PoliticalChic & Coloradomtnman Discussion Cont.

[Coloradomtnman]

I will reply to your post as soon as I get a chance.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

-Quibble much? Am I to understand that you converse with traditionalists before you destroy custom? Are parents to be notified before their youngster has an abortion? Can we have a say in what new morality is to be taught in schools?-

Let me put it this way. My family and are not Christian, but we celebrate Christmas because its a tradition. It makes us happy. It doesn't hurt anybody (that we know of). And I know of no one who thinks parents shouldn't be notified if their underage child wants an abortion. But should it be the parents' decision if the child has an abortion? Maybe underage children SHOULD have abortions since they aren't even old enough to take care of themselves? Or maybe we should better educate children since such decisions are painful either way and its best to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However, not teaching children about condoms or birth control hasn't worked so we need better sex education.

What morality is taught in public schools now?

-You actually don't see that we will not own the 'irrational' term, and make claims of happiness that might differ from your's?-

Irrational, as I deem to use the word, means superstitious, not based in testable, provable research and experiment. Not open to revision. So, going to war with Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction which actually weren't there is irrational. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq so that we go from attempting to destroy Al Qaida to a drawn out war in two countries is irrational. Saying that homosexuality is wrong despite the scientific studies that are testable, provable, and have all of the information available to you is irrational. That is what I mean by irrational.

My idea of happiness is to live in Peace, to have a strong sense of community in the community I live in, worship as I see fit (which means spending time in the dwindling Wilderness - because of oil, gas, timber, and mining companies), have the opportunity to make a decent life for myself - which means not starting a business that ultimately fails because a franchise or huge corporation moves in and takes away from my business base - and enjoying a healthy quality of life (so no environmental degradation for the already wealthy).

"the old society is inferior"
-Please specify.-

Well, before the Revolutionary War we were ruled by a monarchy. Before the Civil War there was slavery. Before the 1920s women didn't have the right to vote. Before the Civil Rights movement, minorities were discriminated against. Before the Wilderness act of 1964, all public land could be leased for resource procural. Before penicillin people died of now easily cured infections. Same with modern medicine. Before Obama signed in the Fair Pay Act you as a woman could be paid less than a man for the same work.

"We believe that change is more likely to be better than the evils now present in the current systems. We do our best to foresee new abuses and make revisions to minimize such abuses. And we think progress is better for the human condition than the past."
-Could not be a more perfect example of our differences. A mirror image of item C in my tutorial.-

There may be a fundamentally, unreconciliable difference here between liberals and conservatives. But, there must be some common ground upon which to build a compromise.

-What libs want is an open society where the only evil is pointing out the evil and selfishmess of others. "Judge not" is your motto. -

Actually, I'd say our motto is "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Sound familiar?

"We want everyone to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms. We view the wealthy as perverting the system to their ends and able to better avoid the reach of law."
-You want everyone to enjoy the same... as long as they are not the rich??? This class hate is typical of you libs. Did you know that most of the millionaires in the US earned their money, they didn't inherit it... unless their names were Kennedy.-

No, no, no. I don't hate the wealthy, though I don't like them. I think wealth is wrong. If there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, which there is, then if someone has more then someone has less and that isn't necessarily just or fair. All I'm saying is that the wealthy elite have more control/influence on our government than we do. The rich are better able to find loop holes in the tax system to avoid paying taxes. The rich are better able to traverse the legal system and avoid the reach of the law i.e. OJ Simpson 15 years ago. Not all wealthy people do this, but far more wealthy people do than middle class people. And how can a corporation whose number 1 priorty is the bottom line be trusted to take in the public's interests when pursuing their own? How many companies have poisoned the land and/or people where they operate? How many companies have committed immoral acts to make a profit? How many companies over charge the government for their services? (Halliburton comes to the forefront of my mind).

-You just want everyone to be equal, but some make the rules for equality, a la "Animal Farm"- some being more equal than others.-

That isn't true. That's how liberals have been portrayed to you. Yes, admittedly, some liberals want that, but only the fringe few. I don't.

"We aren't Maoists, followers of Pol Pot"
Who do you think Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot were. They were lib-progressives. Where do you suppose the term NEOCOM comes from?

They might have been insane, sick, twisted progressives but hardly what any real US liberal is. An US liberal wants a system more like France's, Germany's, UK's, Canada's systems: socialized health care, socialized education, etc. There will always be those who leech off the state, but there are those who are unlucky and need help. And the medical care in those countries far excceeds our own. Yes, we might have better drugs but I'm sure we can continue to develop great pharmaceuticals and enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine. Yes, we might have great schools, like the Ivy Leagues, but most schools aren't as good as socialized education schools. Where's the US in terms of public education in regard to the rest of the industrialized world?

There seem to be vast gaps in your education re: economics and history. I'm betting that you are the product of government schools. Put that 132 IQ to use, get thee to a library.

Most Americans are the products of an inferior public school education. However, I did go to Univ. of Colorado, and I believe in further educating myself on my own. I frequent libraries. I read constantly. I've experienced poverty and being middle class. I've seen that the American dream is true but only for a few, and most likely for those who have the opportunities. I've seen those who have tried to live the American dream and failed and how it ruined their lives. And I don't think everyone wants to be independently wealthy. The system is set up so that those who wish to and work hard enough and get lucky enough become wealthy, but at the detriment of others or the quality of life.

"I have yet to have an opinion about private property."
Did you know that before "...pursuit of happiness" there was Locke and "life, liberty, and property"?

Explain please.

"so many abuses of the capitalist and democatic systems in this country."
-In what other countries have you lived? Judging by immigration patterns, this is, objectively, the best in the world. As far as inequities, see item G in the tutorial. I think you agree with this one.-

I've only lived in the US. But I think that the mass immigration to the US is based on more than that this is the best country in the world. Best for whom?

"When have we ever advocated for involuntary collectivism?"
There's that history deficiency again:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

What charities does the government give your tax dollars? Welfare? The National Park system? What about granting church's tax exemption? That seems more like charity to me.

-BTW, you do know that Conservatives are far more generous and charitable than the libs, don't you?-

I've seen statistics both ways and trust neither.

-Can we agree that oftimes individuals make their own problems? How about we ask for responsibility and carefully think about behaviors that result in a less than desirable direction for society. Unlke libs, I believe that we should judge personal behavior.-

Yes, we can agree but I add that sometimes problems occur that are beyond our control or foresight. Unlike conservatives, I don't think we should ever judge, as how can we ever know all of the contributing factors that lead a person to make a decision, bad or good?

"Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But to make a good person do bad things requires religion."
This is wrong as well as bigoted. It demonstrates that your directed reading has been perverted. We Conservatives understand human nature patently better that you libs. We know that all are capable of evil. See how you have personified item G.

But wouldn't you agree that religious peoples have committed atrocities? Yes, I know, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and all that, but they were insane! And they weren't committing atrocities because they were aetheists/agnostics/secularists, it was because they were power hungry, insane, fascistic, war mongers. Has there ever been a movement by agnostics to kill off Christians? Or aetheists to kill off monotheists? Or secularists killing of religious people? Have you ever read anything on Humanism? I recommend it.

-Are you arguing that Jesus would have been a Secular-Progressive? He would not have been judgemental? Please, he would have tossed you out of the temple.-

I think Jesus was an idealist. He wouldn't condone war. He wouldn't condone capital punishment. He wouldn't condone materialism. He would support the tribe helping to take care of the individuals of the tribe instead of letting those individuals suffer, die, or come to greater misfortune. I don't think he'd support abortion, but then, he didn't have to get one. But I don't think he would be judgemental. Nor do I think the Christian God would be.

If God is love, mercy, and understanding, then no one goes to Hell and Hell doesn't even exist. I don't think God would judge anyone because God would understand that even Hitler was insane. Hitler thought he was doing good for the world ridding Europe of Jews, and that he rationalized in his own mentally-ill way his actions and orders to kill the Jews. Hitler wasn't evil. Hitler was sick. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't evil, he was mentally ill. What they did was terrible, horrible, far beyond anything I can imagine, and they should've been locked up forever or maybe even killed to save lives, but! But, I have no right to judge them. Just as I have no right to judge you and vice versa.

Whattaya think?

 

[PoliticalChic]

-Quibble much? Am I to understand that you converse with traditionalists before you destroy custom? Are parents to be notified before their youngster has an abortion? Can we have a say in what new morality is to be taught in schools?-

Let me put it this way. My family and are not Christian, but we celebrate Christmas because its a tradition. It makes us happy. It doesn't hurt anybody (that we know of). And I know of no one who thinks parents shouldn't be notified if their underage child wants an abortion. But should it be the parents' decision if the child has an abortion? Maybe underage children SHOULD have abortions since they aren't even old enough to take care of themselves? Or maybe we should better educate children since such decisions are painful either way and its best to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However, not teaching children about condoms or birth control hasn't worked so we need better sex education.

What morality is taught in public schools now?

-You actually don't see that we will not own the 'irrational' term, and make claims of happiness that might differ from your's?-

Irrational, as I deem to use the word, means superstitious, not based in testable, provable research and experiment. Not open to revision. So, going to war with Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction which actually weren't there is irrational. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq so that we go from attempting to destroy Al Qaida to a drawn out war in two countries is irrational. Saying that homosexuality is wrong despite the scientific studies that are testable, provable, and have all of the information available to you is irrational. That is what I mean by irrational.

My idea of happiness is to live in Peace, to have a strong sense of community in the community I live in, worship as I see fit (which means spending time in the dwindling Wilderness - because of oil, gas, timber, and mining companies), have the opportunity to make a decent life for myself - which means not starting a business that ultimately fails because a franchise or huge corporation moves in and takes away from my business base - and enjoying a healthy quality of life (so no environmental degradation for the already wealthy).

"the old society is inferior"
-Please specify.-

Well, before the Revolutionary War we were ruled by a monarchy. Before the Civil War there was slavery. Before the 1920s women didn't have the right to vote. Before the Civil Rights movement, minorities were discriminated against. Before the Wilderness act of 1964, all public land could be leased for resource procural. Before penicillin people died of now easily cured infections. Same with modern medicine. Before Obama signed in the Fair Pay Act you as a woman could be paid less than a man for the same work.

"We believe that change is more likely to be better than the evils now present in the current systems. We do our best to foresee new abuses and make revisions to minimize such abuses. And we think progress is better for the human condition than the past."
-Could not be a more perfect example of our differences. A mirror image of item C in my tutorial.-

There may be a fundamentally, unreconciliable difference here between liberals and conservatives. But, there must be some common ground upon which to build a compromise.

-What libs want is an open society where the only evil is pointing out the evil and selfishmess of others. "Judge not" is your motto. -

Actually, I'd say our motto is "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Sound familiar?

"We want everyone to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms. We view the wealthy as perverting the system to their ends and able to better avoid the reach of law."
-You want everyone to enjoy the same... as long as they are not the rich??? This class hate is typical of you libs. Did you know that most of the millionaires in the US earned their money, they didn't inherit it... unless their names were Kennedy.-

No, no, no. I don't hate the wealthy, though I don't like them. I think wealth is wrong. If there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, which there is, then if someone has more then someone has less and that isn't necessarily just or fair. All I'm saying is that the wealthy elite have more control/influence on our government than we do. The rich are better able to find loop holes in the tax system to avoid paying taxes. The rich are better able to traverse the legal system and avoid the reach of the law i.e. OJ Simpson 15 years ago. Not all wealthy people do this, but far more wealthy people do than middle class people. And how can a corporation whose number 1 priorty is the bottom line be trusted to take in the public's interests when pursuing their own? How many companies have poisoned the land and/or people where they operate? How many companies have committed immoral acts to make a profit? How many companies over charge the government for their services? (Halliburton comes to the forefront of my mind).

-You just want everyone to be equal, but some make the rules for equality, a la "Animal Farm"- some being more equal than others.-

That isn't true. That's how liberals have been portrayed to you. Yes, admittedly, some liberals want that, but only the fringe few. I don't.

"We aren't Maoists, followers of Pol Pot"
Who do you think Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot were. They were lib-progressives. Where do you suppose the term NEOCOM comes from?

They might have been insane, sick, twisted progressives but hardly what any real US liberal is. An US liberal wants a system more like France's, Germany's, UK's, Canada's systems: socialized health care, socialized education, etc. There will always be those who leech off the state, but there are those who are unlucky and need help. And the medical care in those countries far excceeds our own. Yes, we might have better drugs but I'm sure we can continue to develop great pharmaceuticals and enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine. Yes, we might have great schools, like the Ivy Leagues, but most schools aren't as good as socialized education schools. Where's the US in terms of public education in regard to the rest of the industrialized world?

There seem to be vast gaps in your education re: economics and history. I'm betting that you are the product of government schools. Put that 132 IQ to use, get thee to a library.

Most Americans are the products of an inferior public school education. However, I did go to Univ. of Colorado, and I believe in further educating myself on my own. I frequent libraries. I read constantly. I've experienced poverty and being middle class. I've seen that the American dream is true but only for a few, and most likely for those who have the opportunities. I've seen those who have tried to live the American dream and failed and how it ruined their lives. And I don't think everyone wants to be independently wealthy. The system is set up so that those who wish to and work hard enough and get lucky enough become wealthy, but at the detriment of others or the quality of life.

"I have yet to have an opinion about private property."
Did you know that before "...pursuit of happiness" there was Locke and "life, liberty, and property"?

Explain please.

"so many abuses of the capitalist and democatic systems in this country."
-In what other countries have you lived? Judging by immigration patterns, this is, objectively, the best in the world. As far as inequities, see item G in the tutorial. I think you agree with this one.-

I've only lived in the US. But I think that the mass immigration to the US is based on more than that this is the best country in the world. Best for whom?

"When have we ever advocated for involuntary collectivism?"
There's that history deficiency again:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

What charities does the government give your tax dollars? Welfare? The National Park system? What about granting church's tax exemption? That seems more like charity to me.

-BTW, you do know that Conservatives are far more generous and charitable than the libs, don't you?-

I've seen statistics both ways and trust neither.

-Can we agree that oftimes individuals make their own problems? How about we ask for responsibility and carefully think about behaviors that result in a less than desirable direction for society. Unlke libs, I believe that we should judge personal behavior.-

Yes, we can agree but I add that sometimes problems occur that are beyond our control or foresight. Unlike conservatives, I don't think we should ever judge, as how can we ever know all of the contributing factors that lead a person to make a decision, bad or good?

"Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But to make a good person do bad things requires religion."
This is wrong as well as bigoted. It demonstrates that your directed reading has been perverted. We Conservatives understand human nature patently better that you libs. We know that all are capable of evil. See how you have personified item G.

But wouldn't you agree that religious peoples have committed atrocities? Yes, I know, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and all that, but they were insane! And they weren't committing atrocities because they were aetheists/agnostics/secularists, it was because they were power hungry, insane, fascistic, war mongers. Has there ever been a movement by agnostics to kill off Christians? Or aetheists to kill off monotheists? Or secularists killing of religious people? Have you ever read anything on Humanism? I recommend it.

-Are you arguing that Jesus would have been a Secular-Progressive? He would not have been judgemental? Please, he would have tossed you out of the temple.-

I think Jesus was an idealist. He wouldn't condone war. He wouldn't condone capital punishment. He wouldn't condone materialism. He would support the tribe helping to take care of the individuals of the tribe instead of letting those individuals suffer, die, or come to greater misfortune. I don't think he'd support abortion, but then, he didn't have to get one. But I don't think he would be judgemental. Nor do I think the Christian God would be.

If God is love, mercy, and understanding, then no one goes to Hell and Hell doesn't even exist. I don't think God would judge anyone because God would understand that even Hitler was insane. Hitler thought he was doing good for the world ridding Europe of Jews, and that he rationalized in his own mentally-ill way his actions and orders to kill the Jews. Hitler wasn't evil. Hitler was sick. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't evil, he was mentally ill. What they did was terrible, horrible, far beyond anything I can imagine, and they should've been locked up forever or maybe even killed to save lives, but! But, I have no right to judge them. Just as I have no right to judge you and vice versa.

Whattaya think?

I have to admit that I am astounded.

You are indeed sui generis.

For this is thickest midden of cliches, non sequiturs, obfuscations, untruths, misunderstanding and puffed up verbiage I've seen today.

It reminds one of the kind of essay written by a student who didn't read the assigned book. You don't seem to understand the ideas of liberals, the topic of the thread, but believe that the thread is about your journey through life.

Any discussion here is comparable to playing handball against the drapes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I have to admit that I am astounded.

You are indeed sui generis.

For this is thickest midden of cliches, non sequiturs, obfuscations, untruths, misunderstanding and puffed up verbiage I've seen today.

It reminds one of the kind of essay written by a student who didn't read the assigned book. You don't seem to understand the ideas of liberals, the topic of the thread, but believe that the thread is about your journey through life.

Any discussion here is comparable to playing handball against the drapes.

You know, I made an honest attempt to understand your point of view by providing my perspective for a compare and contrast sort of discussion.

Your blanket judgement of my attempt demonstrates an unwillingness to have an open exchange.

And your insulting manner shows me that you have little respect for someone simply because their perspective differs from yours.

I'm sorry that I ever tried to learn from a conservative about conservatism and the thought that I should just give up and ignore the discussions (if that's what you want to call these rantings; shallow, dogmatic blather; and attempted imposition of opinions) on this political forum because there is little hope of people ever trying to work together has only been reinforced.