5 ms·

> that the Republicans are trying to kill women, children, and the elderly > literally trying to murder them I don't understand how people can believe that th

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't understand how people can believe that that is the intent behind the actions taken. Because knowledgeable policymakers can be presumed to intend the rationally foreseeable consequences of the policies they champion. > Do people really believe that the outgroup is comprised of inhuman monsters? No, the monsters are human, which is far worse but something that history shows really happens, and not at all infrequently. > The people in the outgroup are people, individuals each with their own beliefs, preferences, tastes, values, experiences, relationships, etc. Yes, and people with their own beliefs, preferences, etc., can have vile beliefs, preferences, etc., and there are plenty of historical examples of political movements where at least the leaders did so, and either spread those to their followers are used propaganda to get backing from followers with different beliefs for actions that served the leaders' beliefs. Believing that it can't happen, or can't happen here, is indefensible and contrary to all evidence.
  • drdeca 9y ago
    > can be presumed to intend the rationally foreseeable consequences of the policies they champion. Well, I suppose it wouldn't make sense to call a foreseen outcome an "accident" or something like that, and I can see there being a sense in which you might call it "intent", but something that it clearly would not be, would be a "goal". "Trying to do <x>" when <x> has <y> as a known consequence, does not seem like "trying to do <y>" to me. If aware of some other means to achieve the other goals they have, with a decreased amount of death happening, it seems pretty obvious that they would pick that option? Someone taking a morally abhorent trade-off (say, causing something that they want which is of little value at the cost of something much worse they do not want) is not the same thing as having both outcomes as desired outcomes of the action. If it were, then anyone who made a reasonable trade-off, where the cost incurred is significant would be guilty of having that cost happening as a goal. That doesn't make sense. I can't really imagine someone valuing the deaths of women, children, and the elderly, as an end in itself. That doesn't make sense. I don't see that as being a thing a real human person would value.
• losteric 9y ago
  > The people in the outgroup are people, individuals each with their own beliefs, preferences, tastes, values, experiences, relationships, etc. Um, duh? It's just ironic considering the Republican hysteria about Obama's "death panels", rationally known as end-of-life planning. I guess in/out-group demonization isn't an issue as when Democrats were the out-group? Now the Republicans are proposing changes that will lead to higher mortality rates (read the CBO report), and suddenly death isn't an issue. I do understand the fiscal conservatives argument for these changes, the price of human life versus death... that does little to dull the irony, and nothing to gain my support.
  • drdeca 9y ago
    Its possible that there's some bias in what things I would respond to in that sort of way, but if people here were saying that democrats were trying to kill people-in-general, and it wasn't already greyed out from downvotes, I would hope that I would respond in generally the same way that I did here? I don't know if I really would fulfill the expectations I have for myself in such a situation, but I hope that I would. I am not saying that the proposed policies aren't bad, or even that they aren't evil (not saying it is either. I would need to do a lot more reading to know), just that the goal isn't killing people, and to believe that the goal is killing people, (not just an expected outcome of a decision made for other reasons) is rather absurd. No major USA political party has as general goal "kill the women, children, and elderly people". This should be obvious.
• travmatt 9y ago
  I find your comment particularly indefensible given the actual facts involved. At the very _bare_ minimum, to pretend to give a fuck about the lives of the Americans about to lose their health insurance requires a cbo score and more than 1 hour of debate. To pretend that the express tradeoff of the bill isn't American lives in exchange for ~680million in tax cuts for income above 125k/year feels intellectually gross. An honest analysis would simply restate the Republican argument for the bill, that this tax cut was needed now because it will allow for greater tax cuts in the future tax reform bill.
  • drdeca 9y ago
    To clarify, I was not attempting to argue that the republican healthcare plan is a morally acceptable one (I need to read more about it), just that saying that the goal is killing people is clearly incorrect?
    • travmatt 9y ago
      I don't know how you could ascertain the latter without the former. Especially if you believe, as I do, that healthcare could save lives and the less money means less healthcare. I'm not against conservative ideas - there have been plenty of conservative healthcare reforms in America (Mitt Romney was very successful and was widely praised when he did it), but it'd be an insult to compare this current bill to attempts like his - again, because I see his attempt as one honestly intended to make his constituents lives better and there's no way I can say the same here. Pretending to care about consequences would require more than an hour debate before reshaping the largest industry in America. In my view I can certainly ascribe intent to someone who malevolently callous in their actions, so I'd reword 'the goal is to kill people' to 'are more than happy to kill people to cut their own taxes.'