Conservatism is my salvation from 'Neurotypical oppression'

Post Reply New Topic

What you describe is economic regulation, which can be either helpful or hurtful, not "regulation's that control people's behavior," that would be characteristic of a totalitarian dictatorship, and thank god we don't live in one of those.

Those economic regulations affect our behavior, because they affect our choices.

-When the liberals ban guns, then the citizen can no longer buy it.
-When the liberals regulated mandatory air bags into cars, then the citizen no longer had the option to not have one.
-When the liberals regulated health care, they created the "Minimum Essential Coverage", so that men must buy "contraceptive-coverage" even though, likely most men will never consume birth control pills.
-When liberals decided that the incandescent light bulb was too energy inefficient, they prohibited them, now the citizen can no longer buy one.

Liberals think they know best, and that they should make decisions for you.

Yeah... I don't think we're going to agree on any of that. Liberals want government as a check on corporate power from getting out of control. Conservatives, at least the ones in government, especially Trump, want the poor and middle class to be the slaves of the rich, for the rich to have all the money, and for the corporations to rule the country and people's lives.

And this still doesn't have anything to do with NTs putting Aspies down.

Since when was it the government telling you that you spend to much time on your computer, or that you don't get out enough, or that you shouldn't act a certain way? As it's conservatives who cut programs so important to autistic people, and even cast doubt on if autism is even real, I'd say in my estimation that conservatives are not any of our friends.

Now look, I really do not have any harmful intent towards you, but your condemnation of liberals is really quite overzealous. Try your best to realize that your own belief system and ideals are not the only effective ones out there, and that the actions of a few shouldn't define an entire group.

Ahhh, now I really hate arguments ya know, but this is simply too tempting, so I may as well provide refutations to each of your points, and hopefully this can remain a relatively civil discussion.

this is definitely the most effective of your points, however I think it is important to note that many liberals simply support more effective regulation on who can obtain guns, not an outright ban, which would be strongly opposed and almost impossible to enforce. I personally identify as a LibSoc although I think the notion of a total gun ban would be simply ridiculous, based on the economic doctrine of supply and demand. You see, when the supply of something is greatly reduced (like in a gun ban) then the demand will only rise. This can be plainly seen in both the prohibition of the early 1900s and the more recent war on drugs. In both cases, smuggling and criminal activities to obtain the banned goods only increased, which doesn't do good by anyone.



So you're basically saying that the government shouldn't provide for people's safety? Some control, I think, is incredibly beneficial when the result is more lives saved with little or no cost otherwise.



I feel that this is once again quite a helpful measure, to reduce the staggering amount of teen and otherwise unwanted pregnancy in the U.S.. Also, due to the relative cheapness of health care after the ACA, the added price is quite minimal compared to what they would have had to pay otherwise. And if they are simply too idiotic to not use the pills, even if they do not want their partner pregnant, than that is their fault, and not the government's.



Quite a minor cost for the added benefits. In fact, because the cost of CFL bulbs is only twice as much as incandescent, even though it lasts for over six times as long and uses a quarter of the energy, the incandescent bulb is far more expensive. So why would it be harmful to prohibit something that basically sucks? Besides, I wouldn't imagine that something as minor as what bulb would be very restrictive of someone's economic freedom.

Basically, if I had to provide a thesis to my argument, it is that effective control and regulation of the economy that does no direct harm to the population, is not only useful, but beneficial to a society.

Of course, if you disagree with the regulations of the government, well... this nation is a republic! So you are perfectly able to protest or speak up against government action that you consider harmful.

Liberals are fond of creating regulations that tell people how to act.

Trump is trying to reverse some of them.

For example, Trump is sticking up for the mentally ill ....

Trump signs bill reversing Obama rule to ban gun purchases by mentally ill
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /98484106/

Well-intentioned, neurotypical people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Well-intentioned liberal people want to control the behavior of ASD people.

Two peas of the same pod wanting to control behaviors that they see as wrong.

Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people. If you mean the gun law, that applied to extremely mentally ill people, ones on the level of children mentally. Do you also think children should be able to own guns? For the record, I don't support a blanket gun ban, nor do most liberals. But I also don't think giving people the right to do something that is extremely likely to harm themselves in "sticking up" for them.

Your earlier comments are justifications for control, so it appears you acquiesce to my earlier point that liberals want to control people's behavior.

There are plenty of scenarios where government regulation does harm.

1. The coal industry was decimated by Obama's "clean coal"/"clean energy" regulations. Plenty of people lost their jobs, lost their homes.

Trump Signs Repeal Of Obama Coal Mining Regulations
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/trump ... gulations/

2. Gun regulation means people have to go through background checks, and wait for their guns.

Woman killed while waiting on gun background check
http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015 ... an_ab.html

3. Parents should of always had the choice to install/remove airbags.

Airbags Kill More Kids Than School Shootings
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/air ... -shootings

Those regulations hardly constitute the NT oppression you had talked about in your OP.
And while I'm not a gun control zealot, the fact remains, there are certain people who have no business having guns. Those include criminals, as well as the severely mentally ill who could pose a danger to themselves or others. Trump's ending Obama's prohibition for selling firearms to the mentally ill is just another on of his ill-thought out schemes to endear himself to the right. I sincerely doubt he gives two sh*ts about the mentally ill.

A recent liberal invention is the "soda tax".

Fat liberals like to lecture people about how they should eat.

So, these fat liberals put a tax on your food, in the wisdom that you will "wise up" and eat how they eat.

Still waiting for you to provide an example of liberals specifically wanting to control ASD people.

And your constant straw manning is making you look really disingenuous. I'm starting to doubt that you are a serious poster.

The soda tax is intended to control people from drinking soda.

I thought that was clear.

The liberals who propose it tell us that it will have its intended effect of controlling behavior, and as such, will reduce obesity rates.

However, this is just one example from a mountain of regulations.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 Apr 2017, 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My point was that it is necessary for the government to have some control, and that not all of that control is harmful. I was trying my best not to bring liberals or partisanship into the debate. As to everything else, as I mentioned when it comes to government intervention causing harm, I feel it is the duty of the active citizen to protest or spread the information of said harm around. However, while harm can be caused by the points you mentioned, I still feel that the overall benefit outweighs the harm for each occasion. As for the coal regulations, the threat of climate change is very clear and imminent, so I think that it necessitates action, even if it ends in jobs lossed (keep in mind that, also, more jobs would be created due to the need for more clean energy). As for the gun regulations, incidents such as those are quite minor when compared to the effect that would be caused by its repeal, that is, thousands of criminals getting access to firearms. As for the airbags, it is estimated by these statistics that about 70 times as many people are saved by airbags than killed by them (18,319 : 262), so I will agree however that the airbags are quite harmful, but perhaps a better solution than simply removing them might be for the government to allocate resources in order to create airbags that are safer than the current ones.

So, in short, not everything the government does is necessarily good, but a calm inspection of risks versus rewards, and direct action if the risks outweigh the rewards, seems the best course to take.

P.S.: I'll be going to bed after this post, so I wont be able to reply until tomorrow, unfortunately. I do admit however that this debate thing is quite fun! Good to give one's mental faculties some exercise with a good argument every now and then.

Another good example, the liberals fight violently against school vouchers for ASD schools.

They have control of the schools, and they fight hard before they relinquish it.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 Apr 2017, 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh dear! I seemed to have moved the topic totally away from ND's and into political science I see. How inconsiderate of me