[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[TotalInsanity4]

Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.

You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad.

I wasn't, I was merely responding to an earlier post

By the way, I love this discussion about presidential candidates we're having, guys

 

[Foxi4]

And that was exactly what I was implying. We all have a predisposition to various impulses, but only the worst of us will give into them in a way that will harm others. It is those people that the "mental illness" label is catered for

Okay, I re-read your post for the third time and I get your point now lol, yes, you're correct, at least to some extent. Do excuse me, today's talk was mentally exhausting for me. If the definition of "mental illness" includes the pain or discomfort of the patient, then I have a problem with that definition since not all people affected by mental disorders actually suffer, or even percieve their condition negatively. The impact on the environment, as you suggest, is a better way to define it, but has its own slew of problems, like defining what classifies as "harm". That's neither here nor there though, I don't want to depart too far from politics, I suggest that we leave economy and psychology behind, unless someone wants to add something.

Why is it globally in style now to be philosophising over pedophiles already? I thought that wasn't going to rear it's ugly head again (in America, Canada has had NAMBLA for a while now) for at least another 10 years. Yet just one year after Gay Marriage was illegal forced upon Churches, Transgender issues and yes, Pedophilia have already made their way into public discousre, this bringing the public gutter even closer to the rim and closer to spilling over.

You know back in the day, mid 19th century back, people used to philosophize and debate over more practical matters, when they were not side tracked by human error, and the elitist non-sense that anyone who desires to be in control, has. Regardless, they focussed more on the practical, on how to keep shelter, how to keep food, how to keep health, how to keep warm, and how to improve one's lot, preferably as peacefully and respectfully as possible. Then comes the 20th century, and as many many many people had predicted, we all went bat shit mad, lost in a Minotaur's labyrinth of meaningless trivia.

It will always come back to us like a boomerang because the problem has been around since the beginning of time and we still don't know what to do with it. Peadophiles were around in ancient Rome, they're around now, and 20 centuries later there is still no solution in sight. I too believe that the government should focus on creating fertile ground upon which a society can grow and function whilst leaving complex quandries over morality and social issues to society itself, but that's not the case in political discourse today, so we can't ignore it.

 

[XDel]

I wasn't, I was merely responding to an earlier post

By the way, I love this discussion about presidential candidates we're having, guys

It's fun.

And, I can't find the news clip atm, but I had seen this news coverage of this male baby sitter who was confessing that he would take trips to the bathroom and master bait while thinking of the little girl he was baby sitting. They praised him because he didn't touch her. And when he was telling his story about fantasizing about her, they actually showed images of the girl dancing in a skirt, like it was what he was thinking about while master baiting. It was pretty fuckin' surreal.

Of course there is also the 5th Edition (V Day Edtion) of the Vagina Monologues which has two chapters casually discussing paedophilia in un excessively neutral manner. Needless to say later revisions of the text had these two chapters removed, yet women at universities everywhere, even small Menonite founded towns like the one I live in, has girls at their university reading and doing the Vagina Monologues play at the school.

 

[grossaffe]

White is a negative trait

You are a racist. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Lacius]

Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means? Okay. Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.
Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.
Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.
You're not saying anything here. Like I said, there is a potential customer that you refuse to serve, thus you earn less. Social backlash against a business only makes it worse, but is not necessary in the equation.
There are potentially thousands of closet peadophiles who cannot seek therapy because sexologists under the current letter of law are obligated to inform the authorities of anyone who is potentially a peadophile, regardless of whether they offended or not. By seeking help and seeing a specialist they expose themselves to criminal investigation and becoming social pariahs, losing their jobs and jeopordizing their well-being even if they've never broken the law. These people are actively persecuted against and live in the shadows with noone to turn to. Your sweet chit-chat about urges is the real cognitive dissonance here - everyone has urges, but not everyone's a rapist. We're not slaves to our urges - as reasonable creatures we can control them to a large extent. In fact, there are people who choose a life of celibacy, for instance for the sake of spiritual enlightenment, in spite of their urges. It's hard not to see parallels here to how homosexuals were treated in the past - as immoral, disgusting outcasts. They need help, therapy, often times they realize it, but they can't get any because society stereotypes them as monsters. Surely you can see that it's a problem, not much unlike the treatment of homosexuals.
Hits too close to home, huh?
Of course it didn't - everyone else gets ahead of the game. Businesses are already unfairly taxed, time to tax them less. You asked for one example, here it is. The sole purpose of a business is to make money - if they can make more money, it would be unreasonable to not adjust to the new policy.
Racism is the discrimination of an individual or group based on their race. That's it. Your definition reeks of tumblr. You need to qualify your statements, for instance say "institutionalized racism" and you'll make more sense. White people can and are discriminated against - not as much as minority groups, but it happens and it's not "just bullying".
None of what you mentioned is harmful to *life*, he's not advocating for gas chambers.
I never said that's not the case, extremism is harmful and present on both sides of the debate. Just a few hours ago we had a guy advocating throwing stones at people who disagree with him, specifically Trump supporters - that's harmful to life.

I've responded to (and successfully countered, in my opinion) nearly 99% of what you've said here already, so for me to address each point again would be pointless.

I also find your petty grasping for straws and technicalities (e.g. "They're not really a consumer if they haven't bought anything from that business yet," even though the person being discriminated against is a consumer, unless they've been discriminated out of the realm of doing business with anyone altogether) and disingenuous quips (e.g. "hits too close to home?") to be indicative of someone who cares more about holding on to a position rather than actually having a constructive conversation. You've already taken a scatter-shot approach to the topic (e.g. hitting with as many points as possible and moving on to more instead of conceding anything when a point is demonstrated to be poor logic), so I'm ending the conversation. It's obvious you are not getting anything out of it, nor do you care to.

 

[grossaffe]

Lacius, may I suggest that you not attack someone for holding an opinion that differs from your own? He's spelled out quite clearly the reason for his opinion being an emphasis personal freedom, yet you push right past that and instead ascribe him the position of apathy to equality. If you want to make the argument that placing a high value on one thing means you don't care for equality, then one could say that valuing capitalism means you do not value equality because capitalism will tend to result in socioeconomic classes that separate people. So if you don't support Communism, then you do not value equality.
Instead, accept that other people will have opinions that differ from your own, and have different priorities from your own, but that does not mean that they do not care about something.

As for my opinions on the topic, I agree with Foxi in theory; a person should have the right to choose who they do (not do) business with. However I'm not sure we're quite there yet where we can give free reign to discriminate without causing undue burden on certain segments of society. I expect there will be areas where the size of the population discriminated against could be small enough that the loss of their business is not too painful to business owners, and cornering the market on their business is not lucrative enough to spawn a non-discriminatory competitor. At this juncture, I think there's too much that could go wrong to risk changing the law, but it is something I'd like to see us be able to do down the line.

 

[Foxi4]

Like I said @Lacius, you have a different opinion and a different outlook on the matter. To me, you've demonstrated nothing, you just repeated yourself a bunch of times. You're not entitled to do business with everyone on the planet. In fact, you're not even entitled to enter the premises of a store if the owner doesn't want you there because it's private property. People are free to decline doing any sort of business with you for any reason, it's their resources and they can spend them however they want. Forcing them into some bizarre form of servitude just because their target market is "the public" is asinine, they're private business owners, not public servants. They're not elected by the government and they're not paid in tax money to be impartial, like a police officer or a fire fighter, so they're not. A world where a bunch of Laciuses tell people how to spend their money and who to trade with, a world where nobody really "owns" anything because at any moment the Lacius think tank can decide who gets to trade it, for what and when, is the definition of a fucking hellscape in my mind's eye, it's everything I find nightmarish and more, so no, we'll never be able to find common ground here because I see your proposition as a violation of everything I believe in. You cannot enact social change by forcing everyone to act a certain way - all you're doing is creating resentment towards the government. That's not how social change works. You can stimulate it, but proclaiming it from the podium does absolutely squat in my opinion.

@grossaffe I am liking you more and more these days, good post, you understood a 100% of what I was talking about. This is good to know, as I was beginning to worry that I was abducted by aliens from pod planet who speak sort of the same language, but not really, and placed on Pretend-Earth where personal freedoms come second to the so-called "greater good" which should be achieved by any means necessary, including oppressive ones. Let's call it "Communearth", because "Earth-2" sound pretentious. I'm not an absolutist and if holding both freedom and equality in one's head is impossible, I must have a giant head because I do just that. Concerning the critical junction, I think that the time will never "seem right" to take the shackles of controlled economy off. Objectively speaking, social attitudes have never been more conducive - even hot button issues like gay marriage are supported by the majority. I think we're mentally there as people, and I too would like the process of running a business to become more lax in my lifetime. I think it would fuel enterpreneurship, and we really need that these days. People often talk about "creating jobs", well, behind every job sits a businessman. Make it hard on them to run businesses and there will be no new jobs because just enacting the effort to create them would be too bothersome to even try, it's that simple.

 

[Lacius]

Lacius, may I suggest that you not attack someone for holding an opinion that differs from your own? He's spelled out quite clearly the reason for his opinion being an emphasis personal freedom, yet you push right past that and instead ascribe him the grossaffe. of apathy to equality. If you want to make the argument that placing a high value on one thing means you don't care for equality, then one could say that valuing capitalism means you do not value equality because capitalism will tend to result in socioeconomic classes that separate people. So if you don't support Communism, then you do not value equality.
Instead, accept that other people will have opinions that differ from your own, and have different priorities from your own, but that does not mean that they do not care about something.

As for my opinions on the topic, I agree with Foxi in theory; a person should have the right to choose who they do (not do) business with. However I'm not sure we're quite there yet where we can give free reign to discriminate without causing undue burden on certain segments of society. I expect there will be areas where the size of the population discriminated against could be small enough that the loss of their business is not too painful to business owners, and cornering the market on their business is not lucrative enough to spawn a non-discriminatory competitor. At this juncture, I think there's too much that could go wrong to risk changing the law, but it is something I'd like to see us be able to do down the line.

There's a difference between attacking a person and attacking a position. There's also a difference between having a constructive respectful conversation, and being disingenuous and misrepresenting the other side.

I've addressed the points about personal freedom more times than I can count. I also framed the conversation in a way that is not unfair; one either values more the right to discriminate or the right not to be discriminated against. I am not the one pushing past what the other has to say, as evidenced below. I have not belittled the fact the people have different opinions than me. In fact, I haven't even belittled those opinions. I have, however, belittled faulty reasoning. I suggest you reread my posts before again making me out to be some sort of intolerant monster.

I also know people have priorities that differ from my own. In fact, that's the entire thesis of how I framed the argument. It's frustrating when people don't read what I typed, which is why I bowed out of the conversation.

Like I said @Lacius, you have a different opinion and a different outlook on the matter. To me, you've demonstrated nothing, you just repeated yourself a bunch of times. You're not entitled to do business with everyone on the planet. In fact, you're not even entitled to enter the premises of a store if the owner doesn't want you there because it's private property. People are free to decline doing any sort of business with you for any reason, it's their resources and they can spend them however they want. Forcing them into some bizarre form of servitude just because their target market is "the public" is asinine, they're private business owners, not public servants. They're not elected by the government and they're not paid in tax money to be impartial, like a police officer or a fire fighter, so they're not. A world where a bunch of Laciuses tell people how to spend their money and who to trade with, a world where nobody really "owns" anything because at any moment the Lacius think tank can decide who gets to trade it, for what and when, is the definition of a fucking hellscape in my mind's eye, it's everything I find nightmarish and more, so no, we'll never be able to find common ground here because I see your proposition as a violation of everything I believe in. You cannot enact social change by forcing everyone to act a certain way - all you're doing is creating resentment towards the government. That's not how social change works. You can stimulate it, but proclaiming it from the podium does absolutely squat in my opinion.

@grossaffe I am liking you more and more these days, good post, you understood a 100% of what I was talking about. This is good to know, as I was beginning to worry that I was abducted by aliens from pod planet who speak sort of the same language, but not really, and placed on Pretend-Earth where personal freedoms come second to the so-called "greater good" which should be achieved by any means necessary, including oppressive ones. Let's call it "Communearth", because "Earth-2" sound pretentious. I'm not an absolutist and if holding both freedom and equality in one's head is impossible, I must have a giant head because I do just that. Concerning the critical junction, I think that the time will never "seem right" to take the shackles of controlled economy off. Objectively speaking, social attitudes have never been more conducive - even hot button issues like gay marriage are supported by the majority. I think we're mentally there as people, and I too would like the process of running a business to become more lax in my lifetime. I think it would fuel enterpreneurship, and we really need that these days. People often talk about "creating jobs", well, behind every job sits a businessman. Make it hard on them to run businesses and there will be no new jobs because just enacting the effort to create them would be too bothersome to even try, it's that simple.

Respectfully, you appear to be blind to everything other than shouting your point out into the ethos. I dropped the conversation. Minus the numerous times I've addressed your points and concerns, I've hopefully addressed some of your concerns in my response to grossaffe.

 

[WolfSaviorZX]

Donald Trump's ideology is very far to the right, and his supporters are predominantly white Republicans. Trump is very unpopular among Democrats and Independents. It would be a mistake to say a lot of Trump's supporters are Democrats of any stride.

Trump doesn't have an ideology if you watched even a few speeches. Like 10% of Democrats say they want to vote for Trump in polls compared to like 5% of Republicans for Hillary, so to say NO Democrats like him is a lie. Also he is much more popular with independents than Hillary in most polls. I'm an Independent that prefers Trump over the immigration issue. Now if Hillary had the same positions she had in 2006 regarding Immigration I might support her but right now she is worthless to working class people.

 

[Lacius]

Trump doesn't have an ideology if you watched even a few speeches. Like 10% of Democrats say they want to vote for Trump in polls compared to like 5% of Republicans for Hillary, so to say NO Democrats like him is a lie. Also he is much more popular with independents than Hillary in most polls. I'm an Independent that prefers Trump over the immigration issue. Now if Hillary had the same positions she had in 2006 regarding Immigration I might support her but right now she is worthless to working class people.

I didn't say no Democrats like him. However, Democratic voters disproportionately dislike Donald Trump compared to previous Republican candidates for president. The net favorability rating (favorable score minus unfavorable score) among likely Democratic voters for most of the Republican candidates for president hovered around -25 or -30 on average, which was to be expected. Donald Trump's net favorability rating among likely Democratic voters consistently hovers around -70 or -80.

The net favorability rating among independents for most of the Republican candidates for president hovered around 0 or -5 on average, which was to be expected. Donald Trump's net favorability rating among independent voters consistently hovers around -25 or -30 on average.

In addition, Donald Trump's numbers among all general election voters are toxic. His aggregate unfavorable rating is currently 61% (with some as high as 70%), compared to Secretary Clinton's unfavorable rating of 54% (with none reaching 60%).

Note: My net favorability scores come from Gallup, and my aggregate scores come from HuffPost Pollster. I'm also not claiming that Donald Trump can't win. A lot can change between now and November. I'm just acknowledging some of the reasons why Donald Trump is currently at a disadvantage and trailing Secretary Clinton.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm really conflicted as to who I'm going to vote for, as either candidate has their pluses and minuses, none of them are perfect or really truly any better than one another. That being said, I may have come down with the dreaded "electile" dysfunction, as it were. I'm honestly at a standstill, on the fence, as I fear what either candidate will do to this nation.

 

[WolfSaviorZX]

I didn't say no Democrats like him. However, Democratic voters disproportionately dislike Donald Trump compared to previous Republican candidates for president.

There might be a lot of Democrats who really really hate him but he's doing around 3% better than Romney with Democrats who say they will vote for him. Remember Democrat Politicians/Pundits have been calling every Republican Racist/sexist so it has No effect anymore. Hell Democrat Politicians/Pundits are calling other democrats racist for not defending Islam. Everyone is tired of this political correctness crap and the people who scream "YOUR A WHITE MALE, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" are being marginalized more every day. I never liked any of the previous Republican Candidates, I thought Obama was a better choice than Romney/McCain but Trump is saying all the right things and I honestly don't know which "Hillary" we would end up with in the White House. Is it the Hillary that thinks Radical Islam is an issue or the Hillary who doesn't want to offend anyone? Is it the Hillary who wants to secure the border or the Hillary who wants an open border? Is it the Hillary who loves the 2nd Amendment or the Hillary or hates the 2nd Amendment? Hillary wants to be the politician for everyone, but really she is for NO ONE. At least Trump is sticking up for the Middle Class through controlling the border and fixing our horrible trade deals.

 

[Lacius]

There might be a lot of Democrats who really really hate him but he's doing around 3% better than Romney with Democrats who say they will vote for him.

This contradicts nearly every number I've seen on the subject.

 

[Foxi4]

@Lacius You haven't "addressed" anything, you just stated what you believe in and proclaimed that it's better. I'm not interested in continuing this exchange either because you're failing to understand the fundamentals. The cost of "legislating social justice" is too great to me, and you can't change that because our values differ. You didn't make a strong argument, or any argument in fact, you just keep repeating yourself.

 

[WolfSaviorZX]

This contradicts nearly every number I've seen on the subject.

Only 7% of Democrats ended up voting for Romney in 2012 http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ . The last Poll in Virginia (swing state) Shows from 8% to 10% of those who call themself a Democrat would support Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_VA_61616.pdf . Poll taken in Florida (Another important Swing State) Shows a Whopping 14% of people who call themself Democrat will be voting for Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_607161.pdf

 

[vayanui8]

Trump has appeal to some older Democrats. Trump has a handful of fairly liberal policies that appeal to them, it's just often drowned out by his emphasis on border security. The Democrats who hate him hate him more than they've ever hated a candidate before, but he has appeal to the ones who dont

 

[Lacius]

@Lacius You haven't "addressed" anything

Against my better judgment, let's have one last quick look.

Because I value freedom? Or because I want to achieve equality without sacrificing freedom in the process? Or because I think that the ends don't justify the means?

I've already addressed how freedom works with regard to policy. See my points about laws against slavery, homicide, any just about anything else. One typically cannot give someone 100% of their freedoms without taking away freedoms from someone else, so it is up to the society to figure out whose freedoms are more important. It is perfectly fine for us to have a disagreement about whose freedoms are more important, but don't reframe the topic as something else.

Don't guilt trip me into fighting other people's battles - I have my own methods, like not doing business with people I find morally bankrupt. I fight with my wallet, not with hot air. I don't need nor want the government to strong-arm people who disagree with me into submission. You should never load a gun that one day can be aimed at you.

I've already addressed how your proposed solutions to the problem of discrimination don't actually work. If you want to argue that we shouldn't do anything that actually works, that's your prerogative, but don't argue that the ability of people to boycott businesses, etc. solves the larger problem of discrimination for certain groups of people.

Opinion, not fact. Telling people not to hate each other achieves nothing in my book, they need to come to that conclusion themselves.

Another straw man that I've already addressed. Making discrimination illegal serves the practical purpose of ending discrimination. It says nothing about whom one can hate, and I never claimed to want to tell people whom not to hate (hence the straw man label). A thought "crime" cannot be legislated against. I've also addressed numerous times how history shows us that allowing people to come to antidiscrimination conclusions themselves often doesn't work, especially not in a timely fashion.

Of course it's not. Your rights as a consumer are not violated if someone doesn't want to do business with you - they would be violated if someone took advantage of you or exposed you to harm in the process of doing business with you or sold you a product or service that is not as described in the agreement. You cannot claim that your rights as a consumer were violated if you didn't consume any product or service in the first place.

Not something I addressed until after you posted this. Again, whether or not someone is a consumer is not contingent upon whether or not they can and do buy things from a particular business.

There are potentially thousands of closet peadophiles who cannot seek therapy because sexologists under the current letter of law are obligated to inform the authorities of anyone who is potentially a peadophile, regardless of whether they offended or not. By seeking help and seeing a specialist they expose themselves to criminal investigation and becoming social pariahs, losing their jobs and jeopordizing their well-being even if they've never broken the law. These people are actively persecuted against and live in the shadows with noone to turn to. Your sweet chit-chat about urges is the real cognitive dissonance here - everyone has urges, but not everyone's a rapist. We're not slaves to our urges - as reasonable creatures we can control them to a large extent. In fact, there are people who choose a life of celibacy, for instance for the sake of spiritual enlightenment, in spite of their urges. It's hard not to see parallels here to how homosexuals were treated in the past - as immoral, disgusting outcasts. They need help, therapy, often times they realize it, but they can't get any because society stereotypes them as monsters. Surely you can see that it's a problem, not much unlike the treatment of homosexuals.

I've already responded to and knocked down this particular strawman. I don't believe we have any disagreements about pedophiles, with the possible exception of whether or not sexual attraction to children is a mental disorder. When I argue that pedophilia might be able to be categorized as a mental disorder under the current criteria for what is a mental disorder, that is not me arguing that pedophilia isn't an immutable characteristic or that they don't deserve rights. The criteria that would potentially categorize it as a mental disorder is whether or not it has a negative effect on their lives, and what you've described about the life of a pedophile seems to suggest that it affects one's life negatively.

If you want to argue that pedophilia is not a mental illness, I don't care. I might be able to be convinced that it's not, but the negative consequences of being compelled to rape children and/or the consequences of living a sexually unfilled life, in addition to all the things you listed above, make me think otherwise. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Hits too close to home, huh?

As I've already addressed, I bring up the very legitimate concern about the historical vilification and slippery slope arguments about homosexuals by comparing them to pedophiles. I'm not saying that's what you did, but I thought it was important to acknowledge both it and the irrelevance of the topic.

Of course it didn't - everyone else gets ahead of the game. Businesses are already unfairly taxed, time to tax them less. You asked for one example, here it is. The sole purpose of a business is to make money - if they can make more money, it would be unreasonable to not adjust to the new policy.

Again, I've addressed this point already. Whether or not businesses are taxed unfairly has no relevance to this argument and can as much be used as a justification for any kind of tax break as this one: the You're a Convicted Child-Molester taxcut, for example. You're essentially using the conversation we're having to argue for another point, not vice versa. To demonstrate, if we lowered taxes to what you think would be fair, would the additional You're Not a Dick taxcut be a justified loss of revenue? Are the tax breaks likely to curb discrimination, particularly with the taxes hypothetically at historic lows? When looked at objectively, it's a very costly solution with minimal to no return.

Now, it's obvious to me that I've addressed all your points more than once. It's also obvious to me that we've reached an impasse, the conversation is snowballing, and I see no need in furthering this conversation topic. If, however, you think we can have a constructive conversation about this some more, I will respond to you as long as you're a.) constructive, b.) not unfairly reframing the topic as something else, and c.) not being disingenuous and building straw men around my arguments.

I typically enjoy our conversations; I really do. However, the misrepresentations of my arguments alone are enough to disincentivize me from continuing. I also understand your point of view, truly. You're trying to remain consistent to your axiomatic belief in minimal government intervention, which you see as synonymous with freedom. I can empathize with this. However, in order to remain consistent with this belief, there are some evils that have to be taken with it, such as being essentially powerless to stop a lot of bad things, like discrimination, environmental destruction, etc. I believe, based in large part on historical evidence, that the government has a role in making sure the aforementioned evils are minimized without hindering any freedoms that people are logically entitled to. You likely believe the government should have as little a role as possible. You also seem to believe that there are things like market factors that naturally minimize the aforementioned evils. This is why I think you're idealistic, because history shows that's rarely the case. If we agree that discrimination is a problem and that your solutions don't work (by any measure, they don't), then you're either choosing the rights of the discriminatory business over the discriminated, or you believe the government should intervene.

Phew..

Only 7% of Democrats ended up voting for Romney in 2012 http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ . The last Poll in Virginia (swing state) Shows from 8% to 10% of those who call themself a Democrat would support Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_VA_61616.pdf . Poll taken in Florida (Another important Swing State) Shows a Whopping 14% of people who call themself Democrat will be voting for Trump http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_607161.pdf

Historically, state polls are essentially useless before the party conventions, particularly when we have a large group of the Democratic party still holding out for a specific candidate who isn't the presumptive nominee. Arguably, Secretary Clinton is only just starting to get her post-primary bump. What's most indicative of the November election results this far out (and it's minimal) are aggregate national polls. After the party conventions, it's worth looking at the aggregate state polls more closely, in conjunction with aggregate national polls for the swing states and/or tipping point states.

It is also a bad idea to compare the results of a November election with polling from June. It's also, quite obviously, a bad idea to compare national data with state data. What were Romney's numbers among likely Democratic voters in June, 2012 nationally? By state? I know it also is not a fair comparison since there wasn't a contentious Democratic primary in 2012, but it would be a fairer comparison than what you're doing. A great comparison would be the June, 2008 numbers. I'll see if I can find these.

Trump has a handful of fairly liberal policies that appeal to them

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what are you referring to here?

 

[Foxi4]

@Lacius That was a far more civil representation of your point of view, much appreciated. What I'm getting at is that we're ideologically on opposite poles. I don't want to put words in your mouth, "misrepresenting" your position was never my aim, this is just my perception of the matter that you can confirm or deny later. To you, equality and fairness supercede personal freedom, in the sense that personal freedoms can and should be curbed in order to achieve them. To me, personal freedom is paramount while equality and fairness are ideas that we can only get asympthotically close to, but never achieve. I am unwilling to sacrifice freedoms as I know that while they can be used for evil (denying service to someone based on race, sexuality etc., often under the guise of religious devotion or while hiding behind the shield of morality), they can also be used for good (denying service to a troublemaker or a hate mongerer). You would rather enact mandatory equality just to be on the safe side, I would rather wait for equality to achieve itself by implementing mechanism in society that would advocate it. Those are polar opposites and our difference of opinion springs from the fact that you think that government policy can change people's hearts while I think that people need to change their own hearts in the natural process of social development that you can accelerate with the right policies. What you call the defense of minorities I call oppressive government telling its citizens what they can and can't do. I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with, because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?

 

[vayanui8]

Against my better judgment, let's have one last quick look.


I've already addressed how freedom works with regard to policy. See my points about laws against slavery, homicide, any just about anything else. One typically cannot give someone 100% of their freedoms without taking away freedoms from someone else, so it is up to the society to figure out whose freedoms are more important. It is perfectly fine for us to have a disagreement about whose freedoms are more important, but don't reframe the topic as something else.


I've already addressed how your proposed solutions to the problem of discrimination don't actually work. If you want to argue that we shouldn't do anything that actually works, that's your prerogative, but don't argue that the ability of people to boycott businesses, etc. solves the larger problem of discrimination for certain groups of people.


Another straw man that I've already addressed. Making discrimination illegal serves the practical purpose of ending discrimination. It says nothing about whom one can hate, and I never claimed to want to tell people whom not to hate (hence the straw man label). A thought "crime" cannot be legislated against. I've also addressed numerous times how history shows us that allowing people to come to antidiscrimination conclusions themselves often doesn't work, especially not in a timely fashion.


Not something I addressed until after you posted this. Again, whether or not someone is a consumer is not contingent upon whether or not they can and do buy things from a particular business.


I've already responded to and knocked down this particular strawman. I don't believe we have any disagreements about pedophiles, with the possible exception of whether or not sexual attraction to children is a mental disorder. When I argue that pedophilia might be able to be categorized as a mental disorder under the current criteria for what is a mental disorder, that is not me arguing that pedophilia isn't an immutable characteristic or that they don't deserve rights. The criteria that would potentially categorize it as a mental disorder is whether or not it has a negative effect on their lives, and what you've described about the life of a pedophile seems to suggest that it affects one's life negatively.

If you want to argue that pedophilia is not a mental illness, I don't care. I might be able to be convinced that it's not, but the negative consequences of being compelled to rape children and/or the consequences of living a sexually unfilled life, in addition to all the things you listed above, make me think otherwise. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the conversation.


As I've already addressed, I bring up the very legitimate concern about the historical vilification and slippery slope arguments about homosexuals by comparing them to pedophiles. I'm not saying that's what you did, but I thought it was important to acknowledge both it and the irrelevance of the topic.


Again, I've addressed this point already. Whether or not businesses are taxed unfairly has no relevance to this argument and can as much be used as a justification for any kind of tax break as this one: the You're a Convicted Child-Molester taxcut, for example. You're essentially using the conversation we're having to argue for another point, not vice versa. To demonstrate, if we lowered taxes to what you think would be fair, would the additional You're Not a Dick taxcut be a justified loss of revenue? Are the tax breaks likely to curb discrimination, particularly with the taxes hypothetically at historic lows? When looked at objectively, it's a very costly solution with minimal to no return.

Now, it's obvious to me that I've addressed all your points more than once. It's also obvious to me that we've reached an impasse, the conversation is snowballing, and I see no need in furthering this conversation topic. If, however, you think we can have a constructive conversation about this some more, I will respond to you as long as you're a.) constructive, b.) not unfairly reframing the topic as something else, and c.) not being disingenuous and building straw men around my arguments.

I typically enjoy our conversations; I really do. However, the misrepresentations of my arguments alone are enough to disincentivize me from continuing. I also understand your point of view, truly. You're trying to remain consistent to your axiomatic belief in minimal government intervention, which you see as synonymous with freedom. I can empathize with this. However, in order to remain consistent with this belief, there are some evils that have to be taken with it, such as being essentially powerless to stop a lot of bad things, like discrimination, environmental destruction, etc. I believe, based in large part on historical evidence, that the government has a role in making sure the aforementioned evils are minimized without hindering any freedoms that people are logically entitled to. You likely believe the government should have as little a role as possible. You also seem to believe that there are things like market factors that naturally minimize the aforementioned evils. This is why I think you're idealistic, because history shows that's rarely the case. If we agree that discrimination is a problem and that your solutions don't work (by any measure, they don't), then you're either choosing the rights of the discriminatory business over the discriminated, or you believe the government should intervene.

Phew..


Historically, state polls are essentially useless before the party conventions, particularly when we have a large group of the Democratic party still holding out for a specific candidate who isn't the presumptive nominee. Arguably, Secretary Clinton is only just starting to get her post-primary bump. What's most indicative of the November election results this far out (and it's minimal) are aggregate national polls. After the party conventions, it's worth looking at the aggregate state polls more closely, in conjunction with aggregate national polls for the swing states and/or tipping point states.

It is also a bad idea to compare the results of a November election with polling from June. It's also, quite obviously, a bad idea to compare national data with state data. What were Romney's numbers among likely Democratic voters in June, 2012 nationally? By state? I know it also is not a fair comparison since there wasn't a contentious Democratic primary in 2012, but it would be a fairer comparison than what you're doing. A great comparison would be the June, 2008 numbers. I'll see if I can find these.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but what are you referring to here?

Trump supports policies such as universal healthcare and preventing companies from outsourcing to China. It's not much, but it can sway some people who are in the middle and chose the Democratic party for specific reasons

 

[Lacius]

I'll point out where I think you are and are not correct.

@Lacius That was a far more civil representation of your point of view, much appreciated.

I just want to note that my points and level of civility have been largely consistent throughout the thread. My last post was essentially an abstract of what's already been said.

To you, equality and fairness supercede personal freedom, in the sense that personal freedoms can and should be curbed in order to achieve them.

With regard to some freedoms, yes. I don't think a business owner should have the freedom to discriminate against a group of people when it has real-world consequences for a group of people that creates an undue burden and violates their freedoms as consumers and members of the public. I believe the government has a role to play in regulating how businesses conduct themselves in order to preserve the well-being of the public. Similar reasoning can be applied to environmental regulation: taking a business' freedom away in order to preserve aspects of the environment and minimize real-world consequences for members of the public.

And, as I've discussed before, nearly all laws take freedoms from somebody, and I'm sure there are freedom-removing laws that you agree with.

I am unwilling to sacrifice freedoms as I know that while they can be used for evil (denying service to someone based on race, sexuality etc., often under the guise of religious devotion or while hiding behind the shield of morality), they can also be used for good (denying service to a troublemaker or a hate mongerer).

Troublemakers and hate mongers (depending on your definition of hate monger) are not and should not be protected classes. I'm all for denying business to those who disrupt one's business. I'm not sure at all how equal protection for immutable characteristics can lead to the above, and I'm unable to distinguish this argument from a slippery slope fallacy.

You would rather enact mandatory equality just to be on the safe side

Absolutely. The practical implications of allowing discrimination are too great and are more contrary to the idea of a free society than the idea of criminalizing discrimination. Discrimination is something I don't believe a person actually has a right to do if they're choosing to serve the public. We already discussed undue burden. In addition, all of the citizens are paying taxes that directly and indirectly benefit that business, contributing to the rights of the citizens to not be discriminated against.

I would rather wait for equality to achieve itself by implementing mechanism in society that would advocate it.

I agree that would be nice, but it's idealistic and doesn't work from the point of view of real-world implications. People get discriminated against, and it causes undue burden.

Those are polar opposites and our difference of opinion springs from the fact that you think that government policy can change people's hearts while I think that people need to change their own hearts in the natural process of social development that you can accelerate with the right policies.

What I'm arguing for, again, has nothing to do with changing hearts and minds. My argument is purely about equal treatment under the law and minimizing undue burden.

What you call the defense of minorities I call oppressive government telling its citizens what they can and can't do. I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with, because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?

We already tell business owners and other citizens what they can and can't do.

I would rather defend the right of a shopkeep to decline service than force the shopkeep to serve those whom the shopkeep doesn't want anything to do with

This is where we fundamentally disagree, I believe. In fact, I believe I framed the argument this way a while back and got criticized for it by someone.

because I believe that the latter creates tension and resentment. I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden. Is all this correct so far?

I consider the possible tension and resentment a necessary evil to getting over it. We saw tension and resentment when we desegregated schools, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We saw tension and resentment when same-sex marriage was legalized, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy making him a better human being all of a sudden.

Again, the goal of antidiscrimination laws isn't to make people better people; it has the practical purpose of minimizing undue burden and discrimination. If you said, "I put more trust in the mechanisms of the free market putting that shopkeep out of business than in government policy minimizing undue burden and discrimination," I would say history disagrees with you. It's not a practical expectation.

Trump supports policies such as universal healthcare

Donald Trump has the habit of saying he supports things when he backs policy to the contrary. For example, Trump says in one speech that he supports higher taxes on higher earners, but his tax policy drastically cuts taxes for higher earners. Specific to your point, Trump does not support policies such as universal healthcare. He wants to repeal everything about the Affordable Care Act but offers nothing to replace it with other than ancient rehashed garbage about allowing the sale of health insurance accross state lines, as if it will solve all of our problems when it will likely do nothing. He also uses his health care "policy" to somehow demonize immigrants for much the problem with health care.