CDZ Confusion

[Porter Rockwell]

Most of the time I find myself having to tell people things they don't want to know.

Why do you HAVE to tell people what they don't want to hear from you?

Because you know things and they are ignorant? Not a popular posture, or indeed one that makes sense. If you know the truth, everyone knows the truth, because you are not special.

Therefore, since there are a variety of enunciated "truths," what people believe is not truth but just --- what they believe.

I realize it hurts a lot of peoples feelings because we live in an era wherein people THINK they know things. Some may and most simply do not. Not everything is readily available on the Internet and even if it is, without practical experience, knowledge has its limitations.

Again, if the people who think Donald Trump were a God had any common sense (you're claiming they already know everything there is to know about sanctuary cities), then why bother creating sanctuary cities for gun owners if you're working against them because you don't like undocumented foreigners?

It may piss a lot of people off, but having worked in things like immigration law and working for gun rights in the courts and legislatures (as opposed to reading about it) I DO know things you don't. It don't make me special, but with age and experience comes wisdom. That is different than knowledge.

 

[Circe]

how can you deny you have the right to life? You were born.

But many are not born: they miscarry, one way or another. And I can't have the right to life unless I live forever, and that I will not. I suppose that the Promise of Heaven is a way to jigger that logical flaw, but it's silly and nobody really believes it, because as the song says, "Everybody talks about Heaven/ but nobody wants to die."

If you have the right to life what good is that life if you can't live it the way you choose?

That's the eternal problem, which so many have addressed, since so many -- probably everybody -- cannot live it the way they choose. Reminds me of the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius in the 6th century CE -- he wrote it while waiting in prison for execution.

There are no guarantees in life. However, our rights, naturally assumed at birth, were guaranteed to be protected by ourselves, it's called responsibility of self preservation

I can think of two problems with that idea immediately: many babies are murdered, usually by their parents or the mother's boyfriend. And many people commit suicide; so much for self-preservation.

Many people, such as yourself, don't believe in natural rights- you believe only in evil- power.

Right. (So to speak.) Not that I assume power is always evil. I've been knocked flying in the air several times because of a long association with horses (which weigh ten times what I do) but they never meant to do it -- when they are fighting with each other that's all they can think about. I think some things are more powerful than others, that's all. Like native weeds in the garden, which always overwhelm what you plant, unless the gardener weeds constantly. Power is natural.

That says a lot about our world and it ain't pretty- however, anyone and everyone has the right to repel evil- they have to choose to do so, by exercising the most basic right- choice.

Usually that doesn't work. A 12-year-old girl in India or Thailand may choose not to be worked to death as a prostitute, but she can't get out of her prison, and the men keep coming in.

Now, had all the readers here been fully informed of the Truth, and exposed to examples of it throughout their life, do you not think they would be a little more open minded about their political faults?

You seem to be wishing you could indoctrinate everyone for years and years, but I think that ship has sailed. Indoctrination is an evil expression of power; people do it if they can, but you can't.

About Natural Rights- they are inherent.

I suspect you are really talking about hard-wired instincts: that we want to save our lives if we can, and choose, if we can, and so on. Even if we can't. I don't think instincts are the same as "rights," since however much we try to live, and choose, we constantly and inevitably fail, at least eventually.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

When you're made to say something like that, over and over. It ceases to have meaning.

Ya mean like "racist"?

No, thanks. There are far too many here already.

Far to many of what?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

how can you deny you have the right to life? You were born.

But many are not born: they miscarry, one way or another. And I can't have the right to life unless I live forever, and that I will not. I suppose that the Promise of Heaven is a way to jigger that logical flaw, but it's silly and nobody really believes it, because as the song says, "Everybody talks about Heaven/ but nobody wants to die."

If you have the right to life what good is that life if you can't live it the way you choose?

That's the eternal problem, which so many have addressed, since so many -- probably everybody -- cannot live it the way they choose. Reminds me of the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius in the 6th century CE -- he wrote it while waiting in prison for execution.

There are no guarantees in life. However, our rights, naturally assumed at birth, were guaranteed to be protected by ourselves, it's called responsibility of self preservation

I can think of two problems with that idea immediately: many babies are murdered, usually by their parents or the mother's boyfriend. And many people commit suicide; so much for self-preservation.

Many people, such as yourself, don't believe in natural rights- you believe only in evil- power.

Right. (So to speak.) Not that I assume power is always evil. I've been knocked flying in the air several times because of a long association with horses (which weigh ten times what I do) but they never meant to do it -- when they are fighting with each other that's all they can think about. I think some things are more powerful than others, that's all. Like native weeds in the garden, which always overwhelm what you plant, unless the gardener weeds constantly. Power is natural.

That says a lot about our world and it ain't pretty- however, anyone and everyone has the right to repel evil- they have to choose to do so, by exercising the most basic right- choice.

Usually that doesn't work. A 12-year-old girl in India or Thailand may choose not to be worked to death as a prostitute, but she can't get out of her prison, and the men keep coming in.

Now, had all the readers here been fully informed of the Truth, and exposed to examples of it throughout their life, do you not think they would be a little more open minded about their political faults?

You seem to be wishing you could indoctrinate everyone for years and years, but I think that ship has sailed. Indoctrination is an evil expression of power; people do it if they can, but you can't.

About Natural Rights- they are inherent.

I suspect you are really talking about hard-wired instincts: that we want to save our lives if we can, and choose, if we can, and so on. Even if we can't. I don't think instincts are the same as "rights," since however much we try to live, and choose, we constantly and inevitably fail, at least eventually.

Is there any special reason that you do not want to have Rights?

 

[Circe]

Is there any special reason that you do not want to have Rights?

I don't especially want anything that isn't possible -- I don't want a tail, for instance, or flying cars. Or vacation trips to planets around the star Betelgeuse.

Rights don't exist, so there's no use pining for what doesn't exist and can never exist. Admittedly, when I play Odyssey, I ride unicorns and two kinds of flying horses ---- but I recognize those as fantasies. "Rights" are a fantasy, too. If the right to life were real, no one would ever die.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Is there any special reason that you do not want to have Rights?

I don't especially want anything that isn't possible -- I don't want a tail, for instance, or flying cars. Or vacation trips to planets around the star Betelgeuse.

Rights don't exist, so there's no use pining for what doesn't exist and can never exist. Admittedly, when I play Odyssey, I ride unicorns and two kinds of flying horses ---- but I recognize those as fantasies. "Rights" are a fantasy, too. If the right to life were real, no one would ever die.

Rights exist, you simply choose not to want to acknowledge them. A lot of people died in order to secure those Rights and without them, society would be total anarchy all the time.

There is no proof that when you leave your mortal body that you "die." You, judging by your statements, don't believe in God or eternal life. I simply found it easier and more logical to believe in something than nothing at all.

America was founded on the presupposition of unalienable Rights. You do know what a presupposition is, right? A fantasy is believing that man just suddenly appeared out of nothing - every molecule and every atom had to begin somewhere.

What I accept as Rights are what I am willing to enforce at any cost. If you believe in nothing, all you and I would ever have are philosophical discussions. The best determining factor to prove if something is real or not is track its progress throughout history. America became the leader of the free world with those presuppositions of unalienable Rights. Nothing in recorded history has produced anything better for mankind. So, I remain convinced of the fact that Rights exist.

 

[Circe]

Rights exist, you simply choose not to want to acknowledge them. A lot of people died in order to secure those Rights and without them, society would be total anarchy all the time.

Are you sure you aren't conflating "rights" with LAWS? Or a Constitution? I've studied the French Revolution a lot -- the French also carried on about the mystique of the Holy Constitution, but they changed it radically every Thursday. And one they deep-sixed entirely, and then Napoleon killed most of those constitutions and made up his own. Putting a huge God-thing onto a Constitution is a good Big Lie device to talk people into believing it and living by the new rules, but it's really just laws. Our Constitution has changed a LOT -- the Bill of Rights, all the many amendments -- I'm not impressed with the idea that somehow all this is Given by a Voice from the Clouds. Mind you, the more Supreme Court justices Trump appoints, the happier I am, at least if it's spaced out enough to avoid revolution from the Left.

America was founded on the presupposition of unalienable Rights. You do know what a presupposition is, right? A fantasy is believing that man just suddenly appeared out of nothing - every molecule and every atom had to begin somewhere.

People have atoms and precursors, right. A presupposition of unalienable Rights is just a mental construct, not an actual thing, and is IMO pretty much hogwash. I agree it's been fruitful of prosperity and rule of law, but let's not get carried away and reify it as a thing: it's not a thing, it's just an idea. Some people believe it's true, some people believe it's not true. Everyone is right..

What I accept as Rights are what I am willing to enforce at any cost.

Are you talking about Shoulda's? Things you believe you ought to get? Like all the "rights" the Communists are always throwing up barricades and throwing cobblestones about in Europe, in Paris and Athens, etc.? They think people "should" give them lots and lots of government money as a "right." They are very willing to fight with riot police to enforce this conviction that they have "rights" that aren't being recognized.

I expect all this discussion is really in the service of gun rights. This is fine with me -- I want to get to shoot back, too. I would say that power politics as in Virginia is WAAAAAAAAY more likely to be effective than carrying on about some sort of mystique of the Constitution that a good half or more of the population doesn't take seriously. I mean, if it works, great, but let's not pretend God Said It, or something.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Rights exist, you simply choose not to want to acknowledge them. A lot of people died in order to secure those Rights and without them, society would be total anarchy all the time.

Are you sure you aren't conflating "rights" with LAWS? Or a Constitution? I've studied the French Revolution a lot -- the French also carried on about the mystique of the Holy Constitution, but they changed it radically every Thursday. And one they deep-sixed entirely, and then Napoleon killed most of those constitutions and made up his own. Putting a huge God-thing onto a Constitution is a good Big Lie device to talk people into believing it and living by the new rules, but it's really just laws. Our Constitution has changed a LOT -- the Bill of Rights, all the many amendments -- I'm not impressed with the idea that somehow all this is Given by a Voice from the Clouds. Mind you, the more Supreme Court justices Trump appoints, the happier I am, at least if it's spaced out enough to avoid revolution from the Left.

America was founded on the presupposition of unalienable Rights. You do know what a presupposition is, right? A fantasy is believing that man just suddenly appeared out of nothing - every molecule and every atom had to begin somewhere.

People have atoms and precursors, right. A presupposition of unalienable Rights is just a mental construct, not an actual thing, and is IMO pretty much hogwash. I agree it's been fruitful of prosperity and rule of law, but let's not get carried away and reify it as a thing: it's not a thing, it's just an idea. Some people believe it's true, some people believe it's not true. Everyone is right..

What I accept as Rights are what I am willing to enforce at any cost.

Are you talking about Shoulda's? Things you believe you ought to get? Like all the "rights" the Communists are always throwing up barricades and throwing cobblestones about in Europe, in Paris and Athens, etc.? They think people "should" give them lots and lots of government money as a "right." They are very willing to fight with riot police to enforce this conviction that they have "rights" that aren't being recognized.

I expect all this discussion is really in the service of gun rights. This is fine with me -- I want to get to shoot back, too. I would say that power politics as in Virginia is WAAAAAAAAY more likely to be effective than carrying on about some sort of mystique of the Constitution that a good half or more of the population doesn't take seriously. I mean, if it works, great, but let's not pretend God Said It, or something.

People like you, pseudo intellectuals, are funny. You think you can pigeon hole folks into your little categories. Your backhanded insults made me laugh.

While gun Rights are at the top of my list, my view of Liberty is all encompassing. SOME you missed:

Liberty is being able to practice whatever religion or no religion without fear of repercussions or reprisals

Liberty is being able to freely speak - even criticizing those in power

Liberty means being able to go anywhere I want within our borders without interference

Liberty means that I can open a business, hire whomever I think will make the best employees, and institute any policy I like provided it does not infringe upon the Rights of someone else

Liberty means that I can earn money via my labors and have the enjoyment of same

Liberty is being able to own personal property and use it to my benefit and enjoyment

Liberty means being able to walk the streets without interference from the LEO community unless they have probable cause to think I committed a crime

Liberty means I'm in charge of my health care and can opt for what treatment - or no treatment if I desire to

Liberty means having Freedom of Association

Liberty means having the ability to resist tyranny in government.

That's just my top ten. I don't care how you look at it. As long as the presuppositions are being pursued, we remain on that course and our lives are blessed and rewarded in proportion to our success in establishing Liberty.

Ever since our forefathers began this journey, the idea has been under attack. In 1776 the Illuminati was formed and that stood in the way of Liberty. Democrats, Whigs, and Republicans have all tried to manipulate the law to their liking. So, Liberty remains a journey, not a destination.

The critics have said we are a Democracy... then we are a Democratic republic (sic) and then a few claim were fascist. Look on the back of the dime. See the fasci. There is a symbol our supposed fascism. Some of the founders were Masons, so America is the Masonic Order... or maybe we're now communist with that 16th Amendment income tax which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Social Security and socialized healthcare. That is even more proof we are a socialist / communist country.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and Christian principles. I'm satisfied with the original idea - which means accepting the presuppositions. You can have a heyday believing you are proving something by calling it fantasies, wishful thinking, social constructs, or whatever warms the cockles of your heart. What I say to you is that when we have stuck to the original blueprint and had the faith we have moved forward - and this country became the greatest nation in the annals of history. You can't take it back. So feel free to attack it.

 

[Circe]

People like you, pseudo intellectuals, are funny. You think you can pigeon hole folks into your little categories. Your backhanded insults made me laugh.

Gracious! I was enjoying this conversation; I thought we were having a good discussion until you started insulting me. Note that I never insulted you.

Okay, the above is all I'm going to read of your post or posts. You can't expect to insult people and yet have a conversation with them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

People like you, pseudo intellectuals, are funny. You think you can pigeon hole folks into your little categories. Your backhanded insults made me laugh.

Gracious! I was enjoying this conversation; I thought we were having a good discussion until you started insulting me. Note that I never insulted you.

Okay, the above is all I'm going to read of your post or posts. You can't expect to insult people and yet have a conversation with them.

That was my sentiments toward you as well. I certainly felt insulted with those back handed insults. At least we won't be wasting each other's time.

 

[Circe]

I never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.

I never liked it either -- it was indoctrination, like most of education. Does anyone know if kids still have to recite the Pledge in school?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.

I never liked it either -- it was indoctrination, like most of education. Does anyone know if kids still have to recite the Pledge in school?

Only a few schools recite the Pledge. It is illegal to force a child to participate and in many state / local jurisdictions it is not done at all.

 

[sparky]

Propaganda, indoctrination, the Big Lie.

It DOES work.

Makes me wonder how much i've bought into it all...

Until the population takes the time to understand vital words and concepts, no conceivable constitution alone can do very much except empower manipulators.

ouch....

~S~

 

[sparky]

the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists

hmmm, hadda look that one up!>>>

What did the anti federalists believe?

Many Anti-Federalists preferred a weak central government because they equated a strong government with British tyranny. Others wanted to encourage democracy and feared a strong government that would be dominated by the wealthy. They felt that the states were giving up too much power to the new federal government.

interesting ....like they has a crystal ball looking ahead.....or maybe knew world history at their time well enough?

would they be called 10thers today?

No Right is safe as long as the United States Supreme Court is not held accountable for their actions. They are just as apt to misapply the law as the Executive or Legislative branches.

Given over 2 centuries of inclusions ,exceptions and caveats , I wonder what Patrick Henry would say about them......?

In fact the world's turned a LOT ...imagine should the FF's magically appear in 2020 , to be confronted by modern governance collapsing under it's own weight ,along with it's sidearm Homeland Insecuity, PA, TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, FEMA .....

~S~

If I had lived back then, I'd probably be an anti-Federalist. But if they did come back today, the anti-Federalists would be saying I told you so and the Federalists would be pulling their hair out by the roots.

Today I see history as Alexander Tytler did when he came up with the
Cycles of History:

The Tytler Cycle | Common Sense Government

In the lecture, Dr. Brooks described the work of a man named Alexander Tytler, a Scottish historian who lived at the same time as the American Founding Fathers, who described a repeating cycle in history. He had found that societies went through this same cycle again and again, and that the cycle lasted roughly 200 years each time.

double ouch.....

~S~

 

[sparky]

Now, had all the readers here been fully informed of the Truth, and exposed to examples of it throughout their life, do you not think they would be a little more open minded about their political faults?

Why do you HAVE to tell people what they don't want to hear from you?

Socially sanctioned truths? LOL- are you kidding me? Truth - is constant,

Truth can really suck too fellas

I'm reminded of all the patients in bad shape that asked 'am i going to make it?' that i and my fellow emt's took for their last ride

wtf were we suppose to say? 'Nope, you're toast pal'....how's that go over?

admittedly, i always diverted with some lame 'not on my shift' , cowards way out

~S~

 

[jwoodie]

This thread needs to be moved to the Sophistry Forum.

 

[Gdjjr]

The Truth is not a social construct or agreement. If it was true yesterday, and is true today, it will be true tomorrow.
The one thing that hasn't, and won't change, is all men are created in the same manner = equal- all men are born, all men breathe and all men bleed red. Introducing what about straw men arguments changes nothing. It only introduces ambiguity trying to deny the Truth.
That has been true since man was created, thus the Truth. Not changing nor evolving from knowledge. Accidentally or on purpose or divine intervention is immaterial. Man is and all got here the same way. Sperm meet egg.
That one chooses to disbelieve proves the exercising of a right, inherently. The most basic right. Choice. The what about argument of people dying is just that- a choice to argue. One has the right to choose whatever path he walks- some presume to have been granted an authority to restrict that path to a pre-determined course- authority, like power, is granted and can be rescinded- the right to choose cannot be. Something, anything, granted can be rescinded because it is a thing- rights are inherent- choice can only be restricted by authority or power, but never taken, or given.
When force comes into play power and authority become immoral. But, those immoral actions are a choice and the manner in which they are responded to is a choice by the offended, and it is offensive to presume one has an authority not granted over another's choice.
Tyranny, by any entity, presumes itself an omnipotent being- it ain't. Presumption, often as not, is acting in arrogance if not outright ignorance as History, since time began, proves without a doubt, (along with man having rights) that forcing ones will on another will cause conflict- tyranny can be turned back, but only by the inherent right of choice.

To argue it's only in the mind, one must remember- you can kill the thinker but the thought will never die. "I" will survive, in spite of if not to spite the power(s) that be- I is for the Individual who has the inherent rights when born to do as he chooses- when acting immorally by harming another in violation of anothers rights then he is to be punished by "social constructs". That is a "social construct" granted authority/power. Violating the peaceful endeavors of another is in violation of natural rights which is another another social construct using what about ism's because somebody else harmed somebody in a manner that allows powerful idiots to sell the crap they call laws to retain their presumptuous attitude bowing to and using the fears of the social construct who believe they are something they ain't- arbiters of rights.

 

[Gdjjr]

This thread needs to be moved to the Sophistry Forum.

Who died and left you in charge? Does your confusion believe you don't want a clean discussion?

 

[Circe]

I'm reminded of all the patients in bad shape that asked 'am i going to make it?' that i and my fellow emt's took for their last ride

wtf were we suppose to say? 'Nope, you're toast pal'....how's that go over?

admittedly, i always diverted with some lame 'not on my shift' , cowards way out

~S~

And you were quite right. People seriously NEED hope. And Denial. You knew that, you gave it. I think that's great.

 

[Gdjjr]

Lets add more confusion to the situation-

Liberal and Conservative.

The founders were classical liberals- the conservative sided with the King of Britain-

Fast forward to the early 1960's to the advent of neoliberals

ne·o·lib·er·al
/ˌnēōˈlibərəl/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: neo-liberal
relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

What is Neoliberalism?

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
   
   
2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
   
   
3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
   
   
4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
   
   
5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Looks conservative talking points to me- how can that be? Conservatives hate liberals.

Goldwater, the Conservative candidate

The Goldwater Takedown

Barry Goldwater on conservatism