Standards and boundaries!

Eventually it’ll come to these words:
You have screwed up my country, prepare to die …

People have been dying.
Some would like you to believe they deserved it:
san-bernardino-victim-got-what-he-deserved

CNN Asks Slain San Bernardino Man’s Widow If He Was Asking For It

I recognize the linguistic tricks at play ….
I smell the enablers …

Enablers are a big problem.

Sarcasm is not the point.

My point is that you really seem to consider that anyone without as much interest and knowledge as you, and who disagrees with you, should be reviled and shunned. If you care to do that, go right ahead. But other people are not going to forsake their friends and relatives that way. And if they did, the world would not end up a better place, or the way you might think it would.

Realize that not everyone is going to spend a lot of time every day on this stuff, or read the sources YOU want them to, or even agree with you if they do, and that failure to do that does not mean it is willful failure or evil.

No, many many people do not spend their lives reading newspapers in detail or blogs, or listening to cable news. They read the lead stories, they consider themselves well-informed enough because they have read the gist of the article–and after all, it’s in the Globe or the Times or some other well-known newspaper that has a good reputation among virtually all the people they know. Then they go out and live their lives, assuming they know, and don’t realize what they don’t know.

Unlike you, font of all wisdom/knowledge.”

Thank you Neo. It’s almost embarrassing. I had no idea you had such an elevated opinion of my grasp of all things. Though I am sure it was not your intention, such effusive praise almost makes me feel humbled, and ready to look more critically at my own opinions.

I should probably take a break from reading news articles commenting and do a little Christmas shopping, since I cannot really expect my secretary to do that work for me as well.

I spend a lot of time in West Marin County, California, where leftists are very thick on the ground. Some of them are honest people who are interested to learn about things like what the teaparty movement was actually about. When they find out that someone they respect for other reasons holds these views, that’s one blow against the stereotype.”

Now I will try to give a more nuanced response …

“Ask them questions and encourage them to ask you. If people are willing to have a discussion, things can change. I remember one young woman at a college-reunion type event who insisted that the rich should pay more taxes. I asked her why. She had no idea.”

I would say that I may be able to recall one, who had no idea, and was unsettled by the fact enough to wonder why he didn’t.

The other responses are: “Where’s your compassion!” (Who’s stopping you?); “What kind of society would we have if people were not forced to share?” (One where people with your heightened sense of altrusim should be able to construct attractive association opportunities for the like-minded); “What are you, an island unto yourself? People need people!” But if you are now going to shift to a reciprocity claim, because not everyone needs everyone else indiscriminately and therefore cannot be subject to the same moral liability claim)

Usually, they either shut down or launch into a diversionary rant. Anything but to follow the logic trail. And this outcome makes a certain amount of sense if you read what progressives themselves have to say about the role of reason in human life. It’s strictly subsidiary to wants … just a means of calculating how to get what you want from others people, and of no use in arbitrating the validity of those wants or claims.

Basically, you can farm the land or farm the farmers, so to speak. We all know the paradigm alternative the left tries to morally legitimize.

This argument has been going on for many years on this blog. You know that I disagree strongly with you and others who advocate this. But I believe it’s futile to waste more time arguing with you.

However, I will add that the answer to your questions is “no.” They do not “realize” or “understand” what you think is so widely known and obvious that to differ or disagree with your knowledge and your conclusions is to “willfully ignore” the obviousness of them.

No, many many people do not spend their lives reading newspapers in detail or blogs, or listening to cable news. They read the lead stories, they consider themselves well-informed enough because they have read the gist of the article—and after all, it’s in the Globe or the Times or some other well-known newspaper that has a good reputation among virtually all the people they know. Then they go out and live their lives, assuming they know, and don’t realize what they don’t know.

Unlike you, font of all wisdom/knowledge.

“We are not at war with one another. Depriving all leftists of our friendship is not going to end the war against the West. Most of the leftists I know are simply misinformed.”

Do you mean that they don’t realize that the PPACA radically transformed the relationship of the citizen to the Federal state, by placing an unlimited – by income, or service age, or national emergency – social claim against his life?

Do you mean that they didn’t understand that the young are now legally liable to fines and punishment for not underwriting the costs of an older generation in a way the older generation never was obliged by law to do?

You don’t really mean they don’t know.

What you mean is that they can successfully ignore these changes and legal imposition because it suits and profits them personally – either materially or psychologically – to do so.

And really … how can you be so brutal as to tell that cousin with the type two diabetes she has brought on herself, to drop dead or quit eating pastries, when there are so many young people with so much of their life ahead of them, to be exploited?

Pass the insulin please … I feel a craving for a doughnut coming on.

And after all aren’t we all our brother’s keeper or something? And who are we to judge another’s need? And who knows, you might just catch with Sickle Cell, or alcoholism or HIV yourself – it’s in the air I hear – and then you will have to eat your words …

And for a different perspective on Trump here’s this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/12/17/explaining-why-trump-will-be-president-up-close—personal-n2094511

Basically his thesis is that Trump is appealing to the working class, “mad as hell”, group.”

That is why we have to import as many state dependent immigrants as quickly as possible, and issue them voter registration cards. So those bitter clinger bigots who remember what an economic future in a fee market nation used to feel like, will not be able to stymie progress.

http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/12/17/explaining-why-trump-will-be-president-up-close–personal-n2094511

Basically his thesis is that Trump is appealing to the working class, “mad as hell”, group.

Look all around you. The “Church Lady” approach has worked real well hasn’t it?
It is war. A culture war so far albeit intense.
Rather likely you’ll soon be marched off to the cattle car.
Look at Europe now.
Last time they boarded sheepishly.

Join the struggle or be gone.
The other side is working the phones for Hiltlery…