USA Politics

[Deleted member 7164]

Yeah, I can't straight out agree or disagree about your posts Judas because there's a lot in them and it covers a lot more. Perhaps I don't think about the "meta" as much as you. So the silence is merely not having anything constructive to add vs. I don't care to post.

 

[jazz from hell]

I'm sorry if I was too gruff.

 

[Jer]

So much of this just comes down to separation of church and state. Religious beliefs that approve or disapprove of certain things are just personal and subjective until people attempt to enact them into law and impose those views on other people. Since this is a discussion centered around U.S. politics, I have to say that trying to prevent other people from exercising their own liberty is an inherently un-American point of view, unless it’s being done to prevent physical harm to others, and even then it must be done judiciously.

When looked at from this perspective, gay civil marriage should be a complete non-issue. No church is being forced to marry gay people in their religious tradition, and a civil marriage of consenting adults poses no danger to the ability of other people to practice their faith. I think the entire issue there boils down to overloading the term “marriage” to apply to both religious and civil partnerships.

Abortion is obviously a problematic area because the debate is around whether a fetus rises to the level of being a distinct being from the mother, and if so, when. Most people agree that a viable fetus that could reasonably be expected to live outside the womb shouldn’t be aborted unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Pre-viability arguments against abortion are much harder to make without imposing an inherently religious point of view upon others who may not share it.

The difficulty, of course, is that the religious believer is convinced that they have absolute truth in their back pocket, and that of course everyone else should live their lives according to the religious principles that the believer holds, so why shouldn’t they be codified into civil law? But if you honestly believe that, then you should move somewhere else and start up a theocracy, because you live in a country whose core principles are antithetical to that point of view, no matter how many people happen to conveniently forget about it.

 

[Black Abyss Babe]

Trump's definitely gone, if I consider the media (incl. fox) correctly today. Everybody happy?

 

[jazz from hell]

View attachment 13154

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

When looked at from this perspective, gay civil marriage should be a complete non-issue.

I agree. Currently, a disproportionate focus exists on the emotional state of 4.5% of the adult population to the neglect of:
Environmental stewardship, reduction of consumer waste (packaging and advertising), conversion to sustainable, clean energy
Making the university, healthcare, and prison systems not for profit.
There’s no reason for people to maintain a 40 hour work week when 30 hours more than suffices.
Equitable public education.
Infrastructure rehabilitation for currently low income communities.
Demilitarization of law enforcement
Enforced Anti-trust regulation
Data privacy protections
No more corporate welfare: nationalize essential industries.

The Canadian, UK, EU, and Australian governments do an incrementally better job than the US at providing services and at least attempting to regulate business, but are still innately Capitalist, and therefore nearly as antiquated if not as barbaric.

I will say the US Bill of rights is a superior set of codified protections that should persist regardless of economic system and not be circumvented by clever supreme court decisions or partisan legislation.

 

[LooseCannon]

US Bill of rights is a superior set of codified protections

It was pretty good for 1787, and it's been made to do the job to this day, so that's decent, but I prefer other protection systems compared to the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Bill of Rights is the OG, and I'll press f to pay respect.

 

[Mosh]

What would you offer as superior systems?

 

[LooseCannon]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Forostar]

The difficulty, of course, is that the religious believer is convinced that they have absolute truth in their back pocket, and that of course everyone else should live their lives according to the religious principles that the believer holds

That depends. The religilous believer does not have to be that fundamentalist.
And the non-religilous believer can also be convinced to have absolute truth in their back pocket.

Abortion can be a complex and careful matter with several aspects and possibilities, in between never and always.

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bill of rights and its derivatives. I’m uninterested in engaging in a “my flawed country is better than your flawed country” debate.

As Capitalism is global, so too is the workers’ struggle. Economic collectivism, however, need not come at the expense of individual rights and liberties. Capitalist propaganda has falsely conflated personal freedom with corporate supremacy.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Bill of rights and its derivatives. I’m uninterested in engaging in a “my flawed country is better than your flawed country” debate.

I think theirs are less flawed. So it's a good starting point. Your previous post was spot on tho (apart from the Bill of Rights glorification), but just denying capitalism isn't going to cut it for anyone anywhere. The world is sadly, inherently capitalist, because we've been living that life for millennia. Only abundance can save us, (United Federation of Planets style), and that's not going to happen if we leave progress and invention in the hands of the powerful. On the other hand, as it stands now, if we collectivize those assets we're not going to get the results that "private capitalists" got from them, not even close. Because 1000 average people together are still dumber compared to a single genius. Getting that genius to work for everyone and not just his own pocket is a thing of education and life philosophy, religion, not policy. Getting everyone to appreciate what the genius is doing for them is a thing of education, philosophy, way of life. You need both ends of the coin if you want to get a healthy society.

 

[Brigantium]

I agree. Currently, a disproportionate focus exists on the emotional state of 4.5% of the adult population to the neglect of:
Environmental stewardship, reduction of consumer waste (packaging and advertising), conversion to sustainable, clean energy
Making the university, healthcare, and prison systems not for profit.
There’s no reason for people to maintain a 40 hour work week when 30 hours more than suffices.
Equitable public education.
Infrastructure rehabilitation for currently low income communities.
Demilitarization of law enforcement
Enforced Anti-trust regulation
Data privacy protections
No more corporate welfare: nationalize essential industries.

I've always been under the impression that some of these issues are just not generally up for debate on the American political scene and it's not in the interests of anybody wanting to be taken seriously to consider making them a major cause in mainstream debate. Gay marriage and other things getting disparaged as niche issues aren't pointless. Other issues that directly affect everyone and could be tackled aren't anywhere near the table, never mind on the table.

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

I think theirs are less flawed. So it's a good starting point. Your previous post was spot on tho (apart from the Bill of Rights glorification), but just denying capitalism isn't going to cut it for anyone anywhere. The world is sadly, inherently capitalist, because we've been living that life for millennia. Only abundance can save us, (United Federation of Planets style), and that's not going to happen if we leave progress and invention in the hands of the powerful. On the other hand, as it stands now, if we collectivize those assets we're not going to get the results that "private capitalists" got from them, not even close. Because 1000 average people together are still dumber compared to a single genius. Getting that genius to work for everyone and not just his own pocket is a thing of education and life philosophy, religion, not policy. Getting everyone to appreciate what the genius is doing for them is a thing of education, philosophy, way of life. You need both ends of the coin if you want to get a healthy society.

Cool avatar but, no. Your first argument could be misapplied to feudalism in the same way you’ve misapplied it to Capitalism. Just because that’s the way its been doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be.

I agree with you regarding philosophy change and the need for the capable to be on board. In my observation, however, the so called “great capitalists” merely excelled at exploiting the capable.

For profit systems are inherently wasteful regardless of raw material source. Expanding into space alone won’t solve the resource issue and will create a new economic lever around things like water and oxygen.

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

I've always been under the impression that some of these issues are just not generally up for debate on the American political scene and it's not in the interests of anybody wanting to be taken seriously to consider making them a major cause in mainstream debate. Gay marriage and other things getting disparaged as niche issues aren't pointless. Other issues that directly affect everyone and could be tackled aren't anywhere near the table, never mind on the table.

Not pointless but an overrepresented distraction whereby the powerful can then cry oppression for themselves.

LGBT billionaires - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Who Makes the Most Money Straight or Gay Married Couples - Financial Planner Los Angeles

Big Payday for Gay Married Couples The Real Money Advantages of Gay Married Couples It’s official, people; same-sex married couples are living proof that it pays to be gay. Gay Money Matters! We all know the stereotype of the typical gay man – indeed, many of us are the stereotype –...

www.financialplannerla.com

 

[Jer]

That depends. The religilous believer does not have to be that fundamentalist.

I don’t think it requires fundamentalism for a person to not muster up an objection to their view of absolute truth being reflected in civil law. If they believe that their way is the one true way, then they’re not likely to see harm in this approach, because the things being codified into law are “good” from their perspective.

And the non-religilous believer can also be convinced to have absolute truth in their back pocket.

It depends on what you mean by this. If you’re in the “atheism is a religion too” camp, or you’re talking about people who are convinced they can prove a negative, then this is a tiny percentage of non-believers.

If you’re talking about the certainty with which many non-believers talk about the lack of credible evidence to literally believe the fantastical parts of religious mythology, then that’s just the result of applying critical thinking and rules of evidence to the available information. If any religion could credibly, objectively prove the truth of their mythology, then there would be no room for debate at all. Clearly no one has done that.

Abortion can be a complex and careful matter with several aspects and possibilities, in between never and always.

Of course. But good luck arguing that a zygote is an independent person worthy of full constitutional protections without employing a religious argument.

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

Of course. But good luck arguing that a zygote is an independent person worthy of full constitutional protections without employing a religious argument.

Scientifically, one could posit that a complete set of 46 chromosomes constitutes a discrete human life form.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Your first argument could be misapplied to feudalism in the same way you’ve misapplied it to Capitalism. Just because that’s the way its been doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be.

You did not understand me. I'm talking the switch from free hunter gatherers to agricultural society. Once agriculture arose, the people owning the stored yield quickly realized they should harvest and store more than it's enough so they're safe from droughts in the future. I don't know whether they knew this in advance, once first catastrophe came, those that did not stash, fell into their mercy, and the owners were able to sell the food in exchange for services.

Also define "the way it should be". You get just a few people with same political affiliation in the room, and you'll soon see they'll start to diverge in their opinions as you start covering the broad spectrum of topics in depth.

 

[Somewhereinpurgatory]

You did not understand me. I'm talking the switch from free hunter gatherers to agricultural society. Once agriculture arose, the people owning the stored yield quickly realized they should harvest and store more than it's enough so they're safe from droughts in the future. I don't know whether they knew this in advance, once first catastrophe came, those that did not stash, fell into their mercy, and the owners were able to sell the food in exchange for services.

Also define "the way it should be". You get just a few people with same political affiliation in the room, and you'll soon see they'll start to diverge in their opinions as you start covering the broad spectrum of topics in depth.

If you’re misclassifying the primitive communist gift economy as capitalist. It was not. Later, capitalist systems latched themselves onto and perverted the natural human cooperative state. In that regard, yes, people “got used to capitalism.” That’s probably what you were trying to say but it still doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders and argue petty nationalism or the finer points of bourgeois reformist agenda.

Primitive communism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The way it should be: I highlighted a few policy points in the post you said you agreed with. Inherently, means of production and resource distribution should be calculated based on need vs availability and not want vs profit. Of course, disagreements will arise under such a system just as they do under capitalism.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

If you’re talking about the certainty with which many non-believers talk about the lack of credible evidence to literally believe the fantastical parts of religious mythology, then that’s just the result of applying critical thinking and rules of evidence to the available information. If any religion could credibly, objectively prove the truth of their mythology, then there would be no room for debate at all. Clearly no one has done that.

Yeah, no. Only believing in what can be empirically proven is not just a religious outview as well, but also a pathology of sorts. Even basic human relationships don't work like that. A human being doesn't work like that. You still have to "trust" your senses right? You need to see the experiment. How do you know a world around you exists? You believe it's there. That what you see and feel and smell and taste is real. And you can never, ever prove that. And you can't have physical evidence of a metaphysical reality (obviously).

That's not me being anti-scientific or throwing away empirical proofs in general. But science, like anything, becomes wrong and terrible once you try to make it the ultimate answer to anything. Take it out of its place. Not admit its limits.

And even if you had empirical proof - would you believe it? How many people would have to see a miracle for you to admit it's not "crowd hallucinations" or something? If it was recorded on video, you'd say it was manipulated. If you saw it yourself, you would say you're probably overworked and tired. Unless you were willing to open up to it somehow.

In the lack of empirical proof - which is great, actually, because it gives all the more freedom to truly decide - it really boils down into what you believe. And Foro is right - the atheists can be just as brainwashed and fanatical about their "religion of nothing" as the religious believers can.

In fact, for what Foro said - "And the non-religilous believer can also be convinced to have absolute truth in their back pocket", well, the smugness of your answer kinda almost proves that point - no offense.

Of course. But good luck arguing that a zygote is an independent person worthy of full constitutional protections without employing a religious argument.

Again, I was against abortion even back when I was an atheist.

Scientifically, one could posit that a complete set of 46 chromosomes constitutes a discrete human life form.

This is one. But for me it's mostly the horror vacui imagining that something is here which - given some time to gestate - will actually be born and living and have about 70 years of life, experience, everything. And you take it away with a knife and say it's nothing. That was always creepy as fuck, even for an atheist. I believe Chuck Schuldiner - I'd guess a non-believer as well - wanted to express this in that Death song Altering the Future.