More Trektardism

[Darth Wong]

One reason Republicans love to worship America's "troops" is they'd prefer we all vote like they do - for militaristic macho man posturing and "we know what's best" crypto-authoritarianism.

That manages to be the most offensive and largest oversimplification I have ever seen. Props.

Are you saying that the military did not generally vote Republican in 2000 and 2004? Because if they did, then it's neither offensive or an oversimplification.

[Ender]

One reason Republicans love to worship America's "troops" is they'd prefer we all vote like they do - for militaristic macho man posturing and "we know what's best" crypto-authoritarianism.

That manages to be the most offensive and largest oversimplification I have ever seen. Props.

Are you saying that the military did not generally vote Republican in 2000 and 2004? Because if they did, then it's neither offensive or an oversimplification.

Yes, it is. How you vote does not reflect why you voted that way. To paint with such a broad brush that "everyone who did something different from what I would do did it for X stupid reasons" is both offensive and an oversimplification and you know it.

[Darth Wong]

That manages to be the most offensive and largest oversimplification I have ever seen. Props.

Are you saying that the military did not generally vote Republican in 2000 and 2004? Because if they did, then it's neither offensive or an oversimplification.

Yes, it is. How you vote does not reflect why you voted that way. To paint with such a broad brush that "everyone who did something different from what I would do did it for X stupid reasons" is both offensive and an oversimplification and you know it.

Well, the other possible reason I can see for military people voting for Bush in 2004 is the same reason that anyone apart from rich people voted for him: they're fucking morons. Would you find that preferable? Why the wave of support for someone who had demonstrated such severe incompetence?

[Ender]

Are you saying that the military did not generally vote Republican in 2000 and 2004? Because if they did, then it's neither offensive or an oversimplification.

Yes, it is. How you vote does not reflect why you voted that way. To paint with such a broad brush that "everyone who did something different from what I would do did it for X stupid reasons" is both offensive and an oversimplification and you know it.

Well, the other possible reason I can see for military people voting for Bush in 2004 is the same reason that anyone apart from rich people voted for him: they're fucking morons. Would you find that preferable? Why the wave of support for someone who had demonstrated such severe incompetence?

And again the massive oversimplification! Everyone who disagrees must to it for X or Y! There is no Z! It is not possible that people voted because they have different priorities then you and thus give weight to issues differently. After all, that would mean they think differently and those who are different are stupid!

Do you actually buy into the utter absurdity of distilling down the ideas and opinions of millions of individuals into a few pejorative justifications?

[Swindle1984]

Wong, you're being as narrow-minded as the Trektards right now. Just because someone voted for a dullard like Bush (better than Gore or Kerry would have been; you want the slow boat to hell or the jet ride?) doesn't mean they're all knuckle-dragging neanderthal morons.

[Darth Wong]

Well, the other possible reason I can see for military people voting for Bush in 2004 is the same reason that anyone apart from rich people voted for him: they're fucking morons. Would you find that preferable? Why the wave of support for someone who had demonstrated such severe incompetence?

And again the massive oversimplification!

And again the empty rebuttal!

Everyone who disagrees must to it for X or Y! There is no Z! It is not possible that people voted because they have different priorities then you and thus give weight to issues differently. After all, that would mean they think differently and those who are different are stupid!

OK then, why don't you defend the decision to vote for Bush in 2004? Let's see these highly intelligent reasons you allude to. The man had a demonstrated record of cronyism, incompetence, dishonesty, contempt for the constitution, and protection of the interests of the wealthy. I doubt you're disputing any of that, so why don't you give me your oh-so-intelligent reasons to say "Yes, I want four more years of this man!"

Do you actually buy into the utter absurdity of distilling down the ideas and opinions of millions of individuals into a few pejorative justifications?

Given the vitriol but utter lack of substance in your replies, you're currently doing a better job of justifying my statements than I am.

[Kuja]

Wong, you're being as narrow-minded as the Trektards right now. Just because someone voted for a dullard like Bush (better than Gore or Kerry would have been; you want the slow boat to hell or the jet ride?) doesn't mean they're all knuckle-dragging neanderthal morons.

You're full of shit, as is anyone who honestly thinks that the last eight years of lies, lies, and more lies are somehow preferable to what would have happened if Al Gore had won.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, you're being as narrow-minded as the Trektards right now. Just because someone voted for a dullard like Bush (better than Gore or Kerry would have been; you want the slow boat to hell or the jet ride?) doesn't mean they're all knuckle-dragging neanderthal morons.

Do you have some particular evidence that Gore or Kerry would have done all the things Bush did? Or did you vote for Bush once (or twice) and are now trying to justify your decision without a shred of supporting evidence? It's especially unacceptable for the 2004 election, where the evidence of Bush's incompetence and cronyism and utter contempt for the rule of law was already crystal clear.

Or perhaps you're going to echo Ender's retarded argument that if "millions of individuals" voted for him, then it can't be stupid. After all, the Appeal to Popularity is apparently not a fallacy in EnderWorld.

[Ender]

And again the empty rebuttal!

There is nothing to refute. "Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" does not constitute an argument.

OK then, why don't you defend the decision to vote for Bush in 2004? Let's see these highly intelligent reasons you allude to. The man had a demonstrated record of cronyism, incompetence, dishonesty, contempt for the constitution, and protection of the interests of the wealthy. I doubt you're disputing any of that, so why don't you give me your oh-so-intelligent reasons to say "Yes, I want four more years of this man!"

I'm not defending their decision to vote for him, I'm well aware of his failures. My point is that this stereotype bullshit shouldn't fly in a place that holds up intelligent discourse as the ideal. For some people his stance on abortion, or school vouchers, or his religious bent, or the war will be a positive thing. Some liked the fact that declared disasters shoved money into their counties, some liked the economic performance., and some share a free market world view. Or they just hated Kerry more. That doesn't mean that their position makes sense to us, or that I can logically justify them, or that they even made a good decision to advance their cause. But that also doesn't mean that they fell for "macho posturing" or are just stupid.

Given the vitriol but utter lack of substance in your replies, you're currently doing a better job of justifying my statements than I am.

There is no response available to your statements, as they have all the content of 4th grade playground taunts. "Those who voted for BUsh in 2004 are stupid" is no different from "Billy Parker is a doodey-head".

[Ender]

Or perhaps you're going to echo Ender's retarded argument that if "millions of individuals" voted for him, then it can't be stupid. After all, the Appeal to Popularity is apparently not a fallacy in EnderWorld.

Quit strawmanning. My point is not that popularity justifies it. My point is that "everyone who thinks different is stupid" is childish, pathetic, and a view of the world so warped you've managed to figure out how FOX news pundits think.

[Darth Hoth]

You can vote if you submit to government employment requirements (maybe this automatically disqualifies gays, invalids, and other undesirables, hm?) and indoctrination. One reason Republicans love to worship America's "troops" is they'd prefer we all vote like they do - for militaristic macho man posturing and "we know what's best" crypto-authoritarianism.

Ender answered this pretty well, I think. There is no indoctrination, and no one can be left out; if you're unfit for every job they have, they are literally obliged to invent a new one for you.

You're full of shit, as is anyone who honestly thinks that the last eight years of lies, lies, and more lies are somehow preferable to what would have happened if Al Gore had won.

Asking as a non-American not as up to date on your politics as I would like, was Gore already an environment maniac back then? Because if so, it quite likely could have been worse. Imagine what a CO2 cap and massive limits on car traffic would do to the upcoming crisis.

[Terralthra]

Asking as a non-American not as up to date on your politics as I would like, was Gore already an environment maniac back then? Because if so, it quite likely could have been worse. Imagine what a CO2 cap and massive limits on car traffic would do to the upcoming crisis.

Potentially averted or massively ameliorated it?

[Darth Hoth]

Asking as a non-American not as up to date on your politics as I would like, was Gore already an environment maniac back then? Because if so, it quite likely could have been worse. Imagine what a CO2 cap and massive limits on car traffic would do to the upcoming crisis.

Potentially averted or massively ameliorated it?

Once again asking as an ignorant Swede, how would that come about?

[Darth Ruinus]

Ender answered this pretty well, I think. There is no indoctrination, and no one can be left out; if you're unfit for every job they have, they are literally obliged to invent a new one for you.

\

Didnt they say that if you were blind, they would make up a job that would involve counting the hairs on caterpillars for you?

[Darth Hoth]

Ender answered this pretty well, I think. There is no indoctrination, and no one can be left out; if you're unfit for every job they have, they are literally obliged to invent a new one for you.

\

Didnt they say that if you were blind, they would make up a job that would involve counting the hairs on caterpillars for you?

With your fingers... Yes, the recruitment sergeant Rico encounters does note this as a possible task if you are blind, paralysed and whatnots. The quote should not be taken at face value, of course; from the context it is quite clearly hyperbole. But it does illustrate the point that you cannot be turned away if you do volunteer. The only acceptable reason for classing a person as not fit for service is if he is retarded enough to fail to grasp the meaning of the Service Oath (i.e., that you are to serve for the full term and not betray the country).

[Darth Ruinus]

Besides that, but this claim of indoctrination is really odd. After you swear the Oath, I remember that they let you go home for a day, and if you dont show up tomorrow for your assignment, they dont care. If you leave, nothing happens, you dont get hunted down or anything at all, they just mark you down as never being able to take up service again, but either than that, nothing happens.

[Terralthra]

Asking as a non-American not as up to date on your politics as I would like, was Gore already an environment maniac back then? Because if so, it quite likely could have been worse. Imagine what a CO2 cap and massive limits on car traffic would do to the upcoming crisis.

Potentially averted or massively ameliorated it?

Once again asking as an ignorant Swede, how would that come about?

A large portion of the current and impending crisis is because no one dares tell the American public that they can't have whatever they want. Personal, internal-combustion, high-power vehicles are unsustainable in any sort of long-term basis. The rising cost of gasoline is because the economics of the situation don't care what politicians say to pander to Americans.

Getting Americans out of cars and onto buses, light rail, bicycles, etc. would be a massive win on several levels.

[Darth Hoth]

A large portion of the current and impending crisis is because no one dares tell the American public that they can't have whatever they want. Personal, internal-combustion, high-power vehicles are unsustainable in any sort of long-term basis. The rising cost of gasoline is because the economics of the situation don't care what politicians say to pander to Americans.

Getting Americans out of cars and onto buses, light rail, bicycles, etc. would be a massive win on several levels.

Not everyone lives near a bus-stop. What should people in the countryside do?

[Terralthra]

Not everyone lives near a bus-stop. What should people in the countryside do?

Getting Americans out of cars and onto buses, light rail, bicycles, etc. would be a massive win on several levels.

First, I would suggest they learn to read.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Not everyone lives near a bus-stop. What should people in the countryside do?

Getting Americans out of cars and onto buses, light rail, bicycles, etc. would be a massive win on several levels.

First, I would suggest they learn to read.

Yes, let's state that without explaining how we're going to do it, that's always a persuasive argument.

Do you expect me to bike forty miles everyday for work? Because the only train around runs from Elkins to Belington as a tourist attraction.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Not everyone lives near a bus-stop. What should people in the countryside do?

Getting Americans out of cars and onto buses, light rail, bicycles, etc. would be a massive win on several levels.

First, I would suggest they learn to read.

If busses don't stop in the countryside, light rail won't either and a bicycle means fuckall if you're 25 miles from town.

[Terralthra]

As much of a tangent to the general topic of this thread as this is, I'll keep the responses brief.

Yes, let's state that without explaining how we're going to do it, that's always a persuasive argument.

Do you expect me to bike forty miles everyday for work? Because the only train around runs from Elkins to Belington as a tourist attraction.

If busses don't stop in the countryside, light rail won't either and a bicycle means fuckall if you're 25 miles from town.

No. I expect you to live closer to where you work, or work closer to where you live. 40, or even 25, mile daily commutes are unsustainable in any sort of long term for all but the very wealthy. We've used up oil that took literally millions of years to form over the past century, and only now is it beginning to approach the value it really has as a pragmatically non-renewable resource. As transportation goes back up to realistic costs, you will be forced to either live a saner distance from work, or you'll have to pay through the nose on a daily basis.

Neither of those outcomes are actually counterarguments to "Personal, internal-combustion, high-power vehicles are unsustainable in any sort of long-term basis." The fact that you think it is reasonable to live forty miles from where you work, and expect a sustainable replacement transportation system to somehow continue to magically make that possible is a perfect illustration of my original point.

[Ritterin Sophia]

As much of a tangent to the general topic of this thread as this is, I'll keep the responses brief.

Yes, let's state that without explaining how we're going to do it, that's always a persuasive argument.

Do you expect me to bike forty miles everyday for work? Because the only train around runs from Elkins to Belington as a tourist attraction.

If busses don't stop in the countryside, light rail won't either and a bicycle means fuckall if you're 25 miles from town.

No. I expect you to live closer to where you work, or work closer to where you live. 40, or even 25, mile daily commutes are unsustainable in any sort of long term for all but the very wealthy. We've used up oil that took literally millions of years to form over the past century, and only now is it beginning to approach the value it really has as a pragmatically non-renewable resource. As transportation goes back up to realistic costs, you will be forced to either live a saner distance from work, or you'll have to pay through the nose on a daily basis.

Neither of those outcomes are actually counterarguments to "Personal, internal-combustion, high-power vehicles are unsustainable in any sort of long-term basis." The fact that you think it is reasonable to live forty miles from where you work, and expect a sustainable replacement transportation system to somehow continue to magically make that possible is a perfect illustration of my original point.

God damnit you idiot, I said forty miles a day for work, not forty to work, that typically means forward and back.

[Darwin]

Neither of those outcomes are actually counterarguments to "Personal, internal-combustion, high-power vehicles are unsustainable in any sort of long-term basis." The fact that you think it is reasonable to live forty miles from where you work, and expect a sustainable replacement transportation system to somehow continue to magically make that possible is a perfect illustration of my original point.

You're in San Fucking Leandro. you should know as well as I do that as long as public transit takes 2 hours to get you where you can drive yourself in 20 minutes (This is true pretty much throughout the bay anywhere that isn't serviced directly by BART or Light-rail) that the only people who are going to use it are students, elderly, and the retarded.

I'd love to have better mass transit here.

[Terralthra]

You're in San Fucking Leandro. you should know as well as I do that as long as public transit takes 2 hours to get you where you can drive yourself in 20 minutes (This is true pretty much throughout the bay anywhere that isn't serviced directly by BART or Light-rail) that the only people who are going to use it are students, elderly, and the retarded.

I'd love to have better mass transit here.

Again, this does not actually rebut my point. Yes, the current mass transit and sustainable transit system does not meet the desires of the car culture. That in no way changes that the car culture is unsustainable.

Expecting a sustainable system to provide similar transit times, costs, and traveling conditions as an obviously unsustainable system is unrealistic to the point of being silly.

I fully expect light rail, both MUNI, BART, and SC VTA, to be extended significantly as pressures from rising oil prices increase.

God damnit you idiot, I said forty miles a day for work, not forty to work, that typically means forward and back.

Are you under the impression that this actually refutes my point?