There was someone that tried to make the following argument

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 35
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Me: The democrats consistently want to reduce unwanted pain.  The GOP doesn't consistently believe in anything.

This guy: Everyone wants to reduce unwanted pain.

Me: Then explain how banning abortion, legalizing AR 15s, separating undocumented children from their families (whether through state force like deportation or inaction like letting the parents die due to lack of healthcare or food), continuing the drug war and locking people up in jail for weed, forcing students to take on huge loans to go to college, and not raising taxes on the globalists to pay for it all reduces unwanted pain?  If people with George Soros level wealth pay 70% of their income in taxes, that produces way less unwanted pain than the amount of unwanted pain it would offset.

Now, I'm upfront and I don't value reducing unwanted pain, but I value LUSHOOTY (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others Or Too Young).  But how can the republicans be against unwanted pain consistently?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@wylted

See above.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,243
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Wipe out all the inhabitants of New York City instantaneously with a nuclear bomb and you'll be "reducing their unwanted pain". If this sounds nonsensical, that's because it is. There's more to politics than reducing pain.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 353
Posts: 10,398
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
There's more to politics than reducing pain.
I will never give birth because I dont want to cause someone to live in great pain.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Wipe out all the inhabitants of New York City instantaneously with a nuclear bomb and you'll be "reducing their unwanted pain". If this sounds nonsensical, that's because it is. There's more to politics than reducing pain.
That's incorrect because NY residents would rather be alive and deal with the pain of being alive than lose their lives due to a nuke (so their pain in that context is wanted or at least tolterated).
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
YOU should not reproduce because your genes are inferior to everyone else's.  You may be born a pedophille and it's not a choice; but it's irrelevant.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 353
Posts: 10,398
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Thats true. I also have many other disorders. Reproduction would be very bad in my case.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The problem with income tax on the wealthy is that a lot of them don't have income, they increase their net worth in other ways. Decreasing the income tax and instituting a wealth tax would be more economically efficient.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,243
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
So would a fetus, if you gave them a little bit of time to develop and then decide for themselves. Yet you want legal abortion on demand.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Decreasing the income tax and instituting a wealth tax would be more economically efficient.
bingo

the original income tax introduced in 1913 was intended to be temporary and primarily targeted individuals earning $3,000 or more, which is roughly equivalent to $69,000 today

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's incorrect because NY residents would rather be alive and deal with the pain of being alive than lose their lives due to a nuke (so their pain in that context is wanted or at least tolterated).
the dead don't suffer

the living always suffer

this isn't about "preferences"

this is only about reducing suffering
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: Then explain how banning abortion,
i suffer emotional damage when i think about the unborn hoards losing their bright futures

banning abortion reduces my suffering

legalizing AR 15s,
i love shooting guns and when i'm shooting guns i forget about all my problems and this reduces my suffering

separating undocumented children from their families (whether through state force like deportation or inaction like letting the parents die due to lack of healthcare or food),
unskilled immigration drives down wages and low wages make me feel bad, i like money and money reduces my suffering

continuing the drug war and locking people up in jail for weed,
drugs cause suffering and if we can end the drug trade by scaring the pants off everyone with harsh penalties, then, in the long run, suffering will be reduced for future generations, and on top of that, it makes me feel good to think about drug dealers and drug addicts locked up in prison for the rest of their lives

forcing students to take on huge loans to go to college,
nobody can force someone to take out a loan, and the idea of my tax dollars paying for someone else to get an advantage in the job market increases my suffering

and not raising taxes on the globalists to pay for it all reduces unwanted pain? 
if you punish innovators, they'll just move somewhere else and then they'll fire all their employees in your country and unemployment increases suffering

If people with George Soros level wealth pay 70% of their income in taxes, that produces way less unwanted pain than the amount of unwanted pain it would offset.
that's the problem. nobody cares about ALL HUMAN SUFFERING, they mostly just care about their OWN suffering (both real and imagined)

also, in the united states, the lawmakers are all funded by millionaires and billionaires, so, don't expect them to bite the hand that feeds them anytime soon
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
 Decreasing the income tax and instituting a wealth tax would be more economically efficient.
Sure, but the republicans don't agree with that.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Fetuses can't feel pain until 18 weeks or so and even if they can feel pain, you give them painkillers, you can abort them all the way up until the moment of birth completely painlessly.  Free abortion makes this easier.  This is from the left wing AUP perspective.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
the dead don't suffer

the living always suffer

this isn't about "preferences"

this is only about reducing suffering
Only unwanted suffering; if you want to work out in the gym, it would be painful, but you chose to endure that pain, so it's wanted pain (or at least tolerated pain).  Being alive produces tolerable amounts of pain for anyone not suicidal.

i suffer emotional damage when i think about the unborn hoards losing their bright futures

banning abortion reduces my suffering
Legalizing abortion reduces female suffering (if she chooses to abort) more than banning it reduces your suffering.  You want kids to have bright futures?  Then adopt a kid.  Until then, it's all virtue signalling.

i love shooting guns and when i'm shooting guns i forget about all my problems and this reduces my suffering
There's videogames for that, where there is no big movement to ban.

unskilled immigration drives down wages and low wages make me feel bad, i like money and money reduces my suffering
Wages won't go down because a doubled population moving into the country produces twice as much demand for jobs, but also twice as much supply for them.  A company with twice as many customers (which immigrants are customers off the job and workers on the job) will need twice as many workers to maintain the customers.

drugs cause suffering and if we can end the drug trade by scaring the pants off everyone with harsh penalties, then, in the long run, suffering will be reduced for future generations
How's that worked out so far?

and on top of that, it makes me feel good to think about drug dealers and drug addicts locked up in prison for the rest of their lives
That's just sadistic (which being sadistic is a republican thing).

 and the idea of my tax dollars paying for someone else to get an advantage in the job market increases my suffering
Free college costs $60 billion/year in taxes (about $200 per US Citizen/year extra in taxes).  The top 25% are paying about 90% of this (and for them, the higher taxes aren't a significent amount of suffering compared to student loans), so for the bottom 75% on average; it's like $20/US Citizen on average; for the bottom 50%, it's like $4/year.  Having them pay the $4/year is less suffering than having a college student pay $120000 in college fees.

if you punish innovators, they'll just move somewhere else and then they'll fire all their employees in your country and unemployment increases suffering
There are 193 nations in the world all with some level of taxation.  If all the globalists cared about was avoiding taxes, then whichever nation had the lowest tax rate, 100% of the globalists would live there.  The globalists aren't moving even if they have to pay 10% higher in taxes due to the government raising them.

that's the problem. nobody cares about ALL HUMAN SUFFERING
True, but if you had to pick between preventing a kid from scraping their knee (tax hike on the rich) and preventing a kid from having their leg chopped off by a chainsaw (student loan for a student), I think if you are AUP, it's pretty obvious which reduces unwanted pain the most.  The rich person will heal; the student is much less likely to.

also, in the united states, the lawmakers are all funded by millionaires and billionaires, so, don't expect them to bite the hand that feeds them anytime soon
The left wants to repeal Citizens United.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left wants to repeal Citizens United.
please explain how this would fix anything
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sure, but the republicans don't agree with that.
Most liberals don't either sadly. It's mostly a leftist thing.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 5,222
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then explain how banning abortion
Prevents children from the pain of experiencing abortion

legalizing AR 15s,
Makes rape and home burglaries less commo, which are painful

separating undocumented children from their families
Prevents the sexual exploitation of minors by traffickers and once the adults are investigated the children are returned to them. Not sure why you want pedophiles to have access to children, pervert.

continuing the drug war and locking people up in jail for weed
Republicans are pro drug legalization now

forcing students to take on huge loans to go to college
It's not forced. We value freedom so we allow them to take loans for stupid shit if they want
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 5,222
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
The problem is that with liberalism their only value is reducing unwanted pain. (Called harm avoidance for non retards). While conservatives have a higher number of moral values to balance against that. (5 to be exact)

Liberals also miss the fact that their policies actually from a practical standpoint, regardless of intent increase harm.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
with liberalism their only value is reducing unwanted pain.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 5,222
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay se we have to divide leftists up. You have the opportunistic sociopaths who want to use virtue signaling as some sort of signal for their social status, which is a large part of the political class.  

I was just looking at some studies earlier thag measured ethics on 5 different planes and it showed conservatives do consider 5 different moral values and liberals 2 in general. 

This also leaves out the liberals from the spiteful mutants category. So depending on the context here I am referring to 3 different types of liliberals. I usually try to watch my terminology but consistently mess up but here is what I usually mean

Leftist = spiteful mutant

Liberal- the more reasoned democrats but one the 5 value study would mostly be looking at.

The sociopathic opportunists, usually attach themselves to left-wing causes as well and could be a liberal or a leftist. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
 please explain how this would fix anything
It makes it illegal for politicians to be curropt; they can break the law, but then there is nothing that can be done to end curroption.


TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@wylted

Prevents children from the pain of experiencing abortion
99% of abortions are before when the fetus can feel pain and in the 1%, painkillers exist, making abortion until birth plausibly painless.

Makes rape and home burglaries less commo, which are painful
Shotguns and pepper spray prevent that; not AR 15s.

Prevents the sexual exploitation of minors by traffickers and once the adults are investigated the children are returned to them. Not sure why you want pedophiles to have access to children, pervert.
Sex traffickers I think should be beheaded, but the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not sex traffickers.

Republicans are pro drug legalization now
OIP.lOo_oQR7vSabDcARrc8lIQAAAA (474×474) (bing.com) says most GOP states have weed banned for recreational use.

We value freedom so we allow them to take loans for stupid shit if they want
Only libertarians value freedom consistently; conservatives don't.

Leftist = spiteful mutant

Liberal- the more reasoned democrats but one the 5 value study would mostly be looking at.
What would you call Kyle Kulinski?
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Ah, I see. Perhaps my source was not as reliable as I might have hoped.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
please explain how this would fix anything
It makes it illegal for politicians to be curropt; they can break the law, but then there is nothing that can be done to end curroption.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, the organization filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[7] In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing Celsius 41.11 and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[8]



QUESTION,

do you personally think it should be illegal to make a movie (or a book) that is critical of a political candidate ?
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
also, in the united states, the lawmakers are all funded by millionaires and billionaires,
I guess the difference is that you think that's a good thing and others don't.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
do you personally think it should be illegal to make a movie (or a book) that is critical of a political candidate ?
No?!?!

Citizens United legalized CURROPTION, not criticizing politicians.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
do you personally think it should be illegal to make a movie (or a book) that is critical of a political candidate ?
No?!?!

Citizens United legalized CURROPTION, not criticizing politicians.
READ THE ACTUAL CASE

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
also, in the united states, the lawmakers are all funded by millionaires and billionaires,
I guess the difference is that you think that's a good thing and others don't.
holy jesus, jump to conclusions much ?
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.
This is the same as legalizing corruption.  Corporation's free speech drowns out everyone else's free speech.  I prefer we the people's free speech to we the globalist's free speech.