8 thoughts on “On That Fake “Ron Howard” Facebook Post….”

1. It’s not just this. We’re seeing – at least, *I* am seeing – a remarkable number of posts in which athletes, rock stars, actors etc. are presented as mourning Charlie Kirk.

   I have no doubt that all of them are AI-driven – or, at least, AI written. Many of them are more or less identical with copy; only the names and images change. But all of them include a link to a “news” website you never heard of. At minimum, they’re looking for shares (I have received many) to help them monetize things. God knows what happens if you actually click a link.

   You wanna talk about the Charlie Kirk Assassination Ethics Trainwreck? The assholes behind these scams aren’t even trying to advance a political position. They’re simply trying to rob graves.

   It has never been more important to NOT share shit you see online simply because you hope it’s true.

   Reply
2. 1. Being generous with your own substance is indeed admirable, being generous with other people’s substance is something else. I’m reminded of an article with the headline “It’s not the government’s job to feed the poor, it’s yours.”
   2. Rights are not the same as guarantees or desires. Government cannot take away your life, liberty, or property without due process, but it also cannot provide everything you want. This is NOT an argument for “letting people die if they can’t pay,” but it is an acknowlegment that labor and resources are not free. If you acknowledge the ACA has flaws, what are your plans to fix it?
   3. There’s no excuse for students to go into debt with no plan to pay it off. The desire to make education “free” is why it costs so much; the education system treats the government like a bottomless pit of money. Perhaps instead they should compete to provide better eduction for lower prices. And college isn’t the only way to advance intellectually or financially.
   4. You missed the first draft of Alexandria Occasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, which promised “Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”. This cannot be achieved without taking from those who produce, and giving to those who do not. And how do you decide what the rich’s “share” should be in taxes? Do you know how much the upper classes currently pay?
   5. You want to give away your own money, you can always donate to charity. Otherwise see my response to #1.
   6. How would you force companies to pay a “decent, livable wage” AND stay in business without eliminating job positions?
   7. Good, you’re not anti-Christian. Does that mean you won’t force Christians or anyone else to act against their conscience? Will you allow parents to raise their children as they see fit (aside from obvious abuse or neglect)? Will you allow businesses to choose what services they do and don’t provide? Or churches to preach what they believe? And will you prevent the IRS or other government agencies from putting extra scrutiny on religious or other conservative groups?
   8. Good news, LGBTQ people DO have the same rights as the rest of us. Unfortunately forcing people to endorse your lifestyle, or pretend you are the opposite sex of what you were born as, is not a right.
   9. Actually, illegal immigrants do abuse programs, when sanctuary cities allow it, and when they steal identities. And are you going to remove illegal hires from the jobs they are stealing? Also, no one says you can’t deport children along with their parents. Or what “humane” ways do you have in mind to deal with people who have no right to be here? If you believe they do have the right to be here because “no human is illegal”, then your first sentence on this point is a lie.
   10. So what do you believe government should NOT regulate, aside from abortion? Is there anything your political side wants to regulate but you don’t?
   11. What specific actions (not statements, because talk is cheap and easily misnconstrued) has this administration taken which match actions taken by actual fascist regimes? And are you prepared to analyze ways in which your own side has flirted with fascism or some form of totalitarianism? Also be prepared to compare this admin’s actions with actions of past US presidents.
   12. Sure I’ll listen, if you are prepared to listen to the ways “marginalized” groups are currently bringing about their own hardships, even if you don’t like what you’re hearing.
   13. Sure, enforce the gun laws on the books, but what “new, common sense gun regulations” do you have in mind, and how will they prevent mass shootings or assassinations like what happened to Charlie Kirk? And if you don’t want another opinion, then don’t post this where people can comment.
   14. You can encourage politeness, but you can’t force it.
   15. I’m not a businessman, but somehow I think telling investors “Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else” is not going to get them excited about your latest green energy venture. Sure, let’s develop sustainable energy sources, but they have to be sustainable economically as well as environmentally. Regarding the latter, even “green energy” sources have environmental trade-offs.
   16. The current gender wage gap is not due to unequal pay for the same job, but different pay for different jobs. Unequal outcomes do not always mean unequal opportunity.

   So, if you are the Very Model of a Moderate US Liberal, exactly how far are you willing to go to get what you want? if the majority are not on board with all the things you propose (and that seems to be the case right now), what are you going to do about it? Are you going to listen to those who disagree, address their concerns, and deal with the potential flaws in your plans? Or are you just going to write off everyone who disagrees as greedy and bigoted, and wait for them to die while you indoctrinate their children? And if you actually do get everything on your wish list, but the utopia you imagine fails to materialize, then will you: A, Rethink your plans and try a different direction, B, Say this is the best you can do and leave things as they are, or C, double-down on the socialism?

   Reply

   • “The desire to make education ‘free’ “

     Free (frē) adverb/adjective/noun: At _The_Expense_Of_Others.

     “This cannot be achieved without taking from those who produce, and giving to those who do not.”

     “What is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for?” Dr. T. Sowell

     PWS

     Reply

   • Excellent job.#8 is almost exactly what I wrote when I started to do my own fisking of this thing, before I decided to leave it to the commentariate, a decision which you just proved wise. And extra points for the Gilbert and Sullivan reference…

     Reply

3. The piece as a whole tends to suffer from 4 main flaws in its thinking, all of which are related to one another:

   1. External locus of control: The piece refers in many places to the idea of the strong helping the weak, the wealthy helping the poor, etc. But it doesn’t ask where rich and poor people, or strong and weak people, come from. They’re assumed to just be. Some mysterious force beyond mortal ken makes them that way. Sometimes that’s the case – often it’s not. Which leads to:
   2. Ignoring effects of the second order and beyond: You want regulations to make things “safe”, but what does that do to make housing affordable? What does it mean for a job to be well-paid when so much of your earnings are diverted for the use of others? What happens when you make it more comfortable to be dependent, or more of a strain to be a contributor?
   3. Refusing to see tradeoffs: These things they want are often interrelated in a way that makes them actually oppose one another. You don’t get to have everything you want, only to choose where to strike a balance. Which leads into…
   4. Black-and-white thinking: You want housing to be “affordable” but also you want regulations to make them “safe”. How “safe” is “safe?” How “affordable” is “affordable?” One reason they can’t see tradeoffs is because they collapse these ideas from continuums to dichotomies.

   Reply

4. To no one’s surprise, I’m sure, I’m going to pick apart #15.  If I find extra time in my schedule, I’ll work on some others, but 15 is in my area of expertise and my favorite soapbox. 

   I will also note that the reason people throw out lists like this is to make attacking the ideas difficult as it takes a lot of time and effort to debunk even one point, and 16 points is a lot to get to.  I believe the term for a verbal list like this is a Gish Gallop, but I could be wrong.  However, I have to spend as much time and paper, or more on one item than they did on all 16.  Sorry, it’s long, but you asked us to fisk this.

   15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so that they can change jobs.  There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.  Sorry billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

   You say that you want to fund sustainable energy.  Now, part of the definition of sustainable is that it can sustain itself.  Dumping a few billion or trillion dollars into something is great, but only if it starts paying for (sustaining) itself.  We will discuss that in more detail below.

   I also will assume, given other items on your list, that you are concerned that the poor who can’t afford healthcare should not have to pay more for their electricity.  That means that anything that increases the prices of electricity should be very carefully considered, as the poor are the one hurt the most by increased electricity prices, as those not only decrease your ability to light, heat, and cool your house, but also increase the prices of all goods and services, sometimes dramatically.  This means that any replacement power needs to be economically equivalent to coal, or your choices are directly harming the very people you proclaimed you wanted to help in points above.

   Funding something is nice and all, but where is this money coming from?  The national debt is reaching such a point that we are risking complete economic collapse.  If you want the government to have money to fund this, we are going to have to cut government spending somewhere.  Trillions of dollars don’t just magically appear out of thin air.  Extreme government spending causes inflation, and if it goes too far, you replicate the issues of the Weimer Republic.

   I should define some terms.  Baseload power is what we need at all times.  This is the power that your hospitals, police stations, fire departments, fridges, freezers, and medical devices need.  If baseload power is not maintained, people die.  Then there is variable and peak power.  This is the power we like to use.  I like to have a house with heat, which requires power, as even my pellet stove needs electricity.  I like to have lights and a stove/oven and maybe my computer and all my lovely other electric devices.  This power can be lived without, but our quality of life will fall greatly.

   I believe the first item is to determine WHAT sustainable options are available for us if we are kicking out coal and oil.  So let’s look at options for coal first.  Coal is primarily used for electricity, and that’s what we’ll focus on.  All other uses for coal, I will assume you are ok with as they are not first and foremost in the energy category.

   1. Natural Gas is an option.  This is probably the best option.  It is affordable, though usually a little more expensive than coal, but only by a small bit, so we’ll ignore that.  It is reliable.  It is available.  It is…a fossil fuel and you probably didn’t mean it.  If you did, good for you.  This is our best option.
   2. Nuclear is an option and people are trying to get more nuclear happening.  However, the permitting process for nuclear is ugly and the reactors are expensive.  It also takes a VERY long time (8 years is the fastest I have ever seen, with 15-20 being more common) to build safe nuclear reactors and to make nuclear slightly more affordable and faster, the Trump administration is trying to remove a lot of red tape.  This does have the effect of making nuclear have a few less safeguards.  Also, even with all the work that has gone on with the Trump administration trying to speed things up, the current numbers are not working out to have this ever make money.  Funding sustainable nuclear is looking less and less likely, given the high costs of nuclear energy.  The initial investment, even if handled by the government, which is likely to put us further in debt, is not all that needs to be handled.  Currently people are looking into small modular reactors. These reactors have a better economic outlook, and are theoretically equivalent in safety, but they have a high need for enriched feed and a high output of nuclear waste, both of which are causes for high ongoing costs.  These ongoing costs are unable to be met by current electricity prices. INL is looking into ways to do this, but there is no current option that does not greatly increase electricity prices.  Also, the number of nuclear plants that will be ready in the next ten years have no chance of replacing coal without a significant number of people going without power and thus some of those people are going to die.  If we are looking into the future for 50 years, perhaps, this is a viable solution, but only by increasing costs, and doing so dramatically.  So much for your care for the poor. 
   3. Hydroelectric could be an option.  There are places that subsist totally off of hydroelectric.  However, they are small, and really, in the US at least, and most of the developed world, hydroelectric is tapped out, unless we want to start destroying communities and the environment.  We have to dam rivers and then slowly release the waters.  This is a great way to make electricity (but it does increase the emissions of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2).  However, if we dam any more rivers in the US, we will be destroying low lying communities around the rivers.  If you have any concern with rising waters harming people’s lives and livelihoods, this is right out.
   4. Wind is one that everyone likes to tout.  Wind energy is quite a problem.  It is more expensive by far than coal.  An MIT study put it at least at double cost to coal, with some estimates in the study ranging to 6 times as high in cost, depending on location and supply.  It is not capable of providing baseload power.  Wind is too variable. Therefore, it is only good for peak power, but is not appropriately timed for it, risking electricity grid instability, which can lead to far more black and brown outs, and in dramatic cases, can actually destroy the grid for long periods of time in places with too much wind in the mix. The wind blows when it blows, and just because you think it is windy, that does not mean the wind is of a good quality to make adequate power.  For nameplate power generation (a field rated for 50 GW for example), the wind must constantly blow at 42 miles an hour.  Now, if the wind blows too fast, it can destroy the turbines, so they have a safety device that stop the energy production at those speeds.  If the wind is gusting, this becomes a huge issue with the maintenance of the turbines.  Wind turbines are also a problem with PM 2.5, a pollutant that exacerbates asthma and causes diseases like black lung and asbestos.  We also should consider another major problems with wind energy.  To make these incredibly tall structures, they require an underground concrete and steel platform.  These platforms differ in size depending on the size of the turbine, but for modern higher capacity turbines are around 50ft in diameter and 20ft thick, buried in the ground.  This causes harm to animals who use the ground for habitat.  We also have the killing of the animals around the turbine to consider.  The turbine blades, though seeming slow moving, have a high rotational speed and the tips of the blades travel at over 100 mph.  This kills insects, bats, and birds.  Migratory birds and endangered birds like eagles are killed at a much higher rate by wind turbine farms than by fossil fuel plants, who are held to a much higher standard, in part because with extra funding, the fossil fuels plants can achieve it, where as the wind turbine farms cannot.  So I hope you are considering further decreasing endangered species, like bald eagles, in your “funding” calcs. The land use, itself, is a major concern.  It takes many acres to make power with wind, more acres by far than equivalent power by coal.  This means that we have more land being polluted, more wildlife being displaced, and more natural beauty ruined compared to coal.   Finally, there is the problem of disposal of wind turbine products.  The blades cannot be recycled, so if there is ever a need for a new blade (a routine maintenance issue) the blade must be landfilled, and guess what, they are big and fill landfills very quickly.  Also, it is extremely expensive to take down a wind turbine at end of life, so the vast majority of wind turbines are abandoned in place, ruining natural beauty.  And that huge steel and concrete platform remains for a very long time.  We haven’t really studied how long it can remain, but as we have roman cement still existing more than a thousand years after it was poured above ground, our current steel and concrete in an oxygen deficient environment covered in tons of soil should probably last even longs without breaking down. 
   5. Solar power is the next option.  Solar panels work with the weather, which means we have no baseload power.  They also don’t work after dark, when the power need peaks.  Boy I hope no one needs power at night.  (Hospitals, people on medical equipment in their own homes, refrigerators and freezers, etc)  Depending on your climate, solar panels may be useful for most of the year, or not.  My dad has solar panels on his house and they provide all his power in the summer and are nearly useless in the winter and on bad weather days (a large portion of the year out here), they provide barely anything. Solar panels are also expensive.  Look at the cost of solar for your own home.  For SOME of your energy, it will likely be $25,000.  Payback periods on small solar projects range from 20-30 years, with solar panels having an expected life of 30-45 years.  The payback on larger fields is usually longer than the life of the panels, due to damage from weather and human elements.  This means the cost of electricity is going up dramatically.  Also, what land are you using for this solar?  You need a lot of land for this to have any impact, and all of that land is no longer useful for many animals’ habitation.  Solar panels are also made of incredibly rare and damaging chemicals.  Entire villages in China have been killed off because of the chemicals needed for these panels.  Is the death of strangers worth it?  There are safe ways to make solar panels, but most of those double to triple the cost, again, and there are still issues with safe treatment of those chemicals.  They are also hard on the electricity grid, as they do not provide power according to need.  Places that rely on solar have had to pay extreme costs to other places without solar to have them take the energy before their grid blows up. 
   6. Geothermal/Tidal/Etc.  There are a lot of other ideas people have.  Geothermal works fairly well, in the places where it works.  Iceland has a lot of geothermal opportunities and can replace most if not all of their coal usage.  However, unless you have a geyesr on tap, there is only so much you can do.  There is also a concern of how much can be pulled before wrecking the stability of the volcano nearby.  This is one reason, aside from land protection, why we haven’t put in significant geothermal energy in Yellowstone.  We don’t want to awaken the sleeping giant volcano that could wipe out most of the USA and harm the world.  We also don’t want to get rid of the natural beauty of Yellowstone.  Tidal has similar location and beauty problems.  While it works, it only works on certain coves and beaches.  Most of those locations are where people like to vacation, and once you start using tidal energy, the beach can’t safely be used by humans.  It also isn’t great for the wildlife.
   7. While this isn’t a type of energy, I’ll also address batteries.  We need battery backup for most types of non-fossil fuel energy.  The problem is that we do not have the technology to have batteries that will work, nor do we have the ability to regulate our electricity in such a way that batteries can fix the problem.  We need to make so much extra energy to fill the batteries to keep us going ever single night, that we would need double to triple (some estimates are even higher) the production.  However, if there is a day where our production exceeds expectation, we will destroy the batteries.  The best energy storage we have is insanely expensive on these levels and is made of a great many minerals that are rare.  Most estimates say that there is not enough of some of these elements on earth to handle current electric needs.  These rare materials also require significant strip mining.  Some of them can only be gotten by one of two means, human sacrifice in terms of child labor, or by causing significant environmental damage to the land.

   You also want to replace oil.  Now as you simply said energy, we will agree that oil can still be used for the chemical industries, including plastics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, etc.  We will focus on the main usage of oil as a transportation fuel.

   So, what do we replace oil with? Bueller? 

   The common answer is electricity.   Electric cars cannot handle the needs of our nation.  I live in a part of the country where I have to travel 100 miles between towns.  Literally, it is 99.4 miles!  I am expecting a baby here soon and my husband will have to drive me those hundred miles to see the nearest midwife/OB.  If we need a NICU, it is closer to 250.  Electric car batteries are only good for 300 miles, and that is from 0-100%, which you should never count upon.  Electric cars are really only designed to run from 20-80%, which means that you just lost 40% of those 300 miles.  That is 120 miles.  They also have issues running in mountainous terrain, high winds, and temperatures below 32F.  Each of those can drop the mileage by up to 50%.  If you live in mountainous terrain with high winds and cold temperatures (like I do), getting those 100 miles in the winter is iffy.  Most families who have electric cars have them as a second vehicle, rather than as their primary and only vehicle because of range and reliability issues.  Even if this were not an issue, there is also the problem of airplanes, helicopters, and semis. These cannot be run for the long distances needed on electricity.  There was a test of an electrically powered semi traveling around 400 miles on one of the most used interstates in the US.  The short answer to how that worked was it didn’t, even when they planned for the best conditions possible.  The semi couldn’t handle the terrain.  But even without that, we have other major issues with electric cars.  Electric vehicles need batteries.  I mentioned the problem with batteries earlier, but I didn’t handle what we do with the batteries when they reach end of life.  We toss them in landfills because they are too hard to clean up.  They are a fire hazard, above that of a gasoline powered car.  Also, the tremendous weight of an small electric car causes significant damage to roads and highways, closer to the damage caused by semi-trucks.  This means a significantly greater demand for asphalt which is…oil and particularly bad off-gassing oil at that. 

   What about ethanol, methane to gasoline, or biodiesel?  Well, ethanol is very hard on cars, causing significant damage to all the steel.  It is also less energy dense, so your fuel cost goes up and your repair costs go up, and the amount you can haul across the nation in semis goes WAY down.  Semis use diesel for a reason.  Guess where we get the methane…fossil fuels.  And again, doesn’t solve the diesel problem.  Biodiesel is only able to be used in this country at the low percentages it is used because of massive government subsides.  To make it take over more of the market would take a huge jump in transportation prices (so all your goods go up in price) or a large jump in government debt.  Also, we make biodiesel out of food stocks, like soy and corn.  Do you really want to compete with the transportation industry for your food?  That will dramatically increase food prices and transportation prices.  There is a way around it, but it would require increasing our cattle herds exponentially and killing huge amounts of cattle each day for their fat.  Our current tallow industry could supply one small biodiesel operation, about 80,000 BPD.  We need (according to the EIA) around 3,000,000 BPD.  So, I guess we multiply our cow herds by approximately 38 times, which has land use, water use, and other concerns.

   Of course, nothing covered here dealt with the chemical industries.  This comment would be a lot longer if I did that, but suffice to say, if we really wanted to get rid of fossil fuels, which is what most “moderate leftists” I have spoken to seem to mean with discussing the decrease in oil and coal, we’d get rid of plastic(bye bye phones and computers), single use medical equipment (how do you like sharing catheters with someone), pharmaceuticals (hope you don’t have a medical condition), paint/varnish (say goodbye to your wood furniture), synthetic fabrics (clothes, furniture) varnish, lubricants (those wind turbines sure need them), and more.   

   Reply

5. I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.

   Good for you? But I’m willing to bet 95% of the time, I know exactly what it means. Studies (I can cite them if you want) often show I know you a lot better than you know me. The big problem with a statement like yours is that your views are often highlighted and celebrated, while republican views are not.
   
   Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.

   The same, but see point one. If you don’t like this characterization, maybe you should do a better job of reigning your side in. If people actually cared about things, they should spend more time looking inward than outward.

    Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

   True. No one is the same. But giving where this is going, I’m having a hard time not seeing you about to do what you accuse us of doing.

   I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

   Great in theory….You do know republicans do this? But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is how it should be done. The biggest question: Who’s gonna pay for it?

   I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.”

   No, its not. As far as I know, never in human history has it been. Since you’re claiming it is, the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just make a statement. Also PERIOD? What are you five?

   “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

   Strawman. Has any republican ever said this? There was a lot of (justified) critiques of the ACA (not to mention subterfuge). Also, if you don’t know better critiques of cheaper healthcare, you’re not listening to them. Additionally, everyone has access to it. You can walk into any ER and get anywhere in the country, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? I bet you’re also talking about Hormone therapy and abortion. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you would get healthcare cost down without making someone do their work for cheaper/free. This is going to be a problem with one of your later arguments.

   I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

   Setting aside the big problem with a significant number of colleges, the short answer: it can be. Trade schools, community colleges, military, are alternative methods to higher education that don’t break the bank. I’m willing to bet 999/1000 an employer doesn’t care where you went to college, only if you can do the job. I know one of Charlie Kirk’s talking point was almost 50% of people working aren’t in a field they got their degree in (I’ll admit, I don’t know if this is true). Still, this is you’re talking point. I also understand (Maybe I’m doing exactly what you accuse me of doing earlier) that colleges are one of liberals sacred institutions. If you think there is a problem, maybe, as I suggested earlier, you look inward towards a solution instead of asking for the government to step in and fix it.

   I don’t believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don’t want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can’t afford to go to the doctor.

   Well, it would be a rather stupid thing to admit (but given the wake of Kirk, nothing surprises me), but that’s not really what conservatives are saying. I guess maybe you are doing some of that which you accuse them of doing. The issue is it’s happening. There are people who (proudly) freeload off the government and even tell others how to do so.

   Also, wealth is not a zero-sum game. If it were, we would have hit a wall decades ago. A person is no more obligated (morally or otherwise) to be concerned with others who have nothing to do with them. As a Christian, I would add: By what moral authority do you appeal to?

   Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
   
   If it walks like a duck….

   I don’t throw around “I’m willing to pay higher taxes” lightly. If I’m suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it’s because I’m fine with paying my share as long as it’s actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
   
   I would also say, this isn’t how governments work. You don’t get to pick and choose taxes. Those same taxes you pay also go to pay for things I’m willing to bet you don’t want to have them pay for.

   I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn’t have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

   I believe if a person wants to work for a dollar and two people come to that arrangement, then that’s between them. My belief is more grounded in reality. I’ll quote Jesus here (See if I can appeal to your morality) which was not the point of his lesson, but seems to fit nicely here:

   And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?

   All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

   You do realize, given that we are only on point six, how hypocritical this is? This is exactly what you are doing.

   I don’t believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.
   
   They do (granted, it wasn’t always this way). If we were just talking about the LGB this wouldn’t even be an issue now. But you know darn well the legal, moral, and ethical implications of what the T is doing to the movement, world, and rule of law, so let’s not pretend it is what it isn’t.

   I don’t believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN’T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they’re supposed to be abusing, and if they’re “stealing” your job it’s because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

   So you’re telling me they aren’t being given food stamps, free medical access, housing benefits, increasing the crime rate (yeah, I know what you’re going to say here…)? Even by coming here illegally, they are breaking the law. And all these things you want for everybody? In a place with finite resources, increasing cost, and longer wait times, what do you think bring in millions of extra people are year are going to do to those things?

    Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
   
   Well there is a third option: Sunshine. Something both government and companies seem to hate.

   11-12. Res Ipsa Loquitur. You have revealed exactly what you are: illogical. There is no point in moving forward with anyone who makes this argument. Whatever you have to say, I no longer want to listen, because by making this argument, you have said you won’t listen (though you have already proved that by your responses) to anything bordering on the rational. What’s the point of continuing after this?

   Here’s a challenge to Ethics Alarms readers: debunk this virtue-signaling orgy my Facebook friends are so fond of, and I’ll publish your vivisections in one grand post to express my gratitude for saving me the trouble.

   This is why no one likes Ethicists, Jack (Jk.) Fine, fine, I’ll continue.

   I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.
   
   Even if I believe you’re not coming after guns (which I don’t) define “Common Sense” or any law that would have stopped most gun (I want to say violence here, but I don’t have data at this point) shootings that happen in our country.

   I believe in so-called political correctness. 

   I cringed reading this. Who writes something like this with a straight face.
   
    I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you’re using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
   
   I hate being called John, and I correct people when they do. In this way, I agree. But the issue rarely stems from a name (I’m almost positive you know that). The issue is bending reality, which stretches into the whole problem of having transgender people in our society (see earlier point). Hurt is a two-way street. Men hurt women by playing in their safe spaces. Also, it is not hurt to correct someone nor not allow them accesss to somewhere they shouldn’t be.

    I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.
   
   You could have just stopped here.

   Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

   Again, trying to tell someone else what to do. It’s their money. You have no right to it. I would say the same thing about you. I have no right to your money.

   I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

   Are we really doing the wage gap again? It’s been 17 years since that stupid study came out. If there is something (Legally) that a woman can’t do that a man can, then fix it. But besides the fact that its been debunked multiple times, had nothing to do with an actual gap in pay, I’m willing to bet you don’t believe this statement (see you’re own vague posting on the transgender movement).

   I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I’m a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn’t mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don’t believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
   

   Then do it. No one is stopping you. But you’re not advocating for any of that. You are (mostly) advocating for a vague increase in taxes and government overreach. You literally wrote, “I don’t believe in government overreach” then proceeded to do nothing but advocate for government overreach. What you really could have said and saved all of us the trouble was:

   Dear Republicians. I’m a Liberal. I don’t think you understand us. Just be clear, please govern me harder.

   Message received.

   Reply

   • Bingo.

     Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.