PDA

View Full Version : Why progressives are idiots



Captain Obvious
12-05-2015, 02:14 PM
If you look at history, we are a warring breed. Our history, not the US's history - mankind's history is based on two things: War and government.

The US is fortunate where it enjoys a glimpse of freedom but a lot of it is diminishing and has been really a mirage when you look at it. Our government isn't much unlike most governments - class driven, oppressive, controlling, elitist, totalitarian. The one thing that separates the US from other nations in this respect is that we still have a core citizenry control aspect and guns are a central focus of that control. Take our rights to defend ourselves against dictatorial government and we're no better than the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians or Germans during the Nazi regime. Or just about any current and past society when you break it down including the UK, Canada, etc.

Japan is the only significant country that I can come up with that has been wholly passive since WWII, considering Japan was war-driven during and prior.

European "western" countries have become somewhat passive also while the US continues to wage wars for resources and cultural influence. And now the US is focusing on limiting or taking certain rights away from it's citizens, because a misinformed and powerless citizenry is an easily controlled citizenry and is less likely to disrupt agendas. Just ask WWII German citizens, or the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans who were (are) misinformed and held powerless by controlling government regimes.

And we have an element of progressives who want to enable governments to have unchecked, uncontrolled power and want to limit citizens rights and powers regardless of the red flags surrounding the intent and actions of these (and our) governments. If this isn't pure idiocy then I don't know what is.

Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime.

If progressives want to surrender their freedoms and rights and powers to a government, pardon me if I shed no tears when they become victims of brutal government oppression, they will only be reaping what they've sown.

If history isn't enough proof to show how totalitarian regimes like the Nazis can easily manipulate and control powerless citizens, how our history is littered with the same and similar stories in many/most societies and progressives are still willing to cowardly surrender their rights to these regimes then I consider them traitors and they deserve death.

I will not surrender my rights because I am not a coward or an idiot.

Chris
12-05-2015, 02:22 PM
But progressives are for bigger government and it's been progressives who have taken us into most wars.

Green Arrow
12-05-2015, 03:01 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the fuck were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do shit to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.

Captain Obvious
12-05-2015, 03:02 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the fuck were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do shit to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.

It sounds like you've given up on due process first and foremost.

Common
12-05-2015, 03:03 PM
I think progressives have some great points that I agree with and so do republicans.
But both have their batshit crazy extremist nutjobs that just blow smoke signals out of their posterior. I have no use for the hyper partisans on either side

Green Arrow
12-05-2015, 03:03 PM
It sounds like you've given up on due process first and foremost.

I haven't given up on it, it just doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. When a police officer can kill you on the spot without even making sure you were involved in a crime, and the U.S. military can assassinate, arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial or even a warrant, I'm sorry, but we don't have due process anymore.

The Xl
12-05-2015, 03:07 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the fuck were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do shit to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle. What's done is done, unfortunately, but if they can get away with what they do now, imagine what they could get away with if the populace was completely unarmed.

The Xl
12-05-2015, 03:08 PM
I haven't given up on it, it just doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. When a police officer can kill you on the spot without even making sure you were involved in a crime, and the U.S. military can assassinate, arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial or even a warrant, I'm sorry, but we don't have due process anymore.

True.....hard to argue that. But it can get worse, and disarming the public would bring that to fruition.

Green Arrow
12-05-2015, 03:08 PM
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. What's done is done, unfortunately, but if they can get away with what they do now, imagine what they could get away with if the populace was completely unarmed.

What is there left to get away with? At this point, the only thing worse they can do is start lining people up in the streets and shooting them in the head one by one, and how is that any different than getting hit by drone while you're out on vacation? It's messier, but you're still dead.

Common
12-05-2015, 03:40 PM
True.....hard to argue that. But it can get worse, and disarming the public would bring that to fruition.

They could never disarm the public now that was made impossible years ago

domer76
12-05-2015, 03:48 PM
If you look at history, we are a warring breed. Our history, not the US's history - mankind's history is based on two things: War and government.

The US is fortunate where it enjoys a glimpse of freedom but a lot of it is diminishing and has been really a mirage when you look at it. Our government isn't much unlike most governments - class driven, oppressive, controlling, elitist, totalitarian. The one thing that separates the US from other nations in this respect is that we still have a core citizenry control aspect and guns are a central focus of that control. Take our rights to defend ourselves against dictatorial government and we're no better than the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians or Germans during the Nazi regime. Or just about any current and past society when you break it down including the UK, Canada, etc.

Japan is the only significant country that I can come up with that has been wholly passive since WWII, considering Japan was war-driven during and prior.

European "western" countries have become somewhat passive also while the US continues to wage wars for resources and cultural influence. And now the US is focusing on limiting or taking certain rights away from it's citizens, because a misinformed and powerless citizenry is an easily controlled citizenry and is less likely to disrupt agendas. Just ask WWII German citizens, or the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans who were (are) misinformed and held powerless by controlling government regimes.

And we have an element of progressives who want to enable governments to have unchecked, uncontrolled power and want to limit citizens rights and powers regardless of the red flags surrounding the intent and actions of these (and our) governments. If this isn't pure idiocy then I don't know what is.

Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime.

If progressives want to surrender their freedoms and rights and powers to a government, pardon me if I shed no tears when they become victims of brutal government oppression, they will only be reaping what they've sown.

If history isn't enough proof to show how totalitarian regimes like the Nazis can easily manipulate and control powerless citizens, how our history is littered with the same and similar stories in many/most societies and progressives are still willing to cowardly surrender their rights to these regimes then I consider them traitors and they deserve death.

I will not surrender my rights because I am not a coward or an idiot.

Your post is a perfect example of RW,paranoid, delusional histrionics. You may not be a coward or even an idiot, but I wouldn't bet against the latter. You are, however, full of fear and that's why you are a prisoner of your own making.

Chris
12-05-2015, 03:53 PM
Your post is a perfect example of RW,paranoid, delusional histrionics. You may not be a coward or even an idiot, but I wouldn't bet against the latter. You are, however, full of fear and that's why you are a prisoner of your own making.

^^Fear.

Green Arrow
12-05-2015, 04:00 PM
Your post is a perfect example of RW,paranoid, delusional histrionics. You may not be a coward or even an idiot, but I wouldn't bet against the latter. You are, however, full of fear and that's why you are a prisoner of your own making.

And your post is an example of a bird taking a shit as it flies by.

Chris
12-05-2015, 04:05 PM
http://i.snag.gy/OoLce.jpg

domer76
12-05-2015, 04:12 PM
^^Fear.

I have no need to carry a weapon 24/7 to feel secure. That's left to the fearful ones.

I have no Rambo complex to think I need a popgun to save the day. That's for the delusional ones.

domer76
12-05-2015, 04:13 PM
And your post is an example of a bird taking a shit as it flies by.

If the foo shits, wear it. I'm sure you wear it well.

Bob
12-05-2015, 04:24 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the fuck were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do shit to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.

I may be the oldest poster and i saw this take place. And it has been done to America by so called progressives. To name them by party, they are Democrats. Want to know why you have so many more regulations or laws? Blame Democrats. As a law making party, the republicans really lag far behind. Add to the problem that in actual years since FDR came upon us, republicans has very little say in congress as a whole.

Naturally progressives will scatter like rodents that have light shined on them, but trying to blame republicans is faulty thinking.

We who saw it take place have a far better take on this than some who merely read up on this. They were influenced by authors, not events.

Chris
12-05-2015, 04:25 PM
I have no need to carry a weapon 24/7 to feel secure. That's left to the fearful ones.

I have no Rambo complex to think I need a popgun to save the day. That's for the delusional ones.

Right but you want to create a big government to guarantee your security. Security but no liberty.

That's driven by fear.

Want to keep and bear arms to defend oneself is not fear.

Bob
12-05-2015, 04:26 PM
I have no need to carry a weapon 24/7 to feel secure. That's left to the fearful ones.

I have no Rambo complex to think I need a popgun to save the day. That's for the delusional ones.

Seems to me this all depends on who lives in your area.

For many years, this city I live in was well known as a safe city. But the blacks arrived. Then the killings started. And the robberies.

If they go back to Oakland, CA, I can put my pistol away.

Mister D
12-05-2015, 05:42 PM
I have no need to carry a weapon 24/7 to feel secure. That's left to the fearful ones.

I have no Rambo complex to think I need a popgun to save the day. That's for the delusional ones.

Who are you referring to? Please be specific.

domer76
12-05-2015, 06:17 PM
Right but you want to create a big government to guarantee your security. Security but no liberty.

That's driven by fear.

Want to keep and bear arms to defend oneself is not fear.

Want to keep and bear arms because you think a tyrannical government is out to get you is delusional, paranoid, fear.

Mister D
12-05-2015, 06:20 PM
Want to keep and bear arms because you think a tyrannical government is out to get you is delusional, paranoid, fear.

No, most of them want them for their own personal defense, for sport or simply because it looks cool. In any case, it's none of your business.

domer76
12-05-2015, 06:21 PM
I may be the oldest poster and i saw this take place. And it has been done to America by so called progressives. To name them by party, they are Democrats. Want to know why you have so many more regulations or laws? Blame Democrats. As a law making party, the republicans really lag far behind. Add to the problem that in actual years since FDR came upon us, republicans has very little say in congress as a whole.

Naturally progressives will scatter like rodents that have light shined on them, but trying to blame republicans is faulty thinking.

We who saw it take place have a far better take on this than some who merely read up on this. They were influenced by authors, not events.

Want to know why the need for regulations? Greed. Pure and simple. If the world weren't filled with greedy assholes who would fuck their own grandmother to make a buck, there would be much less need for government and its regulations. But your pure, RW capitalist will do just that. They'll allow poison in your pet's food, they'll allow poison in your water supply and they'll allow poison in the air you breathe. All in the name of profit.

domer76
12-05-2015, 06:26 PM
No, most of them want them for their own personal defense, for sport or simply because it looks cool. In any case, it's none of your business.

Carrying in public 24/7 for your own personal defense? Probably time to rethink where you live or places you frequent. Or seek help from a shrink for your paranoia.

To look cool or to compensate for your small dick?

Mister D
12-05-2015, 06:28 PM
Carrying in public 24/7 for your own personal defense? Probably time to rethink where you live or places you frequent. Or seek help from a shrink for your paranoia.

To look cool or to compensate for your small dick?

Again, who are you referring to? Who carries 24/7? What does that even mean? I have the TP in one hand and my pistol in the other when a take a dump? No pun intended...

Dude, your fixation on penises is...well you know.

Cigar
12-05-2015, 08:37 PM
Just saying...https://i.imgur.com/3ty5stu.jpg

Common
12-05-2015, 09:14 PM
Id rather Obama give weapons to those to fight our enemies than bring them here so we can feed them and house them and pay through the nose for them

Captain Obvious
12-05-2015, 09:15 PM
I haven't given up on it, it just doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. When a police officer can kill you on the spot without even making sure you were involved in a crime, and the U.S. military can assassinate, arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial or even a warrant, I'm sorry, but we don't have due process anymore.

There's a big difference in taking up arms to force a desired governance and taking up arms against an oppressive governmental regime.

What you're describing is the former, I don't feel the need or desire to do so in this situation.

birddog
12-05-2015, 09:17 PM
Cigar, when did Obama disarm Iran? Do you have evidence or is just wishful thinking related to the lying, idiotic Iran Agreement?

Captain Obvious
12-05-2015, 09:18 PM
The local NPR station was airing opinions of random people texting in on guns.

One guy says something on the order of "if you feel the need to carry firearms to protect yourself then you live in fear and that's no way to live".

I wanted to text in "then you live" was the operative in his comment, a concept that this person will never understand.

Cigar
12-05-2015, 09:18 PM
Id rather Obama give weapons to those to fight our enemies than bring them here so we can feed them and house them and pay through the nose for them

Bet they get Voter ID Cards also :laugh:

Common
12-05-2015, 09:23 PM
They might but then they will have more value to politicians and they will get black gimmees, clear case of you better watch what you wish for

Green Arrow
12-05-2015, 09:24 PM
There's a big difference in taking up arms to force a desired governance and taking up arms against an oppressive governmental regime.

What you're describing is the former, I don't feel the need or desire to do so in this situation.

Right, my comments were directed at conservatives in general, not you specifically. I've heard and read plenty of conservatives say they have a right to bear arms to protect their rights against government infringement, and that's where my (admitted) irritation comes from.

Captain Obvious
12-05-2015, 09:26 PM
Right, my comments were directed at conservatives in general, not you specifically. I've heard and read plenty of conservatives say they have a right to bear arms to protect their rights against government infringement, and that's where my (admitted) irritation comes from.

When you start taking up arms because of political disagreements then that smacks of banana republic coups and the like.

That's not where I'm going with this.

Common
12-05-2015, 09:28 PM
Right, my comments were directed at conservatives in general, not you specifically. I've heard and read plenty of conservatives say they have a right to bear arms to protect their rights against government infringement, and that's where my (admitted) irritation comes from.

Thats the extremist rants, I blow past that nonesense also.

I own guns for two reasons, number one self defense and defense of my home. Second I love too target shoot.

ThaiBoxer
12-05-2015, 11:40 PM
Nobody is taking my guns period.

Unfortunately, nobody is actually trying to.


If history isn't enough proof to show how totalitarian regimes like the Nazis can easily manipulate and control powerless citizens

Like Donald Trump?


I will not surrender my rights because I am not a coward or an idiot.

You sound pretty scared to me brah.

Cthulhu
12-05-2015, 11:54 PM
Unfortunately, nobody is actually trying to.



Like Donald Trump?



You sound pretty scared to me brah.
Why should he who is armed be frightened?

Are wolves afraid of sheep? Or do the respect sheep dogs?

Who has the fangs?

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Captain Obvious
12-06-2015, 07:28 AM
Why should he who is armed be frightened?

Are wolves afraid of sheep? Or do the respect sheep dogs?

Who has the fangs?

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

It's a desperate attempt from the fringe left to project.

When you consider the position that they take on the issue, it's laughable.

Ransom
12-06-2015, 07:50 AM
Why should he who is armed be frightened?

Are wolves afraid of sheep? Or do the respect sheep dogs?

Who has the fangs?

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

The Second Amendment has the fangs. Responsible guns owners understand the weapon is used to hunt...or to defend oneself. Only.

donttread
12-06-2015, 10:25 AM
If you look at history, we are a warring breed. Our history, not the US's history - mankind's history is based on two things: War and government.

The US is fortunate where it enjoys a glimpse of freedom but a lot of it is diminishing and has been really a mirage when you look at it. Our government isn't much unlike most governments - class driven, oppressive, controlling, elitist, totalitarian. The one thing that separates the US from other nations in this respect is that we still have a core citizenry control aspect and guns are a central focus of that control. Take our rights to defend ourselves against dictatorial government and we're no better than the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians or Germans during the Nazi regime. Or just about any current and past society when you break it down including the UK, Canada, etc.

Japan is the only significant country that I can come up with that has been wholly passive since WWII, considering Japan was war-driven during and prior.

European "western" countries have become somewhat passive also while the US continues to wage wars for resources and cultural influence. And now the US is focusing on limiting or taking certain rights away from it's citizens, because a misinformed and powerless citizenry is an easily controlled citizenry and is less likely to disrupt agendas. Just ask WWII German citizens, or the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans who were (are) misinformed and held powerless by controlling government regimes.

And we have an element of progressives who want to enable governments to have unchecked, uncontrolled power and want to limit citizens rights and powers regardless of the red flags surrounding the intent and actions of these (and our) governments. If this isn't pure idiocy then I don't know what is.

Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime.

If progressives want to surrender their freedoms and rights and powers to a government, pardon me if I shed no tears when they become victims of brutal government oppression, they will only be reaping what they've sown.

If history isn't enough proof to show how totalitarian regimes like the Nazis can easily manipulate and control powerless citizens, how our history is littered with the same and similar stories in many/most societies and progressives are still willing to cowardly surrender their rights to these regimes then I consider them traitors and they deserve death.

I will not surrender my rights because I am not a coward or an idiot.


Violent, territorial, control freak, power mad omnivores stacked on top of each other in ever increasing population density. Our Constitution is about the only thing that stands between us and tyranny and we are slowly consenting to it's erosion

Chris
12-06-2015, 10:33 AM
Progressives are idiots because there's no such thing as progress.

We evolve, make decisions, purchase products, invent technology, discover scientific facts, legislate, administer and adjudicate laws, etc, at best haphazardly. We simply can't do better because of the problem of knowledge in society. It is only in the narratives we construct looking back do we find what we call progress.

Logically, progress is change. How can we possibly progress in any direction if that too is changing? We can't step into the same river twice.

ThaiBoxer
12-06-2015, 11:09 AM
Why should he who is armed be frightened?

Are wolves afraid of sheep? Or do the respect sheep dogs?

Who has the fangs?

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

He's the one cowering in the corner screaming "they're comin fer ma guns!"

Subdermal
12-06-2015, 11:52 AM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the $#@! were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do $#@! to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.

So your argument boils down to claiming it's stupid to call for guns to defend against tyranny now because slowly encroaching tyranny hasn't to this point yet been met with a citizen uprising using their guns?

Brilliant.

:biglaugh:

Subdermal
12-06-2015, 11:54 AM
Progressives are idiots because there's no such thing as progress.

We evolve, make decisions, purchase products, invent technology, discover scientific facts, legislate, administer and adjudicate laws, etc, at best haphazardly. We simply can't do better because of the problem of knowledge in society. It is only in the narratives we construct looking back do we find what we call progress.

Logically, progress is change. How can we possibly progress in any direction if that too is changing? We can't step into the same river twice.

Progressives are big on change; it was a cornerstone slogan of Obama.

Nevermind that change can either be good OR bad.

Subdermal
12-06-2015, 11:54 AM
He's the one cowering in the corner screaming "they're comin fer ma guns!"

Your posts make exo's look insightful.

Cletus
12-06-2015, 11:57 AM
Your posts make exo's look insightful.

Ouch. That had to hurt.

:grin:

Bob
12-06-2015, 12:06 PM
The Second Amendment has the fangs. Responsible guns owners understand the weapon is used to hunt...or to defend oneself. Only.

What percentage of citizens run around killing others?

I have never seen statistics, but believe the number killing is a very very tiny percentage.

We need take action against those few numbers.

We should evade action against the most who do not kill or maim.

Bob
12-06-2015, 12:13 PM
Want to know why the need for regulations? Greed. Pure and simple. If the world weren't filled with greedy assholes who would fuck their own grandmother to make a buck, there would be much less need for government and its regulations. But your pure, RW capitalist will do just that. They'll allow poison in your pet's food, they'll allow poison in your water supply and they'll allow poison in the air you breathe. All in the name of profit.

This is such an ancient argument that were it true, the vast troves of laws on the books by 1950 would have done the job.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5-5a6Q54BM

Capitalism is not about greed. It is explained by great examples such as I pencil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU

Bob
12-06-2015, 12:17 PM
I haven't given up on it, it just doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. When a police officer can kill you on the spot without even making sure you were involved in a crime, and the U.S. military can assassinate, arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial or even a warrant, I'm sorry, but we don't have due process anymore.

We citizens have so many guns that even were the army willing to wage all out war on us, do you honestly see Obama carpet bombing our cities? Would pilots follow orders to bomb neighborhoods? I don't believe they would.

We have guns because we have such a lousy government.

Bob
12-06-2015, 12:25 PM
Just saying...

https://i.imgur.com/3ty5stu.jpg

This is a dumb ass meme.

Really dumb. Who made the meme? Should be ashamed.

Both Israel and Reagan sold some small anti tank weapons to Iran. How many tanks did Iraq then have?

Obama has not disarmed Iran at all.

That is what made me say it is a dumb meme.

Green Arrow
12-06-2015, 12:46 PM
So your argument boils down to claiming it's stupid to call for guns to defend against tyranny now because slowly encroaching tyranny hasn't to this point yet been met with a citizen uprising using their guns?

Brilliant.

:biglaugh:

Nope, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that it's stupid to claim guns are for protecting against tyranny when you people have no intention of doing what it actually takes to stop that tyranny. It's part of the macho fiction you guys craft for yourselves to make you feel important. The reality is conservatives are no more dedicated to actually stopping that tyranny than your average Democrat. It's a line, a meme, and you will all march into the prison camps just like the rest. As long as they let you keep your guns.

Captain Obvious
12-06-2015, 04:06 PM
Unfortunately, nobody is actually trying to.



Like Donald Trump?



You sound pretty scared to me brah.

That's because you're an idiot. I'm sure a lot of rudimentary things confuse you.

ThaiBoxer
12-06-2015, 06:09 PM
That's because you're an idiot. I'm sure a lot of rudimentary things confuse you.

Let me know when you finally get your GED derp

Captain Obvious
12-06-2015, 06:31 PM
Let me know when you finally get your GED derp

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp7/justind84/smack-for-dummies-1.jpg

donttread
12-07-2015, 09:59 AM
Nope, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that it's stupid to claim guns are for protecting against tyranny when you people have no intention of doing what it actually takes to stop that tyranny. It's part of the macho fiction you guys craft for yourselves to make you feel important. The reality is conservatives are no more dedicated to actually stopping that tyranny than your average Democrat. It's a line, a meme, and you will all march into the prison camps just like the rest. As long as they let you keep your guns.


Imagine Hitler trying to round up and kill 6,000,000 armed Jews? Oh sure the first wave would of gone willingly expecting some kind of justice. But the second wave would shoot the fuck back, as would we. Your argument is therefore nulified

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 10:42 AM
Imagine Hitler trying to round up and kill 6,000,000 armed Jews? Oh sure the first wave would of gone willingly expecting some kind of justice. But the second wave would shoot the fuck back, as would we. Your argument is therefore nulified

They didn't know what was happening, they thought they were just being relocated. They had no reason to "shoot the fuck back," especially since they weren't being shot at to begin with.

domer76
12-07-2015, 10:43 AM
Imagine Hitler trying to round up and kill 6,000,000 armed Jews? Oh sure the first wave would of gone willingly expecting some kind of justice. But the second wave would shoot the fuck back, as would we. Your argument is therefore nulified

With your concocted "would have" bullshit, you nullify nothing.

Chris
12-07-2015, 10:45 AM
With your concocted "would have" bullshit, you nullify nothing.

Yet it does stand to reason, something you seem unconcerned with.

domer76
12-07-2015, 10:49 AM
Yet it does stand to reason, something you seem unconcerned with.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people concoct an 'if' or 'would have' scenario and treat it as fact. Am I concerned what the "would have" scenario that may have been? No. That's because it never happened. I am more concerned with reality than someone's made up scenario.

Chris
12-07-2015, 11:01 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people concoct an 'if' or 'would have' scenario and treat it as fact. Am I concerned what the "would have" scenario that may have been? No. That's because it never happened. I am more concerned with reality than someone's made up scenario.

No one considered it a fact.

Like I said, it stands to reason, something you now admit you're unconcerned with.

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 11:44 AM
If you look at history, we are a warring breed. Our history, not the US's history - mankind's history is based on two things: War and government.

The US is fortunate where it enjoys a glimpse of freedom but a lot of it is diminishing and has been really a mirage when you look at it. Our government isn't much unlike most governments - class driven, oppressive, controlling, elitist, totalitarian. The one thing that separates the US from other nations in this respect is that we still have a core citizenry control aspect and guns are a central focus of that control. Take our rights to defend ourselves against dictatorial government and we're no better than the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians or Germans during the Nazi regime. Or just about any current and past society when you break it down including the UK, Canada, etc.

Japan is the only significant country that I can come up with that has been wholly passive since WWII, considering Japan was war-driven during and prior.

European "western" countries have become somewhat passive also while the US continues to wage wars for resources and cultural influence. And now the US is focusing on limiting or taking certain rights away from it's citizens, because a misinformed and powerless citizenry is an easily controlled citizenry and is less likely to disrupt agendas. Just ask WWII German citizens, or the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans who were (are) misinformed and held powerless by controlling government regimes.

And we have an element of progressives who want to enable governments to have unchecked, uncontrolled power and want to limit citizens rights and powers regardless of the red flags surrounding the intent and actions of these (and our) governments. If this isn't pure idiocy then I don't know what is.

Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime.

If progressives want to surrender their freedoms and rights and powers to a government, pardon me if I shed no tears when they become victims of brutal government oppression, they will only be reaping what they've sown.

If history isn't enough proof to show how totalitarian regimes like the Nazis can easily manipulate and control powerless citizens, how our history is littered with the same and similar stories in many/most societies and progressives are still willing to cowardly surrender their rights to these regimes then I consider them traitors and they deserve death.

I will not surrender my rights because I am not a coward or an idiot.

No one is trying to take your guns.

Chris
12-07-2015, 11:50 AM
No one is trying to take your guns.

See recent editorials in NYT and WaPo. They were posted over weekend. They are calling for ban on guns.

domer76
12-07-2015, 12:15 PM
No one considered it a fact.

Like I said, it stands to reason, something you now admit you're unconcerned with.

As usual, Chris, 10,000 kinds of bullshit. They, and you, try that logical fallacy frequently.

Chris
12-07-2015, 12:21 PM
As usual, Chris, 10,000 kinds of bullshit. They, and you, try that logical fallacy frequently.

To you logic is a fallacy?!?!?!

domer76
12-07-2015, 12:26 PM
To you logic is a fallacy?!?!?!

Argumentum ad speculum, fool

Chris
12-07-2015, 12:39 PM
Argumentum ad speculum, fool

That means "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact" but no one did that. Try again. How about the fallacy fallacy?

domer76
12-07-2015, 12:45 PM
That means "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact" but no one did that. Try again. How about the fallacy fallacy?

It's also known as the "if/would" logical fallacy. Better look it up

Chris
12-07-2015, 12:48 PM
It's also known as the "if/would" logical fallacy. Better look it up

It's only fallacious if contrary to fact.

domer76
12-07-2015, 12:54 PM
It's only fallacious if contrary to fact.

No, dunce. This is what you and your buddies try to do. This is the definition. Proposing a concocted "if" and acting as if it's reality. In this case, that "if" the Jews were armed IS contrary to fact.

"Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone"

Chris
12-07-2015, 01:03 PM
No, dunce. This is what you and your buddies try to do. This is the definition. Proposing a concocted "if" and acting as if it's reality. In this case, that "if" the Jews were armed IS contrary to fact.

"Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone"



It's called a hypothetical. And it's not contrary to fact.

More of the definition: "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (Argumentum Ad Speculum): Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically X had occurred, Y would have been the result. For instance, suppose an individual asserts that if Einstein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if Monet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art...."

See, those example are contrary to the fact, Einstein wasn't aborted, Money wasn't trained as a butcher.

Try again. domer.

Safety
12-07-2015, 01:06 PM
Argumentum ad speculum, fool

Do not name call

Safety
12-07-2015, 01:08 PM
No, dunce. This is what you and your buddies try to do. This is the definition. Proposing a concocted "if" and acting as if it's reality. In this case, that "if" the Jews were armed IS contrary to fact.

"Trying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary examples alone"


Next insult will result in a threadban

Chris
12-07-2015, 01:47 PM
Here's the other thing, donttread is not arguing proof but persuasion. He's saying it's reasonable to assume had the Jews been armed that they would have resisted.

domer76
12-07-2015, 02:01 PM
Here's the other thing, donttread is not arguing proof but persuasion. He's saying it's reasonable to assume had the Jews been armed that they would have resisted.

For once, just give it up Chris. This was another argument by speculation. You lost. Let it go.

Chris
12-07-2015, 02:19 PM
For once, just give it up Chris. This was another argument by speculation. You lost. Let it go.

Never!

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 02:42 PM
See recent editorials in NYT and WaPo. They were posted over weekend. They are calling for ban on guns.

I was referring to the President. Sorry, I should have specified that.

Chris
12-07-2015, 02:56 PM
I was referring to the President. Sorry, I should have specified that.

OK, no problem. You're right, he doesn't, nor do many liberals.

The fear is it's a slippery slope.

donttread
12-07-2015, 05:04 PM
Here's the other thing, donttread is not arguing proof but persuasion. He's saying it's reasonable to assume had the Jews been armed that they would have resisted.

Of course it's reasonable to assume that.

del
12-07-2015, 05:34 PM
It's only fallacious if contrary to fact.

no shit?

it's only dark if there's no light, too

Chris
12-07-2015, 05:37 PM
no shit?

it's only dark if there's no light, too

Explain that to domer.

Chris
12-07-2015, 05:39 PM
Of course it's reasonable to assume that.

And here's why:


Between 1941 and 1943, underground resistance movements developed in approximately 100 ghettos in Nazi-occupied eastern Europe (about one-fourth of all ghettos), especially in Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, and the Ukraine. Their main goals were to organize uprisings, break out of the ghettos, and join partisan units in the fight against the Germans.

The Jews knew that uprisings would not stop the Germans and that only a handful of fighters would succeed in escaping to join the partisans. Still, some Jews made the decision to resist. Weapons were smuggled into ghettos. Inhabitants in the ghettos of Vilna, Mir, Lachva (Lachwa), Kremenets, Czestochowa, Nesvizh, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, among others, resisted with force when the Germans began to deport ghetto populations. In Bialystok, the underground staged an uprising just before the final destruction of the ghetto in September 1943. Most of the ghetto fighters, primarily young men and women, died during the fighting.

The Warsaw ghetto uprising in the spring of 1943 was the largest single revolt by Jews. Hundreds of Jews fought the Germans and their auxiliaries in the streets of the ghetto. Thousands of Jews refused to obey German orders to report to an assembly point for deportation. In the end the Nazis burned the ghetto to the ground to force the Jews out. Although they knew defeat was certain, Jews in the ghetto fought desperately and valiantly.

@ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005407

del
12-07-2015, 05:39 PM
Explain that to domer.

post a prager u video about it.

Captain Obvious
12-07-2015, 06:10 PM
No one is trying to take your guns.

Incorrect

Chris
12-07-2015, 06:13 PM
post a prager u video about it.

How about a chart instead...

http://i.snag.gy/JWQdj.jpg

domer76
12-07-2015, 06:20 PM
<p>

Of course it&#39;s reasonable to assume that. Argument by speculation. You got schooled. Just take it like a man and move on</p>

Chris
12-07-2015, 06:28 PM
<p>
Argument by speculation. You got schooled. Just take it like a man and move on</p>


Legend in your own mind. Where's Ransom? You two should meet.

Private Pickle
12-07-2015, 06:29 PM
Legend in your own mind. Where's Ransom? You two should meet.

He is Ransom's doppelganger...

del
12-07-2015, 06:33 PM
How about a chart instead...

http://i.snag.gy/JWQdj.jpg


you misspelled wrote.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 06:34 PM
Progressives are idiots because there's no such thing as progress.

We evolve, make decisions, purchase products, invent technology, discover scientific facts, legislate, administer and adjudicate laws, etc, at best haphazardly. We simply can't do better because of the problem of knowledge in society. It is only in the narratives we construct looking back do we find what we call progress.

Logically, progress is change. How can we possibly progress in any direction if that too is changing? We can't step into the same river twice.
Don't you think that there is a link between technological change and people? One tends to drive the other. Technology doesn't drive people, people's needs drive technology. The ideas that bring about technological research comes from human needs or wants. That is the source of progress. All forms of progress comes from human ideas.

People object to progressivism because they believe that it is social engineering. However, there has always been social engineering. What do you think religion does? It is social engineering and the more fundamentalist the religion, the more that it engineers society. Class systems also engineer society. Now the media engineers society by the choices in programming, advertising messages. So do video games. It's all subtle social engineering. We pillary government for progressivism, but the impetus behind government progressivism in the form of welfare comes from people who don't want poor people knocking on their doors day in and day out begging for food or work. Another form of government progressivism is education. Logically it is better that more people are educated and there are just not enough people who will educate people for free. We don't live in a world that tolerates illiteracy. Quite the opposite.

It's not progressivism that is really the problem, but sometimes the plans and execution that leave something to be desired and an inability to put a period and say this strategy isn't working.

CreepyOldDude
12-07-2015, 06:39 PM
I'm going to go with: Because they're smarter than the drooling morons that make up modern conservatism.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 06:42 PM
Don't you think that there is a link between technological change and people? One tends to drive the other. Technology doesn't drive people, people's needs drive technology. The ideas that bring about technological research comes from human needs or wants. That is the source of progress. All forms of progress comes from human ideas.

People object to progressivism because they believe that it is social engineering. However, there has always been social engineering. What do you think religion does? It is social engineering and the more fundamentalist the religion, the more that it engineers society. Class systems also engineer society. Now the media engineers society by the choices in programming, advertising messages. So do video games. It's all subtle social engineering. We pillary government for progressivism, but the impetus behind government progressivism in the form of welfare comes from people who don't want poor people knocking on their doors day in and day out begging for food or work. Another form of government progressivism is education. Logically it is better that more people are educated and there are just not enough people who will educate people for free. We don't live in a world that tolerates illiteracy. Quite the opposite.

It's not progressivism that is really the problem, but sometimes the plans and execution that leave something to be desired and an inability to put a period and say this strategy isn't working.

You should know exactly what religion does. Your politics are simply a secularized form of Christianity.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 06:46 PM
What Chris is saying is that history isn't going anywhere. It has no goal. Progress toward what? The ideology of progress in all of its manifestations (e.g. Classical liberalism, Marxism, modern liberalism) is merely a secularized version of the Day of the Lord.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 06:47 PM
You should know exactly what religion does. Your politics are simply a secularized form of Christianity.
Did I say otherwise? However, religion does practice social engineering by changing belief and then behavior. It's the oldest form of social engineering.

domer76
12-07-2015, 06:48 PM
Legend in your own mind. Where's Ransom? You two should meet.

Quit being such a pussy, Chris. Man up and take your medicine, Nancy.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 06:51 PM
Did I say otherwise? However, religion does practice social engineering by changing belief and then behavior. It's the oldest form of social engineering.

No, social engineering is a product of rationalism. Notice I did not say rationality. Catholic missionaries to Germany in the 6th Century or to Mexico in the 16th weren't social engineers. The term refers to the scientific management of a human society.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:58 PM
I'm going to go with: Because they're smarter than the drooling morons that make up modern conservatism.

They really aren't, though. And I say this as a progressive. Both conservatism and progressivism/liberalism in the United States took a serious intellectual downturn in the 60s.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 07:03 PM
What Chris is saying is that history isn't going anywhere. It has no goal. Progress toward what? The ideology of progress in all of its manifestations (e.g. Classical liberalism, Marxism, modern liberalism) is merely a secularized version of the Day of the Lord.
History cannot by definition, have a goal - it is the record of the past. It is not meant to be predictive per se. One can infer based on past events possible outcomes, but that is not creating a goal. If you want to have goals, you are either looking at spiritualistic goals, social goals, economic goals or you are looking at science fiction which presents a myriad of possible futures for humanity to aspire. Although the Constitution creates a limited goal, it is still just a general framework of "must haves" but not a specific direction. National goals are taken from the people and hopefully realized by government.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 07:11 PM
No, social engineering is a product of rationalism. Notice I did not say rationality. Catholic missionaries to Germany in the 6th Century or to Mexico in the 16th weren't social engineers. The term refers to the scientific management of a human society.
Before they used the tricks of science, they used religion, which unknowingly uses some of the tricks of science. For instance, the science of psychology only sifted through what humanity has done for millennia sorted it out and gave it labels. It didn't create something new. The concept of welfare and public education is just the concept of charity made manditory through taxation.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 07:16 PM
No, social engineering is a product of rationalism. Notice I did not say rationality. Catholic missionaries to Germany in the 6th Century or to Mexico in the 16th weren't social engineers. The term refers to the scientific management of a human society.
FYI, much of what we know of the sciences comes in part, from the Church.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 07:50 PM
FYI, much of what we know of the sciences comes in part, from the Church.

Sssshhhhh....that will make atheist/agnostic heads explode. :smiley:

That's definitely true but a scientific worldview is a product of the Enlightenment. Moreover, when we talk about about social engineering we're talking about the human sciences not the natural sciences. It's the latter that the church had a significant impact upon.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 07:52 PM
Before they used the tricks of science, they used religion, which unknowingly uses some of the tricks of science. For instance, the science of psychology only sifted through what humanity has done for millennia sorted it out and gave it labels. It didn't create something new. The concept of welfare and public education is just the concept of charity made manditory through taxation.

It was something new to propose that human society could be managed or indeed even reformed via scientific technique.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 07:56 PM
Sssshhhhh....that will make atheist/agnostic heads explode. :smiley:

That's definitely true but a scientific worldview is a product of the Enlightenment. Moreover, when we talk about about social engineering we're talking about the human sciences not the natural sciences. It's the latter that the church had a significant impact upon.
I'm not stuck on specific definitions. If you look at what social engineering does - thus look at the definition organically, religion (all religions) have been doing it since the beginning of time.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:01 PM
Don't you think that there is a link between technological change and people? One tends to drive the other. Technology doesn't drive people, people's needs drive technology. The ideas that bring about technological research comes from human needs or wants. That is the source of progress. All forms of progress comes from human ideas.

People object to progressivism because they believe that it is social engineering. However, there has always been social engineering. What do you think religion does? It is social engineering and the more fundamentalist the religion, the more that it engineers society. Class systems also engineer society. Now the media engineers society by the choices in programming, advertising messages. So do video games. It's all subtle social engineering. We pillary government for progressivism, but the impetus behind government progressivism in the form of welfare comes from people who don't want poor people knocking on their doors day in and day out begging for food or work. Another form of government progressivism is education. Logically it is better that more people are educated and there are just not enough people who will educate people for free. We don't live in a world that tolerates illiteracy. Quite the opposite.

It's not progressivism that is really the problem, but sometimes the plans and execution that leave something to be desired and an inability to put a period and say this strategy isn't working.


Technological "advance" is the same, not progressive and planned but random, except in hindsight.

Is the iPhone a progressive step up from landline phones? No.

Is Android an advance on Windows? No.

del
12-07-2015, 08:05 PM
yes, there was nothing planned about going to the moon, and certainly no progress.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 08:05 PM
I'm not stuck on specific definitions. If you look at what social engineering does - thus look at the definition organically, religion (all religions) have been doing it since the beginning of time.

Specific words have specific definitions. Yes, look at what social engineering does or at least purports to do. It plans society on rationalistic, scientific principles. Communism is the most obvious example.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 08:07 PM
It was something new to propose that human society could be managed or indeed even reformed via scientific technique.
You spoke of rationalism, which is fundamentally logic. Much of what is proposed in religion is logical. Drill down in the scriptures and and absent the deism, for the most part, the basic messages are logical ways to live. The philosophy of rationalism began with ancient Greek philosophers who were inherently religious, some of whom began to ultimately synthesize the logic out of scripture. That is the root of rationalism and later scientific technique. What scientific technique doesn't have is the belief that your soul will be damned to eternal damnation if you don't conduct your life appropriately. It appeals to reason.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:08 PM
yes, there was nothing planned about going to the moon, and certainly no progress.

No, not really. What you're talking about is setting a goal. But it took a myriad of dfferent plans, some failing, some succeeding, some building off others. That's haphazard, random, lucky.

del
12-07-2015, 08:08 PM
yes, i am, but then i went to a real college.

del
12-07-2015, 08:09 PM
No, not really. What you're talking about is setting a goal. But it took a myriad of dfferent plans, some failing, some succeeding, some building off others. That's haphazard, random, lucky.

that's bullshit

you should see if prager will buy the video rights

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:10 PM
You spoke of rationalism, which is fundamentally logic. Much of what is proposed in religion is logical. Drill down in the scriptures and and absent the deism, for the most part, the basic messages are logical ways to live. The philosophy of rationalism began with ancient Greek philosophers who were inherently religious, some of whom began to ultimately synthesize the logic out of scripture. That is the root of rationalism and later scientific technique. What scientific technique doesn't have is the belief that your soul will be damned to eternal damnation if you don't conduct your life appropriately. It appeals to reason.


Rationalism is not logic but the belief that with reason alone you can solve all problems.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 08:11 PM
Rationalism is not logic but the belief that with reason alone you can solve all problems.

Exactly. It's a naive faith in reason.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 08:20 PM
Specific words have specific definitions. Yes, look at what social engineering does or at least purports to do. It plans society on rationalistic, scientific principles. Communism is the most obvious example.
Religion doesn't or didn't plan societies? The Catholic Church did not tell the poor that they were favored by God and that their reward for obedience to God, the Church and to the Crown or Government would be found in heaven? Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth? The Catholic Church has not advocated against divorce, and hasn't in the past consistently counselled women to stay with their husbands (no matter how abusive?) Isn't that social engineering? Were American slaves not taught Christianity to ensure compliance? Have not pagan religions not exhaulted Kings as near gods and made disparagement of said kings essentially mortal sins, such that even thinking such things might bring down the wrath of gods? I'm not looking at just Christianity, but the history of religion. The Muslim faith also evolved from the need to control behavior, since society was so violent that it was unmanageable.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 08:25 PM
Technological "advance" is the same, not progressive and planned but random, except in hindsight.

Is the iPhone a progressive step up from landline phones? No.

Is Android an advance on Windows? No.The IPhone and all cell phones came from an idea in Star Trek. The idea of robotics is also a thing of science fiction. Futurists conceive of ideas, write books that people read and dream about them and say why not?

del
12-07-2015, 08:30 PM
The IPhone and all cell phones came from an idea in Star Trek. The idea of robotics is also a thing of science fiction. Futurists conceive of ideas, write books that people read and dream about them and say why not?

there's a reason that the orbit for geosynchronous satellites is called the clarke orbit.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:32 PM
that's bullshit

you should see if prager will buy the video rights

Wow, impressed with that argument. You're progressing, yes, you are!

del
12-07-2015, 08:33 PM
Wow, impressed with that argument. You're progressing, yes, you are!

i don't argue with the challenged.

it encourages them.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:38 PM
The IPhone and all cell phones came from an idea in Star Trek. The idea of robotics is also a thing of science fiction. Futurists conceive of ideas, write books that people read and dream about them and say why not?

Ideas? Goals. Even predictions. These are not progress. And the steps to achieve them only seem planned in hindsight.

They're building an overpass down the highway a piece. As it goes up people marvel at the great progress and be amazed when complete, but not the workers who know all the mistakes and misplanned accidents and the fact it had been planned as an underpass but they found some near extinct spiders down in the cavernous limestone and had to go over instead. Yes, when complete it will look like such a great progress has been made.

Someday we will likely defeat ISIS and people will write histories of the progress made on the war front, except we know just how haphazard and evolutionary the series of wars there have been.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:38 PM
i don't argue with the challenged.

it encourages them.

I know you don't. Wait, you're arguing with me.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 08:42 PM
Rationalism is not logic but the belief that with reason alone you can solve all problems.

The earliest major philosophers to publish in English, such as Francis Bacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon), Thomas Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), and John Locke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke) also routinely wrote in Latin and French, and compared their terms to Greek, treating the words "logos", "ratio", "raison" and "reason" as inter-changeable. The meaning of the word "reason" in senses such as "human reason" also overlaps to a large extent with "rationality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable".[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#cite_note-9)Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), for example, also used the word ratiocination as a synonym for "reasoning". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

"rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

del
12-07-2015, 08:44 PM
I know you don't. Wait, you're arguing with me.

if you say so, corkster

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:45 PM
if you say so, corkster

Another amazing argument!

Mister D
12-07-2015, 08:45 PM
Religion doesn't or didn't plan societies? The Catholic Church did not tell the poor that they were favored by God and that their reward for obedience to God, the Church and to the Crown or Government would be found in heaven? Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth? The Catholic Church has not advocated against divorce, and hasn't in the past consistently counselled women to stay with their husbands (no matter how abusive?) Isn't that social engineering? Were American slaves not taught Christianity to ensure compliance? Have not pagan religions not exhaulted Kings as near gods and made disparagement of said kings essentially mortal sins, such that even thinking such things might bring down the wrath of gods? I'm not looking at just Christianity, but the history of religion. The Muslim faith also evolved from the need to control behavior, since society was so violent that it was unmanageable.

You're not getting this. Again, social engineering is a specific concept. It does not refer to the attempt to shape habits and behavior but to 1) a specific method of shaping habits and behavior and 2) a radical faith in that method's efficacy. You're using the term in a way so vague that every religion, every ideology, every belief system, every culture is, as per you, "social engineering". Hell, by that definition parents "engineer" their children.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:49 PM
The earliest major philosophers to publish in English, such as Francis Bacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon), Thomas Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), and John Locke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke) also routinely wrote in Latin and French, and compared their terms to Greek, treating the words "logos", "ratio", "raison" and "reason" as inter-changeable. The meaning of the word "reason" in senses such as "human reason" also overlaps to a large extent with "rationality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable".[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#cite_note-9)Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), for example, also used the word ratiocination as a synonym for "reasoning". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

"rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Being rational is one thing, we should all try to do that, but rationalism is a belief in it beyond our capability, as in the absolute definition you just supplied.

One problem with rationalism is the rejection of empirical reality.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 08:56 PM
Being rational is one thing, we should all try to do that, but rationalism is a belief in it beyond our capability, as in the absolute definition you just supplied.

One problem with rationalism is the rejection of empirical reality.

Yes, that's really the key issue here. That is, the empirical reality (gained via historical experience) of how human beings behave, how social institutions come to exist, what role those institutions play etc.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 08:56 PM
Ideas? Goals. Even predictions. These are not progress. And the steps to achieve them only seem planned in hindsight.

They're building an overpass down the highway a piece. As it goes up people marvel at the great progress and be amazed when complete, but not the workers who know all the mistakes and misplanned accidents and the fact it had been planned as an underpass but they found some near extinct spiders down in the cavernous limestone and had to go over instead. Yes, when complete it will look like such a great progress has been made.

Someday we will likely defeat ISIS and people will write histories of the progress made on the war front, except we know just how haphazard and evolutionary the series of wars there have been.
Is the public work still a bypass and at the end of the day, does it matter whether it goes over or under, but that it achieves the ultimate goal of unimpeded traffic?
There is nothing about ISIS and its forebearers that is progressive nor will there be anything progressive about the means of dealing with it. It is all reactive, manipulative, violent, primitive and based not on logic or reason, but on desperation, poverty, greed, tribalism, exploitation and imperialism.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:59 PM
Yes, that's really the key issue here. That is, the empirical reality (gained via historical experience) of how human beings behave, how social institutions come to exist, what role those institutions play etc.

And then there are things beyond reason and empirical reality. Our intuitions, our beliefs, our norms and traditions and institutions that we can barely explain.

Chris
12-07-2015, 09:02 PM
Is the public work still a bypass and at the end of the day, does it matter whether it goes over or under, but that it achieves the ultimate goal of unimpeded traffic?
There is nothing about ISIS and its forebearers that is progressive nor will there be anything progressive about the means of dealing with it. It is all reactive, manipulative, violent, primitive and based not on logic or reason, but on desperation, poverty, greed, tribalism, exploitation and imperialism.

Point is there was no progress from start to finish, but people adapting and plans evolving.

We said we'd go to the moon, we made it, Sally Ride didn't--was that planned progress?

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 09:04 PM
You're not getting this. Again, social engineering is a specific concept. It does not refer to the attempt to shape habits and behavior but to 1) a specific method of shaping habits and behavior and 2) a radical faith in that method's efficacy. You're using the term in a way so vague that every religion, every ideology, every belief system, every culture is, as per you, "social engineering". Hell, by that definition parents "engineer" their children.
They do and when they fail to, we call them thugs.

If government puts out a message imploring teens to use birth control in a series of ads - that's social engineering, if the church puts out a series of sermons preaching abstinence, that's just religion? Both are trying to avoid the same thing, but using slightly different methods.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 09:06 PM
And then there are things beyond reason and empirical reality. Our intuitions, our beliefs, our norms and traditions and institutions that we can barely explain.

Yes and if we can't explain them rationalism holds that they can be discarded at will.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 09:08 PM
Point is there was no progress from start to finish, but people adapting and plans evolving.

We said we'd go to the moon, we made it, Sally Ride didn't--was that planned progress?
Why can't progress include adaptation and evolution? Lack of adaptation or evolution results in death.

Mister D
12-07-2015, 09:08 PM
They do and when they fail to, we call them thugs.

If government puts out a message imploring teens to use birth control in a series of ads - that's social engineering, if the church puts out a series of sermons preaching abstinence, that's just religion? Both are trying to avoid the same thing, but using slightly different methods.

No, it's not, Who. I just explained that to you. Any and all attempts to advise, direct, or influence behavior are not "social engineering". If you insist on using the term this way we'll have to let the discussion end.

Chris
12-07-2015, 09:10 PM
Why can't progress include adaptation and evolution? Lack of adaptation or evolution results in death.

Because then, as I argued much earlier, then it is mere change. If everything changes, then so does progress. But that's not what people generally mean by progress.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 09:20 PM
No, it's not, Who. I just explained that to you. Any and all attempts to advise, direct, or influence behavior are not "social engineering". If you insist on using the term this way we'll have to let the discussion end.
OK.

Dr. Who
12-07-2015, 09:22 PM
Because then, as I argued much earlier, then it is mere change. If everything changes, then so does progress. But that's not what people generally mean by progress.
Adaptation is not just change, it is preferable change that results in success. Lack of adaptation results in failure.

Chris
12-07-2015, 09:24 PM
Assume progress is good as many progressives do.

I'm listening to how easy it is to become radicalized in the day of modern communications, the nternet, Facebook, Twitter.

The atomic bomg and nuclear weapons were great progress.

Newpublius
12-07-2015, 09:55 PM
In terms of marketing they grabbed a great word. Look at the socialist malaise hanging over Europe. If the government cuts back, its called 'austerity' ..... Should be called economic liberalization. Nevertheless classical liberalism IS the Revolutionary ideal and really the progressives are reactionary statists trying to return to the era before of statist mercantalists.

Ethereal
12-07-2015, 10:30 PM
In terms of marketing they grabbed a great word. Look at the socialist malaise hanging over Europe. If the government cuts back, its called 'austerity' ..... Should be called economic liberalization. Nevertheless classical liberalism IS the Revolutionary ideal and really the progressives are reactionary statists trying to return to the era before of statist mercantalists.

Well said! That is why I always put "progressive" in quotes, because they are actually regressive.

Chris
12-07-2015, 10:42 PM
Just keep in mind that FDR was a progressive who because that word had become dirty in poitics ijacked the label liberal.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 10:50 PM
Just keep in mind that FDR was a progressive who because that word had become dirty in poitics ijacked the label liberal.

What? The word "progressive" was not a dirty word in politics in the 1940s. It was actually a common philosophy shared by people on both sides of the aisle.

MisterVeritis
12-07-2015, 10:51 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the $#@! were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do $#@! to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.
It is never too late to begin killing politicians and judges.

MisterVeritis
12-07-2015, 10:53 PM
I have no need to carry a weapon 24/7 to feel secure. That's left to the fearful ones.

I have no Rambo complex to think I need a popgun to save the day. That's for the delusional ones.
Of all of the delusions I think self-delusion is the best.

Chris
12-07-2015, 10:54 PM
What? The word "progressive" was not a dirty word in politics in the 1940s. It was actually a common philosophy shared by people on both sides of the aisle.

Then why did FDR abandon it for liberal?

The Old Right sure didn't share in it. Now did the New Conservatives like Buckley and Kirk that arose in reactin. Nor did classical liberals who then turned to the term libertarian at the time.

MisterVeritis
12-07-2015, 10:55 PM
Want to keep and bear arms because you think a tyrannical government is out to get you is delusional, paranoid, fear.
That would be true if the government had not become tyrannical. It has. Obama is making laws. That is tyranny.

MisterVeritis
12-07-2015, 10:56 PM
Want to know why the need for regulations? Greed. Pure and simple. If the world weren't filled with greedy $#@!s who would $#@! their own grandmother to make a buck, there would be much less need for government and its regulations. But your pure, RW capitalist will do just that. They'll allow poison in your pet's food, they'll allow poison in your water supply and they'll allow poison in the air you breathe. All in the name of profit.
Deep down inside you know you are wrong. Or, as you have indicated, you are a Marxist. If you were not profit would not bother you.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 10:57 PM
It is never too late to begin killing politicians and judges.

Are you advocating murder?

MisterVeritis
12-07-2015, 10:57 PM
Just saying...

https://i.imgur.com/3ty5stu.jpg
You do know you are a fraud, don't you? Just saying...

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 10:58 PM
Then why did FDR abandon it for liberal?

Because the progressives of the day fought him on a number of issues, most notably American entry into World War II. Can't really keep calling yourself a progressive if progressives are fighting you every chance they get.


The Old Right sure didn't share in it. Now did the New Conservatives like Buckley and Kirk that arose in reactin. Nor did classical liberals who then turned to the term libertarian at the time.

Not everyone agreed with it, but that didn't make it toxic.

Chris
12-08-2015, 09:13 AM
Because the progressives of the day fought him on a number of issues, most notably American entry into World War II. Can't really keep calling yourself a progressive if progressives are fighting you every chance they get.



Not everyone agreed with it, but that didn't make it toxic.

About as toxic as the term liberal has become thus you hear more and more about progressivism.

If I can find it, there's a piece on how FDR saw the label as negative and picked liberal to campaign with.

Chris
12-08-2015, 09:14 AM
It is never too late to begin killing politicians and judges.

Careful you don't advocate murder or riot.

MisterVeritis
12-08-2015, 10:12 AM
Are you advocating murder?
A revolution is intended to topple a government. From a long study of small wars, insurrections, and rebellions politicians and judges are early targets. I was responding to a statement that it would be too late to rebel. It never is.

A great deal of killing occurs in a rebellion. Politicians and judges are always in the mix early. Depending on the nature of the rebellion so are other civic leaders. Saying so does not imply advocacy.

Bob
12-08-2015, 04:59 PM
Nope, that's not what I've said. What I've said is that it's stupid to claim guns are for protecting against tyranny when you people have no intention of doing what it actually takes to stop that tyranny. It's part of the macho fiction you guys craft for yourselves to make you feel important. The reality is conservatives are no more dedicated to actually stopping that tyranny than your average Democrat. It's a line, a meme, and you will all march into the prison camps just like the rest. As long as they let you keep your guns.

Clearly it is you against them, eh skippy?

Bob
12-08-2015, 05:08 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by domer76 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1354137#post1354137)
Want to know why the need for regulations? Greed. Pure and simple. If the world weren't filled with greedy $#@!s who would $#@! their own grandmother to make a buck, there would be much less need for government and its regulations. But your pure, RW capitalist will do just that. They'll allow poison in your pet's food, they'll allow poison in your water supply and they'll allow poison in the air you breathe. All in the name of profit.


Deep down inside you know you are wrong. Or, as you have indicated, you are a Marxist. If you were not profit would not bother you.

When you read posts such as the one you commented to, you know very well they don't have money. They never learned how to make money. They are a wage earner who believes the world is against them.

The people with goals and plans have an abundant life.

Chris
12-08-2015, 05:12 PM
Want to know why the need for regulations? Greed. Pure and simple. If the world weren't filled with greedy assholes who would fuck their own grandmother to make a buck, there would be much less need for government and its regulations. But your pure, RW capitalist will do just that. They'll allow poison in your pet's food, they'll allow poison in your water supply and they'll allow poison in the air you breathe. All in the name of profit.

It's regulations that feed greed. You can satisfy self-interest in one of two ways. The economic means whereby you have to produce in exchange what others want to get what you want. And the political means whereby you rent seek the power of the government to take what you need from others. So it's your state capitalist, your corrupt crony capitalist that kills the cat. And that, by your words, is the system you support.

nic34
12-08-2015, 05:18 PM
I don't support gun confiscation by any means, but I'm really a bit done with hearing all these arguments from conservatives about how guns are our defense against tyranny. Wake up, people, and smell the coffee. It's 2015, not 1787. The United States government has already made the constitution damn near irrelevant, the only thing they haven't really made irrelevant is the second amendment. If your guns protect you from tyranny, where the $#@! were you when the other parts of the constitution got abused?

Y'all are a bit late to the party. The government has made the constitution about as important as toilet paper and all the "protect us from tyranny" conservatives didn't do $#@! to stop it. You can't speak unless it's by permission, you can't print unless it's by permission, the government has the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant or due process, it has the right to assassinate American citizens without a warrant or due process, it can read your texts, emails, and listen in on your calls, and silence. But G-d forbid they propose some minor limitations on your ability to own a gun. THAT is when y'all decide it's time for an uprising, after you've already been enslaved.

It's too late for that.


guns are our defense against tyranny.


But the argument is always of an unknown future event where we will rise up and replace our oppressive government.


Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime


Wouldn't one think by now with all the cool weaponry we've invented and the advent of the TEE-partay and Trump-facism incarnate, it would have happened by now and Obama would have been deposed and replaced by Sir Trumpe or someone else ....

nic34
12-08-2015, 05:25 PM
Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime.



Isn't that kind of a circular argument. You need your guns to keep your right to keep your guns? And then where are you?

Chris
12-08-2015, 05:57 PM
Isn't that kind of a circular argument. You need your guns to keep your right to keep your guns? And then where are you?

Why then he's with his guns. Circle the wagons!

Chris
12-08-2015, 05:58 PM
guns are our defense against tyranny.


But the argument is always of an unknown future event where we will rise up and replace our oppressive government.


Nobody is taking my guns period. It's one of the few things I'll take to the streets over and I feel a sense of security that there are enough like me to maintain this right and freedom and to maintain this key check and balance to a potentially oppressive government regime


Wouldn't one think by now with all the cool weaponry we've invented and the advent of the TEE-partay and Trump-facism incarnate, it would have happened by now and Obama would have been deposed and replaced by Sir Trumpe or someone else ....


Founders were addressing the same contingency when thy wrote: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

MisterVeritis
12-08-2015, 06:01 PM
Founders were addressing the same contingency when thy wrote: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The first rebellion took a very long time to reach the moment of armed resistance. The British were coming for their cannons, powder and shot. That was the signal for turning resistance to a shooting war.

Chris
12-08-2015, 06:10 PM
The first rebellion took a very long time to reach the moment of armed resistance. The British were coming for their cannons, powder and shot. That was the signal for turning resistance to a shooting war.

There were many years worth of grievances, as listed in the Declaration. But the British turned it violent.

Captain Obvious
12-08-2015, 06:26 PM
Isn't that kind of a circular argument. You need your guns to keep your right to keep your guns? And then where are you?

Life isn't linear, Nic

Chris
12-08-2015, 06:28 PM
Life isn't linear, Nic

That's what I'm trying to say when I say there's no such thing as progress which is a claim to linearity. It's not.

MisterVeritis
12-08-2015, 07:15 PM
There were many years worth of grievances, as listed in the Declaration. But the British turned it violent.
Yes, decades. But once the Brits marched out to seize weapons the war was on. That was the tipping point. I believe it will be the tipping point this time.