Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-08-2018, 02:35 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't reject science or education. I don't worship it. I don't view it as being the all mighty or a guiding force of mankind or morality. I don't view it as the governing body that has the power to dictate, determine the course of action and decides what gets eliminated or drastically changed and determines the means and determines the instruments that will be used to enforce its laws that get imposed to address issues relating to lives of people and all of  mankind either.

So, you can say what you want to say about reds based on limited knowledge or the limited knowledge that most blues today seem to have of the reds these days but when you do that you shouldn't be offended or upset when the majority of them reject you or your ignorant/arrogant view of them or the blues worldview. I find it funny that I have teach the blues about the values that the vast majority have that aren't for sale or negotiable. Right now, you're being painted as a nasty left wing party by a large group of US citizens who are most likely more powerful, more believable and more persuasive than any blue could ever hope to be or seem to be in real life. If greater Minnesota decides its time to show up, if blue collar Democratic Minnesota decides it time to return to the basics and opt to stay home or switch sides, you can kiss a couple of Democratic bitches who seems place more value on their vagina's, people with vagina's than they place on the use of their brains and other voters who are now judging them on their use of them good bye. The blues have a serious problem. The Democrat who are closely affiliated and financially attached to them have a serious problem too. I'm reddish as you say.

On values, I have a simple model.  One can place values in a series in order of priority, in order of precedence.  For example, I see my own values as scientific first, political second, and religious third.  Thus, while I hold Jefferson's self evident truths with high regard, they are political values which should properly be cross checked by science as best one can.  If an aspect of politics is conflict with what can be observed, then science trumps politics.

Now some people merrily draw pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur.  To someone whose scientific values are higher than their religious, this is absurd.  To someone whose religious values are of a certain type, believing the Bible is absolutely literally True more than they believe in science, it makes sorta sense.  A world view determines what is perceived as True.  Thus, if someone is into Jesus riding a dinosaur, I sort of give up on that person.  His values are religious over scientific.  I am able to communicate with that person poorly, and the conversation, if possible at all, depends on pretending for the moment that the religious values are true.

Now, not all reds are into Jesus riding a dinosaur, but some reds are.  In forming an opinion of reds, you cannot assume they are all evangelicals, but some are.  You cannot assume that all reds reject whole branches science, but some do.

There seems to be something to economic values.  If you put a person with strong economic values at monetary risk, it can effect what he perceives big time.  Now, if the threat of raising taxes effects how one perceives climatology, this becomes compatible to me to Jesus riding a dinosaur.  Do economic factors cause one to throw away a whole branch of science?

In general, among a red population, it often does.  Some reds seem to have higher economic values than scientific.  Most, even.  They place their pocketbook above what they can observe.

Now I do see a separation between science and government.  I agree with you there.  But if you are throwing away a whole branch of science because of strong economic values, you will find me and many blues getting upset.  Government should respect reality.  Many reds don't.

This is especially true with modern economic theory being so partisan.  A while ago, I watched Mike Alexander and Warren Dew attempt to communicate.  They failed, of course.  The basic premises of the conflicting schools of modern economics do not match reality, so they could not agree on basic premises.  This is part of why I am no economics person, do not even put economics on my list of prioritized values.  Scientific, political and religious values are there, but not economics.

But many people are into the unproven economics.  They value economics over science even though economics is currently garbage.  They will reject whole schools of science on the basis of this failed school of economics.

And, again, it is a chronic red problem.

Now this in my opinion does not mean everything red is automatically bad, that every idea presented by a red person should be rejected without listening, of giving it thought.  There are many good ideals to be preempted.  If you acknowledge them, incorporate them in your platform, you lessen the divide.  The blues have a lot to learn about doing this.  Red complaints that blues close their ears ring true.

But when you have Jesus riding a dinosaur, or you reject a whole branch of science, you have lost me.  Your values tree is so upside down and unlikely to change that communication becomes nigh on impossible.  I can understand, build a model, see why it is happening, sometimes respect it.  Agree with it, no.