Cutting off Conservative Friends:RANT

[sighyoung]

For what it's worth, I thought Kyle presented the man as thoughtful and serious, and a healthy skeptic. It sounds like Kyle had a very good conversation.

Just to clarify: I thought the man's sense of an appropriate role for government was a better argument against seat-belt legislation than his life-expectancy argument.

I also didn't mean to imply he was racist, or even to suggest that he held some of the beliefs in the latter part of my discussion--only that it shouldn't be an either/or choice between past and present with regards to civil rights.

Finally, I also wasn't casting aspersions on anyone partaking in this discussion, so please don't feel that I'm attacking or making fun of anyone here. I genuinely respect the folks on this board.

[cardsfansince82]

I'm ok with people not wearing seatbelts as long as they can also be denied health and car insurance coverage and also forfeit the right to sue any other party involved in an accident.

Health and insurance companies can cover whatever the hell they want (not taxpayers' money) and a lawsuit does not mean compensation.

Are you serious?

As of right now, health and car insurance companies cannot legally deny someone coverage that wasn't wearing a seatbelt. It has been proven over and over that seatbelts greatly reduce or eliminate altogether injuries in all but the worst of accidents. In any accident where someone gets injured, someone ultimately gets sued. If I get in a minor accident, I shouldn't have to worry about the other guy exercising his "right" to not wear a seatbelt and getting hurt badly. There should be strong negative incentives if you don't want to wear a seatbelt.

[Schlich]

As of right now, health and car insurance companies cannot legally deny someone coverage that wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

I have to admit I was unaware of this... but it's a perfect example of how the government screws up these situations, not makes them better.

Cowbell, my response for your question is very similar to what sigh had to say.

Here's why I think what my friend's dad said was so egregious: I asked him if he really thought African Americans weren't better off now than they were back then (and of course, it was in the context of ethics and morality). You're basically comparing two groups of people:
a) "back then" -- the entire African American population being enslaved/segregated on the basis of having a certain skin color, vs,
b) "now" -- a subset of present-day African American population allegedly committing a lot of crimes.

Some statistics claim that one-in-three black men will go to prison at some point in their life. That's a lot. However, that's still only a third of the black population. What's worse: an entire group of people being preemptively segregated and being denied free will, or a third of those people with free will abusing the privilege and suffering consequences? [And I didn't say the crime rate isn't a problem, this is a comparative discussion]. For me, that question is so lopsided that it may as well be rhetorical.

If you want to argue that they're both sobering concepts, so be it. And yes, a high prevalence in crime suggests questionable ethics or morals... but enslaving or segregating everyone preemptively before they've done anything at all? Well, that indicates a complete and utter absence of ethics and morals. A lot of people committing crimes and paying the price is disheartening; but an entire group of people suffering because of society's prejudice and ignorance is far worse. I don't care how great he thinks things were when he was younger -- saying that African Americans are worse off now is nothing short of indefensible.

Kyle, I understand all of that and agree with most. But do you REALLY think he was implying that the early part of the century was a better situation than they are in now, or do you think he was saying "yeah, the civil rights movement was great and all, but hold up now, there's still a lot of work to be done, blacks still don't have it all that great."

Based purely on the information you gave, it was impossible to tell. If you left out details, fine. But to me, based on what you said, he wasn't trying to be strictly comparative... more like, "food for thought!" Again, I seriously doubt he was trying to claim what you seem to be saying he was claiming. You saw that sentence and seemed to come to the conclusion that he was saying that black people commit crimes because they're bad people (at least that's what i got from your last paragraph), i saw that sentence and came to the conclusion that he was saying that they have a high incarceration rate because of their [expletive] socioeconomic condition and that they've come along a lot less far than society would have us believe. Ask him if you think we should go back to the way things were before desegregation, and if he said yes, well, i'd be a monkey's uncle.

I'm so lost in all of the misunderstandings in this thread at this point, my head hurts.

[Bo Hart]

Kyle, I understand all of that and agree with most. But do you REALLY think he was implying that the early part of the century was a better situation than they are in now, or do you think he was saying "yeah, the civil rights movement was great and all, but hold up now, there's still a lot of work to be done, blacks still don't have it all that great."

I'm sure what he said wasn't meant to be taken completely literally, with the exception of the "collectively, society is worse off today than it was back then" statement -- that I think he was truly sincere about. That's kind of the point though. If he can make a blanket statement like that on society as a whole, then the individual issues themselves should've corroborated that... but, without some major straw-grasping, they didn't. At all. He came off as the cynical sports fan that couldn't acknowledge qualities and strengths in the other team (the "other team" being today's society, not me).

And, for the record, I think his views stem from his age/generation much more than his political affiliation. And I wasn't trying to paint him as an idiot. I don't think he's stupid by any stretch of the imagination (although, I did tell him I think he's more than a little bit stubborn ).

[heyzeus]

If we want to use heyzeus's logic, we're going to have to enforce a lot more than seat belt laws. Like the dumb ass [expletive] soda rule they passed in New York.

NHTSA's study shows that, from 1975 (by that point seat belt laws were common) to 2001, seatbelts saved 147,246 lives. About 6,000 lives a year.

A ban on large sodas, in contrast, might reduce people's caloric intake, which might reduce a person's risk of diabetes and heart disease (provided they don't consume those calories from another source, or just have 2 smaller sodas instead of one big one). It may save some lives but in ways that are nearly impossible to quantify.

You really don't see any difference between the societal effects and governmental justification of these two laws?

[Radbird]

NHTSA's study shows that, from 1975 (by that point seat belt laws were common) to 2001, seatbelts saved 147,246 lives. About 6,000 lives a year.

Just think about the strain those extra 147,246 lives have put on the Federal government and entitlements. Eliminate all the safety laws and medical advances and the deficit would turn into a surplus.

What's next? People living to 150?? 1000??? Let's stop the insanity now!

Dawn of a new age: The first person to reach 150 is already alive... and soon we'll live to be a THOUSAND, claims scientist

[pioneer98]

Here's one my conservative friends are sharing on Facebook right now:


I commented that I wanted to know what company this was, so that I made sure to never, ever buy their stock. I'd rather buy the stock of a company that hires & fires based on merit. If they add value to my stock, they could support the Tea Party or Green Party for all I care.

[JackofDiamonds]

Here's one my conservative friends are sharing on Facebook right now:


I commented that I wanted to know what company this was, so that I made sure to never, ever buy their stock. I'd rather buy the stock of a company that hires & fires based on merit. If they add value to my stock, they could support the Tea Party or Green Party for all I care.

First of all, the company doesn't exist. If it did, let's walk through the brilliant process here:

1) The demographics for Obama supporters show that they tend to earn more and be better educated than Romney supporters (this is objective data, lay off me). This CEO has now likely terminated 60 of his higher skilled employees.

2) This hypothetical company is firing 60 people because labor costs are increasing by 10%, so you can assume that the 60 people being let go are less than 10% of the employees (because of the typically higher wages for Obama supporters), so this CEO walked through a parking lot of over 600 cars, indiscriminately picked the cars with bumber stickers supporting Obama, and then had someone cross-check license plates to find out who needed to be let go? Or was this more like when a bar announces that the silver Kia left their lights on in the parking lot. "If you own a light blue Prius, you left your dome light on and you're fired."

[Radbird]

They just keep coming.

DYING PRIEST

In Washington, D.C. . an old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he
had faithfully served the people of the nation's capital and was well known
among the elected officials. He motioned for his nurse to come near. Yes,
Father?" said the nurse.

"I would really like to see President Obama and Senator Reid before I die,"
whispered the priest. "I'll see what I can do, Father", replied the nurse.

The nurse sent the request to The President and Congress and waited for a
response.

Soon the word arrived; President Obama and Harry Reid would be delighted to
visit the priest.

As they went to the hospital, Obama commented to Reid, "I don't know why
the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images."
Reid agreed that it was a good thing.

When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took Obama's hand in his
right hand and Reid's hand in his left hand.. There was silence and a look
of serenity on the old priest's face..

Finally President Obama spoke. "Father, of all the people you could have
chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?"

The old priest slowly replied, "I have always tried to pattern my life
after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

"Amen", said Obama.
"Amen", said Reid.

The old priest continued, "Jesus died between two lying thieves; I would
like to do the same."

[sighyoung]

The old priest continued, "Jesus died between two lying thieves; I would
like to do the same."

I don't get it. Why would the priest think Harry Reid was the Messiah?