Love, Misogyny, Imdividualism and Competition

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously?
Get off that cross you've nailed yourself to.

I know plenty about chain saws, and even more about weed eaters and commercial mowers. I wasn't always a physicist, you know.

As for the rest of your response directed at me, not going to bother taking the bait.

luanqibazao, you know what you're right. Why am I even bothering to even debate this? If I am wrong history will prove me so and If I'm right history will prove me so. I think I will stick to the side discussion about troll burgers. You're right. Why even debate this?

Even Dr. Morris Berman has wrote more extensively on America and no one will listen to him. So, you're right. Why bother?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 09 Sep 2014, 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yum

WOW
Do you think I walk on water, too?!


Mmm hmmm........


You came to me, I did not come to you.

Lesson Learned from my experiences here and other places online and IRL:

a. America is perfect.
b. The founding fathers are gods.
c. American beliefs, ideas, values and the gods are beyond reproach.

To me, that's a red flag even if the beliefs are based upon sound reasoning.

That's it and we'll talk about troll food now.

So you start a discussion with a combination of vague generalities and paranoid fantasies, and when someone tries to pin you down to real-world concretes, you put up a defensive barrage of strawmen and flounce out? Aw, and it was just starting to get interesting.

No, I simply asked questions and realized nothing productive was coming from it and realized I am being baited. I did give you come world concretes. If I am under some kind of paranoid delusion that causes paranoid fantasies and if information is being transmitted through my five senses and being processed through my delusional mind then logically how can I make a straw man if part of making a straw man is to have intent? Am I paranoid or making a straw man which requires one to be intentional? If I'm paranoid then my interpretation of things is skewed right? So, based upon definition of a straw man (unless I am misunderstanding it) how am I making a straw man if my interpretation of things are skewed and based upon misunderstandings? Which is it? Am I paranoid and under delusion or do I have intent?

If I misunderstand the other person's argument and inadvertently knock something down they didn't intend did I make a straw since there was no intent? Does intent to misrepresent the argument have to exist in order for something to be a straw man?

I have said this many times. I may be misinterpreting things.

With respect to my hypothesis, events will play out in which corporations will eventually become our defacto masters or they will not. You will receive your concrete evidence if and when this happens. If not, then nothing and you have nothing to worry about. What if it is true, then what? What if I'm right and the very ideas and the construction of our inalienable rights all a tyranny to occur then what? You want concrete proof of this. Wowzers,

Now, this brings up further questioning. Why do I have to have empirical evidence for this if it is in the logic of the writing and ideas themselves? What you want is synthetic proof and analysis? Why can't you accept analytic proof and evidence? Why does one have to have synthetic proof and analysis for all?

Being insane/paranoid, and having intent, are not mutually exclusive.
Crazy folks can follow through with intent.

I am not saying the OP is insane. Nor am I am I making guesses at his intent.

Just saying that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

NP, I think you misunderstood what I asked. In the definition of a Straw man in order for something to be a straw man does there have to be intent to misrepresent the other person's argument in a deliberate fashion.

I did not intend to misrepresent anyone's argument. What if I misinterpreted the other person's argument? Is that still a Straw Man? That is what I am asking. If I am misinterpreting concepts and know how I am then I will alter my position.

NP, do you remember I asked about the concept of undefined and declension explained it? Once I understood I altered my position because I was wrong.

Nobody here has said anything remotely like:



That is a deliberate misrepresentation of your opponents' views.



If it happens, it will not be because of the doctrine of individual rights, but because we have forgotten that doctrine. You may as well blame the Holocaust on the biblical commandment against murder.



I am not impressed by castles in the air. We are not sitting in a medieval monastery, idly speculating on various forms societies might take in the theoretical future. Different ideologies have already been applied, here on earth.

You do know that the US was pretty close to laissez-faire in the nineteenth century, especially after the Civil War? The purpose of government was then widely held to be the protection of individual rights, including property rights. (At least for white males ? but that's a whole nother issue.) The Vanderbilts, Goulds, and Rockefellers became wealthy and influential ? but they certainly did not become dictators. Observe that for all their wealth and influence they were unable to prevent the passage of the Sherman Act nor of all the "progressive" legislation which followed. Where is your evidence for believing that a consistent application of the doctrine of individual rights will lead to tyranny? It didn't happen or even begin to happen.

More recently, of course, wealthy corporations have found that they can influence government to pass legislation favoring them and impeding competition, or even obtain "bailouts" at taxpayer expense. These are not applications but violations of individual rights.


On the other hand, have there been societies which explicitly rejected individual rights, saying rather that all must work toward a collective goal? Why, yes: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Maoist China. I don't know that you actually advocate dictatorship, since beyond 'small communities are nice' you have declined so far to say exactly what you do advocate.

Raptor is not the first one I've discussed this with. When I try to have a discussion with different people I'm told I'm envious, I 'm told I'm jealous of the rich, I'm called names like moron. No, they did not say anything but the behavior of people I've encountered including falcon implies this. Listening in on various conversations and being at conventions these things are treated as though they're holy and sacrosanct. Even when trying to just trying to simply understand what certain anti-values or values that seem to detest people in America more specifically "A sense of entitlement" and trying to resolve a certain inconsistency by asking two people there was no logical discourse or attempt to explain. What they said was "Me and another guy" Two Guys, One Cup and called me a moron. I understand it now but from personal experience attempting to question American beliefs, the founding fathers and American ideas is a big and humongous No-No.

I received the same thing here. So, what can I conclude about my opponent. My opponent based upon how they regard me and through their various conversations and their rituals? America is not just a country but is a civil religion that once again it is socially inappropriate to question and it is treated as though it is absolute and holy.

Another thing, they just simply regurgitate the beliefs like broken records and I've encountered this again and again.



Wow, Deja Vu! I 've heard this before many times.

From my examination, I see the possibility of when the logic of these ideas is concluded has the possibility of leading to a type of tyranny not from government but from very powerful property owners in an oligarchical type fashion. All these people have to do is to buy certain key points on the earth like certain resources and get into bed with various politicians and give them various monetary gifts and guess what they rig the whole game and eventually become our defacto new rulers. It wasn't through political means that could lead to a tyranny but an economic takeover through the loophole of our inalienable rights.



I guess this is where you and I others differ. I love to think in possibilities and speculate in different ways. It is my natural inclination to examine ideas to see where they may lead. I love to think future type possibilities. Maybe some of the ideologies have but I love to mix and match ideologies and come up with new ones. For me, this is fun to do. I enjoy myself when I do it.



Yeah, you're right and I'm glad they did put all of that progressive legislation. I am glad some people had some sense to do this. All you're doing is looking at the concrete facts of the past and present. Just because something didn't happen then does not mean it won't happen in the future. Maybe those who put in the progressive legislation foresaw what I am foreseeing.



Ding! Ding! Ding! You're the next contestant on The Price is Right! They are a violation of our rights. You're so correct and you've won a cigar!

Seriously, how did these corporations become so powerful that they had the possibility of doing this? It was because corporations consist of people and these people have inalienable rights which is the pursuit of happiness and this includes acquiring property and wealth. Therein lies the problem and here you go. The very logic of these ideas when unchecked and unbounded has the potential to lead to a tyranny.



They're already at the South Pole. We're at the North Pole and have the potential through the logic and ideas of inalienability to get to the south pole. To protect against this, a logical safeguard has to be added to the idea of inalienability.

I am not responsible for your discussions with Raptor or anybody else.



This is a discussion group. Question all you like. But if you want to be taken seriously, you ought to have more to say than 'I don't believe in this because I fantasize that it might break, but I have no alternative to offer.'



Wait a second ? are you really concluding that, if people are not blown away by your argument, it must be because they have a religious devotion to their ideology? Does it ever occur to you that maybe your argument is just not that persuasive?



What you have to say isn't exactly fresh or original either.



Yes, you've said this a number of times now. It is a fantasy. It would be more plausible if we didn't have real examples, in the last few decades, of businessmen who developed political ambitions. George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney ? I was never an admirer of any of them, but the very idea of one of those Mr. Vanillas (Mr. Kooky, in Perot's case) trying to become Dictator of the World, like a cheesy James Bond villain, is high comedy. Ol' Mittens, in a Stalin suit, stroking a cat while he orders millions of dissidents to the firing squad ? Delicious.

In the real world, do you know which people combine a complete lack of scruples with limitless lust for power? Certain politicians ? especially certain foreign dictators. Vladimir Putin shows every sign of wanting to be a new Stalin, or at least Khrushchev, sundry radical Islamists are swearing Death to America, and you want me to worry that Bill Gates might get up on the wrong side of the bed and suddenly decide that he wants to be Emperor Palpatine?



Before all that progressive legislation, businessmen had little or no incentive to try to influence government. There would be no point in lobbying a Cleveland administration which isn't going to do anything for or against you. I do believe that "corporate capture" is inevitable in a mixed economy ? the more arbitrary power the State has over business, the greater the incentive for business to control the State ? but it isn't the freedom side of the mixture that's to blame.



What "safeguard"?

Let me take another tack: if you don't believe in inalienable individual rights, on what logical grounds do you object to dictatorship in the first place? If you do object to it.

OMG, I got it. That's the missing link I've been looking for. I understand better now. I know where I've been going wrong on the inalienable rights part. It's not the analytic logic that's the safeguard. It's People. It is people whom are the key. It is people who makes sure these things don't happen. People prevent the logic of the inalienable rights from concluding and therefore the rights are maintained. People are the safeguard of these rights and the constitution and liberty not analytic logic.

People are a part of the equation. This just clicked now. You see this is how I think and learn. This is how my brain works. I debate, I question, and I analyze. I debate, I question and analyze again until I understand. I repeat this many times from different angles. Consider that I was debugging programming code. Thank you my friend, you answered a key part of the logic I was missing. So, I was misunderstanding the arguments of my opponents on this component. It's like an engine. The mechanic is the one whom keeps it running and people are like mechanics who keep the engine running.

Edited to Add: Now that I understand this aspect there is still another aspect of inalienability I do not grasp and why I question the concept of inalienability and put it into doubt. What happens if they conflict.

Here are a couple of examples.

A. The Typhoid Mary Case: Mary's Defense was liberty and she had the right to do what she was doing. The city of New York said no people have the right to their lives. How does one handle this if the rights are inalienable?

B. Let's say one group of people live near a river and it is their property. Another person owns a factory upstream and dumps sludge into his part of the river which flows down to the other person's property. How is this handled exactly when property rights conflict like this?

C. If we went by the constitution and the ideas of the inalienable rights would I be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in my own basement? There was one kid Why or why not? It has the potential to go off and kill millions.

Should David Hahn be allowed to create a nuclear reactor in his own backyard? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

What if it melted down and irradiated other people's property. Does he have the right to do this and does he have the right to possess radioactive items that would allow him to do this? Why or Why not?

Do you see why I have to challenge the idea of rights being inalienable? To allow rights to be inalienable would allow for inconsistencies such as this. What does one do to waggle through all of this? How is it possible for inalienable to logically hold up in our empirical world? I don't understand and I don't follow.

Why don't constitutionalists consist the constitutional theories with the empirical evidence? Can you break it down for me please?

luanqibazao, do you have an answer for my additional questions in the previous pot? What if one right conflicts with another in specific situations?

Luanqibazao, I would like to discuss the idea of liberty and freedom from a different perspective. As you see, I am ignorant in many matters at hand I think you and Raptor are great wise men. Now here are my questions.

a. Can one's freedom be limited by the social veneer and the social culture? For example, let's say I go on some social media outlet and write a paper about employers and their practices online with my real name or one writes something which challenges prevailing cultural notions. Let's say I state something that is considered socially inappropriate or taboo what will happen? What are the consequences? Will one have a difficult time obtaining employment?

b. In America, is one allowed to be his true self? Why or why not? If not, then how is he truthfully free?

c. Is the culture and the social veneer open to question?

d. Why is one's attitude and confidence is focused over and almost to the point of exclusion of teaching how to do practical things?

e. Why does one have to project optimism 24/7? If one is required by the social veneer then is he truthfully free? How?

f. Do you believe America is a care-free culture or a conformist culture? Why?

g. Am I correct in what I say here? https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... d-honesty/
Why or Why not?

h. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... /attitude/
Am I correct in what I say here? Why or Why not?

I. Is my point here valid? https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... urs-truly/
Why or Why not?

J. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... mployment/

Can you give me a critique on this and show me where my thinking is skewed if it is skewed? Please, don't be like everyone else and state I'm being negative. Can you focus on my logic please? https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... mployment/

k. https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress. ... happiness/

Is my point valid? Why or why not?

Luanqibazao was able to show me where I was faulty in my reasoning. The inalienable rights themselves are dependent upon people willing to safeguard them including right wingers, left-wingers, myself (whom ask questions) and others. On this aspect of inalienability where I went wrong was I assumed that they were logically self-contained. People are a part of the equation whom look at different aspects of them. People like luanqibazao, rapture, marshall myself and others are a part of the system of inalienability. We're the guardians of these rights but we come from different parts of the same cloth.

I will give this one to Luanqibazao whom taught me well. It is said that one's right's end where other people's rights begin. I think I've come to understand what this means. It means the definition of inalienability applies only if one's actions does not infringe upon another. What we have is Inalienability and non-infringement of others as our given logical formula.

These great men like Raptor and Luanqibazao are the wise sages of our time and I am but an ignorant man who like the great Philosopher Socrates is aware of his own ignorance. They are the keys to entering the temple of knowledge and the temple of wisdom. These are great men Oh lovers of liberty and help to be our great nation's safeguard. They are the noble men whom teach the children great knowledge and great wisdom. They are the intelligent men who knows what is best for humanity whilst I do not. These wise people shall fly like the Eagle and soar high above the heavens and shall make America great for the majority and these great intelligent thinkers and captains of industry shall eat while the weak become meat and the people of America shall rejoice at their gods for helping them to soar above the heavens and be greater than everyone else. Me on the other hand I'm simply just an ignorant man of many matters at hand.