those on left, those to right

[Poindexter]

Freedom from religious delusions in govt affairs, I mean freedom of religion and being able to believe any old crazy shit.

Don't worry, fredocurrents. Jesus loves you, even though nobody else does

 

[Optionpro007]

Right, and a war was fought over it. Fortunately, the vast majority of the North agreed such a battle was necessary to stand up for the lives of people who could not defend themselves. As I mentioned, standing up for things like "Freedom from persecution" used to be a core left principle. But slavery isn't the same thing as, say, letting men who "identify as female" use the ladies room so they can peek in on biological women. Or legally going after a cake maker because they refuse to make a cake for a gay couple when their religion tells them not to honor the couples "marriage". Or raising my taxes to pay for someone because they have a right to medical care that they do not wish to work for. Or telling me I can no longer celebrate the flag of the United States at a ball game because it is "offensive" to some abstract minority. Or saying my kid can't say "Merry Christmas" because it is offensive to the one muslim student in class. And so on and so forth with never ending examples of sheer and abject stupidity.

Great post!

 

[Good1]

What is the real philosophical difference? IE, What is the problem?

It's amazing that we are all human but we have this great divide b/w us and we can't seem to resolve it.

What separates those that vote democrat from those that are republican???

I am amazed at the vitriol..

Getting deeply philosophical, we could ask, what are humans?

But before going there, humans are faced with dilemmas, and rarely, if ever, have enough foresight to understand the full ramifications of any given action/policy.

Another problem is humans don't really agree on what is good, even if all ramifications of actions/policies were grasped.

Also, humans have a problem telling the difference between faith (guessing all the effects of policy) and knowledge (having all the facts, and knowing all the ramifications).

Man also has a problem telling the difference between imagination and reality, making it hard to tell the difference between truth and lies.

Then, in a two party political system, each party will try to please at least 51% of voters. Otherwise, a party could cease to exist, as well as the benefits of holding power. If need be, they will stay relevant by exploiting human nature, as it is largely "ego" driven, meaning emotionally driven, without the requisite knowledge to temper emotions.

Meanwhile, human existence is plagued and cursed with inequality, and yet, it worships diversity, even as it sees a need to establish some sense of equality to escape the he'll that diversity presents.

As for separation, it follows upon man's drive to be unique, special, and therefor different.

Generally, man experiences bifurcation, and cognitive dissonance.

It could be no matter what policies men set as individuals or as groups, he is damned to face dilemmas no matter what. Depending how dangerous the perceived dilemma, emotions may run high, as ignorance rules the day.

 

[Cuddles]

Right, and a war was fought over it. Fortunately, the vast majority of the North agreed such a battle was necessary to stand up for the lives of people who could not defend themselves. As I mentioned, standing up for things like "Freedom from persecution" used to be a core left principle. But slavery isn't the same thing as, say, letting men who "identify as female" use the ladies room so they can peek in on biological women. Or legally going after a cake maker because they refuse to make a cake for a gay couple when their religion tells them not to honor the couples "marriage". Or raising my taxes to pay for someone because they have a right to medical care that they do not wish to work for. Or telling me I can no longer celebrate the flag of the United States at a ball game because it is "offensive" to some abstract minority. Or saying my kid can't say "Merry Christmas" because it is offensive to the one muslim student in class. And so on and so forth with never ending examples of sheer and abject stupidity.

Half of the population isn't the vast majority. The vast majority of the South disagreed with abolishment

 

[Tsing Tao]

Half of the population isn't the vast majority. The vast majority of the South disagreed with abolishment

Re-quoted for your re-reading.

"Fortunately, the vast majority of the North agreed "

the south didnt, which is why there was a war.

 

[Cuddles]

... For something to be considered "progress", the vast majority must agree with it, don't you think?

For example, if my neighbor is burning leaves in his backyard, and my yard is downwind of him, and when he burns his leaves my yard is filled with choking smoke that I shouldn't have to deal with. I like to sit out on my patio, but my neighbor doesn't care. So I ask him to stop, but he ignores the request. I then get the police to make him stop, and the police make him stop on all days but Monday. They respect his right to burn leaves on Monday and say I have to compromise. Is this progress or not? Kinda depends on whose point of view. My neighbor certainly doesn't think it is. I do. Neighbors who aren't involved and don't get smoke (on one street over) don't care at all.

But what if this neighbor is smoking out the whole neighborhood? Then, restricting him suddenly becomes progress, because everyone in the neighborhood is affected in a positive manner (except the jerk burning leaves).

What the left is doing now is trying to change a vast number of things that many conservatives consider to be core principles of the country we love. The left calls this "progress" and then attacks anyone that does not agree that what they are trying to do is make things better. Some of the things the left used to stand for and push for were, actually, good and would make life better. For example, they used to stand for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom for persecution. Liberals used to be all about that. Now, they have become so consumed with telling conservatives that they (conservatives) are wrong, that when conservatives try to stand up and say "wait a moment, I don't want that to change, I like it" immediately they are labeled as bigots, racist, sexist, nazis, etc.

So you've got one group of people who like life the way they are, one group that continually wants to change it and instead of debating the issues and focusing about the issues specifically, each side is more concerned with being right than actually listening - one out of defense, and one from attacking.

Also note that you did just that, here: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/a-sober-read.321641/

See how you started with "why can't we just get rid of them"? To those of us who cherish our 2nd amendment, we instantly go on defense when we see someone like you say that. We don't hear "what are the reasons why we cannot remove them?" as a question to be discussed. We hear "all these guns should be banned!" as a statement. Regardless of how you meant it.

This is because we no longer listen to understand. We listen only to formulate our response/defense.

Re-quoted for your re-reading.

"Fortunately, the vast majority of the North agreed "

the south didnt, which is why there was a war.

Re-quoted for your re-reading.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Re-quoted for your re-reading.

Sorry, I see no error there. For something to be considered progress, the vast majority needs to consider it such. The majority of the north saw it as progress. The south did not. Thus, the Civil War where one side forced it's view on the other.

Are you suggesting we should have an armed conflict over things like transgenders using bathrooms? Or maybe kneeling for the anthem?

When one side does not see the other's it might come to war if they cannot agree that something is progress. A society wishing to remain civil resorts to other means besides war.

 

[Cuddles]

Sorry, I see no error there. For something to be considered progress, the vast majority needs to consider it such. The majority of the north saw it as progress. The south did not. Thus, the Civil War where one side forced it's view on the other.

Are you suggesting we should have an armed conflict over things like transgenders using bathrooms? Or maybe kneeling for the anthem?

When one side does not see the other's it might come to war if they cannot agree that something is progress. A society wishing to remain civil resorts to other means besides war.

My argument is that for something to be seen as progress, the majority doesn't have to come to an agreement to it (your premise). Now, I don't have the numbers of South and North Americans back then, but given the casualties, I reckon it was roughly the same... Probably worse if you count the slaves, who most definitely disagreed with being enslaved.

 

[Tsing Tao]

My argument is that for something to be seen as progress, the majority doesn't have to come to an agreement to it (your premise). Now, I don't have the numbers of South and North Americans back then, but given the casualties, I reckon it was roughly the same... Probably worse if you count the slaves, who most definitely disagreed with being enslaved.

If you have a population where the vast majority (not just talking about 50.1%) of the people want a particular change, history labels this "progress", and the change is made - usually with little debate. When you have an opinion or a desire for a particular change that you like but your neighbor doesn't, this isn't called progress - even if you think it is the right thing. Your neighbor must also think it is right and must also consider it to be progress. It is always easier to maintain the status quo than to change something. Therefore, a larger majority is needed to change something vs. that which is required to keep something the same. This is why the process for a constitutional amendment requires such a large majority of states to accomplish.

The left (to keep with the spirit of this thread) continually want to push changes they call "progress" on to - in many cases - a majority of people who oppose this view. This is not progress. This is an assault.

 

[futurecurrents]

The issues are what divide, not to mention brain structure/physiology/upbringing,place

Here are the main ones, let me know if I forgot any:

Gun control or lack thereof.

Freedom from religious delusions in govt affairs, I mean freedom of religion and being able to believe any old crazy shit.

Man made global warming/science/environment/quality of life and health.

The poor and disadvantaged. Like that guy Jesus talked about.

Abortion rights vs rights of the unborn. This is a tough one.

Govt good vs govt bad.

Dept of Offense, I mean war, military industrial complex/military readiness - to invade other smaller countries at will.

Nationalism vs Globalism

Social welfare/safety net vs "tough luck , you are on your own, hop along on that one good leg" - see Jesus, above.

Capitalism vs Socialism.

Wealth distribution vs those with the most wins. See Jesus, above.

Plutocracy vs Democracy, see "money in politics"

Tribalism vs pan-racism. See Jesus, above.




*****************************

So in all these case above, the dems/progressives win. In each case above conservatives are on the wrong side. Mostly they are the wrong side of what Jesus said. Which is ironic.