Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[JimL]

Perhaps he can try again without trying to build an argument on a completely false premise.

You may think it a false premise, but prove it. The government that you don't believe in is a government that has any concern for the welfare of its people. You don't mind that you have to pay taxes for defense, national security, infrastructue maybe, or perhaps to pay your salary as a police officer, but you don't believe in a government that actually takes into consideration the welfare, the lives, of human beings.
So, when people, poor people, without access to health care, end up in the emergency room, should we have a government that insures they get the urgent care that they need, or should would tell them tough luck little poor girl, we don't really care about you and your broken leg. Or tough luck old man, can't afford your blood pressure medicine, sorry, nothing we can do for you. Well?

[Carrikature]

Well, in that case, I’m afraid it’s not clear what you’re saying.

You keep trying to link religion to crime rates, and to Christianity in particular. It doesn't work. There are a lot of things which are considered crimes that aren't forbidden by Christianity. Bad judgment isn't a sin. Manslaughter, drug charges, general recklessness (particularly with a vehicle)...all are examples of crimes that aren't against Christianity.

No, I think perhaps you’re not getting my argument. My interest is in the overall law and order issue, not the specific components of it.

This is downright silly. You can't talk about an issue while ignoring what goes into it.

Christians claim that a Christian-based society is necessary for the maintenance of “family values” (so called), social justice and the equitable maintenance of law and order…in short a moral, well regulated society. They claim that: “The fruit of the secular worldview can be seen in and around us. As we observe society, it is evident that not all is well. Television has degenerated into a bordello of violence, soft-pornography, anti-family sit-coms, commercials that appeal to immediate gratification, and senseless children's cartoons that are full of violence, occultism, and disobedience to parents” and so on ad nauseam. https://carm.org/what-christian-worl...tians-need-one

The irony is that, among the developed nations of the western world, these dire “fruits” are most apparent in most religious nation by far, namely the USA where c. 80% of the population is Christian. These same “fruits” are not so apparent in the more secular nations of the developed world (e.g. Norway, where 72% are atheist/agnostic) and where Norway is ranked no 1, as indicated by the IHDI stats...these figures being a composite statistic of health, life expectancy, education levels, per capita income and potential human development.

Er, what? You're trying to tell me that nudity isn't a common occurrence in European commercials? Maybe you'd like us to believe that violence isn't showing up in cartoons and movies across the globe? Perhaps you'd like to show how 'immediate gratification' isn't an inherent part of any advertising aimed at selling a product? If this is really your argument, you need to seriously reconsider it. There's a lot more to Christian values than just law and order. None of the IHDI stats you're referencing have anything to do with that. You're trying to draw conclusions that aren't based in reality, and it shows.

[Carrikature]

While it's quite cute to watch you pretending that you were not being aggressive with your comments, I have better things to do than exchange passive aggressive jabs with you, so moving on...

You do realize that it's possible to be aggressive while not being passive aggressive, right? They're not the same thing. You said I gave you a passive aggressive backslap, which is patently false. At no point have I pretended my comments aren't aggressive.

Nah, the problem is that you don't know the history of what you're talking about and make up assumptions as you go along because your dislike of me is in control of you. Sorry sweety, Tazzy Wazzy didn't back up his claims and it isn't my job to back them up when he refuses to back them up. I know... difficult concept...

This isn't even coherent. What assumptions? What history do you think there was to be missed? I read through the thread. I saw your response. It was stupid and did not interact at all with what you were responding to. The second half of this is just tu quoque and stupid besides since no one asked you to back up anything.

Again, you're missing the point because you don't want to bother to understand what I'm saying and just assume you automatically know. My true argument is this:

If you live a life of crime; your odds of being a victim of a crime are higher than if you don't (at least living in a country, like the US).

I understood your 'true argument' the first time (never mind that this isn't what you said). None of this is remotely relevant to what the crime rates actually are, which is what you were responding to.

That's all, but hey... if you want to jump down my throat and demand I give facts and figures for somebody that will just ignore them anyway... that's you're choice, but sorry... Tazzy Wazzy doesn't take the time to bother to give analysis and it isn't my job to refute his bald assertions for him. I know... difficult concept...

Please show me where I have once demanded you to give facts and figures. I haven't. You made a stupid comment that was irrelevant.

And ignoring it doesn't make it go away either nor does making factually errors add to your credibility at all (you aware aware that US Pacific territories were invaded during WWII, therefore making your claim factually incorrect, unless you want to amend your claim that the US mainland wasn't invaded, but than again... the British isles were not invaded either). The reality is that WWII was very much a war of attrition in which the allies and axis powers tried to wear down one another and the key to winning the war was the side that could outproduce the other. Just a few examples:

- The Battle of the Atlantic was the German U-boats trying to sink ships coming to the UK faster than they could be built or deliver supplies. The Germans lost because they were unable to sink ships and supplies faster than they could be built and delivered.
- The Battle of Brittan was another key battle in which Germany was trying to wear down the RAF to establish Air superiority for their invasion of the British Isles.
- The Eastern Front was pretty much a war of attrition in which the USSR and Nazi Germany tried to kill one another and destroy each others equipment faster than can be replenished. Obviously, the Axis powers failed to do this.
- The Pacific Theater was a war of attrition in which the USN and IJN tried to sink each other faster than other one could produce ships. The Japanese could not hope to win that sort of war with the US (remember, Japanese war victories, in the late 19th and early 20th century, against another industrial power, mostly realized on winning key strategic victories and achieving limited objectives. Japanese pre-US war doctrine seems to have reflected this doctrine since they would eventually lose a war of attrition).

Sorry, but all of this stuff is pretty easy to confirm and look up if you really do not believe me. The introduction of the US into the war, on the side of the allies, gave the allies a key production advantage which allowed the allies to outproduce the axis powers and defeat them though sheer numbers (remember, by 1943 the axis powers found themselves often outnumbered and outgunned in most major engagements from about mid year to the end of the war). While you are correct, to a degree, that pure numbers do not always give you a victory; WWII lasted 6 long years and that gives the one that could produce things faster than they could be destroyed, ended up being the one with a huge advantage.

You continually act as if I'm somehow completely unaware of what happened. As you say, all of this stuff is pretty easy to look up and confirm. My dissension is not with the facts of what happened, but with the spin that has been put on them to the effect that the US played 'the major role'.

And we could quibble about whether or not the US Pacific territories count (they don't count for much to me, but whatever), the main thrust remains the same: US manufacturing continued on relatively unimpeded while other countries had major devastation thanks to invasion or bombings. There were, unsurprisingly, a lot of things happening in a lot of different countries. So many of the things you've listed above can't be placed at the US' feet alone, which is what is effectively needed to defend a 'the major role' claim. Yes, our contributions were extremely important. That's also true of the USSR, Britain, China, Australia, etc. No, we didn't play 'the major role', and big chunks of those things seer claimed we defeated are alive and well today.

[seer]

You may think it a false premise, but prove it. The government that you don't believe in is a government that has any concern for the welfare of its people. You don't mind that you have to pay taxes for defense, national security, infrastructue maybe, or perhaps to pay your salary as a police officer...

Yes Jim, we are paying for a service.

but you don't believe in a government that actually takes into consideration the welfare, the lives, of human beings.

Yes, but the best thing you can do for the poor is to have an economic system that consistently generates jobs.

So, when people, poor people, without access to health care, end up in the emergency room, should we have a government that insures they get the urgent care that they need, or should would tell them tough luck little poor girl, we don't really care about you and your broken leg. Or tough luck old man, can't afford your blood pressure medicine, sorry, nothing we can do for you. Well?

Except emergency room visits have not slowed with the ACA. And Jim, I have no problem with you paying that little girl's bill. I'm sure you do such things often. And the girl will get the care, no matter what, the question is who will pay the bill. In the past I had medical bills - they just put me on a payment plan. And remember Jim, I was one of these working poor - making seven dollars on hour and a single parent. I was eligible for about every form of government assistance - but refused to take any. I got a second job, and eventually bettered myself.

[Carrikature]

Yes, but the best thing you can do for the poor is to have an economic system that consistently generates jobs.

Hm. This might almost be worth a separate thread, but I'm not sure this is a given. Job generation is extremely important, but which jobs. I'm not convinced that most new generated jobs are aimed at unskilled labor. If anything, the opposite is true.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but the best thing you can do for the poor is to have an economic system that consistently generates jobs.

No problem! The ideal American communist system where everyone was employed (100%), all housing, medical treatment and education was free up to 2 years of college. The Pan Canal Company of the Canal Zone, Panama.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for pointing that out CP.

You bet - you're usually so literate and articulate!

[Cow Poke]

You may think it a false premise, but prove it.

That's not how it works, Jimmy. When you say something really stupid, and blatantly false, it's up to you to prove it.
Here is what you said, to which I was objecting....

Well of course, but that is because republicans do not believe in government period

That part is just beyond stupid.

and would just as soon see poor people suffer and die rather than to enact an affordable system of healthcare.

And that part goes right along with it.

The government that you don't believe in is a government that has any concern for the welfare of its people.

The government that I "don't believe in"? See, you started with a false premise, and now you're trying to build on it. And the rest of the sentence is just whacky beyond belief.

You don't mind that you have to pay taxes for defense, national security, infrastructue maybe, or perhaps to pay your salary as a police officer

I haven't been a police officer since you started pooping green, Jimmy - that was ages ago!

but you don't believe in a government that actually takes into consideration the welfare, the lives, of human beings.

Absolutely false. I would just like the government to be more cost efficient and far less wasteful.

So, when people, poor people, without access to health care, end up in the emergency room,

Public hospitals cannot turn poor people away if they have emergencies, Jimmy.

should we have a government that insures they get the urgent care that they need, or should would tell them tough luck little poor girl, we don't really care about you and your broken leg.

You might check out the EMTALA act of 1986, Jimmy. Legally, they can not be told "tough luck poor little girl", even if they're a boy who thinks they're a girl.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

Or tough luck old man, can't afford your blood pressure medicine, sorry, nothing we can do for you. Well?

I have personally helped such people with my own finances, Jimmy, and so has my Church. People like you, however, just want to address those issues with OPM.

[lilpixieofterror]

You do realize that it's possible to be aggressive while not being passive aggressive, right? They're not the same thing. You said I gave you a passive aggressive backslap, which is patently false. At no point have I pretended my comments aren't aggressive.

Of course I do, it's just quite cute to watch you keep pretending your opposition isn't as smart as you and totally ignoring your clear double standards. I don't see you jumping down Tazzy Wazzy's throat for making the assertion, only mine. Why?

This isn't even coherent. What assumptions? What history do you think there was to be missed? I read through the thread. I saw your response. It was stupid and did not interact at all with what you were responding to. The second half of this is just tu quoque and stupid besides since no one asked you to back up anything.

Yeah it is coherent because you jump down my throat for things you let others get away with. I am seriously shocked that it somehow takes some sort of facts and figures to 'prove' that not engaging in criminal behavior tends to lower your chances for being a victim of crime or that the US tends to use jail time as a punishment vs other countries. My entire point is starting you down in the face and you simply refuse to see and likewise it isn't my job to back up claims that are not backed up himself. I know... difficult concept to figure out, but hey... keep jumping down my throat and not bothering to actually try to figure out what is being said.

I understood your 'true argument' the first time (never mind that this isn't what you said). None of this is remotely relevant to what the crime rates actually are, which is what you were responding to.

No, you don't because you were busy jumping down my throat to really care what it is. Do the simple concept that I brought up seriously need to be explained and backed up with facts and figures? You seriously need it 'backed up' that living a life of crime raises your chances of being caught up in crime or that the US is more likely to punish people by throwing them in jail for crimes that wouldn't warrant jail time, in other nations? Wow... those are my claims and the things I have said the entire time. These both are quite relevant to the claims being made for several reasons (such as jails tend to make minor criminals into major criminals, so yeah, it is quite relevant to the US crime rates).

Please show me where I have once demanded you to give facts and figures. I haven't. You made a stupid comment that was irrelevant.

Nope, I made no such thing. You jumped down my throat and didn't bother to try to understand the arguments being made. I am under no obligation to please you and do no bother to please somebody that wants to be a jackass for the sake of being a jackass. It isn't 'irrelevant' at all and all plays into criminal rates, if you bother to figure it all out and how it is all interconnected.

You continually act as if I'm somehow completely unaware of what happened. As you say, all of this stuff is pretty easy to look up and confirm. My dissension is not with the facts of what happened, but with the spin that has been put on them to the effect that the US played 'the major role'.

Too bad the spin is quite accurate and you're unable to refute it. US supplied much of the man power and supplies for critical invasions that couldn't of happened without US intervention. Remember, it was US build ups that allowed the invasions of Italy and France to take part and it was the US that fought many of the major engagements in the Pacific and handed the Japanese their first major defeat (IE the Battle of Midway). Also, the fact the allies, on most fronts, were on the defensive before US major involvement seems to indicate that the US again was critical for winning the war and the war might of been fought to a draw or even to an allied loss without US intervention. If you think this is incorrect, go ahead and tell me what one of these facts are wrong.

And we could quibble about whether or not the US Pacific territories count (they don't count for much to me, but whatever), the main thrust remains the same: US manufacturing continued on relatively unimpeded while other countries had major devastation thanks to invasion or bombings. There were, unsurprisingly, a lot of things happening in a lot of different countries. So many of the things you've listed above can't be placed at the US' feet alone, which is what is effectively needed to defend a 'the major role' claim. Yes, our contributions were extremely important. That's also true of the USSR, Britain, China, Australia, etc. No, we didn't play 'the major role', and big chunks of those things seer claimed we defeated are alive and well today.

Hey, you made the claims that the US wasn't invaded and now you're trying to downplay the fact that the US was indeed invaded. Why doesn't Guam, the Philippines, etc count as part of the US? I'm sure the people of these islands wouldn't be too pleased that you're trying to downplay them as being part of our nation because they suffered a good deal during the war, thanks to the Japanese invasions. Sure, you can claim, "But the US mainland wasn't invaded!", but that doesn't change the fact that even not counting that, US manufacturing bases was already far bigger than any nation, in the world, in that era. Before the Japanese faced major US bombings (which wasn't until the latter half of the war), they didn't have the major industry or supplies the US had available and didn't build nearly the output the US had. At it's peak, the US had over 6,000 ships (to puts this in perspective, the modern US Navy has 430) and remember, the US also supplied ships to other countries too, on top of our own Navy needs and not just a few either, we supplied hundreds to other allied navy's. If you still don't believe me though, here is a guy that gathered up major historical views and what he says here, so even before major US bombings of the Japanese home Islands, the US was already surpassing the Japanese outputs and continued to gear up while production, in other countries, wasn't speeding up (granted, blowing up the axis didn't help them much, but that is kind of the goal of a war). Again, you seem to be grossly underestimating US involvement and US intervention into the war. Even not counting the fact other nations were facing bombings, US simply had huge production potential that couldn't be matched and the axis powers were forced to engaged in a war with a powerful foe that they couldn't possibly win against (after all, they were already rather tied up with what they were fighting to start with and they went to pick yet another fight with a very powerful foe).

[Tassman]

You keep trying to link religion to crime rates, and to Christianity in particular.

I'm linking Christianity to its observable effect on societies where it dominates. These societies tend not to be shining beacons on a hill.

It doesn't work.There are a lot of things which are considered crimes that aren't forbidden by Christianity. Bad judgment isn't a sin. Manslaughter, drug charges, general recklessness (particularly with a vehicle)...all are examples of crimes that aren't against Christianity.

Christians claim that Christianity is necessary for a moral, well regulated and just society, whereas the c.80% Christian USA has the highest rates of incarceration, violence (gun-violence in particular) and gross financial inequity in the developed world…especially compared to the well regulated, well educated non-religious societies of the west.

This is downright silly. You can't talk about an issue while ignoring what goes into it.

Nonsense! One can observe trends.

Er, what? You're trying to tell me that nudity isn't a common occurrence in European commercials? Maybe you'd like us to believe that violence isn't showing up in cartoons and movies across the globe? Perhaps you'd like to show how 'immediate gratification' isn't an inherent part of any advertising aimed at selling a product? If this is really your argument, you need to seriously reconsider it. There's a lot more to Christian values than just law and order. None of the IHDI stats you're referencing have anything to do with that. You're trying to draw conclusions that aren't based in reality, and it shows.

See above.

[seer]

Hm. This might almost be worth a separate thread, but I'm not sure this is a given. Job generation is extremely important, but which jobs. I'm not convinced that most new generated jobs are aimed at unskilled labor. If anything, the opposite is true.

Well we would have a lot more jobs for unskilled labor if we stopped taking in unskilled immigrants. Let me give you a real world example. My son had about 15 friends were were all roofers. They made 22-26 dollars an hour. A decent living. About 8 or 9 years ago the illegals began moving into that trade - they were willing to work for minimum wage - about 9 dollars an hour in my state. Now none of the roofing companies in my county hire native born citizens - they can't, they could never compete with the companies who hire illegals. Our wages are being suppressed from within and from without by bad trade deals. And I blame both parties. And people wonder why Trump is doing so good in the polls.

[JimL]

Well we would have a lot more jobs for unskilled labor if we stopped taking in unskilled immigrants. Let me give you a real world example. My son had about 15 friends were were all roofers. They made 22-26 dollars an hour. A decent living. About 8 or 9 years ago the illegals began moving into that trade - they were willing to work for minimum wage - about 9 dollars an hour in my state. Now none of the roofing companies in my county hire native born citizens - they can't, they could never compete with the companies who hire illegals. Our wages are being suppressed from within and from without by bad trade deals. And I blame both parties. And people wonder why Trump is doing so good in the polls.

Is your concern with illegal immigrants or with both illegal and legal immigrants, because you don't seem to make that distinction in your thought. If it is only illegals that you are concerned about with respect to taking jobs away from legal citizens, then, that is against the law,or should be, and the law should put an end to that business practice. If the employers can't hire the illegal immigrants, then there is no job loss to legal citizens, like your son and his 15 friends. But you shouldn't place the blame for that on both parties, the president and the democrats are the only party that is willing and trying to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. But republicans, in their struggle for power, have vowed not to compromise on anything with the president regardless of the effect that not acting has on the country. So put the blame where it lies, it lies with the republicans for the continued allowance of illegals to take jobs while insisting that nothing be done, no legislation be passed, until the border is completely sealed. I know, you agree with them, but I suspect thats because you're a team player, and not so much do to reason.

[robrecht]

The usual Christian response to the ‘tyrant God’ claim is that He owns everything and therefore He is entitled to behave (by our standards) as badly as He wants. In other wards; Yes, He’s a tyrant, and so what. Get used to it.

And what do we do with tyrants? We try to overthrow them. Have you ever wondered that perhaps God WANTS us to overthrow Him, to be BETTER than Him?

I would like to point out that no tyrant gods were harmed in the making of this short post.

Yes, we are expected to continually conquer our limited conceptions of gods. In other words, it would be perfectly fine to harm tyrant gods in our posts.

[seer]

Is your concern with illegal immigrants or with both illegal and legal immigrants, because you don't seem to make that distinction in your thought. If it is only illegals that you are concerned about with respect to taking jobs away from legal citizens, then, that is against the law,or should be, and the law should put an end to that business practice. If the employers can't hire the illegal immigrants, then there is no job loss to legal citizens, like your son and his 15 friends. But you shouldn't place the blame for that on both parties, the president and the democrats are the only party that is willing and trying to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. But republicans, in their struggle for power, have vowed not to compromise on anything with the president regardless of the effect that not acting has on the country. So put the blame where it lies, it lies with the republicans for the continued allowance of illegals to take jobs while insisting that nothing be done, no legislation be passed, until the border is completely sealed. I know, you agree with them, but I suspect thats because you're a team player, and not so much do to reason.

My concern is mostly with illegals, legal aliens generally would not work for slave wages. And we don't need comprehensive immigration legislation, we need enforcement - over all we don't need more immigrants at this point, there is not enough work for our citizens, especially low skilled workers. And I blame both sides, the Dems want future voters and the Pubs want cheap labor.

[Jedidiah]

The main reason 'there is not enough work for our citizens,' is liberal economic policies and practices.