Lemming

@#37

I am unsure if I agree with a 'mandatory minimum wage, it's a question I haven't looked or thought deeply about before.

I'm of the opinion that America ought not have been settled at all, given it already had inhabitants,

But, some of my ancestors 'did settle, were among the first, some traveled across the length of America to Oregon, and 'again, were among the first,

So here I am, with ancestry of a people triumphant, born to a share of their achievements, given liberty, rights, and citizenship.

Might also have ancestry of people defeated, but family trees 'do branch out 'extensively. . .

Hm, tangent,

Anyway, I don't view it as selfish, I view it as reasonable concern of one's self and clans affairs, sovereignty, culture, continuance.

Your argument is like some fellow complaining that I got into a taxi before him, though I've been waiting on the corner longer.

. . .

'If a nation 'chooses to give sanctuary,

Then a commitment ought be carried out with honor.

Guests deserve more than to be chained up in the backyard, is my view.

If a nation 'accepts refugees, makes a resolution to accept and welcome them to safety, sanctuary,

Then I'd agree they ought have decent living conditions, decent attention, respect, welcome.

Bah, the Left wants to import the poorest of the poor to work for dog food.

(Not really, but it's how I feel about their position)

Bringing poor people to work the minimum wage jobs forever, 'won't work,

Eventually we will reach a limit on our population,

Nor should we encourage the 'existence of minimum wage jobs,

If there weren't more people willing to work for the minimum, then profits might be better divided between the workers and the owners.

. . .

Whether it was an illegal immigrant caravan from Britain or Venezuela,

I would 'want people's backgrounds checked,

I would want our right to secure borders not violated.

. . .

There's 'always been war, poor, hungry in the 'world,

The Left can volunteer at a soup kitchen, or donate their money to the less fortunate if they like,

Why must I be dragged into other's crusades?

That could be a more humane method, than randomly sending them without any choice of their own, or knowledge of where they're going.

Though that part of my post was more of my musing on 'legal residents of cities and states.

@IwantRooseveltagain

I 'do think it's a bit in bad taste, myself,

But is illegal immigration something to be 'encouraged?

Seems to me that such 'is the Lefts position.

Trump flubbed the border a fair bit, separating families, poor living conditions, 'but, a secure border 'is something I think 'should be valued.

@oromagi

I can only guess why he used immigrants from Texas, rather than Florida,

Perhaps he was in contact with some Texas politician, who suggested such as a political move, and it was convenient.

I suppose one 'might argue the funds were misused as they were in Texas rather than Florida,

I don't know how much he spent on the tickets though.

. . .

Flying, bussing, unwanted individuals out of cities, states is not a new action,

People in locations seem to consider it at times, worth the cost of a ticket.

@NoOneInParticular

Being of one mind, cooperation, shared ideals, identifiable,

Seems to me necessary for a group,

Such is easy in a family, a neighborhood, a village,

Or 'ought be,

But seems to me people have 'lost that identity,

Now as travel is so easy, as values, autonomy, loyalty, has bled into one another and lost meaning.

Instead we have this idea of belonging to a 'nation, and it is vast, 'vast.

Individuals, groups, unable to speak for their 'identity, sovereignty, responsibilities,

There's value in moving between locations easy,

But what 'value is their in the locations identity or claims?

Just rambling.

I wonder what limits, attributes might have,

Take flexibility, once you can bend you joints 'every which way, how can you be any more flexible?

Well, I suppose next one could bend their bones, but octopus level flexibility, how can you be much more flexible?

. . .

I suppose the thought pops to my mind due to fiction,

Fantasy martial arts and cultivation for example,

Where's the ceiling?

Why can't 'everyone achieve?

Special bodies or ingredients I suppose,

Ah, but the illusion of importance, security,

Rambling.

What's the limit to willpower?

Flexibility can have an assumed limit, what about willpower?

I wonder if I could stock shelves from home using a remote controlled robot. . .

I do like the Norman Rockwell portrait of Nixon better than the portrait of Nixon by James Anthony Wills.

James Anthony Wills, hair looks too square, eyes don't look right, really the whole face feels a bit off somehow, too much yellow in background, though the artist signature isn't as obtrusive as Norman Rockwell's.

Norman Rockwell's just look more human to me, real, or has 'character of how I think of Nixon.

Richard M. Nixon - White House Historical Association (whitehousehistory.org) James Anthony Wills

https://ids.si.edu/ids/media_view?id=NPG-NPG_72_2Nixon-000001&container.fullpage&iframe=true&width=85%25&height=85%25 Norman Rockwell

@Avery

People certain of their beliefs, act convinced in strong footing, perhaps.

Though even Atheists can have conviction in certain Objective Moral Statements.

I disagree that the function of continued existence is 'Morality,

Though I'd agree that it's often a consideration of people,

I'm doubtful about the Catholic Church suggestion,

Though I'd be willing to look at suggested source,

Not that nature isn't a component of an individual or people,

But Japan no longer has internal wars,

Is unification, shared moral values, tolerance, concern of humans, not a reason?

There is more food in world than past,

More explanations of events, weather, disease, rather than blame the unknown.

@NoOneInParticular

Though perhaps a person or society could exist 'without such,

Though I view myself as a nihilist,

Well, I wake, eat, interact, experience outrage,

'Idea of nihilism, does not overcome habit and genetics,

No error, error, does not compute,

No strings cut, unmoving,

Kimchi

I sometimes wonder what criminals philosophize about, conclusions that they reach, logic that they use.

Also they talked a bit about destroying others, so that's where my mind went for them.

Rocking Lady

Conquer Focused

By entropy, you mean death, erosion, decay, energy cooling?

A-R-O-S-E,

ARO

Arrow

SE

South East

Southeast Arrow.

If one supposes one of the goals of a group is survival/continued tradition, tribalism works pretty well I'd think,

Though being maniacal about it, tends to get one hated, and attacked,

Like the Sawney Bean Clan of myth, or the Nazis of history,

. . .

I wonder if one would say Alexander the Great practiced tribalism or the opposite of it,

Relinquishing one's own customs in favor of others isn't very tribalistic,

But recognizing other's appreciation of their own, and encouraging it, makes 'use of people's tribalism.

. . .

I really don't see how one could 'cut out tribalism myself, as Avery suggests in another thread. . .

Then again, they mentioned they meant genetics,

So maybe one could alter humans to 'like all/most forms Freefall 02540 August 22, 2014 (purrsia.com).

And even human individuality, self interest, ability to 'act in ways that harm other humans, could be removed/altered maybe,

Reminds me of Serenity movie, "A world without sin"

Though maybe one can argue such was a failed attempt, or not what they meant.

. . .

Remove one's loyalty to groups, self interest 'still has one suppose groups if they serve one's own interest, just not out of loyalty to the group anymore.

Remove the ability to act to harm others, well different morality still exists, individual see's another's help as harm, while the other see's first guy's help as harm,

They're not acting against the other,

Not trying to harm them, they 'have to act thus, since it is 'helpful,

Even though the other see's it as harm.

Eh, my esteem when I chose the profile picture, and now about it, are both rather high,

I was disappointed that DDO went the way it did,

Even with the picture, the truth of my humanity exists.

Also not so much a dehumanized picture of 'myself, as a character from a video game.

That the profile picture doesn't look human, doesn't matter.

Your's is currently various pink and white geometric shapes,

Of course we both know we are not those profile pictures, but instead humans operating electronic devices.

Well, I'm still human.

I wonder if there is a difference between these two questions,

What is the purpose of a person?

What is the purpose of a people?

Of course people might give 'many different answers,

But the questions pops to my mind as I think on people who want to improve humans, human society.

And this bothers me 'greatly, though that's another discussion.

Not everyone's desires are the same, but that's a different discussion.

Well, there's 'less tribalism than in the past, I would think?

 Of the murder murder stab stab, bit I mean.

Not that conflict is 'all gone,

Or that people don't still form groups and work against other groups,

. . .

When you say tribalistic fighting, do you mean,

Groups fighting other groups over values?

Or groups fighting other groups because another group exists?

I wouldn't 'think groups fight 'just because another exists,

. . .

Just an additional thought,

Would you say you want to remove aggression towards other people,

Modifying the brain so one cannot act against other people?

Wouldn't it be good if there was no war, kind of thought?

Eh, shouldn't people have a say in what types of books are in their schools and community public libraries?

"books that reflect poorly on Americas past. Slavery, homosexuality, LGBT, civil war. etc" - Shila #20

Is a bit 'vague, as I've not researched the topic, I can only assume it's possible that books that people consider propaganda are being banned,

Though it's also possible they're banning books that are 'simply history.

I don't know, free enterprise, government enterprise, laziness, hard work, more cost efficient, easier to buy or trade instead of make ourselves? (I'm guessing as I don't know the details)

No, I mean they happen to be where 'some of the chip companies are, or 'some want to build their factories.

For the Chips Act, isn't it more that some red states 'happen to be in the right location, rather than anyone particularly trying to help the states?

I'd figure Chips Act is more an 'attempt to prevent the USA from losing out, if foreign chip makers are compromised?

I don't think most Republicans or Democrat, would say the other side has 'never done anything to help them,

But ideas and values 'still opposed,

I don't see 'much reason for someone to support into office an individual that one expects to put into being values and goals that one doesn't hold.

I've been having a hard time with the concept of morality, for about the last 10 years,

Not that conventionally I've 'done anything particularly bad,

But it leaves 'me a bit groundless, in saying one tribes values are better or worse than another's,

Though practically speaking, I still have preferences, strong feelings of oughts.

I 'do think it a human/person positive idea, to want to reduce tribalism, and knee jerk fight instinct against the other.

I don't currently find myself able to agree it's objectively 'better though,

If a person values their tribe over other tribes, well, that's their value, above humanity.

Reparations 'right near after emancipation bother me less than the idea of reparations 'now,

For something my Great Great Great Grandfathers might not have done (I don't know all my ancestors)

Or helping 'all members of society on the down and out, though that sounds a bit like Communism to me, or maybe religion, increased government taxation.

. . .

I wonder if people hadn't gone for race based and born to slavery, slavery, if slavery would still be around,

Maybe not, disappeared in plenty of other places.

That 'is the thought I was getting at, though you put it better, 

Still,

Even for lifesaving and vital needs,

If a community doesn't want X group, and thus refuses them access to vitals and such. . .

Isn't it the same logic we use to refuse illegal immigrants?

Sovereignty and self rule is taken away from a community,

Though really, someone being born and raised in a location, even as a slave, seems to me gives them an obvious right to consider said land their home, especially after freedom, when situation starts to look better.

Odd in a way, the idea of more than one nation, yet the same borders,

The whites who didn't consider blacks citizens I mean, after emancipation.

I'm rambling a bit,

. . .

'Does seem bit forceful and coercion,

Ah, what's that thing called where rich people move into a neighborhood, ah, gentrification,

Gentrification isn't illegal I think,

But in it's raising of prices, acts in a similar manner as people refusing gas,

Whether an individual is X group, or lacks $20 bucks, they aren't able to purchase.

Money knows no race or creed one might say,

But why not a possessor of money be a group in themself?

When sadolite is out of food in the house, then goes to a restaurant, 'then goes to the store,

Is this so that he doesn't buy unnecessary food, as people sometimes do when hungry,

Or simply because he wants his hunger sated sooner, rather than later?

To shop on a full stomach, or just to get rid of the hunger, sooner rather than later?

Being at the back of the bus, was enough of a violation of their self esteem, that African Americans boycotted, marched, demonstrated, protested,

Also people of other races, but 'mostly blacks, I assume.

Though that's a case of the people involved having enough numbers, importance, and means to force society to accept their demands of equal treatment.

Rather than protected groups in America who don't have the means themselves.

. . .

Where was I going with this. . .

I don't remember, I was going to make a point about self esteem then follow it up, but I forget.

. . 

Still, ignoring self esteem and trivial purchases like cakes, video games,

Private businesses 'are a bit public, social,

Though that's only because they're open to the public at large I suppose. .

But there 'are more vital businesses, such as food.

Also matter of pay,

If a country were to allow private business to reject a group, and they did en masse,

It'd be hard for  that group to grow, in size or financial situation, elected office.

Though again I come to the thought, well if a community doesn't want X, must it be forced to accept X?

Well, I don't even need use a 'supposed law, I suppose,

As I'm pretty sure America already has it.

I do remember a number of years back being bothered a bit, by the gay cake situation,

Not that I was upset that gays were being backed by the law to be able to purchase cake,

But I 'do like individual and group autonomy to decide their own way, a fair bit.

It got me thinking on the argument about how can people be expected to live at all, or as a normal citizen,

If all or even X many private businesses refused service to X individual or group.

I don't remember if I thought, ah yes case closed,

Or just stopped thinking about it, but I did find the argument compelling.

Though as I talk with you now,

The thought comes up to me, well obviously the people of that location don't want X person or group around, why ought they be forced to accommodate?

Because enough of the supposed society doesn't like exclusion, in some cases.

Why though,

Hm. . .

Well, the people 'excluded, certainly don't appreciate being 2nd class citizens, I'd think.

But even the people outside the group excluded, often join in their cause,

As they don't think it's right for another human to be treated such, fellow citizen, fellow soldier in war,

. . .

Though that'd address 'public services, not necessarily 'private services, I'd suppose,

Though 'public is a bit vague,

Private communities existing,

. . .

Hm, other than it being wrong, according to the morals of the people saying groups cannot be excluded, a reason doesn't occur to me.

. . 

Well, this makes me happy, as I think it likely I'm missing something,

So is a reason for me to Google history some,

Though also possible someone else posts why before I read why myself, if there is a reason other than the one I suggested.

Well, eventually maybe.

True the KKK 'really lost power in America over time.

. . .

There 'are a lot of laws that enforce tribalism, I'd figure,

Might be even Americans don't mind tribalism much so long as it's vague, or acting against groups or customs we don't like.

Ah, I might have misunderstood you,

I thought you meant an example of law that 'prevents individuals or groups from excluding others.

Though there 'are also laws in the past and present that exclude others.

. . .

The no shirt, no shoes, no service,

Would be more of an issue, the more individuals existed whose religious belief required they not wear shoes,

'One person of different constitution, belief, or action, being disbarred

Doesn't 'tend to be enough to upset current society.

. . .

Still, I'd say the law is more a 'gray area, in refusing people, than strict.

I don't know,

I assume such laws already exist in a number of countries, that prevent a location, city, county, state, so on from denying individuals or groups based on what they are, believe, or practice.

Then again, some laws exist that 'do prevent certain groups from locations, like child predators and schools,

But that's a bit of an oddball group,

Not a group one would consider normal,

Such as an individual of X race, or X standard religion, X fandom.

I suppose I'd word the law as,

X is not allowed to prevent entry, service, or participation of individuals or groups based on what they are, believe, or practice.

Though 'depends on which country I suppose,

A country where it's a group effort, and everyone owns a share,

Where everyone's will and wants matters,

The country 'has to do what the people want,

Ought not be led astray by a minority of elected decision makers or leader,

To enter a war, or help anyone against their own citizens wishes (Depending on percent of vote)

In a dictatorship led by a self lover though,

Well, whole point of the country is to do everything it can for that leader.

Some countries monarchies though, have had noblesse obliges,

Duty of rulers to help the people, not just treat them well like a apple tree you treat well to harvest apples from,

But because of duty.

I suppose one could make laws that don't allow such, though that's a bit heavy handed,

Less heavy handed would be as Deb-8-a-bull says, talk with them.

Could also wait for them to die, then after or before, influence their children.

. . .

The thought 'did occur to me once, that an effective method for groups that want to grow their influence and lessen the influence of others,

'Might be to self segregate, not allow other groups into their heartlands, then attempt to have lots of kids, indoctrinate their kids with their beliefs.

Fair point,

Money always going somewhere, even if savings.

My income and savings then, are not yet to an extent where I want to add regular dining at restaurants,

And I don't want to trade any of my current expenses for restaurants either.

@#38

I 'would like the "exactly" post, but I can't quite remember what was on my mind when I said that identified ends thing,

It was actually bothering me a bit at work, as I thought on this topic some,

While I think nihilism is true, I often find it unhelpful in practical conversations.

Probably my mind wandered from the starting point of the pros and cons of tribalism.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Though, after thinking about it for a minute after posting,

I don't think it'd be too hard for a society to implement removal of children from their parents, to be raised by society at large,

That was advocated in Plato's Republic, I'm pretty sure.

And argument of people's 'actions mattering more than genetics is often reasonable,

As such thoughts work towards removing 'genetic tribal behavior,

As humans are still more similar to each other in thought and action than other animals,

That their tribal focus would place there instead.

. . .

'Still tribal behavior I'd argue, even if people placed a greater importance on ideas/culture/action than genetics.

I don't view tribalism objectively as positive or negative.

Though subjectively I don't deny I feel it, depending on what tribe one is talking about.

. . .

Maybe forum would have been better called Transhumanism leading to a post-racial world,

Though I think race is vague at times.

It just doesn't interest me from bits I've heard about it, and pictures I've seen of it.

Other people can enjoy it if they want, lot of people seemed to enjoy baby Yoda and Disney Jango Fett,

But I just don't want to try it or Rings of Power,

Maybe someday I'll watch and think wow was I wrong, but not today.

I'm not really bothered by the tribalism I feel,

Though what I 'do feel is usually muted by my preference of myself above the various tribes I could be said to belong to.

Hm, what is tribalism?

How can one really 'avoid loyalty to one's ideals, one's values?

I suppose it might be increased or decreased,

But to cease altogether, seems a bit much.

. . .

Hm, I see in your post you mention people turning to ideas rather than race,

So you 'specifically mean genetic tribalism I suppose,

I think myself that quite a number of people already think more of ideas and 'personhood, more than genetics,

Not saying I approve or disapprove,

Nor am I saying genetic tribalism does not still exist heartily.

If I had more time and money, I think I'd eat at restaurants more,

Nice places, views, different foods,

But current time, I prefer lazing about at home,

And don't have such an excess of money yet in life,

Though not all restaurants are expensive, I'd suppose.