Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Maelstrom of Violence
#81
(07-14-2017, 05:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: I hope he is joking.

Is the right to hope a positive or a negative right?  Does it equate to wishful thinking?  Do I need a lengthy essay on the nature of extreme partisanship and the inability to consider that one might possibly be wrong?

The comparison to Trump's ego and certainty is...  interesting.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#82
(07-14-2017, 06:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-14-2017, 05:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: I hope he is joking.

Is the right to hope a positive or a negative right?  Does it equate to wishful thinking?  Do I need a lengthy essay on the nature of extreme partisanship and the inability to consider that one might possibly be wrong?

The comparison to Trump's ego and certainty is...  interesting.

I am being rather straight forward. I just hope he is joking. I do not read into it anymore than that so it really does not need an analysis. ISFP here who keeps it simple. He just sounded so egotistical and it reminded me of Trump who believes the sun shines out his ass. It proves my assumption unfortunately that Eric thinks he is right and true and that we should listen to him. Forget individual opinions of course. He says he is willing to listen. But what he says and what he does are two very different things.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#83
(07-14-2017, 06:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-14-2017, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: At times....??? But... my perspective probably isn't flawed!

A while ago you were boasting of your ability to listen, but you're reverted into your native "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me must be defeated" mode.  I for one would appreciate an attempt at actually listening.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Yep the word he has used was "defeated." Again what he says and what he does or says in the next breath are two different things. The lack of self reflection he has is outstanding.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#84
My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong! Smile

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#85
(07-10-2017, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dumping on other posters here personally is usually not what I do. I express my opinions. And political humor and sarcasm about our national politics is respectable and honorable.

Indeed.  I find your posts far more respectful than Bob's.  You can agree to disagree when we have different views of the facts, where Bob has to start flinging insults when he is proven wrong.
Reply
#86
(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong! Smile

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.
Yes course Eric. One must protect one's ego in the same way that Trump does.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#87
(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong! Smile

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.

So, you don't want to listen to people who point out that you're not listening?  Big Grin The correct answer is to ignore people?

And. no, I don't endorse the entire NRA agenda, but I do try to acknowledge truth and respect worthy ideas of the other guys.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#88
(07-14-2017, 10:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong! Smile

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.

So, you don't want to listen to people who point out that you're not listening?  Big Grin The correct answer is to ignore people?

And. no, I don't endorse the entire NRA agenda, but I do try to acknowledge truth and respect worthy ideas of the other guys.
He kinda proves the point by not listening. However he always manages to say my name and know what I am saying. A fruitful conversation must be made by those willing to listen to both sides. Yet he stamps down on his values, ignores what others have to say which has been proven by several subjects we have touched on and then pretends he listens to others in the next breath.

On top of it he believes all he says is correct. So, if it is correct how the heck can anyone make a case against what he believes is correct? Well we know the answer to that historically. He is right and we are "always wrong" as he has just stated above.

I don't know about you, but I find everyone's opinions interesting and personal preferences should be respected which he has not shown any respect for.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#89
(07-14-2017, 10:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-14-2017, 07:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong! Smile

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.

So, you don't want to listen to people who point out that you're not listening?  Big Grin The correct answer is to ignore people?

And. no, I don't endorse the entire NRA agenda, but I do try to acknowledge truth and respect worthy ideas of the other guys.

The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#90
OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought. And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

To be sure, people can hold some cranky ideas as theology, but if they can devise a workable society out of such -- then so what.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#91
(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought.  And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.  

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

To be sure, people can hold some cranky ideas as theology, but if they can devise a workable society out of such -- then so what.

Everyone has a different opinion of what is wrong. You only became a gay rights supporter once gay bashed?

I have my own opinions, but I like to listen to each side and see if it works or not. Test the waters and such. Who knows, I may learn something. Those who have closed doors never learn anything outside their own bubble and prejudice. I may not agree with Kinser or Galen or Eric (for example) on everything but I will listen and see if they bring up anything that is valid. That is needed for the future of America as we all know what happened in the past when two sides could not see eye to eye. Sometimes it is best to put ego and ideal aside and collaborate....or you guys could simply break apart your country into states that follow a certain ideal. More than one way to deal with this issue I am sure.

I have zero patience for those who are blindly idealistic and think their opinion is the true and right one. Reminds me of Trump far too much. It is what has caused some of the issues which plague your USA today.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#92
(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought.  And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.  

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

I have noted that Galen isn't exactly restrained in what he says, but did Galen really say the above in bold?  It sounds more like a straw man, a vile lie misstating what the other guys are trying to say.

Mind you, it is not far from a similar characterization I have made of the general red ideology.  Advocating greed is an element of tribal morality.  If one has something good going on for one and one's group, it in no way implies that the good should be shared by folks outside one's on group.  I've been using the catch phrase, "I've got mine, up yours."  I've been identifying narrow tribal morality as real, but a character flaw to be fought against rather than a worthy excuse for superiority and oppression.  Other than Kinser a while ago, I've found most are unwilling to admit to tribal thinking.  They just cut taxes and services and pretend there is no consequence.

In the clash of world views, again, tribal morality clashes with positive rights such as Freedom from Want and UDHR 25.  Red partisans will seldom acknowledge or endorse such positive rights.  It seems they are slippery ideas which shouldn't be acknowledged, respected or even mentioned.  I strongly suspect that tribal morality conflicting with Freedom from Want is a great core of the red - blue conflict.  As long as we have a huge division of wealth, there need not be and should not be Want, at least from basics like food, shelter and clothing.  In a time where jobs are getting harder to find, we ought to strive towards living wages.

Anyway, if there is a balance to be found between red and blue, it might have to be in part Freedom from Want against Freedom to be Filthy Rich.  One proposal might be for UDHR 25 to be acknowledged as a worthy and moral goal, but beyond that attempts to impose coastal culture on the middle of the country should be minimized or eliminated.  Economic competition should be recognized and allowed while the need for a floor is acknowledged.

Now, I have been pushing for Franklin's Freedom from Want as made specific by Elanor's UDHR 25.  These seem like classic blue positive rights from infamous progressive figures.  Can you endorse them?  When I advocate for those ideas, can I speak for fellow progressives, or am I fairly unique?  I'd like to hear some basic acknowledgement of the ideals from anyone who believes in them, or open rejection of them from those that don't.

***


I've another tangent on positive rights, nothing to do with your comments, but tying in with the discourse on positive and negative rights.  In this case, a positive right to a decent environment.

I can see where different attitudes might develop.  I grew up in a crowded suburban environment with the associated high population density.  There were enough people around that if we all abused the environment we'd soon destroy it.  On the other hand, I spent some time in Colorado Springs, Great Falls and elsewhere working for the Military Industrial Complex.  Less people.  More land.  You could ride through the mountains and see nigh on untouched beautiful territory, then pass by an old mining complex where people just walked away and left everything to rust.  Overall, there was enough wild to be taken for granted traversed by a people who did indeed take it for granted.  With a lower population density, they would make less effort to preserve what they had.

Is there a positive right to an intact environment?  Does the land belong to those who live on the land, or to government bureaucrats living far away on the coast?  To what extent should the blue and faraway attempt to impose their standards and values on those living in God's country?  In addition to trash and exploitation, do we add global warming?

It's easy to see where different values are drawn deep.  In an unspoiled land, why not spoil things?  I've no easy answers.  I'm just throwing another aspect of the red - blue divide on the table.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#93
(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
#94
(07-15-2017, 10:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?
I could add a few things to your list lol.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#95
(07-15-2017, 10:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?

That pretty much. The way he phrases things like defeating and crushing those he disagrees with, and considers those who he disagrees with the downfall of society reveals that he is anything but open minded. He has shown this time and time again and refuses to believe it. I do not think that is a great way for him to garner respect and it certainly will not change the situation in a positive way. It may radicalize the political environment further.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#96
(07-15-2017, 10:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?

If people want to disagree with what John Oliver or Seth Meyers say, that's their privilege. Maybe they can back it up; although I doubt it. If you call posting them "spam," that's your insult. If you refuse to admit that, while criticizing people for not being civil, that's your hypocrisy.

My refusal to continue mis-dialogue with terror-marie, has nothing to do with my world-view, which btw is not an unusual one. Of course, you are making general statements in this post above, so I can assume it's not a personal description of me..... I won't dispute further what you said about my perspective; time to move on.....

Why should anyone not want an opposing group to be defeated? That's just politics, and history. Things need to move forward. That means the old ways have to go. If people disagree about which side is out of date, well, that's how things go too. You can't escape these conflicts by worrying about how people will behave. The conflict and the choice has to be faced.

This is a 4T. Should we have worried about how people would behave if we expected to defeat and subdue the Nazis? Or Dixie? Or King George? No. Or even without war, the Tories? The Democrats under Pierce, Buchanan, Douglas and Breckinridge? Or the Republicans of Hoover and Landon? No. One side was defeated and subdued, and one side was victorious and moved on to shape history.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#97
I love the fact he still uses my self appointed name haha! Thanks for the grins!
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#98
Says a lot if he compares today's politics with Nazis. There is kind of a big difference between USA politics and the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's dontcha think? Is he subtly comparing Republicans with Nazi's and that they need to be defeated and crushed like them with no discussions or compromises? Oh I see loads wrong with this. Boomers need out of politics. First time I have said that but seems to be a theme with many of them. It means war for them.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#99
(07-15-2017, 05:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 02:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, some people deserve no attention. The lunatics incapable of expressing a coherent thought probably can't understand my response, either. Internet trolls draw attention for all the wrong reasons. I do not want to discuss my sexuality and especially not what someone wants to believe about me because of one of my stances. (I became resolutely for gay rights once I was gay-bashed because what makes life safer for gays makes my life safer in case someone gets my sexual orientation wrong). I have no desire to debate people who have cruelty and destructiveness as cornerstones of their thought.  And, yes, there really are people who are just simply wrong and they cannot accept after finding out that they are wrong that they cannot accept the reality.  

The real problem isn't some lunatic howling at the moon. The problem is the person schooled in the wondrous product of three millennia of achievement can still believe in catastrophically-failed patterns of thought even after one can express clearly the consequences of such thought. That is where Galen and I have a problem. He believes that unrestrained greed is the fount of all achievement, something to be cultivated irrespective of the human cost.

I have noted that Galen isn't exactly restrained in what he says, but did Galen really say the above in bold?  It sounds more like a straw man, a vile lie misstating what the other guys are trying to say.

The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor culminating in the removal of the safety net will lead to much more human suffering than to any economic growth. This also comes with destruction of workers' rights. There would have to be extreme growth in the economy to offset the harm that such policies do  to the non-rich.

it would be one thing if he could express a coherent argument that economic growth would compensate for early harm. Maybe if workers were sweated more on the job   there would be more productivity. Maybe people would be motivated to work harder while expecting the fruit of their toil going to more investment in business as compensation for intense hardship. Maybe hunger, cold, and fear of superiors are excellent motivators of people. I understand his defense of his ideology against the harm that I see in it is essentially the trivialization "So what?"

Quote:Mind you, it is not far from a similar characterization I have made of the general red ideology.  Advocating greed is an element of tribal morality.  If one has something good going on for one and one's group, it in no way implies that the good should be shared by folks outside one's on group.  I've been using the catch phrase, "I've got mine, up yours."  I've been identifying narrow tribal morality as real, but a character flaw to be fought against rather than a worthy excuse for superiority and oppression.  Other than Kinser a while ago, I've found most are unwilling to admit to tribal thinking.  They just cut taxes and services and pretend there is no consequence.

"Tribes" can be ethnic or religious groups, regional groupings, occupational groupings, or social classes, among other things. Tribalism is one of the more questionable forms of collectivism, one that says that one group of people rightly have first choice of educational, vocational, and business opportunities.  If it makes no sense in theory and gets suspect results in practice. tribalism is an ethical failure to be rejected.


Quote:In the clash of world views, again, tribal morality clashes with positive rights such as Freedom from Want and UDHR 25.  Red partisans will seldom acknowledge or endorse such positive rights.  It seems they are slippery ideas which shouldn't be acknowledged, respected or even mentioned.  I strongly suspect that tribal morality conflicting with Freedom from Want is a great core of the red - blue conflict.  As long as we have a huge division of wealth, there need not be and should not be Want, at least from basics like food, shelter and clothing.  In a time where jobs are getting harder to find, we ought to strive towards living wages.

It may be that in the post-scarcity era (which sounds much like Marx' description of Communism) certainty of income has a justification in that not all people can be producers as a market dictates.  The big money comes from meeting scarcities, which means discovering new markets or filling neglected niches.


Quote:Anyway, if there is a balance to be found between red and blue, it might have to be in part Freedom from Want against Freedom to be Filthy Rich.  One proposal might be for UDHR 25 to be acknowledged as a worthy and moral goal, but beyond that attempts to impose coastal culture on the middle of the country should be minimized or eliminated.  Economic competition should be recognized and allowed while the need for a floor is acknowledged.

We may be at the point at which guaranteed income is a necessity. We cannot simply produce more stuff to get a better world. Many people downsize, which implies a great quantity of former middle-class possessions in thrift shops. Good question: what would you do with $1.5K of guaranteed income (including health insurance and food aid)? Would you volunteer? Would you put your creative talents to use?

Most of us have all the manufactured goods that we need.



Quote:Now, I have been pushing for Franklin's Freedom from Want as made specific by Elanor's UDHR 25.  These seem like classic blue positive rights from infamous progressive figures.  Can you endorse them?  When I advocate for those ideas, can I speak for fellow progressives, or am I fairly unique?  I'd like to hear some basic acknowledgement of the ideals from anyone who believes in them, or open rejection of them from those that don't.

Freedom from want is the proof of the success of an economic order, whether capitalist or socialist.

***
Quote:I've another tangent on positive rights, nothing to do with your comments, but tying in with the discourse on positive and negative rights.  In this case, a positive right to a decent environment.

I can see where different attitudes might develop.  I grew up in a crowded suburban environment with the associated high population density.  There were enough people around that if we all abused the environment we'd soon destroy it.  On the other hand, I spent some time in Colorado Springs, Great Falls and elsewhere working for the Military Industrial Complex.  Less people.  More land.  You could ride through the mountains and see nigh on untouched beautiful territory, then pass by an old mining complex where people just walked away and left everything to rust.  Overall, there was enough wild to be taken for granted traversed by a people who did indeed take it for granted.  With a lower population density, they would make less effort to preserve what they had.

Is there a positive right to an intact environment?  Does the land belong to those who live on the land, or to government bureaucrats living far away on the coast?  To what extent should the blue and faraway attempt to impose their standards and values on those living in God's country?  In addition to trash and exploitation, do we add global warming?

It's easy to see where different values are drawn deep.  In an unspoiled land, why not spoil things?  I've no easy answers.  I'm just throwing another aspect of the red - blue divide on the table.

Let's start with this self-evident right: people do not deserve to be rendered homeless and otherwise destitute because of inundation of their farmland. The sorts of people that global warming will first and most severely hurt will be peasant farmers in low-lying areas For an affluent American, some peasant farmer in Bangladesh is someone worthy of legitimate concern. Likewise some campesino in Latin America who dehydrates more frequently and more severely with resulting damage to the kidneys that shortens his life.  Global warming of human origin could kill as many people as World War II and the genocides that happened under the fog of war. But there will be no Hitler, Tojo, or Stalin upon which one will be able to place culpability through evil designs.

The urban-rural divide is often one between those who get to enjoy nature with little difficulty, those who must plan and spend to do so, and those priced out of the enjoyment of nature. Damage is a different question. One can burn off huge amounts of fuel  in off-road driving if one lives in parts of the desert Southwest. That's practically impossible in the corridor east of Interstate 81. People living in costly, cramped apartments use much less energy and generate much less trash than people with similar income in more spacious housing. One may not enjoy nature as much if one lives in the Bronx as one can if one lives in Billings... but I can tell you who is more likely to compact garbage, recycle soft-drink containers, and not go on Sunday drives.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(07-16-2017, 02:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The mainstream opinion is that a State that forces a massive empowerment of economic elites by cutting taxes on the economic elites with a corresponding abolition of air to the poor...

Is somebody denying air to the poor via strangulation?  Wink  Darn these spell checkers...

More seriously, good post.  I may get back to it.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Calls by elected officials (other than Trump) for political violence pbrower2a 3 2,080 09-13-2016, 02:52 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)