The religious right and social conservatism are going to destroy the Republicans.

[Blues Man]

I don't compare the behavior of adults to the behavior of children.

And I never said humans were good or bad naturally or otherwise. And evil is nothing but a human concept to usually describe behavior that is particularly reprehensible.

And violence especially towards children is never excusable.

So when is violence against adults excusable?

Only when defending your own life or the life of another.

 

[Ringtone]

Very unfortunate, that.

So what is social conservatism and economic conservatism in the first place?

Your googler broken?

I'm sure Google provides any number of definitions in terms of prevailing cultural and political movements relative to the distinction between gradualism and pluralism, but the essence of social conservatism proper goes to the absolute, universal constant of natural law. The further a society strays from its imperatives, the more unstable, the less free and the less prosperous it becomes.

 

[Ringtone]

So when is violence against adults excusable?

Only when defending your own life or the life of another.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[dblack]

Very unfortunate, that.

So what is social conservatism and economic conservatism in the first place?

Your googler broken?

I'm sure Google provides any number of definitions in terms of prevailing cultural and political movements relative to the distinction between gradualism and pluralism, but the essence of social conservatism proper goes to the absolute, universal constant of natural law. The further a society strays from its imperatives, the more unstable, the less free and the less prosperous it becomes.

danielpalos ?

 

[Blues Man]

So when is violence against adults excusable?

Only when defending your own life or the life of another.

What does that have to do with anything?

you asked me when violence against an adult is excusable. I answered you.

What about my answer do you not understand?

 

[impuretrash]

Social conservatism is way more popular than economic conservatism.

Very unfortunate, that.

Weird that working from a cubicle to feed mindless consumerism leaves human beings feeling unfulfilled.

Does it? Seriously, does it? Does it leave human beings unfulfilled? Are you sure about that?

Because I have decades of experience that says otherwise.

Maybe the problem is that people are doing life wrong, rather than that their job is bad.

85% of American workers are happy with their jobs, national survey shows

The majority of the American workforce is pretty happy, according to the first quarterly CNBC/Survey Monkey Workplace Happiness Index. The index measures how workers feel in five key categories — pay, opportunities for advancement, recognition, autonomy and meaning. It is an optimistic 71 out of...

www.cnbc.com

Explain?

Here, let me give it a whirl.

If you are feeling unfulfilled with your job, there is about a 10% chance the problem is the job, and 90% chance the problem is you.

The problem is less likely that you have a bad job, and far more likely that you are trying to get all of your internal needs in life, met from one single source.

There is no one thing in this world that meet all your needs.

As a Christian, we were always taught in Church, that life must be moderated between the follow.

G-d First.
Family Second.
Work Third.
Friends fourth.
Recreation Fifth.

You can't get all of your needs met by work. Nor family for that matter. Nor friends. Nor recreation.

I've always been fascinated by my Asian friends, because they all.... as in every single one of them I know.... do things differently.

One of them was a full time worker, and a mother, and at the same time, she also went to stage plays and sang songs in front of crowds.

Had another who worked as a computer programmer, but a few times a year, he played violin at parties. People hired him, for not much money, and he would play violin. He wasn't doing it for the cash. It was just another thing, an artistic outlet for him to engage in.

Why do they do things like this? Because no one thing and meet all your needs. If you try and get your spouse to meet all your needs in life, you are going to be miserable, and think you married the wrong person.

If you try and get your job to fulfill all your needs in life, you are going to be miserable, and think you have the wrong job.

If you try and get your friends to meet all your need, you'll assume you have bad friends and try and find other people.

If you try and get recreation to meet all your needs, you will feel empty and miserable. Guarantee it.

And as a Christian, if you try and live life without G-d at all, you will be empty and miserable.

You need moderation. You need all of that. Even if it is going and playing the piano twice a year, at some event... you need more than just a job. More than just one thing.

Most people I know don't have time for much else other than work. Work, and worry about how they're going to pay their bills. Occasionally eat and sleep and watch some TV. Adding children into the mix now there's more stress, even less free time and more money woes. You live in a fantasy world.

 

[Ringtone]

Very unfortunate, that.

So what is social conservatism and economic conservatism in the first place?

Your googler broken?

I'm sure Google provides any number of definitions in terms of prevailing cultural and political movements relative to the distinction between gradualism and pluralism, but the essence of social conservatism proper goes to the absolute, universal constant of natural law. The further a society strays from its imperatives, the more unstable, the less free and the less prosperous it becomes.

danielpalos ?

I'm not sure what your question is, but danielpalos foolishly subscribes to the Marxist , zero-sum-game mentality.

 

[dblack]

Very unfortunate, that.

So what is social conservatism and economic conservatism in the first place?

Your googler broken?

I'm sure Google provides any number of definitions in terms of prevailing cultural and political movements relative to the distinction between gradualism and pluralism, but the essence of social conservatism proper goes to the absolute, universal constant of natural law. The further a society strays from its imperatives, the more unstable, the less free and the less prosperous it becomes.

danielpalos ?

I'm not sure what your question is, but danielpalos foolishly subscribes to the Marxist , zero-sum-game mentality.

When I see pompous word-salad posts, I always think of daniel.

 

[Ringtone]

So when is violence against adults excusable?

Only when defending your own life or the life of another.

What does that have to do with anything?

you asked me when violence against an adult is excusable. I answered you.

What about my answer do you not understand?

Why is self-defense a good thing? Why should such a thing be permitted in the first place?

 

[Blues Man]

So when is violence against adults excusable?

Only when defending your own life or the life of another.

What does that have to do with anything?

you asked me when violence against an adult is excusable. I answered you.

What about my answer do you not understand?

Why is self-defense a good thing? Why should such a thing be permitted in the first place?

Did I say it was good or bad?

It is however reasonable to expect a person to defend his own life.

 

[Ringtone]

When I see pompous word-salad posts, I always think of daniel.

Frankly, I thought the very same thing about his prose. It's awful. The OP is an incoherent mess. I had to read four or five of his posts before it became clear that his baby talk is predicated on nothing other than the fallacious notion that wealth is a zero-sum-game proposition. Hence, his solution is to redistribute the existing wealth of the pie, rather than increasing the size of the pie.

He's a fool.

There's absolutely nothing "word-saladness" about my prose. Perhaps you need to Google social conservatism to understand why in all likelihood it's defined in terms of prevailing cultural and political movements relative to the distinction between gradualism and pluralism.

Once you've done that, perhaps you may recall that social conservatism proper is historically rooted in the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, which, by the way, is ultimately derived from the Christian exposition of the Golden Rule.

After that it should be obvious why the further a society strays from the imperatives of natural law, the more unstable, the less free and the less prosperous it becomes.

 

[Ringtone]

Did I say it was good or bad?

It is however reasonable to expect a person to defend his own life.

So is being reasonable good or bad?

 

[Blues Man]

Did I say it was good or bad?

It is however reasonable to expect a person to defend his own life.

So is being reasonable good or bad?

Why does it have to be either?

What is the fixation you have with the labels good and bad?

You do realize that those are both highly subjective terms don't you?

 

[Ringtone]

Why does it have to be either?

What is the fixation you have with the labels good and bad?

You do realize that those are both highly subjective terms don't you?

How so?

 

[Andylusion]

Social conservatism is way more popular than economic conservatism.

Very unfortunate, that.

Weird that working from a cubicle to feed mindless consumerism leaves human beings feeling unfulfilled.

Does it? Seriously, does it? Does it leave human beings unfulfilled? Are you sure about that?

Because I have decades of experience that says otherwise.

Maybe the problem is that people are doing life wrong, rather than that their job is bad.

85% of American workers are happy with their jobs, national survey shows

The majority of the American workforce is pretty happy, according to the first quarterly CNBC/Survey Monkey Workplace Happiness Index. The index measures how workers feel in five key categories — pay, opportunities for advancement, recognition, autonomy and meaning. It is an optimistic 71 out of...

www.cnbc.com

Explain?

Here, let me give it a whirl.

If you are feeling unfulfilled with your job, there is about a 10% chance the problem is the job, and 90% chance the problem is you.

The problem is less likely that you have a bad job, and far more likely that you are trying to get all of your internal needs in life, met from one single source.

There is no one thing in this world that meet all your needs.

As a Christian, we were always taught in Church, that life must be moderated between the follow.

G-d First.
Family Second.
Work Third.
Friends fourth.
Recreation Fifth.

You can't get all of your needs met by work. Nor family for that matter. Nor friends. Nor recreation.

I've always been fascinated by my Asian friends, because they all.... as in every single one of them I know.... do things differently.

One of them was a full time worker, and a mother, and at the same time, she also went to stage plays and sang songs in front of crowds.

Had another who worked as a computer programmer, but a few times a year, he played violin at parties. People hired him, for not much money, and he would play violin. He wasn't doing it for the cash. It was just another thing, an artistic outlet for him to engage in.

Why do they do things like this? Because no one thing and meet all your needs. If you try and get your spouse to meet all your needs in life, you are going to be miserable, and think you married the wrong person.

If you try and get your job to fulfill all your needs in life, you are going to be miserable, and think you have the wrong job.

If you try and get your friends to meet all your need, you'll assume you have bad friends and try and find other people.

If you try and get recreation to meet all your needs, you will feel empty and miserable. Guarantee it.

And as a Christian, if you try and live life without G-d at all, you will be empty and miserable.

You need moderation. You need all of that. Even if it is going and playing the piano twice a year, at some event... you need more than just a job. More than just one thing.

Most people I know don't have time for much else other than work. Work, and worry about how they're going to pay their bills. Occasionally eat and sleep and watch some TV. Adding children into the mix now there's more stress, even less free time and more money woes. You live in a fantasy world.

My sister has six children. She is a stay at home mother. Her husband works. He has no degree.

They do all that. They are not stressed. They are not in money woes.

There is nothing "fantasy" about this.

If the people you know are living that badly, then they are doing something wrong. They are buying cars they can't afford, or homes they can't afford, or they are blowing their money on things they don't need....

Or they are not working a full time job, or they are working a terrible full time job, or they are a lousy employee that will not be getting promoted.

Or sometimes you have people that work... but they do so with little integrity. If you are the last one in the door, first one to break, last one back from break, if you disappear into the bathroom, or you are yacking back and forth with people... you might be good enough to keep employed, while being bad enough to never get promoted.

Long ago I worked at a auto parts store. There was a guy there that dropped out of high school. But he worked his butt off. And by worked his butt off, I mean he really did a fanatic job all the time. Today that uneducated high school drop out, is store manager of one of the most profitable stores in the area. He makes really good money. (profit sharing checks for store manager are pretty big if your store makes good money).

If you work some place 5 years, and you are not promoted, then you are doing it wrong, or you need to find a better job. Even at McDonalds, if you are there 5 years, you should be in the management training program.

If you are still a cashier after 5 years, you are doing something wrong. I know a lady that was at Mejiers for 3 years, and at the end of the three years, she was recommended, and got accepted into their management training program, and now she's a district manager (unless she was promoted since last I heard).

Again, there is nothing 'fantasy' about this. People live this out all the time.

Go read the stories of how CEOs live. Most of them do this. They put in 60 hours at the office, and still make time for all those things.

 

[Blues Man]

Why does it have to be either?

What is the fixation you have with the labels good and bad?

You do realize that those are both highly subjective terms don't you?

How so?

What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.

 

[Ringtone]

What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.

We're way off topic. I started a thread here: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

Your post in the above that gets right to the core of the matter. Follow link.

 

[Ringtone]

Refusing to do business with someone is not "bullying and oppressing and hurting" real people.

Once again, it's the rank hypocrisy of this issue that makes it such a stinker. If an unhinged populist Democrat had taken the white house, Republicans would be adamantly defending the rights of businesses to oppose them - to refuse to accommodate their propaganda. And it would be Democrats, instead of Republicans, whining that government should "go after" social media companies, that it should regulate them as public utilities.

That's why it's really hard to take any of the excuse making, from either side, seriously. You don't have consistent principles or values. You just want to "win".

The imperatives of natural law?

Actually, the issue's more complex than that. Section 230 affords website publishers the status of non-publishers in terms of general immunity for third-party content. The idea behind this privilege is to promote the entrepreneurial spirit and protect free speech. For a while there it was working reasonably well. But Democrats eschew its enforcement as the prevailing big tech oligopoly serves them; more at, the latter is ideologically in league with them.

Trump's mistake was to rely on Congress to enforce the provision. The executive branch enforces the law. He should have invoked antitrust law when it became abundantly clear just a few years ago, especially, that this oligopoly had no intention of honoring the terms of the provision, particularly regarding the speech of conservatives, whose reasoned opinions of common sense and decency had come to dominate interactive social media. Now those voices are being systematically deplatformed/demonetized. But, then, leftists have always employed various mechanisms to stifle the free exchange of ideas, as the madness of their ideas can't withstand the cultural dynamics of open competition.

If the big tech oligopoly is going to behave as a publisher, I say have at it. But, in that case, it's not entitled to the privilege, is it?

 

[Ringtone]

When I see pompous word-salad posts, I always think of daniel.

When I see pompous dismissals of the imperatives of natural law, I always think of the word salad of of mealy-mouthed politicians like Kasich and Romney.