cost), but I think the previous examples show that, more often, what you get is less than nothing.
So Machievelli was right. In the end it's impossible to know what you got for what. That's because there never is an end and so many things come into play in the interim.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:31 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

I probably won't be voting for Obama for the exact reasons Adam gives as to what is most important in voting for President. A person is voting for a party when they vote for president, and should vote for the party that best represents their values. (Or, as in my case, against the party that least represents them)

However, I do think Obama deserves reelection for the exact reason that Conor thinks he doesn't. Conor does seem clueless on the threat of terrorism. People gave Bush a pass on 9/11 happening on his watch because nothing like it had ever happened before; Americans were so surprised most don't hold it against Bush for being surprised as well. No other president can be forgiven for being surprised.

If something similar to 9/11, or worse (terrorists have the will and seek the means to do much worse), were to happen on Obama's watch, not only would he not be forgiven, the Democratic party would not be forgiven for a long time. That's the political consideration that Obama owes to those Americans on the left who he represents. But a far more important consideration is his primary job in protecting the American people. He could say anything to the loony left regarding national security in campaigning, but when he actually got in office, he has to do what he has to do. And he's done it well for the most part.

Domestic policy wise, he's just been unlucky with the economy, and I appreciate the fact that he's reacted much more temperately then the base of his party would have liked. That's responsible leadership.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:57 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post

Domestic policy wise, he's just been unlucky with the economy, and I appreciate the fact that he's reacted much more temperately then the base of his party would have liked. That's responsible leadership.
I know there are many who disagree but I think pushing radical change as embodied in ACA in a time of such economic uncertainty was... i can't think of a nice word.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-21-2011, 05:27 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I know there are many who disagree but I think pushing radical change as embodied in ACA in a time of such economic uncertainty was... i can't think of a nice word.
I don't support ACA and hope it is ruled unconstitutional because of the mandate.

However, I don't think it is, in the historical context of what the American left is all about, all that radical.

I'm also a little skeptical that ACA is a significant factor in holding back the economy, although I'm sure it's contributed some. I think when (if) it goes into effect, the drag will have some significance as all these government takeovers of the economy do.

With this in mind, while I completely oppose ACA, I really can't hold it against him as an incompetent move on his part. Those guys won an election, its the sort of thing we can expect. When judging a left wing president's competence, I have to cut him a little slack for having to work with the handicap of his and, (more often), his constituents' ideology.

This is the reason I think Clinton, overall, was a good president. Obama still has a year (and perhaps more) to go, so it may be to early too say this, but as it stands now, I'll probably always regard him as a good president.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-21-2011, 05:50 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
If something similar to 9/11, or worse (terrorists have the will and seek the means to do much worse), were to happen on Obama's watch, not only would he not be forgiven, the Democratic party would not be forgiven for a long time. That's the political consideration that Obama owes to those Americans on the left who he represents. But a far more important consideration is his primary job in protecting the American people. He could say anything to the loony left regarding national security in campaigning, but when he actually got in office, he has to do what he has to do. And he's done it well for the most part.
Right. And to prevent from being accused of negligence, he has instituted the most ridiculous and absurd policies, like TSA gropings. I think terrorist attacks in general help Republicans, because I remember Democrats worrying between 2003 and 2008 that another terrorist attack would ruin their chances, even though (they thought) Bush would be to blame for being negligent.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-21-2011, 05:52 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
I'm grateful to him for finally acknowledging that the reason is other than the 'extreme security' reaction to 9/11 he really doesn't care, especially about domestic issues.
How dare he. Osama is not dead, he's still alive and kicking the ass of the United States. He won the War on Terror when Obama decided that Americans should not be able to travel without being groped, sacrificing liberty for an illusion of security.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:06 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Right. And to prevent from being accused of negligence, he has instituted the most ridiculous and absurd policies, like TSA gropings.
I probably fly more then most, and I don't like the process either. But I don't know an alternative. What's your alternative?


Quote:
I think terrorist attacks in general help Republicans, because I remember Democrats worrying between 2003 and 2008 that another terrorist attack would ruin their chances, even though (they thought) Bush would be to blame for being negligent.
This is a good point, and high lights how damaged the Democrat brand has been in relation to national security since the 60's and 70's. I think that to some degree it is true that if it happens on a Republican's watch folks would be more likely to say "Thank God, we have a Republican in the WH", and if it happens on a Dems watch "Oh no, I wish we had a Republican in the WH".

It may not be fair for current Dems, but they do have the influence they gave all those hippies in past decades to blame. They should be thanking Obama because he's made some progress in reversing this damage to the brand.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:27 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Adam Serwer thinks that finding it strange that people would oppose vaccines for their children makes him a liberal. No, it makes him just not a complete moron. Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right. The religious right was upset that young people unlucky enough to be born to fundies, who had sex, could not be punished (presumably by God) with HPV and cervical cancer anymore. This "I WANT MY CHILDREN TO GET CANCER IF THEY HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE"-attitude is reprehensible, and it's evil.

In other words, it's typical of the religious right.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:32 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I probably fly more then most, and I don't like the process either. But I don't know an alternative. What's your alternative?
For what? TSA-gropings? The alternative is not to have TSA-gropings, as was policy before 2010. Nothing ever happened, but Obama couldn't leave good enough alone. He decided to mandate groping and porn shoots for passengers to (in theory) lessen an already infinitesimal chance of a terrorist attack. Isn't it enough that flying is much safer than driving? Is it really necessary to make flying hell, just to give people a false sense of security?

Alternatively, profiling could be instituted. 8-year-old children generally don't commit terrorist acts, even if they are Muslims. On the other hand, a 24-year-old named Muhammad Abu Saif ad Din bin Zarqawi? Why don't you have a seat right over there? Of course, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to institute such a policy, because under such a policy, a man named Barack Hussein Obama would be the first to be singled out. No, let's grope little children instead, and humiliate 95-year-old women with adult diapers. For something that has either no discernible or significant effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
This is a good point, and high lights how damaged the Democrat brand has been in relation to national security since the 60's and 70's. I think that to some degree it is true that if it happens on a Republican's watch folks would be more likely to say "Thank God, we have a Republican in the WH", and if it happens on a Dems watch "Oh no, I wish we had a Republican in the WH".

It may not be fair for current Dems, but they do have the influence they gave all those hippies in past decades to blame. They should be thanking Obama because he's made some progress in reversing this damage to the brand.
Dirty hippies destroyed the Democratic Party, in much the same way that the religious right destroyed the Republican Party.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:39 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Adam Serwer thinks that finding it strange that people would oppose vaccines for their children makes him a liberal. No, it makes him just not a complete moron. Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right. The religious right was upset that young people unlucky enough to be born to fundies, who had sex, could not be punished (presumably by God) with HPV and cervical cancer anymore. This "I WANT MY CHILDREN TO GET CANCER IF THEY HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE"-attitude is reprehensible, and it's evil.

In other words, it's typical of the religious right.
Using this same logic I could say that your stance against 'TSA gropings' means you want Americans to be blown up if they fly on airplanes.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:43 PM
kynefski kynefski is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 30
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

I'm appalled that, in their discussion of HPV vaccination as a culture wars issue, neither Serwer nor Friedersdorf acknowledge that the rationale for the vaccine is to decrease the prevelance of cervical cancer, almost all of which is associated with HPV infection. That's what it's all about! Whether acknowledging this would have influenced the discussion I do not know (I would hope that it would), but failure to acknowledge it suggests an indifference to women's health of which both parties should be ashamed.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:46 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Using this same logic I could say that your stance against 'TSA gropings' means you want Americans to be blown up if they fly on airplanes.
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex. If I (as a hypothetical environmentalist) said that I oppose TSA gropings, because they prevent terrorist attacks, which encourages flying - you would be exactly right, I would want Americans to be blown up.

But if you've paid attention, that is not my argument.

Come on, don't make it so easy for me.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:50 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
For what? TSA-gropings? The alternative is not to have TSA-gropings, as was policy before 2010. Nothing ever happened, but Obama couldn't leave good enough alone. He decided to mandate groping and porn shoots for passengers to (in theory) lessen an already infinitesimal chance of a terrorist attack. Isn't it enough that flying is much safer than driving? Is it really necessary to make flying hell, just to give people a false sense of security?

Alternatively, profiling could be instituted. 8-year-old children generally don't commit terrorist acts, even if they are Muslims. On the other hand, a 24-year-old named Muhammad Abu Saif ad Din bin Zarqawi? Why don't you have a seat right over there? Of course, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to institute such a policy, because under such a policy, a man named Barack Hussein Obama would be the first to be singled out. No, let's grope little children instead, and humiliate 95-year-old women with adult diapers. For something that has either no discernible or significant effect.
Ok, so your alternative is to grope only people with Arabic names? I actually don't have much of a problem with this in theory.

Except, what about those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't Arabs and don't have Arabic names?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:57 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Ok, so your alternative is to grope only people with Arabic names? I actually don't have much of a problem with this in theory.

Except, what about those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't Arabs and don't have Arabic names?
Actually, those aren't Arabic names, but Islamic names (not necessarily the name I mentioned). Most Muslims have Islamic names, even if they are not Arabs. For example, Persians are not Arabs, but that miscreant is still named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mahmoud is an Islamic name, as is Ahmad, wheras nejad is Persian. The prime minister of Pakistan (not an Arab, but an Aryan) is named Asif Ali Zardari. Hell, Barack Hussein Obama is not an Arab, but he's still named... Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, he is not a Muslim, but his father was named by Muslims, and he was named after his father.

Of course, this isn't enough. Profiling of Middle-easterners and people from Islamic countries is also necessary, unless it is clear that they are not Muslims (like being named John). Also, notorious Muslims should be searched more thoroughly, even if they are named Cat Stevens. This won't be a perfect system, some Muslims will slip through it, and some decent people who have abandoned the religion of peace will face treatment they should not get, but it sure beats the current system of groping little children, to prevent Muslims from being offended.

Last edited by apple; 08-21-2011 at 07:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:05 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex.
It might be good to tone down the rhetoric just a bit, The vaccine is new and guess what, sometimes new things turn out to have problems.

Quote:
"Time will tell how safe any vaccine is, says Karen Smith-McCune, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. Smith-McCune, a gynecologist, was an early and vocal skeptic of the HPV vaccine. This is a new product. It is possible there are risks that have not come to light yet because of the newness of the product, and that's what VAERS is for: to assure us we haven't missed something unknown. We don't know about safety until something's been around a long time," she says. "It's valid for parents to ask why they should do it."

Smith-McCune says she resisted the adoption of the HPV vaccine early on because cervical cancer is quite rare and preventable in females who get regular pap smears. And most of the time, the body fights off HPV without harm. She says she feels the vaccine was "shoved down our throats, as parents."
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:05 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex. If I (as a hypothetical environmentalist) said that I oppose TSA gropings, because they prevent terrorist attacks, which encourages flying - you would be exactly right, I would want Americans to be blown up.
Maybe the hypothetical environmentalist does not want anyone to get blown up, but agrees with you that way more is being given up in submitting to TSA gropings then the risks warrant.

But more to the point, in addition the environmentalist believes that the damage done to human beings through flying greatly outweighs any risk of being blown up that TSA gropings mitigate. And yet those same gropings give passengers the false impression that flying on planes is safe and encourages more flying, when it actually has huge potential to destroy the planet and humans.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-21-2011 at 07:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:09 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
It might be good to tone down the rhetoric just a bit, The vaccine is new and guess what, sometimes new things turn out to have problems.
Your link does not show any actual problem, it only says that there are POSSIBLE problems. Also, had you read my initial post, you would have known that I explicitly addressed reasonable objections: "Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right." My argument was directed against the miscreants who think that cancer is bad, but not as bad as premarital sex.

So no, I'm definitely not toning down the rhetoric against the people who want children to get cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:15 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Maybe the hypothetical environmentalist does not want anyone to get blown up, but agrees with you that way more is being given up in submitting to TSA gropings then the risks warrant.
That has nothing to do with the evils of flying per se, and thus, it is not analogous to the arguments of the religious right. The religious right is not arguing that the HPV vaccine is more dangerous than the risks of cervical cancer warrant, but that it "encourages" sex by preventing young people who have sex from getting cervical cancer. So it's exactly analogous to what I said, and not at all to what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
But more to the point, in addition the environmentalist believes that the damage done to human beings through flying greatly outweighs any risk of being blown up that TSA gropings mitigate. And yet those same gropings give passengers the false impression that flying on planes is safe, when it is actually has huge potential to destroy the planet and humans.
Stick to the point. The environmentalist doesn't want flying to made safer (in this scenario, we are assuming that TSA gropings do make flying safer, which I do not concede), because more people will fly if there is a greater chance that they won't be immolated. That's the basis. So they *do* want people to be blown up, as to discourage flying. If you want to argue that that's legitimate, go right ahead, but I won't.

It's remarkable how many excuses secular conservatives will make for fundies. It's really sad how some sell out rationality, reason and reality to defend the indefensible. I have vowed never to become the tool of anyone, which is why I will criticize everyone, when there is reason to criticize.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:17 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kynefski View Post
I'm appalled that, in their discussion of HPV vaccination as a culture wars issue, neither Serwer nor Friedersdorf acknowledge that the rationale for the vaccine is to decrease the prevelance of cervical cancer, almost all of which is associated with HPV infection. That's what it's all about! Whether acknowledging this would have influenced the discussion I do not know (I would hope that it would), but failure to acknowledge it suggests an indifference to women's health of which both parties should be ashamed.
They weren't discussing the rationale for giving the vaccine. That's pretty much a given and we wouldn't learn much from such a discussion.

They were attempting to give the rationale for opposing it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:31 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
That has nothing to do with the evils of flying per se, and thus, it is not analogous to the arguments of the religious right. The religious right is not arguing that the HPV vaccine is more dangerous than the risks of cervical cancer warrant,
but that it "encourages" sex by preventing young people who have sex from getting cervical cancer.
Wrong, the socons you're talking about do feel that the administering of HPV vaccine is more dangerous then the risks of cervical cervical cancer warrant. (The health affects of the vaccine itself may have bugged some people, but that's not who we're talking about). The socons we're talking about feel that the administering of the vaccine, as a means to prevent the consequences of sex, encourage more sexual activity and therefore more suffering from those bad consequences, then the vaccine itself mitigates.

Quote:
The environmentalist doesn't want flying to made safer (in this scenario, we are assuming that TSA gropings do make flying safer, which I do not concede), because more people will fly if there is a greater chance that they won't be immolated. That's the basis. So they *do* want people to be blown up, as to discourage flying. If you want to argue that that's legitimate, go right ahead, but I won't.
Again, you are unfairly impugning the motive of your poor hypothetical creation. He does not think TSA gropings make flying safer, because he feels every flight is poison to the planet and humans, and TSA gropings encourage people to fly.

Quote:

It's remarkable how many excuses secular conservatives will make for fundies. It's really sad how some sell out rationality, reason and reality to defend the indefensible. I have vowed never to become the tool of anyone, which is why I will criticize everyone, when there is reason to criticize.

Well, you can criticize people for their motives in the positions they take, or you can criticize them for their facts. You really should stick with the facts and stay agnostic on peoples motives. Its easy to do this when you actually care to listen to how they express their motives rather then impute your own to them. Then you don't make ludicrous statements that only a moron or extreme bigot would believe -- such as: Fundies want their kids to get cancer if they have sex. I actually don't think you believe this, so am still curious as to why you make statements like this.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:59 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Wrong, the socons you're talking about do feel that the administering of HPV vaccine is more dangerous then the risks of cervical cervical cancer warrant. (The health affects of the vaccine itself may have bugged some people, but that's not who we're talking about). The socons we're talking about feel that the administering of the vaccine, as a means to prevent the consequences of sex, encourage more sexual activity and therefore more suffering from those bad consequences, then the vaccine itself mitigates.
This is incorrect. You assume that the main issue for fundies is worldly consequences, which is a gross misunderstanding. The main fear among fundies is not that people will suffer from the consequences of unprotected sex, but that they will have sex without having this particular negative consequence. After all, do fundies oppose unprotected sex, or premarital sex altogether? Answer this question, and you'll have answered your own question. (By the way, if you answer: they oppose all sex, then you will have conceded my point that the concern of the fundies is not the worldly consequences, and that their opposition in this case is in fact motivated to preserve the situation in which young people get cancer as a punishment for having sex, thus deterring them from having sex without fundie approval).

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Again, you are unfairly impugning the motive of your poor hypothetical creation. He does not think TSA gropings make flying safer, because he feels every flight is poison to the planet and humans, and TSA gropings encourage people to fly.
In our hypothetical, TSA-gropings do make flying safer. It is irrelevant that the act of flying has negative consequences, according to the environmentalist. What matters is that he opposes preventing terrorist attacks, because that would let more people fly. Thus, he wants terrorist attacks to occur, because he likes the result of these terrorist attacks (less people flying), and in any case, opposes efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. And that is utterly despicable. The only reason why you fail to recognize this, is because you are already invested in an analogous case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Well, you can criticize people for their motives in the positions they take, or you can criticize them for their facts. You really should stick with the facts and stay agnostic on peoples motives.
Or one can do both. In fact, I did not criticize your motives, I criticized what you are doing - defending the indefensible. And I noted that this is often something that conservatives do. It is not a character flaw on your part, in fact, I would argue that you are too nice. It's a flaw in your philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Its easy to do this when you actually care to listen to how they express their motives rather then impute your own to them.
Tell me, whburgess, should one rationally judge whether people's stated motives are really their motives, or should one accept them at blind faith? Anyway, in this case, there is not even a reason to judge people's stated motives, as the fundies have admitted that they find reducing the cancer risk of premarital sex to be unacceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Then you don't make ludicrous statements that only a moron or extreme bigot would believe -- such as: Fundies want their kids to get cancer if they have sex. I actually don't think you believe this, so am still curious as to why you make statements like this.
I have already been called a bigot against liberals and Muslims, so why not fundies also? And no, I would not say that fundies actually wish for their children to get cancer, but they clearly prefer a higher chance of them getting cancer to a higher chance of them having premarital sex.

I find such fundies to be absolutely reprehensible. Does that make me a bigot? Then I am a bigot! Telling the truth about people makes one a bigot these days. And I have told nothing but the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:27 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
This is incorrect. You assume that the main issue for fundies is worldly consequences, which is a gross misunderstanding. The main fear among fundies is not that people will suffer from the consequences of unprotected sex, but that they will have sex without having this particular negative consequence. After all, do fundies oppose unprotected sex, or premarital sex altogether?
They oppose children having sex. In this particular case, they were opposing the school treating six grade children as if it was assumed they were having sex.
They believe that giving children the impression the authorities in their life are assuming they're having sex is the same thing as giving them permission to have sex.

Quote:

Tell me, whburgess, should one rationally judge whether people's stated motives are really their motives, or should one accept them at blind faith? Anyway, in this case, there is not even a reason to judge people's stated motives, as the fundies have admitted that they find reducing the cancer risk of premarital sex to be unacceptable.
I think one can judge another's motives if they've determined that the expressed motives are not compatible with the actions or general attitude of the other person. However, I think one should make every possible effort to see how a persons actions can be compatible with their stated motives before doing so.

I'd encourage you to be more diligent in seeking to understand how people understand their own motives and less eager to impute the worse motives to them because you disagree with their position.

Quote:
And no, I would not say that fundies actually wish for their children to get cancer, but they clearly prefer a higher chance of them getting cancer to a higher chance of them having premarital sex.
.
Good. I didn't think you really meant it, which is why I didn't call you a bigot.

You're half way there to understanding the motives of some of those who opposed this..

All you need to do now is understand their assessment of the risk of a 6th grader getting cancer without the HPV vaccination in comparison with their assessment of the risk in letting children believe it is assumed, and therefore permitted, that they are engaging in risky behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:40 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
...
All you need to do now is understand their assessment of the risk of a 6th grader getting cancer without the HPV vaccination in comparison with their assessment of the risk in letting children believe it is assumed, and therefore permitted, that they are engaging in risky behavior.
How would a vaccine transmit this message? Ignoring that, momentarily... why would protecting against an inevitable danger (some children will engage in risky behavior, that can be asserted with a probability of 1.0 minus an infinitesimal) convey a message of permissiveness? And - is allowing a finite risk of a child's death from cancer preferable to the risk that the child might infer an unwanted moral message?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:55 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
I have already been called a bigot against liberals and Muslims
Let's test the proposition that you are not a bigot. You wrote "Islam is not severable from Islamic barbarity. People will have to stop being Muslims, for Islamic barbarity to dry up." You also wrote:

Quote:
The presence of large numbers of Muslims is clearly deleterious.
If such a statement is not bigotry but respectable opinion, then so is the statement, "The presence of large numbers of Jews is clearly deleterious." I am not claiming that the validity of one judgment implies that of the other: it could conceivably be the case that having many Jews in our midst is a good thing while having many Muslims is bad. The issue is respectability, not truth conditions. If I say, "your mother is an ugly bitch," it is conceivable that I am correct. But, whether true or false, this statement is not a respectable one. Because such a statement has much more purchase on you than its truth condition. Likewise, Judaism and Islam are an integral part of the core identity of millions of people, and so asking them to renounce their identity ("People will have to stop being Muslims," you said) is not merely a matter of testing truth conditions but of violating human decency. Respectability is a public concept, not a private one. So the statement, "The presence of large numbers of Jews is clearly deleterious" lacks respectability not because I say so but because we say so. And just as to express such an opinion would make me an anti-Semite, so your statements about Muslims make you a bigot.

Last edited by ohreally; 08-21-2011 at 09:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-21-2011, 09:18 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Conor's standard for "caring" about civil liberties in this segment is just nonsense. He suggests that if liberals really cared about dovish foreign policy and civil liberties then they would be willing to vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama. That's crazy talk. Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to basically every other liberal value apart from foreign policy, and radically so. If I asked Conor if he vote for a candidate that agreed with Ron Paul on national security and civil liberties while promising to institute a UK-style socialized health system, universal pre-K education, cap-and-trade, government-funded abortions, a nationwide handgun ban, and a half-dozen other left-wing policies, his refusal to support that candidate would hardly make his positions insincerely held.

Beyond this point, I found the whole civil liberties discussion frustrating because it focused so exclusively on the Presidency. Presidents will never reliably restrain the power of their own office. Even someone with a strong prior position about executive power will be a lot more comfortable with it when he/she is the one exercising that power. The place where we need action on these issues continues to be Congress. If Congressmen were to demonstrate any concern for their own relative power, much less abstract concerns about civil liberty and due process, we'd be in a much less worrying place than we are now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-21-2011, 09:29 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
How would a vaccine transmit this message?
Of course, the vaccine itself is just microbes, it transmits no messages.

Quote:
Ignoring that, momentarily... why would protecting against an inevitable danger (some children will engage in risky behavior, that can be asserted with a probability of 1.0 minus an infinitesimal) convey a message of permissiveness?
Because children sometimes, but aren't always, capable of that subtlety of thought. I know when I was a child, if my father had told me "Son, do not drive the car, but come let me show you how to do it safely just in case you do" I would have taken it that he preferred my not driving it, but wouldn't be all that surprised or upset if I did. My chances of driving the car would have gone up significantly.

Quote:
And - is allowing a finite risk of a child's death from cancer preferable to the risk that the child might infer an unwanted moral message?
Sometimes, yes. It depends on the situation, risks, etc. In this particular case I would not have opposed Perry's initiative. However, I certainly understand why some would. It's a judgment call, and I am able to disagree with someone else's judgment while appreciating their motives.

Also, I would have preferred that such an initiative take place at a young enough age (assuming the vaccine is permanent--I don't know), say kindergarten, that kids are less sexual, or at an older age where the risk of sex is higher, like 10th grade. 6th grade seems to me the least optimal time to do this, even if I didn't oppose it. Of course I'm giving my own preference--I realize I'm possibly out of sync with every focus group ever assembled.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-21-2011, 09:41 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
However, I don't think it is, in the historical context of what the American left is all about, all that radical.
So I just read this. What do you think are some things that the American left is all about that are more radical? And have any of those things been passed into law?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-21-2011, 09:51 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
If such a statement is not bigotry but respectable opinion, then so is the statement, "The presence of large numbers of Jews is clearly deleterious." I am not claiming that the validity of one judgment implies that of the other: it could conceivably be the case that having many Jews in our midst is a good thing while having many Muslims is bad. The issue is respectability, not truth conditions.
Respectability depends on the truth of a proposition. If it is true that the presence of a large number of Muslims is deleterious to a society, which it is (just look at any society with more than 50% Muslims), why would it be unrespectable to point that out? Obviously, it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
If I say, "your mother is an ugly bitch," (...) But, whether true or false, this statement is not a respectable one.
If that is the case, it's because the word "bitch" has judgmental overtones. If I said that "so and so's mother is not very physically attractive, and she is overly harsh toward other people", then I would find it hard to believe that even a leftist would object.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
Likewise, Judaism and Islam are an integral part of the core identity of millions of people, and so asking them to renounce their identity ("People will have to stop being Muslims," you said) is not merely a matter of testing truth conditions but of violating human decency.
That is a very easy objection to answer: if you actually read my proposition, you will see that it is a conditional. I said that if we want Islamic barbarity to disappear, people will have to stop being Muslims. That is also a factual statement, and not unrespectable at all.

As for the matter of core identity, the mere fact that you think that it's part of the "core identity" of people is wholly irrelevant. Some people's core identity includes Nazism, that of NAMBLA-members includes child molestation, that does not mean that they should not be asked to give it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
So the statement, "The presence of large numbers of Jews is clearly deleterious" lacks respectability not because I say so but because we say so.
Because we say so? You and what army?

I don't care if you call me a bigot. I've long passed the point where I cared about what leftists think about me. Even many years ago, when I only denounced Islamic radicals (which I thought were radicals, as opposed to mainstream followers of Muhammad), leftists called me a bigot and an Islamophobe. So it doesn't really matter what one says, when one's opinions are inconvenient to the leftist, the leftist will call one an Islamophobe and a bigot.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-21-2011, 09:55 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So I just read this. What do you think are some things that the American left is all about that are more radical? And have any of those things been passed into law?
I think Social Security is as radical.
Medicare is as radical.
Unemployment Benefits is as radical.
I think giving people free money with no controls or requirements on their part is probably more radical. This has happened quite a bit in the past, and maybe still to some degree today.

Some versions of health care that have been proposed from the left are more radical then what they passed. What was passed was something largely comparable to what the guy I'm supporting for President, Romney, passed in his state. I do agree with Romney that passing it in a state is a great deal less radical then on the federal level, but other then that, not much different.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-21-2011, 10:00 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
They oppose children having sex. In this particular case, they were opposing the school treating six grade children as if it was assumed they were having sex.
Stop misrepresenting your own position as the position of the fundies. They do not oppose children having sex, they oppose premarital sex, regardless of whether it involves children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
They believe
What the most wretched of men believe is of no concern to me, especially considering the fact that it is always something extremely stupid and unreasonable. I concern myself with the reasonable objections of reasonable and intelligent people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I'd encourage you to be more diligent in seeking to understand how people understand their own motives and less eager to impute the worse motives to them because you disagree with their position.
I do no such thing. What you claim I impute to the fundies, is in fact their own position, which you are trying to whitewash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Good. I didn't think you really meant it, which is why I didn't call you a bigot.
Actually, I did fully mean what I said, but if you'd pay attention, the wording was slightly different, which made all the difference. The two statements are completely consistent. Also, don't discount the possibility that I have nothing but scorn and contempt for fundies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
All you need to do now is understand their assessment of the risk of a 6th grader getting cancer without the HPV vaccination in comparison with their assessment of the risk in letting children believe it is assumed, and therefore permitted, that they are engaging in risky behavior.
The "risk" for the fundies is that the young folks might engage in sex before marriage, which the fundies think will bring down fire and brimstone and destroy the United States. Not any worldly consequences.

Like I said, you're too nice of a guy, which is why you are incapable of understanding the motives of people who are not decent. Some people always try to find excuses for wicked people. After all, it can't be that some people are wicked, unreasonable and stupid. My friend, if only you knew...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-21-2011, 10:28 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Stop misrepresenting your own position as the position of the fundies. They do not oppose children having sex, they oppose premarital sex, regardless of whether it involves children.
So fundies see no difference between children having sex and adults having sex. Ok.

Quote:
What the most wretched of men believe is of no concern to me, especially considering the fact that it is always something extremely stupid and unreasonable. I concern myself with the reasonable objections of reasonable and intelligent people.
I disagree that the belief that children should not be having sex is stupid and unreasonable. Fundies aren't the only ones who believe this. I also disagree that their position on HPV vaccinations for 6th graders is stupid and unreasonable.

Quote:
don't discount the possibility that I have nothing but scorn and contempt for fundies.
Ok. I'm glad that's your cross to bear.


Quote:
The "risk" for the fundies is that the young folks might engage in sex before marriage, which the fundies think will bring down fire and brimstone and destroy the United States. Not any worldly consequences.

They don't believe any such thing. They believe young folks damage themselves and others with premarital sex. Some of them believe it because this is the way they interpret their own experiences with premarital sex. Others because they believe the Bible is against it. Others believe for other reasons.
I don't have a problem with it and don't understand why you do.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.