Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
13
-
@EdoardoB-xz1jp "Fascism and Socialism are two completely opposed ideologies."
They are two different flavors of socialism that vilify each other and pretend to constitute the political spectrum. Each tells the lie "If you're not one of us, you're one of them." All sane and decent folk are neither.
"The first uses a capitalist economic basis"
"Capitalism" is Marx's caricature of free market economics. Fascism is not free market economics.
"This is completely opposed to socialism in which the economic model is that of commonly owned means of production. There is no person making profits that is above the rest, or cutting costs by firing employees and leaving them to starve on the side of the road."
The whole economic system is run for the benefit and enrichment of the Nomenclatura. When you say "That's not real Communism", what you mean is it's not theoretical communism, a utopia that has never and can never exist.
"I think we should start with the basic definition of socialism."
The only practical definition (definition of a thing that has existed and can exist) of socialism is central control of the economy. "Common ownership" is invariably a window dressing for despotism. In fact, and historically in practice, despotism results, and the reason why IS AN INHERENT FLAW OF THE THEORY. You seek to replace the free market with an arbitrary distribution of stuff. To do this you need an arbiter. The arbiter does not BECOME, he IS by nature of his function, the dictator. In fact, this is recognized in the theory, "the dictatorship of the proletariat". You, first, remove all the protections, restraints, checks and balances of the civic society, (often accompanied by the removal of checks on the conscience from religion,) give absolute power (in a sense greater even than the kings and emperors of old) to a person or a group, already acclimated to a free hand in the use of force when they steal everybody's stuff. Then you wonder why so many get murdered by your just and equitable and scientific government, and why life in your utopia is so similar to slavery.
A common fallacy of utopian ideologues is that human nature is inherently good, and that the problems of the human condition are the result of some social construct, because we don't want to face the truth about ourselves. To the communist free markets; to the anarchist government; to the New Atheists religion, to primitivists agriculture or technology, to racists whites or blacks or Jews or whoever; is the root of all evil. The clear, harsh, intolerable, and absolutely vital and central essence of human nature is that WE ARE OUR PROBLEM, not any externality or construct. As the song says, "You can run from yourself, but you won't get far. 'Cause wherever you go --- There you are." This is the starting point of clarity in history, sociology, and psychiatry; every study which pertains to the nature of humanity. In fact, the same flawed, imperfect, selfish, stupid nature that infests the lord, or the "capitalist", infests the revolutionary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The "capitalist" AS SUCH, can only hire or bribe. An unchecked authoritarian government can do that (with other people's money), plus arrest, torture, and kill you or your family. It is incoherent to fear the former and not fear the latter. No "angel" is available to bear this power benignly.
Socialism IS despotism, inherently, invariably, and unavoidably.
13
-
13
-
You are compounding the error that got the south into the mess in the first place: not taking Lincoln at his word. The war, of course, placed the US in debt, and there was never any prospect of a gain. If there had been no secession how could Lincoln have implemented your nefarious plan? The reason for the secession was precisely that the southern squires feared, despite Lincoln's assurances to the contrary, that he would contrive to eliminate slavery: they said so repeatedly at the time. If that was NOT Lincoln's plan, as you insist, they miscalculated badly. If your theory is correct, they could have thwarted Lincoln by:
1. Doing nothing. Particularly not seceding.
2. Even failing that by not violating their agreement not to fire on Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not violate his end, his naval expedition was under orders to supply the fort only, and not to reinforce it unless it was attacked. Once again, they just ASSUMED he was lying.
The Confederate provisional government had already called for the mustering of a large Confederate army before Lincoln took office and any Northern preparations took place. Note that Lincoln did not rush to take the other seizures of Federal Forts as a pretext for war prior the Fort Sumter attack. The war was, to use Lincoln's phrase a southern "appeal from ballots to bullets". Having appealed to that penultimate court, they must abide the verdict. As it was their acts of war ultimately achieved only the regional equivalent of "suicide by cop".
13
-
12
-
11
-
@EdoardoB-xz1jp
All Fascists and Nazis are Leftists. Mussolini was an editor of a leftist paper. Prior to the war Mussolini and FDR, the progressive (which at the time meant socialism plus eugenics plus Jim Crow laws) were exchanging political love letters praising one another and also in the American and Italian press.
Mussolini and his party developed Fascism because Marx's predicted proletarian uprising, long overdue by Communist prediction, never happened. Mussolini noted that despite ideology, people still fought for their country, so he added ardent nationalism to socialism. Unlike the Nazis, there was nothing acutely racial about Mussolini's nationalism (he was not anti-semitic, for example). When he took power he got a congratulatory telegram from Lenin for being a leftist leader who took control of Italy.
Hitler made no bones about being a leftist:
#1. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit”
#2. [My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”
#3. “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”
#4. We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”.
#5. “Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
#6. “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” 1927
#7. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.”
Select planks from the Nazi party platform:
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.
We therefore demand:
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
Breaking the Servitude of Interest.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.
/ end citation
The early (pre-Holocaust) laws relegating Jews to second-class citizens were copied wholesale from the "Progressive" Jim Crow laws of the American South.
Stalin not only entered into a non-aggression pact with Hitler, he joined him in the conquest of Poland and gave him material and propaganda support until Hitler betrayed him with Operation Barbarossa. Stalin considered the liberal west the greater threat ideologically.
At the time, everybody considered Fascism and Nazism to be part of the left. After the war, when the Nazis had made eugenics unfashionable, the left exerted its propaganda power to attribute Fascism and Nazism to the right. The notion that Fascism is not leftist is historical revisionism.
10
-
9
-
+Tycho Caine
" Until a court case happens in which YouTube is categorized as a 'public commons'"
Until they are sued, no court case will happen at all. This is the sort of case that can establish this sort of precedent.
"Lol they own YT"
Legalities aside for the moment, what would any decent person find amusing about this situation? Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager )
concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint:
http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf
Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled,
and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate
against public speakers at their whim for any reason,
including their animus toward and political viewpoints of
their public users and providers of video content,
because Defendants are for profit organizations rather
than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are
wrong.
As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea
that private property can constitute a public forum for
free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar
to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been
he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B.
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme
Court also recognized more than a half century ago that
the right to free speech guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply
even on privately owned property.
/end quote
Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech?
Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
+The_Blazer
"for some people "school choice" is a codeword for 'I want to be able to
send my children to a jesus camp where they are indoctrinated with
creation science and religious fundamentalism'."
Religious parochial schools outperform public schools academically. Graduates of parochial schools score higher on SATs and do better in college. They will know more about evolution than public school grads. If you were against indoctrination you would not be a supporter of the public school monopoly. One of the problems of the public schools is that they spend more time on indoctrination than real academics. You are not against indoctrination, you just want to choose what gets indoctrinated rather than the parents.
+warbird333
"His Majesty, voucher don't pay the full cost of tuition, so some people
still won't be able to choose a private/charter school assuming that
there is one nearby."
"If vouchers did pay full tuition then the program MIGHT work presume
that private/charter school are available everywhere that people have a
problem with their public school."
If vouchers won't enable people to access private schools, they won't make any difference at all, so why do you oppose them? In fact, if the voucher program is general enough that a school can recruit a large enough student body to achieve some economy of scale, they can educate students for half of what is being spent on our public schools, and do it better. How do I know it can be done? It HAS been done. Before public sector unions and the federal Department of Education, the public schools used to do it. Build it and they will come.
"Public school are available to everyone, no one can be
denied/discriminated against by any religious principle a
private/charter school might impose."
This or that private school might insist on teaching their beliefs, I have never heard of one that tried to insist the students believe them. Also not all such schools are of the same religion, or even religious at all. There is nothing to prevent persons of any philosophical or political persuasion from starting their own school. "Let a thousand flowers bloom" and let the market sort them out.
"Why should the government encourage a move to private/charter school
will never provide for everyone when a more obvious option is right
under our noses."[sic]
Because that option is failing, right under our noses. The specific and general failure of our public schools, despite funding levels many times that of earlier years when they were working is palpable and undeniable.
"Make Public schools better!"
Let me guess. By increasing the funding .... again. By doubling down on the same things that created the mess we are in. The only thing we can hope will make public schools better is competition.
"Private school exist so that so that rich people can segregate their
kids from the poor"
There no doubt are such institutions, they have nothing to do with vouchers, vouchers can't afford them. If they are exclusive, poor folks will be excluded, and they are no threat to your hegemony.
"and indoctrinate them with their parents' beliefs."
You are conflating exclusive prep schools and parochial schools, they are not the same thing. You want to indoctrinate their kids with YOUR beliefs. It is not clear to me that you have an overriding claim.
"they force beliefs one them that school were never meant force on children."
meant by whom?
"If parents want their kids to learn about the Bible then they should
teach it themselves in addition to Sunday school, Bible study and church
mass both on Sunday and any other day their church meets."
The parents should be in control of the curriculum, not you. If you could do a better job, you should have.
"the school should be teaching Math, Science, History, and Literature that teaches you think for yourself."
And that is precisely what private schools are doing that public schools are not, verifiably and undeniably.
"This woman was lucky to get into this school specifically. Plenty of
other private schools that would not have helped her prosper as she did
here."
Lucky? How do you rule out the possibility that she or her guardian chose well? And she could hardly have done worse than the public system was doing to her.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Jovan Emeric
"Ending slavery, every creation of every republican government, the end of monopolies, the improvement of working conditions, the end of child labour, stopping the Nazis, the list goes on."
No, ending slavery, the creation of the US, stopping the Nazis, were originally were the forms in their time of what we would call today conservative/libertarian thought. The leftist Progressives, like Woodrow Wilson, were advocates of socialism, Jim Crow laws, and the eugenics movement which was a openly cited precursor to the eugenics policies of the 3rd Reich. US progressives were the intellectual heirs, and in most cases the descendants, of the 19th century Democrats who fought to preserve slavery.
Before the war, FDR and Mussolini were openly admiring all over each other, recognizing their common goal of implementing leftist ideas and expanding the scope and power of government. Hitler had a lot of nice things to say about FDR before the war, and based his early antisemitic discriminatory laws expressly on the US Democrat/progressive/leftist Jim Crow laws. Fascism and Nazism were understood universally at the time to be LEFTIST political movements. Lenin congratulated Mussolini when Mussolini took power in Italy. The notion that fascism is a movement of the right is a propaganda triumph of damage control after the Nazis "gave eugenics a bad name".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We have to be careful using the word "progressive". Etymologically, it ought to mean being in favor of human progress, but it was first used by the Democrats in the Jim Crow days. It meant Socialism, Eugenics, and Jim Crow laws. Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive", on his watch the first film shown in the White House was the KKK promoting film "Birth of a Nation". He is credited with revitalizing the KKK as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. FDR was a progressive, he and Mussolini publicly admired one another, and he agreed to block anti-lynching federal legislation in exchange for southern congressmen's votes for the New Deal. Democrat support for eugenics has been swept under the historical rug since "nazis gave eugenics a bad name." It was all the rage in the first third of the 20th century, all "evolutionary" and "scientific". Margaret Sanger was a prominent eugenicist, who leaves as her legacy the organization she founded, Planned Parenthood.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"At what point did they mention that this channel is funded by billionaires?"
I suppose the Wilks brothers find what PragerU says to be helpful, that does not discredit them. Are you equally upset by TYT's billionaire donors? You are not addressing his facts or his arguments, you are just giving yourself an excuse for dismissing them. It is a form of ad hominem which C.S Lewis called "Bulverism", basically, what folks are taught in schools today instead of crititcal thinking. "Mansplaining", and a priori dismissal of the opinions of non-minorities are all based on this fallacy:
From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
"In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — 'Oh you say that because you are a man.' 'At that moment', E. Bulver assures us, 'there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.' That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
"Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is 'wishful thinking.' You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Jacob Park
" do you think the rich parents in a private or charter school would
allow the "other" kids to attend the same school their child is
attending?"
Exclusive schools don't enter in to the argument. They exclude themselves from voucher money by excluding students.
"They have all of the money and power, "
At present the teacher's unions and the education bureaucracy have most of the money and power, and the rich have enough money and power to exempt their children from the system. Vouchers give money and power to the rest of the parents.
"Public education focuses on the overall big picture. "
The public education power bloc focuses on maintaining their monopoly. Apart from the minority who can home school and the other minority who can prep school, and the upper middle class who can afford the parochial school, the vast majority of students and families are simply the property of the teacher's unions and whatever they are inclined to give us.
"School vouchers will benefit some poor people, but will ultimately
benefit the rich the most since charter schools use PUBLIC money from
the government."
You mention public schools and charter schools, and a particular type of private school, the exclusive and expensive "prep" type school. You fail to mention religious parochial schools. Most of these operate on
LESS money per student than public schools, and produce better results, as measured by standardized tests. So it can be done. Given competition, it WILL be done. In the current system the inner city poor are excluded from a quality education. Given vouchers, they will have a chance. This empowers the poor, not the rich. The rich already have options.
"Also, kids in public schools will be targeted significantly since government tax money is going to charter schools."
Given choice, they won't have to stay in public schools. They are "targeted" for having an option for an upgrade.
". Yes, every student is given $20,000, however, that is not a lot when you consider that it is from our taxes"
What does that mean? The whole education budget is from our taxes. Vouchers are revenue neutral. The same amount per student which is currently being spent will now go with the student at the discretion of the parent. That $20K is more than many parochial schools charge for tuition, etc. Parochial schools generally do not discriminate in admission with regard to race, religious affiliation, or socioeconomic status.
"And stop making it a left or right thing people. I am tired of that."
The reason why it is a "right or left" thing is because it is about control. The left want the government in control of everything either because they are just power mad or because they think that the people are a bunch of rubes that can't be trusted with freedom, an arrogance that amounts to the same thing. Bureaucrats and politicians are just people, no better than the rest of us. A government paycheck does not convey sainthood. Freedom is served by dispersing power, and distributing responsibilities down to the level closest to the people.
+Krishnakali Majumdar
"NikkyyHD so racism is imaginary?"
Since the current bureaucratic power structure is maintaining and defending a system that locks many inner city racial minorities into failing schools, and oppose any attempt to rectify the system, one is tempted to conclude that at least in some circles, racism is alive and well, thanks for asking.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"You do not need to use force, army, police, etc., because you have reprogrammed your mind and brain, and will change all your instincts, habits, and wills unconditionally."
This is not a workable replacement for personal responsibility. If the programmee determines the program, those who programmed themselves for peaceful philanthropic docility will be at the mercy of those who programmed themselves for Machiavellian psychopathy. If the state decides the program then I leave you with O'Brien's words to Winston in the novel "1984":
" There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
....
"We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable."
...
"If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct; we are the inheritors. Do you understand that you are alone? You are outside history, you are non-existent."
or from C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man":
“It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere ‘natural object’ and his own judgments of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will. The objection to his doing so does not lie in the fact that this point of view (like one’s first day in a dissecting room) is painful and shocking till we grow used to it. The pain and the shock are at most a warning and a symptom. The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners.”
...
“For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please…
...
"At the moment, then, of Man’s victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual men, and those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely ‘natural’ – to their irrational impulses.”
...
“Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.”
+Duy Anh N H
"You do not need to use force, army, police, etc.,"
I need police and armies to keep evil men from enslaving me (or killing me). Slaves or robots don't "need" them because by definition the "needs" of these two classes of entities are for whatever makes them more useful for the master. The sole legitimate role of government is to force men to mind their own business, because left to themselves they will not. Your "cure" is far worse than the disease.
"Most importantly"
In this very tragic world abounding with evils and ills you think that the removal of police and armies is of UTMOST importance? There are far greater evils than these. Where I come from the police and the military are still the sheepdogs of society, keeping the wolves at bay. I realize you may live in a place where this is not the case. In some countries the police and military work for the wolves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As far as I understand, this is similar to the idea of the socialist utopia which Marx said years ago was bound to happen. It didn't happen. Despite untold efforts by millions, it never has happened. Productivity may be increased by artificial intelligence and robots, I agree. But, we are so far from being able to humanely program ourselves, that I can't see any profit in discussing it, even apart from the ethical considerations involved.
But this much seems clear. History has shown us that men cannot be trusted with too much power over other men. If mind programming proved possible, this would be the ultimate temptation, and men are not to be trusted to resist it. There is a saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The power to "reprogram" men is absolute power. I do not think one world government can be good. Different people throughout the world have different moral values. The only way to get them into a worldwide government is by deadly force. The only way to get them to keep codes of conduct not their own is by deadly force or by programming their minds when this becomes possible. The only way to force them to program themselves to your program is by deadly force.
You are asking me to accept a program involving "mind programming", a technology or technique not yet invented, for the purpose of eventually making a peaceful society, when even after it is invented applying it to all men to bring about your pacifist utopia can only be achieved by a world war. People have sold us a "war to end all wars" before. This time we have sales resistance. Men will not agree on the program. If you let them choose, they will refuse. If you don't let them choose you are a tyrant, and I will oppose you, and all good men will join me. You say "If everyone does what I want the world will be perfect." This is what all tyrants say. The only difference between you and the tyrant is the tyrant has power and you do not.
2
-
2
-
I have already replied to this. I understand you want to reprogram humanity, and because you several of your goals will solve current problems as you see them, you believe that your goal will justify anything you have to do to accomplish that goal. This is a common belief of totalitarians and has led to many wars and billions of political murders throughout history.
You do realize that there exists no means, now or in the near future projected, to reprogram human minds against their will or even with their will as completely as you advocate. So, firstly, you are arguing in favor of doing something which cannot be done, which is a waste of words.
Secondly, you realize, do you not, that many, probably most of the people in the world alone, and more the universe perhaps, disagree with you about your goals and are not willing to be programmed to serve them. To program them against their will is as permanently wrong as it is currently impossible.
"Do you understand?"
Yes, I understand you completely. You are a frustrated despot, and if you ever get the power do do as you wish, humanity as we know it is dead, and that is a bad thing. Your government has taught you to believe that a self-selected elite can and should choose for all people and this will be good for the people. In your dream you are this elite who can choose for all. You have been taught that for people to be able and free to choose is a bad thing. I was taught that for people to be free to choose is a good thing. The difference between the sort of society these two beliefs make is the difference between Vietnam and the US, poverty and prosperity, ignorance and knowledge, folly and wisdom, evil and good. To most in the world, the depravity of the vision you have explained is obvious. Perhaps, with your upbringing and political education, you cannot see it. If so, across such a gap in views of the world, no argument is possible, because arguments turn on shared assumptions, and you and I don't share enough common assumptions to even argue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I was responding to this sentence:
" If you make Nazi salutes, you can hardly cry that you're being picked up when people call you a Nazi. "
That makes sense only if you assume that the persons complaining about being called Nazis are the persons giving the Nazi salutes. We don't complain when people acting like Nazis get called Nazis (nor do the Nazis, they're proud of it). We complain when Trump supporters are being called Nazis across the board. And it is not just Trump. They called Reagan a fascist, they called Bush Jr. a fascist. The escalating violence is a natural outgrowth of the escalating rhetoric. If X is a Nazi, it's ok to hit him a biff, to beat him, to shoot him. If words are a "microaggression" then aggression in response is called for.
"in America at the moment the most serious abuses are certainly coming from the Republican side."
Are Republicans attacking their opposition at opposition political rallies? Are Republicans doxing people and harrassing them at their homes and in public places? Are Republicans seeking to deplatform and censor their opposition? Are Democrat congressmen getting shot by Republicans like Republicans are by Democrats?
I know this polemic mode seems justified to you, because it is what you are taught in school nowadays in place of critical thinking. Rather than go to the effort of engaging your opponent's arguments and data, you give yourself an excuse for dismissing it. This is Bulverism:
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
2
-
+mankeytoes
"How is Fox not mainstream media?"
When all the newsrooms of the broadcast media, public funded broadcasting, a significant bloc of newspapers, all the cable news outlets save one, and the gatekeepers of the Internet are an opinion monolith against which to balance 1 cable news network, a few web sites, and a majority of talk radio, the term "mainstream media" is a useful, indeed vital, term for speaking clearly about the situation. Sorry -Bigfoot Hawk, you replied after I started writing.
2
-
+mankytoes
"I mean it isn't normal, is it? I don't remember either Bushes or Reagan having their supporters do that."
By "having them do" I presume you don't mean "encouraging them to do"
"Maybe because you aren't Europeans?"
That has something to do with it. Nationalist parties with racial overtones are a significant voting bloc in many European countries. They are not so here. By the most tendentiously pessimistic estimates, the KKK and the Neo-Nazi and racist skinhead groups all together have less than a million members nationwide in the US, a nation of about 350 million. They are not a political power, they are a universally despised tiny minority, despised by Repubs/ Dems/ Trumpers/ never Trumpers, by all and sundry. They are NOT a POLITICAL player here. While extremely irritating, the worse they can do is a bit of amateur violence and terrorism on a small scale, a relatively minor police matter not an existential crisis. While it is a shame that they manage to ruin their own lives and damn their own souls, they are impotent to do much else.
"I hope you apply the same logic to your opponents, like not labelling people communists just because they wave communist flags."
Dude, by now it must be clear, even to you, that you are being deliberately obtuse. You would be justified in assuming, to first order, that people giving Nazi salutes in a political rally are Nazis. You ARE NOT justified in saying "Trump supporters" or "a significant number of Trump supporters" are Nazis when there ARE NOT a significant number of Trump supporters making Nazi salutes or supporting Nazi policies, like state control of major industries, abortion, racial discrimination in hiring, wage and price controls, censorship, criminalization of opposing parties and views, using the law enforcement and military for partisan political purposes, and an increase in the power and money centralized in the government. All of these policies are the policies the Democrats have in common with the Nazis of yore, which conservatives and Trumpistas oppose.
"To survive in the world you've got to recognise danger signs, it's in the most base parts of our programming, and a Nazi salute is just about the biggest red flag you can get."
What are we supposed to do? Drop our political principles because some bad guys say they're on our side? Don't worry, we are watching our house, look to yours. You act like this slander of yours is new! The leftists have been calling conservatives and Republicans racists for over 50 years now in this country. It is a deception tactic that has run its course. Bulverism, as I said. "You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." - FDR who was an expert on the subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TheJudge01 The NRA was supportive of southern civil rights leaders being armed to defend themselves against KKK attacks. NRA opposed Democrat gun control legislation aimed then as now to remove the protection of poor folks and minorities. Many civil rights leaders of the time were open and enthusiastic members of that fine organization. If MLK had been for gun control in the '60s, he would not have been a civil rights leader.
As for immigration and Mexicans, Latin American labor organizer and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez was adamantly opposed to illegal immigration, rightly seeing it as an attempt by US employers to undercut entry level US workers (then and now). Your opinions on such matters are by no means dominant among women, and we have a formal means of collectively citing their general will. We call it an election. Illegal immigrants, like all lawbreakers, can be constitutionally deprived of their rights by due process. Women AMERICANS, Mexican AMERICANS, and Muslim AMERICANS are not systematically deprived of their rights in this country, tendentious claims to the contrary notwithstanding regardless of source. There is such a thing as objective truth.
What you are calling the "right" now are precisely the ones who support and uphold civil rights, especially enumerated constitutional rights. And as your post admits THAT IS WHY you disagree with them (2nd amendment is an enumerated civil right). Legitimate rights are freedom "TO" (to act to do something) bogus rights are freedom "FROM" (government restrictions on your neighbor's freedom to act) or free stuff. Freedom of speech as opposed to free beer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+derpion derpson
Yes, Ben Shapiro's book may not be available in your country. I apologize if my assumptions were unfair to you on the basis of your nationality. Since this video is about the tendentiousness of the US media, I assumed you were someone who had a stake in the subject. But if you're not living in the US, you don't have much stake in whether the US media is fair, manipulative or whatever (or, for that matter much data upon which to base your opinion). You must understand, I get the leftist viewpoint and such "arguments" as they can muster crammed down my throat every time I watch TV or a movie, or do almost anything else. I don't have to track down books on the subject, it tracks me down. Not so for those on the other side. If they want to be able to form arguments or address our opinions, they have to seek out niche outlets like Prager U, or talk radio. They CAN live in an bubble insulated from opposition. I can't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager )
Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint:
http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf
Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong.
As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property.
/end quote
Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech?
Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Arthur Webber
"John C. I can't find that survey, could you give me a link or something?"
That is John C's typo for the Lichter Rothman report:
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_media_elite.html?id=b-VoAAAAIAAJ
https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-1-1-media-elite
You can find it by typing "lichter rothman report" in the "Duck Duck Go" search engine.
Google is more flaky, I got nothing until I spelled "lichter" right, DDG gave me the hits for "lictor rothman report"
The original report on the survey reveals, for example, that more than 80% of the decision makers at network news programs executives, editors, reporters, anchors voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election, an election in which Ronald Reagan got 51% of the popular vote and Anderson, the independent got 7%.
Rothman update to 1995:
https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-1-8-media-elite-revisited
"Do you have any sources for your other claims?"
Leftward media bias is well documented:
Ben Shapiro's book is documentation of this as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/1621573117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Distortion
https://www.amazon.com/Left-Turn-Liberal-Distorts-American/dp/1250002761
https://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/
Slander by Ann Coulter
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Soviet Union would have collapsed under German pressure without US aid. We supplied them, among other things, with food, trucks, Sherman tanks, P47 strike/fighter aircraft, the tooling for an entire truck factory. We supplied shermans to every allied power in droves before the war was over. A key factor in the collapse of the European Axis was the loss of North African oil. In the North African campaign, we were still playing 2nd fiddle to UK in terms of force levels at that stage, but we were the reinforcement that broke the tit for tat stalemate between Allied and Axis theater forces, this plus aid to UK setting the stage for the endgame. Without the US, UK could not have opened the western front in time to forestall our strong colleague, the USSR, from overrunning much more of Europe. We didn't take superpower status from WW2, we earned it.
1
-
The vast bulk of military and humanitarian aid came from the US, even before the declaration of war, and well before Hitler ever attacked USSR and continuing past the war's end. The whole point of the German U-boat offensive was to starve the UK into submission. This only makes sense in a context where US is feeding UK.
Despite Hitler's incompetent meddling, the whole eastern front affair ended up coming to the balance of a hair, and would have had a different outcome if either the US or UK had not been aiding the Soviets. The Germans would have been sitting on the Soviet rail and industrial hub to the north, poised to cut off the ports further north, and in the south securing Crimean oil. As a result of the Ukrainian genocide, the Ukrainians were the only people in the world who hailed the Wehrmacht as liberators, so they wouldn't even have had to occupy the Ukrainian heartland. Push to the starving Urals, invade the starving UK, and that's a win. Germany could have made up aircraft losses eventually to support the invasion if US B-17s had not bombed German aircraft production in massive daylight bombing raids. The UK could not have fuelled their Spitfires unless US kept running the U-boat blockade. The honor goes to France and UK for standing first against Reich tyranny, but all would have been in vain without the US contribution, before and after the declaration of war.
On the African front, 300 Shermans were already delivered to Montgomery by the battle of El Alamein, and the 2 front Allied offensive, US from west, and UK/US from east drove Rommel out of Africa. I will refrain from reciprocating the insults, in the name of Allied solidarity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is nothing about physics plus matter that predicts or allows for consciousness. The notion that consciousness arises from matter and physics is not a simple error, like 2+2=5, but a category error, like 2+2=blue. The notion that it does is a scientistic superstition, an urban legend.
One can not rule out reductionist intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence field is an attempt to achieve just that, an attempt which has made practical progress, but not with the speed or ease that the pioneers confidently predicted.
Can't there be a rule that a certain level of intelligence is always conscious?
If there were it could not, by definition, be a rule of physics, thus it would contradict materialism.
Since we know that there is something beyond physics, particularly conscience, in other words, ourselves;
there is no rational basis to reject free will.
1
-
1
-
Mr. Waters can, of course, brazen it out, "You can't prove 2+2 does not equal blue." I wonder if that sort of thing would have impressed his grade school teacher.?
But as an argument against free will, it won't do. You must prove your sum. Until you have some notion of how consciousness arises from matter and physics, the notion that it does is a mere superstition. And the argument from reductionism to no free will depends on reductionism being true.
My second statement of my argument was not a new argument, as I made clear. I still don't understand what you thought I meant the first time and I suspect that is why I can't make heads or tails of your first response. The only thing that is clear is that the argument you first responded to is not the argument I made. Reading your first response is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation. Perhaps if you want your original response, of which you seem to be proud, to impress, you should summarize, in your own words, the argument to which you thought you were responding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Waters asserts:
"2+2 = blue" is nothing but a straw man.
It was not an argument, it was an explanatory analogy. By taking the same principle out of the realm dominated by pop scientism and wishful thinking, I hope to engender impartial thinking about the principle, which once accepted may be profitably applied to the subject at hand. So much nonsense has been disseminated about this in the general culture that this is necessary.
"If by "consciousness" you mean something other than the interactions of
our brains, then the burden of proof of its existence is on you."
My argument only has force for those who believe that consciousness exists. To those who claim to have an open mind on the matter, my argument has nothing to say. If you mean by "the interactions of our brains" materialism, then you have not answered my objection. If you mean something else, you have not even contradicted my conclusion.
Something cannot be it's own cause.
So far, so good.
In order for my mental processes to be determined by my mental processes.
Whoa, nobody claimed that.
Try, "Our mental processes are our mental processes." There is no a priori reason to attribute their cause to a hypothetical something else. Indeed, unless that something else is also mind or reason, doing so invalidates reason itself. We accept reasoned thought and reject caused thought. We don't put tightly reasoned mathematical theorems on a par with mental notions resulting from a splinter pressing on the brain. The distinction is precisely that the first notion is reasoned, and the second is caused by irrational forces. We ordinarily allow no exception to this principle, yet those who claim that all thought is caused by irrational forces ask us to make the unacceptable exception the rule.
Ah, Occam's razor. The simplest explanation. Except, you have not provided an explanation, simple or complex. You are holding the razor by the blade. You mention burden of proof, as if we were positing some supernatural explanation of a phenomenon. We arrived at the notion of free will, not by speculation or philosophizing, but by freely choosing. Our notions of justice and responsibility are built on it. Every time you make a moral judgement that judgement is predicated upon the notion of both free will and an objective standard of right and wrong by which are choices are to be judged. And except for psychopaths, none of us can go a week without making moral judgements. And a world view which cannot be lived does not have to be taken seriously. The only notions we have asked you to prove are the notions you use as assumptions to disprove free will.
1
-
John Waters says:
"It's just a straw man - a completely analogy if you wish."
Did you mean "completely an analogy" or " a complete analogy"
"a specific type of consciousness"
I never said that. Dawkins tries to explain consciousness as an epiphenomenon of material processes. Set aside proving it for the moment, to even make an epiphenomenal claim plausible you must give a hint as to how the epiphenomenon reduces to the presumed substrate, or at a minimum, how they might both reduce to the same category. Without such, the claim is meaningless, and does not rise to the level of error. Before you call this a revised argument it is the same argument. My original argument. If this is not clear I can amplify it.
(Thoughts)..." have not always existed (since not even I have always existed) therefore they must have causes (that must actually be external), which makes your claim completely false. "
I should have said "There is no a priori reason to attribute their cause to a specific something else". In other words your attribution of a thoughts cause to itself, or to another thought, is not the only alternative to attributing them to material causes. Many world views other than materialism have an internally consistent attributions for these causes. The one you attacked is held by no one. I can tell you what I, for example, believe about the matter if you like. But one does not need a specific example to know that the alternative you proposed is not the only alternative. That is obvious.
"The reason why we accept "reasoned thought and reject caused thought". is that it is consistent to some degree. A working calculator is consistent, therefore it is trusted. One that has shows incorrect results half the time is not."
Indeed the distinction may well be inductive, that is, we may have arrived at it by experience. That does not invalidate the distinction.
Occam's razor is "Entities are not to be multiplied needlessly. The simplest explanation is probably the best one." Google is our friend.
"My actions are weighted according to what is beneficial and to the understanding that other people are not so different from me or from each other. "?
Your are staking a claim to act on good morals, not stating a basis for morality. In order to reason to moral conclusions, you must start with moral premises. Logically, there is no way to reason from premises in the indicative mood to conclusions in the imperative mood. There is no way to get from an "is" to an "ought".
"'the notions you use as assumptions to disprove free will.'
Those assumptions have been the ones assumed in the video (because that was what I was commenting about and disproving)."
The video did not assume the truth of naturalism.
The point of my last paragraph was that your invocation of "burden of proof" was an unfortunate one because the position you are arguing against is the common sense or default one, despite a great deal of propaganda and cultural conditioning to the contrary.
About "baseless". Logic demands premises to reach conclusions. Premises are baseless. One can nevertheless use logic to reject premises, or combinations of premises, or invalid deductions, which are inconsistent, for example: You say "you cannot show how free will fits into materialism, therefore free will does not exist." Then you say "I cannot show how consciousness fits into materialism, but it fits anyway."
1
-
replying to +John Waters:
Invoking "burden of proof" in an academic discussion or debate, where there are no immediate consequences of the outcome independent of that outcome, is to simply beg to be allowed to assume that which should be proven. "The house wins all ties," but who died and made you the house? You can, and probably will, continue to insist that I shoulder the "burden of proof", but unless you give me a logical reason why I should spot you ties, I will continue to ignore it.
You said
"Internally consistent, as the assertion that "I can fly, therefore I can fly" is internally consistent yet completely unsubstantiated..."
As? What is the similarity? I was not claiming that internal consistency proves a notion, I was noting that there were alternatives to your straw man carefully chosen for inconsistency, namely thoughts causing themselves.
"You can either claim that occam's razor only applies to explanations, and therefore my principle is not occam's razor OR you can say that the principle I used is not occam's razor."
2 posts prior you said:
"I need only to accept the most likely explanation based on the facts and the implications of those facts."
YOU stated your principle as applying to explanations.
I said,
"In order to reason to moral conclusions, you must start with moral premises."
You said,
"Not really." Yes, really. That premises in the indicative mood do not lead to conclusions in the imperative mood is a principle of formal logic "Logic is our friend."
"I just need a mutually shared goal with other people in a community."
Self interest, even enlightened self interest, is not morality. Morality begins where self interest ends. Morality is sacrificing your interest for the good of another who objectively (on moral premises) has a better claim.
"Your claim simply demonstrates that your morals are baseless."
My claim is that morality requires a base. Your assumptions lead to the conclusion that ALL MORALS are baseless. If what I call my moral notions are simply the manipulation of "selfish genes", then they can no more logically command my loyalty than any other genetic trait, like the color of my eyes.
" ' "I cannot show how consciousness fits into materialism, but it fits anyway." '
On a side note: it does not fit at all."
"Side note"? Good grief! If you mean that consciousness does not fit into materialism, you are CONCEDING THE MAIN POINT OF MY MAIN ARGUMENT! If you stipulate that consciousness does not fit into materialism, do you hold that consciousness does not exist, or concede that materialism is false?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myusernameissoobnoxiouslyl1466
I see I slightly misunderstood your point, 3 posts up, I thought you were talking about cars, not highways.
"Yes commonfolk can have highways"
How gracious of you, master!
"but they oughta pay a toll to enter"
We have already established that road and vehicle taxes are funding the whole shebang, if the "alternatives" were better, they would be profitable, and not need subsidy. Be careful that you don't kill the source of revenue for your pet projects. Unless your motive is not to provide revenue, but to punish behavior of which you disapprove, in which case you are, again, an authoritarian elitist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The_Blazer
"Gun laws do not impact criminals directly but that isn't the same as not impacting them at all. Every "illegal" gun started out as a legal gun built in a factory somewhere that eventually went lost or stolen somewhere, if you make it harder for the losing/stealing part to happen you reduce the supply of illegal guns"
Not every illegal gun was originally manufactured for legitimate CIVILIAN use. In the US, most gun murders are "drive by" shootings where the instrument is a "machine pistol", a semi-concealable fully automatic weapon firing pistol caliber ammo. NONE of these were lost or stolen from a legitimate civilian private owner or dealer catering to same. The driver of violent crime is the ratio of risk between the good guys and the bad guys. In the UK, the most common form of theft from private homes is a small team of men breaking in to a home WHEN THEY KNOW THE OWNERS ARE HOME and awake and stealing their stuff and personal effects, getting the haul of a burglar and a mugger at the same time and not having to stay up late or fumble around in the dark. As the UK tallies crime, this does not count as a "violent crime", unless someone actually gets physically injured, even though the threat of force is central to the modus operandi. This does not happen in the US, for good and sufficient reason. Disarming all citizens in hopes of reducing the armament of criminals isn't just oppressive, it is bad policy with respect to every practical consideration. What you HOPE TO gain is not worth what you WILL lose.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
And in the end will loose both. - Digital Nomad
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"from any Brit's point of view"
You should take a look at British views represented in these comment pages.
"We have far superior brains when it comes to inventions"
US grants about 30,000 patents a year, about half from foreign applicants
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm
"Last year there were 5,037 patent applications to the EPO filed by British applicants, the highest number since 2011. However, the UK still lags behind many of its European neighbours when patent applications are counted per head of population."
http://smallbusiness.co.uk/more-uk-companies-protecting-intellectual-property-year-on-year-2509711/
I don't attribute the difference to "American brains", but to a society more amenable to innovation, but then again, I'm not a racist.
Yes, US education has declined since the 60s. The problem is public sector unions and the US federal Department of Education, 2 things which did not exist in the 60s. The solution is education vouchers, which conservatives support and leftists oppose (and eliminating public sector unions and the federal Department of Education).
"The UK gives very generously too given the size of this island."
Not bad. The UK gives .84% of it's gdp in private charitable giving, ranking seventh in the table coming in at just under half the US figure. Given the hundreds of countries counted, that is impressive. (Somehow, I doubt that you personally are among the generous.) US tops this figure at 1.85%, with Israel a close second at 1.35%.
http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/Comparative-data-Tables_2004_FORMATTED_2.2013.pdf
Chart is on page 7.
"America can afford to give generously being as you have looted Trillions from countries invaded for no reason whatsoever."
I don't know where you're getting this notion. Make your slanders specific, so I can refute them.
"The only thing that astonishes me is why the US has not been held accountable for war crimes? Then you have you're pathetic lust for guns. Mad world we live in, that is made all the madder by dumber Americans." [sic]
If you are going to brag about your education and intelligence, you should avoid putting question marks at the end of sentences that aren't questions and abusing a contraction (FYI, that should be "your").
Now to the specifics. The US healthy enthusiasm for guns and gun ownership has served us well.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
While the US does rank somewhere in the 80s worldwide in per capita murders overall, which is high for a western country, the devil is in the details. Virtually all of these murders take place in certain Democrat dominated municipalities with strict gun control laws. Counties with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates.
In the UK it is becoming more common for thieves to invade British homes when they know the occupants are home. Instead of sneaking around at night, or mugging people in the streets, they break in and get the combined haul of a burglary and a mugging in one job. Naturally, in a nation where gun ownership for self defense by private citizens is prohibited, they can count on 3 young strong men with clubs or knives being able to overpower whatever is waiting for them inside.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html
https://morethanjustsurviving.com/home-invasion-story/
https://pjmedia.com/blog/u-k-crime-statistics-hit-record-high/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131121221254AAanQAF
This does not happen in the US for good and sufficient reason. In this area and most, we're doing it right and Europe is doing it wrong. We can, for instance, defend ourselves from Brits seeking to wrongfully hang us (original post).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not one of the things you attribute to the West started with the west (the Holocaust was an act of a regime rebelling against the foundational values of the west); and compassion and wisdom, joy and happiness didn't start with India.
Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) ended slavery; implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Once the reserve runs out "
There is no reserve. It is an accounting gimmick. It has government IOUs in it.
"You are supposed to have pension and savings with social security. "
Is there an echo in here. That's what he just advocated, except that pension plans per se are gone, you get 401Ks.
"Once you survived childhood you could expect to live to a much older age than 65."
As my grandmother used to say "No, not so much." Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making:
Life Expectancy for Social Security
"If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. "As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21"
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html 54%!
Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women. A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size. Anyway, what is your point? We used to have many payers supporting few retirees, now we have few. That's all he needs to make his central point. Are you denying that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdoardoB-xz1jp
"A difference that MAKES no difference IS no difference."
Both commies and Nazis will:
Divide the public and foster hate along class/religious/gender/class lines
Segregate
Central plan the economy
Nationalize the press
End freedom of speech
Confiscate weapons
Persecute all non state sponsored religions
End all civil rights, including the rights enumerated in the US Constitution (and the Magna Carta).
Evict innocent citizens from their homes
Mobilize the apparatus of law and tax enforcement against their political enemies
Slander, imprison, and murder their political enemies
Eliminate or absorb all public organizations
Replace commercial entertainment media with a boring stream of propaganda.
The minor, insignificant differences between communism and Nazism are only important to communists and Nazis, not to anybody who loves freedom. You won't distract us from our fight for freedom with your internal socialist squabble over who should be our master.
"He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind."-J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making:
Life Expectancy for Social Security
"If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. "As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21"
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html 54%!
Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women. A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size.
1
-
1
-
@Techgunius Giving moral advice is not the same as trying to police. If you don't have the gumption to try to preserve society while it exists, you won't have the gumption for the much harder task of rebuilding it after it falls. Trying to awaken the moral sense of those who mock unselfishness is a waste of time. What is morality but unselfishness? Morality begins where self interest leaves off. Calling gentlemen feminists is just slander. Feminism depends on chivalry, it is true, and if ever as they are trying to do they kill chivalry (as they have done in you, which makes YOU their conquest, not us), then feminism will die as well. But chivalry is not feminism any more than a host is its parasite. And a physician who kills a patient to kill his tapeworm is a quack. Chivalry is mental hygiene.
I have some sympathy for those who have been led to MGTOW by crushing personal experiences with evil women. They were once men, and have been broken. But those who embrace it themselves unassailed are beneath contempt. They seek and find an excuse to behave the way they always wanted to behave in the first place. Such creatures never were men to begin with. The meme known as "Men Going Their Own Way" is misnamed. It implies making a personal choice and respecting the different choices of others. Instead, you attack folk for choosing another way, because the chivalrous alternative SHOWS YOU UP.
"Mgtow; go fall on your own sword."
We are defending life, you are surrendering to death.
1
-
1
-
Tanks need infantry support to protect them from Molotov cocktails, and secure supply lines to keep them running with fuel. Planes need runways that are not overrun. "The Government" doesn't drive tanks. Americans who swore a loyalty oath to the US CONSTITUTION FIRST drive tanks. If there is an opposition to an oppressive government to rally around, the majority of the US military will join it. The first rule of military leadership is "Never give an order you KNOW won't be obeyed." There are about a million men serving in the military. That's not just soldiers, that's all in uniform: aircraft mechanics, sailors, staff officers, intel, logistics, nurses, chaplains; a significant portion of whom are stationed overseas. Against a significant fraction of 320 million under arms? At present, despite the worst efforts of the statists, the balance of power remains where it should be for the proper functioning of a free republic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"selective"? You accuse me of being selective, then demonstrate that you are by telling me who you are selecting. Life expectancy counts EVERYBODY, you just want to count SOME.
"who in the their right mind believes anyone over 35 (another study showing hiring personnel ditching resumes of people over 35) but certainly 50 can secure employment"
I was hired by my current employer at 44.
"r trust private investment companies especially after the Wall Street heist of 2008? The government is dirty, dirty, dirty"
The real estate theft of 2008 was the upshot of the crisis caused by Carter era laws which forced lenders to make real estate loans to "customers" who couldn't pay them back. They then, through certain agencies, promised to guarantee the loans. This is certainly dirty government, and taints the business that went along, but they had to go along or go out of business. An even simpler and more obvious case of theft is the General Motors "bailout". Instead of letting GM go bankrupt, the Obama administration cut off the creditors, who were entitled to the balance of GMs assets, gave the government and the unions (who caused the failure in the first place) in for a cut of stock they had not bought, then took over the company. The only point of the video is that SS is a scam, and is insolvent. You have not refuted, or even contradicted, this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"3-You consider Evil as a thing, a force that cannot be eradicated. Evil isn't a thing, it's a word. Everything you do can reduce it and, with wisdom, the goal of stopping it is possible. This kind of horrors aren't to dismiss as an immutable reality of the universe."
You contradict yourself, the only way evil isn't a thing is if it does not exist. You cannot reduce a word by deeds, only things can be reduced by deeds. There was nothing dismissive about the treatment of evil in the video. Evil is an attribute of man that can only be fully eradicated by eradicating man. The notion that man can be perfected is naivete. Far from resigning herself to evil, she pointed out the clear solution to this sort of thing is teaching men to be men, and all to be moral. We're the ones who are doing something about evil, one person at a time. Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@82boulou All religions together (and there is no morally valid reason to consider them all together, but let's for the sake of argument) for all time cannot begin to match the death toll of atheist societies in the 20th century. And the death toll continues in the holdout states to this day.
When and where atheists had all the power, hundreds of millions of their own citizens were killed, not to mention the deaths and property loss in the wars of conquest they started, all the books burned, slander, and whistle blowers shot. But you would do things differently, right? This follows naturally from your avowed willingness to settle a question of fact by the application of force and coercion: "I would ban". If you acknowledge no universal standard off morality, and especially if you attribute murder to your opponents, and are already willing to settle points of fact by the use of force (which makes you an obscurantist), you have all the mental tools you need to "justify" the next holocaust, which will follow like clockwork when you get power.
When and where Protestants had all the power, just before and during the Victorian era, they abolished slavery in the West and on the high seas, established limited government, freedom of speech and religion, democracy, universal education, and a flowering of knowledge, technology, and prosperity. If you are humanist enough to like any of these things banning religion is counterproductive to that goal.
1
-
1
-
+Leivve
In both sides of your analogy (personal and government) you throw in things that really do require borrowing and things that do not.
1st level-genuine emergency:
government - necessary war, rebuild after a major disaster
personal - life saving medical operation
2nd time shifting necessity, you need it now, you can pay for it with a loan and pay off the loan:
government - I can't think of anything that fits into this category for government.
personal - a house
3rd routine recurring needs:
government - Maintaining and expanding infrastructure is on the national, state, and local scale a routine expense. If you can't pay for it now, you can't pay for it later. A government routinely borrowing money for this is like a person routinely borrowing money for clothes.
personal - Food, shelter maintenance, transportation. I know it is common practice to borrow money for a car and spend years paying it off. This is wrong. As an adult, I have never borrowed money to buy a car, and I have never been without one. I buy what I can afford with retained earnings. I have never earned more than $30k a year. I spend a minute fraction on transportation of what the average person does. The absurd buying habits of western man with regard to autos is why cars are so expensive new and how auto companies can lobby government to keep cheap competition out of the market (like US makers did to the VW bug in the 1970s, when you could buy a new bug for less than $2k). The only thing I have taken out a loan for in my life is my house. When it comes to routine recurring expenses, if you can't pay for it now you can't pay for it later.
Another place your analogy breaks down is that private borrowers are actually required to repay the loans. When we try to get governments to do the same, you object.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IndigoShade "Known" by whom? Here is the Nazi party platform:
/Quote:
The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.
The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.
1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.
2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.
4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.
5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.
6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.
9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.
We therefore demand:
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
Breaking the Servitude of Interest.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.
19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.
22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.
23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:
a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;
b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;
c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.
Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.
The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.
The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.
Munich, Germany
February 24, 1920.
//END QUOTE
Replace every instance of "Jew" with "Wall Street bankers" and you have the new radical Democrat party platform. No "free market" planks here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager)
Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint:
http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf
Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong.
As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property.
/end quote
Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech?
Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+David Roldan
The legal framework of net neutrality legislation allowed the FCC to regulate content in the manner of the old "fairness doctrine". That is the really fearsome prospect, the government effectively censoring the Internet for free. There is a great deal more political money in play on the left than the right. When is the last time the Republican presidential campaign outspent the Democrat presidential campaign? Look it up. All that money is outweighed by the profits the providers get for giving their customers the whole Internet. If the Republicans owned the whole Internet, it would only partly compensate for the Democrat control of movies and TV.
"Censoring a different ideology Reminds me of communism"
By this standard, Google and You Tube are communist, and they censor the right, not the left.
Censoring a different ideology is something the Republicans and conservatives are not doing, have never proposed doing, and the left does every time they get the power (Hollywood, academe, public broadcasting, Google, etc.) The right get called unfair every time they express their opinion or make an argument. Having your say is not the same as shutting the other guy up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Dan Williams
"The things that the Republicans used to want are now the things that the Democrats want and the things Democrats used to want are now the things Republicans want."
Name one.
+The Almighty Jod
"the Tea Party Movement which pulled the Republicans far enough to the right and up (authoritarianism)"
The Tea Party is against authoritarianism, the left is for it.
+travincal1
"The "ethnonationalists" of the world associate themselves with the political RIGHT."
So when Joseph Stalin actually murders millions and associates himself with the LEFT, does that discredit YOU?
+Micheal Manshiem
"1800's Democrats conservatives are the TODAY'S Republicans conservatives. Republicans progressives (Party of Abraham Lincoln) are the TODAY'S Democrats progressives."
Wow! So much equivocation in one sentence. To disentangle this Gordian logic knot we need to define some terms:
1. Conservative. Whether conservatism is good or bad depends on what one is trying to conserve. Today the term "conservative" is used for those who wish to conserve the enumerated freedoms of the Constitution and limited government.
2. Progressive. The term progressive began to be used politically in the early 20th century. Etymologically, it ought to mean being in favor of human progress, but it was first used by the Democrats in the Jim Crow days. It meant Socialism, Eugenics, and Jim Crow laws. Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive", on his watch the first film shown in the White House was the KKK promoting film "Birth of a Nation". He is credited with revitalizing the KKK as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. FDR was a progressive, he and Mussolini publicly admired one another, and he agreed to block anti-lynching federal legislation in exchange for southern congressmen's votes for the New Deal. Democrat support for eugenics has been swept under the historical rug since "nazis gave eugenics a bad name." It was all the rage in the first third of the 20th century, all "evolutionary" and "scientific". Margaret Sanger was a prominent eugenicist, who leaves as her legacy the organization she founded, Planned Parenthood. In this context "progressive" is understood as not an opposite to "conservative" but to what was then called "liberal" and is now called "libertarian"
So modern Democrat policies can be understood as "progressive" in the historical sense. As such, they are the modern manifestation and continuation of historical Democrat authoritarian policies.
Republican policies can be understood as more "libertarian", on the whole, than Democrat policies. The continued and unaltered theme is "freedom and equality under the law", a continuation of the policies of Lincoln.
+Travis Himebaugh
David Duke choosing to call himself Republican may be evidence that he believed in the "switch". It is not evidence that it is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Bad MF
" what if in the future CEOs and other rich people earned 1000000x the average worker? They have so much wealth that they could easily pay everyone on the planet enough to live comfortably and still have more money than they could spend in 1000 lifetimes,"
moral so far.
"but they choose not to."
Now there is a separate question, and it's answer is not so simple.
I am a Christian, and Jesus taught us that charitable contributions are to be done by those who have somewhat to give (and demographics show that we do, evangelicals, Bible thumping red state Republicans that we are, give more as a percentage of their income than other groups). So charity is an obligation for the wealthy Christian, OWED TO GOD. This is not the same as poor folk DESERVING MORE. Since ours is a secular society and not a theocracy, there is no ground for me to try to make this practice obligatory on non-Christians, and, of course, the attempt destroys capitalism and makes the poor poorer. We, as a society, might legitimately pursue as a goal lifting the living standards of the poor, particularly when those standards stunt the health and opportunities of the poor. There can be no legitimate social interest in limiting the living standards of the rich, as such, IN PRINCIPLE, to clarify: NO MATTER HOW RICH THEY GET.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leftists are always complaining about authoritarian corporate power, here it is on display and they are silent, or supporting the bad guys. Here is what separates the leftists from the liberals. “This is not a left/right issue. It is a free speech issue, which is why prominent liberals, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, are supporting our lawsuit,” (Prager)
Concerning the "private property" dodge, quoting from the complaint:
http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf
Defendants believe that they have unfettered, unbridled, and unrestricted power to censor speech or discriminate against public speakers at their whim for any reason, including their animus toward and political viewpoints of their public users and providers of video content, because Defendants are for profit organizations rather than governmental entities. Google/YouTube, you are wrong.
As the California Supreme Court has stated: “[t]he idea that private property can constitute a public forum for free speech if it is open to the public in a manner similar to that of public streets and sidewalks” has long been he law in California. Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. N.L.R.B. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850, 858. The United States Supreme Court also recognized more than a half century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property.
/end quote
Folks, the venue (California courts and/or California juries) may well militate against their winning (due to the bias of California courts and juries), but they wouldn't have brought the suit if they didn't have a case. It is not as simple as you're trying to make it. And as for taking sides, do you want to keep your free speech?
Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The school system is not rotting because we aren't spending enough money on it. We spend many times as much as we did when it worked, even adjusting for inflation. The school system is rotting because the teacher's unions control the whole system and run it as a career and pension program for teachers (as well as a political indoctrination center for students). The mess is a result of two pieces of legislation introduced by Jimmy Carter, and passed by the Democrat congress. First, the legalization of public sector labor unions and second the establishment of the federal Department of Education.
The first of these in addition to messing up US education, paved the way for the entrenchment of the deep state throughout the bureaucracies, as well as myriad inefficiencies and pension bombs at every level. JC & co. also established the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the latter of which paved the way for the savings and loan crisis in the early 80s and the housing loan crisis late in the Bush administration. Later presidents might well have exceeded his spending, but Carter created the bureaucratic apparatus that made it possible, and all but inexorable. Unless the Carter legacy is completely reversed, we will never get a handle on education or spending; or reestablish effective democratic control of "our" government.
Yes, the military/Industrial complex is a big problem. We need to do away with "cost plus" contracts and drain the swamp of our broken procurement system, particularly but not exclusively in Defense and NASA. That is the remaining quarter of our overall spending problem, after regulatory, administrative, and entitlement reform.
Why talk about disarmament? To reject it, because there are those that advocate it, of course! A rejection of disarmament is by no means a rejection of procurement reform (though the MIC might wish to conflate the two). It is not fair to criticize a 5 minute video on the basis that it doesn't address all the world's problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Digital Nomad by your logic, feminists for the death penalty aren't for women's rights."
Since I don't understand what you're getting at, it must not be my logic. Do you mean that feminists must against the death penalty to be for women's rights because some of the people being executed would be women? From my point of view (a constitutional view) felons do not have a constitutional (or moral) right not to be executed. A feminist might hold that they do. He might even hold that only women do. He couldn't get that idea from any principle I have promulgated, by any convolution of logic.
" lets not make the case that women are deprived of rights"
You can only hold that women aren't being deprived of rights if you hold that citizens have no right to keep and bear arms or defend themselves. Women aren't EXCLUSIVELY being deprived of rights, but it can be said that the deprivation of this particular right DOES harm women more than men. If this doesn't fit the narrative of an anti-feminist dogma, that's too bad. I am not a feminist, and not a MGTOW, I am a gentleman. To feminists, I am a NAZI and to MGTOW I am a naive dupe. A pox on both houses. Chivalry is mental hygiene. But regardless of my views, I will not deny a truth even if the denial would impart political advantage, and in this case, it does not. Women don't have different constitutional rights than men. They do have different abilities and weaknesses than men. When feminists deny this, they harm women. When YOU deny this, you empower feminism.
1
-
Ben McKean
"most of the other founders were considered leftists. None would've accepted a Jew into the country either."
The left/right distinction was a result of the French Revolution. It had not yet been invented at the nations founding. Here is George Washington's letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, who wanted the opinion of the executive on the local policy of strict religious tolerance:
Gentlemen:
While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with
expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that
I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I
experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is
rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by
days of uncommon prosperity and security.
If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which
we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a
good government, to become a great and happy people.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud
themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and
liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty
of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the
indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of
their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the
United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no
assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should
demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their
effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to
avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration
and fervent wishes for my felicity.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land
continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while
every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there
shall be none to make him afraid.
May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon
our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in
His own due time and way everlastingly happy. ~ G. Washington
Amen ~ Digital Nomad
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mark Smith
Where do you get those figures? Infant mortality rate is very low nowadays and a man's life expectancy still is not quite as high as 80.
Here is a quote from a Social Security website trying (and obviously failing) to make the point you are making:
Life Expectancy for Social Security
"If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
"As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21"
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
54%! Gee whiz! And they go on to admit that it was worse for women.
A current life expectancy FROM BIRTH of 75 for men and 80 for women (the adult life expectancy is , of course, higher), means that there has been significant change in this demographic, which is a significant contributing factor. Probably at least as significant is the decrease in family size. Anyway, what is your point? We used to have many payers supporting few retirees, now we have few. That's all he needs to make his central point. Are you denying that?
1
-
1
-
"there's also people who believe that there's no real bias except corporate in the majority of news. FAIR did a study into the supposed liberal bias and find that only a minority were actively liberal."
These are subjective statements. My documentation is based on surveys and statistics and comparison with meaningful control groups, as in my first example TV newcritters vs. the US electorate.
"Rupert Murdoch makes sure all his news carries his conservative agenda. "
RM does not own the major TV networks, most of the cable news networks, and Hollywood.
"The main danger comes from companies, who make sure to only sponsor safe, simplified news which isn't disparaging of what they do. They don't want to get involved with controversial topics like abortion or divorce, that would inevitably annoy some people enough to stop watching."
The main danger comes from our sue-happy climate, which stifles free expression. We need loser pays tort reform, to thaw the "chilling effect".
"What are the inherent negative consequences?"
Of effectively insulating a political movement from criticism and mainstreaming slander of the other? Movement toward authoritarianism. Intellectual impoverishment. The corruption of the favored party by power unchecked by criticism. (I might also personally add the negative consequences of holding many US cities in a death spiral of progressive politics, wasted resources, declining educational scores, poverty and violence, among other effects, but I am a conservative, the consequences before the parentheses don't depend on the minor premise of conservative principles being true.)
1
-
" It will take the freedom of your kids to breath in the future."
Actually, smog in US cities used to be worse than it is now. The answer to any technological problem is newer and better technology.
"But once there is CO2 in the air, its there. And there's nothing you can do to change that anymore."
You need to learn about the carbon cycle. It is homeostatic. In most well watered areas lack of CO2 is the limiting factor in the rate of photosynthesis. More CO2, means more photosynthesis, faster plant growth, a faster rate of removing CO2. There is nothing you need to do about it.
About destroying our planet. According the projections the same alarmists were making in the 1980s, the planet should have been destroyed around 2000. According to the projections alarmists were making around 2000, we should have been destroyed by now. Being a good climate change alarmist, I'm sure you have a copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". His claims of disaster have come due, but not come true. The ability of a scientific theory to make predictions is supposed to be a TEST of its validity, you know, in REAL science. How many times does a scientific theory's claims have to be falsified by events before even the most fervent believers must finally admit they're busted?
1
-
2:00 "Nothing is about the speech, everything is about the speaker"
This is being taught in our schools instead of critical thinking. C.S. Lewis called it "Bulverism":
From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the [natural] dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
47:47 - 50:28
" John 8:32 You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Lee Bowers
"Digital Nomad nothing to counter my arguments in your reply ,just the insistence that force should be met with greater force."
Quite to the contrary, the 300 pound gorilla your analogy ignores is the fact that your analogy inverts the MORAL aspect. The gun control debate is not over whether to restrict the availability of arms for the documented lunatic. That is agreed upon. And, yes, civilization is maintained at every level by countering aggression with force, greater force where possible, this is not controversial.
"I grew up watching American made cowboy films where the new sheriff used to make a town safe by making people turn in their guns at the city limits or whatever.your saying that’s wrong and I’m saying it’s not.
Correct. Not every sheriff is Randolph Scott. If you get your political ideas from Hollywood, you will be a comprehensive statist. Politicians are, at best, no better than us. If we can't be trusted with freedom, they can't be trusted with too much power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aventineavenue That is Bulverism, rather than evaluating the arguments and checking the facts, you give yourself an excuse for dismissing material whose conclusion you don't like prior to consideration.
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
[end quote]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1