Total posts: 28,020
-->
@Best.Korea
The Tao constrains war by emphasizing harmony, balance, and the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. Rooted in the teachings of Laozi and the Tao Te Ching, Taoism views war as a disruption of the natural order and a failure to maintain balance. While acknowledging that war may sometimes be unavoidable, the Tao advocates for it as a last resort, to be undertaken only when all other means of restoring harmony have failed. Even when conflict occurs, it must be conducted with humility and restraint, minimizing harm and avoiding unnecessary suffering. The Tao discourages aggression, pride, or the glorification of power, seeing such attitudes as contrary to the natural way. After war, it emphasizes reflection and healing to restore balance, reinforcing that war is never to be celebrated but approached with sorrow for the disruption it causes.
Created:
-->
@Shila
false premise.
The claim that "more wars have been waged in the name of religion than any other reasons" is both an example of begging the question and based on a false premise. It begs the question by assuming that wars labeled as religious were primarily motivated by religion without critically examining the underlying causes. Many wars often attributed to religion, such as the Crusades or the Thirty Years' War, were also driven by political, territorial, and economic factors. By assuming religion as the primary cause, the claim skips over the need to prove that religion was the central motivator, instead presenting it as a given.
The false premise lies in the idea that religion is the dominant cause of most wars, which is historically inaccurate. A closer look at major conflicts reveals that the majority were driven by non-religious factors. Territorial expansion, such as Alexander the Great's conquests or the Mongol invasions, dominated ancient and medieval conflicts. Political ideologies, including World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, were fueled by nationalism, imperialism, and ideological rivalries like communism versus capitalism. Additionally, economic motivations, such as control over resources or trade routes, have sparked numerous wars, including the Opium Wars and the Gulf War. These examples show that religion, while sometimes a contributing factor, is rarely the sole cause.
Ultimately, this claim misrepresents history by failing to distinguish between wars genuinely rooted in religious motivations and those where religion was merely a pretext. By ignoring the complex interplay of political, economic, and territorial factors, it simplifies history to fit a narrative. This not only distorts the truth but also overlooks the deeper causes of conflict, which often go far beyond religion.
Throughout history, the morality of war under various religions has remained relatively consistent, rooted in enduring principles and doctrines. Religions often provided clear frameworks for when war could be justified and how it should be conducted, such as Christianity's "just war" theory, Islam's concept of jihad, or Hinduism's guidance in the Bhagavad Gita. These religious teachings emphasized rules like proportionality, protection of non-combatants, and war as a last resort, offering a moral foundation that transcended time and cultural shifts. While these principles were not always followed perfectly, they provided a stable ethical compass.
In contrast, today, the morality of war is often shaped by the volatile forces of media soundbites and prevailing social memes. Public perception of war is frequently influenced by narratives tailored for mass consumption, where complex geopolitical realities are reduced to slogans or viral clips. This creates a reactive morality, where wars are judged not by consistent principles but by how well they align with or deviate from the dominant narrative of the moment. A war might be seen as just or unjust based on how it is framed in media coverage rather than on a thorough analysis of motives, actions, or outcomes.
This shift has profound implications. Unlike the relatively stable moral frameworks provided by religion, today’s media-driven ethics are highly fluid and susceptible to manipulation. The morality of a war can change as quickly as public opinion does, leading to inconsistent judgments and policies. Where religious principles once served to constrain and guide decision-makers, modern wars are often judged more by emotional appeal and trending discourse, leaving their morality dependent on the fleeting values of the moment rather than enduring ethical standards.
The founding Fathers once quipped that the Constitution could only work in a morally bound society. If that society loses its morals, the Constitution morphs from a bastion into a euthanasia manifesto.
Created:
-->
@Savant
It's inevitable in a utopian society (or 1st world nation) that people with no gratitude will only have hate and fear left as the driving forces of behavior.
In first-world societies, the gradual decline of religion as a cultural cornerstone with objective, constant values has left a void that individuals and communities instinctively seek to fill. People seek to fill this void due to the inherited biological herd instincts. Religion provides not only a sense of meaning and purpose but also a framework for gratitude, humility, and civic moral responsibility (basic herd maintenance.) As these traditional systems of belief have all but faded, particularly in secular, affluent societies like the USA, the cheap replacement is vapid virtue signaling as a new form of "moral expression." It prioritizes external validation, with individuals projecting their alignment to manufactured social causes or ideals only to gain approval. This fundamental shift in the basis of "morality" is the reason for the weak moral fiber of society. One way this is manifested is how easily people will become both "pro war" and "Anti war" at the whim of a few memes within the same year. A person grounded in a firmer base of morality would have strong convictions that wouldn't flip flop so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don’t go to strip clubs. When you said you were tiny all interest faded.
A.I. rugburns.
Created:
-->
@Savant
The problem of accepting everyone 100% is that it will faster show college as a scam where they take your money knowing full well there is near zero chance of you learning the material.
this is what AI thinks:
Imagine a gym that sells memberships to everyone including people with eating disorders, promising they'll achieve fitness goals but without ensuring the members have the physical and mental ability to exercise. When most fail to see results, the gym looks like it's profiting off false promises.
Similarly, consider a flight school that admits students with poor vision or crippling anxiety, assuring them they can become pilots despite obvious challenges. When these students fail in simulations or cannot qualify for real-world flying, it becomes evident the school prioritized money over outcomes.
Another analogy would be credit card companies approving all 18 year olds with no jobs or income, promising access to financial independence. When these individuals inevitably rack up debt they cannot pay, it exposes the lenders' true motives of profiting from late fees and interest rather than promoting financial literacy.
Similarly, imagine if the Olympic Games, after charging a ridiculous entry fee, decided to accept all athletes, regardless of skill or training, in the name of inclusivity. The resulting spectacle of untrained participants failing would diminish the prestige of the competition and make it appear unserious.
In all these cases, most of them which actually exist, over-promising success while ignoring necessary prerequisites undermines credibility and exposes the institutions as exploitative.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Ever since the 1920's, most men getting married are basically marrying another dude with a pussy. Real women are reserved for the ultra-chads.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
So you are a low-t married man. Grats.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yes, women and low-T men are very easy to control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Biden COMMUTES Chinese Man With 47,000 CHILD IMAGES....
Created:
-->
@Savant
Maybe not gay, but certainly low-T
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
America is evil,
DEI is based on that premise.
Americans are your enemy,
AKA: "Garbage"
and Putin is your friend,
Because making enemies is how you stop wars. Sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
He is less war than any other option. To go cold turkey means more than one assassination attempt by the deep state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Trump killed one guy to stop a war in Gaza under his watch. That makes him a hero.
Trump continued deployments and bombings in Syria
Trump has to feed the deep state Syrian oil so the deep state doesn't devour Americans so much
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
All you need is a worm in your brain, I'm sure that will make everything better.
Why do you support evil? Did you really think people would somehow magically be happy with the current system that treats them like parasites with a few words and slogans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You mean the FBI plant that's supposed to keep people poor and stupid and compliant?
Good luck I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Lobbies will start ww3 before they allow an administration to destroy their monopoly in DC
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Alright, here's the deal. Buckminster Fuller was a genius, no doubt, but Grunch of Giants misses the bullseye. He talks about corporations as these evil giants running the world, but they don't actually make money out of thin air—banks do. Banks, especially central banks, literally create the cash that everyone else has to fight over. Corporations? They're just trying to survive in a system where banks set all the rules.
If Bucky had focused his firepower on banks—how they create money, control debt, and shape the entire economy—his argument would’ve been unstoppable. Instead, he lumped corporations into the blame, which muddles the real issue. Corporations can be greedy, sure, but they actually have to produce things to make money. Banks? They just lend out money they don’t even have, charge interest, and control everything from the top down.
Bucky was close, but he should’ve aimed higher—right at the banking system. That's the real "grunch" pulling the strings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah, like I said (seems it would get very messy)
We have something like 'worker co-ops' in the form of worker unions, but history has not been kind to collective work unions, particularly in terms of the long-term sustainability of their industries (e.g., auto workers).
Turns out, the expertise to make a car on the assembly line doesn't automatically transfer as expertise in maintaining a competitive advantage in the global market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I asked AI to come up with a workable utilitarian plan. This is what it came up with:
To radically change the system and eliminate the influence of lobbies that write laws against the public interest, we need to rethink the very structure of politics, governance, and economic power. One bold approach would be to implement direct democracy mechanisms, such as Citizen Initiated Legislation (CIL), allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws directly, bypassing traditional legislative bodies. This would diminish the power of lobbyists who often influence lawmakers behind closed doors. Additionally, instituting the power for citizens to recall elected officials at any time would ensure that lawmakers remain accountable and less susceptible to corporate influence. (this is something feasible in the digital age)
Another radical solution could involve the government itself becoming an active lobbyist. A publicly funded "People’s Lobby" could counteract corporate lobbying efforts and advocate for laws that protect public welfare, giving the public an equal voice in the legislative process. To further empower the people, crowdfunding platforms could be created to allow citizens and organizations to pool resources and support public-interest lobbying efforts, enabling them to compete with corporate power in influencing laws. (I kinda like this idea)
In a more technological direction, blockchain could be used to create a fully transparent legislative process. Blockchain’s immutable records could track every interaction in the legislative process, making all lobbying efforts visible to the public in real-time and holding lawmakers accountable instantly. Additionally, smart contracts could be employed to ensure that laws are automatically passed only if they have widespread citizen support, based on predefined public criteria, ensuring that corporate influence is minimized. (this is pretty awesome too)
One of the most radical proposals would be to overhaul the way legislators are selected. A randomly selected legislative body, or sortition system, would remove the influence of money in politics, as those chosen to serve would not owe their position to campaign donations or special interests. This could also be complemented by large national citizen assemblies that have direct decision-making power on major policies, sidestepping traditional legislative bodies and removing corporate sway over laws. (not too sure of this idea)
Further, we could abolish corporate personhood, overturning the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as individuals. This would prevent corporations from influencing politics through unlimited political donations and lobbying efforts. More extreme measures could include complete separation of business and politics, banning executives from political contributions, lobbying, or even appearing in political ads, ensuring that corporate interests are not intertwined with political power. (I like this)
To address economic power, implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would provide all citizens with financial security, lessening their dependence on corporations and making them less susceptible to corporate influence. Furthermore, creating a job guarantee program or automation dividends would reduce the leverage that employers have over workers, thus decreasing their ability to manipulate the political system. (don't like this, we saw what too much money chasing too few goods does)
Radical restructuring could also involve abolishing political parties altogether, shifting to individual platforms and ideas in elections, which would diminish the power of party donors and corporate backers. Compulsory voting and easier access to voting, such as online registration and voting, would ensure a more representative electorate, making it harder for lobbyists to influence laws. In terms of punishment for corruption, severe penalties for politicians found engaging in corrupt lobbying practices, such as life sentences, could serve as a powerful deterrent. (I don't think this will really address the problem much)
Finally, establishing new forms of economic democracy, such as worker cooperatives, would shift power away from concentrated corporate entities and into the hands of individuals and communities. This shift would reduce the disproportionate influence that large corporations hold in politics, as workers in cooperatives would have more control over both their economic conditions and the laws that govern them. Similarly, participatory budgeting could allow citizens to directly decide how public funds are spent, ensuring that financial resources are allocated according to public needs, not corporate interests. (this seems messy in practice)
These radical ideas propose a comprehensive transformation of the political and economic system, aiming to redistribute power from corporate interests to the public. By rethinking the structures of governance and economics, we can begin to dismantle the entrenched influence of lobbying and create a system that serves the people rather than the powerful few.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Like murdering the lobbyists that are rewriting the laws to favor them over everyone else? Ok I guess. That's one solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
How do we keep insurance lobbyists from rewriting the laws that allow them to ride free?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you have been around chickens, the males are fairly vicious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Donald Trump would never say that and you know it. Instead he would say "well we'll have to see if the justice system treats him fairly" by which he means 'if he's acquitted then it proves he's innocent, if he's convicted that proves it was a witch-hunt'.
That's the point. Trump is being honest where Biden was not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"fight or flight" is in all animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Have you seen the Hawk 2A insider trade scandal?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Sidewalker, stop giving the deep state more ideas how to oppress us. They don't need more allies.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would advise you to go visit Syria and introduce yourself to the rebels, but then I would be charged for negligent manslaughter.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Hold on so did the fbi backed operatives win or the CIA backed operatives?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Who are the Syrian rebels who have captured Damascus – explained in 30 seconds:
The rebels are led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, along with an umbrella group of Turkish-backed Syrian militias called the Syrian National Army
The rebels who have swept through Syria are led by Islamist alliance Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, along with an umbrella group of Turkish-backed Syrian militias called the Syrian National Army.
Both have been entrenched in the north-west. They launched the shock offensive on 27 November with gunmen capturing Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, and the central city of Hama, the fourth largest.
The founder of HTS, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, was once a participant in the Iraqi insurgency against the US as a member of the group that eventually became Islamic State.
In its former incarnation as Jabhat al-Nusra or the Al-Nusra front, HTS later declared allegiance to al-Qaida. It eventually publicly broke those ties in 2016 and rebranded as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, or Organization for the Liberation of the Levant.
It is designated as a terrorist group by the US and there are serious human rights concerns in the area it controls, including executions for those accused of affiliation with rival groups and over allegations of blasphemy, homosexuality and adultery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Key takeaways:
Destiny is:
1) Overly contrarian with no principles
2) Obnoxious
3) Repetitive and boring
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@ebuc
@WyIted
Make America Fat Again { Big Pharma }
RFK has entered the chat.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Mr Scientology did say the witness had rights.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Basically he is saying "if you want to know everything, you have to choose evil"
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
They didn't fix everything when Biden set up tariffs on China.
Deep state told you to ignore official Whitehouse documents.
Deep state told you to say "witch hunt" and "fake news" when presented with undisputable facts that could make you seem like a far-left radical cultist.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You know he was told to say yes to that question. Americans voted to free the grandmothers that Sidewalker crucified mercilessly.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, he is currently the president.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
They are already united now. Ty Joe!
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's why they re-elected him. To finish the job the deep state tried to stop.
They literally laughed and bragged about undermining him stopping him from ending the Ukraine crisis before it started. They howled in cheers about destroying his Abraham accords in Gaza. They bragged about defunding his wall and opening up the border and destroying the safety net for Americans. Who is laughing now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yep, JD gave up on symbols and caricatures and swapped to well-loved ideals like a smaller govt, world peace, and more freedom.
Created: