Government wants to control your life?

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 231
Topic's author
#151
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lefties will not too uncommonly say the same types of arguments when we propose abortion bans. They say that we just want to control women/hate women and that's why we do it, when the vast majority of people who oppose abortion do so because they think it is literal murder.
Agree 100%. This is what I have started calling the “pro-con” fallacy. If you’re pro-life then you hate women and are anti women’s choice, if you’re pro choice then you just wanna kill babies. It’s lazy and intellectually dishonest, but sadly it works on both sides and is one of the biggest reasons we can’t have civil political conversations.
Topic's author
#152
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
You'd figure pro choicers would want seatbelts to be optional, since they are the ones so obsessed with choice
Choice is the left’s focus when it comes to abortion because the entire debate comes down to how ones body will be used by someone else, so the beneficiary of the pro-life position is not the person whose body is in question.

Seat belt laws are the opposite. Is there any situation where someone without a seatbelt goes flying through the front windshield, is resurrected and given the opportunity to do it over again and still chooses not to wear the seatbelt? I doubt you would argue there are, so these laws are at least intended to be in the best interests of the rider.

Whatever you think about these two positions, the principal to understand is the idea that government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, even in some cases from itself. Abortion isn’t about protecting its citizens, it’s about choosing which citizen to favor; the one that is alive or the one that isn’t (depending on your definition, which is of course another big part of it).
#153
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Seat belt laws are the opposite. Is there any situation where someone without a seatbelt goes flying through the front windshield, is resurrected and given the opportunity to do it over again and still chooses not to wear the seatbelt? I doubt you would argue there are, so these laws are at least intended to be in the best interests of the rider.
The best interests of the rider are whatever the rider decides; they know the risks of seatbelts or no seatbelts and they accept the consequences for their actions.  Most of the time, seatbelts aren't even worn properly so if you did get in an accident, the seatbelt wouldn't do you much good.


 Whatever you think about these two positions, the principal to understand is the idea that government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, even in some cases from itself.
This is done with protecting people from victim producing crimes, such as murder or rape.  However, the only victim of someone who refuses to wear a seatbelt is the person who refuses to wear it in the event of an accident.  People should be free to decide their own risk tolerance instead of the government deciding for them.  Me personally, I wear seatbelts.  I don't think they should be mandatory.  Kids on the bus don't wear seatbelts and nobody cares because it's a common occurrence.

Abortion isn’t about protecting its citizens
Pro lifers want to make the unborn citizens so the government protects them.  Currently they aren't citizens.
Topic's author
#154
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
You didn’t hear a single thing I said.

We can debate whether government should impose seatbelt mandates or whether abortion should be legal another time. The argument I was responding to was the charge of hypocrisy by explaining why the left holds different attitudes towards these two things.

Again, the left believes in governments role to protect it’s citizens. That applies to seatbelts, it does not apply to the abortion debate. Now imagine if abortion couldn’t be done safely and thousands of women were dying on the table every year. That would change things for many on the left.
#155
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Government wanting to control our life goes back to the monarchy it's the whole reason that the constitution established a Bill of Rights. Pretending people in power don't want to  control people not in power doesn't exist as stupid it has nothing to do with covet or mass and in existed way before this bull crap.
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Choice is the left’s focus when it comes to abortion
And that was their biggest mistake.

From a legal perspective, it's always been about MEDICAL PRIVACY.
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
This argument makes no sense.
Please be slightly more specific.
#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Organized government is attempt at civilized way of creating a commonly shared set of fair/just and compassionate laws, that hopefully based on intellect and love of life.
One would hope.
#159
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
If you think there is a valid comparison between the government telling you what sex acts you are allowed to partake in vs the government telling you that you must take precautions to avoid spreading a deadly disease to other people then you have serious issues I can’t resolve.
Even the united states has laws prohibiting "what sex acts you are allowed to partake".

Out of the 53 countries in the Commonwealth - a loose association of countries most of them former British colonies - 36 have laws that criminalise homosexuality.  Countries that criminalise homosexuality today also have criminal penalties against women who have sex with women, although the original British laws applied only to men. [**]

ALSO, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, CIGARETTES AND ALCOHOL (AND REFINED SUGAR) SHOULD ALSO BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ARE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
ISN'T YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT A SUGGESTION THAT ABOLISHING HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS WOULD BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS ?
Abolishing regulations is always good for the consumer. In EVERY case. Unless you believe the consumer is too stupid to make good choices.
Thanks for clearing that up.
#161
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Can the influence of one's masturbation be observed in the interaction with others?
Male circumcision for curative purposes has had many advocates and adherents. John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg's cereals empire in the USA, viewed it as an effective cure for masturbation and the social ills that were said to accompany it. He advocated an unashamedly punitive approach:
“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” 26 [**]

Many sex therapists suggest masturbating regularly — whether you’re single or partnered.
In addition to the physical benefits derived from masturbation, a boost to self-esteem coupled with relaxation can be great for your sex life.

As for your libido, there’s some evidence that masturbating can help you maintain a healthy sex drive. For example, this 2009 study links frequent vibrator use to a high sex drive and positive sexual function, as well as general sexual wellness.

But the effects aren’t always positive

While there are proven benefits, some people do have negative experiences with masturbation.

You might dislike the feeling, or it might be against your belief system, or you might simply be uninterested in it. That’s fine! Whether you choose to masturbate or not is up to you.

If masturbation is difficult for you, and this difficulty is bothering you, consider reaching out to a doctor or therapist.

Some people experience negative feelings related to social or spiritual expectations

Masturbation is considered a sin in some religions. There are also many societal stigmas attached to masturbation: Some people believe women shouldn’t masturbate, or that masturbation is immoral.

That’s not to mention the anxiety-inducing myths around masturbation.

If you believe those things and go on to masturbate, you might experience feelings of guilt, anxiety, shame, or self-loathing afterward. [**]
Topic's author
#162
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Choice is the left’s focus when it comes to abortion
And that was their biggest mistake.

From a legal perspective, it's always been about MEDICAL PRIVACY.
WTF?

You cut my sentence in half and ignored the entire point I was making, only to respond with  something utterly irrelevant to the conversation. Try again.

Even the united states has laws prohibiting "what sex acts you are allowed to partake".
So what? What does this have to do with anything?
#163
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,009
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Choice is the left’s focus when it comes to abortion.
Not really. Ownership is the actual focus. They use flowery language but that is the actual meaning. Ownership of the fetus. My body, my fetus.
Topic's author
#164
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's just stupid. You don't have to agree with the Pro choice position to understand that forcing a woman to allow her body to be used as an incubation chamber against her will is at the very least - reasonably objectionable.
#165
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,009
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
You can't be held responsible for destroying your own fetus. My body, my fetus.
#166
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Male circumcision for curative purposes has had many advocates and adherents. John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg's cereals empire in the USA, viewed it as an effective cure for masturbation and the social ills that were said to accompany it. He advocated an unashamedly punitive approach:
“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” 26 [**]

Many sex therapists suggest masturbating regularly — whether you’re single or partnered.
In addition to the physical benefits derived from masturbation, a boost to self-esteem coupled with relaxation can be great for your sex life.

As for your libido, there’s some evidence that masturbating can help you maintain a healthy sex drive. For example, this 2009 study links frequent vibrator use to a high sex drive and positive sexual function, as well as general sexual wellness.
Let me rephrase: can the influence of one's masturbation and it's alleged impact on others be identifiable as a result of one's masturbation?


Masturbation is considered a sin in some religions. There are also many societal stigmas attached to masturbation: Some people believe women shouldn’t masturbate, or that masturbation is immoral.
This is a misinterpretation of the Abrahamic religions. It's not a sin to masturbate; the sin stems from not obliging by one's duty to impregnate one's dead brother's spouse. It centers on the story Onan who did not want to impregnate his dead brother's widow and thereby wasted his seed.

#167
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Let me rephrase: can the influence of one's masturbation and it's alleged impact on others be identifiable as a result of one's masturbation?
It is impossible to generalize this impact.

Your mood and at least one of your primary motivation schemes (your model of sexual desire) are affected by your private habits.

Your mood and your model of sexual desire affect how you interact with others.
#168
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
This is a misinterpretation of the Abrahamic religions. It's not a sin to masturbate; the sin stems from not obliging by one's duty to impregnate one's dead brother's spouse. It centers on the story Onan who did not want to impregnate his dead brother's widow and thereby wasted his seed.
Perhaps we could somehow communicate this to the pope.
#169
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to generalize this impact.

Your mood and at least one of your primary motivation schemes (your model of sexual desire) are affected by your private habits.

Your mood and your model of sexual desire affect how you interact with others.
I don't deny this. I'm asking can the influence be identified and pinpointed to masturbation?
#170
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps we could somehow communicate this to the pope.
This would presuppose that the Pope would interpret the story outside his papal prerogative known as Catechism, which isn't Christian at all.
#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
It is impossible to generalize this impact.

Your mood and at least one of your primary motivation schemes (your model of sexual desire) are affected by your private habits.

Your mood and your model of sexual desire affect how you interact with others.
I don't deny this. I'm asking can the influence be identified and pinpointed to masturbation?
I'm going to need a specific example.
#172
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
And BTW, people are often too stupid to make their own decisions. That’s just a fact.
You answered half of your own question. There absolutely are people who seek power over others. I don't know if they are more concentrated in the political left or the right (probably the left right now just because it seems to have the upper hand). If you're lucky, they are trying to exercise power over you for your own good--if you're unlucky, yes, there 1000% are people who get sick pleasure out of exercising power over others just because they can. And when you add in an (un)healthy dose of the culture warring that has poisoned literally everything in the United States, well. People absolutely LOVE exercising control over their enemies. So yes there are people in high places on both sides who would absolutely implement policies just to immiserate the other side and would get joy out of doing so.  

The mask mandate is a great example because while medical masks such as N95's in indoor settings are effective, clothe masks do little, if anything at all and wearing masks outside has been completely unnecessary throughout the entire situation outside of extreme situations like a packed outdoor concert or something. Yet, many blue areas implemented outdoor mask mandates  and as far as I know nobody ever mandated N95 or other medical masks instead of clothe masks. This is just as unscientific as proclaiming that masks as a concept are universally worthless, but many of the same people that "trust the science" dutifully line up to wear their masks outside on a bike ride. Just as the rights bias leads many to believe masks are worthless, the lefts bias leads many to way over emphasize the importance with things like outdoor mask mandates or mask mandates for vaccinated people. At the end of the day so much is poisoned by the culture war, virtue signaling, etc that people can hardly even think straight.

It's perfectly rationale for people on the political right to be anxious about any actions taken by left wing political figures and immediately suspect that they want to hurt them--because they do!
#173
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
The mask mandate is a great example because while medical masks such as N95's in indoor settings are effective, clothe masks do little, if anything at all and wearing masks outside has been completely unnecessary throughout the entire situation outside of extreme situations like a packed outdoor concert or something. Yet, many blue areas implemented outdoor mask mandates  and as far as I know nobody ever mandated N95 or other medical masks instead of clothe masks. This is just as unscientific as proclaiming that masks as a concept are universally worthless, but many of the same people that "trust the science" dutifully line up to wear their masks outside on a bike ride. Just as the rights bias leads many to believe masks are worthless, the lefts bias leads many to way over emphasize the importance with things like outdoor mask mandates or mask mandates for vaccinated people. At the end of the day so much is poisoned by the culture war, virtue signaling, etc that people can hardly even think straight.
Well stated.
#174
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,009
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Don't forget about masking every child and expelling them all from school when about 3 died out of millions last year from Covid...

The CDC's statement about children not being a significant vector for the virus is routinely flagged as misinformation from state controlled media.
#175
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
I actually meant to edit my post to add that when I thought of it but it was too late. Masking children is ridiculous/evil. Certainly seems like the type of thing people drunk on their own power and self righteousness would do

The CDC's statement about children not being a significant vector for the virus is routinely flagged as misinformation from state controlled media.
Remember when they were banning people for talking about the virus coming from a lab, something we now know is at least plausible? If we don't get social media companies under control we are so screwed. It's why I'm supporting Ron DeSantis over Trump if they both run...he has a record of standing up to big tech AND Covid hysteria, and if we want to make changes we need congress which would likely go the other way even if Trump scraped a narrow win. Trump becoming President again would literally be the funniest thing to ever happen though, so he definitely has that going for him
#176
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,009
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
I'd absolutely support DeSantis.
#177
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,009
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
Politicians are divisive by nature, and it's up to the people to control the politicians, not the other way around.
Topic's author
#178
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
yes, there 1000% are people who get sick pleasure out of exercising power over others just because they can.
That’s not relevant to my point. There will always be sick people out there who fit any description one can make up, it’s dishonest to base our entire political discourse around those extremes, which is kind of the point of this thread. The control for the sake of control narrative might have some truth on a very small scale, it’s stupid as a basis for opposing any mainstream position or action taken by the government.

Just as the rights bias leads many to believe masks are worthless, the lefts bias leads many to way over emphasize the importance with things like outdoor mask mandates or mask mandates for vaccinated people.
I agree, outdoor mask mandates are worthless and I’ve been saying that for over a year now. This is again, not relevant to any of my points. We’re not going to get everything right, I don’t agree with curfews for example. But pointing to something you find to be wrong or not insufficiently supported does not mean that government is just trying to control your life.
#179
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
That’s not relevant to my point. There will always be sick people out there who fit any description one can make up, it’s dishonest to base our entire political discourse around those extremes, which is kind of the point of this thread. The control for the sake of control narrative might have some truth on a very small scale, it’s stupid as a basis for opposing any mainstream position or action taken by the government.
I guess we just disagree, because I don't think the type of people describe are extremes at all but instead represent the median politician, fortune 500 executive, or law firm partner. There is an extremely high degree of sadism and psychopathy among American elites, you can see that simply by how they treat and talk about the people they rule, and their actions. How many people in public life were associated with Epstein, for example? An instinctive distrust of the system is in fact the most rational worldview an American citizen can have. 
Topic's author
#180
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,269
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
There is an extremely high degree of sadism and psychopathy among American elites, you can see that simply by how they treat and talk about the people they rule, and their actions.
But what you’re pointing to doesn’t translate into any type of coherent thought when you place that as the motivation for passing laws. As stated in the OP, there is no ruler here. This isn’t a dictatorship. There’s nothing for a lawmaker to get out of voting to pass a law for the purpose of controlling people’s lives. I find this to be such a breathtaking violation of Occam’s razor. Why is it easier to assume such a large swath of our government is doing what they’re doing for sadistic purposes rather than cause they believe it will help protect people?