Doesn’t seem very healthy either. A schizophrenic may be absolutely convinced of all sorts of plots and demons. But it would be way better for them to yield because people think differently. — khaled

A schizophrenic or otherwise delusional person is not healthy to begin with and first needs a psychiatrist, not philosophy.

If we could so easily extract truth out of reality, ... — khaled

I never said it was going to be easy.

Others’ perceptions are often important if not sometimes more important than our own. — khaled

Sometimes, but only to the degree one can find those perceptions to be concordant with reality. Again, it is truth that leads, not the opinions of others.

Changing your mind the second you think it contradicts reality, will lead to changing it too often I think. There is merit in some stubbornness. Too many greats were great precisely because they believed what was irrational for their time to believe, and slowly convinced the rest. — khaled

There's difference between when one finds their ideas in contradiction to reality, and one finds their ideas in contradiction to other people's opinions, of course.

If the latter is the case, by all means stay stubborn. Never yield your points just because a lot of people think differently. Philosophy is between you and reality.

There will be a future time where we look back at this era and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational". — khaled

Regardless of the time period, the majority of people has always been ignorant and I don't think that will ever change. There are always small specks of starlight in every time period: the Platos, Buddhas, Lao-Tzes of history, who carry the true torch of human advancement.

Regardless of time period, minds which are so inclined will look at the old sages and realize their wisdom is no less relevant today, and the masses no less ignorant, and that human advancement has taken baby steps, not leaps, over the course of thousands of years.

If you want to never be angry you have to be very detached from (not care much about) all your views — khaled

I'm not sure if that is true, but I think an attachment to views and ideas is unconstructive. Views and ideas should be dismissed the moment they are found to contradict with reality, and generally that dismissal is much easier if one does not feel any attachment to them.

An attachment only to what one can discern to be true! (though, in practice that will usually translate to dismissing everything one can discern to be untrue). While simultaneously aware of the fact that the truth does not need one's attachment or one's angry defense of it - it needs only to be unleashed.

Something I watched today made me consider the question of the OP, and conclude that it might be the other way around.

The internet and the massive exchange of information it brings doesn't destroy democracies, but it brings to light all the flaws that have crept into them. The corrupt power structures that have infested our democracies prefer to stay in the shadows, but amidst the exchange of information they cannot.

This is why we see a rise in attempts of states to regain control over the flow of information, and regain control over their populations. They're trying to creep back into the shadows, but the light of truth shines brighter.

Or you can think that every view has merit leading to constant doubt and anger when it comes to deeply held beliefs, but also meaning you will constantly improve your point of view and reach greater understanding. — khaled

I agree that doubt and scrutinizing one's own ideas is good for the reasons you listed. I'm not sure if anger is that constructive, though. It seems to often function as a mask to hide one's doubts and inhibit impartial observation.

Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right?

After all, if an opinion is expressed that conflicts with one's own and one thinks it to be completely without merit, wouldn't the logical response be to laugh?

Personally I express my views and ideas here to have them scrutinized, and occasionally to help someone.

Flawed ideas can conquer the entire world, and generally they do a good part in ruining it in the process. Think fascism, communism, nazism, various religions. They've all done their part in making the world more miserable with their nonsense ideologies.

Curiously, they all share the same flaw. They all wish to impose their views on others through force (as does anything that is authoritarian). Apparently reason and dialogue are not well-suited for communicating their ideas.

Note that liberalism in the classical sense is the first, and perhaps the only ideology that acknowledged the issues with the use of force.

Look for the use of force anywhere, whether it's physical, intellectual, emotional, mental or otherwise, and you'll find bad ideas.

And war is quintessentially human. — frank

In my opinion, it is quintessentially inhuman; animal, degenerate.

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

The opening words of the Charter of the United Nations, and one of the few things that seperates human civilization from chimpanzees.

Interestingly this isn't a liberal point against central planning. You'd think it would be, but it turns out they need to protect liberalism from democracy, so they approve of authoritarianism. — frank

Then they do not apply their ideas consistently, and thus hold little merit.

Central planning works for military operations, so why not use the same techniques for meeting the basic needs of citizens like food, shelter, and healthcare? — frank

Because military operations, war, are the most inhumane of human activities, concerned mainly with how to kill human beings as efficiently as possible. I can accept that such practices are a necessity if one wishes to conduct war, but to voluntarily invite them into other parts of society?

I'n sure one's household could be made to run a lot more efficiently were one to apply some military principles in running it - whether that is going to lead to a happy family? I have my doubts.

Central planning requires powerful governments, and individuals to wield that power. The vast majority of individuals is completely unfit to wield any type of power over others, let alone power of such magnitude over millions of people.

Your government just wants a say inside your body. It's all for your own good; don't worry about it.

In my experience, depression is a symptom of dissonant (that is to say false) views of the self and the world at large.

There are many intellectual paths one could take in life, however your subconscious is now telling you that yours has led you to a dead end and it's telling you through depression.

A nihilistic philosophy is almost certain to be dissonant with the human experience. Humans simply experience things as having value, whether we're able to objectively confirm that or not.

Perhaps an interesting thought could be, why you prefer to take a nihilistic outlook on life, which is just as uncertain of a supposition as an outlook that claims things do have value. The logical stance would be an agnostic one; maybe things have value, maybe they don't. Why do you prefer to pick the belief that rejects value? Why pick a belief at all? That in itself implies a preference for things not having value, which is a contradiction in itself.

I've yet to meet a person whose professed views entirely contradict their lived experience in which it does not lead to them becoming miserable.

No, there's authoritarian liberalism. — frank

That seems like an oxymoron to me. I think someone who is considered an authoritarian liberal is in fact just simply an authoritarian.

A collective can be democratic in theory. — frank

And democracies can be authoritarian or tyrannical, if the system or the majority has rotten enough.

Collectivism is not about government handouts. — frank

Indeed. Much like in my example, it is about coercion, bribery and indoctrination.

(sorry, "left" and 'right" just cause confusion. It's collectivist and liberal.) — frank

I prefer the term "authoritarianism", for which collectivism is a euphemism. If 'liberal' means freedom-loving, then by all means I am a liberal.

The collective is like the European colonizers bribing the natives with beads and necklaces.

"Here is a shiny car and ten different brands of shampoo. Now go fight those colored people in a desert on the other side of the world."

Every single solitary thing that you love or like, and which you currently enjoy (beyond the non-human natural environment), was brought to you by the left, by society, by civic minded people. — James Riley

You what now

Again, "moral" is an articulation – generalization – of eusocial group behavior which exercises-reinforces empathic responses in group members. — 180 Proof

In my view, morality is not tied to group behavior; acknowledging the absence of ultimate answers, to live a moral life is to strive to live in accordance with truth. Whether the truth gives rise to empathy in the individual is not relevant to it, nor is the question of whether living in accordance with truth is beneficial to whatever group one arbitrarily is thought to be a part of.

Groups are by their very definition a generalization and thus an inaccurate representation of truth and not useful in determining what is true and moral and what is not.

Volition ("free will") is enabled-constrained in a web of normative behaviors (i.e. adaptive habits) for maintaining, or optimizing, individual flourishing and collective sustainability, and therefore, at least in compatibilist terms, "free will" is neither an independent nor determinative variable. — 180 Proof

Yet, I could use my free will to act contrary to my individual flourishing or collective sustainability if I so desired. So I don't think such a constraint is present, except there where it is self-imposed, out of free will. Though, the sense of free will seems to not be present in all individuals to the same degree.

Perhaps then free will must first be attained, through a process of self-mastery.

It seems that through observation of the self one can gain insight into the biological drives behind one's behavior, and override these behaviors - something animals are not capable of. Moving sub- or unconscious processes to the level of the conscious, thus allowing adjustment to take place.

This is why creatures, whether they be human or animal, that lack the faculties described previously, cannot be thought of as moral agents. They are essentially automatons.

To be a moral agent then is perhaps a great priviledge to begin with.

Your libertarian(?) view, Tzeentch, seems to elevate Human primates "above" nature – "transcendence" typical of idealists and/or ""free will" theodicists – as if we're somehow "mysteriously more than" evolved mammals (i.e. with "souls" à la homunculi), ... — 180 Proof

Hardly all humans manage to elevate themselves above nature, in fact most don't. So I would not make such a generalization about humanity as a whole. I believe every individual has at its essence at least the potential to become something greater than a simple animal - to master the self and become free, thus to become a moral agent, be able to strive towards truth and Good, and to live a life wrought with meaning.

..., we're talking about wholly incommensurate conceptions of morality and, in effect, past each other. — 180 Proof

Undoubtedly, but I don't mind.

Yes. Human primates, non-human primates, cetaceans, elephants ... groom feed protect & even adopt each other's young; cooperately gather / provide & share "goods"; discourage / punish free-riders; form friendship bonds (outside of kinship & mating); and mourn their dead. — 180 Proof

I don't see any of these behaviors as essentially moral.

Humans are animals so the behaviors are, at minimum, strongly correlated. — 180 Proof

I disagree. The faculties I described previously (self-awareness, reflection, reason, capability for deeper than surface-level understanding, etc.) signify a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. Every individual that possesses these faculties has the choice whether to act as an animal or cultivate that which makes them human. In practice that means that some individuals act like animals, that much I can get behind.

Further, I would make the point that social or empathic behavior is not the same as being moral.

Social behavior comes in many shapes, from behaviors out of selfless compassion and love, to self-preserving, self-aggrandizing or downright manipulative. As such, not all socially cooperative behavior is moral.

Empathy is an emotion, and emotions aren't moral or immoral; they just are. Empathy can lead to moral action, but the emotion of empathy itself does not make a person moral.

Moral actions consist of three elements, all of which are required for an action to be considered moral (will elaborate if needed):

1. The individual acts with a just intention.
2. The individual possesses the power to make their intention reality.
3. The intended outcome (essentially a confirmation of 2.)

Behavior that stems from empathy can, but does not necessarily tick these boxes.

Let's cut this matter up into two questions:

Are animals moral agents?

The lack of self-awareness, reflection, reason and capability for deeper than surface level understanding I have seen in all my interactions with animals would imply they are not. Animals seem to be a slave to whatever input is given to them, and unable to analyse that input in the way that (some?) humans can.


Is animal behavior a measure for the morality of human behavior?

The fact that animals seem to act almost exclusively on base necessities and selfpreservation, and shun virtually no actions to meet those ends, attests to little more than a 'rule of the jungle', ergo 'might makes right' concept underlying their behavior. Hardly a guide for moral human conduct.


Further, I would make the point that social or empathic behavior is not the same as being moral. The real question is how that behavior holds up when self-preservation (or self-aggrandisement) is no longer the driving force behind it, or when social or empathic behavior would be at odds with self-preservation. In both humans and animals we see 'morals' go out of the window as soon as they are no longer useful, thus such morals were a meaningless facade and not a matter of principle.

I view that as cherry-picking, though.

That animals may seem to show signs of empathy at times, does not change the fact that they kill, rape and dominate. Just like some humans, yes. Maybe some human behaviors can then be understood through that lens.

Is that then also moral behavior? If not, we're back at square one with the question what is moral and what is not.

Since animals are not moral agents, I never understood efforts made to explain morality through animal behavior.

Further, it makes no sense to view morality from a groupwide (or 'herd' or 'species') perspective. A group consists of individuals who are each moral agents, but the concept of that group is just a generalization and itself not a moral agent.

The group sooner becomes a patsy, a tool to avoid personal accountability for one's actions, rather than a tool of understanding.

So, what's the alternative? — James Riley

The alternative is to not impose one's views on others.

If one comes to the conclusion that is incompatible with politics, then don't partake in politics.

One's alternative is not to associate with, defend or support a system that is fundamentally flawed.

But if your question is, what alternative is there for man should he be hellbent on maintaining a system that is fundamentally flawed, then the entire state apparatus should be drenched in the awareness of the very thin moral line it is treading between being a necessary evil and a birthplace of tyranny. The United States was, and certain European countries were, but where there is power there is corruption, and even countries built upon the right principles will eventually fall, as the US and Europe have. Corruption - another fatal flaw of power structures.

You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it.

The biggest and most deadly being capitalism — Xtrix

I think that is demonstrably untrue, by a very large margin. But no system is perfect, and no system that relies on the use of force to obtain compliance ever will be.

Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you. — Xtrix

Me, a capitalist?

You must not know me very well. :chin:

Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean. — Xtrix

That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. Whether they are views of ultranationailsm, egalitarianism, collectivism, philanthropy - it doesn't matter. It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others.

"I have views and I want the rest of the world to act in accordance with them." It's simple will to power, sometimes with a pretense, like socialism, to soothe the conscience.

All of these systems rely on big governments, because they're all trying the same thing: to make the world act in accordance with their subjective views - something which can only be achieved through the copious use of force, until eventually reality catches up with it (not to mention the more powerful a government is, the quicker it shall fall prey to corruption).

Why do I think earth is actually hell?

For one simple reason: We can't seem to be able to do good in a way it's truly good or, on the flip side, things that are truly horrific in the moral sense seem to have a place in our lives e.g. torture is, on certain occasions, justifiable. — TheMadFool

That's an interesting supposition.

In my view, when an idea of what is Good is established, everything else is a matter of consistency. That's where most go wrong - consistency, or the lack of moral consistency: hypocrisy, as mentioned by .

Especially when an idea of what is Good conflicts with what is convenient in the present moment, one may try to bend their idea of Good to fit their current predicament, almost always to no avail.

I think what you describe as an inability to do Good, is rather an unwillingness to make the sacrifices required to be consistent.

How many people would have been labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for saying the Gulf of Tonkin incident never took place or was staged by the US? [1] Or what about the US government carrying out radiological experiments on US citizens for decades? [2]

If they're capable of sending US citizens to war under false pretenses, or carrying out Unit 731-esque experiments on their own citizens, do people really need any more incentive to mistrust their government every step of the way?

Many a young man I've seen who picks up a shovel and starts digging himself a hole and won't quit. — James Riley

I'm afraid that's you, though.

Ask Doc Fauci. Let me know what he says. Or is he some random person? — James Riley

You didn't quote Fauci. You quoted a random person in an article whose opinions you happened to agree with, without taking a look at the studies they were basing their claims on. If you had done that, you would have known that those studies did not support the claims the person was making, which means it's either politicized or they don't understand the fact that cherry-picking the studies that agree with one's views and ignoring the rest is not science - thus they are no expert.

But even if you did quote Fauci, it means nothing to me unless they come with evidence that backs up their claims - a substantiated body of scientific evidence, not half-truths, framing or pandering to a narrative. The science around this subject has become heavily politicized and everything that supports the government narrative is latched onto, while everything that doesn't is systematically ignored or even surpressed.

You won't be satisfied because it's not about the science. [...] No, this is about politics. — James Riley

Correct. I never made it a secret I wasn't interested in a scientific debate. I outright stated it.

Your politics can be discerned by the company you keep. — James Riley

I don't keep any political company. You're just desperate to put me into a box that you can easily attack. And of those boxes you picked the most cliché of all: fascism. It's such a joke - I am not going to defend myself against such an accusation. I can only laugh at it.

Who thinks like you? Fascist stooges for Putin and his bitch Trump, that's who. — James Riley

Those people don't think like me, unless I missed their appeals to human rights.

Are you sure you aren't just projecting? An authoritarian nationalist (you call it "patriotism") with a predisposition towards force and violence?

A few pages back I asked you on two seperate occassions whether you'd be in favor of treating unvaccinated people in a similar manner to how Israel treats Palestinians. Why didn't you answer that?

However, since an animal cannot advocate for itself, what can a person do to represent an animal? — Shawn

Our increasingly inhumane treatment of animals and indeed virtually every other life on Earth is a direct result of our evergrowing population that has to have its needs met. That's where I would start. The conclusion that 7,9 billion humans is quite enough.

Listen son, when you step on your pee pee, man up and admit it. Like you should have when I called your bluff about experts and you stood with egg on your face. You just keep digging. :roll: — James Riley

You think by repeating that it will make it true? Who are you trying to save face for? Me? Others? Yourself?

It's a bit embarrassing to see you latch onto the fact you were able to find a random person in an article proclaiming an opinion you liked (speaking of confirmation bias).

Your personal attacks convey only your inability to bring anything of substance to the table. I attacked your ideas, you attacked me, and in the end all you had was an inept "You're a fascist". What a joke.

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect. — Tzeentch — James Riley

Fixed that for you. Don't steal my quotes.

That had nothing to do with vaccination or anyone's right to bodily autonomy. That had to do with your seeming love of authority, and I meant every word of it.

I never said that or even implied it.

Now you're just trying to give yourself an excuse for why you got personal. You got caught. Go reflect.

It's amusing how personal you get when you run out of ideas. It's a common theme in our conversations.

That "medical" in their job title is something you don't have and are not smart enough to have. — James Riley

Fair enough. I am also not smart enough to have "Dr" infront of my name, so I guess the following article must be true.

New research deflates current understanding of the shape of our world

The article even calls them "cutting edge". Seems legit if you ask me.

Those people I referenced that you fail to distance yourself from. You know, the same people who make the same arguments you are now making. — James Riley

Oh, who are they, and what arguments do they make?

That is proven by the fact that you called those authors "random person" without even looking at who they are. — James Riley

I did take a look at who they were, and the fact that there's "medical" in their job title does not make them an expert in whatever it is they're making claims about.

Besides, like me, you aren't a doctor and even if I cited actual scientific studies, you would have done the same thing. — James Riley

Likely I would've had to point out that whatever you believe that hypothetical study proves, does not correspond to the actual conclusion of the study. Which is what I would've had to do if you referred to the studies your articles referred to, which I did take a look at.

... others on this very thread have cited the actual scientific studies, ... — James Riley

So have I.

You made it yourself when you aligned more solidly with your leaders — James Riley

Now it gets interesting.

My leaders? And who might those be?

Doesn't matter if they are biased or not. You said I couldn't and I did. — James Riley

If by expert you thought I meant "a random person in a news article", then.. Oh well. Link an actual scientific study if you want me to take it serious.

But go you.

It's not a concession of defeat if it is true. — James Riley

So it is a concession of defeat. But it's one that was in the making for a long time.

Here, you stand corrected on both counts (30 seconds of google): — James Riley

Imagine thinking a Google search is going to produce unbiased results.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Here. Actual research papers, which you can interpret and glean conclusions from yourself. Will likely take you more than 30 seconds, though.

I could link a hundred more, but I am not interested in a science debate either.

You see, I embrace "guilt by association." — James Riley

Generalizations are by definition inaccurate, thus you're embracing ignorance.

But it's none of my business what your opinions of me are or who you associate me with. I'm interested in your ideas and argumentations only.

When they go low, I go down there with them and give them a taste of their own medicine. They, like you, don't like that. — James Riley

I am enjoying our conversation, heated as it may be. Why else would I be here still talking with you?

So some are not the independent, free thinkers, standing up to government authority. They are surrounded by, embraced by, and themselves embrace a large swath of people, outlined above. Loners they are not. They are summarized by the word "fascist." If they were to try and put some distance between themselves and those that agree with them, then I'd have to rethink. And individual members may say it is not their job to police their ranks. But you will be known by the company you keep, whether you like it or not. Science be damned, I'll stand with Dr. Fauci while you stand with Tucker Carlson. — James Riley

I'm not even going to defend myself against the intellectual concession of defeat that is calling someone else a fascist. Believe what you will about me, as I said, it's of no concern to me. Convincing you is of no concern to me. But if you're interested in fascism, you should know they love violence and authority, Travis.

It's a different mentality with these folks. Their shepherds have them believing they are good boys, rugged collectivist, standing up to the evil forces of ???. :roll: They are chicken hawks. Anti-intellectuals, afraid of reason, themselves, liberty; they are sheep who follow charlatans. Just make sure you never give them any power over others. — Tzeentch

Here are some ideas for filling in the ???:
- Individuals whose opinions their government doesn't like
- Individuals whose opinions they don't understand (important one)
- Individuals in general
- Whoever their stately overlords have appointed

Well, I did read your post, because I don't feel threatened by conflicting opinions, and thanks for sharing so many of those with me.

Opinions aren't selfish or inconsiderate - actions can be, and of my actions you know almost nothing. But of course it is very easy to create a mental image of someone whose opinions you don't like, and assume they must be terrible people. A simple trick of the mind to avoid having to deal with conflicting opinions.

I show everyone common courtesy. When I am shown the same, respect can be earned and reciprocated. None of these things sadly applied to our conversations, and when I am continuously insulted and belittled, I have no problems holding up a mirror. And apparently you did not enjoy having your own behavior mirrored to you. Food for thought, perhaps?

Our conversations can be as pleasant or as unpleasant as you make them, to me it makes no difference.

Bye, son. I hope you grow up some day. — James Riley

It is funny you should say that, because it shows the differences between our views.

You believe "to grow up" is to accept a subjugation of the mind to the demands of the state - and that is what states want: subjugated minds that march to the beat of its (war)drums at their beck and call.

I believe to grow up is to emancipate oneself completely from the mental impositions of the state and society. It is a vital part of self-actualization.

But I wish you much the same. Grow up, son!

Tell that to the individuals who, on the basis of literally nothing, are promoting a defacto apartheid between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

I understand things are a little less far along in the US (I don't know if you're American), , but in Europe we're starting to see an eerie repeat of the '30s.

You just don't want to be inconvenienced by your own choice. — James Riley

You are smart enough to know the difference between an inconvenience and Israeli practices. I asked you a straightforward question: would you be in favor of such practices in the case of unvaccinated people, or are you against it, Travis?

You'd have to do research that involved more than confirmation bias. But you be you, Dr. Tzeentch. — James Riley

Again, you won't find a medical expert that disputes any of those things, so the joke's on you. I understand that your us versus them narrative makes little sense when that is a given, so perhaps it is you who needs to worry about their biases?

Well, for me, it's based on the civics and patriotism I was taught in school. It's part of community and selflessness, gratitude, grace, and giving. But that's an old school thing. — James Riley

You trust your government based on your love for it (patriotism) and your noble character?

That's not a basis of trust, that's called being naive and gullible.

I will grant you this, though, if I was black or Indian some other group that the U.S. had experimented on, I might think twice — James Riley

What does ethnicity have to do with it? The US experimented on all types of people. Do a Google search on "American Nuclear Guineau Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens".

And yes, you read that correctly, three decades. It's only one of many examples.

How about you, Tzeentch? Were your people experimented on by government? Or are you from a privileged class? — James Riley

I don't belong to 'a people' or a class.

Well, I think going to all those third-world countries to provide them with vaccines, not bombs, is the order of the day. — James Riley

Haha, America, spreader of democracy, freedom and now vaccines, through subversion, revolution and at the end of a gun barrel!

God bless the USA.

No, it is not. Your so-called principle is based on your desire to continue availing yourself of the privileges and benefits of society while not having to face a scary needle. — James Riley

You're just repeating nonsense on both accounts.

And there we have it. You find it impossible to stay home with your filthy disease. You want the choice to hurt others. — James Riley

Again, untrue. If life is made impossible, in a similar fashion as life is made impossible for Palestinians by Israel, for example, are you against that, or are you for that in the case of unvaccinated?

Okay, Doctor Tzeentch, if you say so. The experts disagree with you. — James Riley

No they don't. You won't find an expert that will tell you an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one, nor will you find one that tells you a vaccine is more effective than natural immunity.

Well, to be honest, when I joined the Marine Corps I felt like a fucking pin cushion! LOL! They wanted us immune to the panoply of viruses running wild in the third and fourth world shit holes that we went to. However, it turns out, I'd already been stuck several times before that, just to go to school and protect my family, school, community and country. I still get stuck for flu and tetanus every now and then. So, I seriously can't answer your question. Let's just say "a lot." — James Riley

You do as you're told and expect others to do the same, but not everyone has this slavish disposition and unwavering faith in government. Maybe I have asked this before, but what exactly is that trust in government based on, considering the US government has a history of unethical medical experimentation?

Also, do you ever wonder what the point is of going to all those third-world countries to drop bombs on poor people? Or is not asking questions about that also a part of being a "real American"?