CDZ Question.

[BlackSand]

Much obliged for the kind words. I don't presume a full understanding of the Trump dynamic, or the specific motivations and actions that brought this event to pass, but to my mind it seems that Trump's presidency, being excessively divisive, is a faithful expression of the aforementioned methodology. The right holds fast; the left rages, shouting from the rooftops; and the swing voters become increasingly inclined to suppose a need for a change.

Be it one term, two terms, or even multiple presidencies, once one foot carries the centralization baton as far as it can go, then the other foot is called upon to touch ground and go. The distance achieved by each is limited by the necessity to maintain the perceived legitimacy of the race. I've described this as a methodology, which denotes some level of intent, though I do not speculate as to what degree this is by design. In any case, even if only a subconscious manipulation of an organic phenomenon, the result is fairly apparent: a persistent widening of the chasm between the limits of the Constitution and the current state of law, and continued dissatisfaction displayed by the general populace. The 2016 election highlighted this latter observation most clearly, as the overwhelming majority of votes were cast against one of the candidates, rather than wholeheartedly for the other.

The previous statements notwithstanding, I do not mean to present the Constitution as a laudable standard, but merely as a serviceable point of reference for charting our course. Secession or coup are not advisable, to my mind, as they deeply prune but do not uproot. Revolution, yes, though primarily (ideally exclusively) a revolution of the cultural consciousness as it regards a commitment to the core principles of justice, freedom, and dare I say, basic human morality. A first step would be for the individual to closely evaluate their political position for inconsistencies with their own values.

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction. A true break would require courage, perception, and imagination beyond common occurrence, but it is far from impossible. As with any vice, it is preferable that the recovery be initiated before striking rock-bottom, but the collective decent yet continues, and (as the Trump phenomenon would suggest) the winds do not blow favorably.

Those with the resources and will to most effectively self-govern ... Have little use for those with little or no desire to accept that responsibility.

Governance in general is like a road that travels where those who desire to be governed want to go, as well as where those who desire to govern want them to go.
Once one steps off the road, they become responsible for arriving at their desired destination, they choose the path and weather the hardship of their own accord.




Edit:
There is only proof in the fact that my desire to travel a different path has led us far from the OP's question ...
And that should I not want to suffer the consequences of the authoritarian policies that govern, it is probably necessary for me to redirect any further comments.

.

 

[Picaro]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and should be compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself. We've seen lots of compromises in the past, only to watch the vermin move on to the next ludicrous 'platform' in an agenda, and demand 'compromise' with those next. Caving in to radicals is what got us to the point we're at now, Time to start telling the children to fuck off, and if they have a problem with abiding by that then deport them. No way to have some 330,000,000 separate sets of personal laws and feel good policies for every nutjob with some ludicrous purist Burb Brat snivel.

 

[Mac1958]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself.

If I were to ever use the word "equally", your point would be valid.

Since I never do, your point is merely a Straw Man.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Absolutely. Well said. This is an ever-present danger; a gang mentality that self-sustains via self-imposed intellectual isolation. It's appropriate for our mental system to prioritize internal consistency (harmonious correlation between the various ideas that prop up our personal position), and external consistency (harmonious correlation with our careful observation), but when we abandon the former, and misdirect the latter toward the ideology of a particular group, we are no longer a fully-functional thinking being, but an automaton. The obvious peril is that we become easily controlled. The world's greatest atrocities all have their roots in this phenomenon.

Prudence dictates that we remind ourselves of our clean slate at birth. We are not inherently in possession of ideas, such that they serve to validate us. They do not lend their quality to the possessor, any more than owning an expensive sports car. Plainly said, It is the car that that's awesome, not you, and any reflection of its quality that falls upon you is hardly to your credit. The moon does not shine, but only reflects the sun, and it is the ideas themselves which have merit, not you for adopting them. It may be thought laudable that you recognized it as such, but really, this should be expected as the most fundamental duty of a thinking being, and deserves no more congratulations than a plumber plumbing, or a driver driving.

Of course, go ahead and feel good about it -- the harmony is beautiful, and to participate in it is a satisfying experience -- but let's not allow a social glass of wine to become rampaging alcoholism. If we value the quality of "being right" over the process that would make us so, we may concoct it where it doesn't exist in order to feed that need. If we can distance our self-image from our position, we may be more willing to abandon lesser ideas for their betters, and aim at consistency with truth rather than consistency with our former self, or with a group that promises praise for blind adherence.

 

[Mac1958]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Absolutely. Well said. This is an ever-present danger; a gang mentality that self-sustains via self-imposed intellectual isolation. It's appropriate for our mental system to prioritize internal consistency (harmonious correlation between the various ideas that prop up our personal position), and external consistency (harmonious correlation with our careful observation), but when we abandon the former, and misdirect the latter toward the ideology of a particular group, we are no longer a fully-functional thinking being, but an automaton. The obvious peril is that we become easily controlled. The world's greatest atrocities all have their roots in this phenomenon.

Prudence dictates that we remind ourselves of our clean slate at birth. We are not inherently in possession of ideas, such that they serve to validate us. They do not lend their quality to the possessor, any more than owning an expensive sports car. Plainly said, It is the car that that's awesome, not you, and any reflection of its quality that falls upon you is hardly to your credit. The moon does not shine, but only reflects the sun, and it is the ideas themselves which have merit, not you for adopting them. It may be thought laudable that you recognized it as such, but really, this should be expected as the most fundamental duty of a thinking being, and deserves no more congratulations than a plumber plumbing, or a driver driving.

Of course, go ahead and feel good about it -- the harmony is beautiful, and to participate in it is a satisfying experience -- but let's not allow a social glass of wine to become rampaging alcoholism. If we value the quality of "being right" over the process that would make us so, we may concoct it where it doesn't exist in order to feed that need. If we can distance our self-image from our position, we may be more willing to abandon lesser ideas for their betters, and aim at consistency with truth rather than consistency with our former self, or with a group that promises praise for blind adherence.

Among the many things that concern me about this toxic environment is the binary rigidity of both ends. Not just for all the obvious destructive reasons, but because the most creative ideas are borne of collaboration. We're denying ourselves the gift of creativity because we're too concerned with "beating" the "other side".

Personally, I'm not hopeful. I don't see how we get away from this. But I've been wrong before. In fact, I'm wrong all the time, just ask my wife.
.

 

[Picaro]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself.

If I were to ever use the word "equally", your point would be valid.

Since I never do, your point is merely a Straw Man.
.

Everything you post is some specious strawman, about how we should all 'be compromising' over something or other, so your attempts at semantics always fail. You can't address my points without outing your real stands, so you feign some pseudo-intellectual deflections, as usual. The fact is all this 'compromising' you claim we need is the source of the current 'paralyzation, dummy.

 

[Mac1958]

I believe that this earnest effort alone would reveal that there is no place across the entire spectrum of right to left where an person may plant their flag without it falling squarely upon a contradiction.

And a standing ovation for that.

The planting of a flag is an indication of abject intellectual capitulation. It indicates that an individual has chosen to simply choose a tribe and defend it, no matter what; to exist within an ideological, narcissistic "Safe Space" in which they are not required to be curious or pragmatic or creative or collaborative or to challenge their own views honestly.

It creates nothing but an increasing intellectual paralysis, and we're seeing that paralysis manifest on a national scale, as we speak, led by the flag-planters on both ends.
.

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself.

If I were to ever use the word "equally", your point would be valid.

Since I never do, your point is merely a Straw Man.
.

Everything you post is some specious strawman, about how we should all 'be compromising' over something or other, so your attempts at semantics always fail. You can't address my points without outing your real stands, so you feign some pseudo-intellectual deflections, as usual. The fact is all this 'compromising' you claim we need is the source of the current 'paralyzation, dummy.

This is the CDZ, please try to control the name-calling.

"Outing" my "real stands"? My positions on the issues are laid out clearly in the post linked at the end of the second line of my sig. No other poster on this board is more forthcoming than I am on "stands".

I'm more than happy to discuss anything you'd like, if you think you can control the personal attacks and deflections.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and should be compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself. We've seen lots of compromises in the past, only to watch the vermin move on to the next ludicrous 'platform' in an agenda, and demand 'compromise' with those next. Caving in to radicals is what got us to the point we're at now, Time to start telling the children to fuck off, and if they have a problem with abiding by that then deport them. No way to have some 330,000,000 separate sets of personal laws and feel good policies for every nutjob with some ludicrous purist Burb Brat snivel.

Yes, I certainly agree that an open mind does not mean accepting all opinions as equally valid. The mind should be open at the point of contact with a new idea, not at the level of processing. In other words, we must be on guard against prejudging ideas before they've been subject to rigorous investigation. If you tell me the Earth is flat, I should not simply block that idea at the door -- this is what's meant by an "open mind." Determining the validity of that idea is another matter entirely.

I do not advocate compromise on fundamental principles, though I would certainly advocate compromise on their implementation. I believe that building a chair makes that chair my property, but that doesn't mean I won't let anyone else sit in it. My comments about the political spectrum refer to the fact that there are inconsistencies on the most fundamental level; the principle level. Here, there is no room for compromise. If you feel it is wrong for your tax dollars to be used to fund a welfare state because you are being coerced into supporting an institution you believe is inappropriate, then you cannot justifiably condone using the tax dollars of others to fund a military when they deem that institution inappropriate by their own personal standards.

Similarly, you cannot believe it is wrong for a government to drag someone to a cage for reading "Mein Kampf" (a book containing potentially dangerous ideas), while simultaneously believing it is right for a government to drag someone to a cage for using a particular substance (which may have potentially dangerous effects). More notably, you cannot justify a belief that it is unjust for you to do something personally (claim a portion of the fruit of your neighbor's labor), but that it is just to delegate that function to another (namely, government agents enforcing taxation). This sort of contradiction is present all along the political spectrum, and the compromises made on this fundamental level of principle are directly responsible for the chaos we see across the full breadth of human society.

 

[Picaro]

Oh, there are plenty of policies to object to; there is a difference between having an open mind and a giant gaping hole in your head. If you want to pretend objectivity is claiming all points are equally valid and should be compromised with, you're not very smart at all, and in fact paralyzed and capitulating yourself. We've seen lots of compromises in the past, only to watch the vermin move on to the next ludicrous 'platform' in an agenda, and demand 'compromise' with those next. Caving in to radicals is what got us to the point we're at now, Time to start telling the children to fuck off, and if they have a problem with abiding by that then deport them. No way to have some 330,000,000 separate sets of personal laws and feel good policies for every nutjob with some ludicrous purist Burb Brat snivel.

Yes, I certainly agree that an open mind does not mean accepting all opinions as equally valid. The mind should be open at the point of contact with a new idea, not at the level of processing. In other words, we must be on guard against prejudging ideas before they've been subject to rigorous investigation. If you tell me the Earth is flat, I should not simply block that idea at the door -- this is what's meant by an "open mind." Determining the validity of that idea is another matter entirely.

I do not advocate compromise on fundamental principles, though I would certainly advocate compromise on their implementation. I believe that building a chair makes that chair my property, but that doesn't mean I won't let anyone else sit in it. My comments about the political spectrum refer to the fact that there are inconsistencies on the most fundamental level; the principle level. Here, there is no room for compromise. If you feel it is wrong for your tax dollars to be used to fund a welfare state because you are being coerced into supporting an institution you believe is inappropriate, then you cannot justifiably condone using the tax dollars of others to fund a military when they deem that institution inappropriate by their own personal standards.

Similarly, you cannot believe it is wrong for a government to drag someone to a cage for reading "Mein Kampf" (a book containing potentially dangerous ideas), while simultaneously believing it is right for a government to drag someone to a cage for using a particular substance (which may have potentially dangerous effects). More notably, you cannot justify a belief that it is unjust for you to do something personally (claim a portion of the fruit of your neighbor's labor), but that it is just to delegate that function to another (namely, government agents enforcing taxation). This sort of contradiction is present all along the political spectrum, and the compromises made on this fundamental level of principle are directly responsible for the chaos we see across the full breadth of human society.

A lot of generalizing and rhetoric, but let's get more specific: We 'compromised' on abortion, now the next gimmick is 'late term abortion', we're supposed to now 'debate' whether to allow abortion right up to the point where the child is actually coming out of the womb, because according to the 'rationalists', it's technically not born yet, so there is nothing wrong at all about jamming a pair of scissors into its brain before the head clears the vagina. According to the 'compromisers', this is a 'legitimate talking point'; we've already 'compromised' on all point leading up to this, so why stop here?

The next 'talking point' in the agenda has already been prepared by 'scientific ethicists': Abortion should be allowed up to the age of two years old; they aren't 'aware' after all, the same argument for all the previous abortion narratives. Do tell us where we should 'compromise' here ... how about 1 year old? ... that's sounds fair, right?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Those with the resources and will to most effectively self-govern ... Have little use for those with little or no desire to accept that responsibility.

Governance in general is like a road that travels where those who desire to be governed want to go, as well as where those who desire to govern want them to go.
Once one steps off the road, they become responsible for arriving at their desired destination, they choose the path and weather the hardship of their own accord.




Edit:
There is only proof in the fact that my desire to travel a different path has led us far from the OP's question ...
And that should I not want to suffer the consequences of the authoritarian policies that govern, it is probably necessary for me to redirect any further comments.

.

Hahaha, yes, we should probably bring things around to the topic at hand. I enjoyed that idea about the road, though I would suggest that the road only ostensibly leads where the governed want to go, while actually leading to where those who govern want them to go. In other words, all who seemingly "desire to be governed" only do so on a superficial level. At risk of offending, I would cite fear as the obscuring factor.

In reality, at a core level, all people want to be free; but they doubt their ability to handle those challenges, and thus doubt others' ability as well. Where they really want to go is toward peace, prosperity, happiness, etc., but this is not where the road of governance leads. So if they doubt themselves, and they doubt others, how can it be that they trust government (at least as an overall concept)? Only by imagining that government is something inherently different than themselves or others. Any supporter of government must believe that government is fundamentally a different entity; dare I say, a super-human entity. This is the belief that motivates them to grant rights to government that they would not grant to any single individual (the validity of "granting rights" is a matter for another discussion).

So, in the case of immigration (as in nearly all other matters), people want an authority to come down from the sky and solve the problem, rather than resorting to the tedious task of personally engaging in the effort to devise creative, cooperative solutions. Government becomes the secular God figure; the savior who, by mighty power and super-human intelligence, sets things right (please note that I am describing what they want government to be, not necessarily what they believe it is; thus the incessant complaining about why it isn't living up to expectations). However, if you closely examine the numerous difficulties cited as the "immigration problem", you'll note that they all directly result from government (as in nearly all other matters).

Usually, the concern is about immigrants taking advantage of government programs, or taking jobs below the government-imposed minimum wage. Immigration cannot be considered in a vacuum; it is a "leaf" issue, not a "root" issue. Root issues are more difficult to confront (especially since they are often beneath the ground level established by cultural indoctrination), but when problems are resolved on this level, the effect travels upward and rights many wrongs which have kept humanity twirling around in circles for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

For whoever is interested, here's a concise video describing how governmental authority relates to religious belief:

 

[Brian Blackwell]

A lot of generalizing and rhetoric, but let's get more specific: We 'compromised' on abortion, now the next gimmick is 'late term abortion', we're supposed to now 'debate' whether to allow abortion right up to the point where the child is actually coming out of the womb, because according to the 'rationalists', it's technically not born yet, so there is nothing wrong at all about jamming a pair of scissors into its brain before the head clears the vagina. According to the 'compromisers', this is a 'legitimate talking point'; we've already 'compromised' on all point leading up to this, so why stop here?

Yes, this is clearly lunacy. I think you summed it up well when you said "we're supposed to now 'debate' whether to allow abortion...". This is the crux of the matter. Abortion is not a root issue; it's merely symptomatic of the overarching notion that "we" (a poorly defined term) are all "supposed to" (indicating an obligation of dubious origin) have an opinion on what is to be "allowed" (a reference to an unfounded authority), then clamor for control of a power which will impose that opinion upon everyone inhabiting a particular tract of land, as defined by arbitrary and potentially shifting borders.

Keep in mind that I've said nothing about abortion itself, as to do so without first addressing the underlying dynamic at play would be hasty and imprudent. I'm pointing out that the insanity of the abortion debate is derived from a deeper insanity: a mutated philosophical genealogy that casts a shadow over this issue and many others.

 

[miketx]

what do liberals mean when they say our immigration system is broken?

It's hard to say. As of today no one has ever been able to pin one down long enough to get any semblance of the truth from them. They go off on tangents talking about "families" and "innocents" and "heart breaking"....but can't ever seem to answer anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"America’s immigration system is broken. President Obama is taking executive action to fix what he can to help build a system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."

It's time to fix our broken immigration system

Share the Facts

Our immigration system has been broken for decades. And every day we wait to act, millions of undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows: Those who want to pay taxes and play by the same rules as everyone else have no way to live right by the law. That is why President Obama is using his executive authority to address as much of the problem as he can, and why he’ll continue to work with Congress to pass comprehensive reform.




President Obama Announces New Steps to Fix Our Broken Immigration System
November 20, 2014 | 8:00 pm

In an address to the nation, President Obama lays out the executive action he's taking to fix our nation's broken immigration system.

Watch on YouTube | Read Transcript

That's not an answer. Why oh WHY do you say that it's "Broken"? It is that people are coming here illegally?