Okay, fair enough - I was referring specifically to people who did care enough to make a choice on election day... but this just underscores my point even more:
Given Obama's 60+% current approval rating, and the fact that 45% of the voting public didn't even bother to go out and vote against him, it seems pretty unreasonable to claim that a "non-thinking majority" in this country is buying into all the anti-Obama "fascism" talk.
I think it's pretty likely that the people buying into the "fascism" talk are pretty solidly in the minority.
I (generally) only reply to topics that I am well informed about.
Ah, this must be the exception to your general rule, then? You're clearly uninformed on this topic, and rather than spend even 2 moments looking at references provided to you, you are simply asserting that anybody who disagrees with you is wrong while providing no evidence to support your own arguments.
There is a troll in this thread. It's not me, and it's not Bigjeff5 either. That only leaves you, UTW. Surprise surprise.
And I welcome you to mark me as a foe as well. That way I'll know when I'm about to read something astoundingly ignorant - it'll have a red dot next to your name.
It's clear that this is your response to everything you don't agree with now. That's fine, your ignorance is not my problem.
What does that mean?
It means that you are intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant, and make up for it through belligerent name-calling. Rather than look at the references I provided you with, you have decided that anything that disagrees with you must be wrong, a troll, and a waste of your time. It seems that what I first thought was simple laziness really is stupidity.
Because you're demanding evidence be provided for something that even the most casual web search would have yielded the results you seek.
You're a Troll and I'm wasting my time.
Then I'm one of the most helpful & civil trolls you're ever likely to meet. You made a bunch of handwaving assertions and then claimed that "without evidence," my point was invalid. I then helpfully provided evidence, and pointed out that it was all very readily available on the web, and you dismiss it as trolling.
You are hyping up Art Therapy to boost a bogus point
So let me see if I have this straight:
You assert that having children paint and color pictures related to their trauma in response to that trauma is not good therapy.
I respond by pointing out that Art Therapy actually is a recognized psychological field, and that it is shown to be at least partially effective in helping children deal with trauma;
You then state that you needed hard evidence to prove that Art Therapy is effective.
I then provided you with a few links related to the effectiveness of Art Therapy, and pointed out that the only thing preventing you from finding them yourself was laziness.
Where's the bogus point exactly? You may not like my assessment of your level of interest, but your hurt feelings do not invalidate my point about art therapy.
it is obvious to me that you don't have any education in Art Therapy other than what you just recently Googled
A point I made abundantly clear in my original post, with my disclaimer that I am in no way qualified to judge whether or not the book in question would be USEFUL as a form of art therapy. Your lack of credentials does not seem to have prevented you from declaring that an entire field of psychology is bogus, however.
I doubt you actually read the book that you found on Amazon
I never claimed to have read the entire thing. I read the first chapter of the book I linked (which is available on Amazon), and I also read the entirety of the other excerpt I linked. Did you read even a bit of them? Or are you just digging your heels in on your position that Art Therapy is bogus and cannot have any evidence that it's effective?
Neither of those references make me an expert in Art Therapy or psychology, but they did provide enough detail that I believe there's some amount of usefulness to art therapy as a means for coping with trauma and distress. In similar fashion, you don't need to be a board certified cardiac specialist to understand that an EKG machine can be a very useful diagnostic tool.
I probably am an idiot.
I didn't say that, I said you were lazy. You sit there demanding to be shown evidence and literature that is already available to even the most casual researcher. You can call me a troll all you wish, but the fact remains that I answered your questions with perfectly reasonable responses. I then proceeded to set you on the road to discovery with the references I provided you, both of which contain numerous other references to studies, papers, and articles.
For someone who's (as you claimed) well-educated in social sciences and psychology, the existence of an entire field of psychology should not need to be spoon-fed to you by me. You're remarkably incurious about a field that I would assume interests you, if you're well-educated in it. I can only ascribe that lack of curiosity & willful ignorance to laziness, which masquerades as condescending skepticism.
I am aware of Art Therapy. I was referring more specifically to the FEMA colouring book though.
I'm sorry, this is laziness masquerading as skepticism on your part. A casual review of google search results ("Art Therapy" effectiveness) yielded plenty of references to papers & research discussing the effectiveness of art therapy. There is plenty of research out there, and simply stating "I don't believe it until I see the research," is a nice way of saying "I've never bothered to look."
Art Therapy, Research and Evidence-based Practice by Andrea Gilroy has a whole chapter devoted to "the evidence base for art therapy with children and adolescents," so you might want to start with a copy of that from your local university library if you're interested in the evidence for the efficacy of this therapy.
You could also peruse this excerpt for a discussion of art therapy that seems specific to a discussion of children coping with serious diseases, but talks significantly about the emotional & mental well-being that the art therapy can promote for children subjected to the stress, trauma, and fear of a medical diagnosis like leukemia.
There are many other references available, just a quick google search away - please avail yourselves of them.
I would take your definition of silliness more seriously if it had more logic to it than just majority opinion.
I didn't suggest "majority" opinion though, I suggested "a majority of experts' opinions" would be a reasonable criteria for determining if a complaint or objection had merit.
What other reasonable method would you suggest we follow to determine the appropriateness of this sort of material? Most people are not psychology experts, and so do not - in general - have the training & experience necessary to judge whether or not a book like this is a useful tool for child psychologists, and it is not feasible for every single person to become an expert in every field necessary to make sound judgements about these disagreements.
So in practical terms, if there is a dispute over the appropriateness of the material, and on the one side you have a group of laymen who have no particular knowledge of the field, and on the other side, you have a group of people who have spent long years research, training, and work in the field, whose judgement do you trust?
What evidence do you have that making children draw and colour tramatic events is good therapy?
There's a whole branch of psychology known as Art Therapy built around this premise. You may believe psychotherapy is a bunch of hooey, but there is certainly a reasonable body of evidence to suggest that creative processes, such as drawing & coloring, can be useful therapeutic tools for children who have affected by some sort of traumatic event.
Now whether or not the objections are valid or silly, I cannot say - I'd have to defer to the wisdom of trained & accredited psychologists to determine whether or not these particular materials in this particular case had any sort of therapeutic benefit.
How is the government supposed to know when people are being "silly"?
I would say the guideline would look something like this: when you have a bunch of people with no psychological qualifications whatsoever complaining about something that a large majority of psychologists actually feel is beneficial, the whiners are being silly. Disclaimer: I do not know if that is the case here, but the government certainly should be capable of determining whether or not an objection has merit.
What you're calling "social states" are known as "Social Democratic states." And if you know anything about the history of social democracy, you'd also know that it emerged from an ideological split in the socialist movement primarily related to how socialism could best be implemented.
In a nutshell: on one side, you had orthodox communists who felt that political upheaval & violent struggle were preconditions for the implementation of socialism (and eventually, communism) and that without those preconditions, socialism could not take root. On the other side, you had people like Eduard Bernstein, who felt, (again in a nutshell) that the system could be reformed from within in an evolutionary manner via cross-class cooperation, and that implementation of socialism need not wait for the implosion of capitalism & political upheaval that Karl Marx predicted was inevitable.
It helps to understand the historical underpinnings before you start quoting Merriam-Webster. These philosophies did not emerge fully formed from nothing.
But all that aside: let's look at the notion of universal, government provided healthcare. How is the government controlling all access to & administration of the goods & services related to healthcare NOT a socialist policy, as defined by the dictionary quote you provided? Please feel free to explain the reasoning that leads you to think that government control of goods and services is not, in actuality, government control of goods and services?
You can do as much semantic gymnastics as you like, but a program where the government takes responsibility for providing for the welfare of its citizens like that (health care, education, welfare, etc.) is a socialist agenda. It doesn't mean that the state has (or necessarily will) devolve into some sort of communist / fascist dictatorship (in the North Korean / Cuban sense), but you cannot claim that what you're defining as "social states" is in fact the blending of socialist policies into those societies.
I'm well aware that Marx (and Engels, if I recall) posited that socialism was the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, and that no "communist" state in the full sense they meant it (classless, owner-less, free society) has existed.
Socialism is a "light" form of centrally planned production economies such as you find under Communist rule. Please explain to me how the government of Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. taxing its citizens (first centralizing a large chunk of wealth), and then spending that money on equal health care for all citizens does not fit the mold of a "centrally planned" economic policy?
The question of whether or not something is or is not in the constitution is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Actually, given that we're discussing the American government's tax & deficit-spending policies here, what is and is not allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America is quite relevant. If you wish to generalize your critique and indicate that you feel the Constitution does not provide for "the best" system of government, and that you have some alternative system you think should be instituted instead, you're welcome to, but that's not what the discussion has been to this point.
Seriously? You want me to cite that upward mobility is difficult?
No, I want you to provide statistical evidence that shows that "even if you work your face off, you're still probably going to be poor."
You've failed on every challenge to provide any evidence stronger than your hand-waving assertions that "things must be as I say they are." But keep trying.
Results I've seen (summarized here) indicate Obama recieved ~53% of the popular vote, McCain about 45%, and Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and Kinney received fractions of 1% each.
You're free to explain my misinterpretation of his takes on egoism and amoralism any time - if I'm in fact wrong, I'd welcome the addition to my knowledge.
Alternately, you could continue trying to be smug and clever, and failing at both.
The choice is all yours, makes no difference to me.
So the target moves? Very well then. Communism, in the Soviet model, was a political ideology which sought to implement socialist economic policies via a strong central government & a planned economy. Socialism is an economic model which advocates for community or state ownership of industry. To say that communism in this sense is not socialism is, semantically, correct - in the same way that it's correct to state that not all "Republicans" are "Compassionate Conservatives."
To claim that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not have socialist economic policies, or that "socialism lite" like what is in place in "Denmark, Sweden, England, pretty much the entire EU, [...] and the USA," is the only thing that may rightfully be called "socialism" is not correct.
But please, feel free to offer me your remedial poli-sci course, maybe I can pass it around to some of my friends as a little joke.
Really? For someone who knows so much about anarchism, you seem remarkably ignorant of the writings of Max Stirner, who wrote some of these greatest hits (from his "The Ego and His Own"):
Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.
What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.
In his estimation, the only thing that governed what you did was your desire to do it, and property was whatever you could take - through force, including murder, if necessary, since he was also a strong proponent of amoralism.
So next time you want to tell me that "no anarchists" call it okay, you might want to do your own research first. You may not agree with him, but he was most certainly an anarchist. So next time you want to spout off based on your uninformed opinions about what constitutes anarchy versus libertarianism, reconsider what a gobshite it makes you appear to be.
That's a non-sequitor. Whether or not it's constitutional doesn't make it a good idea. Just because it's not is an appeal to authority of the authors of the constitution.
You might want to go look up the definitions of non-sequitur and appeal to authority to understand why your response makes no sense. But in short: You wrote, "The government has every business providing the services it does now." I responded with, "No, not when those services are better provided by a private organization, or where government provision of those services are unconstitutional."
You see, the constitution defines and limits the powers of the government in very real ways. It's not an appeal to authority to claim this, it's the law, and it's how our federal republic is constructed. If the government is explicitly prohibited from doing something by the constitution, it may not do so legally without first amending the constitution to grant itself that power. The presidential oath of office commits the president to, and I quote, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and the President failing to do this is an impeachable offense.
When the poor suffer, so do we all. Who knows when we're going to be in a situation when we might need something like universal health care? Even the comfortably wealthy can be reduced to poverty thanks to a medical condition.
And none of this proves that it is legitimately the constitutional responsibility of the government, or the best possible solution, to provide health care to everyone.
I have a problem with those who think they don't have to participate in their own country.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier post and are just knee-jerking your response now. I already said that I donate my time and money voluntarily to charitable causes already - how is that not "participating"?
If you're hyper wealthy, you did it largely on the backs of lower paid, unskilled labor.
Define hyper-wealthy. Right now, put a number on it.
Because it wasn't the poor's choice to be poor. Even if you work your face off, you're still probably going to be poor.
[Citation needed.] I know plenty of people born into lower & lower-middle class households, myself included, who have managed to achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle through hard work.
In the real world, many externalities exist which keeps social mobility difficult.
Such as?
Government should be removing those externalities because when the poor are better off, so are the rich.
I'll agree that government has a role in ensuring *equal opportunity* for all of its citizens. Certainly everybody should have the same opportunities for growth and advancement. But you are arguing for *equal outcomes,* and that is where we part ways.
So why are you resistant on the Government to do it?
Because the government is wasteful, inefficient, and incapable of putting the money to its original intended use. See Social Security funding and its pending bankruptcy for examples.
Private charities are more prone to internal abuses like embezzlement than the Government is.
[Citation needed]. Many private charities - such as the Red Cross, UNICEF, Habitat For Humanity, the World Wildlife Fund, and many others are very well-run and in general more efficient than government. See http://www.charitynavigator.com/ for more information.
You're not forced to be here, so you're not forced to pay taxes either. Move to Somalia, a Libertarian paradise.
Did you REALLY just respond with "My America: Love it or Leave
Just curious... would that be the majority that elected Barack Obama? Or do you mean the OTHER majority of people known as "a fraction of the minority of people who didn't vote for him"?
Sadly, I'm pretty sure that "majority" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Pro Tip: Don't feel like you have something to say just because the word "fascism" comes up in a discussion about republicans and you fancy yourself clever.
Actually, you should learn what libertarianism is. It has a lot to say about defrauding others (that it's bad, mmkay?), and in fact makes a point of saying that informed, voluntary consent between two parties should be the basis for all interactions. Laws, courts, and police / military are all well regarded by libertarian thought as a way of ensuring that when someone defrauds or forces someone else into something, there is some legal recourse available to the victim.
What you're describing - no government, no regulations, "to the victor go the spoils" mentality - is known as individualist anarchism (or egoism), and is quite different from libertarianism in fact, in that it specifically states that force and even murder between individuals is an acceptable means to an end, if you can get away with it.
And here we reach your sick little secret: that you aren't even intelligent enough to be informed of the principles of the philosophy you are maligning, because it has the temerity to disagree with your preordained conclusions about how things should run.
rather than scrapping it and going with what has been proven to work: socialism.
You're absolutely right! Socialism has proven to be such a resounding success that it's a wonder the USSR hasn't annexed the tottering USA by now! I suppose the only thing stopping them from such a blatant power grab is our warm relations with the powerful workers' states of East Germany, Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
The government has all business providing the things it provides.
Not if it is unconstitutional for the government to do so, or if it is a thing better provided by a private organization.
Poverty sucks
Sure it sucks. You know what other things sucks? Rain, snow, and not getting laid. The fact that "something sucks" doesn't mean the government automatically has the responsibility to make it "not suck".
and until all of the hyper rich decide to transparently run the programs that would replace Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, etc, someone has to do it.
No, no one "has" to do it. Do not confuse objective necessity with your belief that something should be done about a problem. The problem is, when you step over the line from "believing something should be done," to "forcing everybody to do what I think must be done by making it a government program," I have a problem with that.
I'm sure I'll be modded down as troll and flamebait because I'm breaking with prevailing slashdot wisdom, but I don't mind burning karma to make this point. If you think that something more should be done about poverty, then by all means - Campaign your little heart out to raise private (VOLUNTARY) charitable donations to alleviate the problem. Take a vow of near-poverty yourself and donate all your earnings to the poor.
Hell, if you did that rather than try to seize control of the government to use it as a club to force me to donate to the programs you happen to think are "necessary," I'd write you a check to help educate, feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate the poor & homeless with a big smile - I donate my time & money already of my own free will, because I believe it's the right & moral thing to do.
If you want more to be done about all the problems, I'll respond with this simple challenge: You first. Do it on your own, voluntarily, lead by example. I may follow voluntarily, I may decide to go a different direction and donate to another cause that I think is more important. But either way, I will not hate you for presuming to know what is best for me and forcing me to fund programs that I do not support, and you will have proven that you do not hate your fellow human beings enough to think that the only way they will do the right thing is if they are forced to.
How about we increase tax rates and reup spending for actual programs that aren't wars or bailouts?
Is this based on the obviously unassailable premise that any program that isn't a war or a bailout is a wise & useful way to spend tax money?
I'd be happy to see the government stop increasing (and increasing deficit) spending, stop cutting taxes (even moderately increase taxes if that money would go towards paying down the national debt), pay down the fucking debt, and stop wasting money on programs that the government really has no business providing.
Specter would have been smarter to have went independent. Does he really need a party? He has the name recognition.
Without access to the fundraising & legal apparatus of one of the major parties, he most probably would have been frozen out of any real competition for the seat, name recognition or no. He would be outspent, and out-lawyered, in short order.
Use taxes unfairly burden those starting from the bottom, which you'd realize if you were there faced with them.
[Citation needed]
Why do you think most civilized countries rely on income taxes rather than use taxes?
Because there's no juice worth the squeeze in seizing power on behalf of your special interests (Democrat or Republican) if there's not a big treasury to control as well. Money to interest groups = votes for politicians.
Because its the most equitable means of maintaining infrastructure. Same reason there's not sales tax on food and necessities in most states (mine excluded sadly).
Great, now instead of all the hand-waving and generalized assertions, please:
define equitable.
prove your assertion that income taxes are the most equitable means possible for maintaining infrastructure. Or at least that they are more "equitable" than sales taxes or tolls.
Regressive taxes keep those that are struggling down.
And please show me how a sales tax or a use tax is regressive? You are aware that a regressive tax is one in which the tax rate paid is inversely proportional to the amount of money you make? Or were you too busy waving your hands and screaming "think of the children!" that you forgot that these words have actual meanings?
I'd just rather give up a few more dollars a year than see those on the edge of desperation and criminality pushed over that edge.
Well then, you can pay your extortion money to those who are "on the edge of desperation and criminality." I choose to deal with other people as if they are human beings, not savage animals one missed meal away from looting and rioting. Perhaps you're the one blaming the victim here - "these poor ignorant lower-class people can't possibly behave in a civilized fashion unless the government is there to watch over them!"
Mainly because I'm not a self righteous, blame the victim douche (read libertarian in educated circles).
I blame victims for staying victims. I applaud & support victims who don't wish to remain victims any longer.
You assume that the only thing keeping society from turning into a hate-fueled bloodbath is the fact that the government is there to keep people in line. I choose to behave (and demand that others around me behave) as if they are human beings, capable of reason & decency towards one another, without some "big brother" looking over their shoulder to make sure that they do so. So tell me - which philosophy of human nature speaks of victims, and which speaks of humanity? I think you have it backwards.
And this is exactly the problem with you little training-wheeled Marxists: you rush to assume that anybody who disagrees with a government program you think is necessary is a heartless bastard who just wants to hoard their money. You never even paused to consider the very simple fact that you don't know a fucking thing about me. So for the record, I will state:
I'm a believer in charity. I consider it something I am morally obligated to do to help people who may be less fortunate than I am. I don't need the government to force me to give.
I donate several thousand dollars a year to the Red Cross, the college I graduated from, the local food bank, and my church.
I also donate - on average - 10-15 hours a month of my time volunteering at a local hospital.
I also give ~30% of my income as income taxes, and there is no doubt given the current state of government spending, that most of the money the government collects from me is spent on charity.
If that extra 30% of my income were given to me, you can be sure it wouldn't be given as charity to failed CEOs to prop up their blow & hooker habits.
You missed the sentence that was important. Are public roads laid out in the U.S. Constitution?
No, in fact, I'm well aware that they call for the abolishment of the IRS & the income tax, and all programs and services not required under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Perhaps you should go read the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, which lays out the powers of the Legislative branch of the US government, wherein you will find the following:
[...] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; [...]
So yeah, since we're calling each other names now, actually, there is a basis for public roads laid out in the Constitution, you civically illiterate douchebag. A Post Road is "a road or way over which mail is carried," so there's actually an explicit call for construction of roads built right into the constitution. It doesn't say that the government is the ONLY body that can/should build roads, but it does lay that out as a responsibility of the federal government.
how, exactly, would you fund road construction without income taxes?
Excise taxes, fuel & other sales taxes as well as tolls spring to mind as perfectly useful ways for the government to raise the money to build and maintain roads. "Income tax" is not the only method by which a government can raise money. But in your rush to condemn anybody who disagrees with your socialist utopia as a self righteous asshole, you probably forgot that. Or maybe your love of taxes makes you confuse all of the types so that you think Income Tax is the general term for any tax levied?
That would be an awesome system for someone starting from the bottom. (ie everyone who hasn't yet become a rich self-righteous asshole like you).
Don't have money to pay the fuel tax? Don't own a car, Live close to work, ride a bike, walk, carpool, or take public transit. All perfectly valid options which wouldn't require you to pay the fuel tax and/or would allow you to save money. Your basic premise is that people can't succeed unless the government helps them. I reject that premise as a fallacy, and unless you can come up with some good factual arguments as to why it's not, I'm going to assume you're just another whiner who wants to punish successful people for the "sin" of capability.
Next time you want to argue about the constitution, make sure you're prepared for it. Until then, you can get stuffed.
He was a thief who destroyed massive amounts of value, created chaos, misunderstanding and distrust among technical workers and set both ethics and technology back decades. There are few if any individuals in the history of mankind who have caused more damage to our species than Bill Gates did.
Here, have some perspective with that apoplexy.
You're right - Bill Gates wasn't a wonderful practitioner of genteel business. But the exaggeration is silly and it only serves to detract from your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, fair enough - I was referring specifically to people who did care enough to make a choice on election day... but this just underscores my point even more:
Given Obama's 60+% current approval rating, and the fact that 45% of the voting public didn't even bother to go out and vote against him, it seems pretty unreasonable to claim that a "non-thinking majority" in this country is buying into all the anti-Obama "fascism" talk.
I think it's pretty likely that the people buying into the "fascism" talk are pretty solidly in the minority.
Ah, this must be the exception to your general rule, then? You're clearly uninformed on this topic, and rather than spend even 2 moments looking at references provided to you, you are simply asserting that anybody who disagrees with you is wrong while providing no evidence to support your own arguments.
There is a troll in this thread. It's not me, and it's not Bigjeff5 either. That only leaves you, UTW. Surprise surprise.
And I welcome you to mark me as a foe as well. That way I'll know when I'm about to read something astoundingly ignorant - it'll have a red dot next to your name.
It's clear that this is your response to everything you don't agree with now. That's fine, your ignorance is not my problem.
It means that you are intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant, and make up for it through belligerent name-calling. Rather than look at the references I provided you with, you have decided that anything that disagrees with you must be wrong, a troll, and a waste of your time. It seems that what I first thought was simple laziness really is stupidity.
Good day.
Because you're demanding evidence be provided for something that even the most casual web search would have yielded the results you seek.
Then I'm one of the most helpful & civil trolls you're ever likely to meet. You made a bunch of handwaving assertions and then claimed that "without evidence," my point was invalid. I then helpfully provided evidence, and pointed out that it was all very readily available on the web, and you dismiss it as trolling.
So let me see if I have this straight:
Where's the bogus point exactly? You may not like my assessment of your level of interest, but your hurt feelings do not invalidate my point about art therapy.
A point I made abundantly clear in my original post, with my disclaimer that I am in no way qualified to judge whether or not the book in question would be USEFUL as a form of art therapy. Your lack of credentials does not seem to have prevented you from declaring that an entire field of psychology is bogus, however.
I never claimed to have read the entire thing. I read the first chapter of the book I linked (which is available on Amazon), and I also read the entirety of the other excerpt I linked. Did you read even a bit of them? Or are you just digging your heels in on your position that Art Therapy is bogus and cannot have any evidence that it's effective?
Neither of those references make me an expert in Art Therapy or psychology, but they did provide enough detail that I believe there's some amount of usefulness to art therapy as a means for coping with trauma and distress. In similar fashion, you don't need to be a board certified cardiac specialist to understand that an EKG machine can be a very useful diagnostic tool.
I didn't say that, I said you were lazy. You sit there demanding to be shown evidence and literature that is already available to even the most casual researcher. You can call me a troll all you wish, but the fact remains that I answered your questions with perfectly reasonable responses. I then proceeded to set you on the road to discovery with the references I provided you, both of which contain numerous other references to studies, papers, and articles.
For someone who's (as you claimed) well-educated in social sciences and psychology, the existence of an entire field of psychology should not need to be spoon-fed to you by me. You're remarkably incurious about a field that I would assume interests you, if you're well-educated in it. I can only ascribe that lack of curiosity & willful ignorance to laziness, which masquerades as condescending skepticism.
And a good evening to you.
I'm sorry, this is laziness masquerading as skepticism on your part. A casual review of google search results ("Art Therapy" effectiveness) yielded plenty of references to papers & research discussing the effectiveness of art therapy. There is plenty of research out there, and simply stating "I don't believe it until I see the research," is a nice way of saying "I've never bothered to look."
Art Therapy, Research and Evidence-based Practice by Andrea Gilroy has a whole chapter devoted to "the evidence base for art therapy with children and adolescents," so you might want to start with a copy of that from your local university library if you're interested in the evidence for the efficacy of this therapy.
You could also peruse this excerpt for a discussion of art therapy that seems specific to a discussion of children coping with serious diseases, but talks significantly about the emotional & mental well-being that the art therapy can promote for children subjected to the stress, trauma, and fear of a medical diagnosis like leukemia.
There are many other references available, just a quick google search away - please avail yourselves of them.
I didn't suggest "majority" opinion though, I suggested "a majority of experts' opinions" would be a reasonable criteria for determining if a complaint or objection had merit.
What other reasonable method would you suggest we follow to determine the appropriateness of this sort of material? Most people are not psychology experts, and so do not - in general - have the training & experience necessary to judge whether or not a book like this is a useful tool for child psychologists, and it is not feasible for every single person to become an expert in every field necessary to make sound judgements about these disagreements.
So in practical terms, if there is a dispute over the appropriateness of the material, and on the one side you have a group of laymen who have no particular knowledge of the field, and on the other side, you have a group of people who have spent long years research, training, and work in the field, whose judgement do you trust?
There's a whole branch of psychology known as Art Therapy built around this premise. You may believe psychotherapy is a bunch of hooey, but there is certainly a reasonable body of evidence to suggest that creative processes, such as drawing & coloring, can be useful therapeutic tools for children who have affected by some sort of traumatic event.
Now whether or not the objections are valid or silly, I cannot say - I'd have to defer to the wisdom of trained & accredited psychologists to determine whether or not these particular materials in this particular case had any sort of therapeutic benefit.
I would say the guideline would look something like this: when you have a bunch of people with no psychological qualifications whatsoever complaining about something that a large majority of psychologists actually feel is beneficial, the whiners are being silly. Disclaimer: I do not know if that is the case here, but the government certainly should be capable of determining whether or not an objection has merit.
What you're calling "social states" are known as "Social Democratic states." And if you know anything about the history of social democracy, you'd also know that it emerged from an ideological split in the socialist movement primarily related to how socialism could best be implemented.
In a nutshell: on one side, you had orthodox communists who felt that political upheaval & violent struggle were preconditions for the implementation of socialism (and eventually, communism) and that without those preconditions, socialism could not take root. On the other side, you had people like Eduard Bernstein, who felt, (again in a nutshell) that the system could be reformed from within in an evolutionary manner via cross-class cooperation, and that implementation of socialism need not wait for the implosion of capitalism & political upheaval that Karl Marx predicted was inevitable.
It helps to understand the historical underpinnings before you start quoting Merriam-Webster. These philosophies did not emerge fully formed from nothing.
But all that aside: let's look at the notion of universal, government provided healthcare. How is the government controlling all access to & administration of the goods & services related to healthcare NOT a socialist policy, as defined by the dictionary quote you provided? Please feel free to explain the reasoning that leads you to think that government control of goods and services is not, in actuality, government control of goods and services?
You can do as much semantic gymnastics as you like, but a program where the government takes responsibility for providing for the welfare of its citizens like that (health care, education, welfare, etc.) is a socialist agenda. It doesn't mean that the state has (or necessarily will) devolve into some sort of communist / fascist dictatorship (in the North Korean / Cuban sense), but you cannot claim that what you're defining as "social states" is in fact the blending of socialist policies into those societies.
I'm well aware that Marx (and Engels, if I recall) posited that socialism was the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, and that no "communist" state in the full sense they meant it (classless, owner-less, free society) has existed.
Socialism is a "light" form of centrally planned production economies such as you find under Communist rule. Please explain to me how the government of Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. taxing its citizens (first centralizing a large chunk of wealth), and then spending that money on equal health care for all citizens does not fit the mold of a "centrally planned" economic policy?
Actually, given that we're discussing the American government's tax & deficit-spending policies here, what is and is not allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America is quite relevant. If you wish to generalize your critique and indicate that you feel the Constitution does not provide for "the best" system of government, and that you have some alternative system you think should be instituted instead, you're welcome to, but that's not what the discussion has been to this point.
No, I want you to provide statistical evidence that shows that "even if you work your face off, you're still probably going to be poor."
You've failed on every challenge to provide any evidence stronger than your hand-waving assertions that "things must be as I say they are." But keep trying.
And that makes the factual content of my response inaccurate... how?
Given the smug - and inaccurate - condescension of GP's response, I was happy to engage in a little smug handwaving of my own.
Citation?
Results I've seen (summarized here) indicate Obama recieved ~53% of the popular vote, McCain about 45%, and Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and Kinney received fractions of 1% each.
You're free to explain my misinterpretation of his takes on egoism and amoralism any time - if I'm in fact wrong, I'd welcome the addition to my knowledge.
Alternately, you could continue trying to be smug and clever, and failing at both.
The choice is all yours, makes no difference to me.
So the target moves? Very well then. Communism, in the Soviet model, was a political ideology which sought to implement socialist economic policies via a strong central government & a planned economy. Socialism is an economic model which advocates for community or state ownership of industry. To say that communism in this sense is not socialism is, semantically, correct - in the same way that it's correct to state that not all "Republicans" are "Compassionate Conservatives."
To claim that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not have socialist economic policies, or that "socialism lite" like what is in place in "Denmark, Sweden, England, pretty much the entire EU, [...] and the USA," is the only thing that may rightfully be called "socialism" is not correct.
But please, feel free to offer me your remedial poli-sci course, maybe I can pass it around to some of my friends as a little joke.
In his estimation, the only thing that governed what you did was your desire to do it, and property was whatever you could take - through force, including murder, if necessary, since he was also a strong proponent of amoralism.
So next time you want to tell me that "no anarchists" call it okay, you might want to do your own research first. You may not agree with him, but he was most certainly an anarchist. So next time you want to spout off based on your uninformed opinions about what constitutes anarchy versus libertarianism, reconsider what a gobshite it makes you appear to be.
You might want to go look up the definitions of non-sequitur and appeal to authority to understand why your response makes no sense. But in short: You wrote, "The government has every business providing the services it does now." I responded with, "No, not when those services are better provided by a private organization, or where government provision of those services are unconstitutional."
You see, the constitution defines and limits the powers of the government in very real ways. It's not an appeal to authority to claim this, it's the law, and it's how our federal republic is constructed. If the government is explicitly prohibited from doing something by the constitution, it may not do so legally without first amending the constitution to grant itself that power. The presidential oath of office commits the president to, and I quote, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and the President failing to do this is an impeachable offense.
And none of this proves that it is legitimately the constitutional responsibility of the government, or the best possible solution, to provide health care to everyone.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier post and are just knee-jerking your response now. I already said that I donate my time and money voluntarily to charitable causes already - how is that not "participating"?
Define hyper-wealthy. Right now, put a number on it.
[Citation needed.] I know plenty of people born into lower & lower-middle class households, myself included, who have managed to achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle through hard work.
Such as?
I'll agree that government has a role in ensuring *equal opportunity* for all of its citizens. Certainly everybody should have the same opportunities for growth and advancement. But you are arguing for *equal outcomes,* and that is where we part ways.
Because the government is wasteful, inefficient, and incapable of putting the money to its original intended use. See Social Security funding and its pending bankruptcy for examples.
[Citation needed]. Many private charities - such as the Red Cross, UNICEF, Habitat For Humanity, the World Wildlife Fund, and many others are very well-run and in general more efficient than government. See http://www.charitynavigator.com/ for more information.
Did you REALLY just respond with "My America: Love it or Leave
Just curious... would that be the majority that elected Barack Obama? Or do you mean the OTHER majority of people known as "a fraction of the minority of people who didn't vote for him"?
Sadly, I'm pretty sure that "majority" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Pro Tip: Don't feel like you have something to say just because the word "fascism" comes up in a discussion about republicans and you fancy yourself clever.
Actually, you should learn what libertarianism is. It has a lot to say about defrauding others (that it's bad, mmkay?), and in fact makes a point of saying that informed, voluntary consent between two parties should be the basis for all interactions. Laws, courts, and police / military are all well regarded by libertarian thought as a way of ensuring that when someone defrauds or forces someone else into something, there is some legal recourse available to the victim.
What you're describing - no government, no regulations, "to the victor go the spoils" mentality - is known as individualist anarchism (or egoism), and is quite different from libertarianism in fact, in that it specifically states that force and even murder between individuals is an acceptable means to an end, if you can get away with it.
And here we reach your sick little secret: that you aren't even intelligent enough to be informed of the principles of the philosophy you are maligning, because it has the temerity to disagree with your preordained conclusions about how things should run.
You're absolutely right! Socialism has proven to be such a resounding success that it's a wonder the USSR hasn't annexed the tottering USA by now! I suppose the only thing stopping them from such a blatant power grab is our warm relations with the powerful workers' states of East Germany, Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
Yay! Opposite day is fun! You go next!
Not if it is unconstitutional for the government to do so, or if it is a thing better provided by a private organization.
Sure it sucks. You know what other things sucks? Rain, snow, and not getting laid. The fact that "something sucks" doesn't mean the government automatically has the responsibility to make it "not suck".
No, no one "has" to do it. Do not confuse objective necessity with your belief that something should be done about a problem. The problem is, when you step over the line from "believing something should be done," to "forcing everybody to do what I think must be done by making it a government program," I have a problem with that.
I'm sure I'll be modded down as troll and flamebait because I'm breaking with prevailing slashdot wisdom, but I don't mind burning karma to make this point. If you think that something more should be done about poverty, then by all means - Campaign your little heart out to raise private (VOLUNTARY) charitable donations to alleviate the problem. Take a vow of near-poverty yourself and donate all your earnings to the poor.
Hell, if you did that rather than try to seize control of the government to use it as a club to force me to donate to the programs you happen to think are "necessary," I'd write you a check to help educate, feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate the poor & homeless with a big smile - I donate my time & money already of my own free will, because I believe it's the right & moral thing to do.
If you want more to be done about all the problems, I'll respond with this simple challenge: You first. Do it on your own, voluntarily, lead by example. I may follow voluntarily, I may decide to go a different direction and donate to another cause that I think is more important. But either way, I will not hate you for presuming to know what is best for me and forcing me to fund programs that I do not support, and you will have proven that you do not hate your fellow human beings enough to think that the only way they will do the right thing is if they are forced to.
Is this based on the obviously unassailable premise that any program that isn't a war or a bailout is a wise & useful way to spend tax money?
I'd be happy to see the government stop increasing (and increasing deficit) spending, stop cutting taxes (even moderately increase taxes if that money would go towards paying down the national debt), pay down the fucking debt, and stop wasting money on programs that the government really has no business providing.
That would be a nice start.
Without access to the fundraising & legal apparatus of one of the major parties, he most probably would have been frozen out of any real competition for the seat, name recognition or no. He would be outspent, and out-lawyered, in short order.
[Citation needed]
Because there's no juice worth the squeeze in seizing power on behalf of your special interests (Democrat or Republican) if there's not a big treasury to control as well. Money to interest groups = votes for politicians.
Great, now instead of all the hand-waving and generalized assertions, please:
And please show me how a sales tax or a use tax is regressive? You are aware that a regressive tax is one in which the tax rate paid is inversely proportional to the amount of money you make? Or were you too busy waving your hands and screaming "think of the children!" that you forgot that these words have actual meanings?
Well then, you can pay your extortion money to those who are "on the edge of desperation and criminality." I choose to deal with other people as if they are human beings, not savage animals one missed meal away from looting and rioting. Perhaps you're the one blaming the victim here - "these poor ignorant lower-class people can't possibly behave in a civilized fashion unless the government is there to watch over them!"
I blame victims for staying victims. I applaud & support victims who don't wish to remain victims any longer. You assume that the only thing keeping society from turning into a hate-fueled bloodbath is the fact that the government is there to keep people in line. I choose to behave (and demand that others around me behave) as if they are human beings, capable of reason & decency towards one another, without some "big brother" looking over their shoulder to make sure that they do so. So tell me - which philosophy of human nature speaks of victims, and which speaks of humanity? I think you have it backwards.
And this is exactly the problem with you little training-wheeled Marxists: you rush to assume that anybody who disagrees with a government program you think is necessary is a heartless bastard who just wants to hoard their money. You never even paused to consider the very simple fact that you don't know a fucking thing about me. So for the record, I will state:
No, in fact, I'm well aware that they call for the abolishment of the IRS & the income tax, and all programs and services not required under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Perhaps you should go read the constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, which lays out the powers of the Legislative branch of the US government, wherein you will find the following:
So yeah, since we're calling each other names now, actually, there is a basis for public roads laid out in the Constitution, you civically illiterate douchebag. A Post Road is "a road or way over which mail is carried," so there's actually an explicit call for construction of roads built right into the constitution. It doesn't say that the government is the ONLY body that can/should build roads, but it does lay that out as a responsibility of the federal government.
Excise taxes, fuel & other sales taxes as well as tolls spring to mind as perfectly useful ways for the government to raise the money to build and maintain roads. "Income tax" is not the only method by which a government can raise money. But in your rush to condemn anybody who disagrees with your socialist utopia as a self righteous asshole, you probably forgot that. Or maybe your love of taxes makes you confuse all of the types so that you think Income Tax is the general term for any tax levied?
Don't have money to pay the fuel tax? Don't own a car, Live close to work, ride a bike, walk, carpool, or take public transit. All perfectly valid options which wouldn't require you to pay the fuel tax and/or would allow you to save money. Your basic premise is that people can't succeed unless the government helps them. I reject that premise as a fallacy, and unless you can come up with some good factual arguments as to why it's not, I'm going to assume you're just another whiner who wants to punish successful people for the "sin" of capability.
Next time you want to argue about the constitution, make sure you're prepared for it. Until then, you can get stuffed.
Here, have some perspective with that apoplexy.
You're right - Bill Gates wasn't a wonderful practitioner of genteel business. But the exaggeration is silly and it only serves to detract from your point.
I rate your post (-1, Needless Hyperbole).