CDZ Gun culture? or Disrespectful culture? Where does gun violence come from?

[JoeB131]

Someday one person who sees this will grow a brain and realize it is not the gun it is PRESCRIBED MEDS!
and how many kids are put on drugs in school hmmm lets figure that one out. OH wait that wont happen since libtards live of medical gods, and gov. gods telling them what is or isn't. They are never ever wrong.

Guy, stop deflecting.

meds aren't causing mass shooters.

 

[thewanderer]

Someday one person who sees this will grow a brain and realize it is not the gun it is PRESCRIBED MEDS!
and how many kids are put on drugs in school hmmm lets figure that one out. OH wait that wont happen since libtards live of medical gods, and gov. gods telling them what is or isn't. They are never ever wrong.

Guy, stop deflecting.

meds aren't causing mass shooters.

Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.

In other words, in every single case of a mass attack in which the medication status of the attacker was known, the status was positive.

There is not a single case that I am aware of in which the attacker was known to not be on psychotropic medication.

Those are facts, not opinions.

So how are you so sure that they are not related to mass shootings?

 

[Pogo]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

We live in a culture that sanctions violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution: from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and our propensity for militarism and war when addressing conflicts abroad.

And at times that sanctioned violence manifests with an individual who believes he’s been wronged getting mad, getting a gun, and getting even.

We had just as much violence in the past yet, children were not killing children. It is the break-down of the traditional family-unit....See my prior post.

Maybe you haven't noticed but gun violence is more than "children killing children". It's usually adults killing adults, sometimes adults killing children --- really adults killing anybody they can find as a target.

Far FAR more to the point is the fact that that shooter, regardless of age, is virtually always male.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Someday one person who sees this will grow a brain and realize it is not the gun it is PRESCRIBED MEDS!
and how many kids are put on drugs in school hmmm lets figure that one out. OH wait that wont happen since libtards live of medical gods, and gov. gods telling them what is or isn't. They are never ever wrong.

Guy, stop deflecting.

meds aren't causing mass shooters.

neither are guns

 

[Pogo]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

We live in a culture that sanctions violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution: from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and our propensity for militarism and war when addressing conflicts abroad.

And at times that sanctioned violence manifests with an individual who believes he’s been wronged getting mad, getting a gun, and getting even.

Spot-on summation. And to expand that a bit you could add our hypermilitarized police and the fact that our prison population dwarfs that of almost anywhere else -- whereas other nations/cultures we'd consider "developed" concentrate on fixing the underlying motivations where we're just going for vengeance This punitive eye-for-an-eye approach only serves to perpetuate those motivations and reinforces the vengeance-value on both sides, i.e. the State's violence on the perpetrator confirms to the perp that indeed "might makes right" and domination is the way to go and it's only a question of jockeying for who gets the dominant position.

And that's what a mass shooter is always going for ---- the ultimate dominant position.

Like so many other things we tend to superficially attack the symptom while we can't be bothered to examine the disease. Instead, we bang it about the head until it "submits". The first thing we need to grok is why that doesn't work, and why it perpetuates the same dynamic right back at us.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.



Do you agree, disagree, or think both arguments are right?
Does the gun violence we see come from
1. gun culture
2. social culture that demeans other people and doesn't value life and respect for others
3. both, the dangerous gun culture is a major part of the social cultural problems in #2
4. #2 made worse by people rejecting the gun culture that defends against #2

Yes, gun control is part of it. But it's so much deeper. It goes to the core of American mores. As a nation we bully others into submission. When we are displeased, we pull out our military wares and gun down whole nations. Our leaders blame others for economic and security woes (which are of US making) and proceed to target them with extreme cruelty. Our system dehumanizes and demeans those 'targets' until their lives have no value, their misery mere spectacle. Why are we surprised when a depressed and broken young person guns down people he has identified as targets of his rage, or perhaps the cause of his misfortune? He's in fact mirroring what our leaders in the highest offices have been doing all his life. ~ Susan Abulhawa

 

[Pogo]

Someday one person who sees this will grow a brain and realize it is not the gun it is PRESCRIBED MEDS!
and how many kids are put on drugs in school hmmm lets figure that one out. OH wait that wont happen since libtards live of medical gods, and gov. gods telling them what is or isn't. They are never ever wrong.

Guy, stop deflecting.

meds aren't causing mass shooters.

Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.

In other words, in every single case of a mass attack in which the medication status of the attacker was known, the status was positive.

There is not a single case that I am aware of in which the attacker was known to not be on psychotropic medication.

Those are facts, not opinions.

So how are you so sure that they are not related to mass shootings?

Good luck trying to prove a negative with that.

 

[Pogo]

Yes Pogo that's YOUR perception of the gun culture
as almost like worshipping the gun as a fetish.

That's not fair to pigeonhole ALL gun defenders
as having this "fetish" as their focus. That's actually insulting.

OK well if you have no mission but to contradict everything I write and try to twist it into something I didn't say, I don't see the point in going on. As already noted I've had five years of people not listening to me and plugging in what they want, so this isn't new.

I was just saying it isn't accurate to paint it as a fetish
when this is about people's beliefs in shared responsibility for law enforcement.

What did you mean if you didn't mean to paint it NEGATIVELY as
a fetish as if it's about the GUN?

Pogo
and what do you mean that the LAW isn't part of the CULTURE?
WHAT?

The whole rift between right and left
is that Right belief that natural laws areinherent in the people.
The Left believes rights depend on GOVT.

So YES it's cultural difference in how we views LAWS
based on our BELIEFS. it's not a FETISH it's differences in BELIEFS.

Can you explain your point again because clearly I missed it.

Isn't it because the Liberals don't see the laws as naturally inherent
in the people that this "gun culture" comes across as focused on the GUN
not the LAWS.

is this close?

Not really.
Emily sometimes your train of thought is just spaghetti. "Culture" has nothing to do with "laws". "Culture" has nothing to do with "rights". "Culture" is one's personal values, rendered as a collective. It means you like spaghetti. It means you don't telephone people at three in the morning. It means you hang Christmas lights in December. It means you don't eat horse meat. It means you either practice, or abhor, female genital mutilation. It means when you meet somebody you shake hands, or bow, or whatever your culture prefers. None of these are "laws" or "rights" -- they're cultural mores. They're what your society values positively or shuns negatively in personal behavior.

Just as there are populations in India who are trapped under a cultural prison (as we see it) of "honor killings" -- the laws try to curb it but culture is always far deeper than Law.

In this culture we "value" the idea of dominating and killing and blowing things up -- and all the attendant results thereof including mass shootings as well as the overpopulated prisons as well as the :ubermilitary police, as well as the constant wars, etc etc etc. NONE of that is related to "laws", which are effectively powerless to influence them. What I'm referring to is far more basic than civic structures. It goes all the way down to the human spirit. It's what we VALUE --- collectively --- as a culture. And what we value is, again, death and destruction and shooting and killing and vanquishing and blowing things up. That's neither a useful value nor a positive one, but it's what we're trapped under.

That is my starting point.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes Pogo that's YOUR perception of the gun culture
as almost like worshipping the gun as a fetish.

That's not fair to pigeonhole ALL gun defenders
as having this "fetish" as their focus. That's actually insulting.

OK well if you have no mission but to contradict everything I write and try to twist it into something I didn't say, I don't see the point in going on. As already noted I've had five years of people not listening to me and plugging in what they want, so this isn't new.

I was just saying it isn't accurate to paint it as a fetish
when this is about people's beliefs in shared responsibility for law enforcement.

What did you mean if you didn't mean to paint it NEGATIVELY as
a fetish as if it's about the GUN?

Pogo
and what do you mean that the LAW isn't part of the CULTURE?
WHAT?

The whole rift between right and left
is that Right belief that natural laws areinherent in the people.
The Left believes rights depend on GOVT.

So YES it's cultural difference in how we views LAWS
based on our BELIEFS. it's not a FETISH it's differences in BELIEFS.

Can you explain your point again because clearly I missed it.

Isn't it because the Liberals don't see the laws as naturally inherent
in the people that this "gun culture" comes across as focused on the GUN
not the LAWS.

is this close?

Not really.
Emily sometimes your train of thought is just spaghetti. "Culture" has nothing to do with "laws". "Culture" has nothing to do with "rights". "Culture" is one's personal values, rendered as a collective. It means you like spaghetti. It means you don't telephone people at three in the morning. It means you hang Christmas lights in December. It means you don't eat horse meat. It means you either practice, or abhor, female genital mutilation. It means when you meet somebody you shake hands, or bow, or whatever your culture prefers. None of these are "laws" or "rights" -- they're cultural mores. They're what your society values positively or shuns negatively in personal behavior.

Just as there are populations in India who are trapped under a cultural prison (as we see it) of "honor killings" -- the laws try to curb it but culture is always far deeper than Law.

In this culture we "value" the idea of dominating and killing and blowing things up -- and all the attendant results thereof including mass shootings as well as the overpopulated prisons as well as the :ubermilitary police, as well as the constant wars, etc etc etc. NONE of that is related to "laws", which are effectively powerless to influence them. What I'm referring to is far more basic than civic structures. It goes all the way down to the human spirit. It's what we VALUE --- collectively --- as a culture. And what we value is, again, death and destruction and shooting and killing and vanquishing and blowing things up. That's neither a useful value nor a positive one, but it's what we're trapped under.

That is my starting point.

Okay thanks for coming back to this.
Pogo would you agree then
that part of the culture rift is
that people have different beliefs about laws and rights as part of that.

That's why Christian culture is different
and looks foreign to people looking at it from outside.

Christians believe the people as the church are EMBODYING
the laws through Christ, so that makes us one with God.
So when man and man's laws become harmonized with God's laws,
there is no rift between church and state; by free choice these are in harmony
not in conflict; and it's not by coercion either, but by free agreement to follow
laws that align with each other instead of conflict.

That's a wholly different culture, right?
From people who see "laws" as established through govt
that is separate from people!

So it's disturbing to see people who believe that "we the people"
can embody and enforce laws ourselves to be authority of govt.

Like the Texas Bill of Rights, Section 2:
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Pogo if people SEE rights and authority DIFFERENTLY by beliefs,
doesn't that EXPLAIN the differences in CULTURE?

 

[Leo123]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

We live in a culture that sanctions violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution: from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and our propensity for militarism and war when addressing conflicts abroad.

And at times that sanctioned violence manifests with an individual who believes he’s been wronged getting mad, getting a gun, and getting even.

We had just as much violence in the past yet, children were not killing children. It is the break-down of the traditional family-unit....See my prior post.

Maybe you haven't noticed but gun violence is more than "children killing children". It's usually adults killing adults, sometimes adults killing children --- really adults killing anybody they can find as a target.

Far FAR more to the point is the fact that that shooter, regardless of age, is virtually always male.

Show the stat that proves guns somehow shoot people all by themselves. If you can’t then the term ‘gun violence’ is nothing but a political term.

 

[Leo123]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.

And respecting CDZ rules.... Bovine Droppings.

View attachment 186078

Japan spends more per capita on video games than we do, and some of their games are insane compared to ours. They watch truly violent movies.

And they have 6 gun homicides a year compared to our 11,000.

We have more gun violence because we've gone from 50 million guns in private hands to 300 million, half of those in the hands of 3% of the population.

Different culture. Guns don’t make people do things. Japan has a high rate of suicide.

 

[Pogo]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

We live in a culture that sanctions violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution: from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and our propensity for militarism and war when addressing conflicts abroad.

And at times that sanctioned violence manifests with an individual who believes he’s been wronged getting mad, getting a gun, and getting even.

We had just as much violence in the past yet, children were not killing children. It is the break-down of the traditional family-unit....See my prior post.

Maybe you haven't noticed but gun violence is more than "children killing children". It's usually adults killing adults, sometimes adults killing children --- really adults killing anybody they can find as a target.

Far FAR more to the point is the fact that that shooter, regardless of age, is virtually always male.

Show the stat that proves guns somehow shoot people all by themselves. If you can’t then the term ‘gun violence’ is nothing but a political term.

No one, anywhere, has ever suggested "guns shoot themselves". This falls on its face as a straw man argument,, and an old one. Thus it is dismissed.

 

[Pogo]

Yes Pogo that's YOUR perception of the gun culture
as almost like worshipping the gun as a fetish.

That's not fair to pigeonhole ALL gun defenders
as having this "fetish" as their focus. That's actually insulting.

OK well if you have no mission but to contradict everything I write and try to twist it into something I didn't say, I don't see the point in going on. As already noted I've had five years of people not listening to me and plugging in what they want, so this isn't new.

I was just saying it isn't accurate to paint it as a fetish
when this is about people's beliefs in shared responsibility for law enforcement.

What did you mean if you didn't mean to paint it NEGATIVELY as
a fetish as if it's about the GUN?

Pogo
and what do you mean that the LAW isn't part of the CULTURE?
WHAT?

The whole rift between right and left
is that Right belief that natural laws areinherent in the people.
The Left believes rights depend on GOVT.

So YES it's cultural difference in how we views LAWS
based on our BELIEFS. it's not a FETISH it's differences in BELIEFS.

Can you explain your point again because clearly I missed it.

Isn't it because the Liberals don't see the laws as naturally inherent
in the people that this "gun culture" comes across as focused on the GUN
not the LAWS.

is this close?

Not really.
Emily sometimes your train of thought is just spaghetti. "Culture" has nothing to do with "laws". "Culture" has nothing to do with "rights". "Culture" is one's personal values, rendered as a collective. It means you like spaghetti. It means you don't telephone people at three in the morning. It means you hang Christmas lights in December. It means you don't eat horse meat. It means you either practice, or abhor, female genital mutilation. It means when you meet somebody you shake hands, or bow, or whatever your culture prefers. None of these are "laws" or "rights" -- they're cultural mores. They're what your society values positively or shuns negatively in personal behavior.

Just as there are populations in India who are trapped under a cultural prison (as we see it) of "honor killings" -- the laws try to curb it but culture is always far deeper than Law.

In this culture we "value" the idea of dominating and killing and blowing things up -- and all the attendant results thereof including mass shootings as well as the overpopulated prisons as well as the :ubermilitary police, as well as the constant wars, etc etc etc. NONE of that is related to "laws", which are effectively powerless to influence them. What I'm referring to is far more basic than civic structures. It goes all the way down to the human spirit. It's what we VALUE --- collectively --- as a culture. And what we value is, again, death and destruction and shooting and killing and vanquishing and blowing things up. That's neither a useful value nor a positive one, but it's what we're trapped under.

That is my starting point.

Okay thanks for coming back to this.
Pogo would you agree then
that part of the culture rift is
that people have different beliefs about laws and rights as part of that.

That's why Christian culture is different
and looks foreign to people looking at it from outside.

Christians believe the people as the church are EMBODYING
the laws through Christ, so that makes us one with God.
So when man and man's laws become harmonized with God's laws,
there is no rift between church and state; by free choice these are in harmony
not in conflict; and it's not by coercion either, but by free agreement to follow
laws that align with each other instead of conflict.

That's a wholly different culture, right?
From people who see "laws" as established through govt
that is separate from people!

So it's disturbing to see people who believe that "we the people"
can embody and enforce laws ourselves to be authority of govt.

Like the Texas Bill of Rights, Section 2:
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Pogo if people SEE rights and authority DIFFERENTLY by beliefs,
doesn't that EXPLAIN the differences in CULTURE?

I see my explanation was for naught.

You're STILL trying to twist it back to "laws" and "rights" and now even "religion". In spite of everything I just wrote to the contrary.

I think you need to spend less time writing and more time reading.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes Pogo that's YOUR perception of the gun culture
as almost like worshipping the gun as a fetish.

That's not fair to pigeonhole ALL gun defenders
as having this "fetish" as their focus. That's actually insulting.

OK well if you have no mission but to contradict everything I write and try to twist it into something I didn't say, I don't see the point in going on. As already noted I've had five years of people not listening to me and plugging in what they want, so this isn't new.

I was just saying it isn't accurate to paint it as a fetish
when this is about people's beliefs in shared responsibility for law enforcement.

What did you mean if you didn't mean to paint it NEGATIVELY as
a fetish as if it's about the GUN?

Pogo
and what do you mean that the LAW isn't part of the CULTURE?
WHAT?

The whole rift between right and left
is that Right belief that natural laws areinherent in the people.
The Left believes rights depend on GOVT.

So YES it's cultural difference in how we views LAWS
based on our BELIEFS. it's not a FETISH it's differences in BELIEFS.

Can you explain your point again because clearly I missed it.

Isn't it because the Liberals don't see the laws as naturally inherent
in the people that this "gun culture" comes across as focused on the GUN
not the LAWS.

is this close?

Not really.
Emily sometimes your train of thought is just spaghetti. "Culture" has nothing to do with "laws". "Culture" has nothing to do with "rights". "Culture" is one's personal values, rendered as a collective. It means you like spaghetti. It means you don't telephone people at three in the morning. It means you hang Christmas lights in December. It means you don't eat horse meat. It means you either practice, or abhor, female genital mutilation. It means when you meet somebody you shake hands, or bow, or whatever your culture prefers. None of these are "laws" or "rights" -- they're cultural mores. They're what your society values positively or shuns negatively in personal behavior.

Just as there are populations in India who are trapped under a cultural prison (as we see it) of "honor killings" -- the laws try to curb it but culture is always far deeper than Law.

In this culture we "value" the idea of dominating and killing and blowing things up -- and all the attendant results thereof including mass shootings as well as the overpopulated prisons as well as the :ubermilitary police, as well as the constant wars, etc etc etc. NONE of that is related to "laws", which are effectively powerless to influence them. What I'm referring to is far more basic than civic structures. It goes all the way down to the human spirit. It's what we VALUE --- collectively --- as a culture. And what we value is, again, death and destruction and shooting and killing and vanquishing and blowing things up. That's neither a useful value nor a positive one, but it's what we're trapped under.

That is my starting point.

Okay thanks for coming back to this.
Pogo would you agree then
that part of the culture rift is
that people have different beliefs about laws and rights as part of that.

That's why Christian culture is different
and looks foreign to people looking at it from outside.

Christians believe the people as the church are EMBODYING
the laws through Christ, so that makes us one with God.
So when man and man's laws become harmonized with God's laws,
there is no rift between church and state; by free choice these are in harmony
not in conflict; and it's not by coercion either, but by free agreement to follow
laws that align with each other instead of conflict.

That's a wholly different culture, right?
From people who see "laws" as established through govt
that is separate from people!

So it's disturbing to see people who believe that "we the people"
can embody and enforce laws ourselves to be authority of govt.

Like the Texas Bill of Rights, Section 2:
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Pogo if people SEE rights and authority DIFFERENTLY by beliefs,
doesn't that EXPLAIN the differences in CULTURE?

I see my explanation was for naught.

You're STILL trying to twist it back to "laws" and "rights" and now even "religion". In spite of everything I just wrote to the contrary.

I think you need to spend less time writing and more time reading.

????

Pogo
I'm trying to explain the culture on both sides.

Do you understand that how people LOOK at "rights"
is part of their cultural beliefs?

How about separating the two kinds of rights then
1. civil rights that we agree on across left and right
2. political rights that start getting "biased and skewed"
because of people's beliefs about the nature of laws
and "where law and rights comes from"

With 1, most people agree that civil rights and laws
come from using the govt processes, including courts etc.

It's the 2 type of rights that get into Beliefs
and cultural differences in mindsets.

Pogo do you understand it is a Cultural belief
if people think that right to marriage or right to health care
is enforceable by govt?

Isn't that a good example of how "rights" and how
we PERCEIVE them involves cultural differences and BELIEFS?

Is that a good example?

Now, Pogo I got stuck with TheProgressivePatriot trying
to explain how "beliefs" about LGBT orientation, and where identity comes from whether it's from nature or it's a choice of behavior, and this affect where we draw the line with rights and laws. Can I ask TPP or OldLady to step in and help explain this better where I can't.
There's no issue with civil and secular rights/laws that all people AGREE are established and enfored by Govt. Where the cultural beliefs get crossed is with Political Rights where we don't agree where these rights/laws come from; where some people believe something is by nature and can't be deprived by laws or govt, and others believe it is people's choice of beliefs and not something that laws or govt can regulate. This area of "rights and laws" that involve "political beliefs and religion" are where people are getting in unresolvable conflict through govt.
And yes, because beliefs are involved, that makes it totally different cultures clashing.

OldLady can you please help explain?
I had this same problem discussing this conflict over beliefs with TheProgressivePatriot
If we can figure a way to describe this clash, we can stop parties from bashing each other over it, when people cannot help their beliefs and inability to see where the other sides comes from. Thanks please help if you can, I think this is the critical key to stopping political bullying!

 

[oldsoul]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.

Excellent salient points, once again highlighting how culture is manipulated.

Another similar example can be seen in the whole "drug testing in the workplace" revolution where it's become commonplace for employers to require (REQUIRE) pee samples as a condition of employment. The fact that a vibrant social wave rises up to 'defend the Second Amendment' while an egregious violation of the Fourth is swallowed whole with nary a whimper, demonstrates again where our cultural value priorities are.

I see your point, and admit that it could be interpreted as a violation of the 4th, except for one little "obscure" point. As you pointed out it is a condition of employment. Last I checked one is not forced to work for anyone else. Therefore it is a choice, and not a violation of the 4th. Now, if it were a requirement to vote, well that is an entirely different matter.

 

[Pogo]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.

Excellent salient points, once again highlighting how culture is manipulated.

Another similar example can be seen in the whole "drug testing in the workplace" revolution where it's become commonplace for employers to require (REQUIRE) pee samples as a condition of employment. The fact that a vibrant social wave rises up to 'defend the Second Amendment' while an egregious violation of the Fourth is swallowed whole with nary a whimper, demonstrates again where our cultural value priorities are.

I see your point, and admit that it could be interpreted as a violation of the 4th, except for one little "obscure" point. As you pointed out it is a condition of employment. Last I checked one is not forced to work for anyone else. Therefore it is a choice, and not a violation of the 4th. Now, if it were a requirement to vote, well that is an entirely different matter.

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

And what happens when the President of the United States openly calls for such Fourth Amendment nose-thumbing? Especially since in order to be President he took an oath to preserve protect and defend that document?

>> On Sept. 15 [1986], President Reagan signed an executive order calling for drug testing of a broad range of the Federal Government's 2.8 million civilian employees, earmarking about $56 million for the undertak-ing in the first year. The increased use of drug testing by governmental agencies and private employers - more than a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies test job applicants - is part of a larger trend in society's war on drug abuse, with a pronounced shift of emphasis to the drug user. << --- NYT 10/86
​

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.

Excellent salient points, once again highlighting how culture is manipulated.

Another similar example can be seen in the whole "drug testing in the workplace" revolution where it's become commonplace for employers to require (REQUIRE) pee samples as a condition of employment. The fact that a vibrant social wave rises up to 'defend the Second Amendment' while an egregious violation of the Fourth is swallowed whole with nary a whimper, demonstrates again where our cultural value priorities are.

I see your point, and admit that it could be interpreted as a violation of the 4th, except for one little "obscure" point. As you pointed out it is a condition of employment. Last I checked one is not forced to work for anyone else. Therefore it is a choice, and not a violation of the 4th. Now, if it were a requirement to vote, well that is an entirely different matter.

Yes, absolutely. It's relevant in discussing the principles at play, but owners of a private business have the natural right to make whatever requirements they want, including race/age/gender discrimination. To deny their right in this regard is to deny human freedom. No different than in your own house - "Tell your boyfriend to cut his hair, THEN he can come over for dinner." Asinine, but well within your rights.

 

[2aguy]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.



Do you agree, disagree, or think both arguments are right?
Does the gun violence we see come from
1. gun culture
2. social culture that demeans other people and doesn't value life and respect for others
3. both, the dangerous gun culture is a major part of the social cultural problems in #2
4. #2 made worse by people rejecting the gun culture that defends against #2

From the left wing push for #2. We have two gun cultures in this country. The first is made up of the owners of the 600 million guns who do not use them for crime or murder, who use them safely for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting. A gun culture that as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, and our violent crime rate went down 72%.....that is American Gun Culture......if is part of a love of this country, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.....


The Second, is made up of criminals, a tiny minority in this country, a country of over 320 million people. They are generally young males, raised without fathers.

We have close to 1,500,000 defensive gun uses each year...good men and women using their legal guns to stop criminals......then we have criminals who use their guns in 2016, 11,0004 times a year to end human life....

From those numbers alone you can see that American Gun Culture far outweighs the criminal culture that is fed by democrat party policies....

The other culture is fed by left wing policies that create single teenage mothers, trying to raise young males...without husbands and fathers, which ends up leaving the young males without role models for adult male behavior.

We don't have a masculinity problem, we have a left wing problem. Men, Maleness, in the past in this country represented protecting and providing for your family...today, the father/husband is looked down on and seen as irrelevant to raising children. And now we see the result. Young males who do not value life, women, or themselves.......

 

[emilynghiem]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.

Excellent salient points, once again highlighting how culture is manipulated.

Another similar example can be seen in the whole "drug testing in the workplace" revolution where it's become commonplace for employers to require (REQUIRE) pee samples as a condition of employment. The fact that a vibrant social wave rises up to 'defend the Second Amendment' while an egregious violation of the Fourth is swallowed whole with nary a whimper, demonstrates again where our cultural value priorities are.

I see your point, and admit that it could be interpreted as a violation of the 4th, except for one little "obscure" point. As you pointed out it is a condition of employment. Last I checked one is not forced to work for anyone else. Therefore it is a choice, and not a violation of the 4th. Now, if it were a requirement to vote, well that is an entirely different matter.

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

And what happens when the President of the United States openly calls for such Fourth Amendment nose-thumbing? Especially since in order to be President he took an oath to preserve protect and defend that document?

>> On Sept. 15 [1986], President Reagan signed an executive order calling for drug testing of a broad range of the Federal Government's 2.8 million civilian employees, earmarking about $56 million for the undertak-ing in the first year. The increased use of drug testing by governmental agencies and private employers - more than a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies test job applicants - is part of a larger trend in society's war on drug abuse, with a pronounced shift of emphasis to the drug user. << --- NYT 10/86
​

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

Dear Pogo
if the job requires someone to be white such as
playing Bill and Hillary Clinton in a movie,
then yes, that could be a reason to hire one person over another.
Exceptional impersonators like Eddie Murphy could play Jewish and White people,
but that's very rare.

You are not required to work for someone
unless they are coercing you into slavery against your will
which is illegal.

BTW this may be another place where people's diverse
BELIEFS about rights and laws are connected with Culture.

Texas has a right to work culture where you can hire or fire at will.

Rand Paul and others have compared the belief in "right to health care"
as indirectly forcing involuntary servitude, because someone's labor
or resources has to go into the services that are being expected freely for everyone to access.
Someone has to bear that burden either by labor or money earned by labor.

Pogo if you don't see health care mandates as forcing servitude
then your mindset and beliefs about "rights" and "laws"
and what is "natural" or "unnatural" determines Cultural differences here.

this is what I mean.
The fact you don't see work requirements or conditions
the same as someone from Texas, this BECOMES a cultural difference.
It's rooted in a difference between BELIEFS about rights and laws
and where these come from and who has choice or doesn't.

We don't believe the same, so our cultural mindsets are different too!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

And what happens when the President of the United States openly calls for such Fourth Amendment nose-thumbing? Especially since in order to be President he took an oath to preserve protect and defend that document?

>> On Sept. 15 [1986], President Reagan signed an executive order calling for drug testing of a broad range of the Federal Government's 2.8 million civilian employees, earmarking about $56 million for the undertak-ing in the first year. The increased use of drug testing by governmental agencies and private employers - more than a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies test job applicants - is part of a larger trend in society's war on drug abuse, with a pronounced shift of emphasis to the drug user. << --- NYT 10/86
​

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

This is where 99% of the conversation resides - on the leaf level, instead of at the root level. These are the kinds of mind-bending absurdities that arise when we begin with a trajectory that's off in the bushes.

We've got to back off, all the way to the beginning, to see where the problem lies. You've got a document - the Constitution - that's supposed to protect rights by violating them. This absurdity is then expressed in a myriad of ways all the way down the chain. You cannot start with an inequality of rights and end up with equality. The very fact that "Congress shall have power to XYZ" but the individual citizen shall not have the same power is the root inequality from which all others spring.

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat

Do you claim the right to tell a business owner, on his own property, that he may not choose who to associate with, under threat of personal violence? Understanding that all law is ultimately backed by personal violence if each step in the attempt to enforce that law is resisted, this is precisely what's being claimed when you support legislation that disallows employment bias based on race/age/gender, etc.

Either that, or you are denying the verity of the above quote, claiming that government has rights that individuals don't have - so which is it? Therein lies the problem. I agree with you that it is stupid, unfair, etc., to discriminate based on race, but if the power of law is to have any legitimacy, it must be rooted in the rights of the individual. Incidentally, the achievement of that legitimacy also serves to obviate law entirely; as law becomes a hollow echo of individual rights (the mere act of writing it down add no actual content). Government, then, if legitimate, does not truly govern, as it has no authority of its own. It merely becomes an organized collective effort to enforce the rights already possessed by each within its jurisdiction. And since the rights of those within its jurisdiction do not differ from those without, its jurisdiction is effectually non-existent.

You see the absurdity of the very notion of government. You cannot derive rational solutions from a position of absurdity, and thus nearly all conversation on this website, and in the public political discourse, is little more than the caterwauling of the insane. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but you see the point, and it is quite compelling - wouldn't you agree?