Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → :(
123456789
:(
2018-02-15, 8:17 PM #1
[quote= David Leonhardt]
It’s hard to imagine a worse distinction for a country to hold. A recent study in the journal Health Affairs concluded that the United States has become “the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.”

Perhaps most damning, our country didn’t used to hold this status. In the 1960s, the death rate of American children was slightly lower than in other affluent nations. But three factors have changed that:

1. Other countries have had far more success reducing infant mortality. The reasons aren’t fully known, but the uneven American social safety net seems to play a role.

2. Other countries have more sharply reduced vehicle deaths, which are a particular scourge for teenagers. (The United States could easily do the same, as I explained in a recent column.)

3. The United States suffers from an epidemic of shooting deaths, which are nearly nonexistent elsewhere. The gun homicide rate in this country is 49 times higher than in other rich countries, according to the Health Affairs study.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the at least 17 people, mostly high-school students, murdered in South Florida yesterday. You’ve also probably heard a lot of substance-free condolences. Here’s the truth: The teenagers killed in Florida yesterday had the misfortune of growing up — of trying to grow up — in a country that didn’t care enough about their lives.

May we honor them with anger that does not cease until the unnecessary deaths of children do.
[/Quote]


https://nytimes.com/2018/02/15/opinion/florida-school-shooting.html
2018-02-15, 9:59 PM #2
My thoughts and prayers are with the American mental health services. Onto the next one!
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2018-02-15, 10:04 PM #3
Quote:
The reasons aren’t fully known


lol
2018-02-15, 10:49 PM #4
Originally posted by Reid:
lol


I hope ready access to guns isn't the cause of the high infant mortality rate
former entrepreneur
2018-02-15, 10:50 PM #5
maybe we should stop using newborns as clay pigeons
former entrepreneur
2018-02-15, 11:00 PM #6
Seeing that the other two reasons for increased child death in the United States are guns and trucks, it's pretty clear to me that we simply need to stop feeding Whoppers to our newborns.
2018-02-15, 11:06 PM #7

2018-02-15, 11:08 PM #8
the cause of the high infant morality rate is not being a dark enough shade of blue
former entrepreneur
2018-02-15, 11:10 PM #9
What's not blue enough and sits in the corner
2018-02-15, 11:12 PM #10
I regret posting that.
2018-02-15, 11:39 PM #11
By the way, Canada's doing a little better than the US but it's still among the worst. So the problem isn't just private healthcare, it's bigger than that. The infant mortality curve is shaped a lot like the child poverty and law enforcement deaths curves, actually.
2018-02-16, 12:38 AM #12
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
What's not blue enough and sits in the corner


I know I'm going to regret asking this (the answer's probably related to either Trump or redditry), but what does this mean
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2018-02-16, 1:03 AM #13
Originally posted by Nikumubeki:
I know I'm going to regret asking this (the answer's probably related to either Trump or redditry), but what does this mean


Not Trump or Reddit, but elementary school: a variation of #41. :(
2018-02-16, 1:23 AM #14
Whew! I'm glad it was about dead babies instead of Trump or Reddit.

.

..

...

Now that's quite the whirled we/I live in.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2018-02-16, 1:31 AM #15
It was considered edgy for 5th grade.
2018-02-16, 9:47 AM #16
"Guns aren't bad. They are tools, and can be used for good or bad." Something like this has been posted all over my news feed on facebook from people I knew when I lived in the south. I never really thought about the level of false equivalence people use in their rhetoric to justify their 2nd amendment rights until Wednesday, but for some reason this shooting has really shaken me. I'm glad, because I've just been treating them like natural disasters since I was a kid. The numbers with each one go up or down, but like reading about the deaths from floods or earthquakes in other countries I just thought "Oh, that sucks."

I guess what bothers me the most is the "us vs them" approach between partisan groups, and that innocent lives being lost to a deranged edge-lord isn't as important as going through the motions of defending precious precious assault weapons. It makes me sick.
My blawgh.
2018-02-16, 4:02 PM #17
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=1m42s
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2018-02-16, 5:33 PM #18
Originally posted by Phantom-Seraph:
I guess what bothers me the most is the "us vs them" approach between partisan groups, and that innocent lives being lost to a deranged edge-lord isn't as important as going through the motions of defending precious precious assault weapons.


One of my biggest peeves is that the "us vs them" mentality has entrenched itself in almost everything that's slightly political these days, with each side going further to the extreme to "counter the extremism of the other side" (I've heard this argument from NRA members who don't agree with the bat**** ideology they push, but still support the group). Let's ignore that a bunch of kids died, because they're comin' to steal our gunz!

I have a carry permit. I holster a gun every day. However, do I think it should be harder for people to get a gun? Abso-****ing-lutely. Hell, the permit itself I believe was way too easy to get. Our constitution protects the right to arm yourself (argument of milita vs private citizen aside), however it doesn't say that we can't make sure you're not a ****ing nutjob before you're allowed to have one.

The other thing I wish I would see after one of these god-awful events, is that the actual owners of the weapon be held accountable. It's always "aww, he must've been misunderstood", not "how the **** did he get his hands on an unlocked weapon?" Hell, my wife doesn't know the combo to my lockbox, my daughter sure as hell doesn't.
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2018-02-17, 4:02 AM #19
There's a problem with complaining about "us vs. them" though, as it presumes that both sides really have cogent arguments, and they just need to meet somewhere in the middle.

It's really possible that one side in a debate can be the wrong side, and in thoses cases compromise is bad.
2018-02-17, 4:30 AM #20
Originally posted by Reid:
There's a problem with complaining about "us vs. them" though, as it presumes that both sides really have cogent arguments, and they just need to meet somewhere in the middle.


Where did he ever say that?
2018-02-17, 4:38 AM #21
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Where did he ever say that?


"presumes"
2018-02-17, 4:40 AM #22
Originally posted by Reid:
There's a problem with complaining about "us vs. them" though, as it presumes that both sides really have cogent arguments, and they just need to meet somewhere in the middle.

It's really possible that one side in a debate can be the wrong side, and in thoses cases compromise is bad.


Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Where did he ever say that?


Yeah. Bob's point was that the us vs them attitude generates even greater disagreement and a tendency towards extremism and away from moderate beliefs. Seeing politics as a zero-sum conflict makes compromise impossible, because when politics has devolved into a zero-sum conflict, neither side will accept compromise under any circumstances. They will only accept their own position. That seems to me like something worth despising about polarization.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 4:42 AM #23
Originally posted by Reid:
"presumes"


"Inferred"
2018-02-17, 4:42 AM #24
Originally posted by Eversor:
Yeah. Bob's point was that the us vs them attitude generates even greater disagreement and a tendency towards extremism and away from moderate beliefs. Seeing things as a zero-sum conflict makes compromise impossible, because neither side will accept compromise. That seems to me like something worth despising about polarization.


That's fine when that's actually the case. Maybe I'm just talking about something else then, but there's also plenty of cases where one side is just more moderate and the other side is more extreme.. and more wrong. Which is actually the case on a sizable amount of issues in America.
2018-02-17, 4:43 AM #25
Originally posted by Reid:
That's fine when that's actually the case.


No, it's not fine. It's really bad!
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 4:44 AM #26
Originally posted by Eversor:
No, it's not fine. It's really bad!


I meant the argument.
2018-02-17, 4:46 AM #27
Calls for "moderation", "bipartisanship", and so forth have benefited the GOP far more than the Democrats as the GOP keeps slamming the political spectrum further to the right.
2018-02-17, 4:48 AM #28
Originally posted by Reid:
Calls for "moderation", "bipartisanship", and so forth have benefited the GOP far more than the Democrats as the GOP keeps slamming the political spectrum further to the right.


The Democrats are moving further to the left too.
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 4:52 AM #29
Originally posted by Eversor:
The Democrats are moving further to the left too.


Both sides were violent.
2018-02-17, 4:53 AM #30
Of course the Democrats have shifted left, but not remotely as far as Republicans have shifted right.
2018-02-17, 4:56 AM #31
Originally posted by Reid:
Maybe I'm just talking about something else then, but there's also plenty of cases where one side is just more moderate and the other side is more extreme.. and more wrong. Which is actually the case on a sizable amount of issues in America.


Sure. But you're never going to convince people to behave civilly by telling them that you are the moderate one whereas they are extremist.

From what I gather the real danger here is that the left, in the interest of being civil, ends up moderating its own views to the point of giving up the ship.
2018-02-17, 5:02 AM #32
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Sure. But you're never going to convince people to behave civilly by telling them that you are the moderate one whereas they are extremist.


Maybe convincing Republicans isn't necessary. Maybe simply removing them from power is.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
From what I gather the real danger here is that the left, in the interest of being civil, ends up moderating its own views to the point of giving up the ship.


That's exactly my view, that Democrats should have been less interested in negotiating and stood their ground on key issues more. But that's extremism, no?
2018-02-17, 5:07 AM #33
I took Bob's comment to be about attitudes toward the opposing side, regardless of where you may have started out on some ideological scale. An "us vs. them" attitude is always toxic for discourse, no matter the side.
2018-02-17, 5:08 AM #34
Originally posted by Reid:
Of course the Democrats have shifted left, but not remotely as far as Republicans have shifted right.


I don't know what this even means. You think Republicans are even more entrenched in their views than Democrats are? Or that they have more quickly adopted more radical views than the Democrats have? Or neither, but that, by being obstructionist, Republicans are uniquely responsible for making governance impossible? Because none of those things seem true. If it were still 2016, I might have agreed with the latter, but now that the Democrats are in the opposition, it seems like, if given enough time, they'd be just as obstructionist as Republicans were during the Obama administration, and refuse to hear a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, or shutdown the government (oh yeah...).
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 5:08 AM #35
Originally posted by Reid:
Maybe convincing Republicans isn't necessary. Maybe simply removing them from power is.


One party rule!!
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 5:09 AM #36
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
From what I gather the real danger here is that the left, in the interest of being civil, ends up moderating its own views to the point of giving up the ship.


Is there any issue where you see this happening?
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 5:12 AM #37
I can't say that I've seen too many liberal takes saying "you know what guys, this brutal massacre at a Florida high school was bad, but I think for the sake of the country, we might have to learn to live with the NRA."
former entrepreneur
2018-02-17, 5:15 AM #38
Originally posted by Eversor:
Is there any issue where you see this happening?


It's certainly not happening now, lol. And the left doesn't even need to try to be civil toward Trump anyway, since he assumes the worst of his opponents by default and shoves it in their face. Man this guy must be great at making deals.

I think many Democrats were sorry they were too trusting of George W. Bush when a lot of the arguments that they do so in the name book patriotism turned out to be based on lies, although I wasn't following politics too closely at the time.
2018-02-17, 6:00 AM #39
Originally posted by Eversor:
One party rule!!


More like anti-gerrymandering, anti-voter suppression, and anti-disinformation/Citizen's United/slush fund money.

But yes thanks for the comparisons to totalitarian states. Apparently pointing out that Republicans are the biggest political problem in America makes you a Stalinist.

Originally posted by Eversor:
I can't say that I've seen too many liberal takes saying "you know what guys, this brutal massacre at a Florida high school was bad, but I think for the sake of the country, we might have to learn to live with the NRA."


There are plenty of Americans with strong opinions, but those opinions aren't always reflected by congress. When I'm talking about the extremeness, I'm definitely talking about congress.
2018-02-17, 6:07 AM #40
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I took Bob's comment to be about attitudes toward the opposing side, regardless of where you may have started out on some ideological scale. An "us vs. them" attitude is always toxic for discourse, no matter the side.


So pointing out the ongoing class war in America is toxic because it pits people against each other?

Originally posted by Eversor:
I don't know what this even means. You think Republicans are even more entrenched in their views than Democrats are?


I don't know.

Originally posted by Eversor:
Or that they have more quickly adopted more radical views than the Democrats have?


Easily yes.

Originally posted by Eversor:
Or neither, but that, by being obstructionist, Republicans are uniquely responsible for making governance impossible? Because none of those things seem true. If it were still 2016, I might have agreed with the latter, but now that the Democrats are in the opposition, it seems like, if given enough time, they'd be just as obstructionist as Republicans were during the Obama administration, and refuse to hear a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, or shutdown the government (oh yeah...).


So, uh, your view is a hypothetical based on what you think will happen?

Okay..

It's not about whether governance is possible with Republicans, it's about how they're governing.
123456789

↑ Up to the top!