This is why hate based politics is so dangerous, once it gets rolling it rapidly spins out of control.So true.
I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today.Care to offer examples?
United States was founded on classical liberalism, which is better known today as libertarianism.Please do define libertarianism for me. Everyone uses the term, but few explain what they actually mean with it. I ask because I'll be honest with you, to me today's "libertarians" are fantasists who think they can ignore time and pretend we still live in vast wilderness, rather than on an over-crowded, abused, hell molested and depleted planet Earth that we depend on for everything.
Modern progressive politics would be alien to the founding fathers.Here again, can you be a little more specific, perhaps offer some examples? To me Ayn Rand is the poster child libertarianism. Would you agree?
You won’t get a straight answer from a troll, no matter what is presented he’ll just pervert it for his trollish purposes.
For their day the men and women that created the United States of America were the most progressive of people and created a Constitution that reflected that. It was intentionally created to be flexible and more importantly could be modified to reflect the latest understanding of the world as held by Americans.
This is exact why there are Amendments, America itself is an expression of liberalism and progressiveness, it is those who keep trying regress the USA back into some fantasy “perfect” past who are running entirely counter to the intent of the people who fought and often died to create a land based on freedom and equality.
This is what the founding document says.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
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.It says nothing about how individuals would go about finding that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because in defining it based on one individual's or group's idea of that you would in fact be imposing a tyranny.
thread rellyPost hoc ergo propter hoc. Yes, his leaps of logic are amazing... too bad they're off a cliff into an intellectual abyss.:-P
After detailing the almost 2,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has aimed at us, some in the Megatonne range all delivered by advanced systems that are about to be added to with the most advanced ICBM in history that is effectively unstoppable and protected by the most advanced SAM system on Earth the S-500, webplodder’s response was;
There is no credible Russian military threat to the USA and never will be so you need to relax.There's something very stilted and oldworldy about the mindset of this poster... not to mention the highly deceptive nature of his posts in the interests of Putin who is in charge of one the world's most capable strategic weapons systems. My guess is this is just one more paid Kremlin troll, he seems about as American as Joseph Stalin.
That's not very nice. Anyway, data should never be pre-judged, that is the point I was making. We have to evaluate it in terms of how much good or otherwise it is telling us it is showing.But you don't evaluate it all. You treat everything like it's still 1955 and all the stereotypes from then are true.
The transgender issue would be completely crazy to them, as would things like gay marriage. I would imagine they'd see this stuff as resulting from decadence.Modern progressive politics would be alien to the founding fathers.Here again, can you be a little more specific, perhaps offer some examples?
To me Ayn Rand is the poster child libertarianism. Would you agree?For older libertarians, yeah probably. I don't know if Rand is that popular with younger libertarians - her 15 minutes of fame was a long time ago. There are some economists libertarians seem to idolize (I can't think of their names right now) that could also qualify as libertarian poster children. *I fixed the tags that had webplodder's and my name mixed up.
United States was founded on classical liberalism, which is better known today as libertarianism.Please do define libertarianism for me. Everyone uses the term, but few explain what they actually mean with it. I ask because I'll be honest with you, to me today's "libertarians" are fantasists who think they can ignore time and pretend we still live in vast wilderness, rather than on an over-crowded, abused, hell molested and depleted planet Earth that we depend on for everything.From Wikipedia's entry:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership.[2][3][4][5][6] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism An associate of mine describes libertarians as "liberals who hate taxes". I like that description. As for being fantasists - they definitely are. Libertarians are wrong in thinking: 1)that freedom is the ultimate value 2)that humans are rational, fair actors. 3)the individual is the building block of society This is controversial, but I suspect libertarians think this way because they might be autistic. They seem to have the autistic traits of being unable to understand social interaction, and seem glued to an extremely rigid style of thinking. *Fixed tags
This is why hate based politics is so dangerous, once it gets rolling it rapidly spins out of control.So true.
I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today.Care to offer examples? First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society? As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn't much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society, and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair. It wasn't perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of 'accepting one's lot' in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable.
United States was founded on classical liberalism, which is better known today as libertarianism.Please do define libertarianism for me. Everyone uses the term, but few explain what they actually mean with it. I ask because I'll be honest with you, to me today's "libertarians" are fantasists who think they can ignore time and pretend we still live in vast wilderness, rather than on an over-crowded, abused, hell molested and depleted planet Earth that we depend on for everything.
Modern progressive politics would be alien to the founding fathers.Here again, can you be a little more specific, perhaps offer some examples? To me Ayn Rand is the poster child libertarianism. Would you agree? Er.....I don't think that was me.
After detailing the almost 2,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has aimed at us, some in the Megatonne range all delivered by advanced systems that are about to be added to with the most advanced ICBM in history that is effectively unstoppable and protected by the most advanced SAM system on Earth the S-500, webplodder's response was;This is such a hilarious post it cheered me up! And if you are in any way serious then I would advise a course of counseling.There is no credible Russian military threat to the USA and never will be so you need to relax.There's something very stilted and oldworldy about the mindset of this poster... not to mention the highly deceptive nature of his posts in the interests of Putin who is in charge of one the world's most capable strategic weapons systems. My guess is this is just one more paid Kremlin troll, he seems about as American as Joseph Stalin.
That's not very nice. Anyway, data should never be pre-judged, that is the point I was making. We have to evaluate it in terms of how much good or otherwise it is telling us it is showing.But you don't evaluate it all. You treat everything like it's still 1955 and all the stereotypes from then are true. Why do many people who seek to support their world view often refer to the date? What has the year we live in got to do with anything? The important thing to consider is whether a particular lifestyle if beneficial to follow or not, regardless of what the calendar says. I suppose the implication is that we should automatically look for something new and different from what has happened in the past, just to be anti-establishment. Student politics, in other words.
That's not very nice. Anyway, data should never be pre-judged, that is the point I was making. We have to evaluate it in terms of how much good or otherwise it is telling us it is showing.But you don't evaluate it all. You treat everything like it's still 1955 and all the stereotypes from then are true. Why do many people who seek to support their world view often refer to the date? What has the year we live in got to do with anything? The important thing to consider is whether a particular lifestyle if beneficial to follow or not, regardless of what the calendar says. I suppose the implication is that we should automatically look for something new and different from what has happened in the past, just to be anti-establishment. Student politics, in other words. The date matters in this case because we know things now that we didn't know then.
As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn't much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society,Pretty strange thing to say about people who were willing to die to create a whole new country with roles that were very different from the one they left. Besides that, the argument here is about who is confused. People are not "confused" about their gender identity, they are aware that traditional values do not recognize what is going on with their biology. In other words, you're confused webplodder.
and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair.Again, who determines what is questionable. To me, it's questionable to not listen to people about how they feel. When we did that, and started applying science to it, we found that the old standards or male and female did not apply to everyone. It may be only 10 or 15 percent that have any issues and even less that might be helped by drastic measures like surgery, but it's all real. It doesn't "lead to" anything, it's just true that gender is a mix of biology, genetics, chemistry and other things. Look it up already. I keep saying that and you haven't done it AFAICT.
It wasn't perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of 'accepting one's lot' in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable.Well, that pretty well exposes you as someone who just can't deal with new information. By what standard was the world better 250 years ago, or whatever standard you want to pick? There is no point in time that doesn't have both a lot wrong with it and some great things about it. I see nothing better about telling someone to just accept their 'lot'.
That's not very nice. Anyway, data should never be pre-judged, that is the point I was making. We have to evaluate it in terms of how much good or otherwise it is telling us it is showing.But you don't evaluate it all. You treat everything like it's still 1955 and all the stereotypes from then are true. Why do many people who seek to support their world view often refer to the date? What has the year we live in got to do with anything? The important thing to consider is whether a particular lifestyle if beneficial to follow or not, regardless of what the calendar says. I suppose the implication is that we should automatically look for something new and different from what has happened in the past, just to be anti-establishment. Student politics, in other words. The date matters in this case because we know things now that we didn't know then. We also have inconsistent psychological theories about human behavior which are still highly controversial and lacking any hard scientific evidence to back them up. Freud, Jung, the behaviorists - just mixed and match and you will be sure to find the right theory that's suits. All we really know is that human beings are complicated and apt to behave in ways that are a response to the contemporary setting they find themselves in. You should never underestimate the role of social pressures in trying to analyze why somebody behaves the way they do.
As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn't much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society,Pretty strange thing to say about people who were willing to die to create a whole new country with roles that were very different from the one they left. Besides that, the argument here is about who is confused. People are not "confused" about their gender identity, they are aware that traditional values do not recognize what is going on with their biology. In other words, you're confused webplodder.
and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair.Again, who determines what is questionable. To me, it's questionable to not listen to people about how they feel. When we did that, and started applying science to it, we found that the old standards or male and female did not apply to everyone. It may be only 10 or 15 percent that have any issues and even less that might be helped by drastic measures like surgery, but it's all real. It doesn't "lead to" anything, it's just true that gender is a mix of biology, genetics, chemistry and other things. Look it up already. I keep saying that and you haven't done it AFAICT.
It wasn't perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of 'accepting one's lot' in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable.Well, that pretty well exposes you as someone who just can't deal with new information. By what standard was the world better 250 years ago, or whatever standard you want to pick? There is no point in time that doesn't have both a lot wrong with it and some great things about it. I see nothing better about telling someone to just accept their 'lot'. Gender has never been a clear-cut concept on the psychological level, you are correct to say that, but just because people are a mixture of male and female traits does not mean an individual has to undergo surgery in order to "validate" themselves. In the past it was simply accepted that some men were as capable, if not more so, of showing sensitivity and empathy towards others but there did not seem any need for taking any medical steps in order to change someone's biological identity. This has, in my opinion, been a modern phenomenon created mainly by the feminist movement who seek to eradicate any perceived differences between the sexes. This is probably driven by a need to diminish and eventually destroy any power inequalities felt by women who have adopted a victimhood attitude and who seek to get back at men for perceived past injustices. Men and women are equal but there is a tendency for some traits and abilities to be distributed unequally among the sexes. Some women are a lot smarter than most men and some men are a lot more sensitive than most women but this is to be expected where one's genetic heritage is determined by a random mixture of genetic material. However, the general pattern makes a clear distinction over certain characteristics between the abilities of the sexes. You would not expect female athletes to directly compete against male athletes, would you? It is not a question of who is better but a question of how the strengths of both sexes can be used in combination to make the world a better place.
This is why hate based politics is so dangerous, once it gets rolling it rapidly spins out of control.So true.
I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today.Care to offer examples? First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society? As to why the founding fathers would be appalled by what is going on today, well, in their time there wasn't much, if any, confusion about what your role was in the prevailing society, and yes, granted that the restrictions on how you behaved then were much more strictly observed than is the case today, but, nevertheless, there were clearly defined boundaries which discouraged questionable experimentations that can lead to psychological confusion and despair. It wasn't perfect, but then what is, but at least in such a clearly defined social arrangement there is stability and the process of 'accepting one's lot' in life. Human beings are fundamentally simple animals and require a traditional type of milieu within which to function to the best of their ability. Modern ideas are all very interesting but I often wonder whether we allow ourselves to be swept away by new concepts which, although exciting, are not really tenable. Such as pure unrestricted Capitalism, which creates a completely unbalanced economic environment where 1% has 90% of the "shared wealth" and the other 99% has 10% of the shared wealth from commonly owned natural resources which drive the total economy. Frackers can now drill underneath your property without having to pay any compensation for the oil or gas or even the trespassing on your property which you have paid for and actually own.
An associate of mine describes libertarians as "liberals who hate taxes". I like that description.So that's sounding to me like libertarians are just like hippies who like a free ride? ... and don't worry too much about who's picking up the tab for them. Am I misinterpreting?
,
Care to offer examples?author "webplodder" -1498074652--- I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today. First of all, why do people who deride others who do not concur with their world view concerning sexuality always portray them as beings haters? Isn't it possible to express a view on moral grounds that does not involve hate but, more pertinently, a rational view of society?