07-08-2020, 12:58 AM
(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness. You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness. It shows you lie and do not listen.Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise. You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?
Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.
Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen. Why should I expect you to start now? You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change. I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology. I’d have as good a chance at success.
Fourth…. That is the debatable one. I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one. The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system. The partisan does not change his system. He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective. He deals with a partial reality, if that.
For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order. No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together. I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response. On the other hand, you still haven’t.
Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part. In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you. But you do not listen even to agreement.
And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law. The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it. It applies to the KKK and Nazi. (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)
Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.
I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction. You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police. You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with. If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.
If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity. It is just not my style.