Dr.Franklin

Could always try a march to overthrow the government in the capitol. The specific example I am thinking of didn't necessarily work out right away but you know, second time's the charm?

how about better strategies to improve our children's education and less exploitation of children for entirely political ends? 

The US has never been better than it is today, in terms of progress. Covid and Trump's Teem maybe can be excluded but even then the progress is irrefutable.

They chose to get pregnant, but pro choicers think they should be allowed to choose to not be pregnant early.  Pro lifers don’t support this option.  Their claim is that a life dies, but it’s akin to letting someone on life support die.  If you think it’s wrong to let someone on life support die, then I’m presuming you support UHC.  I don’t support UHC, so if someone on life support dies, I feel good; it saves money.  I have to extend this capitalist logic to fetuses, who are as brain dead as people on life support.

- What do your personal opinion about it?

- Of course, because they are looking at the same facts in History. Ibn Khaldun saw nations as living organisms, going from birth to youth... to old age & death. A famous quote of his you might've heard of, "hard times make strong men, strong men make easy times, easy times make weak men, weak men make hard times".

- I also believe the only solution for the West to maintain a future for their grandchildren is to go back to faith & reconcile with the rest of the world. The obscene wealth they built up at the expense of the peace & wellbeing of all other peoples may have maximized their own immediate wellbeing & self-gratification but it also put the wellbeing of their future generations at huge risk. – But I very much doubt any of it will happen, for death is inevitable. Ibn Khaldun also talks about six stages of a nation's life, the last being when Power is lost but replaced with Prestige. They dress the same & look the same, but their power is only in that others still believe they have it from appearance when they actually don't.  

New World order Doc.

Things move on.....Or have moved on.

I think that the UK. has already started to adapt....Colonialism came back to bite us in the backside in the 1960's

And Western Europe has bore the brunt of the effects of more recent Allied interference in the Middle East and North Africa.

Whereas there are still a lot of  insular thinking Americans,  unaffected by the huge changes in global demographics.

Porn is the most ancient entertainment on Earth, it just used to be belly dancers, sketch artists and prostitutes.

I think you are a fan of one-party systems that overthrow other one-party systems that they disagree with.

I base this on you saying that you are a fan of one-party systems that overthrow other one-party systems that they disagree with.

I, on the other hand, think authoritarian regimes are a bad thing. That is where you and I disagree.

That doesn't make me 'witty'. It just makes me, you know, anti-dictatorship. Because somehow that's how low the fucking bar has dropped in U.S. politics over the last few years.

- Ouch! You don't seem as optimistic about the future as the others. It is because of the decadence you mentioned in your other post?

 This was an interesting read. Huh! I know about the Mormons & the general "God loves us"... but it's interesting how founding conditions can shape future culture like that. This actually explains why some republicans I know think of the US Constitution as an extension of the Bible.

- Indeed, Decadence is a human condition that all civilizations inevitably reach after long periods of prosperity, yet it is their last stop. As Ibn Khaldun explains, Stability leads to saving, which drive consumption, which initiates demand for luxury, which drives innovation, which leads to prosperity, & then further luxury, resulting in indulgence, from there decadence, decadence induces corruption, & corruption leads to oppression, hence death.

- What change or action do you believe needs to happen to avoid this daunting outcome?

Look at you yelling about choice. You're right it's her choice. If a man doesn't want a woman to get pregnant then he should go get a vasectomy. Because it was his choice. Do you realize the irony of it.

Just because you saying you approve of the Soviet Union Communist Party overthrowing the Russian government because they disagreed with them was dumb, that doesn't mean that me saying I disapprove of the Soviet Union Communist Party is witty.

There are actually lots of people that think not everything the Soviet Union did was great, not just me.

He has not studied the history he prides himself on if he thinks the social democrats and their porn-addicted sons are the main reasons America is struggling.

In some cases, yes. But that doesn't tell me what I am entitled to as a person. Same thing with any other people.

Pro life ideology consists of forcing already existing pregnant people to stay that way.

Child support is slavery.  Granted, there are times when slavery is the only moral option, but at least I have the guts to say that deadbeat dads should be enslaved and exploited by their kids and should be forced to produce money for the benefit of their offspring even if it costs the deadbeat dad their life to provide for their kids.

Banning abortion = Forcing someone to be pregnant and to endure the work for it for the benefit of someone else.

Forcing someone to be pregnant and to endure the work for it for the benefit of someone else= Slavery

Also, being forced to pay child support is slavery.

Therefore, if Pro-lifers want to repeal Roe V Wade, they need to modify the 13th amendment to, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime or to benefit one's kids shall be allowed in the United States.".  The current 13th amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime shall be allowed in the United States." allows for Roe V Wade(and being a deadbeat dad that refuses to pay child support).

What bible verse says this?  And if that bible verse says that, how is it not a contradiction from Exodus 12:49?

America has the highest GDP in the world, one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world, and more taxpayers makes American workers more competitive because we will have more people to negotiate better trade deals for the country if we have more people.  China has been killing us on trade because they have more workers.  The obvious solution to this is to bring in more workers (and put them in blue counties where they are wanted).

I'm not saying Europeans have to hate each other, but they are stronger together because the EU has more GDP and population than any country in the EU.

What if it was a one-party state that disagreed with you about things?

The abortion debate is entirely about whether a woman’s right to her own body outweighs the rights of a fetus to life. There is nothing about this which science can possibly answer.

Gender theory is defined as: “an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to analysing gender identity and gendered representation”. Again, has nothing to do with science.

You could at least Google the terms before making such claims.

Logos: “the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity”

So in other words, if you believe in god then your belief in god is logical. Not a great argument.

When I talk about a figurehead I’m talking about someone the political movement appeals to, follows, and uses as a metric for whether one is right on a given issue. It’s a person you are not allowed to break with or you will be deemed an “other” by your own side. To put George Floyd in that category is absurd. You really need to drop this argument.

A deity and a martyr are two completely different things.

Then why are we still talking about this?

I asked you for an example of a right wing politician paying a political price for not having an actual plan and your response is to talk about Trump going after his opponents.

Not only does this fail to address my question, but further emphasizes everything I’m talking about with regards to the need for a figurehead or leader if you prefer that term.

It’s a college course. It has no obligation to change its name as a response to bad faith political activists trying to turn it into the next right wing bogeyman.

I suppose you’re right about that. You can for example legislate bigotry against transsexuals by passing bathroom bills to protect girls in bathrooms despite no actual problem being solved. And you can pass laws saying you’re not allowed to teach CRT in grade school classrooms despite no grade schools schools actually teaching it. And you can legislate white fragility into law by passing bills saying you’re not allowed to make anyone feel uncomfortable by talking about race.

The point wasn’t about what can or can’t be legislated, but about what the issues are. The idea of government is to protect the well being of its citizens. The question is, what does that mean and what does it look like?

For one side it means things like healthcare, infrastructure, minimum wage, etc. For the other side it means combating things like gender pronouns, cancel culture, and wokeness, which is especially ironic since this is the same side that says government should stay out of our business. If there’s one theme that seems to be coming from the right, it’s to own the libs.

You talk about the right not following Trump but rather Trump reflecting what the right is about. That only proves my point further. We have never had a more emotional less logically driven president in our history. The guy literally threatened nuclear war over Twitter, and no serious constitutional scholar would ever claim they believe he’s ever read the constitution. The guy was the most buffoonish clown we’ve ever seen when it came to talking about policy, but this is the guy the right fell in love with. You cannot tell me that showes anything other than the very thing I have been saying here.

The bible doesn't support this.  The bible doesn't care if your homogeneous or not, as long as you don't treat someone different for being a foreigner.  This is akin to open borders.  One of the areas where I give the bible credit.

  America isn't homogeneous and since we are assimilated, we thrive.  People assimilate with time to America and if they don't, there are translator devices for that.

This is also why I support the EU becoming one country.  They can use translator devices to communicate (or they can use English).

Since then those who follow the Jewish religion - have essentially started a new cult. 

No, it would just show that you don’t know what any of these terms mean and especially that none of them have anything to do with science.

No, I’m defining logic as a process where a conclusion is drawn from a given set of premises. The fact that most religious people do not believe based on this process, and the fact that the political right is overwhelmingly tied in their politics to their religion is one of many indicators I listed that logic is not prioritized with regards to right wing politics.

George Floyd of a symbol of police abuse in America. Painting him as a figurehead is just plain stupid. No one even knows what his politics were or if he had any particular political opinions. You can’t be serious.

MLK seems to be just as much of a figurehead on the right as he is on the left, every year republicans politicians pay homage to legacy and quote him on Twitter as much as democrats do.

The fact is that he is revered nationwide for the change he lead in American life and the fact that he sacrificed his life for it. He’s not the leader of the left. The only issues his words are used as ammunition in are issues that used to be settled which right wing politicians have suddenly changed their stance on. The voting rights act for example which passed the senate unanimously in 06 which not one single republican will vote for today. So no, this is not the left’s figurehead as much as it is a reminder of the rights extremism and hypocrisy.

And no, a figurehead in and of itself is not a “breach of logic”. The point is that people who care about logic focus on arguments, not deity like figures. If we believe in an idea we believe it’s right because it’s right, not because someone said it. MLK is a terrible comparison because all of society used to accept the core message he was known for advancing. Reagan was always a right wing figure. And Trump as a figurehead? That’s a whole different level of absurdity.

Name one right wing politician who would pay a political price for not having a specific plan to resolve an issue.

My god dude.

CRT is an actual course taught in actual schools. Schools as in college. It has a real actual definition, you would know that if you ever googled it.

So no, it’s not a policy name, was not “chosen by the left” and being anti-CRT has nothing to do with actual policy.

If there’s one thing you’ve said that has proven my point this is definitely it.

We elect government officials to pass policy, not to argue on Twitter about wokeness or cancel culture. This is the opposite of a logical position.

So what does this mean and how do we evaluate it? Well we can start be recognizing that logic is a process. It’s based on validity, not desires. So a logically driven person is one with a greater capacity to accept truths that are inconvenient and adjust to them.

Like, say, climate change, or the question of who won the last election. It’s not a coincidence that the left overwhelmingly embraces the findings of science no matter how glim, while the right seems to always be on the opposite side of every major issue science has already settled on.

Religion is another indicator since even most religious people will credit “faith” as their reason for believing (the opposite of logic). So which side do we tend to find the evangelicals? Of course, the right.

And a quality I’ve observed which I believe follows from this is the need for a deity like figure to appeal to; a person whom the party faithful can pledge their unwavering support. We see this on the right (it’s Trump right now, it was Reagan before). We don’t see this on the left. Obama is the closest thing you could point to, but no serious contingent on the left is pledging to support “the principals of Barack Obama”. The left does not need a figurehead, only the right does this.

And then there’s policy. Whatever you think of the left’s ideas, if you’re competing on the left you have to spell them out and explain them in detail in order to be taken seriously. What happened when Elizabeth Warren was found to not have a plan on a major legislative issue? Her poll numbers sank overnight.

On the right, all you need is slogans, and they don’t have to be factual or make sense.

“Ban the teaching of CRT!”.

Ok, but what is CRT? No one knows. It’s just a vague notion of race that makes them uncomfortable. Just like gender pronouns, which helps drive many right wing voters to the polls despite there being no plausible legislative resolution. It’s purely a cultural issue, just like cancel culture and “free speech”. The issues of the day on the political right.

 

Even advertising companies are well aware of this. The ads run on Fox News are literally catered to people who are more easily manipulable, that’s why you see all the 1-800-CALL-NOW commercials there. 

This isn’t close.