"The Ugly Side Of 'Free Speech'"
This weekend I was thinking about the sheer numbers of times that I've seen and heard people say the most insulting, mean-spirited and ignorant things. And the worst part of it isn't what the person said, but that it's allowed and accepted as part of the Constitution of The United States.
For instance, I was talking with a man that I mentioned in a previous entry that I named "Jed". His real name is George, and he's an interesting enough person to talk to from time to time. Anyway, I mentioned to him that I'm a Liberal, and he said, "So that means that you're Pro-Abortion, Gun Control and Welfare, right?"
So here's what's wrong with what he said: Liberals aren't typically "Pro-Abortion", we're "Pro-Choice". There's a difference there, you know? Just because I'm for a woman's right to chose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason, it's her body) doesn't mean that I walk down the street, pointing at pregnant women and shouting, "You must exorcize that demon seed from your womb and get a Prius!!!" George also said that Planned Parenthood profits from women getting abortions, so they must, therefore, be more for it as opposed to against it. I argued that most hospitals profit from providing Rape Kits for women that have been sexually assaulted, so by his line of logic, they must be for Rape. He started to object, but I cut him off by saying that if you want to get into a semantic debate, than you must be able to accept that no matter how ridiculous the counter-argument presented is, you have to accept it is based off of the ridiculousness of the original point of contention made. I can't speak for everyone as far as Abortion is concerned, but from my experience, Liberals accept that Abortion must be an available option on the table; regardless of the religious proclivities of those that may disagree, it remains a medical procedure, and therefore must be treated as one. Trying to combine Religion and Science rarely benefits any party concerned.
Secondly, as far as being "...for Gun Control", you're damn right. Do you know how many times I've had guns pulled on me as I walked home from school as a kid? Too many. And do you know why? The kid with the gun's hick parents leave guns unguarded in their homes, and the kids can get at them. So, Junior has a beef with you, and he's too much of a pussy to knuckle up, so he goes to the gun rack in his house and grabs one he can hide in his clothes or backpack and takes it to school so he can threaten you with it, if not accidentally shoot and kill you due to his inexperience in handling a firearm of any kind. Not to mention that kids from those types of households tend to be the ones that accidentally blow their own heads off. I think that if you need a gun to hunt, you can have one for that purpose, but you don't need ten guns in your house unless you're running a firearms museum. There's no logical reason for you to be armed to the teeth in your own house like that. "The Right to bear arms" nonsense made sense when we didn't have a standing Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines; we have them now, and if they want into your house, do you honestly think your shitty collection of Civil War-era muskets is gonna stop them? Wow, me neither... moving on.
As for Welfare? Hmmm... I don't know... if people need help, should they be able to periodically get help from the Government that taxes the shit out of them? YES. Five times a week and twice on Sunday. People act as if being on Welfare is a fucking luxury cruise, don't they? Can you imagine being a woman and having to go into a store first to ask if they accept Food Stamps without feeling embarrassed for not only herself, but for your kids? Also, most people on Welfare aren't Black or Latino, they're White... so let's stop the Xenophobic nonsense right now. Think of it in terms of sheer numbers: White people out-number any other ethnic group in this country, so it can easily be deduced that we use the most in terms of Welfare programs.
However, I don't think that people should be able to abuse the system and stay on it indefinitely, either. If you're truly disabled in a manner that can be documented by a physician, you can always get Social Security for that, as there are many people that are on Social Security for that very reason. But, if you aren't applying for jobs while on Welfare in order to better your station in life, you have to provide reason as to why you should be provided with continued support. The big problem with Welfare is that there's little in the way of actual empathy involved in the process. Every person's situation is unique, and should be treated as such, but as it often works in bureaucratic concerns, everyone is lumped into a pile and then categorized. Being lost in the system is a depressing experience, and talking down to those who are less fortunate -in this case, those on Welfare- is uncalled for an inappropriate. So cut it out, already.
Well, that's it for today, folks... I'll write something funnier later on in the week.
For instance, I was talking with a man that I mentioned in a previous entry that I named "Jed". His real name is George, and he's an interesting enough person to talk to from time to time. Anyway, I mentioned to him that I'm a Liberal, and he said, "So that means that you're Pro-Abortion, Gun Control and Welfare, right?"
So here's what's wrong with what he said: Liberals aren't typically "Pro-Abortion", we're "Pro-Choice". There's a difference there, you know? Just because I'm for a woman's right to chose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (for whatever reason, it's her body) doesn't mean that I walk down the street, pointing at pregnant women and shouting, "You must exorcize that demon seed from your womb and get a Prius!!!" George also said that Planned Parenthood profits from women getting abortions, so they must, therefore, be more for it as opposed to against it. I argued that most hospitals profit from providing Rape Kits for women that have been sexually assaulted, so by his line of logic, they must be for Rape. He started to object, but I cut him off by saying that if you want to get into a semantic debate, than you must be able to accept that no matter how ridiculous the counter-argument presented is, you have to accept it is based off of the ridiculousness of the original point of contention made. I can't speak for everyone as far as Abortion is concerned, but from my experience, Liberals accept that Abortion must be an available option on the table; regardless of the religious proclivities of those that may disagree, it remains a medical procedure, and therefore must be treated as one. Trying to combine Religion and Science rarely benefits any party concerned.
Secondly, as far as being "...for Gun Control", you're damn right. Do you know how many times I've had guns pulled on me as I walked home from school as a kid? Too many. And do you know why? The kid with the gun's hick parents leave guns unguarded in their homes, and the kids can get at them. So, Junior has a beef with you, and he's too much of a pussy to knuckle up, so he goes to the gun rack in his house and grabs one he can hide in his clothes or backpack and takes it to school so he can threaten you with it, if not accidentally shoot and kill you due to his inexperience in handling a firearm of any kind. Not to mention that kids from those types of households tend to be the ones that accidentally blow their own heads off. I think that if you need a gun to hunt, you can have one for that purpose, but you don't need ten guns in your house unless you're running a firearms museum. There's no logical reason for you to be armed to the teeth in your own house like that. "The Right to bear arms" nonsense made sense when we didn't have a standing Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines; we have them now, and if they want into your house, do you honestly think your shitty collection of Civil War-era muskets is gonna stop them? Wow, me neither... moving on.
As for Welfare? Hmmm... I don't know... if people need help, should they be able to periodically get help from the Government that taxes the shit out of them? YES. Five times a week and twice on Sunday. People act as if being on Welfare is a fucking luxury cruise, don't they? Can you imagine being a woman and having to go into a store first to ask if they accept Food Stamps without feeling embarrassed for not only herself, but for your kids? Also, most people on Welfare aren't Black or Latino, they're White... so let's stop the Xenophobic nonsense right now. Think of it in terms of sheer numbers: White people out-number any other ethnic group in this country, so it can easily be deduced that we use the most in terms of Welfare programs.
However, I don't think that people should be able to abuse the system and stay on it indefinitely, either. If you're truly disabled in a manner that can be documented by a physician, you can always get Social Security for that, as there are many people that are on Social Security for that very reason. But, if you aren't applying for jobs while on Welfare in order to better your station in life, you have to provide reason as to why you should be provided with continued support. The big problem with Welfare is that there's little in the way of actual empathy involved in the process. Every person's situation is unique, and should be treated as such, but as it often works in bureaucratic concerns, everyone is lumped into a pile and then categorized. Being lost in the system is a depressing experience, and talking down to those who are less fortunate -in this case, those on Welfare- is uncalled for an inappropriate. So cut it out, already.
Well, that's it for today, folks... I'll write something funnier later on in the week.
posted by Todd Tobin at 12:01 PM
7 Comments:
I hear a lot of what you say Todd, and agree with most of it. However, as noted on this blog and by observing reality in general, our government is sliding faster and faster toward dictatorship. Do you really want a country where Dick and W are the only ones with guns?
Wow...I would consider myself a liberal as well...That being said, the welfair system in Canada is FUCKED!!!
Sometimes I feel I would be better off financially if I were to pop out a few babies (with no daddies), sit on my ass, and never get a job!!! Yes this sounds harsh, and I am by no means trying to imply that all single mothers do this (I have a lot of respect for mothers, single or married...) but I do recall meeting my ex boyfriend's girlfriend, and going to her house (which my tax dollars pay for) and seeing that my tax dollars were being put to good use on digital cable, high speed internet, and name brand food products...Yes, this woman was living the high life...Even better then me, and my tax dollars were paying for it all...
Yep, welfair pisses me off. I am all for a system that helps people in need (people that are UNABLE to work due to illness or disability of what have you), but for those who CHOOSE to use welfair as their way of life because its FREE and they don't have to work for it, and they have a million excuses as to why they can't work...Well those people are lazy fucks who don't deserve respect from anyone...
(The welfair thing is touchy for me...)
I dunno...I just hate that *I* pay for this shit...
I agree with you about the Pro-choice argument. That doesn't mean I would have an abortion but I think it should be a right...
Gun laws need to be changed in some states, and others are okay...
Here in Canada there are very strict ways you have to lock up your guns and your ammunition somewhere else. Sure it pisses off the gun owners but in the long run if it saves your children from getting a hold of them and bringing them to school there is a reason...
I have to completely disagree with Shelka on the Welfare idea... I know the person that she speaks of, and the problem isn't with Welfare it is with that woman... she is working under the table and still getting all the benifits of welfare as well. Welfare is a program that people do use properly but there are some people who abuse it for everyone. I think that we need to turn those people in because it is bullshit how they ruin the our image of the system...
Welfare doesn't give you enough to have digital cable and all the benifits you talk about, it gives families enough to get by and that is it... it is just too bad there are people out there that abuse the system and make others angry that we are paying their way. It is not the system that is wrong it is some of the people...
My kids are out of control right now and I got to go but will come back later to see if what I said made sense...lol
Okay, everyone has made excellent points on the stuff that I wrote about, but I'll address everyone in the order in which they were received (bureaucracy in action!).
GW: Dictatorship, indeed! Yes, it isn't sensible to have an entirely unarmed population in most cases, but if you notice, the people with the most guns live in places that have the least need for them. The local constabulary shouldn't be knocking on your door, asking you if they can borrow some of your guns because the ones that they have aren't powerful enough. People have the right in this country to bear arms, yes, but the gun(s) that they have should have a purpose, that's all I'm saying here. If you go hunting? Get a hunting Rifle and keep it locked up while you aren't hunting. Now, what are you planning to hunt that requires an AK47? Insurgents? All I'd really like is that people having guns should not be an all-important thing, because it isn't. Americans have a hard-on for dystopic "Mad Max"-type worlds, and imagine that somehow they'll have a legitimate need for an arsenal so vast that my penis shrivels at the mere thought of it... and that's a lot of shriveling.
Shel: Yes, there are lots of people that abuse Welfare in most countries that provide it, and that's largely because of the fact that they aren't being monitored like they should be. If they were, that kind of instance that you mentioned would get to be very, very rare. We've all seen the people that do abuse the system, but we should try not to be imposing the same penalties across the board to everyone that uses those services. As a kid, I was on Welfare and my Mom had to get Diability, and we struggled unduly because of it, but that wasn't the fault of my Mom, it was the fault of the system. How can anyone be expected to feed themselves and two kids on $150 a month without food stamps and such? I'm just saying that not all people on Welfare are lazy bastards... just some of them. Welfare is meant to be a supplement to your small income, not your income all on it's own. I think we all get mad at this kind of stuff from time to time, and it largely has to do with the fact that we never get to participate in these programs. However, I'm glad that I don't need to use Welfare, since using it is a humiliating experience.
Shmamber: If you were a man I'd kiss you... wait a minute... does that make me Gay?! Anyway, as always, the hardest working woman in Blogness has made a lot of my points for me before I could! I should just make her my administrator or something. Thanks for stopping by, Shmamber, you're the best.
And everyone welcome the hottest woman in Winnipeg with ADHD to the fold: Shelka!
Wow, I'm getting quite the diverse following in Canada, aren't I? I hope it doesn't go to my head...
Hey hey...I didn't say that all people on welfare were lazy bastards. I think you all have valid points, but I have to be honest and say that I am in full-on ADD mode right now and I didn't even read all of the responses...hahahahaha...
I guess the welfare issue is just a sore spot for me, to see women like Krystal (The ex's woman) abuse the system like she does.
I am so glad that the 'assistance' system was in place for my Uncle Bill when he was alive, because he was disabled, and he NEEDED it to survive...
I just HATE to see people abuse the system, and I get a little fired up about it at times. I still stand by what I said, but quite possibly it came out wrong...I dunno...
Also, I do agree that it is a humbling experience for many people to be on welfare, and I really respect th people who go out there and do what they gotta do to get by, and if that involves being on assistance for awhile, then thats what they gotta do, and its a good thing that there is a program like that out there...I just don't respect the people who make welfare their career...That's all...
Hi Todd,
how did we go from a conversation on gun control into one on your endowment? I guess big guns are either a metaphor, or more ulteriorly, a substitute (for those who need it). ;)
Anyway, all those criminals who pulled guns on you should have been locked up and we need not dispense with the second amendment to have done it. Pulling guns on people arbitrarily is against the law. If you read the Federalist Papers, (take some "No-Doze"), but the point they make is that the right to bare arms is intended to balance the power of the "will of the people" against the "will of the government". It is meant as an assurance against dictatorship, not the right to shot wildlife.
One of the first things Hitler did when he invaded Poland was to institute broad gun control measures. I would argue that he was not interested in lowering the crime rate.
Everything else you say about gun safety and responsibility are right on.
As for the other points; yes and yes.
A woman should have the right to choose. It is her body ~ end of conversation.
Society should have a robust safety-net. It could be debated wether private charity would do a better job, but I don't want people to starve while that debate takes place.
I used to work as a bartender in a high-end hotel. On a good night, I would make more in one night them a person living in the third world would make in a year. The source of that disparity is nestled in what their society lacks that mine has; freedom and security. The problem with globalization is that we are globalizing poverty and oppression, not success and security. And now we head back into the dark ages, a "classed" society ruled by a brutal aristocracy; all with small penises and big guns.
Oooh, the tasty debatable morsels! As Todd will attest to, I love to argue. Heck, I married an agnostic, liberal, tomboyish engineer (I'm a Christian, conservative, artsy [read sensitive] consultant). So please forgive if I come off as attacking, I don't mean to.
Okay, just a couple of counter points here and I'll walk away and see if anyone's still reading this thread a week after the post...
1. The Welfare Hen and her many, many chicks: I too know many women who not only abused the system they did so unabashedly. They'd brag about how much money they were "making" while they partied all the time, always having new guys over, getting pregnant yet again, and popping out a new kid to neglect or leave with her parents. I hate these women. To be clear, I'm not talking about Todd's mom or any of the other disadvantaged women who legitimately need welfare, I'm talking about the brazen, careless abusers of the system. And there are many of them. To be fair, it's not the system that creates these monsters (and it’s not only women though they are the majority), these women are very poor examples of humans to begin with. In fact their greatest crime is not what they do to the welfare system but what they do to their children. Ooh I could just wring their little necks… They are the main detractors from the welfare system and the main reason it’s such a huge money pit. The CA welfare system has undergone some recent reforms, but they do need to go further. There are a lot of very practical things that can be done to discourage this kind of abuse, I won’t go into them here though.
2. Pistoleros!: I’m torn on this issue, but in almost complete disagreement with Todd on this one. Having some hick gun-totin’ relatives myself, I’ve found that they tend to be the most knowledgeable and safety-oriented gun owners I know. I find it’s the casual gun owner who is the most dangerous. A person who enjoys guns will spend time with them, educate their children about them and be aware of where they are. An owner who only owns a gun for self protection or somesuch is more likely to forget about it, not educate their kids and generally be flip about it. Most telling though, I think, is that (to my understanding) most home invasions where a gun is involved the owner usually has their own weapon used against them. This is because most casual gun owners have neither the comfort level nor the gumption to use a weapon to kill another. Not that that’s a bad thing, necessarily, but you shouldn’t have a gun if you’re not going to use it. Hey, I guess we do agree, Todd…
3. Abortion: I will not go too heavily into this topic, it is a very sore spot for me and I’m likely to get touchy, but I will say this: Godwhacker, your argument, to me, is exactly why there has been no progress on this issue. Both sides of this argument are polarized and unable to concede any ground for fear the other side is a bunch of complete apes and will either start sewing-up vaginas or run around kicking pregnant women in the belly. As far as I can tell, only the most extreme pro-choicers actually feel that abortion in the third trimester without medical justification is right. Most of these fetuses are fully viable as children, and it is tragic to abort them. So why did it take 30 years to get a late term-abortion law passed? Because liberals are so damn scared! And all but the nuttiest pro-lifers would say that a reduction in the over one million annual abortions is better than where we are today. But wait, the "Partial-Birth" abortion law is hung up in court! Why? Because conservatives are too greedy and refused to put in a medical provision. My own opinions on abortion are irrelevant for this point, I believe that we could meet much closer in the middle on this issue if we weren’t so damn pig-headed about abortion and compromised! Once we get to the middle, then we can fight. But right now we’re at one extreme and nobody’s willing to do what it takes to do the right thing.
Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be, I guess I needed a good rant. Sorry for boring y’all.
Post a Comment
<< Home