We Need Militant Nationalism

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2017, 02:54 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 12:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 07:01 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 07:29 AM)radind Wrote: The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

-- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

Welcome back Marypoza.

Trump's citizen army was specifically encouraged to be violent. Now he has the whole government and the Supreme Court to do his oppressive bidding against the protesters and the media he hates. There's "Chee-II-nah" for ya.

However, much of the violence is coming from the Progressive side.

There's enough violence on all sides to go around.

Some broken windows at a university or on inauguration day does not compare well to police shooting or strangling unarmed black people for no reason, however. Regressive violence seems to have the backing of the government and candidates, or soon will have.

[radind]

(07-06-2017, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 02:54 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 12:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 07:01 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 07:29 AM)radind Wrote: The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

-- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

Welcome back Marypoza.

Trump's citizen army was specifically encouraged to be violent. Now he has the whole government and the Supreme Court to do his oppressive bidding against the protesters and the media he hates. There's "Chee-II-nah" for ya.

However, much of the violence is coming from the Progressive side.

There's enough violence on all sides to go around.

Some broken windows at a university or on inauguration day does not compare well to police shooting or strangling unarmed black people for no reason, however. Regressive violence seems to have the backing of the government and candidates, or soon will have.

How about shooting Congressmen?

[Eric the Green]

Or congressmen knocking out reporters, and getting elected anyway? Or fanatic racists shooting passengers on trains?

Enough to go around.

welcome back, radind.

[radind]

(07-06-2017, 03:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Or congressmen knocking out reporters, and getting elected anyway? Or fanatic racists shooting passengers on trains?

Enough to go around.

welcome back, radind.

There is more than enough to go around. Time to stop all calls for violence and crack down down on those performing violent acts.
We need more peacemakers.

[Marypoza]

(07-06-2017, 03:31 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 02:54 PM)radind Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 12:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 07:01 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

Welcome back Marypoza.

Trump's citizen army was specifically encouraged to be violent. Now he has the whole government and the Supreme Court to do his oppressive bidding against the protesters and the media he hates. There's "Chee-II-nah" for ya.

However, much of the violence is coming from the Progressive side.

There's enough violence on all sides to go around.

Some broken windows at a university or on inauguration day does not compare well to police shooting or strangling unarmed black people for no reason, however. Regressive violence seems to have the backing of the government and candidates, or soon will have.

How about shooting Congressmen?

--- that was just 1 person. I thought that was pretty ironic- a homophobic gun nut eating lead. Wonder if he feels the same way about guns now?

I'm more concerned with the cops  & their almost daily acts of violence upon ppl

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 12:05 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 10:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:14 AM)Galen Wrote: The libtards can't handle this concept.  It interferes with their concept of omnipotent government.  Their religion is statism and the state is their god.

You can find better examples of both positive and negative rights in the Four Freedoms.  Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are traditional negative rights, limiting the power of the government and guaranteeing that nobody can take certain things away.  They represent a larger set of traditional negative rights.  However, that leaves Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want.  These aren't in the Constitution and are only hinted at in the Declaration of Independence, but can stand as good examples of positive progressive rights.

To my mind, Freedom from Want doesn't imply economic equality.  It says nothing about the super rich not becoming super richer.  However, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25, it suggests a minimum floor level that assures a reasonable right to such things as food, shelter, clothing, medical care and retirement.  I'd strive to achieve this more through an inclusive economy rather than welfare or dole.  I don't want to pay taxes for welfare or a dole either.  Minimize that.  However, being able to find a job with a living wage is a healthy alternative to welfare.

With technology eliminating many jobs, it is becoming harder to sustain an inclusive economy.  This is likely to become worse as other economic sectors collapse.  Basic numbers such as hours per week and age of retirement will have to be looked at hard.  Both were being adjusted freely through the New Deal era, but the 40 hour work week and retirement at 65 numbers have become such a tradition that thinking of changing them is hard.  If an inclusive economy is combined with the new technology, at some point some folk will have to open their minds.

Nor is Freedom from Want unrelated to Freedom from Fear.  You can see Freedom from Want as a key element of the Cold War, or at the bottom of much of the Middle East instability.  Extreme want leads to political instability.  Governments should definitely care about their own people.  I'm not as thrilled with meddling abroad, notably with force.  One often does more harm than good.  However, having most of any population have a decent path to a healthy and sustainable life style takes a lot of tension out of a region.

But for this progressive, the notion of the government as a god is repugnant.  The government is not a goal in itself.  It is a tool to help the People.  As such, keeping its powers limited and focused on the welfare of the People is necessary and prudent.  There is a place for both positive and negative rights in achieving such goals.

And I definitely do not want to see government as a tool to aid and abet the wealthy.  This is a natural trend.  Those with power and wealth will seek influence in government to achieve more power and wealth.  It is nigh on inevitable, but a trend that should be fought with firmness.

I also see Freedom from Want and Article 25 as in opposition to tribal morality.  As long as one and one's group is free from want and getting freer all the time, tribal morality will suggest the heck with everybody else.  I see such "I've got mine, up yours" thinking as destabilizing.

I can't say these thoughts are central to every progressive, but the notion of progressives seeking power for power's sake sounds to me like a conservative straw man.  If an extreme partisan wishes to discredit extreme partisans of the opposite spin, he will embrace and often believe libel falsehood that makes the other group look bad but is far from truth.

Your take on progressivism is a great starting point for a constructive Right - Left conversation similar to ones we had during the past 1T.

All of these pathetic idiots stuck in the 3T are really, really going to hate the coming Regeneracy and 1T. They are going to be considered dunces and will be sent to the proverbial back corner of the class.

I’d like to hold a constructive Right - Left conversation, but attempts at it have failed.  Above, I have attempted to project a positive summary of a progressive agenda in response to a negative straw man of it.  I have also attempted a solid portrayal of the conservative agenda, aware that I’m likely not the best person to portray the Conservative Plan in the best positive light.  I suppose I might try again.

What I call the unraveling memes seem core ideas.  These ideas are often associated with Reagan.  While others may have originated or championed the ideas, they settled the unraveling in place and many conservatives are still either trying to make the agenda work or riding the agenda to a place of power.  To my mind, these ideas are past their time, if they ever had a time.

• Borrow and spend
  
• trickle down
  
• spend on the military
  
• cut domestic programs
  
• the government is the problem.
  

Perhaps not quite connected is the concept of tribal morality.  If a group has what it needs and wants, great, there is no need to be concerned with other groups.  You see this clearest in the medical debate, "I've got mine, up yours", but the idea's shadow falls anywhere white protestants are trying to maintain their traditional prerogatives and privileges.  Tribal thinking, I’ve got mine, up yours, is perhaps a common universal pattern, is perhaps universal, is perhaps inevitable.  It is also considered by many to be anathema.  I would admit that tribal thinking exists, then assert we are mostly Americans, all humans.  Practicing narrow versions of tribal thinking would be a character flaw to be struggled against, not an excuse for oppression and perceived superiority.

This narrow tribal thinking is apt to run afoul of the positive progressive rights such as Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear, and UDHR Article 25.  This has become a battle front in the clash of ideas.

There is also the conflict between fundamentalist attempts to enforce traditional protestant concepts bumping into conflicting progressive attempts to promote equality and dispel discrimination.  Is America a Christian Nation, or are all humans created equal?  This is messy enough that I’m reluctant to summarize.  "Protestant concepts bumping into conflicting progressive attempts to promote equality and dispel discrimination" might almost be a politically correct way of saying things.  It is far more common for each side to demonize the other's motivation.

I’m certain I’m not the best advocate for the unraveling memes, tribal thinking or the notion that one Christian subculture ought to be dominant.  To hold a conversation, we need advocates of Conservative agenda to find the strengths of their ideas and stop straw manning the progressive ideas long enough to articulate their own. The 'conversation' is too often about red folk being racist, while blue folk are tyrants dictating behavior and oppressing the people.

But the first thing I expect is a march of simplistic blue hostile straw men.  There will be knee jerk shallow rejections of any red concepts, late night comic class junk.  Some of these rejections may come from me.

And marching opposite one side's straw men... the other side's straw men.

But the attempt might be made.

[David Horn]

(07-10-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I’d like to hold a constructive Right - Left conversation, but attempts at it have failed.  Above, I have attempted to project a positive summary of a progressive agenda in response to a negative straw man of it.  I have also attempted a solid portrayal of the conservative agenda, aware that I’m likely not the best person to portray the Conservative Plan in the best positive light.  I suppose I might try again.

What I call the unraveling memes seem core ideas.  These ideas are often associated with Reagan.  While others may have originated or championed the ideas, they settled the unraveling in place and many conservatives are still either trying to make the agenda work or riding the agenda to a place of power.  To my mind, these ideas are past their time, if they ever had a time.

• Borrow and spend
  
• trickle down
  
• spend on the military
  
• cut domestic programs
  
• the government is the problem.
  

Perhaps not quite connected is the concept of tribal morality.  If a group has what it needs and wants, great, there is no need to be concerned with other groups.  You see this clearest in the medical debate, "I've got mine, up yours", but the idea's shadow falls anywhere white protestants are trying to maintain their traditional prerogatives and privileges.  Tribal thinking, I’ve got mine, up yours, is perhaps a common universal pattern, is perhaps universal, is perhaps inevitable.  It is also considered by many to be anathema.  I would admit that tribal thinking exists, then assert we are mostly Americans, all humans.  Practicing narrow versions of tribal thinking would be a character flaw to be struggled against, not an excuse for oppression and perceived superiority.

This narrow tribal thinking is apt to run afoul of the positive progressive rights such as Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear, and UDHR Article 25.  This has become a battle front in the clash of ideas.

There is also the conflict between fundamentalist attempts to enforce traditional protestant concepts bumping into conflicting progressive attempts to promote equality and dispel discrimination.  Is America a Christian Nation, or are all humans created equal?  This is messy enough that I’m reluctant to summarize.  "Protestant concepts bumping into conflicting progressive attempts to promote equality and dispel discrimination" might almost be a politically correct way of saying things.  It is far more common for each side to demonize the other's motivation.

I’m certain I’m not the best advocate for the unraveling memes, tribal thinking or the notion that one Christian subculture ought to be dominant.  To hold a conversation, we need advocates of Conservative agenda to find the strengths of their ideas and stop straw manning the progressive ideas long enough to articulate their own.  The 'conversation' is too often about red folk being racist, while blue folk are tyrants dictating behavior and oppressing the people.

But the first thing I expect is a march of simplistic blue hostile straw men.  There will be knee jerk shallow rejections of any red concepts, late night comic class junk.  Some of these rejections may come from me.

And marching opposite one side's straw men... the other side's straw men.

But the attempt might be made.

I essentially agree with this, but would like to add a comment of my own. 

There seems to be an ongoing attempt by both sides to skip the first step in any discussion, defining the first principles they are attempting to achieve, prior to lashing out at the other side.  Instead, both sides start with a dissected policy agenda and try to shoehorn it into a narrative that is consistent and, more to the point, aligned with their side.  What that leaves is a validation hole in their argument.  How do you argue that this or that idea achieves your goals, when the goals are murky at best?  I think we can agree that several primary goals can be identified, if not universally shared.  I'll list those that seem important to me:

1. Greater general prosperity is always net good, though how it is shared can be argued 
   
2. More contributors to the economy is better than fewer contributors, since greater participation assists with achieving the first goal
   
3. People need to feel safe and secure in their lives and possessions at all levels.  Foreign threats are important, but safe neighborhoods are too.
   

I could add more.  Most if not all fit under the rubric of FDR's Four Freedoms.  Perhaps that terminology should be avoided, since it is implicitly partisan, though it shouldn't be.  Just set the goals.  Then show how your ideas make it achievable.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-12-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I essentially agree with this, but would like to add a comment of my own. 

There seems to be an ongoing attempt by both sides to skip the first step in any discussion, defining the first principles they are attempting to achieve, prior to lashing out at the other side.  Instead, both sides start with a dissected policy agenda and try to shoehorn it into a narrative that is consistent and, more to the point, aligned with their side.  What that leaves is a validation hole in their argument.  How do you argue that this or that idea achieves your goals, when the goals are murky at best?  I think we can agree that several primary goals can be identified, if not universally shared.  I'll list those that seem important to me:

1. Greater general prosperity is always net good, though how it is shared can be argued 
   
2. More contributors to the economy is better than fewer contributors, since greater participation assists with achieving the first goal
   
3. People need to feel safe and secure in their lives and possessions at all levels.  Foreign threats are important, but safe neighborhoods are too.
   

I could add more.  Most if not all fit under the rubric of FDR's Four Freedoms.  Perhaps that terminology should be avoided, since it is implicitly partisan, though it shouldn't be.  Just set the goals.  Then show how your ideas make it achievable.

I've no problem with the above. I agree that neither side is being great about first principles. We could correct this here.

Your three points do seem to come under the Four Freedoms, notably the positive Freedoms from Fear and Want.

Perhaps partisan language might be avoided, but if the goal is to set not murky major goals for the parties or perspectives, it seems hard do avoid partisan language without watering down the messages. I tried to set the red approach in a positive way without going on the attack too badly, but I feel sure a true red believer could do significantly better.

[David Horn]

(07-12-2017, 11:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-12-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote: I essentially agree with this, but would like to add a comment of my own. 

There seems to be an ongoing attempt by both sides to skip the first step in any discussion, defining the first principles they are attempting to achieve, prior to lashing out at the other side.  Instead, both sides start with a dissected policy agenda and try to shoehorn it into a narrative that is consistent and, more to the point, aligned with their side.  What that leaves is a validation hole in their argument.  How do you argue that this or that idea achieves your goals, when the goals are murky at best?  I think we can agree that several primary goals can be identified, if not universally shared.  I'll list those that seem important to me:

1. Greater general prosperity is always net good, though how it is shared can be argued 
   
2. More contributors to the economy is better than fewer contributors, since greater participation assists with achieving the first goal
   
3. People need to feel safe and secure in their lives and possessions at all levels.  Foreign threats are important, but safe neighborhoods are too.
   

I could add more.  Most if not all fit under the rubric of FDR's Four Freedoms.  Perhaps that terminology should be avoided, since it is implicitly partisan, though it shouldn't be.  Just set the goals.  Then show how your ideas make it achievable.

I've no problem with the above.  I agree that neither side is being great about first principles.  We could correct this here.

Your three points do seem to come under the Four Freedoms, notably the positive Freedoms from Fear and Want.

Perhaps partisan language might be avoided, but if the goal is to set not murky major goals for the parties or perspectives, it seems hard do avoid partisan language without watering down the messages.  I tried to set the red approach in a positive way without going on the attack too badly, but I feel sure a true red believer could do significantly better.

Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway. That leaves what? Silence? I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

[Bob Butler 54]

One tangent thought tying in with positive and negative rights.

The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms would be a traditional negative right, there in the Constitution, limiting the power of government and guaranteeing that certain things can not be taken away.  The red world view thinks this negative right a good thing.

Freedom from Fear would be considered a blue positive right, not in the Constitution, though you can quote a right to Life.  Some fear guns.  The government might be held responsible for lessening this fear, and often try to do so by limiting access to guns or guns with certain features.

Now, it has been alleged that I don't understand how positive and negative rights can't come into conflict.  Well, here they obviously do.  The old idea that one has a right to defend one's self is coming into conflict with a notion that the government should subdue anything that causes genuine fear.

The thing to note is that both the positive and negative rights can be defended and believed in.  The commitment to either right can be sincere and intense.

My own perspective has the negative rights generally in the Constitution and quite legitimately limiting the power of the government.  The positive rights are hinted at, ought perhaps be treated as goals, but are not legally binding.  The positive rights are arguably too broad to be made legally binding.

Morally binding?  That might be another standard.  Folk should not be left in Fear and Want.

[Eric the Green]

(07-14-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway.  That leaves what?  Silence?  I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

Warren Dew, Classic Xer and others (who am I forgetting?) have done that here already. As positive as it can get, anyway.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 05:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway.  That leaves what?  Silence?  I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

Warren Dew, Classic Xer and others (who am I forgetting?) have done that here already. As positive as it can get, anyway.

Warren has reasonably contributed to the positive and negative rights conversation, but hasn't tried an overall red summary in this thread.  I do know he has defended his variation of supply side on other threads, goes into much more detail than most can follow, and didn't convince Mikebert who seems to be one of the few that can and does follow him.  I wouldn't mind him elaborating a bit more on how positive and negative rights come into conflict.  I think I've covered my views as far as I can without understanding where he is coming from.

Kinser advocated tribal morality for a while on other threads, but seemingly hasn't answered the point that many (especially progressives) find focus on one particular group's welfare repugnant.  He seems to have dropped his advocacy of tribal morality.

If by 'here' you mean scattered all over the forums you are sort of correct.

Galen Wrote:The libtards can't handle this concept.  It interferes with their concept of omnipotent government.  Their religion is statism and the state is their god.

That seems to me more insult and straw man that what I'm looking for.  I just thought I'd make it clear that at least one progressive can handle the concept.

Anyway, even if you are not interested in a relatively positive leaning exchange, I am.

[Eric the Green]

Well yes, Galen. I forgot about him. I guess he sort of defines the red view. But it's no wonder I forgot to mention him.

[Warren Dew]

(07-14-2017, 05:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway.  That leaves what?  Silence?  I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

Warren Dew, Classic Xer and others (who am I forgetting?) have done that here already. As positive as it can get, anyway.

Yes.  The problem is that for us to be understood, people on your side have to be willing to read and understand what we say, rather than substituting their straw men.

[Warren Dew]

But hey, I did find one last illustration of the conflict between positive and negative rights which I just have to share:

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 08:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 05:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway.  That leaves what?  Silence?  I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

Warren Dew, Classic Xer and others (who am I forgetting?) have done that here already. As positive as it can get, anyway.

Yes.  The problem is that for us to be understood, people on your side have to be willing to read and understand what we say, rather than substituting their straw men.

Can hardly disagree with that, but I'd prefer that both sides be willing to read and understand.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 08:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: But hey, I did find one last illustration of the conflict between positive and negative rights which I just have to share:

Which is, naturally, a straw man.  Political signs are not mentioned in UDHR 25's guarantees, as food, shelter and medical care are mentioned.  It seems to suggest a right to equality rather than access to basic survival necessities.  What positive right covers political signs?  The above entirely misrepresents the progressive idea that the People ought to have access to the minimums.

There is a notion floating around that internet access ought to be a right in this day and age.  It is part of a notion that there ought to be public computer terminals for such access in public libraries.  That could likely be turned into a positive right, and as close as I can think or to what the image above suggests.  To my knowledge, the right to internet access is not a big deal talking point for most progressives, though it is worth talking about.

But the above seems more a denial of the negative rights of speech and/or press.

It might also be distantly akin to the late night TV 'humor'. If one is trying for a 'joke', one can freely ignore truth in favor of 'humor' and a greater misrepresentation of what the other guys are saying. I certainly can't claim that blue folks don't do it too. I'm just sick of it.

[Warren Dew]

(07-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 08:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 05:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 11:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-14-2017, 09:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: Color me dubious. We all seem to march ever further into our respective corners, and no one seems ready to stop. We have get to 'stop' before any of us can start to retrace our steps. Count me among the guilty.

Well, we've got a few days pause in the insults, straw man, 'humor' and ad-hominem, anyway.  That leaves what?  Silence?  I still think there must be someone leaning red who could better positively articulate red central ideas, but perhaps not?

Warren Dew, Classic Xer and others (who am I forgetting?) have done that here already. As positive as it can get, anyway.

Yes.  The problem is that for us to be understood, people on your side have to be willing to read and understand what we say, rather than substituting their straw men.

Can hardly disagree with that, but I'd prefer that both sides be willing to read and understand.

To clarify, there are people on both sides willing to read and understand, including Eric.  They just don't include you, who invariably substitutes straw men, probably because you don't even realize they are straw men.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-15-2017, 07:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To clarify, there are people on both sides willing to read and understand, including Eric.  They just don't include you, who invariably substitutes straw men, probably because you don't even realize they are straw men.

For the last several pages on this thread, I have openly stated that I'm not the best person to state the red perspective.  I've been trying to invite red people to state it.  Instead, I get insult posts and the occasional bit of cryptic apparent nonsense.  Lacking active red posters willing to make articulate statements of their world view, I have to go with the few posts available, such as Kinser's tribal morality.  I don't believe in that, but I can understand it easy enough.

Can you respect Freedom from Want and UDHR 25 as worthy and moral objectives?  Understand that I am speaking of UDHR 25's call for necessities such as food, shelter and medical care?  Note, if you want blues to understand and respect red views, you might begin with an understanding and acknowledgment of some basic blue views.

What is the counter argument to positive rights such as Freedom from Want and HDHR 25?  Can you be more articulate about the idea that positive and negative rights are inherently in conflict?  If you are rejecting Kinser's tribal morality argument as a blue strawman, what is your argument or the argument of reds in general?  Would you care to reject the tribal morality argument?

Not all extreme partisans of a particular color are identical.  I can quite understand that you are not Kinser, and might believe or argue in different ways for vaguely similar goals.  Therefore, attributing Kinser's angle to all reds probably isn't kosher.  However, use of Kinser's opinion as one red perspective isn't a strawman.  Sure, give me some alternatives that you think more main stream red.

Sure, when there are extreme partisans involved, there will be strawmen and perceived strawmen.  I'm all in favor of shooting down strawmen.  Point them out clearly enough that we can get off a clean shot.