Nobby, what IS it with UK social services?Follow

Supreme Court Justices that Dems

If you read my post, fuckstick, you'll see that I wasn't in fact arguing that the Democratic Party is on occasion quite socially conservative.

Here's the entire post again:



Read it again and see if you can't manage to somehow comprehend the simple concept it conveys.

You placed an impossible condition within your argument.

There's no argument. I was helping you to clarify something when you were using the wrong terminology.

Um... Here's the statement to which you responded. Note, that your statement is written as though it somehow debunks mine, but doesn't actually do so:




I'll repeat for the slow minded. I didn't claim that "everything" advocated by the Dems was "social liberalism". I simply stated that in this particular instance, it was. I further argued that most of Dem political positions are based on this core ideology as well.


I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how showing how one thing matches a particular political ideology does not mean I'm saying that "everything" is?


So I ignored the impossible strawman counter you proposed (that "everything" advocated by the Dems was social liberalism), and responded instead to the implied argument in your post (that the examples I gave were not). I'm not going to argue your strawmen Smash. I'm going to continue arguing the point I'm making.


Now. The second you decide to actually attempt to argue against what I've said instead of some invented strawman, you're welcome to do it. But I'm pretty sure I've adequately proven my case. Feel free to try though...

Ah I see. Except apparently, many people do care when a state decides to take a woman's child away because of some statistical analysis of her potential future treatment of that child.

My "whack job notions" happen to exactly match what's happening out there in the real world Smash. Maybe you prefer to live in a world in which your political theories magically work perfectly, and everyone lives in peace and harmony while holding hands and singing "kumbyja", but in the real world the very political agenda you so avidly support manages to consistently result in exactly the sort of loss of individual rights and freedoms that "whack jobs" like me predict.


I'll also point out that you once again have failed to actually debunk a single argument I've made, choosing instead to spin off tangents, strawmen, and the occasional ad-hominum attack. At least you're consistent...



And what the heck?...



When said "right" is used to violate the more significant parent right to property? You betcha!




When said right to making those medical decisions isn't the issue at all, sure. The issue is whether or not complicated and controversial social issues ought to be decided by fiat at the federal level by 9 people rather then locally via a legislative process that allows the people to have a voice.

Odd that a side that claims to be about individual rights seems so willing to utilize methods that specifically remove the people from the process of making decisions. It's kind of a theme though, isn't it?




Wow. Care to find a more "out there" example? Funny how you strawman my claims with the "everything" statement, yet you feel ok to associate this somehow with some kind of core ideological position of the Right? Seriously. This was a one time issue that had very little to do with broad political ideology and everything to do with the specifics of the case at hand.


But that's another way in which Liberals and Conservatives tend to differ. You guys seem to make a checklist of what you're for or against and follow that strictly. Conservatives follow a broader ideological concept. That concept is that individuals ought to have broad freedom coupled with complete responsibility for their actions (both good and bad).

It's why we protect the right to life of someone who isn't making the choice (applies to both the abortion issue and this one as well). It's why that position *isn't* inconsistent with a belief in the death penalty (that's a punishment for choices made by the individual). In the case of Terry Shivo, she had not made a choice to be cut from life support. Thus, conservatives believe that we should do the utmost to protect her life, presuming that any individual would choose to live if they had the voice to express it. Same with an unborn child.


The contrast positions by Liberals are bizarrely inconsistent. You're ok with women choosing to abort, but not ok with allowing a death penalty. There's no "rights" based consistency here. The only consistent component to those positions is that of removing the responsibility of the individual. Which makes complete sense when you understand the ideology of social liberalism as I've outlined it earlier. Because once you get the people to accept that they are not responsible for their actions, then they easily accept that the state is. And once that happens, it's easy to make the next step of giving the state power over those things (since it's responsible for them).



You wonder why I keep harping on this, but it's amazing just how many positions on the Left fall neatly into this scheme. As I stated before, it's pretty much the *only* consistent factor to your politics. It's all about replacing individuals with the state (or the whole as it were). I suspect that the "checklist" approach to positions on issues is also designed to make it harder for liberals to see the agenda they're supporting. If you define yourself by what you're "for" or "against" rather then *why* you're doing what you're doing, it prevents most people from actually every asking "why?". Because I suspect that most americans, if they stopped and asked why on most of these issues, would find the answer very hard to accept and very much in violation of what they think is the correct reason to do things.


But hey! You don't care, do you? You'll just keep parroting those positions as though by simply holding them, you're somehow contributing to a greater tomorrow or something.

Not at all. My eyes are quite sufficiently open to identify when you're talking out your ***.

In any civilized society--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--there must be a mechanism in place for protecting children from abusive, neglectful, or otherwise dangerous homes. The very nature of that particular beast leaves it vulnerable to errors made in an excess of zeal on the part of the sometimes misguided but generally well-meaning people charged with protecting the children.

Unless you would like to claim that either:

a) your conservative utopia would leave children with their parents no matter what dangers posed by their homes ("compassionate" conservativism, my ***!)

or

b) your conservative utopia would have a child protection system in place which was absolutely proof against such mistakes (utter bullsh'it, it simply cannot be done)

then you are simply full of sh'it and this lengthy socialist/conservative diatribe here with which you have successfully managed to bait Smash and derail the thread is just one big "Nyah, nyah, liberalism sux, conservativism rulez!" ****.

Flog your Pubbie log on someone else's time, pervert.



Edited, Jan 5th 2008 1:37am by Ambrya

Wow. Care to find a more "out there" example? Funny how you strawman

It's not a "strawman" when it ACTUALLY OCCURS, buffoon.

Because in my world, I may not be guaranteed safety and security, but I will be guaranteed liberty and freedom.

Guaranteed by the State, right?

Good work deconstructing your entire world view, lighnin.

Well, gbaji is still speaking about the UK, though he is attempting to apply it to the US system of child protective services, so I'm not sure why he's applying it to our system of protective services.

It's not a perfect system but in a Care and Protective Petition there are checks and balances-- it's a judge who has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a child is in need of protection and needs to be removed from a home--all a child protective worker can do is file an emergency petition and do a temporary order. So what he's talking about doesn't really have relevance in the US b/c you wouldn't be able to remove a child b/c of potential abuse here.

Secondly, I've seen literally hundreds of protective cases and while I always hear about overzealous case workers, what you really end up seeing are kids who are stuck in horrible living situations with abusive parents but the courts can't prove anything and sh*tty parents who are enraged at the system for accusing them of being as abusive as they actually are. The system is constantly cash-strapped and Protective services can't afford to take custody and spend 30-40K a year on a placement or even in foster care of a kid who doesn't need it.

Edited, Jan 8th 2008 10:23am by Annabella

I agree, the Patriot Act was a horrible idea.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you seriously trying to argue that since one law you dislike was passed, it's ok for the government to have the power to take people's children away even though they committed no crime?


Um...?

No, this is about you taking a clear-cut case of good intentions and acts committed under a necessary system gone way too far and turning it into your own private ego-************ "dis iz y mai wayz r bettr dan ur wayz!" riff.

As I said before, get your rocks off somewhere else.

She died on my birthday...I had nightmares about it for months. Sorry you had to be a part of that tragedy.

Nexa

Would you challenge the right of the state to detain a Schizophrenic in secure care if their psychosis involves voices in their head telling them to kill?

If he wouldn't, I would.

We're just not at the point of predictive analysis of human behavior at this point in time. Hubris of the social sciences community aside, there simply isn't the kind of actuarial certainty required to infringe on people's rights. To get all corny with it, liberty and freedom are largely about being given the chance to *fail*.