Which is what I've already said and further to the point that political parties are not like these groups in that they hold many views on many issues, and if you disagree on any of them then you are a heretic. — Harry Hindu

Who came to that conclusion, on what basis? Heresy is a religious term, not a political one - no matter how badly people these days abuse the meaning of words.
Recently - as in the last 25 or so years, we have seen the Republican party push out moderate conservatives as it was increasingly taken over by the hard right, which has been courting the racist and fundamentalist vote since Nixon's last campaign, and more recently, the misogynist vote. I didn't see that happen with the Democratic party, the Green party or the Libertarian party (granted, the last two are pretty obscure; not many blips on the radar, except in that more greens are female and most libertarians are male.) If you disagree with the party platform, you can quit participating, change parties or go independent. Unless you're a big noise, nobody cares which you do.

Yet a vast majority of babies survive to adulthood regardless of which society you live in. How does that happen? — Harry Hindu

Because no societies are libertarian. Most societies provide some kind of support for one another and some protection for the children. Not all, but most.

I have said numerous times now that there should be a level playing field of competing ideas where logic is the only referee, and let the best idea win. — Harry Hindu

Oh yes? Have you recruited Logos for the refereeing job, or are you planning to stand in for him? Can you cite a single year in human history when a society had perfect equality of rights and opportunity? Should is just wishful thinking. As long as you respect 'property rights' and vote against taxation, you're working against any possibility of a level anything. (I hate the playing field analogy! People living on the street and people fleeing from bombs are not engaged in a game. But I would like to see all the CEO's and venture capitalists in America stripped down to their underwear, running a marathon. On a level road, obviously. Winner gets back one of his houses - as soon as everybody who wasn't allowed in the race gets one. )

You seem incapable of putting the pieces together. — Harry Hindu

There is a reason human affairs are in pieces: humans break things. Of course I can't put them together again. Neither can you.

(Somehow, with all the reiteration, you never got 'round to answering my question about the origin of 'rights'. It's okay, though, I think we've sufficiently covered your position.)

Those of us ordinary humans who suffer and witness the abuses of these sinners cannot love the perpetrators of those abuses — Vera Mont

And that’s why we will always make war, always victimize, always feel victimized - because all of us are perpetrators of abuse, and none of us are saints.

It’s the feeling “I’m better than them, and they are lower than me” that is the problem, the abuse.

Saying all 40 million “MAGA” hat wearers are sub-human is abuse, same as any oppressor abuses.

Humble respect for fellow human beings - one and all.

The only sinner we can know is a sinner is our self. Judge not, lest you bring condemnation on yourself.

There are MAGA and BLM marxists who sit at my table, together, in my family, loving each other. All ordinary humans. They get along because they don’t judge the whole soul and body of each other based on some stupid, temporary, political opinion. They don’t overlook all of the broad ways they are lovable despite narrow political views.

We need to have hope, not just criticism, in our conversations. People, all of us, should have more hope for each other.

Did you spend a lot of time talking with a lot of people who call themselves “maga”? Or do you know “maga” from the news and media?

You really might want to spend some time with a person before you judge that individual, particularly if you want to judge that person to be “cancer.”

I get it - there is no need to think kindly of Naziism, and any Nazi’s are bad. But unless we are ready to line up all the Nazi’s and kill them all, we have to talk with them. And if we have to talk with them we need to hope we can convince them to change and renounce the evil that is Naziism. The only way to have that conversation is to believe a Nazi is actually, somewhere in there, a whole human being, who can change his views and make amends for wrong-doing, and see the light we good people see.

Otherwise, it sounds like you just want to kill all MAGA people (like a Nazi does to its opponents).

I don't expect communists and fascists to give up their left-right thinking. I do expect intellectually honest and open-minded people that are part of a political party to wake up and realize they've been conned into supporting left and right authoritarian policies for fear of the other side taking away their freedoms. — Harry Hindu

I enjoy agreement. It helps me feel like I am not alone in the struggle to save the democracy we inherited. I am struggling for words to raise consciousness of what the Military Industrial Complex has done to our culture.

How can there be people with good moral judgment if none are educated for that? Education for good moral judgement is not reading the Bible. It may include reading the Bible and every other holy book and the classics, but this isn't just about learning what others have said. It is also how we learn to think things through. We used the Conceptual Thinking Method, and we replaced that with "Group Think" and education for technology. The result is totally different cultures.

Education is like a genie in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish, and the students are the genie. We changed that wish in 1958, and we are now what we defended our democracy against. We have had education for the Military Industrial Complex since 1958. That is what we defended our democracy against. Compare thinking about how to make the most powerful engine or the tallest building, with thinking about Homer and the Odyssey and the rest of the classics. Education for technology is not about the humanities.

There is an important difference between education for independent thinking or education for "groupthink". If you can, watch and compare the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. That TV series marks the point in time when we had a cultural shift. Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is the "groupthink" shift.

Much as I respect the Huxleys, that's total bilge. Had he never heard of Caligula or Ivan the Terrible? — Vera Mont

The US did not have the bureaucratic capacity to have something like the Social Security bureaucracy we have today until Roosevelt and Hoover made this possible. Together, they gave us big government with new powers.

Our advances in greater bureaucratic powers did not stop there, but waited until technological developments made the new Real ID card possible. Our present-day military capabilities had to wait for satellites. Today, our modern, high-tech military needs our money more than it needs our sons and daughters. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act uses schools to collect students' data, their names, and addresses. This is not the world of Genghis Khan, Caligula of Ivan the Terrible.

And that’s why we will always make war, always victimize, always feel victimized - because all of us are perpetrators of abuse, and none of us are saints. — Fire Ologist

That's not the cause of war.

It’s the feeling “I’m better than them, and they are lower than me” that is the problem, the abuse. — Fire Ologist

No; it's mostly about wanting their stuff, their land, their water, their gold, their labour - or all of those. The better-than idea is just one of the excuses for taking what you want.

Saying all 40 million “MAGA” hat wearers are sub-human is abuse, — Fire Ologist

Hardly akin to throwing them all in jail. Anyway, I never said that. They are, alas, all too human! Because of what they want, they're ready to buy the better-than bullshit. It gives them permission to act on their basest instinct. We all have those instincts, but usually keep them in check. When a large number are empowered by what they accept as a strong leader (even if he's just a lard-assed grifter or seminary dropout with an axe to grind) they become willing to consent to, then support, then perpetrate atrocities. Yes, some people do behave better than others, and I respect the good actors, not the bad.

The only sinner we can know is a sinner is our self. Judge not, lest you bring condemnation on yourself. — Fire Ologist

Tell them! I'm not calling all Hispanic people criminals and pet-eaters, firing people for gender identity, depriving them of health care. (I'm not much worried about any god's judgment of me based on my opinion of bullies.)

People, all of us, should have more hope for each other. — Fire Ologist

That's what Kamala Harris tried to tell them.

This is not the world of Genghis Khan, Caligula of Ivan the Terrible. — Athena

Or Huxley, who was talking about a past that didn't happen, not the future of America.

Tell them! — Vera Mont

“Them. They.”

Calling all Hispanic people criminals (which no one ever said) is as wrong as calling all MAGA racist (which a lot of people say).

Both statements allow one to ignore the details of actual issues, and people’s lives.

“They are all……..”.

No “they” are not.

Too many politicians think we need a “they” in order to attract our votes. Most people seem to love this. I don’t.

When will “we” truly wake up from our caves and clans?

If liberals were truly tolerant and inclusive, liberals could subsume the conservative principles and form a larger consensus. That is how America was formed. But liberals today are like everyone else - intolerant, hateful, deplorable, bigoted, paranoid, prideful, arrogant, ignorant - people.

Both statements allow one to ignore the details of actual issues, and people’s lives. — Fire Ologist

bang on. Any group adherence will lead to this.

“They are all……..”. — Fire Ologist

They are, alas, all too human! — Vera Mont

Yes, they are.

Calling all Hispanic people criminals (which no one ever said) — Fire Ologist

Except Trump, whom the MAGA crowd adulates. If they don't agree with him, they shouldn't have voted for him.

When will “we” truly wake up from our caves and clans? — Fire Ologist

There is no all-inclusive "we". We don't all ... anything.

Except Trump — Vera Mont

Please quote where he's said "All Mexicans are criminal". Would be good to see. As far as I know, even when he's been misconstrued (usually purposefully, as in the Charlottesville rally) he's then clarified.

"All Mexicans are criminal". — AmadeusD

Sorry, my bad. Yes, the sweet man has allowed for some exceptions,

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Well done.

What he's saying is essentially true, no? What the government knows about is the criminals. Aside from that, the drug trade across the southern border is no controversy, i wouldn't think. I can't quite grasp why that passage is a problem, other than it being quite clumsy (because Trump isn't fit for this type of position..clearly).

What he's saying is essentially true, no? — AmadeusD

no

the drug trade across the southern border is no controversy — AmadeusD

The drug trade doesn't consist of migrants who just want a better life for their kids. They were not expecting the cages.

I can't quite grasp why that passage is a problem, — AmadeusD

Pity!

no — Vera Mont

It is. See?

The drug trade doesn't consist of migrants who just want a better life for their kids. They were not expecting the cages. — Vera Mont

This is almost zero to do with what I've said. Could you maybe address it? The drug trade across the border is not controversial. Nor (this was the ball I hid) is stemming it, by whatever means).
As to "migrants", you're being disingenuous. "Illegal migrants" is the correct term. They are criminals, no matter how we may feel for them. They broke an extremely important law regarding national sovereignty. A very good example of this type of disingenuousness is hte 'wrongly deported" https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-accused-of-being-gang-banger-in-2018-court-docs/ he and his wife were purported gang members, and he appears to have a history of domestic violence. Given he was here illegally, what's the issue there, other than weepy nonsense designed to do nothin gbut make one feel virtuous in the face of contrary evidence?

What's the problem, fundamentally? We can discuss cages later... and lay them at Obama's feet.

Heresy is a religious term, not a political one — Vera Mont

Religion and politics have been intimately entwined since humans starting governing each other. I don't have the time or patience to give you a history lesson here. What is a religion vs a government? They are both types of Big Brother. An atheist-leftist simply swapped one Big Brother for another.

Because no societies are libertarian. Most societies provide some kind of support for one another and some protection for the children. Not all, but most. — Vera Mont

So you're saying that mothers need laws to protect their children? Are you saying that you need laws to behave and treat others with respect?

Can you cite a single year in human history when a society had perfect equality of rights and opportunity? Should is just wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

Ok, then your argument is to just support the status quo. And you call yourself "progressive"?

There is a reason human affairs are in pieces: humans break things. Of course I can't put them together again. Neither can you. — Vera Mont

Yet, somehow we've made progress in our exploration and understanding of the universe and of ourselves as outcomes of natural processes instead of supernatural ones - all of which only happened after the Enlightenment where the focus on individual rights as opposed to the power of the government was realized and humanity began to shake off the bindings religion and authoritarian regimes have placed on us.

I enjoy agreement. It helps me feel like I am not alone in the struggle to save the democracy we inherited. I am struggling for words to raise consciousness of what the Military Industrial Complex has done to our culture. — Athena

The current state of the military industrial complex did not come about randomly, out of the blue. When our only options for representation in government are generals and lawyers, what do you expect to happen?

How can there be people with good moral judgment if none are educated for that? Education for good moral judgement is not reading the Bible. It may include reading the Bible and every other holy book and the classics, but this isn't just about learning what others have said. — Athena

The Bible and other holy books are not what we should be looking to for moral guidance. They would be more in the domain of historical fictional stories. Any similarities between the moral teachings of different religions is an outcome of human nature and natural selection, not some supernatural entity. Ever read "The Selfish Gene", which is ironically more about how altruism evolved as a means to compete against selfishness? Selfishness and altruism do not necessary have to be at odds. If we are not at least somewhat selfish, how can we as individuals be altruistic if we do not focus on maintaining our own health and sanity?

There is an important difference between education for independent thinking or education for "groupthink". If you can, watch and compare the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. That TV series marks the point in time when we had a cultural shift. Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is the "groupthink" shift. — Athena

I don't see much of a cultural difference between TOS and TNG. I do see a huge cultural difference between the Federation (everyone is free to live and let live) and the Borg (group-think).

The Klingons and Cardassians would be like 24th century fascists, the Borg 24th century communists and the Federation 24th century Libertarians. Notice how there are no political parties in the Federation. :wink:

Or Huxley, who was talking about a past that didn't happen, not the future of America. — Vera Mont

Please explain.

Harry Hindu;985222"]how can we as individuals be altruistic if we do not focus on maintaining our own health and sanity?[/quote]
:lol: I know that one very well. Like many women in my cohort, we made ourselves extensions of our husband's and children's desires. Unfortunately, that was often, if not always, a bad decision. It sure did not help to turn to a male Mormon for canceling! I know a little about being crazy. :scream:

[quote=

I don't see much of a cultural difference between TOS and TNG. I do see a huge cultural difference between the Federation (everyone is free to live and let live) and the Borg (group-think). — Harry Hindu

I do not know what you mean by TOS and TNG. However, I do know the difference between the Federation and the Borg. Is it possible for you to watch and compare the original Star Trek with the Next Generation? The Next Generation was not the Borg, but there is a glaring difference between Kirk and his crew and Picard and his crew. I am reminded of 1830 and Tocqueville's "Democracy in America, and his explanation of the milder despot we would live under. That would be the Next Generation difference and turn away from the John Wayne role model of masculinity.

I am not into the libertarians. I do not like labels. But if we include Tocqueville in this discussion, I have an uncomfortable feeling that Trump is not all wrong. If we rely on government for everything, it owns us instead of us holding the power and having self-government. Morally, I am not clear about the morality of a nanny state. On the other hand, I am wondering what in hell is Trump doing making economic decisions instead of leaving them up to the business people. That is a whole different thread. Since when did our government become so involved with Industry and economic decisions. With Trump taking this a step further, with all the power being in his hands. :gasp: Tocqueville said Christian democracies would become despots.

Despot- a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it cruelly or oppressively. That seems to describe Trump. He came to power through the church and ministers, telling us his strength proves he stands with God. What is the morality this thread is talking about?

You haven't justified it. — flannel jesus

Your responses tell me you're not engaging with the arguments. I've laid them our clearly. If you;'re not convinced. So be it.

You can't judge the quality of a morality based on how conformist or not conformist it is. — flannel jesus

I didn't. I addressed this directly. I'm simply giving this as an example of why the first response. This isn't going to be helpful for either of us...

Ok, then your argument is to just support the status quo. — Harry Hindu

No.

And you call yourself "progressive"? — Harry Hindu

No. I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century.

Yet, somehow we've made progress in our exploration and understanding of the universe and of ourselves as outcomes of natural processes instead of supernatural ones - all of which only happened after the Enlightenment where the focus on individual rights as opposed to the power of the government was realized and humanity began to shake off the bindings religion and authoritarian regimes have placed on us. — Harry Hindu

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning.

So you're saying that mothers need laws to protect their children? — Harry Hindu

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm

Are you saying that you need laws to behave and treat others with respect?

I don't, Athena doesn't, maybe you don't; muggers and rapists do.

Or Huxley, who was talking about a past that didn't happen, not the future of America. — Vera Mont
Please explain — Athena

Your Huxley quote is apparently from Brave New World Revisited, published in 1958. He must have known that the past was as full of tyrants as his present - or any present. Tyrants have always managed to organize and supply their regimes. But he didn't know what technological advances were going to take place in the next half century.

I do not know what you mean by TOS and TNG. — Athena

TOS = The Original Series
TNG = The Next Generation

Yes, I have watched them - hence my comparison of the various cultures and their political structures in my prior post.

On the other hand, I am wondering what in hell is Trump doing making economic decisions instead of leaving them up to the business people. — Athena

Trump is a business person.

He came to power through the church and ministers, telling us his strength proves he stands with God. — Athena

He came to power like every other Republican and Democrat - through deception and manipulation of the fears of citizens.

I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. — Vera Mont

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone?

Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century. — Vera Mont

Really? So when in history did humans solve the problem of going to the Moon before solving it in 1969, or cure polio and the measles, etc.? Those were not problems that were solved and now solved again. Science is what makes society progress, and it wasn't until only a few hundred years ago that Science was free to challenge the claims of the Church, to allow what we have now - the freedom to ask question and get answers, and then challenge the current answers when better ones come along.

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning. — Vera Mont

Where? I know they are trying, but they are not succeeding. There is no forced prayer in public schools, and public schools do not teach intelligent design, but evolution. And it's not just either or, many have tried to integrate evolution and the Big Bang with intelligent design. They fail because they do not realize the logic and observation simply doesn't support it.

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm — Vera Mont

And this is exactly what I've been saying. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in limited government. Most (I would say a vast majority of) mothers do not need a law telling them to care for their baby. As such, the laws to not kill your baby is only for a small minority of people. When you only need laws to protect yourself from a small fraction of the populaton, you don't need a big, bloated government to do that - just a limited one.

erased

Fine. The subject is tired, cranky and should be sent to bed.

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone? — Harry Hindu

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people.

Your Huxley quote is apparently from Brave New World Revisited, published in 1958. He must have known that the past was as full of tyrants as his present - or any present. Tyrants have always managed to organize and supply their regimes. But he didn't know what technological advances were going to take place in the next half century. — Vera Mont

I see you are on the same page as AmadeusD. Human nature has not changed but its organization and technology has changed.

The news today is talking about the US Constitution and whether Trump is violating laws set in the Constitution, as Hitler violated the rules of Germany. This also involves showmanship and psychological manipulation of the masses. And my point is what education has to do with leaving our democracy undefended.

I also want to highlight the change in national economies since WWII that increased our expectations, with a desire to feed and house everyone and ensure everyone has medical care. Never in the history have people expected so much from their governments. Our modern world is a new experience, and we haven't worked out all the problems. Perhaps we should stop feeding and giving medical care to worthless people? Perhaps I should refuse a pacemaker that would extend my life?

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people. — EricH

Thank you, those are moral considerations and this thread is about such morals. We imagine there is a left and right that have opposing moral values. In the US we have a constitution that is supposed to protect freedom of speech and human rights, but since education dropped the humanities in favor of education for technology, we don't seem to share an understanding of our Constitution and the same morals.

Leaving moral training to the church is a path to fascism, an economic model that has communist qualities but protects private ownership, while the government regulates Industry.

Trump is a business person. — Harry Hindu

Remember when we said "Mind your own Business". I think right now, a few business folks wish Trump would stay away from plans that are ruining their businesses. Trump is not all wrong, but neither is he all right, and here we come to the morality of our Constitution, shared decision making and limited governing powers, versus the authority of one over all.

When we consider the right or wrong of governing power, we might also consider Christianity and if a God works through one strong person or all of us, and is there a Satan that threatens us? Does God protect churches from tornadoes and other natural disasters, or should we consider the possibility that science is correct about the harm humans are doing to the planet? Morality and science have a relationship.

Star Trek visited the theme of AI controlling humans a few times. The Borg was totally dehumanizing, but not all computer-controlled societies were so totally dehumanized.

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. I think "law" could be thought of as "consistent authority. It seems to me that MAGA are still waiting for other people (like Trump) to tell them what to do or to fix things, but at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

I expected Alan Jacob's book "How to Think" to explain deductive and inductive reasoning, but he explains what experience and emotions have to do with our thinking. If all we know about life is our own experiences, our moral judgment will be extremely limited. If we are lucky enough to travel around the world and experience how others live, our perspective will be very broad, and our moral thinking will be affected by that.

I am not sure, but I think Christians have a more narrow perspective, and many ignore science because they fear it could be the work of Satan, and that is a good excuse for not putting in the effort to understand science. Believing themselves and those who share the same religious beliefs know God and that is the only thing important to know, they are not apt to learn a lot about others. It isn't just what they do not know and do not care to know, but their experience of life and their emotions lead to narrow moral thinking. They intentional avoid those who are not one of them.

For example, years ago, when we still had dial-up, I met Palestinians and an Egyptian in a forum and we became good friends. Those friendships are my emotional reason for defending Palestinians. Those who believe there is a moral justification for what Israel has done to the Palestinians are unlikely to feel friendly with Palestinians. Not knowing the Palestinians nor knowing the history of modern Israel, they will not have an emotional motive to defend them. They are going on what they are told by people who are just like them. MAGA has a thinking problem because they lack the experience and emotions for better thinking.

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people. — EricH

The last two are Libertarian positions. The first three, how can government guarantee any of those things? If there were a natural disaster would you wait for government assistance, or try to find food and shelter yourself, and would it be government or the kindness of other people you have established relations with that help you?