New Yorkers who are relatively apolitical tend to vote Democrat just because that's the culturally normal thing to do there. As more and more of them witness the disaster of illegal immigration, I see two possible outcomes: either 1. they start to vote for conservatives, or 2. they pressure Democrat leadership to abandon their pro-illegal policy, and start deporting all of these criminals.
tend to vote Democrat just because that’s the culturally normal thing to do there
Do you have evidence to support this? Because that is an incredibly simple explanation for something very complicated.
they start to vote for conservatives
Democrats just don’t do that. The GOP is way too extreme for that to happen. It’s to the point that we would rather vote for actual zombies (see Dianne Feinstein) and milquetoast politicians (Biden) over anything GOP because the GOP has been going down the road of authoritarianism.
they pressure Democrat leadership to abandon their pro-illegal policy, and start deporting all of these criminals.
Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.
Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I'm not including anyone who's keyed into politics, just the other 80%.
Democrats just don’t do that.
The Democrat Party is a coalition. Democrats who believe strongly in political ideals, and who believe Republicans are evil (or close to it) would never vote Republican, sure. But I'm not talking about them. Many Democrats vote as they do just because that's what their friends and families do, and they've never been given a reason to question it. Those are the folks I spoke of, and there's a ton of them.
Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.
We're talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants. The distinction is crucial.
When somebody's very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility. Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors. Compassion is inappropriate for criminals who invade our country with the express purpose of breaking our laws.
Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.
Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I’m not including anyone who’s keyed into politics, just the other 80%.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
We’re talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
When somebody’s very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime. And most often they do so because America has destroyed their country and are seeking refuge. If civility was important, perhaps the U.S. should have thought twice about destabilizing Latin American countries, destabilizing entire ecosystems, and sucking the natural resources of these countries dry.
Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation for a family who has nothing but the clothes on their backs, and are actively being hunted by cartels, loan sharks, etc? If it were me, I would do the same as them and cross the border illegally if it meant me and my family would be safe, and I suspect you would too unless you have no self preservation.
If your choices were between your child starving, and committing a misdemeanor, the right thing to do is to feed your child. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences. It's important to be transparent that an anecdote is just an anecdote, but there's nothing unwise about basing an argument off one, provided the anecdotal source is transparent.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
There's a world of difference.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they're a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe "liberty or death" — American values. They are the kind of people who are law-abiding, and patriotic.
Illegals are a different type altogether. They're willing to break the law either because they're hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don't own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that's actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that's your perspective, you don't see a difference because you're not an American at heart.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel. I don't care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you're absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)
[…] because America has destroyed their country […]
Cry me a river. I don't support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
I have some Jewish ancestors who died in the holocaust. If they'd been armed, and fought back, they'd have died respectable deaths, and there'd have been no concentration camps. I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn't fight like a man.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation […]
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Now to be fair, there's also Acts 5:29, which says:
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I'd advocate for asylum. I've never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there's a non-zero chance it could happen.
Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences.
And that’s good for day to day living, but not for policy. The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they’re a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe “liberty or death” — American values.
That applies to most migrants that cross illegally. And not all legal immigrants are christian. A lot of them are non-christian, about 40% to be exact:
They’re willing to break the law either because they’re hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don’t own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that’s actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that’s your perspective, you don’t see a difference because you’re not an American at heart.
This is just a sweeping generalization, to the point that it’s almost a joke.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel.
I’m not seeing any real point here, so I will move on.
is the bottom of the barrel. I don’t care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you’re absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)
So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.
Cry me a river. I don’t support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
Families are not soldiers.
I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn’t fight like a man.
And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
This has to be a troll, lol
I offer you Romans 13:1-2:
That doesn’t dismiss my point.
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I’d advocate for asylum. I’ve never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there’s a non-zero chance it could happen.
It’s not worth my time to aim for such a ridiculous goal post.
The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.
I do agree with that.
about 40% to be exact
Wow, that's super interesting. About halfway down the page it says:
Of the approximately 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2011, an estimated 9.2 million (83%) are Christians, mostly from Latin America.
So USCIS exhibits values that misalign with my own, but that's not entirely surprising. What is surprising, to me at least, is that my personal values are more closely aligned with illegal immigrants than legal immigrants. I'm going to have to digest that fact for a while.
As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.
Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.
So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.
Sorry, no, that's not what I meant. I meant:
Breaking the law is generally a bad thing to do, whether it's a misdemeanor, felony, or whatever.
Breaking into a country to break that country's law is what I called "bottom of the barrel".
Breaking the law to resist tyranny is where I make an exception, and side with the American founders that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God".
Families are not soldiers.
All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the militia, according to 10 USC §246. Now I understand we're discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that's one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.
And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.
How's that a problem? It's built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed. It also recognizes that we all fail in life, while some of us are motivated to learn from our personal failures and turn them into stepping stones to success.
This has to be a troll, lol
I wasn't trolling, honest. I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme, and acknowledging that I wouldn't want any individual to set policy by personal preference. I meant it, honestly.
That doesn’t dismiss my point.
How doesn't it? The words of God are the words of God.
Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.
What do you want me to tell you? The people there aren’t hardened criminals. The crime rate between the U.S. and Latin American countries is about the same once you take into account the effects of poverty and organized crime. Most Latin Americans are law abiding christians.
Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant:
I understand what you meant, but what you mean is self contradictory, hence the lack of sense. People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.
Now I understand we’re discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that’s one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.
Not every situation is one you can stand up to. Fighting for your family, for your women and children, it often involves simply moving them out of danger.
How’s that a problem?
Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.
It’s built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed.
And it fails to address the fact that there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.
I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme
What you’ve said is beyond extreme. And also shortsighted given that immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:
Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference? What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited? It's like people who break into houses, who usually make the news when the homeowner shoots them. Who does that? Who thinks it's a grand idea to go break in where they don't belong?
People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.
Oh, so do I understand correctly that you mean US immigration laws are tyrannical? Please explain.
it often involves simply moving them out of danger.
Well, yes, that's a decision many people do indeed make. I view it as cowardice. It's honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it's dishonorable to flee.
Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.
I do agree with this. I just don't think it applies to people who are outside of our society, or to people who broke into our home.
there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.
I reject that premise as certified hooey. There's no systemic anything. It's absolute nonsense, rooted in a deranged rejection of western civilization. Sorry, I know that's rude, and I'm not trying to offend you personally. I appreciate how generally respectful this interaction has been. I just reject this notion out of hand.
immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:
Maybe they lay low because they're afraid of getting deported? Honestly I don't care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don't count the slaves as people. So it's not an argument I find compelling. Some things are good for the economy, or great for the economy, and yet I still oppose them. (There are other things in this category, like Chinese imports.)
Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference?
I would not describe one. They’re the same people. The former are just the people who still have the means to get by, the latter are the ones who do not.
What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited?
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can. And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs through legal methods of travel, as in, people overstay their welcome when traveling but were otherwise granted legal access into the country.
It’s like people who break into houses
People who break into houses do so because they are greedy. People who break into countries (generally) do so because they are trying to escape or provide for their family.
It’s honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it’s dishonorable to flee.
It’s not a battle, it’s suicide. Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them. Even if you somehow successful destroy one another will fit its place overnight because of how incredibly profitable it is. Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
There’s no systemic anything.
Why not? When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
Maybe they lay low because they’re afraid of getting deported?
It applies to all kinds of immigrants, legal and illegal. So reducing the influx of people who commit fewer crimes than the general population is short sighted.
Honestly I don’t care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don’t count the slaves as people.
These are people. And they are making the choice to move here and set up businesses of their own free choice. Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you're right.
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can.
I suppose I understand that. But that doesn't excuse the behavior.
Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it's to feed your family? No, that's still murder.
Now we're not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.
And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs […]
I did know that! It's an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It's why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I'd like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.
Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them.
Some major things like what? I'd love to know how to end market demand, but that's a very hard problem to solve.
Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that's suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.
When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word "systemic" generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn't happened in a very long time in the US. Today's so-called racism is "systemic", meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists. (Edit: I take this back, as colleges were openly racist before the SCOTUS banned it, and woke corporations are still doing affirmative action. That's not systemic though, it's just actual racism.)
Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. I meant the argument that it's "good for the economy" doesn't convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don't care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don't find the argument compelling.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
OK, so to end the market demand for these drugs you first have to understand why they’re used at all. Everybody knows they are harmful and addictive, nobody starts using them without knowing that it will harm them. So why do they use them? Primarily it is because of isolation and poverty, which are the two biggest indicators of crime and drug use. Humans have a built in need for socialization, and without that we have to cope in some way. Poverty is very similar, when we do not have stability in our life, a good source of food and shelter, when our well-being is in bad shape, just like with isolation we need some way to cope. Often times that method is drug use.
So if we can tackle the things leading to this isolation and poverty, it can go a long way towards reducing people’s drug use. So lets look at the first of these source problems, and some solutions.
Isolation - Nowadays people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining communities. Part of that is poverty, but the largest part is how we structure our society. Here in the U.S. we don’t have any semblance of work-life balance. We are the most productive we have ever been and yet we work more than we have in almost a century. How can somebody be reasonably expected to have a social life when they must work two jobs to make ends meet? We also get far less time off than other developed nations, in large part because we have no guaranteed minimum time off. Other countries on the other hand get weeks of time off at a minimum. There is also the physical structure of our society, the city planning and infrastructure. Everything in the U.S. is car dependent. Do you want to go hang out with friends? Do you want to go to church? Do you want to volunteer? Doesn’t matter what activity you want to do, you are required to get their by car because no other valid options exist. We don’t have the freedom to travel to places through other means because all cities everywhere are built for cars and only cars. It is also just dangerous to travel by foot or by bicycle in the U.S. because so little thought is put into the safety of pedestrians. Even if something is technically within walking/biking distance, there may be no sidewalk, pedestrian barriers, or trees. We also do not have the density or mixed use zoning that is needed to allow people to make strong communities in our neighborhoods. Everything is built too far spaced out when it could easily be built with community in mind.
So to fix the isolation we need:
More mixed use & higher density zoning
Better public transportation support
Better pedestrian safety
Minimum time off requirements
U.S. GDP/Productivity rates need to be inversely tied to quantity of working hours without effecting wages
So that more or less covers the easy part, isolation. Poverty is a whole other monster.
Poverty - So this is a two part issue, a wage issue and a price issue. On the wage side of things, we as a society simply are not paid enough. Productivity rates have grown massively, but wages have not. And all that extra wealth that is being created is going directly to the rich. As a result people are impoverished. CEOs, company owners and shareholders take home extreme levels of wealth while your average Joe takes home crumbs at best. CEOs currently get paid somewhere on the order of 670 times as much as the lowest paid workers. CEOs are not working 670 times harder than any other worker out there. Our country has plenty of wealth to make sure everybody has a stable food source and secure housing, but the wealth is distributed such that it always goes to the rich. Part two of the poverty issue, is the price issue. Whether it is for pharmaceuticals, college, housing, or just groceries, the prices of everything have gotten completely out of hand. And that’s not because these things take much more to manufacture/maintain. The cost to manufacture insulin is about $6 a vial yet it is sold for $300 at least for example. Colleges waits shit loads of their money on administration and sports. Housing is intentionally kept scarce to keep prices up, etc. Corporations and landlords are extracting every single ounce of wealth out of us as they possibly can, and it has immensely damage our society through poverty.
There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the gist. So to fix this, some of the things we will need to see is:
Wages need to match productivity rates
Minimum wage should return to being a living wage as it was originally intended to be, and to keep it that way it needs to be tied to inflation
Regulation must stop CEOs & the rich from being paid at such high rates. I think a limit of 10 to 1 would be reasonable, as in for every 1 dollar the lowest paid employ is paid, the highest can only be paid 10. And that should include all methods of payment/benefits.
Regulation for price gouging needs to be tightened to stop pharmaceutical companies from continuing their robbery of our citizens
Housing needs an overhaul, I’d personally recommend georgism, massive investments in market rate housing construction, and zoning overhauls to allow for higher density housing & mixed use zones
Education needs an overhaul as well. We ought to catch up with the rest of developed nations to have free higher education, but that is also it’s own massive topic.
Healthcare, same as education, we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world to have medicare for all. Our for-profit healthcare system has utterly failed us, again it’s own massive topic.
And so that covers largely the source reasons why people start drug use in the first place. But there is still more to it. The third main category of fix for the cartels would be ending the war on drugs. It’s been ~50 years of trying to get rid of drugs and we are no closer to doing so. It’s clear that it isn’t working. Drugs are more potent, dangerous, and available than they ever have been. If we were to decriminalize use of them we would save billions of dollars that could instead go towards the above fixes, and it would also reduce the profitability of the cartel’s trade. If somebody is addicted to a drug, they should have a harm reduction program to help them through it. If the drugs on the street are more expensive, dirtier and riskier than what a free prescription can get them, then cartels would evaporate as they would have no customers. Other nations have tried this approach, and study after study shows that it is the most effective way to help people stop using drugs off the street, and to stop using drugs all together.
I find it frustrating and disappointing that kbin didn't notify me of this reply, particularly since you put so much effort into writing it. I'm glad I noticed it.
Thank you for your well thought-out reply on this. We are certainly coming from opposite perspectives, and I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something, because you made a lot of points.
My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad. America is supposed to be the land of the free, meaning all regulations of business should be prohibited, IMHO.
To my view, a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision. Because when we treat our bodies as God's abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn't an option. And as kids have grown up without prayer, we've seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.
That being said, I recognize that drug abuse existed before '62, and indeed has existed since time immemorial. And I recognize that even though I disagree with most of your points, isolation and poverty indeed may be underlying causes, in conjunction with secularism.
I don't have much more to say on the topic, but thank you again for that very well thought out reply. I looked up Georgism and learned what it's all about, so thank you.
I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something
I suspected as much.
My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad.
A government must regulate businesses or else they become monopolies, price gougers, environmental disasters, etc. A truly free market will always result in monopolies. A free market is a competition, but competitions have winners, and winners are monopolies.
America is supposed to be the land of the free
How can we be free if we are slaves to corporations?
a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision
Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them, it just makes it worse. If you truly want to help people and to make society healthy, you have to help people where they are at.
Because when we treat our bodies as God’s abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn’t an option.
That simply isn’t an effective way of dealing with drug abuse.
And as kids have grown up without prayer, we’ve seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.
Correlation does not imply causation.
, in conjunction with secularism.
Secularism is not the problem here.
I looked up Georgism and learned what it’s all about, so thank you.
So what are you doing in a conservative place? Did you come here just to pick a fight? I do enjoy our dialog, but the thing is called "conservative", so I expect everyone here to be some variant of conservative.
or else they become monopolies
Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.
slaves to corporations
Do you really believe that? We're all free to start our own companies, as I and most of my friends and family have at some point in our lives. That's the whole point of being an American. If you don't like your job, you're free to get another, and once you have some experience you can go into business for yourself. Nobody's a slave to a corporation. That's patently absurd.
Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them
Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?
Correlation does not imply causation.
True. It's a multifaceted set of problems for sure. I do think the elimination of school prayer was a root cause, but that hunch is impossible to prove.
Secularism is not the problem here.
Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.
In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that's 100% effective is salvation. The only reason it's not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity. But it works, and it works astonishingly well.
I’m here because I like talking with people I disagree with, I enjoy debate, and because this place would otherwise be an echo chamber. And echo chambers are a big part of why our country is so fucked right now.
Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.
That’s one of the ways that monopolies are created, but not the only way.
Take a look at what Walmart did in the 90s and early 2000s. Walmart intentional set profits below the cost to produce their items, and in doing so the local competition could not beat their prices due to differences in business size, and so countless small businesses died. Then once all those businesses died Walmart drove their prices up.
Another way they become monopolies is by buying out the competition. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are good examples of this. Any time another tech business looks like it will become profitable or a competitor, they buy it up. From their they either kill it, or they incorporate it to get a wide monopoly. Either way they accomplish their goal of destroying competition.
Then there is the tall monopolies where the entire production chain is all owned by one company, from raw material to finished and sold product. Amazon is a good example of this. They used to only be a book marketplace, then an everything marketplace, and now they are a manufacturer as well. The Amazon Basics brand is replacing loads of items on their store.
None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation. It’s all just capitalism. Now I will grant you that government regulation can also be a source of monopolies, but it is far from the only source.
Absolutely. We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do. They control the politicians, the regulation, what you can buy, where you can buy, what jobs are available, what housing you can live in, etc. And they spend every day doing everything in their power to expand that influence.
Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills. And even if you have all of that going for you, sometimes a big corporation will come buy and destroy your family business through no fault of your own.
And our freedom to move to another job is severely limited, and often moot. If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave. Choosing another corporation to effectively own you doesn’t make you any more free when they are stepping on your neck at company A, B, C, all the way to Z.
Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?
You said that “a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision” so I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.
Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.
In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that’s 100% effective is salvation
Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?
Because the closest thing I can think of is the 12 step program, which has highly religious connections, often times outright christians ones, and yet their success rate is no better than chance.
The only reason it’s not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity.
I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.
I’m here because I like talking with people I disagree with
I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum. I can't speak for the moderator or anyone else here, but coming from reddit I expect this to be a place for conservatives to come together and build upon a shared perspective of the world.
None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation.
Completely false. Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC, including quarterly earnings reports. Moreover federal international trade agreements and laws regarding imports and exports, including tax laws, deeply impact both Walmart and Amazon. A proper reply would be book-length, but suffice it to say every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.
We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do.
Corporations are people. They are literally people. Have you never worked in a corporation? They're not some kind of mythical beast. They're just every-day Americans working for a living.
Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills.
Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit. There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country, and more appear every day. It sounds like you're just not trying hard enough. Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.
If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave.
You have absolutely no clue what slavery is. That's bizarre. Normal commercial life in a free market is about as far away from slavery as possible. You can become a billionaire or a beach bum, or anything in between. It's completely up to you, and nobody's going to come around and whip you to death if you don't get back to work.
when they are stepping on your neck
What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.
I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.
Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.
Wow, no. What? Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear. Through Christ alone can we receive freedom from sin, and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will. Oppression happens when we lack that freedom. You have it precisely backwards.
Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?
Well, a web search turned up this as the first result:
[…], we conclude that the value of faith-oriented approaches to substance abuse prevention and recovery is indisputable. And, by extension, we also conclude that the decline in religious affiliation in the USA is not only a concern for religious organizations but constitutes a national health concern.
I haven't read that whole study, and I don't know their methodology, so they may well cite an efficacy below 100%. Personally I arrive at 100% by deduction: those who are saved evidence their salvation by being shielded from temptation to abuse drugs, while anyone lacking that evidence is clearly not yet saved.
Whatever the methodology, though, claiming that "their success rate is no better than chance" is a lie based on a downright anti-Christian bias.
I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.
It is the sick who need a physician. Medical professionals (like most other people) generally avoid proselytizing to everyone under all professional circumstances.
I also needed to split this up, so this is part 1.
I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum.
I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.
Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC
every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.
While true, that doesn't change anything. Corporations can still be monopolies while being legal if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies.
Corporations are people. They are literally people.
Corporations are organizations of people. But regardless of what you define them as, people or organizations, you cannot have freedom if corporations control everything. Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).
Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit.
You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.
There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country
And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery. Sure people win the lottery all the time, but that doesn't mean everyone will.
Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.
I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.
You have absolutely no clue what slavery is.
I am using hyperbole. I am not stating that what we experience in America is literal chattel slavery. The point is that you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive. You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?
What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.
I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life. We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.
And I'm not going to address the "real job" part because that is a true scottsman fallacy waiting to happen. I will tell you this, I have never read Marx, I do not label myself a marxists, and I have had several jobs over the years at this point.
The two relevant cases are Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).
Ok, then I take back what I said when I though you were referencing Robinson v California/punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts. I should have clarified which decision you meant first. I think we already know where we both stand on religion in schools, so I will move on.
Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear.
Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.
and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will
The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life.
My proverbial fresh fruit vendor mentions to me that he's struggling to keep up with demand, so I tell him I can help him sell his fruit, and I'll do it for a 15% commission. He bargains me down to 10%, and we have an agreement. He tells me which hours he's open and I tell him I sell his fruit 24/7. After a few months, he tells me I should wear a more professional looking shirt, and I reply that his sales are up 30% MoM with me running sales, but if he really wants to control my wardrobe I'll go sell for the competing fruit stand over there. How's exactly am I being controlled? I'm not; I'm in control of my own labor, selling it at an agreeable rate.
You also mentioned that corporations control politicians. To the degree that's true, it's only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so. If we could stick to the 10th Amendment and return the government to its proper 18th Century size, there'd be nothing for lobbyists to do. The federal government should be responsible for almost nothing. It should be tiny. That's the root of the problem you blame on corporations. Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.
I'm not sure what the "world freedom index" is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. Big-government policies have eroded limits on government, public spending continues to rise, and the regulatory burden on business has increased. Restoring the U.S. economy to the status of “free” will require significant changes to reduce the size and scope of government.
Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.
When I say "secularism", I'm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.
Which is to say, we can really talk past each other sometimes.
The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
What a libertine and hedonistic notion of freedom. It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Our culture's founding document is built upon a theological proposition:
[…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, […]
Our entire culture is built upon that, a theological proposition.
And if you read all of the old American documents, almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don't even recognize if you're an atheist. Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation. God is our purpose for being, our purpose for living, and our purpose for freedom. That would not have been a contentious assertion in the past.
it's only because our government is so bloated that corporations are incentivized to do so.
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
That's the root of the problem you blame on corporations.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Meanwhile, every leftist continues to push for a bigger and bigger government.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
I'm not sure what the "world freedom index" is, but according to the 2023 Index of Economic Freedom, the US ranks 25 with the following advice:
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind, but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs, corporate control, etc.
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
When I say "secularism", I'm referring to the social trend of reduced church membership
I don't want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn't anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame. Every one of us is either with God or with Satan, and so by secularism I mean the trend of people abandoning God to embrace Satan.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don't believe in Satan either.
It has no basis in history, our culture, or reality, all of which are essentially Christian.
Christianity runs through every fiber of our being as a nation.
I'll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…] that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law. Only the constitution is the head of american law and it doesn't say anything about a creator, chrisitianity, etc.
almost all of them include copious quotes from the Bible, which you probably don't even recognize if you're an atheist.
I've spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 1 of 2:
Corporations are always incentivized to do so regardless of government size. If you're a corporation and you have the power to get politicians to get a law passed, then the law gets passed even if the fed is tiny.
A couple of problems that make this incorrect:
A nit-pick that I find distracting: The phrase "the Fed" always (at least in US context) refers to the Federal Reserve, a private bank in cahoots with the federal government. I know that's not what you meant.
I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be. There were no taxes to fund anything, aside from nominal excise taxes on imports. There were no agencies, at all — none. That's our natural federal government size. They barely had any power at all, because American government is meant to be bottom-up, with families and townships having the most power, and the federal government the least.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
The root problem is lobbying (bribery) being legal. Without it we would be in a far better place.
Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising. I can tell my senator how great the Fediverse is and how he should make an account here, and that would count as lobbying.
The root problem is that the federal government has amassed far too much power. And to break that down, there are mainly two parts to that root problem:
The Interstate Commerce Clause
The Necessary and Proper Clause
Both have been grossly misinterpreted in violation of the Tenth Amendment to give the federal government unrestricted control over the states. The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning. If they have the cahoonas to do that, ~2.87 million federal civilian employees will suddenly be out of a job, and many of our lost freedoms will be restored overnight. Oh yeah, and the incentive to lobby will move to the state level, where governors and state legislatures actually have to worry about losing taxpayers over bad policies.
I think the issue of government size is more nuanced than that. There are things that republicans want that would make the government bigger, and there are things that democrats/leftists want that would make it smaller.
Sure, well both DNC and RNC are coalitions, and we don't all agree on the details. But my view that the sole responsibility of the federal government is to protect the people's liberty is a fairly generic Republican view. Border protection and national defense are the only expensive requirements of that.
There is definitely some regulation that needs to be abandoned, certain zoning laws immediately come to mind,
Agreed!
but the largest reason why we have so little freedom here in comparison is because of government surveillance programs,
Agreed!
corporate control
No!
And ranking freedom solely on economic freedom is not a good methodology.
I don't think you realize just how tiny the federal government used to be.
It basically didn't exist in the beginning, I am aware of how drastically things have changed.
That's our natural federal government size.
When you say "natural" here I assume you mean that the country was intended to always have the same size of federal government (which is to say basically a size of nothing). However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better. I agree that the federal government needs to be smaller (for instance I would personally cut the IRS to a 10th it's size, because that's all they would really need if we switched to georgism). However, just because it needs to be smaller doesn't mean it should barely exist. When our country was founded, it was done so with the Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
So no, corporations are not incentivized to lobby a tiny government which exists strictly to protect the people's liberty, any more than they're incentivized to lobby you and me personally.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
Except lobbying isn't bribery. It's just speech, similar to advertising.
If that's all lobbying was, I would be inclined to agree with you, but that's not all lobbying is. Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It's also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
The solution is for SCOTUS to apply the doctrine of originalism to restore these two clauses to their intended meaning.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem, corporate control. You say it is the two above doctrines, I disagree, believing it is a multifaceted problem of lobbying, monopolies, laizze-faire policy, etc.
I simply don't see how removing the government's ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america. Corporations would still control our wages, place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
However the founding fathers intended the country to always be changing and adapting, to always become better and better.
That's progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not. If they were still around today, they'd be rallying the militia.
Articles of Confederation, and it was a chaotic disaster.
You say that like it's a bad thing. In retrospect it's clear that our situation then was far preferable to where we are today. The federal government's only problem then was they couldn't get the several states to give them any money, which is a perfectly acceptable problem. What's more, the convention of the states had no authority to discard the Articles, so they remain our rightful federal law. I don't deny the fact that the Constitution is well accepted by almost 100% of American citizens, but the least we can do is restore it to its original intent. If we ever do, though, then you'll find me advocating to restore the Articles.
If the government is tiny, then corporations are unfettered, and that is just as bad. But even so, even with a small government, lobbying is still power that they would directly benefit from.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny. You can lobby your governor just as you can lobby your next-door neighbor, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can lobby me, just as you're sorta doing now.
Paying for campaign contributions, promising contributions, etc are all also legal and considered lobbying. And it is effectively bribery. It's also legal to offer politicians lucrative job opportunities. These things are corruption and destroy our freedoms.
This is a symptom of big government. When politicians have next to no power, there's no sense in spending money to help them.
I had to go back to keep track of what we agreed(?) was the problem,
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track in this sort of enormous conversation.
I simply don't see how removing the government's ability to regulate commerce would lead to less corporate control of america.
Let's distinguish between state and federal control. I believe it's a sovereign state's role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
Corporations would still control our wages
I've already addressed this. It's false. When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price. Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
place of employement, type of employement, hours, how money is distributed, the media (narrative), etc. If anything it would make it harder for the government to prevent these corporations from harming our freedom.
This is all radically disconnected from reality. Corporations don't control any of these things. You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
That's progressive revisionism. They most certainly did not [intend for the country to change].
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It was. The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay's rebellion, the nation's debts weren't being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it's blockade (which couldn't be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
If government is tiny then businesses are tiny.
You have no evidence for this, let alone causation.
When politicians have next to no power, there's no sense in spending money to help them.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can. So there will always be motivation to spend money to bribe them regardless of the power they hold. They might spend less, sure, but they will still do it.
I concede I wish I was better at staying on track
Same. It's incredibly difficult.
I believe it's a sovereign state's role to regulate commerce within their borders as they see fit. So business sizes should vary according to state culture.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say? If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
When you sell your labor, you set the price you want to charge, and seek out one or more customers willing to pay that price.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn't exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that. Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
* I am aware this is less so for higher skill jobs, but most jobs you have very little power in this regard.
Corporations are nothing more than people who pay other people for their labor, as a voluntary agreement between both parties. Neither party controls the other.
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
You really should start a business of your own, if for no other reason than just to learn how little power it gives you.
If I were to start a business it would be a small one and therefore have no control. But again, the problem generally isn't small businesses, it's the big ones.
They do control each of these things, and I can explain how:
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that's just one example.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you're exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you'd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you'll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Corporations set the wage, you apply, and if you tell them you need more money to work there they tell you to get lost*. Job postings receive hundreds, sometimes thousands of applications. Why would they lower their profitability by giving you the wage you set if the next person in the very long line will work just as hard for cheaper?
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price. If you want to be a forest ranger, you'll be competing against a whole lot of people who like the idea of getting paid to hang out in the forest all day. You'll get much better pay as a garbage man, since fewer people like the thought of taking that job. But as individuals, we can choose whatever kind of job we want to work, balancing our skills and aptitudes with our personal tastes and how much we value monetary remuneration compared to other measures of job satisfaction. And if you're clever, you can figure out how to spend all day in the forest and make well over $100k (start a logging company).
Corporations tell their workers what to do and therefore control their workers. Same goes for hours. If I told my boss that I will only work Sundays-Thursdays from now on, I would be fired. That is a form of control.
Depends on the type of work. Personally I don't care when people work, as long as they show up for meetings and get their jobs done well. But sure, if you're a gas station attendant then you'd better show up before the start of your shift.
place of employement - Corporations quite literally have been forcing people to return to offices or face dismissal. There are other kinds of this action, but that's just one example.
If you like remote work, and your manager doesn't understand that you're productive working from home, then the job's a bad match for you and you should find a better match. That's not anyone having control over the other party; it's just conflicting values.
type of employement - Corporations are the one who decide if you're exempt, non-exempt, a contractor, what the job responsibilities are, etc.
I've known people to negotiate their status when getting hired. Everything's on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
hours - If you refuse to work the hours you are told you are fired.
Again, this is very much dependent on the kind of job. Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
how money is distributed - At no point does your average worker control this. The higher ups decide this and almost universally decide that the majority should go to them. If businesses were truly democratic, then you'd never see a single company giving a CEO the money for a brand new yacht every year.
You lost me here. First off, we wouldn't want a business to be democratic any more than we'd want our country to be. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper. It's a tragically terrible idea, under almost all circumstances. So no, of course businesses aren't democratic.
If you've ever tried to hire a CEO (and it's obvious you haven't), you'd know it's extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well. Again, their compensation is a function of supply and demand. There's almost zero supply. And if you want to be cheap and hire an inexperienced or second-rate CEO, you're taking a big risk with the life-blood of the company.
With both of those points established, I'm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed. You get a paycheck or direct deposit. Some businesses pay cash. A few will pay in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. You don't seem to be discussing any of these things, but they're how money is distributed.
the media (narrative) - Virtually all media companies are owned by the rich, and they do not allow news articles and the like to be against them. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Bezos, and you'll never see an article from them criticizing Bezos or Amazon.
Yes, well that's true if we're only discussing the mass media. Most of the conservative media outlets are tiny operations.
But that's not evidence that companies seek power over people. It's just evidence that the personality type of journalists tends to be leftist, and while that's not true of all journalists, they've banded together with like-minded people.
Even in the worst case examples, big tech silencing conservatives, which is a very real problem with examples far too numerous to count (Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click "not spam"?), that's not corporations trying to control people. It's just employees with personal political preferences who work alongside like-minded people, and who believe they're making the world a better place.
Like any market, supply and demand does determine price.
Agreed. And with today's huge population, the supply is so huge that it depresses everybody's wages. The internet only makes it worse with how easy it is to apply to hundreds of jobs.
The end result is that the average person has no control over wages.
Personally I don't care when people work
And that's you, which is great. But most places aren't like that and instead control it under threat of termination.
That's not anyone having control over the other party
I think we have a difference of opinion over what constitutes control.
Everything's on the table in a negotiation. You just need to recognize it as a negotiation, and learn to negotiate well.
You can't have negotiation without leverage, and you can't have leverage when the market is oversupplied.
Many jobs just require you to get a certain amount of work done.
This is pretty much the same issue as above. So I'll move on.
we wouldn't want a business to be democratic any more than we'd want our country to be.
You might not want our country to be democratic, but the vast majority of people do.
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for supper.
A democracy is the way in which the social contract is maintained. The alternative is the wolves just slaughtering the lambs. In reality, there are 10 lambs for every one wolf.
it's extremely hard to find someone qualified to do the job well
That's because today's corporations are bloated. If everything was small to medium business it wouldn't be a problem.
I'm lost as to your overall point about how money is distributed.
I'm talking about the percentage cut of what each person gets, and how CEOs get overpaid.
Why do my mailings from Team DeSantis keep going to spam, no matter how many times I click "not spam"?)
As somebody who works in tech, I can tell you the answer is likely just that they send our so many emails that it trigger's your email host's spam filters. It's often a case of quantity instead of content. Either that or a really stupid bug. The whole field of tech is littered with them.
They quite literally built a system in place to add amendments to the constitution and to take them away if needed. Why would they have done so if the intention was to keep the law static until the end of time?
They also made it remarkably difficult to amend. They wouldn't have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
The economy fell apart, the states were constantly squabbling over petty things, we had Shay's rebellion, the nation's debts weren't being payed. The currency of the time had no value. Britain was screwing the country over with it's blockade (which couldn't be solved due to the lack of any federal power). The articles of confederation was such a disaster that it had such a short lived life that the founders themselves got rid of it.
I understand the frustrations, though those points are a biased history. I don't think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place. But indeed they did, and honestly I'd be okay with it if we'd just stick to their original design.
Politicians have power by definition, and corporations have a direct incentive to get as much power as they can.
The singular goal of the American republic is to limit the power of politicians. That's basically what the Constitution's all about.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales. And they gain sales by offering goods and services that people want more than their own money. It's not having power over someone to sell them something they love.
So states should regulate commerce, but not the federal government, is that what you mean to say?
Affirmative.
If so, then how would that work out for situations where the regulation/unregualtion in surrounding states impacts a different state? For example, if california legalized weed and had the effect of making weed more available to the surrounding states, how would those surrounding states deal with it?
States make agreements with their neighbors, much like reciprocity for CCW licenses. Indeed the whole Union is meant to pretty much be a coalition, so if South America were to invade Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, for instance, the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border. If Oregon legalized marijuana and Idaho didn't (to use a real-life example of bordering states), then LEOs in Idaho can look a bit more suspiciously at people with Oregon plates, and possibly pull them over and see what they smell. A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct "random" searches.
If everything was small business and there was greater power in the hands of laborers, and if the internet didn't exist then maybe this would be true. But the modern reality is not like that.
But reality is like that. Have a look here. I want to copy and paste the whole page.
They wouldn't have done that if they thought it should frequently change.
They definitely didn't intend for it to be frequent, I agree. But they intended it to be able to always change.
I don't think the founders would have abandoned the Articles if they could have foreseen the behemoth they created in its place
The alternative was British control. I very much doubt they would have kept the Articles if they knew.
Corporations do not seek power. They seek sales.
And power equals sales, so by seeking sales they also seek power.
the rest of the states are supposed to send their militias south to help defend the border.
Under the articles, it was like pulling teeth simply for the money to pay back the nation's loans. Getting actual troops is a whole other level.
A more extreme solution would be to erect border checkpoints to conduct "random" searches.
And that would be a huge disservice to the country. Our nation thrives on the ability to quickly and easily cross state borders because they basically don't exist. I can only imagine the damage to our economy if such a thing were to happen.
But reality is like that.
I'm not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business' size. It also doesn't take into account the power/influence a company has, or it's market share. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city's housing.
And because of supply and demand the reality is that the power is not in the hands of labor (for now), and the internet does exist.
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 2 of 2:
I don't want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn't anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people "seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." The article also notes that:
The term "secularism" has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
That's awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don't believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesn't exist. You're in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
You're either with God or you're against Him. That's a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you're unaware that you're doing so — and even if you think that's impossible — that's what you're doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I'll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…which I rebutted. I wonder if you're missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law.
It's the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I can't overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
I've spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? ("Neither" would be an invalid answer.)
That's awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I don't think they match, but again definitions aren't really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesn't exist. You're in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say "complete denial", do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
That's a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
That's because I don't think it makes sense. I don't believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it's kind of like asking "are you rooting for team A or team B", but the sports teams* that you're talking about are all fictional. It just doesn't make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they aren't sports teams, but I couldn't think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you're unaware that you're doing so — and even if you think that's impossible — that's what you're doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
I'm embracing neither. I can't embrace something I don't believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you don't think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren't good reasons.
It's the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I can't overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? ("Neither" would be an invalid answer.)
I'm sorry but the answer is "neither" whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to "christian logic" so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
definitions aren't really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking we're arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but we're using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say "complete denial", do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying?
I have no background in psychology, but I don't think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didn't get far. Sorry. But no, I don't pretend to know what you really know and what you don't. That's between you and God, not me. I just think you've intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I don't believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it's kind of like asking "are you rooting for team A or team B", but the sports teams* that you're talking about are all fictional. It just doesn't make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
That's a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not. You're ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. You're denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God's blessing, and what's far worse is you're arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. That's why I say you're in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
—Verbal Kint
I'm embracing neither. I can't embrace something I don't believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you don't think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren't good reasons.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all — that's what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, you're then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I'd say that's reasonable if I wasn't familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
It's worth noting, though, that you mention that we're a 246 year old country, and it's 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly I'd say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn't be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word "yeet" was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an "objective" answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don't see much point in talking about it.
That's between you and God, not me. I just think you've intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesn't make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but that's not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren't literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil don't exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isn't anything physical or some being, it's a human label.
You're denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
You arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God's blessing
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it's very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don't need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
you're somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I can't say I am smarter than something I don't believe exists.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all
And therefore I want none of it.
So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
and it's 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn't be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
I'd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but I'll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an "objective" answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don't see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, you'll get a hundred different definitions. Sure they'll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other side's. I suspect that's what you're observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. It's all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And what's more, I'd say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course it's a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren't literal entities that exist.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word "photosynthesis" describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison d'être is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what I've written comes down to that. To my view, it's crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. It's destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it's very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don't need to be to discover such flaws.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we don't understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw God's handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where we've built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is what we've built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, it's probable you're evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
You're fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven't had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect that's what you're observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word "secularists/secularism", and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of "christian", and the same applies to secularists.
I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
But where do you think the two human concepts came from?
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
So it seems we are in agreement that "good" and "evil" exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
"But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not."
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to "burn the house down" as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today?
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that's a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isn't a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, I'll leave you with this:
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
If you see a mistake, it's probable you're evaluating an illusion.
That's a very broad generalization.
You're fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven't had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven't had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what's your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem that's eloquently explained in Tucker Carlson's interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. I'm curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of "christian", and the same applies to secularists.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word "secularism" has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If you're aware of a more appropriate word, I'm all ears.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. It's a choice, through and through.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to "burn the house down" as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. There's nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So I'm sorry if I twisted your "try to salvage the house, or replace it if necessary" with "burn the house down", but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
I don't know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesn't exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we don't know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. What's crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. It's created by God to work in a certain way, and we've deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that's a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If you're right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then that's reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God's glory, so it doesn't seem like a very compelling answer.
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of God's creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven't had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what's your ELO if you have one?
I don't. Back when I played regularly, I didn't care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
Ramaswamy's response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesn't understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end it's culture war bullshit.
If you're aware of a more appropriate word, I'm all ears.
"The decline of christianity"
Every time I look to Christ for guidance
Even if we have free will that isn't an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
If you're going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
There's nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
If we don't know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct.
That's a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasn't Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering "god" in that context was wrong. We shouldn't just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
It's created by God to work in a certain way, and we've deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God's glory, so it doesn't seem like a very compelling answer.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God.
Not only is that not true (because you added the "most intelligent" qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
Einstein is the most notable example.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So that's not really much of an argument.
I would now if I picked it back up.
Go for it! It's pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Ramaswamy's response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get.
I wasn't referring to that in particular. I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video. The point was about western civilization, the insidious project to undermine it, and our duty to defend it. That point is foundational to much of our disagreement. It sounds like you stopped watching before he even got to the point.
"The decline of christianity"
Yeah, but that misses the bigger picture. It's not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism. Rather it's a secular movement driven by Satan's success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god.
This is one of those ways in which Wikipedia tends to be secular. It says in the intro that Western civilization is "linked" to Christiandom. That's misleading. Western civilization is Christiandom. The only difference is we don't call it that anymore. But everything that followed from Christiandom is built upon Christiandom as an extension of Christiandom. Though to the article's credit, it does later state that:
[…] Western civilization, which throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture.
That's close to accurate. In truth the two are inseparably identical, which is why Satan hates Western civilization, that that in turn is why you've been convinced to believe you want to contribute to the project of undermining Western civilization.
If you're going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
I'm not sure exactly what points you're referring to here. Skimming through it, I'm pretty sure I already know all of these details. The only change I'd make is to emphasize God's role in all of these things, and His importance to all of these historical figures.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite, and if yours was too then you'd understand why certain children are given cancer. It's not for us to try to understand. It's for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
At some point, immanently I hope, you'll realize how absurdly wrong you are about this. You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly. I know they make it feel good when you believe them, but they're lying to you.
In the end it wasn't Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. It's like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that it's nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Let's say you were to throw a basketball, and make a basket. Some scientists observe it, and say "That's interesting. Let's figure out what that's all about." So they observe you throwing the basketball. They measure your movements, the wind movements, the ball's PSI, the height of the basket, the material compositions of the ball and basket, just all of it. And then they formulate a theory which postulates how the ball goes through the basket. And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. God is in control, no matter what your demons tell you.
Not only is that not true [that the most intelligent scientists all believe in God] (because you added the "most intelligent" qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
First off, it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent. I'm trying to word that so as not to offend you, and it's hard. Sorry. My point here is not to insult you, but just to explain my statement about the most intelligent scientists.
Secondly, the scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that they're disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball. So yes, atheists are more likely to become scientists than pastors. We don't need to consult any studies to know that's true.
Go for it! It's pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Maybe eventually, but not today. I have too much else on my plate. But thank you for letting me know it's easy to play online. That's something I hadn't considered.
I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video.
I am aware that isn't the focus that you had in mind, but it was one of the bigger reactions I had to it. My overall view is that he is deeply out of touch and incapable of using anything other than a strawman argument. He fundamentally does not understand what he is criticizing.
It's not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism.
That's not what "The decline in chrstianity" describes.
Rather it's a secular movement driven by Satan's success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
That's just not happening.
Western civilization is Christiandom.
No it's not. Western civ is a pretty arbitrary phrase that is used in a million different ways, and christianity is only a subset of that. Words and phrases change over time, and this is one of those things that has changed.
the project of undermining Western civilization.
There is no such project, at least how I define western civilization.
I'm not sure exactly what points you're referring to here. Skimming through it, I'm pretty sure I already know all of these details.
If you're aware of all the details then you should also be aware that the enlightment (a huge part of western civilization) was the birth of science, the scientific method, and secularism. Meaning christendom != western civ.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite
I am criticizing a fictional, human made character. As a result of being human made, there is no such infinite wisdom.
if yours was too then you'd understand why certain children are given cancer.
There is no good reason.
It's not for us to try to understand. It's for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
How have you determined that you aren't worshiping an evil god if you haven't questioned god? How do you know that it isn't the case that both god and satan are evil?
You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly.
Nobody is whispering anything in my ears, metephorically or literally, whichever way you mean. And I question everything before I believe it.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. It's like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that it's nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Both Yahweh and Zeus are fictional characters which people irrationally use to explain why things work. That was the basis for my comparison and therefore makes it a valid comparison.
And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous.
That's not really how that works.
it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent.
scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that they're disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball.
That is absolutely not why people do science. They do so because they want to learn more about the universe, do some good for humanity and advance it. Do you even know a single scientist?
I am criticizing a fictional, human made character. As a result of being human made, there is no such infinite wisdom.
Imagine for once that you are completely wrong about this belief of yours. Yes, it's the height of hubris. If we know nothing else, we know at very least that our Creator lives.
How have you determined that you aren't worshiping an evil god if you haven't questioned god? How do you know that it isn't the case that both god and satan are evil?
For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
To choose just one of many possible answers.
Nobody is whispering anything in my ears, metephorically or literally, whichever way you mean. And I question everything before I believe it.
I mean literally. You may look at your shoulder, expecting to see no demon, while maybe picturing the cutesy BSD mascot, and sure enough you don't see one sitting on your shoulder. "See?" you reassure yourself, "no demon." You then recall that you've never seen the BSD mascot running around anywhere IRL, and conclude that demons must not exist.
How sure are you that you do a good job questioning everything before you believe it? Is it possible that you've made an error?
Demons do not look like cutesy cartoon characters, and indeed they're not visible to the human eye (at least not to mine). As with all extant spiritual entities, we can know they exist despite our inability to see them.
Are you just as quick to deny that dark matter exists?
That's not true. [Re: "it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent."]
You said you were willing to question your beliefs, so I urge you to question this. I think it underlies the rift between us.
You want to see yourself as a reasonably intelligent person, and you want to cling to a state of mind which you believe to be shared by other intelligent people.
But I ask you, are you so sure that it's intelligent to reject God? Consider the following:
So you just don't question whether or not god is good or evil, have I understood correctly? If so, then you have no method of determining if you are worshiping an evil being. That should immediately alarm you if you have any goodness in you.
I mean literally.
Like I said earlier, whichever way you mean, nobody is whispering anything in my ears.
How sure are you that you do a good job questioning everything before you believe it?
It highly depends on the matter at hand. The ridiculousness of a claim is tied to how much I look into something before believing it. If my friend tells me they got a new dog, I'll probably believe them simply because my trust in them is sufficient for an ubiquitous claim such as that. If they tell me they bought a ferrari, I'd be a little more inquisitive and ask for pictures. If they tell me they bought a dragon, nothing short of seeing it in person will convince me because my understanding of the world is such that dragons do not exist. For a claim as ridiculous as that I would need very strong evidence.
Holding belief until you have sufficient evidence is what you do to avoid errors. I'm not perfect, there are certainly things I am wrong about. But to the best of my ability to understand, this is not something I am wrong about.
Are you just as quick to deny that dark matter exists?
We have pretty strong evidence to suggest that dark matter exists.
Again, I ask you: is it intelligent to want to be happy?
Sure, but lying to yourself will never make you happy. You're asking me to lie to myself.
So you just don't question whether or not god is good or evil, have I understood correctly?
Nobody has the rightful authority to question the word of God. I quoted a verse from the Bible to you. We accept God's word without question because we are His humble servants. It would be arrogant to suppose we have permission to question His word, and it would be evil for us to desire to question His word. When you are presented with a Bible quote, you accept it as true and holy. When a demon tells you to question it, or claims that it's false, you repent and ask Jesus to shield you from this demonic temptation. In the end, we must always conclude that the word of God is correct.
Like I said earlier, whichever way you mean, nobody is whispering anything in my ears.
And yet you continue to demonstrate clear evidence to the contrary. If you're not plagued by demons then show me your embrace of God.
But to the best of my ability to understand, this is not something I am wrong about.
You put understanding before faith. That's backwards. I assure you, this is something you are wrong about.
We have pretty strong evidence to suggest that dark matter exists.
True, but we have a thousand times more evidence to confirm that God exists. Evidence to which you are blind.
[Re: "Is it intelligent to want to be happy?"] Sure, but lying to yourself will never make you happy. You're asking me to lie to myself.
If (A) I was asking you to lie to yourself, and (B) lying to yourself will never make you happy, then (C) actively religious people cannot be happier than irreligious people.
This is basic logic: A ∧ B ∴ C
And yet (C) is demonstrably false, an assertion which I substantiated with hard data. And that was just one survey. Survey after survey repeatedly demonstrates that actively religious people are far happier.
I'll reply to some of the various other things you wrote, but this is the heart of our discussion. The crux, if you will. Your perspective is that you're too smart to believe in God, and you refuse to acknowledge that God blesses His faithful believers with happiness. You believe that intelligent people choose unhappiness despite the obvious fact that it would be rather unwise to intentionally choose unhappiness, by virtue of the very definition of happiness. The only possible explanation for your insistent rejection of God is your unknowing loyalty to Satan, who has successfully convinced you that not even he exists.
We accept God's word without question because we are His humble servants.
Then like I said earlier, you have no method to determine what you worship is a good being. That should terrify you if you are a good person and immediately make you second guess everything.
And yet you continue to demonstrate clear evidence to the contrary. If you're not plagued by demons then show me your embrace of God.
This is a false dichotomy.
You put understanding before faith. That's backwards. I assure you, this is something you are wrong about.
True, but we have a thousand times more evidence to confirm that God exists.
If you think you have evidence that I haven't seen before I am all ears.
If (A) I was asking you to lie to yourself, and (B) lying to yourself will never make you happy, then (C) actively religious people cannot be happier than irreligious people.
This argument is based on the false premise that religious people would see their religion as a lie. I'm an atheist, so if I were to embrace christianity I would see it as a lie.
Your perspective is that you're too smart to believe in God
Nope. I have no evidence for it, so I do not believe it. It has nothing to do with my intelligence.
You believe that intelligent people choose unhappiness despite the obvious fact that it would be rather unwise to intentionally choose unhappiness
Once again, belief is not a choice.
And correlation does not imply causation, therefore you cannot rationally say that being religious makes you more happy.
The only possible explanation for your insistent rejection of God is your unknowing loyalty to Satan
No, the actual explanation is my responses above. And this is also a fallacy:
Then like I said earlier, you have no method to determine what you worship is a good being.
I quoted the true word of God — the holy Bible. When you parrot your demons who claim it's false, you reveal your foolish allegiance, but still you must know deep in your heart that God is good.
I'm not trying to prove anything here. If you think I am, I have to wonder what led you to think that.
My primary goal here should be readily obvious: Matthew 28:19–20, the Great Commission. I am planting a seed, and praying your soil is fertile.
Your primary goal here, by contrast, is laid out in Romans 1:18-32. I pray your disposition is temporary and reversible.
If you think you have evidence that I haven't seen before I am all ears.
You're fully immersed in it. But until you establish a penitent relationship with God, you are blind.
Nope. I have no evidence for it, so I do not believe it. It has nothing to do with my intelligence.
If you're honestly not trying to prove how clever you are, then submit to God in faith, and the copious evidence can then be revealed to you.
Once again, belief is not a choice.
No matter how much you insist upon that, I repeatedly choose to believe in the Lord our God. I accept that you don't yet understand how belief can be a choice, but it most certainly is.
And correlation does not imply causation, therefore you cannot rationally say that being religious makes you more happy.
I have zero doubt that the cause of happiness is God's blessing. Joy is quintessentially Christian.
That's a circular argument. If the devil had a holy book you'd see the same thing about how the devil is the good guy.
I'm not trying to prove anything here. If you think I am, I have to wonder what led you to think that.
I do not think that. I linked it because it is the golden standard for belief, and it requires evidence before belief.
I am planting a seed, and praying your soil is fertile.
I've been having these sorts of conversations with christians for over a decade. If christians had anything convincing to say, I think I would have heard it by now.
Your primary goal here, by contrast, is laid out in Romans 1:18-32.
it's not. I'm honestly just talking with you for the sake of enjoyment at this point.
You're fully immersed in it. But until you establish a penitent relationship with God, you are blind.
The "look at the trees" argument is an invalid one.
If you're honestly not trying to prove how clever you are, then submit to God in faith, and the copious evidence can then be revealed to you.
Nope, evidence must come before belief, and belief is not a direct choice.
If the devil had a holy book you'd see the same thing about how the devil is the good guy.
Do you not see how ridiculous this argument is? Of course the Devil lies, but the difference between God and Satan is under most circumstances glaringly obvious.
I linked it because it is the golden standard for belief, and it requires evidence before belief.
I've been having these sorts of conversations with christians for over a decade.
And who do you think has been motivating you to do that? Time and again, it is the Holy Spirit who moves you. God loves you despite your continued rejection of Him. Yet every time you receive another opportunity to drink of His water, you instead choose to follow your demons.
it's not. I'm honestly just talking with you for the sake of enjoyment at this point.
I'm guessing you didn't actually read Romans 1:18-32. Please do. If you can be honest with yourself, you'll find it all too familiar. What you call "the sake of enjoyment" is described.
Nope, evidence must come before belief, and belief is not a direct choice.
Faith exists only because belief is a direct choice. Surely you don't deny the existence of faith.
So then if you understand that there is a chance that what your reading is lies, then why don't you put any effort into determining if what you are reading is lies?
The golden standard for belief is a mustard seed.
That parable says nothing about it being the gold standard.
And who do you think has been motivating you to do that?
Time and again, it is the Holy Spirit who moves you. God loves you despite your continued rejection of Him. Yet every time you receive another opportunity to drink of His water, you instead choose to follow your demons.
None of this is true. My motivations are my own.
I'm guessing you didn't actually read Romans 1:18-32. Please do.
Like I said in the other thread, I don't derive any value from bible verses.
Faith exists only because belief is a direct choice.
For the sake of experiment, choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese then. You can't do it, because you know better.
Surely you don't deny the existence of faith.
Depends what you mean by "faith".
If you're talking about blind faith, then it exists as much as any other concept can, and it is almost by definition an error.
If by faith you mean trust, then in the same way it exists. But even that is based on information you hold to believe as true, which is not something that is under anybody's direct control.
I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.
I thought the Capitalism vs Socialism subreddit was pretty great, though I didn't spend a ton of time there, and I was mostly a lurker. But on several occasions I was impressed by the level of discourse there.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural. In practice, though, there's not many of them. Usually they're owned by a municipality, such as water supply for urban folks who lack their own wells, and waste processing for the same folks who lack septic tanks. Physical constraints make competition difficult in these markets.
Most large corporations are groups that grow vastly larger than their natural size due to government assistance and encouragement.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses. Consider our founding culture in the Eighteenth Century; the big multinational companies were the Dutch East India Trading Co and the East India Co, both of which were state-chartered monopolies. By contrast, the nascent US flourished with only tiny businesses and family farms. That is our natural business culture, to which we should strive to return.
Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).
Apples and oranges.
A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
A company offers products and services for sale in a marketplace, which people are free to buy if they want, or not to buy if they don't want. A company may employ people in a voluntary arrangement where employees sell their labor to the company for a fair price, and are free to seek employment elsewhere for a better price if they so choose.
When you picture a company, think of a man with a fruit cart selling fresh fruit at a farmer's market — that's the quintessential company. His family are back home picking fruit on the family farm, while he heads to market to compete against the other vendors. Customers are free to compare which fruit vendor offers the freshest fruit, and buy a little, or a lot, or none at all.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor, who offers you a fresh apricot for 7¢, to a blood-thirsty dictator who proclaims "everyone must placate those afflicted with gender dysphoria, on penalty of death" is a strain of the imagination. A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.
True, but so? You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery.
It's fundamentally different. The lottery is pure chance, while building a business is a measure of one's intelligence and drive to succeed.
I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.
It's hardly a fantasy. It's the American way. And it's hardly "la la land". Have you never started your own business?
you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive.
What do you mean by "abusive"? Big bad boss man said you need to show up on time, or else you'll get fired? No jobs are abusive. They're voluntary agreements for the sale of one's labor. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural.
It's definitely hard, but not impossible.
A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses.
Historically that is not true. What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
And armed forces aren't the only way authoritarians control the people, they also do so through law, which the corporations control.
The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations. Google, microsoft, amazon, meta, etc.
A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.
When the United Fruit Company toppled governments in latin america, they were in fact not practicioners of freedom. Companies are just as capable of subverting the will of the people and destroying freedoms as dictators.
You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Have you never started your own business?
I am already struggling to pay for rent, food, and utility bills, and soon my student debt will add to that. I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
What do you mean by "abusive"?
I'm talking about violations of labor laws that go unpunished, workplace injuries, poverty wages, excessive hours, repetitive strain injury, wage theft.
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.
I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.
That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?
What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.
Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples. I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.
Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.
[…] thus, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, […]
Their governments instigate and enable their problem.
I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations.
It seems we're in general agreement that small family owned businesses are far preferable to mega-corporations. (After all, we're both here in the Fediverse.)
Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.
You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.
Again, you focused on negativity to the exclusion of truth. The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us. The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.
A good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars … (I'm joking, but my above point is true.)
I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.
Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money, or perhaps just a few dollars. Going back to my fruit cart example, it doesn't cost any money to pick fruit and sell it. And there are a ton of sub-$100 sweaty-startup ideas out there. You may not have the time or the drive to start one, but you certainly have the money.
Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.
I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all. Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.
Then it sounds like you're lucky.
"Lucky" is not the right word. I didn't grow up here. I've lived in a bunch of places, from urban to suburban, and now rural. I moved here because I like the area and the people here. And there are plenty of local small businesses I support as much as I can.
That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?
I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.
Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples.
Hong Kong is an incredibly niche place. To point to that city state as a good example to extrapolate the effects of government policy is a bad idea/methodology.
I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.
I think you missed my point, I am not stating that all or even many corporations become monopolies without government assistance. Usually what happens is that a corporation gets so big that they gain so much control that they can alter government policy, and therefore they grow with government assistance that they themselves implemented. Most if not all monopolies follow this pattern. First the start small, then they get big, then they push out competition, then they buy out the politicians, then they set the laws that make them even bigger.
Their governments instigate and enable their problem.
Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.
Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.
The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us.
There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.
The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.
Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.
good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars
Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.
Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money
The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.
I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all.
If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point? Regardless, it's not just a feeling, because objectively, vertical mobility is not doing well in the united states. Horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.
"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable, though I agree it's a tangled mess. Yet if you'd find it prudent to quickly wind it down, I won't be offended.
Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs. My contention is governments should be too small to enable companies to grow huge. I get that we don't completely see eye-to-eye on this, but I'm not sure it's worth our bickering over the details.
The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.
I mentioned the importance of definitions recently. Among people who disagree over capitalism, I find we are often operating on different definitions. What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about freedom that inherently gives rise to mega-corporations. They didn't even exist until relatively modern times.
There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.
No kidding. When you hold a race, there's one winner. You might give out medals for second and third place, but most competitors are losers. And that's great. Everyone goes home and tries again tomorrow. In the end, some people are never able to win at all, due to lack of drive, technique, or what-have-you, and that's fine. Life isn't fair, and we wouldn't want it to be. All that matters is that everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.
Okay, now I really wonder where you live. Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America I know and love.
Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point?
The point is always God. And God, incidentally, is the source of our freedom. People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God. That's hardly the fault of corporations (although you could make a good case that any corporation propagating secular culture is indirectly at fault.)
"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase. It wasn't long ago that many of us lived in single-room log cabins that we built ourselves, hauled our own water without plumbing, used outhouses, lacked electricity, had a horse and cart instead of a truck, and grew most of our own food. And we were happy. Because we had God, and in the end that's all we've ever needed. If you're defining a "livable wage" in terms of anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable.
I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable...
I am enjoying it too, and it's quite alright. I'm (so far) able to keep up.
Well then we're close to splitting hairs.
I'll move on then from this part.
What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about...
Even the term "free markets" is incredibly vague. And depending on what you count as "modern times", even capitalism itself hasn't existed until modern times. So it would kind of not make sense to expect to see mega corps in an economic system that doesn't permit the kind of corps we see today.
And I hate to repeat myself, but core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners. And therefore the freedom you speak of inherently gives rise to mega-corps. They buy each other up and kill off competitors until they become mega-corps.
Any given loser of a competition under capitalism may not immediately die, but each loss forces a company closer and closer to dying.
everyone's able to compete, fair and square.
We unfortunately don't have that though due to inheritance discrepancies, and the burden of entry that corporations put in place through their control of politicians, and through the inherent difficulty of starting a business in an economy as specialized as ours.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America...
I actually live on the East coast, in a mid to large sized city, I think mine is 3rd in pop for my state. And as for your second bit here, I haven't made anything up.
Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.
Sorry, I am a very argumentative person if you couldn't tell already lol
No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.
This is another one of the issues that I wish I had more data on, but unfortunately do not. The closest I was able to find was this:
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God.
So this is similar to the drug addiction/true christian inverse correlation that I've been talking about in one of the other threads. I know you don't quite agree with the freedom index I've been using, but freedom is not in any way correlated with christianity.
What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase
Sure, it's a subjective phrase, and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
And we were happy. Because we had God...
I don't think that was the reason, I think the reason was because life was literally simpler and more connected to nature. Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable
I'm not saying a livable wage is one in which you will be able to afford anything fancy. It should be a basic wage, but enough so that you can have a family without worry
core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.
And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.
It's true, but most successful entrepreneurs learn from previous failures, so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Sure, it's a subjective phrase ["livable wage"], and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen
I've occasionally thought it would be nice to have a website where anyone could post "bills" they wish were actual laws, and other users could vote on them. It'd be fun. Not that I really think we need any more laws. I just wonder what people would come up with.
As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.
You'd struggle to transform that into a legally reliable definition. Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line? Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.
I didn't miss it. I just skipped the reply. Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well. You can deny it all you'd like, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories. Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.
This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
I just wonder what people would come up with.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line?
None of that crap.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
However much each of these end up costing, calculated yearly, added up, should be a reasonable start.
Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well.
I can't remember if I posted this link elsewhere, but I'll do it again just in case:
Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.
I don't hear about them because I don't really care for lottery winning stories, and avoid the news sources that show them. I want news with more substance than that.
Jesus could.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.
I'm not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn't seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.
Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It's normal.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.
Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.
Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It's stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.
I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.
Thanks! I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There'd be a ton of things like "Free ice cream for everyone!" As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it's fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else's idea.
Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.
You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.
But to your point about a "living wage", it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.
And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.
True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.
We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
Almost everyone can
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare?
Basic food, not caviar. Basic housing, not mcmansions. Utilities should include heating, cooling, water, electric, literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
You're splitting hairs at this point.
It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think
If housing in this country wasn't so fucked, it would probably be around $40-50k a year. Nobody is buying caviar and a bugatti with that budget.
We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
It's a matter of drive. Anyone can try to compete with Google. Someone must be adequately driven, and reasonably intelligent to succeed. But everyone who fails will gain the opportunities to build on those failures and start a more successful venture.
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think? We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth. People flock from around the world to live here, and they want to so badly that they're willing to become illegal just to live here. It's very rare that you can find a principle applicable to other countries which also happens to be applicable to the US. If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are. Some people like me will say it costs $0, while others may insist it's a minimum of $250k. This is complicated by the fact that the dollar is worth dramatically different values in different parts of the country, a fact often ignored. Generally speaking it's worth much less in urban areas.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage. The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, it's a free country, and so we're all allowed to negotiate our own terms of business. If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again. When you run a business, you have a certain budget to spend on compensation. Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day to hire them. That means you can pay them about $6 per hour maximum. Now some busybody steps in, and introduces an oppressive law that you have to pay more than $6. Well that sucks, doesn't it. That means you can't hire two people after all. You can still hire one person up to $12 per hour, but you'll have to overwork him to produce the results of two workers. Meanwhile somebody else will be jobless. Now let's say the busybody comes back and says $12 is still too low! Well fine, that means you can't hire anyone at all. So now we have two people out of work who would have had jobs. And it also means you'll need to find a robot that's cheaper than $100 per day, because if you can't then the busybody just drove you out of business.
The concept of minimum wage is un-American and downright evil.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
Value to the economy isn't the issue here though. The topic is about whether or not a company hurts another through competition, and economic value cannot explain or measure the of hurting other companies.
If 10,000 fuel pellets are needed for the year, then the market will create and sell roughly 10,000 pellets for the year. If company A sells extra pellets, going from 1k/yr to 2k/yr those sales need to come from somewhere within that 10,000 demand limit. As a result all other companies lose 1k/yr in sales. Maybe the majority of that loss goes to company B or C, or maybe it is spread out. It would only be a positive sum game if the 10,000 pellet demand was able to increase, but it can't due to the restrictive amount of reactors. As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
It's a matter of drive.
That's a part of it, but not the whole.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Even if that is true (which it is instead highly misleading), it has nothing to do with the impact of losing a business. One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think?
I didn't say that we should, but you said that kids are naive when it is instead developed nations that are implementing these policies.
We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth.
Seems to me that having the highest number of school shootings should instantly disqualify us from such a title.
If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
Actually it doesn't quite work out that way. Americans overall spend more on healthcare than most other nations because of how inefficient it is to have insurance companies leeching money away from the american people.
Overall countries spend less on healthcare with socialized medicine.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are.
Only to a degree. We can objectively measure the amount of food and water you need, what kind of shelter is the mimimally viable product while still being healthy, etc.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage.
The two are tied together. There should be a minimum wage, and it should be a livable one. That's how it was started and it should have stayed.
The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
No it's not. Poverty wages are what's evil and the solution to them is a minimum, livable wage.
If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again.
I disagree that it is disastrous, but even if it was I wouldn't mind much since the economy is the main driving force for pollution.
Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day
Right there is your lie about it being $100 per day. These companies absolutely have the money to pay a living wage yet they only set the "maximum" they are willing to pay such that it is a poverty wage. These companies rake in billions upon billions of dollars a year in profits. The money is absolutely there they just like to pretend that it isn't.
As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience. Let's say you extract clay from your backyard and use it to make pottery, which you then sell at your local market. Startup cost is $0, as you hand-made your own kiln and your own cart to transport your pottery.
You have a few sales, but not many. When you see people walk away from your table without buying anything, you stop them to ask them why. Several of them tell you that your products are all too small for their taste.
So you close down your shop, head back home, and get to work rebuilding your kiln to be ten times larger. Two months later you open up a brand new shop, based on your gained experience, and now your pottery sells like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You seem to misunderstand that phrase. It is commonly used to express the limitations of government provision. But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Where did you get that idea? Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced. Please start your own company. You will learn so much about the real world. It doesn't need to be anything fancy. Sell an old book on ebay. You will learn so much.
These companies absolutely have the money to pay
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone. You're completely out of touch. Businesses have tight budgets. Sell that old book on ebay, and grow your nascent business enough that you want to hire someone to help you out. You will quickly learn that you can afford very little to hire someone, yet you're overburdened with work so you need to hire someone as cheap as possible.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
There are many actually. There are markets for which the demand cannot increase. And like I said earlier "contribution to the economy" isn't the issue here, the market's capability for demand is. As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience.
Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone
This is just an ad hominem.
Businesses have tight budgets.
Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The economy is fundamentally not a zero sum game. It cannot be, under any circumstances. I'm done arguing this point, as I'm not an economist or a game theorist, and you're not either.
[Re: "The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience." Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
Sure it is. We can lose all of our material possessions, and all of our food, while we retain all of the wealth in the world through our faith in God. I advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34, but even though that's only ten verses, for brevity I'll only quote one here:
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
I was not talking only about homesteading. I speak of all of us who walk upon the earth.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
The government has a responsibility to protect our nation as an institution; not to protect us each individually.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
Except it's not. You frequently come across as confidently incorrect.
[Re: "Businesses have tight budgets."] Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
Do you have any awareness that 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses? Literally 99.9%. (Source) Normal businesses are far closer to my example of making pottery out of clay from your backyard than they are to giant multinational corporations. But all companies, no matter the size, are normally somewhat strapped for cash, because they need to reinvest profits to grow.
Please start a business. The only reason you have not to is if you're afraid of realizing that your entire economic theory is bunk.
I'm done arguing this point, as I'm not an economist or a game theorist, and you're not either.
I'm probably more of a game theorist than you if I am being honest. I've done game development on the side for a little while now.
But I think my point still stands because you haven't identified a flaw in my argument.
We can lose all of our material possessions, and all of our food
People can't afford to do that though. It is a financially bad decision to put yourself at financial risk of losing your home, transportation, or food source.
The government has a responsibility to protect our nation as an institution; not to protect us each individually.
And the government cannot protect one if it fails to protect the other. Our nation is our people. It's not just the land itself.
Except it's not. You frequently come across as confidently incorrect.
If corporations were not greedy there would be no gap between productivity and pay.
Do you have any awareness that 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses?
You already brought this up in a different thread. You may have missed it so I will copy and paste:
I'm not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business' size. It also doesn't take into account the power/influence a company has. A media company of 20 people has far more power and influence over a pizza shop for instance. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city's housing.
In other words, judging a company of less than 500 employees as automatically being a small business is a terrible methodology for determining how much power/how big a company is.
Please start a business. The only reason you have not to is if you're afraid of realizing that your entire economic theory is bunk.
I have plenty of reasons. I don't want to lose what little assets I have. The time and effort requirements for such an endeavor is huge. I have no capital to start a business with. I have a disabled girlfriend who requires a lot of care (time). On top of all that, I don't really intend to live my whole life in this country, and feel I might have to leave soon due to the rise in fascism here. Why would I start a business in such a place? It just doesn't make sense.
As is I barely have enough time at the end of the day to relax to myself, let alone start a business.
I'm probably more of a game theorist than you if I am being honest. I've done game development on the side for a little while now.
That's like a plumber claiming he's familiar with the Plumb Line Method of theoretical physics because it has the word "plumb" in it. Game development requires no understanding of game theory.
People can't afford to do that though. It is a financially bad decision to put yourself at financial risk of losing your home, transportation, or food source.
I find it confusing that you thought you used to be a Christian, when not only did you never form a relationship with God, but you never even learned Jesus's teachings. I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount to you. This is literally Gospel. Again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34.
Game development requires no understanding of game theory.
Then I have misunderstood the term, I apologize.
when not only did you never form a relationship with God, but you never even learned Jesus's teachings.
You cannot speak for me. At the time I fully believed I had such a relationship. And I absolutely was raised as a christian, having been tought Jesus' word.
I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount to you. This is literally Gospel.
That doesn't mean it is true though.
Again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34.
Yeah, it's all kind of just meaningless to me. It would be like if I told you to read a passage with a vague moral from a Star Trek book. It's all just fiction, made by men.
Apology accepted. In case you're curious to learn about it, you might click here. It's a good topic for online classes, in case you ever find yourself with spare time.
I absolutely was raised as a christian, having been tought Jesus' word.
Did they skip all the parts about mammon, or did you just ignore them? They're fairly central to Jesus's ministry.
That doesn't mean it is true though [that it's Gospel].
It does, in fact.
Yeah, it's all kind of just meaningless to me. It would be like if I told you to read a passage with a vague moral from a Star Trek book. It's all just fiction, made by men.
Even if it was written in Klingon, I'd do my best to read it and wrap my head around the point you were trying to make.
All of the Bible verses I've quoted to you and linked to you have been (by far) the wisest and truest words I'm able to speak. In most if not all cases, they've provided the point I was trying to make. So I find it discouraging and disheartening to know you haven't been reading them, and seriously considering them.
Whenever you encounter a quote from the Bible, begin by thinking to yourself that you're about to read something true and holy — even if you don't believe that yet, start out by telling yourself that. Then ask God — and I know you deny Him, but at least try your best to ask God — that you may receive His holy words with a sober mind, and that you may unquestioningly accept their eternal truth. Then read, and reread, and read once more, the passage until you know it well. Read the context of the passage, as much context as needed, and read it in various other translations, to help you deeply understand its truth.
And with that, yet again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34. That's certainly not the only thing you ought to read, but it'd be a solid start.
Apology accepted. In case you're curious to learn about it, you might click here. It's a good topic for online classes, in case you ever find yourself with spare time.
Thank you, I'll try to take a look at some point.
Did they skip all the parts about mammon, or did you just ignore them? They're fairly central to Jesus's ministry.
No matter what I answer here, it will just feed into this no true scottsman fallacy you have with the definition of "christian".
It does, in fact.
It seems that you are beginning with the premise that it is true. Again, that would ultimately mean that much of what you say is based on a circular argument.
I'd do my best to read it and wrap my head around the point you were trying to make.
I'm not talking about understanding though. I'm talking about the value you derive from something you read. I don't get any value out of bible verses. It's just junk to me even if I understand it.
So I find it discouraging and disheartening to know you haven't been reading them, and seriously considering them.
I've definitely been reading them. But it's next to impossible for me to take them seriously when the whole think is so wrong.
No matter what I answer here, it will just feed into this no true scottsman fallacy you have with the definition of "christian".
I don't have that fallacy in my definition of "Christian" at all. A Christian is a genuine follower of Christ, of which there are many, and many more every day. The fact that some people claim to be Christian without actually following Christ does not mean there's no true Christian. It's entirely possible for you to choose to become Christian.
I don't get any value out of bible verses. It's just junk to me even if I understand it.
The only value we can have in life comes from God. When someone gives you a Bible verse, that is likely the most valuable thing you receive all day, if not all year.
And on that point, we have reached an impasse. I must abide by 2 Timothy 3:2-5, and turn away:
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Thank you for all of this thought-provoking conversation. I wish you all of the best, and I pray you may yet find God.
The fact that some people claim to be Christian without actually following Christ does not mean there's no true Christian. It's entirely possible for you to choose to become Christian.
That's not what a no true scotsman fallacy means. It's a fallacious way to deflect people from being a part of a group. It is not a statement that no such group exists.
The only value we can have in life comes from God. When someone gives you a Bible verse, that is likely the most valuable thing you receive all day, if not all year.
Then it's quite odd how I have value in my life despite it being secular. It's almost like there are many sources of value in life beyond religion.
Thank you for all of this thought-provoking conversation
You are welcome. And thank you for keeping this as civil as it has been.
I pray you may yet find God
Like I said, you're not the first so I wouldn't bet on that.
Well, a web search turned up this as the first result:
That's a meta study, and the only study they cite which mentions any control group only controls for depression. None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.
Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.
Personally I arrive at 100% by deduction
The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:
"In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs."
Now it has been a while since my last statistics class, so I don't recall the exact methodology to determine likelyhood of causality between these two lines, however just from a quick glance these two rates seem to have a low/medium correlation. They wander closer and farther apart over the 20 years of this graph, and it seems that the drug death rate precedes the religious affiliation rate, which is the reverse of what we would expect if religious affiliation was causing drug deaths.
This all has made me curious enough to do some napkin math myself. Now this is incredibly terrible methodology, but if what you say is true then it should be apparent. I charted countries by irreligiosity, christianity, and drug use, and it doesn't look like there is any correlation:
This is a graph of irreligiosity vs drug use. There isn't much of a correlation here if any. If being an atheist/agnostic/none/etc made you more likely to be a drug user, we should expect a nice smooth rise in drug use correlated with atheism. But that's not what happens here in this chart.
This chart is basically the same thing, but ordered by how christian each country is. If christianity/Jesus/god was anywhere close to 100% efficicacy against drug use, we should expect to see a similarly nice smooth graph, correlating drug use inversely with christianity. But that's also not what happens here.
So if you're right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don't we see trends that support that?
Whatever the methodology, though, claiming that "their success rate is no better than chance" is a lie based on a downright anti-Christian bias.
I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that. However it isn't a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance. I'll see if I can find it another time when I get the chance. For now this has already been a lot to compile, especially the two charts I made.
None of that controls for community engagement/health/connections, which is what I argue is the true problem. I would need better evidence than this.
Not only that, but it seems that this study at best only establishes correlation, not causation, nor the direction of causation.
The study you cited only lists a 33% change in drug use:
"In their study, Chen and VanderWeele (2018) found that people who attended religious services at least weekly in childhood and adolescence were 33% less likely to use illegal drugs."
Once again, we seem to be talking past each other. That 33% does not apply to what I meant.
I'll try to explain more clearly.
A drug abuser is someone who does not understand that their body is meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The attendance of religious services is not a condition of salvation.
To be saved, one must accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and repent.
Once saved, and born again, one's behavior exhibits noticeable changes.
One such change resulting from salvation is usually a desire to attend religious services.
Another such change resulting from salvation is the view of one's body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, not to be polluted with drugs.
Another such change resulting from salvation is the ability to pray to Jesus that we may be shielded from temptation, so if one is tempted to sin with drug abuse, that temptation may be overcome through prayer.
So if you're right, that it is a 100% rate, if your deduction is correct, then why don't we see trends that support that?
Thank you for your charts and your deductions. I appreciate your effort to communicate those ideas.
The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation. 100% of those saved are able to successfully pray to be shielded from temptation to sin, and are thereby able to overcome their drug addictions. Anyone who claims a religious affiliation but is unable to kick their nasty drug habit has clearly not yet been saved. This is how we can deduce 100% as a priori knowledge.
I definitely have an anti-christian bias, and I will readily admit that.
Thank you for admitting bias! I wish that was commonplace. I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.
However it isn't a lie, nor is it based on my bias. If I recall there was a leaked report from AA floating around somewhere online from AA, they did a study to see how effective their program was, and discovered it was no better than chance.
I'll read it if you find it, but I don't think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.
The point that I was trying to make, though, when I claimed 100% efficacy, is that self-reported religious affiliation is not important, but rather what is important is salvation.
And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates. A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?
If so you can understand that these charts should still show the effect.
I might just go update my profile with a list of self-admitted biases, if I can manage to produce a list of them all.
I could help you with that if you like lol.
I'll read it if you find it, but I don't think it could convince me that legitimate salvation has anything less than 100% efficacy. Their methodology must have been testing for something else.
If I recall, it was simply looking at recidivism rates for members of AA.
And salvation rates would presumably be tied to religious affiliation rates.
Not necessarily. Churches have struggled to retain members for various reasons. A Christian may feel disaffected of his local denominational institution, while maintaining absolute loyalty to God. The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it's a Venn diagram.
A country with 0 christians will have 0 saved people, and a country with n christians will have n * (unknown multiplier) saved people. Does that make sense?
I suppose it depends on how you define "Christian", but the standard definition is equivalent to "one who has been saved", so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.
The two rates are loosely related for sure, but it's a Venn diagram.
I'm not stating that they should be directly tied to one another, but surely it would be related enough to see an effect on drug rates, but we do not.
I suppose it depends on how you define "Christian", but the standard definition is equivalent to "one who has been saved", so the multiplier is 1. But religious affiliation is a separate issue.
Even with your definition of "Christian" the same math should apply.
(0) = (0)
(n) "christians" = (n * x) true christians
I'm sure X would vary from country to country, but you simply cannot have many "true christians", whatever they may be that fit your definition, without lots of other "superficial" christians.
I would reply to the other two messages you sent to my lemmy.world account, but that instance is down at the moment due to the ddos attacks, so I'll respond to those at another time.
It matters because if "true christian" population is correlated with self reported christian population, which it should be, then self reported christian population should also be inversely correlated with drug addicition.
First of all, the thing that fried my brain. What on earth does owning flags have to do with who commits crimes?
Second of all, this is one of the most hateful, vile things I have ever read. Very unchristian of you. I thought you said Christians were inclusive and accepting, clearly you aren't. Repent you heathen Satan worshiper. Literally condemning people to death and feeling proud of yourself for being a 'high and mighty Christian.' Isn't pride a sin, cause ego goes along with pride, and you sir. Are full of it.
I'm sorry, what's hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
Sorry for "frying your brain". Patriotic Americans own flags, hoist them, and fly them, showing respect for our neighbors and law and order. It may seem unrelated to being a law-abiding citizen if you're not part of the culture.
What is hateful about saying you don't care that people die if they 'don't fight like a man.' You're seriously asking that. First of all, your sexism is showing, second of all, how about the woman and children who flee in fear of being murdered? And no sympathy for jews dying in the holocaust cause they weren't armed, like that was their fault? Like you can just easily buy guns and ammo and fight back.
Please tell me how many wars you've fought in, you know, since you're such a patriotic man.
Flags do not equal patriotic, people who use the American flag as a pseudo God can be insane, take Trump supporters for example, crimes were committed and flags were flown. Mhm, yes, really patriotic upstanding citizens.
If you can't see the hate you're spewing, you're blind and a fool. But keep spouting your bullshit complete holiness and then acting like a psychopath.
Please consider 10 USC §246, which defines the US militia as all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45.
That may give you some background on my perspective. I expect able-bodied men to be soldiers, ready to fight and die to protect their families and neighbors at the drop of a hat. That's why we Americans keep and bear arms. It's not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.
First of all, we were talking about people fleeing other countries and the Jews, not the US. Also, the US code subordinate to the constitution, and the constitution gives 'the people' the right to own guns. PEOPLE. Not just men, people. so no, it's not just dur dur men.
Again, your sexism is showing. Men shouldn't be expected to be 'manly'. Men are people too, they can be however they like. I thought you were all for people being able to have freedom, yet you're pigeon holing people into categories and defined characteristics. Which is sexist.
This is just so off-topic and lacking in understanding that I'm not going to continue arguing. Especially with that closing remark. God bless you, pixelfox.
It’s not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.
Have you ever seen liveleak videos of what cartels do to the people who stand up to them? Because I have. I’ve seen a guy get decapitated with a box cutter. If I were living in one of those countries, the logical thing for me to do is to get my family the hell out of there rather than to throw my life away in a failed attempt to take down a cartel.
The problem with what you’ve said isn’t sexism, the problem is that none of what you said has any sense of realism. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no bootstraps.
What's wrong with you, watching a video like that? I'm traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?
I get your point, and I don't think either of us can convince the other. The honorable man dies with his boots on. That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.
But really, I'm concerned about anyone watching videos like that. That's really disturbing.
What’s wrong with you, watching a video like that? I’m traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?
4chan is a rough place and I will leave it at that. I only brought it up to point out how hopeless it is for any individual (and even governments) to stand up to cartels. You have an unrealistic expectation on how people should fight for the safety of their loved ones.
The honorable man dies with his boots on.
When the continental army was fighting the British, they were fighting tyranny illegally, and doing so with women and children and tow. Many of those soldiers died during retreating movements, without their boots on so to speak.
I don’t aim to convince you, I’m simply here to point out that the rational thing is to recognize that getting your family out of danger through any means necessary is the moral thing to do even if it technically breaks the law.
I hear you. It's rather hard to convince anyone of anything, and the best we can do is listen and try to understand other people's perspectives.
While I personally don't favor retreat, I acknowledge that many do. I find it interesting to consider that our opinion on fighting versus retreat underlies our perspectives on illegal immigration, though obviously we're influenced by other factors and beliefs as well.
Please, for the love of all that is good, don't subject yourself to videos like that anymore. I mean, it's good to be aware of what's going on in the world, and it helps to make the point you made, but still, what nightmare material.
I’m sorry, what’s hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
You would rather people (and children) die than receive any kind of help through immigration. You are calling people bottom of the barrel for trying to escape from danger. You are dehumanizing people on the basis of a single non-violent crime. You are judging your political opponents as criminals for failing to hold a false idol to the same standard you do.
Gotcha. The flag's not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I'm in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it's commonplace to see "kneel for the cross, stand for the flag" signs. Nobody worships the flag. It's just a uniting symbol of our neighbors across the nation. When we say "love your neighbor", the flag is the imagery that comes to mind for me. It's not an idol at all, just a symbol of our fellow Americans, who we strive to love.
You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what's in my heart. You don't. You can misinterpret my words, but you can't rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don't feel.
The flag’s not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I’m in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it’s commonplace to see “kneel for the cross, stand for the flag” signs.
They absolutely do, and you’ve done quite a bit of it yourself from what I have read from you. You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what’s in my heart. You don’t. You can misinterpret my words, but you can’t rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don’t feel.
Hate can be a feeling, but it isn’t always a feeling. Hatred can be a cold unfeeling action, or speech. Granted, I think if this part of the conversation continues any further then it will devolve into semantics.
Semantics matter! So many of our disagreements are rooted in our using different definitions, and talking past each other, thinking the other side is crazy because we're misinterpreting each other's words.
You don't have to convince me to change my personal definition of anything. But by defining yours, as you have, I can understand where you're coming from. The fact that I don't consider it hatred doesn't much matter.
So @thepixelfox's point (and I suppose your point too) that I am cold and unfeeling towards foreigners who break into the US illegally is absolutely correct. Again I want to emphasize that I don't hate these people emotionally. But I don't think they deserve an ounce of our sympathy either. They're not our neighbors; they're hostile invaders.
You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
I'd treat it as a moral failure to disrespect a neighbor, and the flag symbolizes our neighbors. Moreover, I believe the US is one nation under God, and that concept is represented in our flag.
Listen, I'm a sinner, and I don't pretend to be even slightly perfect. There is so much I deserve to be judged for, and I'll accept that judgment when the day comes. But one of the few sins I'm not guilty of, to the best of my knowledge, is idolatry.
And in my experience, it's uncommon for others to worship the flag either. Treating it with respect out of respect for our neighbors and our nation is wholly different from worshiping it.
They’re not our neighbors; they’re hostile invaders.
They aren’t hostile though. They commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population. And they aren’t moving here out of malice, they are doing so to have better lives.
I’d treat it as a moral failure to disrespect a neighbor, and the flag symbolizes our neighbors.
Not everyone sees the flag that way. A lot of people see it in a negative light for a lot of different reasons. But that’s it’s own tangent.
My point is, regardless of what the flag represents, it is a symbol/image (idol) other than god that is worshiped.
it’s uncommon for others to worship the flag either
When Kaepernick kneeled instead of standing for the flag/anthem, people hated his guts ultimately because he wasn’t worshiping it, and worshiping it is often seen as the default. I won’t speak to how common it is, but it is definitely common enough to be noticeable. Another good example is how school children worship the flag every day with the pledge of allegiance.
Once somebody becomes an illegal, everything they do is inherently illegal until they retreat from American soil. How is it possible for them to be less illegal than a bona fide American when their entire state of being, and everything they do, is inherently illegal? It seems like you're telling me I'd see that they're actually good citizens if only I'd ignore the facts that they're neither good nor citizens.
Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them. But you're right, that's it's own tangent.
With regard to your position on idolatry, I do understand your viewpoint, and I don't defend idolatry. Of all the various reasons one might refuse to salute the flag, I think a fear of idolatry is perhaps the only one I'd consider valid. I get why you wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I only ask that you trust me when I say I don't worship the flag.
In my personal life, whenever I pledge my allegiance to the flag (which happens at least once per week), it's always preceded by a prayer. That's the same way it always was for school children too until SCOTUS banned it in '62. I believe that was a mistake, and saying the pledge without an opening prayer can certainly leave the wrong impression.
Once somebody becomes an illegal, everything they do is inherently illegal until they retreat from American soil. How is it possible for them to be less illegal than a bona fide American when their entire state of being, and everything they do, is inherently illegal?
That’s not how the legal system treats it. Being in the country illegal is counted as one crime.
Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them.
The government deporting people based on political opinions like this is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, and is un-american. It’s also a violation of the first amendment.
I only ask that you trust me when I say I don’t worship the flag.
I’m sorry but I can’t trust that when you treat people who don’t respect the flag as a moral failures.
saying the pledge without an opening prayer can certainly leave the wrong impression.
Opening prayer and the allegiance itself leaves the wrong impression. People should not be forced to partake in another’s religion, nor should they be forced to worship the flag/the country.
I'm aware. The Left has a voice in the legal system, and as a result it's soft on crime, and especially crime related to this discussion. But in truth, an illegal immigrant cannot even brush his teeth legally if he does so on American soil.
The government deporting people based on political opinions like this is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, and is un-american.
"Love it or leave it" is a traditionally American patriotic slogan. It's simple but true, and it applies to all things in life, not just the country. But when it comes to the country, it should be policy. I don't favor kicking out any legitimate citizen who recognizes this is the best country in the world, and would gladly fight and die to defend it. But for the leftists who hate America and want to change it to become more like some other country, they really need to pack up and move to that other country. There's nothing un-American about saying Americans ought to be American at heart.
It’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Not really, because I wouldn't want to take away anyone's right to freely express their position, even if that means criticizing America. They have every right to cuss up a storm while they spew their hatred of everything American, while I help them pack, and escort them to the airport.
I’m sorry but I can’t trust that when you treat people who don’t respect the flag as a moral failures.
That fact makes you certain I worship the flag? That doesn't make any sense. I stand up for my neighbors, and by extension my country, and by extension the cloth that symbolizes it. That's not worship. That's just following what Jesus said is the second most important commandment.
Opening prayer and the allegiance itself leaves the wrong impression. People should not be forced to partake in another’s religion, nor should they be forced to worship the flag/the country.
It's worthwhile to look at the background of the '62 ban on school prayer. Protestants read from the KJV, and Catholics didn't like the KJV. The argument was all about which translation to use in public schools. SCOTUS decided that the only way to solve the problem was to choose no Bible at all.
It's also worthwhile to consider the Crusades, which were successful by some measures, but are also widely criticized for valid reasons. One of those reasons is that it's truly impossible to force anyone to believe in a religion if they don't want to. And it's counterproductive to try.
So I agree that people shouldn't be forced to partake in religious practices against their will. But that just means we should leave Protestant vs Catholic fights to other forums, and prayers in public forums like schools should be generic. Whatever religion Americans hold, we can safely assume it's some form of Christianity, with a slim possibility of Judaism in some places.
When it comes to satanists, atheists, or anyone else who rejects the God for which America was founded, they should be given a genuine chance to repent and accept God before being politely deported.
And as for being "forced to worship the flag/the country", again, the pledge of allegiance just says "I promise to love my neighbor." If someone can't pledge to do that, you've got to wonder why they live here.
But in truth, an illegal immigrant cannot even brush his teeth legally if he does so on American soil.
That’s not true. I hate to repeat myself, but that’s not how the judicial branch treats it. To treat brushing your teeth in this manner to be illegal would be a violation of the 5th amendment of the constitution, because that would be double jeopardy. And this isn’t a thing the left is responsible for, because the left did not write the constitution.
“Love it or leave it” is a traditionally American patriotic slogan.
And it’s one that is a great disservice to this country.
But for the leftists who hate America and want to change it to become more like some other country, they really need to pack up and move to that other country.
I would if I could. But that costs thousands of dollars, and that’s assuming you find a good country that will take you in at all. Your expectation for people to up and move is unrealistic given the reality that it isn’t possible for a third to half of Americans to immigrate to Europe.
You’re suggesting upwards of 100 million people up and move to another country. That isn’t realistic, nor is it an effective solution to the problem.
The United States needs to be able to change instead of just kicking people out, and that’s why the founding fathers specifically built our country to be able to accommodate change.
There’s nothing un-American about saying Americans ought to be American at heart.
That’s not what you said though:
“Anyone who has any kind of negative association with the American flag needs to get out of the US, ASAP, and I do support deportation for them.”
Deporting american citizens because they disagree with you is un-american. And it’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Not really, because I wouldn’t want to take away anyone’s right to freely express their position, even if that means criticizing America. They have every right to cuss up a storm while they spew their hatred of everything American, while I help them pack, and escort them to the airport.
The government forcing people out of the country because of their expressed opinion/position is a direct violation of the first amendment. The government CANNOT punish people for their opinions, and deporting them is a form of punishment.
That fact makes you certain I worship the flag? That doesn’t make any sense. I stand up for my neighbors, and by extension my country, and by extension the cloth that symbolizes it. That’s not worship. That’s just following what Jesus said is the second most important commandment.
If you said the same thing about Jesus as you did the flag I would think the same about you worshiping Jesus.
But that just means we should leave Protestant vs Catholic fights to other forums, and prayers in public forums like schools should be generic.
Prayer in schools even if generic is still a form of forcing religion upon others.
When it comes to satanists, atheists, or anyone else who rejects the God for which America was founded, they should be given a genuine chance to repent and accept God before being politely deported.
This is the same un-american violation of the first amendment as above.
the pledge of allegiance just says “I promise to love my neighbor.”
That’s not at all what it says.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”
I acquiesce this is technically correct. I didn't really mean it like that, exactly, but it's useless to belabor the point because we're beating a dead horse.
I would if I could. But that costs thousands of dollars,
Interesting. Where would you move, out of curiosity?
At times in the past I've mulled over starting a non-profit for the purpose of funding politically-oriented moves like this, where funds are granted to people of all political persuasions to relocate to a more politically appropriate place, and where funds are donated by people wanting to help accelerate that sorting process.
I wouldn't really start that non-profit, because ultimately it would distract from legitimately good charities, but it does cross my mind now and then.
and that’s assuming you find a good country that will take you in at all.
Yes, well this is also one of the reasons why all of my calls for deportation are unrealistic.
Deporting american citizens because they disagree with you is un-american. And it’s also a violation of the first amendment.
Agreed, but disagreeing with me is not the problem. I enjoy open disagreement, as I'm mostly enjoying this conversation with you. We can learn from engaging with people of differing perspectives.
When you talk about people who harbor a negative association with the American flag, though, that's far beyond a disagreement. You're talking about domestic terrorists there. They're absolutely not American at heart, so why would we allow them to live here? These are people who are likely to commit mass murder at the drop of a hat. I imagine there's probably less than a dozen such people nationwide.
Prayer in schools even if generic is still a form of forcing religion upon others.
Not whatsoever. There are a zillion denominations and factions of Christianity, and they're all welcome here, no matter how zany they are. Moreover, prayer is an open dialog with God, so almost all Christian prayers are fairly applicable to Jews and Muslims too, if they overlook a few words. That's the broadest acceptable spectrum of every religion in America. Bear in mind that we have the freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
That’s not at all what [the Pledge] says.
You're being overly literal. I know what the words to the Pledge are, thank you. I just recited it earlier today in church. What I meant was that it ultimately tells us to love our neighbors. That's the root meaning behind it.
Interesting. Where would you move, out of curiosity?
If I could move anywhere? Probably the Netherlands. They have walkable cities, good job, good healthcare, a healthy respect for the environment. They have many of the policies I would like to see happen here, and they are the happiest nation on Earth if I recall.
In reality? I will probably be moving to Costa Rica, at the very least for when I retire. My girlfriend is there and the cost of living is a decent bit cheaper there. When we move depends on a lot of things, but it is currently our backup. We are pretty damn terrified of the authoritarian/fascist policies that are becoming popularized in the U.S., and we don’t want to be persecuted for being who we are. So if things get particularly bad we might just end up getting a greencard wedding is Costa Rica.
I wouldn’t really start that non-profit, because ultimately it would distract from legitimately good charities, but it does cross my mind now and then.
There is one charity like that which comes to mind to me. It’s called the Rainbow Railroad, and it’s for LGBTQ+ people who are trying to escape persecution, who want to move to a place where they will be safe.
I suspect you would not be a fan of it though.
So on a side note, one thing I’m confused about is that you think people who want to see drastic change in America, who perceive it in a negative light, you think they should move or be deported. Yet when it comes to cartels, you think people should fight to the death to get rid of cartels and corruption.
Why is it in one case the answer is deportation/moving but in the other case it is fighting to the death?
When you talk about people who harbor a negative association with the American flag, though, that’s far beyond a disagreement. You’re talking about domestic terrorists there.
It’s ultimately a disagreement, a huge one sure, but a disagreement. And it’s not domestic terrorism because that involves violence.
They’re absolutely not American at heart, so why would we allow them to live here?
Because the alternative is persecuting them for their beliefs, which is un-American and a 1st amendment violation.
These are people who are likely to commit mass murder at the drop of a hat
You have no evidence for that, but I would actually suspect it’s the opposite, or at least a similar crime rate as the rest.
And the reason for my suspicion is that most mass shootings are done by straight white men, and most domestic terrorism is right wing motivated. Neither of which aligns with the demographics that view the flag in a negative light. The nature of domestic terrorist attacks differs quite a bit between left vs right as well.
From the first one, it would work out to roughly 30 million Americans who overall view the flag negatively. And that’s before you count the people who have a mixed view of it.
That’s the broadest acceptable spectrum of every religion in America
It doesn’t matter if it covers all religions because it’s generic, it’s still religious and forcing it upon children is forcing religion.
Bear in mind that we have the freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
It’s logically impossible to have one without the other. If the state has the ability to force you to partake in religion then we have no freedom of religion. They are one in the same.
What I meant was that it ultimately tells us to love our neighbors. That’s the root meaning behind it.
I don’t think that’s true. The meaning to mean quite clear is limited to this: By reciting the pledge you are promising loyalty to the state, its primary symbol (the flag). The last bit is about affirming the ideals of our country. The under god part of the ideals was in response to the red scare, the one nation indivisible in response to the civil war, etc.
It’s meant to be a patriotic, unifying/rallying cry. But it comes off as incredibly dystopian and creepy.
It doesn’t mention anything about our neighbors.
And to kinda bring up a new point, the Supreme Court had a ruling for Jehova’s Witnesses saying that their children couldn’t be forced to do the pledge because it constituted worship of a false idol, the flag.
And I agree with that ruling. People shouldn’t be forced to do the pledge. Forced speech is a violation of the 1st amendment.
If the government can force you to say something then we are missing a critical component of free speech. The same concept applies to freedom of religion/freedom from religion.
I hit the 5000 character limit! I thought that had been abolished, since we've both been writing some seriously long replies. I'll split my reply in two.
Part 1 of 2:
Probably the Netherlands.
Here's what comes to mind when I hear about the Netherlands:
I like what little I know of the Dutch language, and I'd like to become fluent someday. It's a nice language.
They've suffered a massive influx of Moroccan immigrants since the 1970s, and those immigrants commit crimes at five times the rate of native Dutch. Source, see table 1.7 on page 17. (Sound familiar?)
As if that wasn't bad enough, their liberal drug policies turned the place into a drug infested hell-hole. Indeed quite a few US States have been imitating their idiotic legalization of marijuana, and I'm blessed not to live in any of them, but when I drive through them I see the visible impacts: litter, graffiti, and the stench of marijuana everywhere. And I avoid urban areas, so I can't even imagine how much worse it must be in the cities. I guess you got your wish on that one.
That being said, I'm not trying to bash a country you like, and I'm sure you may be happy there even if I wouldn't be. I was only offering my perspective as a point of contrast.
and we don’t want to be persecuted for being who we are
If you don't mind my asking, who are you (broadly speaking)? Do you just mean that you favor leftist political perspectives?
There is one charity like that which comes to mind to me. It’s called the Rainbow Railroad, and it’s for LGBTQ+ people who are trying to escape persecution, who want to move to a place where they will be safe.
Wow, that's remarkably close to my idea. Thank you! I'd rather help them turn to Christ and straighten out their act, instead of paying to help them to move away, but I'm impressed how similar it is to my idea.
It’s ultimately a disagreement, a huge one sure, but a disagreement. And it’s not domestic terrorism because that involves violence.
You could reduce every criminal perspective to a disagreement with well-adjusted society. Someone who hates a country simply doesn't belong in that country, whether it's the US or anywhere else.
Such a person may not have committed any violence yet, but if they hate Americans and the American principles we stand for, then it's only a matter of time before they do commit violence.
I honestly find it unfathomable that anyone could associate anything negative with the American flag of all things. I mean, across the world it's a symbol of freedom, but especially here at home, everywhere you look you see American flags because we all love our country.
We can have criticisms, sure — like any conservative, I don't much like Biden, for example — but it's not a flag of the White House or Congress; it's the flag of We the People.
No worries, I understand. I had to create a kbin account because lemmy.world was struggling so much to keep track of this mess of a thread.
Here's what comes to mind when I hear about the Netherlands:
I think what is most telling about the statistics you bring up is that even with those problems the Netherlands still has a homicide rate 11 times lower than the U.S. (0.6 vs 6.8)
A literal "drug infested hell-hole" as you call it is significantly safer of a place to live. If that isn't a poignant example of what a terrible state the U.S. is in then I don't know what is.
If you don't mind my asking, who are you (broadly speaking)? Do you just mean that you favor leftist political perspectives?
My girlfriend and I are both leftists, bisexual, and I am an atheist. All three demographics that have been historically persecuted under authoritarian states. I intend to be living safely elsewhere if/when the death penalty starts getting handed out for such non-crimes.
You could reduce every criminal perspective to a disagreement with well-adjusted society.
You've moved the goal posts to criminal perspective.
Such a person may not have committed any violence yet, but if they hate Americans and the American principles we stand for, then it's only a matter of time before they do commit violence.
You do not have evidence for this.
I honestly find it unfathomable that anyone could associate anything negative with the American flag of all things.
Like I said in the other thread, 'the american flag represents the countries history as well, and there are many dark sections of history to this country. You don’t have to be that far from the center to recognize that.'
I mean, across the world it's a symbol of freedom
Across the world is is also a symbol of imperialism, oil wars, subversion of democracy, etc. We've invaded dozens of countries around the world, and that legacy endures. He'll, we've even firebombed our own citizens in their own neighborhoods. That history is what people think about when they see the flag.
I had to create a kbin account because lemmy.world was struggling so much to keep track of this mess of a thread.
Welcome to kbin! I considered creating a lemmy.world account, but thought I'd give it a day or two to see if it finally sync'd.
Note kbin has a bug: as soon as this conversation spills over to a second page, the notifications to page 2 and beyond will be broken links. You'll have to search for the text in the notification to find the relevant reply. It's a known bug.
This thread is quite a mess here too. I considered creating a new magazine just to break this conversation out into a series of new conversations, but that seems excessive. I'm not sure of the best solution.
A literal "drug infested hell-hole" as you call it is significantly safer of a place to live. If that isn't a poignant example of what a terrible state the U.S. is in then I don't know what is.
It only seems terrible if you measure according to un-American values. Our American perspective is well captured by the famous Ben Franklin quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Our culture has always been a bit dangerous because we're a free people. We carry firearms to defend ourselves, and we use them as needed. Yes, that results in deaths, and we agree that deaths are undesirable, but as an American I hold liberty as being 100x more important than safety.
My girlfriend and I are both leftists, bisexual, and I am an atheist.
Earlier in our conversation I thought you were a Christian, because of what you said about idolatry. But I find it completely believable that you're an atheist, because as we dug into the topic, you exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what idolatry is all about.
You are not "bisexual" if you're a man with a girlfriend, unless you cheat on her. You may experience evil temptations to sin, but indeed we all do. The nature of our temptations varies according to our weaknesses, but we're all tempted. If you turn to Christ, you'll be able to pray to be shielded from your temptations, and prayer works.
I intend to be living safely elsewhere if/when the death penalty starts getting handed out for such non-crimes.
I find this beyond ridiculous. I completely support your moving to a place where you'd fit in better, and you'd be happier, as we've already established — but the US is so left of center that there's no way anything like this could happen here. Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
You've moved the goal posts to criminal perspective.
Not really. I was making a point that it's not a matter of silencing an alternative viewpoint when that viewpoint is essentially pro-criminal.
You do not have evidence for [the idea that people who hate America and Americans are apt to commit violence].
True, but that only reflects the fact that I don't make a habit of compiling evidence to support my points in future discussions. But I don't see how you could disagree with this. People who love express love towards those who they love; people who hate express hatred towards those who they hate.
Across the world is is also a symbol of [a list of bad stuff]. That history is what people think about when they see the flag.
I'm sure that's true of some people. Like anything, it is what you make of it. But you need to cherry-pick your list of bad things from a vast sea of lovable good things. I'm not trying to pretend that we're perfect, but why would you want to focus on the tiny number of negative things instead of giving glory to God and focusing on all His copious blessings? Don't you find it unbearably depressing to maintain such an irrationally negative disposition?
It only seems terrible if you measure according to un-American values. Our American perspective is well captured by the famous Ben Franklin quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The Netherlands ranks 11th in freedom whereas the U.S. ranks 15th on the world freedom index. So I would have the best of both worlds, more freedom, more safety.
Our culture has always been a bit dangerous because we're a free people.
It's because we are an individualist society. We simply do not care for the well-being of others as well as other nations do.
Earlier in our conversation I thought you were a Christian, because of what you said about idolatry. But I find it completely believable that you're an atheist, because as we dug into the topic, you exhibited a complete lack of understanding of what idolatry is all about.
I used to be a christian, and I will refer you back to the time when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of jehovah's witnesses that the pledge of allegiance was idolatry:
You are not "bisexual" if you're a man with a girlfriend, unless you cheat on her.
Sexuality labels such as that one refer to one's sexual attraction, not the status of their current relationship. I am attracted to both men and women, and so by definition I am bisexual.
You may experience evil temptations to sin, but indeed we all do.
I watch both heterosexual and homosexual content, and I enjoy both. Not everybody does that. I've been with both sexes, not everybody does that.
If you turn to Christ, you'll be able to pray to be shielded from your temptations, and prayer works.
I'm happy just the way I am. And in my experience, prayer never works. Over the years I've talked with christians, countless of them have prayed for me to change, to stop being an atheist/leftist/bisexual/etc. None of it has changed a thing.
the US is so left of center that there's no way anything like this could happen here. Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
The U.S. is a right wing, authoritarian state, not a left one. It's not an objectively measurable thing, because politics is such a messy thing to study, but on the world stage we are in no way a leftist country.
Death penalty for being leftist, bisexual, and/or atheist? In the US? Are you joking?
The U.S. has been embracing authoritarianism for a while now. LGBTQ+ persecution is at an all time high, we almost had an election hijacked, the public is spied on by the government, xenophobia is on the rise, hate crimes are on the rise, there is talk of implementing laws to disenfranchise voters. I could go on with all the authoritarian things that have been happening, but I"ll keep it brief for the sake of time.
Authoritarianism, and fascism specifically are self feeding. 1920s Germany wasn't great, and it kept self feeding until the 30s and 40s. I worry the same thing will happen here.
But you need to cherry-pick your list of bad things from a vast sea of lovable good things.
Don't you find it unbearably depressing to maintain such an irrationally negative disposition?
I don't think I am cherry picking or being irrational. The sea of good things the U.S. has done is just as vast as the despicable things we've done. And I would rather be truthfully depressed than happy and oblivious.
The Netherlands ranks 11th in freedom whereas the U.S. ranks 15th on the world freedom index.
What is this "world freedom index"? You never answered that. Link?
So I would have the best of both worlds, more freedom, more safety.
You missed my point. Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat. Safety is fine when we provide it for ourselves and our families, but if a government provides it for us then we lack freedom.
It's because we are an individualist society. We simply do not care for the well-being of others as well as other nations do.
Yes, we're individualist, but that's not what individualism is.
I used to be a christian
No, you weren't. That much is abundantly clear. You have conflated salvation with religious affiliation. You have misunderstood idolatry. You have failed to grasp the dichotomy of good and evil. You have been blind to the spiritual warfare that rules our world. You deny having evidence for God's glory. You have not yet been born again. You have not yet given your life to Christ. You have not yet been saved. Once saved, always saved.
and I will refer you back to the time when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of jehovah's witnesses that the pledge of allegiance was idolatry:
Sexuality labels such as that one refer to one's sexual attraction, not the status of their current relationship. I am attracted to both men and women, and so by definition I am bisexual.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant. If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin. Repent for it, and don the armor of God that it may shield you from temptation. Know that we are all tempted to sin, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's your response to the temptation that matters.
I watch both heterosexual and homosexual content, and I enjoy both. Not everybody does that. I've been with both sexes, not everybody does that.
By "content" do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you're not being explicit here, so thank you. I don't judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
I'm happy just the way I am.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
And in my experience, prayer never works.
Well it probably won't work very well if you don't first establish a relationship with Christ. Otherwise it's like receiving a call from a number that's not in your contacts — He's apt to ignore it.
Over the years I've talked with christians, countless of them have prayed for me to change, to stop being an atheist/leftist/bisexual/etc. None of it has changed a thing.
That would also require you to actually want to change, you know. Your "I'm happy just the way I am" attitude suggests you don't.
The U.S. is a right wing, authoritarian state, not a left one. It's not an objectively measurable thing, because politics is such a messy thing to study, but on the world stage we are in no way a leftist country.
Agreed that it's subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I'll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
Open borders
No prayer in schools
Legal marijuana
DEI
ESG
Neo-Marxism
Homosexuality
Transvestites
Paid abortion vacations
Birth control
Post-Temperance Feminism
Size of the federal government
The mass media
SPLC's influence
Woke Hollywood
I don't think I am cherry picking or being irrational. The sea of good things the U.S. has done is just as vast as the despicable things we've done. And I would rather be truthfully depressed than happy and oblivious.
Well that says it all. Instead of giving thanks to God for being an American, you deny all that is holy, and contemplate the despicable. You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
Not really. You can have countries that are free and safe (Netherlands), countries that are free and unsafe (USA), countries that are neither free nor safe (Afghanistan).
The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat.
I would say that is an inherently worse kind of safety in comparison to the safety of not having any threats to begin with.
Yes, we're individualist, but that's not what individualism is.
I wasn't stating that it was the definition of individualism, I meant that a lack of care for one another is the result. Sorry, I should have chosen my words better there.
No, you weren't.
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant.
I'll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can't ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
The 5000 character limit is sorta making me miss reddit.
Yes, this thing is buggy. But it's brand new. If these problems are still unresolved in a year, that'll be bad, but it's open source and I'm under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
Sorry, I didn't realize you had asked. This is what I was referring to:
Thank you. They write in their intro:
Human freedom enables and empowers people to do as they please, free from constraints or punishments, so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of another.
That's a libertine definition of freedom. It advocates for legal cocaine and prostitution. I acknowledge they're not the only ones to hold that definition, but I do not.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God, do His will, worship Him as they see fit, and (as a result) to be blessed with emancipation from sin.
(Skipping a bunch here. Sorry, I'm reading what you wrote, and I don't have much to say in reply that I haven't already said. I guess that's for the best, all things considered.)
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It doesn't, but the ruling it mentioned does. Sorry, I should have given you a better link than that.
Thank you, that was informative. Much as I disagree that the Pledge is idolatry, I respect that you're not the only one to believe it. Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I've got a few grains of salt. I completely side with SCOTUS on that ruling, that compelled speech breaks the first amendment. I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
I'll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can't ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
I'd argue with you on the ethics point, and the claim of a "dying world" (what), but your follow-up point about her disability overrides anything I'd say. I'm happy for you! When's the wedding?
and I'm under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
I am quite hopeful. Look how far linux has come as an OS, I'm confident that lemmy/kbin can do the same.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you "freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters" or "work will make you free", I'm sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you've said yourself?
(Skipping a bunch here.
No worries, I've been skipping stuff too. That's sorta how it has to be or else this already splintered conversation would be ten times worse.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It's been years ago, well over a decade ago so I don't remember the details too well. But what I can tell you is that I felt what I thought was a connection to something greater than myself, that yes, Jesus was raised. I know there was more but I honestly cannot remember it all.
And I didn't "decide" that none of it was true. Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I've got a few grains of salt.
Don't get me wrong, I think JWs are off in the deep end too, but on that particular issue they have merit.
I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can't really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
and the claim of a "dying world" (what)
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
For instance, bug population is on a huge decline, and they are pretty low in the food chain and therefore very important to the health of the planet. The further trends like this increase, the greater the chance of a food chain collapse. I couldn't ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn't have her current health issues.
I'm happy for you! When's the wedding?
Thank you! We aren't official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable. But so far we have agreed that we will be getting married in her home country, Costa Rica, and the church will not be involved (sorry!).
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you "freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters" or "work will make you free", I'm sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you've said yourself?
I understand how that seems like cognitive dissonance or self-contradiction to a non-believer. Consider Romans 6:22:
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
We must be servants of someone, but we have freedom to choose who it is that deserves our loyalty and obedience. True freedom is freedom from sin, as the alternative is to be servants of Satan.
Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
That's ignoring the whole notion of faith. You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can't really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
True, and I think that's a very good thing. In practice, maybe one out of ten thousand kids would refuse to pray. The few who insist have their freedom to succumb to evil, but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students. That's how we always were, beginning before the founding of the country.
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
You and I should be cautious of starting new branches of the conversation! But I did ask, and you were just answering me. Suffice it to say I trust that God's in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God's plan.
I couldn't ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn't have her current health issues.
Based on your perspective, I understand your conclusion.
Thank you! We aren't official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable.
Waiting for that mythical living wage? You don't really need money to marry. Life is short.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
Suffice it to say I trust that God's in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God's plan.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It's our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
You don't really need money to marry. Life is short.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren't exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don't have much money so I would likely need to help some of them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. She also has a lot of medical debt (and will likely continue to grow it) as a result of her condition, and a lot of student loan debt, all of which would be significantly harder to get forgiven if my income were to be considered hers. So financially it doesn't make sense to get married here. And I am ok with that. I don't care what the state has to say about us, nor do I care what the church says. We're together and that's what I care about.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
Wiktionary's definition of "freedom" is better than M-W's, which is typical. M-W's not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it's antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
That's correct, and I'm glad you're familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the "right" to vote, etc.
Don't be misled by the terms "negative" and "positive". They don't indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called "rights". They're only called "negative" and "positive" on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You're forced to the same way you're forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you're forced to have your eyes open or closed. It's somewhat disingenuous to use the word "forced". It's just a product of living in reality.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
And [peer pressure to pray] is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It's impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it's a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
[To trust that God's in control] is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It's our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
To suppose we're responsible for "the problem" is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We're tiny and insignificant. To suppose we're capable of "fixing" it is equally arrogant. We're barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God's will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they're in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it's the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth's current climate is God's will because it's Earth's current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God's will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there's somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface
It's not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the "right" to vote, etc.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
You're forced to the same way you're forced to either be awake or asleep
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn't a form of control by some other being.
But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
To be honest I don't think that is a choice either. I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It's impossible.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
To suppose we're responsible for "the problem" is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We're tiny and insignificant. To suppose we're capable of "fixing" it is equally arrogant. We're barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We've released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
let alone changing the entire planet.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we've done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It's a much better dictionary in general. I'm not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I'm trying to make. I'm sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary's pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it's really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people's control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are "bad". I was trying to say that they're not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn't saying anything is "good" or "bad", just that they're not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people's control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it's binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There's no third state possible. You're like a light-bulb acknowledging it's not on, but also denying that it's off, instead insisting there's some third option. I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don't think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I'm not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That's an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven't claimed it is a physical force.
I'm sorry. I used the word "physical", and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it's impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that's about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don't need to spend time on), we'd find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they're all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I'm familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
That's the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy.
A republic is a type of democracy.
Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture.
I don't seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that's a very good thing.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem.
There effectively is no such tyranny in a majority, and effectively by definition. And to the degree that there occasionally is, it is far better to have a government with a tendency towards tyranny of the majority than towards tyranny of the majority.
I'm telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
And a light bulb doesn't serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
so I'm not going to get into it here.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don't really see free will as something that makes sense.
I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods
You advocate for school prayer
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that's true are funded by the government.
That's because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they're going against "established dogma".
The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
There's nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions.
Just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't true.
We cannot "fix" a "problem" that God wants.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god's will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god's creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
I don't want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
And a light bulb doesn't serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
It's a good comparison because I'm trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
Just know going forward I don't really see free will as something that makes sense.
You don't need to understand something in order to accept that it's true, or that it exists.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god's will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god's creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You can't have one without the other.
It's a good comparison because I'm trying to make a point about possible states.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You don't need to understand something in order to accept that it's true, or that it exists.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that god doesn't want humans to solve climate change on our own? "Just pray for an answer" doesn't tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of "no".
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some "sign"?
[Re: "But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion."] You can't have one without the other.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You're free to join any church you'd like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That's our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you'd be locked away in a mental asylum.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You're so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb "serves" its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you're really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that god doesn't want humans to solve climate change on our own? "Just pray for an answer" doesn't tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of "no".
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some "sign"?
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
Those aren't just a bunch of archaic random words; they're instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times?
We haven't. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you'd be locked away in a mental asylum.
Our country has a history of poorly following the constitution, but the law is the law, and the law says we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve.
You're so fixated on this.
As are you it seems.
If you insist, yes, a light-bulb "serves" its master
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan.
It's not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
Just saying something is evidence doesn't make it evidence.
"The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn't exist!"
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don't) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don't mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control?
We find the answer is in Scripture. Let's review Genesis 1:26-28:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
That is the specific nature of our dominion.
And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
That's agenda-driven nonsense. There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn't cause in the first place. Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don't mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
I fully agree, 100%. We're not responsible for climate change because it's not the result of our own actions. We are each individually responsible for our own individual actions, though, yes.
There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn't cause in the first place.
And so when we have evidence it shows we did cause it. It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible. You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.
So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?
That's not what I said.
You != all prophets
Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.
So there are a number of problems with this question. Number one, somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments, so this is a question with a really useless/mislead goal. Second, it's an argument from authority. Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
We're not responsible for climate change because it's not the result of our own actions.
It objectively is, the evidence is overwhelming. And we've known this for over a century at this point:
It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.
It's not an argument of any type. It's a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.
That's not what I said [that "all prophets are heretics"].
What you said, specifically, was, "That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical." A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I'm no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God's plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That's not heresy.
somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments
You're either with God or you're against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
Second, it's an argument from authority.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.
I don't deny there's a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I'll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it's possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you're right that I'd have to question their church's Statement of Faith. But that's no fallacy; it's just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.
This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.
My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.
You have no method to reach truth then, because you've shut out the possibility of anybody other than you being correct. That is incredibly vain.
It's not an argument of any type.
It's not a formal argument, but you know what I meant.
A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics.
That's not what I said though. I never even used the word in the first place.
They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.
And as a result you cannot dismiss evidence based on who is presenting it.
Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin.
Why should I think that?
By "content" do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you're not being explicit here, so thank you. I don't judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
Yes, that was what I meant. And I have no reason to think of them as sins. And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it's worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
I don't believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists? If somebody told you that you angered Odin by being a christian, I suspect you wouldn't be bothered very much.
Agreed that it's subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I'll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
I'll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:
It's a little bit arbitrary, incomplete, and needs updated now that Roe v Wade is dead. But it's the closest I could find within the time I can afford. At least according to this list/methodology, the United States is not anywhere near being far-left. And I say it is incomplete, because it doesn't take into account corporate power, or military/policy power/budget. If those two were taking into account I think the U.S. would easily be on the higher end of the list. Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues. Look at the GDPR regulations they have, we simply have nothing like it here in the U.S.
Now for your list of "far left" things.
The U.S. does not have open borders, it is illegal to cross without permission. Prohibiting the government from forcing prayer on children is not a far left thing, most other developed nations are the same. Marijuana status is more of an authoritarian/libertarian issue than a left/right one, and it certainly isn't far left to the degree it is a left/right issue. DEI has only recently become controversial, and was started by corporations. ESGs are left, but they aren't far left, they're just a type of investment. Few people in the U.S. are neo-marxists. As for the LGBTQ+, our rates aren't very different from other developed/free nations. (And in case you were not aware, "Transvestite" is considered to be a slur by many people due to it's malicious use. People generally use inter-sex nowadays.) As for paid abortion vacations, I assume you're talking about what corporations are offering to pregnant employees. Abortion is generally supported by the left, and some parts of the right, so it is hardly a far left thing. The same goes for abortion. As for "Post-Temperance Feminism", I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that. As for government size, I think we already covered that in one of the other threads. There are just as much right wing media as there is left wing in america. The SPLC is a hate group watch, so I don't see why you would have a problem with them. And as for hollywood, they are definitely left, but they ain't far left. The only air centrist to center left opinions at most, if at all.
You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
It seems to me that you have done the same. You gave me an entire list of "far left" things in the U.S. that you are critical of.
The U.S. does not have open borders, it is illegal to cross without permission.
This is wildly out of touch with reality. The Biden Administration is coordinating tens of thousands of illegals flooding in per week, and giving them "free" (taxpayer-funded) plane tickets to any US city they choose. The Southern border is essentially wide open. All you have to do is check any conservative news source from any time in the last two years to know this.
Prohibiting the government from forcing prayer on children is not a far left thing, most other developed nations are the same.
Anything anti-Christian and pro-Satan is far-left. The fact that other nations do it too is no excuse. Traditional American culture is Christian.
ESGs are left, but they aren't far left, they're just a type of investment.
Are you joking? They are extremely far-left. I mean they'd have to be openly communist to be any further left.
Few people in the U.S. are neo-marxists.
Few might self-identify as such, but the philosophy is readily apparent everywhere you look. Anyone who thinks people can legitimately derive their identity from their group membership is neo-Marxist.
As for the LGBTQ+, our rates aren't very different from other developed/free nations.
Stop trying to compare the US to any other country, because it's illegitimate. The US is the greatest country possible, and there's no comparison to be made. Yes, we have sodomites trying to take us down, but the fact that other countries do too doesn't make it acceptable.
(And in case you were not aware, "Transvestite" is considered to be a slur by many people due to it's malicious use.
Far be it for me to potentially break any terms of service. I only meant to refer to people who reject their God-given sex, and play dress-up, whether or not assisted by hormone pills and genital mutilation. Thank you for letting me know.
Abortion is generally supported by the left, and some parts of the right, so it is hardly a far left thing.
It's about as far left as possible. It's anti-Christian, anti-family, and pro-murder — of innocent babies no less. It's like the essence of far-lefthood bundled up into a single word.
As for "Post-Temperance Feminism", I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that.
The Temperance movement was a coalition between Christians, conservatives, and feminists back in the day. Women didn't want their husbands coming home drunk anymore. Around the same time Prohibition succeeded, they also succeeded in gaining the women's "right" to vote, which is one of the primary origins of all of this far-left madness and social devastation we've witnessed since their success in that endeavor. Following that, they moved on in subsequent "waves" which became increasingly hostile to traditional family values. When I wrote "Post-Temperance Feminism", I was referring to that entire history after their coalition with Christians and conservatives fell apart.
The SPLC is a hate group watch, so I don't see why you would have a problem with them.
Please tell me you're joking. They're widely derided for grouping normal conservative groups with Christian values alongside neo-Nazis and actual "hate groups". Nobody takes the SPLC seriously. And that's ancient news at this point.
And as for hollywood, they are definitely left, but they ain't far left.
Almost every single movie they produced in the last fifteen years, or so, has featured anti-Christian sentiment, a complete lack of understanding of Christian theology, anti-American sentiment, anti-family sentiment, especially anti-traditional-family sentiment, pro-sodomy sentiment, premarital sex, illicit drugs, strong women and weak men, transvestites, global warming alarmism, anti-corporate sentiment, and the list goes on and on. It's quite hard to find any movie that's not woke through and through, unless it was made in the '90s or earlier. There are a couple exceptions, but they're rare.
It seems to me that you have done the same. You gave me an entire list of "far left" things in the U.S. that you are critical of.
Fair, but that's within the overall context of my message that America is essentially great, and always will be. Of course I have my minor gripes, and plenty of them. But at the end of the day, I pray for our country because there's no better place on earth.
Anything anti-Christian and pro-Satan is far-left.
So do you consider Iran, a country that is anti-christian and also heavily persecutes the LGBTQ+ and women, to be a far-left country?
The fact that other nations do it too is no excuse.
I didn't say it was an excuse, it merely sets an example for scale. If a policy that is farther to the left than what we have here exists, the policy here can't really be considered far left.
Are you joking? They are extremely far-left. I mean they'd have to be openly communist to be any further left.
It's an investment type. Investing isn't far left.
Anyone who thinks people can legitimately derive their identity from their group membership is neo-Marxist.
That seems to be what you are doing with your american/christian identity.
It's about as far left as possible.
There are different scales of abortion law. So simply calling all of it far left is kinda like saying all days are sunny days despite some days having clouds. It just doesn't make sense. If you wanted to be accurate, you would call the days where it is just sun the sunny days, and the days where there are clouds cloudy days.
If there are two policies, A & B:
A - All abortion allowed at any time
B - Abortion is allowed during first trimester & for rape/incest/danger to mother
I'd understand you saying policy A is far-left, but instead you call all of it far left. That just doesn't make sense.
anti-family, and pro-murder — of innocent babies no less.
By definition it isn't murder if it is legal because the definition of murder specifies illegality. A baby by definition is only a baby once it is out of the womb, and the overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. And it isn't anti-family because the ability to have family planning makes for stronger families.
The Temperance movement was...
Yeah that's just kind of silly. Women should have equal rights, treatment, and should be safe. That isn't a controversial opinion.
They're widely derided for grouping normal conservative groups with Christian values alongside neo-Nazis and actual "hate groups".
The "normal conservative" groups they list are put on their because they are hate groups. If you don't want your group to be put on a list of hate groups then don't do hate speech.
Almost every single movie they produced in the last fifteen years...
That is a wild exaggeration.
America is essentially great, and always will be.
How can it be great when we have the most children shot in our schools out of any other nation? What part of that makes you proud?
Why should I think that? ["If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin."]
Because it's true. If you find a quarter in your pocket, you should acknowledge that quarter as monetary unit equivalent to one fourth of a dollar. Why? Because that's what it is.
Yes, that was what I meant [pornography]. And I have no reason to think of them as sins.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Note "fornication" there is translated from "πορνεία", which is a generic term for sexual sin of any kind, and is better translated as "sexual immorality".
Now you have a reason. And there are more where that one came from!
And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it's worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.
This reflects your decision not to become a father yourself. But you can imagine for a moment what it feels like to have a child. You very much do care who that child associates with, even as a friend, but certainly as a mate. There's a good reason why when you want to marry a girl, you ought to first ask her father for permission. God created us in His own image for a particular reason. If you've ever created anything at all, you know that you care about whatever it was you made.
I don't believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists?
Because He still believes in you.
I'll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:
Thank you. I think the "far-" prefix is contentious on both sides of the aisle. Are you familiar with allsides.com? They rate news sources as one of: { far-left, left, center, right, far-right }. I sometimes disagree with their exact assessments, but I recognize that it's difficult to rate the bias of news sources. Especially because when I consider where I'd personally categorize them, I realize that there're not close to enough options. It's radically oversimplified.
When I say "left" (or "center-left"), I approximately mean pro-trade-union, Robin Hood taxation, pro-birth-control, and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. You get the idea. Anything to the left of that I consider far-left. These days, the Left is off-the-chart far-far-far-left in my opinion.
Also it's impossible to compare the US to other countries for a wide variety of reasons, one of them particular to this case being that classical liberal principles played a major role in our founding, which are now considered conservative principles by most measures. That's how we wind up with (for example) liberal gun law being widely supported by the Right.
Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues.
True, but that means nothing. They're dragging us leftward, due to so many leftists who hate America and think we should abandon our traditional values and instead imitate other countries.
Now you have a reason. And there are more where that one came from!
The reason you provide is predicated on belief in christianity/Jesus/god/the bible/etc, all of which I do not hold and therefore am still left with no reason.
You very much do care who that child associates with, even as a friend, but certainly as a mate.
That assumes that god thinks of us as children instead of some growth that accidentally popped up. The universe is unfathomably big and as far as we can tell, essentially empty. It just doesn't make sense for a god to create so much and then care about 0.00000000000000000000000000 *** 0000001% of the things in it.
There's a good reason why when you want to marry a girl, you ought to first ask her father for permission.
That tradition perpetuates the idea that women are property. I personally find it disgusting.
Because He still believes in you.
But I don't believe god exists? So I still am left with no reason to consider a fictional being's feelings.
Are you familiar with allsides.com?
I am, and I generally stick to the stuff that is in the center. On occasion I'll go to the moderate right wing and left wing new sources (or if I am forced to due to lack of sources during an argument). I almost never visit the ones on the far ends of either side.
I realize that there're not close to enough options. It's radically oversimplified.
I agree. You might want to look into better quality analyses.
This one is a decent one even though it doesn't list media bias.
When I say "left" (or "center-left"), I approximately mean pro-trade-union, Robin Hood taxation, pro-birth-control, and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. You get the idea.
So essentially from what you say here, and from what I gather having talked to you for a bit, you would say that anything within this purple circle is far left and everything within orange is center left?
Because if any one of those policies were to make you a leftist, 90% of americans would be some kind of leftist.
Also it's impossible to compare the US to other countries for a wide variety of reasons
I've already addressed this in another place, so I'll leave this be here.
They're dragging us leftward, due to so many leftists who hate America and think we should abandon our traditional values and instead imitate other countries.
Some traditions are just harmful and in need of abandonment. Slavery was once tradition, and I am glad we ditched it because it was immoral. There are other similarly (albeit nowhere near as bad) immoral traditions that are also deserving of abandonment. Contraception for instance, is a tradition that you'd like to see ended.
So it seems a bit silly to me to complain that one side wants to abandon traditions and simulate other countries.
The nature of domestic terrorist attacks differs quite a bit between left vs right as well.
While that's interesting, you'd need to be far outside the traditional political spectrum to think anything negative about the American flag.
Please understand that I suggest deportation because it's by far and away the most compassionate approach, as what's truly deserved is far more violent and lethal, but we can rise above that.
It’s considerably more than that.
Thank you for the links. It's clear we've allowed the problem to fester for too long. We'll see those numbers quickly return to a natural 100% "love it" if we enforce "love it or leave it".
it’s still religious and forcing it upon children is forcing religion.
Um, no. We all have a natural relationship with God, and that has nothing to do with any specific religion. We can raise our children in our faith tradition, while educating them about how other denominations disagree on various topics, and allowing them to ultimately choose their own style of worship and details of belief.
It’s logically impossible to have one without the other. If the state has the ability to force you to partake in religion then we have no freedom of religion. They are one in the same.
The state doesn't have that ability, and neither does anyone else. But if someone is opposed to God, then they're opposed to American values, and they should be treated as such.
That's not forcing anyone to partake in religion; it's just acknowledging that we're a Christian country at heart, and we always have been, founded on Christian values, and we're not going to enforce any particular flavor of Christianity, nor are we even going to enforce that people practice Christianity at all, but you certainly must favor God because otherwise you favor Satan.
By reciting the pledge you are promising loyalty to the state
That's wholly incorrect. We tend to harbor plenty of objections to our politicians, on both sides of the aisle. We fly our flags anyway because they're our flags, not the politicians' flags. Politicians are our employees.
It’s meant to be a patriotic, unifying/rallying cry. But it comes off as incredibly dystopian and creepy.
It's meant to stand for the American people and American values. If you find that dystopian or creepy, I have to wonder if you know your neighbors very well. Honest question: do you?
I didn’t get the first part, nor the other thread if you replied to it. It seems we are hitting the limit of kbin/lemmy at the moment with the bugs it currently has.
you’d need to be far outside the traditional political spectrum to think anything negative about the American flag.
I don’t think so. The american flag represents the countries history as well, and there are many dark sections of history to this country. You don’t have to be that far from the center to recognize that.
as what’s truly deserved is far more violent and lethal
You are suggesting the death penalty for people’s beliefs. That is antithetical to the principles of our nation.
We’ll see those numbers quickly return to a natural 100% “love it” if we enforce “love it or leave it”.
And it would be immensely harmful to the country to do that. Once you permit the government to punish people for their beliefs, you open the flood gates to a tyrannical government.
Um, no. We all have a natural relationship with God
There is simply no evidence for that. And forcing children to partake in religion is a form of forcing religion. There isn’t any way I can explain it other than that, as this is an issue so straightforward as ‘square goes in square hole’.
it’s just acknowledging that we’re a Christian country at heart, and we always have been, founded on Christian values
That is objectively false.
“As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion" ~ Treaty of Tripoli; initiated under President George Washington, 1796, signed into law by President John Adams, 1797, ratified unanimously by the Senate, 1797, published in full in all 13 states, with no record of complaint or dissent.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” –Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” –James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774
“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”– James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people… A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785 .
“He had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term– he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects.” –Supreme Court Justice David Davis, on Abraham Lincoln
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –First Amendment, Constitution of the United States
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible…Some books on Deism fell into my hands…It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist.” -Benjamin Franklin, “Toward the Mystery” (autobiography)
"When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice…he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers…Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did. -Thomas Jefferson, diary entry, 2/1/1799
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”- Thomas Jefferson
“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”- Thomas Jefferson
“Lighthouses are more useful than churches.”- Ben Franklin7. “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”- Ben Franklin
“In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”- Ben Franklin
“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it”- John Adams
“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”- Thomas Paine
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”-Thomas Paine
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”- Thomas Paine
“The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”- Abraham Lincoln
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”- James Madison
“In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.” ― James Madison
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. " ~ Thomas Jefferson
That’s wholly incorrect.
It’s a pledge (promise) of allegiance (loyalty). My description of the pledge is accurate.
If you find that dystopian or creepy
I find it dystopian and creepy because it’s the same sort of thing that North Korea does, China does, and Nazi Germany did. Forcing people to swear loyalty to the state is a gross misuse of the power of the government.
I have to wonder if you know your neighbors very well. Honest question: do you?
That depends upon what you mean by “neighbors”, and “know”. Sorry, that’s just a very broad question. Can you elaborate?
[A list of twenty-two, count 'em twenty two quotes meant to demonstrate that it's objectively false to claim that "we’re a Christian country at heart, and we always have been, founded on Christian values"]
Did they teach you to keep a file of such quotes in your atheist training seminars? If your goal was to overwhelm me, congrats, you succeeded. This conversation is already so long and unwieldy that there's no way I'm going to address each of these. Suffice it to say that you're wrong about this, and a suitable reply would be book length. And I'm not talking about a small or medium-sized book.
I will just briefly address the first one to mention that it's from an international treaty with a Muslim nation to protect American lives. We told them what they wanted to hear, to get them to agree. So goes international treaties. They're rhetoric devised to achieve political goals, and they mean nothing beyond that. Yes, we assured Muslims that our government is not founded on Christianity, and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.
Each of these quotes you offered either has a similarly simple rebuttal, or is actually correct without implying what you think it implies. Some of them are taken out of important context. I'll leave it at that.
I find it dystopian and creepy because it’s the same sort of thing that North Korea does, China does, and Nazi Germany did. Forcing people to swear loyalty to the state is a gross misuse of the power of the government.
Listen, we agree that North Korea, China, and Nazi Germany are all bad countries, and we wouldn't want to imitate them. So let's at least take a moment to appreciate our agreement.
As for the alleged similarity of our Pledge, it's only superficially similar in that citizens are naturally loyal to their countries, right or wrong. Yes, the Bellamy Salute looked a whole lot like our enemies' patriotic gestures, but even though that similarity was superficial, we changed it.
The elephant in the room is that the US is at heart nothing whatsoever like any other country, including the ethnostates of North Korea, China, and Nazi Germany. We're so dissimilar from other countries that it's wrong to compare us in almost any way at all. No other country in the world was founded in an act of revolution formed as an appeal to heaven.
[Replying to "I have to wonder if you know your neighbors very well. Honest question: do you?"] That depends upon what you mean by “neighbors”, and “know”. Sorry, that’s just a very broad question. Can you elaborate?
As for what I mean by "neighbor", I refer you to Luke 10:29-37:
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
As for "know", it's a broad spectrum ranging from "stranger" to "wife". I'm asking how well you know them, and it could be anywhere along that spectrum.
I paused before, so here's the remainder of my reply:
I don’t think so. The american flag represents the countries history as well, and there are many dark sections of history to this country. You don’t have to be that far from the center to recognize that.
You have to be actively seeking out negativity, because it's nearly impossible to find unless you go looking for it.
The personality type of leftists (admittedly I'm painting with a very broad brush here) is the type of person who feels comfortable when they're criticizing things. I think it makes them feel smart, or better than whatever (or whoever) they're criticizing, or maybe the motivation varies from person to person, but whatever the reason, leftists typically seem to find comfort in criticism.
One of the most visible manifestations of this preference is the rise of CRT, which is like a cancer spreading to all of our institutions. CRT is a part of Critical Theory, the broad set of philosophical works lauded by leftists for attempting to "deconstruct" western civilization. To a normal conservative American, the very fact that Critical Theory (CRT included) has the word "critical" in its name indicates that it's an evil way of thinking, seeking out negative thoughts instead of praising God. The fact that the theory lives up to its disturbing name, and actually uses criticism as its core methodology, only goes to show that this is one of those cases in which it's valid to judge a book by its cover.
To normal conservative Americans, we know America is blessed because our Lord is God. Our history is chock full of divine providence. When you criticize America, you criticize God. Criticism is an evil way of thinking. That's not to say we're perfect, at all, because we're all sinners. But as we each repent for our individual sins, seek continued favor from God, and work to do God's will on earth as it's done in heaven, we know that our fate is in God's hands, so we choose faith and love where leftist criticizers choose discontent, anger, and hatred.
You are suggesting the death penalty for people’s beliefs. That is antithetical to the principles of our nation.
I certainly wasn't suggesting lethal injection. I was looking back to our nation's early practices. Someone might get tarred and feathered if he deserved it, while someone else might be drawn and quartered. We burned witches at the stake. These are the principles of our nation, and our early history that gained us favor with God. So it's certainly not antithetical to the principles of our nation at all. But it is antithetical to God's will for us to practice forgiveness, which is why I instead call for compassionate deportation.
Once you permit the government to punish people for their beliefs, you open the flood gates to a tyrannical government.
I do agree with you on this, believe it or not. I enjoy this discussion because I enjoy the free interplay of beliefs. I wouldn't want you silenced.
But at the same time, I believe there's a limit to how far it extends. Just as you can't legally yell "fire" in a crowded theater (remember crowded theaters?), I see the toxic hatred for America as being principally unwelcome.
And I'm not really advocating for the government to do anything, other than say "if somebody hates America then we decline to offer that person any police protection for their natural rights."
There is simply no evidence for [us each having a natural relationship with God]. And forcing children to partake in religion is a form of forcing religion. There isn’t any way I can explain it other than that, as this is an issue so straightforward as ‘square goes in square hole’.
There's an abundance of evidence for it, everywhere I look. Our Creator put us here for a purpose. To ignore that fact is evil. We are responsible for raising children to become moral, and that's impossible without a firm reliance on Christ. Again, you're either with God or you're with Satan. To raise a child without emphasizing God's role in everything we do and think is to raise that child as an unknowing agent of the Beast.
You have to be actively seeking out negativity, because it’s nearly impossible to find unless you go looking for it.
We had an entire civil war about whether black people were actually people, and it was one of the biggest events in our nation’s history. It is far from impossible, and I don’t believe I am seeking out negativity. I think I am seeing things as accurately as I can within my limited power.
The personality type of leftists
I think everything you said here could just as easily apply to conservatives. You spend the entirety of the next two paragraphs criticizing leftists/CRT.
the word “critical” in its name indicates that it’s an evil way of thinking
Critical thinking is a good thing, not a bad one. It is what allows us to see what is wrong so we can make it better. You can’t learn from your mistakes if you think you have none.
Someone might get tarred and feathered if he deserved it, while someone else might be drawn and quartered. We burned witches at the stake.
All of which were horrifying ways to die, cruel and unusual punishments, and therefore an 8th amendment violation.
These are the principles of our nation
You keep saying that these violations of the constitution are the principles of our nation. Doesn’t that seem a little silly to you?
compassionate deportation.
Deportation of U.S. citizens is in no way compassionate.
Just as you can’t legally yell “fire” in a crowded theater (remember crowded theaters?), I see the toxic hatred for America as being principally unwelcome.
The reason you can’t legally yell “fire” is because it causes a direct and present danger because of the potential of a stampede. Hating america for what it currently is and wishing it to be better is nowhere near the same.
“if somebody hates America then we decline to offer that person any police protection for their natural rights.”
And that would make them a target for criminals, which would again be an 8th amendment violation.
There’s an abundance of evidence for it, everywhere I look. Our Creator put us here for a purpose. To ignore that fact is evil.
“Looking everywhere” is not a form of evidence.
and that’s impossible without a firm reliance on Christ.
Under your definition of what’s moral, sure that may be true, but I don’t think you hold a reasonable view of what is moral.
I don’t believe I am seeking out negativity. I think I am seeing things as accurately as I can within my limited power.
When a demon suggests a negative thought to you, do you turn to God? Or do you reject God and allow the demon's suggestion to fester in your mind? Do you believe the demon when he claims there is no God? Do you find contentment of "seeing things as accurately as you can" when you spend time focusing on negativity?
Critical thinking is a good thing, not a bad one. It is what allows us to see what is wrong so we can make it better. You can’t learn from your mistakes if you think you have none.
I never claimed we have no mistakes. We are all sinners. That's why we need to repent and be saved.
That has nothing to do with being critical. See Proverbs 2, which I almost want to quote in full here, but I'll leave it at a link.
therefore an 8th amendment violation
Technically the truth. But the Bill of Rights is only intended to protect Americans. It is my contention that anyone who hates America is evidently not American.
Deportation of U.S. citizens is in no way compassionate.
Correct. But someone who hates America is not a valid citizen.
The reason you can’t legally yell “fire” is because it causes a direct and present danger because of the potential of a stampede. Hating america for what it currently is and wishing it to be better is nowhere near the same.
A hatred for America is no less of a clear and present danger. A person who hates America is deep into a terrorist mindset.
Wanting one's country to be "better" is universally agreeable. But when it comes from a perspective of hatred, there's no way to trust the subjective meaning of "better".
America's essential culture and values were cemented in 1776. The only way we can make it better is to undo all ways in which we've strayed from our essential culture and values.
And that would make them a target for criminals
The word "criminal" means someone who breaks the law, for example illegal immigrants. If the government were to decline to protect an individual's rights, then it would not be a criminal act to forcefully deport said individual, say by means of a catapult.
“Looking everywhere” is not a form of evidence.
You sound like a blind fool attempting to refute the notion that anything could possibly be seen. You are surrounded by abundant evidence, but you don't recognize it as such because you haven't yet accepted Christ.
Under your definition of what’s moral, sure that may be true, but I don’t think you hold a reasonable view of what is moral.
I am no arbiter of morality. I look to God for His guidance. No one who rejects God could possibly know His law. It would be hubris to suppose otherwise.
I didn’t get the first part, nor the other thread if you replied to it. It seems we are hitting the limit of kbin/lemmy at the moment with the bugs it currently has.
Add comment