patrick.net

Bap33 says

I honestly believe...

SoCal Renter says

I honestly believe...

Steve Martin believes

I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.

And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.

And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.

And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.

And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.

And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now. That's what I believe.

-Saturday Night Live Monologue, 1979

I forgot to add that some comedian, somewhere added, "And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress while she dusts the ceiling."

:)

SoCal Renter says

You define a difference between killing and murder, and you also note that you believe Mexican “invaders” will be “killing” Americans in 2 years. Am I to assume they are just in their killing since you do not call it murder?

the point was the location, not the action - but murder is what was intended, to be honest.

SoCal Renter says

Your beliefs about Africa are based on inaccuracies and false presumptions.

I have no beliefs about Africa, I just know that non-Christians are chopping up Christians in Africa and Arabia. Are you suggesting that there has not been mass murdering of Christians by non-Christians in Africa and Arabia? Christians, targeted for being Christians?

SoCal Renter says

If you believe in American exceptionalism in regards to surviving the post apocalypse situation, look at New Orleans after Katrina. Fuck, we knew the city was below goddamn sea level but we carried on anyways. Six years later and the place is still a mess.
Detroit is the other post apocalypse, but an economic one. Again, we knew what happens to industries when we outsource all job creation. Yet, here we are!

Great examples of how worthless and reliant humans on gov aide become after a few generations. That hurricane hit other areas that rebounded just fine. The demographics are the difference. And in those demographics the true difference is in atitude and the family dynamic. Self reliance is part of personal responsability - in my opinion.

@ellie, lol

SoCal Renter says

I honestly believe people have different definitions of personal success and it is not defined soley by money, possessions, fame, or power.
Lastly, I honestly believe positive social change in American cannot come from violence, and violence only begets more violence.

I liked a few others, and laughed at a couple, but these two here I agree with 100%

@bob,
you can't argue with me about stuff I didn't write -- it just don't work well that way.

Bap trying to explain to Liberals that "the country has gone to hell in a hand basket", is like trying to give driving tips to a drunk, after he crashed the sedan.

Tenouncetrout says

Bap trying to explain to Liberals that “the country has gone to hell in a hand basket”, is like trying to give driving tips to a drunk, after he crashed the sedan.

I thought that gonja was supposed to open your mind, instead of slamming it shut to the consideration of different possibilities. Guess I was wrong.

Ellie the country has gone to hell in a hand basket, and remember, always turn into the slide.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie the country has gone to hell in a hand basket, and remember, always turn into the slide.

I'm not saying that the country isn't in bad shape, the part that I take exception to is with your continuous comments about how liberals think... but then again, trying to explain to you that I have the ability to think for myself is just as crazy as my assuming that you have the ability to understand the concept.

Tenouncetrout says

the country has gone to hell in a hand basket

And if you have access to knowledge of absolute right and wrong, then you know it's all the fault of the liberals (you know, with a little help from the devil of course).

And remember,... your're either with us or you're with the terrorists.

marcus says

Tenouncetrout says

the country has gone to hell in a hand basket

And if you have access to knowledge of absolute right and wrong, then you know it’s all the fault of the liberals (you know, with a little help from the devil of course).
And remember,… your’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.

So, by attempting to view the root causes of the "handbasket effect" in a general way, I'm allowing the terrorists to win?

I'm so embarrassed. Please forgive.

Bap33 says

I think (maybe) I do understand that your (and any other person’s) view of morality is what tends to make them lib or con.

There is something else that has been discussed before in this forum, and that's the authoritarian personality. This type of person needs to see black and white (no gray areas) and also wants to submit to an authority. Maybe the almighty counts as such an authority, as does the right wing corporatocracy that is linked to the Christian right.

Not sure. Could be.

To clarify, my answer above was part of a direct quote from a post that suggested I did not understand why a poster was liberal, to which I agreed with their point of view on the subject, suggesting in the explaination that I do understand. By the quote you shared you made it seem like it was my words, and that is not the case (exactly). I was just agreeing with the original poster.

See if this makes more sense:

Bap33 says

marcus says:
My view of morality is what makes me a liberal. That’s what you won’t comprehend.

Bap33 says:
I think (maybe) I do understand that your (and any other person’s) view of morality is what tends to make them lib or con. In my opinion, the very nature of accepting absolute right and wrong, and personal accountability, stem from morality. So, I would say I kinda do understand that your personal view of morality shapes if you are lib or con.

I view God as God.
I view man with complete free choice of action and thought.
I view in black and white. If you see grey, you are just out of focus and fuzzy.

@Bap33 - My point with Africa was that Muslim vs. Christian strife is not the only cause of death and misery for African Christians. Many manage to do well hurting themselves just fine. Your comment implied that if left alone, Christians inherently fare better at governing themselves than other religions. There is no evidence of this.

Bap33 says

Great examples of how worthless and reliant humans on gov aide become after a few generations. That hurricane hit other areas that rebounded just fine. The demographics are the difference. And in those demographics the true difference is in atitude and the family dynamic. Self reliance is part of personal responsability - in my opinion.
@ellie, lol

You confuse demographics with cause and effect of attitude and family dynamic. The working poor, regardless of race, religion, or ethinic background, have been universally screwed in post apocalyptic areas of the US. Attitude and family dynamic are uniquely shaped by the socio-economic conditions of a person's reality. Are you a young black man desperately seeking safety from Katrina, and a white cop is standing on the other side of the bridge with a rifle not letting you pass? Or perhaps your attitude and family were great - until they died because the government didn't respond appropriately to the hurricane and the elderly relatives couldn't escape.

And yes, we still have many laws that single out, hurt, and hinder minorities. Ohio has a wonderful law that makes it a felony to register a black kid in a white school district outside of one's government designated area. Don't pay any attention to the thousands of illegal non-citizens getting tax free educations in the border states. (They are a lighter shade of brown so its ok). We punish our citizens for valuing a good education?

I'm also still struggling to see how any of the Gulf Coast fisherman who've had their lives utterly destroyed by the oil spill are completely free in choice of action and thought. Or is every man an island of independence in a black sea of toxic death?

The world is much simpler if everything is reduced to black and white platitudes. Unfortunately, this isn't reality.

So to circle back to the original post - a political system dreamed up above is nothing more than a fantasy. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it anyway.

Bap33 says

If you see grey, you are just out of focus and fuzzy

The Mexican immigrant issue is a good example of an issue where black and white thinking doesn't work. It leads to emotion that is out of proportion to the problem. Where as seeing grey in this case means a more realistic nuanced view that involves seeing the bad and the good in the situation. Ron Paul is also very a black and white thinker, at least the way he presents his points of view.

It's easy to come up with logical problems that come up from this, that is so called "either or fallacy." "You're either with us or against us." A central bank is either necessary in this day and age, or it is an evil that will take down modern civilization. If people can't have a nuanced in between view, then they are missing reality.

Too much "relativism" can be annoying though. I call that rationalization. I guess there are only 2 possibilities, black and white - either or thinking, or rationalization (kidding).

marcus says

It leads to emotion that is out of proportion to the problem.

ummm, on this we disagree. Point one is, conservatives do not rely on simple emotion for ideas, they tend to use more thought. Historicly it seems to be a more liberal thing to rely on emotions to take a plan of action. I have no emotion that is out of proportion to the problem. conservos have a different view/opinion as to the magnitude of the problem than most libs do, and maybe that is what makes it seem like a difference of emotion?
marcus says

Where as seeing grey in this case means a more realistic

I disagree. Reality happens in black and white. Grey happens from emotion or feelings or outcome based thinking. In my opinion.

marcus says

Too much “relativism” can be annoying though. I call that rationalization. I guess there are only 2 possibilities, black and white - either or thinking, or rationalization (kidding).

lol. You really do see where grey has it's issue (I think). And a person who can not/will not defend their reason behind a belief in absolutes whould be amiss also. When someone has to take the absolute stance - that there are no absolutes, then they have a big problem. Where as, someone that shares my uneducated caveman view of absolutes need only defend from whence they derived their view ... called causation (or something like that), I think ... and that is where debate begins. lol

marcus says

I guess there are only 2 possibilities, black and white - either or thinking, or rationalization

I was kidding. Truth is you probably engage in plenty of grey area thinking. To say that killing a man in protection of your property is okay. Really ? Can you tell me exactly when it becomes okay ? . If you saw someone pick up a tennis ball in your yard, and is walking off with it, would you be justified ? How about a child taking your kids bicycle ? What about a slightly older child, a teen messing with your car ? Now are you justified ? You won't be wrong if you kill him ? Maybe there is some specific warning you have to give before killing him ? Most probably wouldn't resort to killing someone unless and until they or their family were endangered.

You probably can't give me a specific rule for exactly what the circumstances are that make it okay. It would have to be based on your subjective feeling, your opinion of when you became endangered.

And yet if a person with all kinds of problems, feels they are unprepared to raise a child that would be of questionable genes (based on their own physical and emotional problems as well as the fathers), and they choose to abort a pre-pre fetus (zygote), you somehow know this to be murder and clearly wrong.

My saying that I don't know when a human becomes a human, if you like, when it get's its soul, and therefore saying "choice" is correct, is seeing it a grey area as to when human life begins. And yet for you, leaving it to the individual to determine when they are justified in killing a 20 year old, that it's pretty much their call, as long as (they feel) their property or family were at risk, to me is venturing into the grey (just as much).

Life begins when two cells join, create a new cell that splits and will keep splitting until you see a person. The point of conception begins the creation of a new, seperate, unique DNA paterned, life -- but that is just my opinion. I think the Hebrew law says within 28 days of conception there is not a life yet. Not sure.

As for protection of property with deadly force. I guess one would need to extrapulate the tennis ball example a little bit .... like this. There is a law against trespassing. There is a law against stealing my tennis ball from my yard. So, what is it that keeps people from coming in my yard and taking my tennis ball at will? Not the law, but fear of law enforcement. So, if there is no fear of enforcement, then the law becomes useless. But, in our example, lets say the thief is cought stealing my ball, and put on probation. Comes back and does it again (same ball) as soon as released. Gets 15 days. Comes back and does it again (same ball) as soon as released again. Gets 30 days. And so on and so forth, until - finally, after 1,000 petty crimes the thief has moved up to felony activity --- but is still "only" stealing a ball from my yard. After a few felony level insatnces the theif will be placed in prison for life. That is cruel punishment for a human ... to be caged. The thief has now paid for a ball with his life, but I have paid a price too with the uneasy life of having my property targeted by a thief, and tax payers paid a huge price due to the habitual thief and his court trips .... so, there is a HUGE cost for putting up with a petty thief. Where as, if the law was a bullet in the head for trespassing and theft, there would be much fewer front-yard fences.
Of course I'm just exaggerating.
The actual issue you bring up is "what is worth protecting with deadly force". And that is up to the owner of the stuff. Not a grey area, just a freedom of choice. You pick what you refuse to let people take at will, and I do the same ..... no gray area there! lol

Great talking w/you this week. Gnite

Bap33 says

Not a grey area, just a freedom of choice. You pick what you refuse to let people take at will, and I do the same ….. no gray area there! lol

I won't go on forever with this but to clarify my point: The grey area here is about what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Your definition of what is right and what is wrong leaves it up to the individual suggesting that is what the law should allow (and I think it does within reason).

Bap33 says

And that is up to the owner of the stuff

There is a right and wrong that transcends law (even for atheists, believe it or not (I'm not an atheist, but agnostic enough that I don't need a reward of heaven to want to be a good person)). Maybe you misunderstood that I wasn't talking about the law. Obviously the law is black and white (sort of) although interpreted differently at different times (grey again).

MY whole point is, when is it morally acceptable to kill a person for stealing from you? And your answer is that it depends on the individual's call.

But you are so sure that a woman aborting her zygote is murder that you are against her having that option.

Just an observation.

marcus says

But you are so sure that a woman aborting her zygote is murder that you are against her having that option.

There are laws against murder already. There is no need for a law against each, seperate form/type of murder. This is an example of black and white works just fine. If purposely killing an unarmed, naked, blind, handicapped, deaf, mute human that is 1 minute old, or 1 month old, or 10 months old, or 100 months old, or 1,000 months old -- if that is murder ... then so is killing the same human at any time shorter than 1,000 months, 100 months, 10 months, 1 month or 1 minute old. Doing abortions on a regular basis, targeting a particular sect of the population, should qualify the people that run abortatoriums for being tried under "hate crime" laws. They are making a living by murdering babies, just babies, and that shows premeditation and a bias -- an obvious hate crime if the babies were a protected class .... like sexual deviants, for example.

marcus says

MY whole point is when is it morally acceptable to kill a person for stealing from you? And your answer is that it depends on the individual’s call.

I think we may have to back up just a little bit first. Do you believe in capital punishment? I do. Do you believe that some people are just bad people and should be removed from society? I do. Do you believe that the value of the targeted item of theft should be the basis for defending the theft of the item? I do. But, the victim should have the right to place the value of an item, and also be given the choice to forgive a crime alltogether. I am pro choice for the victims.

What you may be suggesting is an item under $X is fair game, but at $1 more than $X there should be consequence. I disagree. If you have only one $5 bike and that is your only way to work each day -- that bike is worth more to you than a $50K BMW is to a rich person with 200 of those $50K BMW's in their yard. See where that whole concept of "gray" causes an issue? Poor people should have just as much protection from theft as rich people. $500 of petty theft could equal a months wages for alot of people. But, one month of a BayArians wages might be $10,000, and would be grounds to get a thief shot. So, a thief that only takes the life savins from poor people will not be a felon, but will be destroying lives.
Say no to gray!

Anyways, this has been great. Next subject!! lol

Bap33 says

Life begins when two cells join, create a new cell that splits and will keep splitting until you see a person. The point of conception begins the creation of a new, seperate, unique DNA paterned, life — but that is just my opinion. I think the Hebrew law says within 28 days of conception there is not a life yet. Not sure.

WRONG!
Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies. G'night everybody! I'll be here all week - don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!

elliemae says

try the veal

Nice.

marcus says

Nice.

@marcus (and I realize that we agree on this issue, but am asking anyway):
about grey areas... if I did order the veal and a starving man stole it before I had a chance to eat it - is he guilty? How about if I don't like veal? does that change his guilt or innocence? If I haven't ever had veal, but abhor the thought of a baby calf in a teeny cage, unable to move until it's killed for its tender baby meat - does that change things?

What if it were a loaf of bread and I was on a diet and the guy wasn't hungry - but his children were? If I weren't on a diet? What if his children were well fed but he needed money for child support so that his daughter could take dance lessons, grow up & marry a man who would take care of her so that her children wouldn't starve?

There are alway grey areas. Life isn't black & white (to me).

lol