Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?

[BreezeWood]

Haven't you noticed that everyone, even the atheists in here, laugh at you?

you are a joke, drunk on bibles of forgeries lies and fallacies - without a single verification for any of their claims of heavenly personifications by any individuals making such claims ... abraham moses et al.

really,

- find your own punchline ... sinner.

 

[alang1216]

Actually, it's 180 degrees from the truth. It's you who is not heeding my warning. My warning is because I've been humbled by the Lord to share my knowledge to the world. But, you are rejecting this because you cannot humble yourself in sight of the Lord so that he can lift you up.

Speaking for God! Very impressive.

 

[Meriweather]

I see that this is what you're all now being told to think.

Oh? Who is telling me to think this?

You cheered when he said no war.

I did? News to me. When and where did this take place?

Now you're cheering because he's a "man of action".

I am? When I was merely pointing to the research of action versus inaction?

Trump is as inconsistent as his fan base.

The problem is, acting is sometimes THE WRONG THING TO DO

Was it the wrong thing to do in this case? Have you already made up your own mind?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh? Who is telling me to think this?

I did? News to me. When and where did this take place?

I am? When I was merely pointing to the research of action versus inaction?

Was it the wrong thing to do in this case? Have you already made up your own mind?

Who's telling you to think this?

My best guess would be the Koch brothers (one of whom is dead). But it's difficult to know.

In 1980 one of them stood as VP candidate for the Libertarian Party and obvious got their ass handed to them on a plate as everyone voted Reagan. So they decided to change their approach.

Koch network - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Koch network is a "tightly interlocked set of organizations" that the brothers and "their closest advisors have developed over time into an integrated political machine". Contrary to the impression of some, it is not an impenetrable "maze of money" funding all matter of right-wing groups; though some organizations outside of the core group have been funded, most of the grants bestowed by its "funding conduits" (such as Freedom Partners), are relatively tiny and not ongoing. According to Kenneth Vogel at Politico, the Koch network has about three and a half times as many employees as the Republican National Committee plus GOP congressional campaign affiliates its "network's operatives and resources" do not work independently of the GOP, but "are closely intertwined" with it. For example, of the first fifteen directors of the different state Americans for Prosperity organizations, almost 70% "had previously held staff posts in GOP campaigns or in the offices of Republican elected officials""

A lot of the time what they do is they put the narrative out there. They have lots of people whose job is to tell everyone what to think.

For example I've taken one of the groups, the Cato Institute, it's funding comes from 75% individual. Which means what? Could be individuals who are the Koch brothers. They have many ways of funneling money around so it doesn't look like it came directly from them, but it does actually come from them.

I typed in "Cato Institute" into Bing and set it for the last 24 hours.

Preemptive war: The real cost of Trump’s Iran strike

The military-industrial complex and the American police state have joined forces. War abroad and war at home are no longer separate enterprises.

augustafreepress.com

This is the first article to come up.

John Whitehead, Author at Augusta Free Press

The military-industrial complex and the American police state have joined forces. War abroad and war at home are no longer separate enterprises.

augustafreepress.com

Written by John W. Whitehead "Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute."

The Rutherford Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Since its founding, The Rutherford Institute has expanded its aims from defending the religious liberties of Christians to include defending the religious liberties of all Americans, as well as working to preserve rights such as free speech and the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure."

"However, the institute has sometimes taken pro-government positions, such as defending laws which banned gay sex."

So, basically a right wing group, that may or may not get funding from the Kock brothers. However it certain quoted the Bible and Charlie Kirk.... so it wouldn't surprise me.

But the reason this came up in the search was this:

"As Cato Institute’s Katherine Thompson explains, “War … costs American blood and treasure. The Founders placed the power to initiate it in Congress precisely to ensure those costs are confronted and debated before the country walks into battle.”"

These articles might be written by money from the Koch brothers, but the quotes are coming from the Koch brothers.

All over the place these people are spreading "ideas" or "narratives" and they've changed how people think. Because people read these articles, they listen to things like Fox News, and the mentality of people has changed a lot since 1980.

So now when you hear what people are saying... it enters people's heads and this is what people are talking about. We're humans, this is how humans are manipulated.

Most humans are incapable of independent thought, they're follow the thought of others.

The second one is a video from DW

Iran war: Netanyahu vows 'surprises' – what happens in week two? - DW News.

The war in Iran is now in its second week. The US and Israel are intensifying their attacks as Tehran retaliates across the Middle East and further afield. Now Israel's prime minister is promising "surprises" to come. So where is this war headed i...

uazmi.com

He's interviewing "John Hoffman", he's from the Cato Institute, of course.

You'll find their "opinion" all over the place, being passed off as some expert, but actually it's not. It's the Koch brothers' money do what it does best, MANIPULATING PEOPLE.

You said Trump was taking action. The second such post I replied to in a matter of minutes.

I'm not sure where this message has come from. But it seems to be that it's not a coincidence that you and others are saying the same thing at the same time.

Before he was strong for "no war" now he's strong being decisive.

It's contradictory and I can imagine the dudes sitting down scratching their heads at how to get the message across without people noticing.

 

[Meriweather]

Who's telling you to think this?

My best guess would be the Koch brothers (one of whom is dead). But it's difficult to know.

In 1980 one of them stood as VP candidate for the Libertarian Party and obvious got their ass handed to them on a plate as everyone voted Reagan. So they decided to change their approach.

Koch network - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Koch network is a "tightly interlocked set of organizations" that the brothers and "their closest advisors have developed over time into an integrated political machine". Contrary to the impression of some, it is not an impenetrable "maze of money" funding all matter of right-wing groups; though some organizations outside of the core group have been funded, most of the grants bestowed by its "funding conduits" (such as Freedom Partners), are relatively tiny and not ongoing. According to Kenneth Vogel at Politico, the Koch network has about three and a half times as many employees as the Republican National Committee plus GOP congressional campaign affiliates its "network's operatives and resources" do not work independently of the GOP, but "are closely intertwined" with it. For example, of the first fifteen directors of the different state Americans for Prosperity organizations, almost 70% "had previously held staff posts in GOP campaigns or in the offices of Republican elected officials""

A lot of the time what they do is they put the narrative out there. They have lots of people whose job is to tell everyone what to think.

For example I've taken one of the groups, the Cato Institute, it's funding comes from 75% individual. Which means what? Could be individuals who are the Koch brothers. They have many ways of funneling money around so it doesn't look like it came directly from them, but it does actually come from them.

I typed in "Cato Institute" into Bing and set it for the last 24 hours.

Preemptive war: The real cost of Trump’s Iran strike

The military-industrial complex and the American police state have joined forces. War abroad and war at home are no longer separate enterprises.

augustafreepress.com

This is the first article to come up.

John Whitehead, Author at Augusta Free Press

The military-industrial complex and the American police state have joined forces. War abroad and war at home are no longer separate enterprises.

augustafreepress.com

Written by John W. Whitehead "Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute."

The Rutherford Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Since its founding, The Rutherford Institute has expanded its aims from defending the religious liberties of Christians to include defending the religious liberties of all Americans, as well as working to preserve rights such as free speech and the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure."

"However, the institute has sometimes taken pro-government positions, such as defending laws which banned gay sex."

So, basically a right wing group, that may or may not get funding from the Kock brothers. However it certain quoted the Bible and Charlie Kirk.... so it wouldn't surprise me.

But the reason this came up in the search was this:

"As Cato Institute’s Katherine Thompson explains, “War … costs American blood and treasure. The Founders placed the power to initiate it in Congress precisely to ensure those costs are confronted and debated before the country walks into battle.”"

These articles might be written by money from the Koch brothers, but the quotes are coming from the Koch brothers.

All over the place these people are spreading "ideas" or "narratives" and they've changed how people think. Because people read these articles, they listen to things like Fox News, and the mentality of people has changed a lot since 1980.

So now when you hear what people are saying... it enters people's heads and this is what people are talking about. We're humans, this is how humans are manipulated.

Most humans are incapable of independent thought, they're follow the thought of others.

The second one is a video from DW

Iran war: Netanyahu vows 'surprises' – what happens in week two? - DW News.

The war in Iran is now in its second week. The US and Israel are intensifying their attacks as Tehran retaliates across the Middle East and further afield. Now Israel's prime minister is promising "surprises" to come. So where is this war headed i...

uazmi.com

He's interviewing "John Hoffman", he's from the Cato Institute, of course.

You'll find their "opinion" all over the place, being passed off as some expert, but actually it's not. It's the Koch brothers' money do what it does best, MANIPULATING PEOPLE.

You said Trump was taking action. The second such post I replied to in a matter of minutes.

I'm not sure where this message has come from. But it seems to be that it's not a coincidence that you and others are saying the same thing at the same time.

Before he was strong for "no war" now he's strong being decisive.

It's contradictory and I can imagine the dudes sitting down scratching their heads at how to get the message across without people noticing.

I'm not familiar with any of the people you mention, nor do I care what they say or what they don't say. What I am familiar with are the results of no action over the years with regard to Iran. This does not mean "no action" wasn't the right thing to do during all that time. Right at the moment, we are in this time. Perhaps now is the right time to act, when earlier it wasn't? I.don't.know. I haven't enough information. The one thing I don't do, is base my conclusion on the timing by the name of the person who made the decision.

How about you? If someone else had made the decision, would you favor it? If the current President had chosen not to act, would you have then given him your approval and trust?

 

[22lcidw]

I see that this is what you're all now being told to think.

You cheered when he said no war.

Now you're cheering because he's a "man of action".

Trump is as inconsistent as his fan base.

The problem is, acting is sometimes THE WRONG THING TO DO

And your fan base is what? Until Progressives tell us what they are going to do before the elections, there is no faith in them. You really screwed things up in Joe's administration and say nothing of it. You have the extreme progressive socialist feminists controlling many elections and that is not good. All of the TV and entertainment spouting the utopian world with women the total power is not true, and we are finding it out. Turning men in eunuchs and criminals is not a good idea. The dirty work of the planet is done by a reduced number of potential qualified people and that includes women. Teh end game is disaster.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not familiar with any of the people you mention, nor do I care what they say or what they don't say. What I am familiar with are the results of no action over the years with regard to Iran. This does not mean "no action" wasn't the right thing to do during all that time. Right at the moment, we are in this time. Perhaps now is the right time to act, when earlier it wasn't? I.don't.know. I haven't enough information. The one thing I don't do, is base my conclusion on the timing by the name of the person who made the decision.

How about you? If someone else had made the decision, would you favor it? If the current President had chosen not to act, would you have then given him your approval and trust?

You don't care about some of the most important people in US history from 1980 to now?

Isn't that typical of people on this forum. I seriously don't know why you bother to even talk here if you're not interested in reality.

End of conversation, can't be bothered.

 

[Meriweather]

You don't care about some of the most important people in US history from 1980 to now?

No. I study/research the issues to reach my very own conclusion (back-in-the-day journalism training). I could then write articles presenting facts, and why one politician favors one path while another favors the alternate.

Where you are correct is that a conversation between us is over (and never really started) if you want a discussion based on s/he said this versus s/he said that. I know people here seem to like that, down to the point of posting a video that says one thing to be answered by a video that says the other.

I prefer discussions where one's own thoughts/conclusions are shared instead of posting the thoughts/conclusions/videos of those who are not even present for the one-on-one discussion.

 

[Cougarbear]

Speaking for God! Very impressive.

Take heed!

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. I study/research the issues to reach my very own conclusion (back-in-the-day journalism training). I could then write articles presenting facts, and why one politician favors one path while another favors the alternate.

Where you are correct is that a conversation between us is over (and never really started) if you want a discussion based on s/he said this versus s/he said that. I know people here seem to like that, down to the point of posting a video that says one thing to be answered by a video that says the other.

I prefer discussions where one's own thoughts/conclusions are shared instead of posting the thoughts/conclusions/videos of those who are not even present for the one-on-one discussion.

Not only do you not know two of potentially the most important people in US politics in the last 46 years.... but you don't even want to know about them.

 

[Meriweather]

Not only do you not know two of potentially the most important people in US politics in the last 46 years.... but you don't even want to know about them.

What I know are the issues. Why is it vital to you I remember names?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What I know are the issues. Why is it vital to you I remember names?

How can you know "the issues", if you don't even know anything about the Koch brothers? How can you know what they've done, how they've done it, how much influence they've had and why it's bad, if you don't even care to learn about it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And your fan base is what? Until Progressives tell us what they are going to do before the elections, there is no faith in them. You really screwed things up in Joe's administration and say nothing of it. You have the extreme progressive socialist feminists controlling many elections and that is not good. All of the TV and entertainment spouting the utopian world with women the total power is not true, and we are finding it out. Turning men in eunuchs and criminals is not a good idea. The dirty work of the planet is done by a reduced number of potential qualified people and that includes women. Teh end game is disaster.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

I believe that things that work, work, things that don't, don't.

I used to support larger parties, then I realized that they're just not very good.

I support Proportional Representation and I speak about it a lot because I think it's better for countries to have proper democracy.

 

[Ace Nova]

Start with a moral issue.
Look at opinions being given.
Do any of these opinions represent truth, or are they simply feelings or opinions?

The transgender issue is recent--an issue where many have opinions. What is the truth? Take the example of someone who was born with xy chromosomes. Truth: Biologically, the is a male. However, since he feels or has the opinion he wants to be female or considered female, should he be allowed in women's restrooms, women's sports, or if in prison have taxpayers pay for hormones/surgeries? Some might say yes. Others might say, the truth is that this person is male. He needs psychiatric assistance to face the truth of who/what he is.

My question is, Should society adopt moral relativity and allow everyone to base his/her decision on how they feel--and should those people push Congress to pass an "Equality Act" that, under law, will force everyone else in society to go along with those individual personal feelings/opinions/delusions?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The "equality act" is written in the pre-amble of the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, modern day politics seems to ignore the simplicity and "Truth" of the statement.

The fact that this thread titled "One truth: Should society maintain a moral compass" and has evolved into discussing an issue that did not (or barely existed) until recently, due to politicians using it as a political platform - dealing with less than 1% of the population - as one of the "main" issues when discussing "One truth and morality" - only shows that many people have no idea what "one truth" is and what it takes to TRULY maintain a moral compass within society.

The real issue with gender identity is that it has been politicized by both progressives and conservatives. The hypocrisy demonstrated by both sides on this issue is clear as day to anyone who understands "The Truth". On one side you have a political party who has taken a very small, marginalized and potentially persecuted group of people - and put them on the front lines against their adversarial political party. The other party, in response, resorts to persecution of said group (whether intentional or not) not seen in decades (maybe longer).

The "True" failure in morality is the politicizing and weaponizing of the issue by society.

How can you help these groups secure the rights declared "Self Evident" when you throw them to the wolves?

Why would you persecute a group of people if you truly believe it is a "mental health issue"?

Has anyone spoken directly to the groups themselves and asked them how they feel about being platooned into the spotlight? - and then told to go ahead, "Use any bathroom you feel fit, play a sport so you upset everyone in the league, and have tax payer funded sexual medical procedures - go ahead, don't worry about what anyone else thinks."

And when these groups of people get nothing but hate and backlash for what they "were told to do" - how does this have anything to do with their individual "morality"?

Whether you realize it or not - these groups of people are your family members, friends, associates, and fellow countrymen - stop treating them as political ploys and treat them the way you wish to be treated. And maybe then, you can begin to understand what "The One Truth" truly means.

 

[Meriweather]

How can you know "the issues", if you don't even know anything about the Koch brothers? How can you know what they've done, how they've done it, how much influence they've had and why it's bad, if you don't even care to learn about it?

Seriously? Study the issues.

 

[Meriweather]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The "equality act" is written in the pre-amble of the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, modern day politics seems to ignore the simplicity and "Truth" of the statement.

The fact that this thread titled "One truth: Should society maintain a moral compass" and has evolved into discussing an issue that did not (or barely existed) until recently, due to politicians using it as a political platform - dealing with less than 1% of the population - as one of the "main" issues when discussing "One truth and morality" - only shows that many people have no idea what "one truth" is and what it takes to TRULY maintain a moral compass within society.

The real issue with gender identity is that it has been politicized by both progressives and conservatives. The hypocrisy demonstrated by both sides on this issue is clear as day to anyone who understands "The Truth". On one side you have a political party who has taken a very small, marginalized and potentially persecuted group of people - and put them on the front lines against their adversarial political party. The other party, in response, resorts to persecution of said group (whether intentional or not) not seen in decades (maybe longer).

The "True" failure in morality is the politicizing and weaponizing of the issue by society.

How can you help these groups secure the rights declared "Self Evident" when you throw them to the wolves?

Why would you persecute a group of people if you truly believe it is a "mental health issue"?

Has anyone spoken directly to the groups themselves and asked them how they feel about being platooned into the spotlight? - and then told to go ahead, "Use any bathroom you feel fit, play a sport so you upset everyone in the league, and have tax payer funded sexual medical procedures - go ahead, don't worry about what anyone else thinks."

And when these groups of people get nothing but hate and backlash for what they "were told to do" - how does this have anything to do with their individual "morality"?

Whether you realize it or not - these groups of people are your family members, friends, associates, and fellow countrymen - stop treating them as political ploys and treat them the way you wish to be treated. And maybe then, you can begin to understand what "The One Truth" truly means.

Agree. The Federal Government was formed to protect the nation, create a transportation system for the nation, regulate trade for the nation. Somewhere along the line it's snaky tendrils wound its way into state business, community business, and now into individual personal business.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Opinions swirl through society. There are many opinions, but one truth. Moral relativity (what is right for thee is not right for me) abounds. Those who uphold one truth over opinions are labeled judgmental, discriminatory, bigoted, merciless.

Society can either choose moral relativity or one truth. As far back as Biblical times, societies failed during times of moral relativity and struggled to return to the Rule of Law–or one truth.

What say you? With the “Equality Act”, Congress is pushing American society into moral relativity and even into government regulation/insistence of this moral relativity into churches and faith communities. Is moral relativity the answer, or should we be seeking a society that maintains its moral compass of one truth?

Trump, the leader and emperor of the world sets the standards. It has been that was throughout recent history with American presidents. The world and Americans look to their presidents to set the standard for morals and ethics. We can all see where that stands in 2026.

 

[Ace Nova]

Agree. The Federal Government was formed to protect the nation, create a transportation system for the nation, regulate trade for the nation. Somewhere along the line it's snaky tendrils wound its way into state business, community business, and now into individual personal business.

I am an advocate of State Rights. It is a foundation of the Representative Republic we live in - streamlines and helps strengthen the democratic process behind it.

That said - the morality issue has little (or as much) to do with the Federal government. Politicizing issues on the state or federal level that should be dealt with at the family/educational/medical/local level is still a stain on the 'moral compass' of a society.

And this goes for a myriad of issues used as political ploys/bargaining chips, etc - partisan politics has evolved to a decadent level - far beneath the values of this country.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously? Study the issues.

You're telling me to study the issues when you can't possibly know the issues if you know nothing about the Koch brothers.