The Cult of American Christian Nationalism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15174186
@blackjack21 wrote:
So how are you going to incorporate people who believe in a vengeful God that is going to punish both the innocent and guilty in the manner of Sodom and Gomorrah for going against Biblical proscriptions like men having anal sex with each other into your socialist utopia? Or are you beginning to understand why it's not going to work?


You have the answer BJ, they believe in a vengeful God. A God that hates and judges and punishes. Some kind of ancient Old Testament God that is a powerful Patriarch that is intolerant of rule-breaking. Is that the overriding Christian message of the New Testament? I don't think it is.

I worked with a lot of gay men who had anal sex and got HIV and died and suffered. I remember many of their faces. I don't think of them as abominations and subhuman and less than me. I am very straight and I find men as my opposite gender beautiful and necessary like I once wrote to you BJ. I still do.

It two men love each other or are just full of lust and don't get any kind of lustful feelings over a woman? For me they are the super males. The ones who love their maleness so much? That they feel the most comfortable sharing their feelings of lust only with their true equals. Other males. if they are two consenting adults and they they love the anal sex and it is their business? I am not the one who plays God about their feelings BJ. It is their private life. Not mine.

No one is telling me to go and have sex with a woman. No one is dictating to me that I must feel sexual towards another woman. I have the freedom to be the norm in this society. They don't. They don't lose their humanity along the way of how they feel about being sexual with their own gender.

I don't feel less human for being attracted to males BJ. It is just sexuality. It is not the only detail to pay attention to in a complex individual human life. It never will be.

I think people who are servers, givers, lovers, and protectors and who are always making the world better for everyone are the ones who are the indispensable ones. Not the ones who got conned by the Lucifer in the desert.

;)
#15174262
Unthinking Majority wrote:
If I lived in the same state as Portland I'd want to GTFO too lol.



There's no good reason to disparage Portland:


Marches, riot mark anniversary of George Floyd’s death in Portland

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/geor ... -05252021/


Hundreds march for George Floyd in Portland Saturday night

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ ... db4e19544d
#15174268
Tainari88 wrote:You have the answer BJ, they believe in a vengeful God. A God that hates and judges and punishes. Some kind of ancient Old Testament God that is a powerful Patriarch that is intolerant of rule-breaking. Is that the overriding Christian message of the New Testament? I don't think it is.

It still says worse will befall those who do not accept Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not endorse homosexuality. He was for male/female marriages. The Bible is pretty clear on that. Jesus' teaching is to be compassionate and forgiving, but it isn't to be sinful, or that morality doesn't matter.

Tainari88 wrote:I worked with a lot of gay men who had anal sex and got HIV and died and suffered. I remember many of their faces. I don't think of them as abominations and subhuman and less than me.

Where are you getting "subhuman" from? I clearly stated that until very recently, the liberal position on homosexuality is that it was behavior and a lifestyle choice. Today, liberals now believe homosexuals are born that way--that sexual behavior is innate in homosexuals.

Tainari88 wrote:It two men love each other or are just full of lust and don't get any kind of lustful feelings over a woman? For me they are the super males. The ones who love their maleness so much? That they feel the most comfortable sharing their feelings of lust only with their true equals.

And that's not the ultimate expression of misogyny? Or you're just cool with misogyny if it's coming from homosexual men?

Tainari88 wrote:Other males. if they are two consenting adults and they they love the anal sex and it is their business? I am not the one who plays God about their feelings BJ. It is their private life. Not mine.

Ah. A sexual libertarian, but an economic totalitarian. If people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, why can't they do what they want with their own money and possessions? I find this contradiction fascinating--libertarian in one sphere and totalitarian in another.

Tainari88 wrote:It is just sexuality.

Sexuality isn't trivial. It's the procreation mechanism of the species. I watched this last night:



The future will be quite a bit different than the 20th Century, especially for pay-as-you-go welfare states. Look at Japan as a model. Economic growth will stall as populations decline.

However, there is another aspect to this: those who breed create the future generation. Urbanites do not breed sufficiently to replace their population. This is happening all over the world.

Octavian Caesar came up with the modern notion of a public law marriage. He was not interested in people's feelings. He was interested in stable marriages and child rearing, because Rome needed to staff its armies and fill its treasury. No people. No taxpayers. No people. No soldiers.

Tainari88 wrote:I think people who are servers, givers, lovers, and protectors and who are always making the world better for everyone are the ones who are the indispensable ones.

I think people like Watt, Newton, Joule, Faraday, Ohm, Hertz, Volta, Edison, Bell, Pasteur, Planck, Boltzmann, Avogadro, Thomson(Kelvin), Benz, Diesel, Black, Bacon, Lavoisier, Boyle, Hooke, Carnot, Maxwell, Einstein, Carnegie, Ford, Fleming, Pauling, Jenner, Hilleman, Lister, and the list goes on have done far more than the Mother Theresa's of the world. There's frankly no way we'd have the lifestyle we have today without the scientific method, the industrial revolution, and capitalism.

Tainari88 wrote:Not the ones who got conned by the Lucifer in the desert.

Well, you still have to incorporate such people into your utopia as equals, no?
#15174292
ckaihatsu wrote:There's no good reason to disparage Portland:


Marches, riot mark anniversary of George Floyd’s death in Portland

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/geor ... -05252021/


From your article:

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Police declared a riot after a crowd smashed windows at City Hall after trying to set the Justice Center on fire in downtown Portland on Tuesday night, a year to the day since George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer.

When can I move to here? Everyone seems very reasonable and friendly and have raised their kids with fantastic values.

The Northwest coast of North America is filled with depressed drugged-up hippy/anarchist nutbars. At least we got grunge music out of it. I'm actually legit worried about these people, and the children raised in this environment. Maybe it's all the rain clouds.
#15174294
Unthinking Majority wrote:
From your article:


When can I move to here? Everyone seems very reasonable and friendly and have raised their kids with fantastic values.

The Northwest coast of North America is filled with depressed drugged-up hippy/anarchist nutbars. At least we got grunge music out of it. I'm actually legit worried about these people, and the children raised in this environment. Maybe it's all the rain clouds.



Showing off your mastery of drollness, huh?

So you're reduced to character assassinations for lack of being able to address what the protestors are addressing, which is the constant pace of killer cops killing, and walking.

At most you'll pay *lip service* to the festering real-world issue of police brutality, but then a daydream seeps in, and you're off again to your creative writing.
#15174303
ckaihatsu wrote:Showing off your mastery of drollness, huh?

So you're reduced to character assassinations for lack of being able to address what the protestors are addressing, which is the constant pace of killer cops killing, and walking.

At most you'll pay *lip service* to the festering real-world issue of police brutality, but then a daydream seeps in, and you're off again to your creative writing.


I commend them and support them for protesting for Floyd. That should really go without saying. Unfortunately there's also seedier elements at work.

I also wouldn't want to live in a place like Alabama either, for the opposite reasons. I'm not a fan of the far-right or far-left, especially those committing unnecessary violence. I understand why this offends you, but i'm not trying to i'm just speaking my opinion.
#15174306
Unthinking Majority wrote:
I commend them and support them for protesting for Floyd. That should really go without saying. Unfortunately there's also seedier elements at work.

I also wouldn't want to live in a place like Alabama either, for the opposite reasons. I'm not a fan of the far-right or far-left, especially those committing unnecessary violence. I understand why this offends you, but i'm not trying to i'm just speaking my opinion.



No prob -- I guess it's back to *this*:


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image



(Meaning that policing or protesting should be thought of in terms of what's accomplished, and what it took *to* accomplish it.)

Conflating the far-left with the far-right, so as to appear to be the 'rational' center, is just *disingenuous*, though, as though politics is like simple geometrical symmetry. It's not.

Would you also conflate Israelis and Palestinians, similarly geometrically?

How about *this* geometry, which uses geometrical forces from *physics* -- ?


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image



And -- I'll share that you inspired *this* one, for the aforementioned reasons:


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image
#15174309
ckaihatsu wrote:Conflating the far-left with the far-right, so as to appear to be the 'rational' center, is just *disingenuous*, though, as though politics is like simple geometrical symmetry. It's not.

Would you also conflate Israelis and Palestinians, similarly geometrically?

Politics is a part of yin and yang, which is the nature of the universe. Left and right is no different than day and night, male and female, positive and negative, winter and summer, dominance and submission, happiness and suffering. One doesn't exist without the other. The pendulum always swings, seeking homeostasis.

Why would Israel and Palestine be any different? 2 opposing forces struggling against each other, it is the nature of the universe, pure physics at the end of the day.

And -- I'll share that you inspired *this* one, for the aforementioned reasons:

3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image

I like this one thank you.
#15174314
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Politics is a part of yin and yang, which is the nature of the universe. Left and right is no different than day and night, male and female, positive and negative, winter and summer, dominance and submission, happiness and suffering. One doesn't exist without the other. The pendulum always swings, seeking homeostasis.

Why would Israel and Palestine be any different? 2 opposing forces struggling against each other, it is the nature of the universe, pure physics at the end of the day.


I like this one thank you.



That's far too light-minded.

What about income inequality and wealth inequality? Are these to be similarly bandied-about in your wordplay exercise?
#15174343
blackjack21 wrote:It still says worse will befall those who do not accept Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not endorse homosexuality. He was for male/female marriages. The Bible is pretty clear on that. Jesus' teaching is to be compassionate and forgiving, but it isn't to be sinful, or that morality doesn't matter.

BJ, I don't believe the Holy Bible was a book that was a literal and scientifically accurate text. I never will. People who are Christians base their beliefs (at least the fundamentalist Christians), on the bible is literal truth. Humans living for hundreds of years, and women giving birth at 80+ years old also exist in the Bible. Sinful? Have you had sex with a woman you are not married to BJ? I think the answer seeing how you are in your fifties? Is yes you have. That is a sin. You broke a rule and you are immoral. Does that mean you should be denied respect as a human being or as a man? No, it does not for me. Does it for people who are so strict about biblical morality as to play God with other 'sinners'? My point is that if you are going to do the throw the rock in the stoning of the ones having sex that is outside of strict Christian codes of conduct? You are going to be killing or stoning a hell of a lot of people in modern society. I don't subscribe to unrealistic moral codes BJ. Don't use Christian interpretations of the moral code through the lens of fundamentalist type Christians as the base of all approval of social and legal rights of humans. it is a slippery slope.

Each individual's sexual tastes in my opinion should remain strictly private and none of the state's business BJ. Unless a person is a pedophile, a rapist or a sexual predator? The state should be totally uninterested in a person's sexual life. Do you disagree with that?

Also, again as before? Each person is different. Most reproductive age adults and senior adults over the age of 60+ have sexual preferences. I was surprised by scientific studies of human sexual behavior. Most adults are not super straight like I am. A lot of people have experimented with the same sex, or they have unconventional sexual practices. I found it very interesting because some of that stuff I had never even thought was more mainstream that it is. Men are visual people much more than women are. Women are more tactile and about the way the partner may smell or feel. It is very much varied. It is a complicated subject and the American Christian types who are conventional believers don't usually teach that in the basement of their churches. Even though they should so people get a more realistic idea of what human beings actually do during sexual acts versus myths of purity or myths of sexual conventionality BJ. I think most people know at an early age what they are in terms of straight, homosexual, gay, lesbian, queer, trans, etc. I knew about age 5 to 8 years old I loved feminine identity and felt sexual towards males my age. I did not date anyone at all till I was 17. It so happened I married my first real boyfriend. My present husband. Later turns out that is very unusual. Most people are in and out of a lot of failed relationships before they settle down and marry. My situation is not the norm. But that is life. Sometimes your behavior is the norm and other times it is not. What people should be shooting for is healthy relationships within a sexual relationship. Easier said than done I would say. I am old fashioned BJ. Fall madly in love first? Then engage in sexual activity and then have children within a marriage or a committed relationship with dedication and a proven track record. Easier said than done I would say. As an Indian matchmaker on Netflix once said? "Marriages crumble like biscuits nowadays." Lol. True. But no marriage is not invulnerable to the vagaries of life's pressures. Make sure you marry someone with incredibly universally good values and who values justice in behavior above any petty individualism. You will wind up with a husband or wife who knows how to forgive and to cooperate if there is a divorce.


Where are you getting "subhuman" from? I clearly stated that until very recently, the liberal position on homosexuality is that it was behavior and a lifestyle choice. Today, liberals now believe homosexuals are born that way--that sexual behavior is innate in homosexuals.

I am not a believer in that all gays or homosexuals, or lesbians are born that way. Some are choices due to many factors. Some women who would normally be straight but who have been incested, raped by men or abused with domestic violence or other traumas only trust other women for sexual safety. They are not born that way they choose it. Other women are what are called gold star lesbians or gay men who could never really have a sexual feeling towards a member of the opposite sex no matter how hard they tried. i think those are the born that way ones. From kindergarten on they had sexual feelings towards members of their own sex only. There are bisexuals who really depend on who they fall in love with they feel sexual towards or who they are attracted to. Some fall in love with a woman and they are a man and they occasionally feel attracted towards other men just for lust. Not emotional caring as they might feel for their wife. It is complicated BJ. Human sexuality is not that easy. Masters and Johnson if you study some of their case studies and detailed information on human sexuality? they were surprised by how attached people get to their sexual partners and how if the person emotionally betrays them how tough that is to get over. They expected having open sexual relationships with a lot of different people would mean that the pain of losing someone close to them to someone else would be easier. It is not. It is very painful and concluded that those kinds of relationships are always going to bring a great deal of risk at an emotional level. It is not for the less than brave. Love that is. Superficial shit doesn't do much harm. In general. But neither is it what people crave emotionally or mentally.


And that's not the ultimate expression of misogyny? Or you're just cool with misogyny if it's coming from homosexual men?

Some gay men don't really like women in general. Others love women in general. Some are wonderful, sweet, great and loving people. Others are selfish, petty, and difficult to get along with people. The conclusion? They vary just like all human groups. Nice ones, mean ones, assholes and saints and angels, and creeps and bullies. They vary BJ. There are misogynist gay men who are far-Right and nasty like J. Edgar Hoover. Gay as can be and did not like women really. Hated Communists. But he was having gay sex all the time with his partner. Coming out of the closet was not an option for him. He would be a gay man who I would not like. Then there are those who are poets, artists, creative and good men. Like Oscar Wilde. I would like those. Or the great playwriter Tennessee Wiliams. They vary BJ. Just like all the other human groups of straight people too. Some good, some bad, and some mixed between good and bad aspects. Humans are not easy to categorize neatly Relampaguito.


Ah. A sexual libertarian, but an economic totalitarian. If people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, why can't they do what they want with their own money and possessions? I find this contradiction fascinating--libertarian in one sphere and totalitarian in another.

Lol. No. Didn't you see my political compass score BJ. I am a negative 7 in social authoritarian spectrum. Which means I don't like the state inferences in people's private sex life or family life. It causes anguish and depression and lack of privacy for many for sensitive personal matters like sexuality is just being HUMANE. Possessions and so on? If used to lord it over other people and take their rights away and limit their educations, ability to make a living and use it as a weapon to control their social and economic mobility? Has to be dealt with. Being possessive with exaggerated wealth and thinking that is somehow limiting liberty? For who? How many homes and millions in the bank does a single male with a lot of money need to have to satiate his needs? Or is it about wanting to dominate others and control others? I think if you have to be 'free' to make 30 million or you die of oppression? Versus you should be able to get all your needs taken care of with about 80k a year is my opinion. Why do you need more? I want to know? That is the kind of person I am. Reasonable. Lol. People who dedicate themselves to the worship of Mammon and then turn around and look down on people who are poor but moral and good workers? No, I am not one of those Relampaguito.



Sexuality isn't trivial. It's the procreation mechanism of the species. I watched this last night:



The future will be quite a bit different than the 20th Century, especially for pay-as-you-go welfare states. Look at Japan as a model. Economic growth will stall as populations decline.

However, there is another aspect to this: those who breed create the future generation. Urbanites do not breed sufficiently to replace their population. This is happening all over the world.

Octavian Caesar came up with the modern notion of a public law marriage. He was not interested in people's feelings. He was interested in stable marriages and child-rearing, because Rome needed to staff its armies and fill its treasury. No people. No taxpayers. No people. No soldiers.

Yes a very Latino thing. The Latin-based cultures like marriage and children. But Spain and Italy discovered birth control. So have many societies. Women working outside the home also. What are you saying with this Blackjack21? That you would like to be matched via computer with a woman without really worrying about how you feel about her first? Just jump into bed with her and get her pregnant. Do your duty. Look for other things outside of that relationship for your emotional ideas and wants? I don't know BJ. Though arranged marriages seem to work for many. But the parents or other people who know their son or daughter well are involved and try to pick them out for them. In the end, any long-term relationship involving sex and emotional co-habitation takes a lot of work and good communication Relampaguito. it is never a walk in the park that. For sure.


I think people like Watt, Newton, Joule, Faraday, Ohm, Hertz, Volta, Edison, Bell, Pasteur, Planck, Boltzmann, Avogadro, Thomson(Kelvin), Benz, Diesel, Black, Bacon, Lavoisier, Boyle, Hooke, Carnot, Maxwell, Einstein, Carnegie, Ford, Fleming, Pauling, Jenner, Hilleman, Lister, and the list goes on have done far more than the Mother Theresa's of the world. There's frankly no way we'd have the lifestyle we have today without the scientific method, the industrial revolution, and capitalism.

I love science BJ. I also love social psychology and art and the emotional aspects of human life. We need both to work in tandem and together to make for a balanced way of living. That is my opinion. Mother Teresa did a lot for people too poor to have a place to drop dead. And a lot delivering babies for free for people without the means to pay a doctor or a nurse. All groups cooperating for bettering the world are the indispensable ones BJ. Always.


Well, you still have to incorporate such people into your utopia as equals, no?


You don't seem to understand how social dominant paradigms work in human society do you? The entire society has to agree that equality is what the government is founded on first. That people who differ in many ways can cooperate for the betterment of the whole. Whether nationally or internationally. The present paradigms now are about neoliberalism and they are failed platforms. Got to change that first. When do the fiery holier-than-thou vengeful God people decide it is not their place to judge others who are not like them and consent to have to deal with such a government?

Then we get to the new set of challenges. It is about changes BJ. Depending on what exact historical period we find ourselves in human socioeconomic and structural evolution? You then adapt. And let it play itself out.

Capitalism is still in play. I don't find it the endall of human existence. Maybe you do? I don't.
#15174408
Tainari88 wrote:BJ, I don't believe the Holy Bible was a book that was a literal and scientifically accurate text. I never will.

Well naturally I don't either. However, there are people who do believe in it that way, probably because they are reacting against people who are practically amoral, immoral, decadent, licentious, materialistic and hedonistic among other traits.

Tainari88 wrote:Have you had sex with a woman you are not married to BJ? I think the answer seeing how you are in your fifties? Is yes you have. That is a sin. You broke a rule and you are immoral.

According to biblical standards, yes. However, women were the chattel property of their fathers or their husbands. The bible is more particular about committing adultery.

Tainari88 wrote:My point is that if you are going to do the throw the rock in the stoning of the ones having sex that is outside of strict Christian codes of conduct? You are going to be killing or stoning a hell of a lot of people in modern society.

True enough. However, even most fundamentalist Christians don't want to cast the first stone. They usually stop at insults.

Tainari88 wrote:Each individual's sexual tastes in my opinion should remain strictly private and none of the state's business BJ.

Why? You seem to have the idea that the state should have absolute authority over property and over many behaviors, but just not sex? I'm quite serious. For a similar reason, I simply do not buy the Supreme Court of the United States on questions of abortion. The reason is that the constitution states, and the government claims and defends, a power to regulate all commerce. So the idea that a medical doctor can be regulated in virtually everything he or she does, except performing abortions, abortions on under-aged women without their parent's consent, and transgender surgery on under-aged children without their parents consent is just utterly implausible. That strikes me as somehow taking money or other things of value in exchange for a judgement.

Tainari88 wrote:The state should be totally uninterested in a person's sexual life. Do you disagree with that?

Absolutely. The state has an interest in future generations. The reproductive fitness of a society is fundamental to the national security and future of the society itself.

Tainari88 wrote:I am not a believer in that all gays or homosexuals, or lesbians are born that way. Some are choices due to many factors. Some women who would normally be straight but who have been incested, raped by men or abused with domestic violence or other traumas only trust other women for sexual safety. They are not born that way they choose it. Other women are what are called gold star lesbians or gay men who could never really have a sexual feeling towards a member of the opposite sex no matter how hard they tried. i think those are the born that way ones.

We are more or less in agreement here.

Tainari88 wrote:they were surprised by how attached people get to their sexual partners and how if the person emotionally betrays them how tough that is to get over. They expected having open sexual relationships with a lot of different people would mean that the pain of losing someone close to them to someone else would be easier. It is not. It is very painful and concluded that those kinds of relationships are always going to bring a great deal of risk at an emotional level.

And on the physical level as well. That's why I find atheists and nihilists rather amusing on these sorts of subjects. To them, love is just a squirt of oxytocin--nothing more. It also brings to mind Slavoj Zizek, who says that betrayal is the ultimate act of love. Ha!

Tainari88 wrote:It causes anguish and depression and lack of privacy for many for sensitive personal matters like sexuality is just being HUMANE.

Really? Having the state take away your goods doesn't cause anguish and depression? If the state is all Erich Fromm-like, wouldn't they be interfering for the good of the people involved?

Tainari88 wrote:Or is it about wanting to dominate others and control others? I think if you have to be 'free' to make 30 million or you die of oppression? Versus you should be able to get all your needs taken care of with about 80k a year is my opinion. Why do you need more? I want to know?

You need more if you want to innovate, take risks, create new product lines, etc. States really suck at it.

Tainari88 wrote:The Latin-based cultures like marriage and children. But Spain and Italy discovered birth control. So have many societies. Women working outside the home also.

Yes, and that's why they have the one euro houses in small towns in Italy, or in Detroit. Falling populations is an interesting phenomenon too.
#15174450
blackjack21 wrote:Well naturally I don't either. However, there are people who do believe in it that way, probably because they are reacting against people who are practically amoral, immoral, decadent, licentious, materialistic and hedonistic among other traits.

Hmm. For me, the most materialistic and immoral are the ones who claim to be Christians and judgmental and get into power positions for very questionable reasons. To serve the society at large and bring positive changes or to take advantage of their positions to enrich themselves and their associates? Both major parties are basically sellouts BJ. To the neoliberal and neoconservative class. Liz Chaney, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, etc are all those kinds of politicians. Hedonism? Licentious? A bit of a Protestant type of language you use. I come from a colorful and fun-loving celebration-ridden society that loves to dance, sing and have fun in the sun. A dower type of serious Protestant Calvinist culture would see us with disapproval. Being from that culture I can tell you we are emotionally healthy in terms of celebrating life and closeness. Very little about our culture is about secrets and feeling guilt for liking food, wine, and sex a lot. It is part of living life with joy I would think. Interpretation of what something is in a particular culture should be examined for bias and lack of truth.


According to biblical standards, yes. However, women were the chattel property of their fathers or their husbands. The bible is more particular about committing adultery.

I am glad I am not the property of my father or my husband BJ. That would be very oppressive for me to accept. It makes me smile because before I ever met my husband in person he was a friend of my father's. They had common interests like theater and writing and so on. Both were artistic men. it helps a lot when your father (whom I adored) and a boyfriend/fiancee/husband tend to like, love and care about each other a lot. It makes for a good family unit. Both of my parents were well loved and liked by my husband and they liked and loved him. That is rare nowadays. There are too many families who just don't like the spouse of the daughter or son and it causes all kinds of issues in marriages.


True enough. However, even most fundamentalist Christians don't want to cast the first stone. They usually stop at insults.

If your entire social group is composed of strict Christians with strict moral codes against gay sex? And you are a gay teen trying to figure out how to keep your family and your social circles without being ridiculed, or mocked, or insulted? that entire teen period is dangerous. Too many suicides and such. They need privacy and for there to be at least some kind of outside counseling about how they are going to cope with their circles there.


Why? You seem to have the idea that the state should have absolute authority over property and over many behaviors, but just not sex? I'm quite serious. For a similar reason, I simply do not buy the Supreme Court of the United States on questions of abortion. The reason is that the constitution states, and the government claims and defends, a power to regulate all commerce. So the idea that a medical doctor can be regulated in virtually everything he or she does, except performing abortions, abortions on under-aged women without their parent's consent, and transgender surgery on under-aged children without their parents consent is just utterly implausible. That strikes me as somehow taking money or other things of value in exchange for a judgement.

You and I will have radically different attitudes and concepts about private property and it will be based on our concepts of what is the function of private property. That is a very interesting subject and maybe we can go at it one of these days? I am sticking to American Christian Nationalism. I think it a flawed way of governing. The spiritual aspect of the New Testament is largely absent from their thoughts about morality that they rarely live up to in their own churches. Too many child molesters, child rapists in the RC church, the Protestant churches, and the general Christian church communities in the USA for them to be pointing themselves out as moral authorities on sexual matters to almost all the rest of society. My general rule of thumb is to allow privacy about sexuality in almost all things unrelated to sex crimes.


Absolutely. The state has an interest in future generations. The reproductive fitness of a society is fundamental to the national security and future of the society itself.

Yes, abortion is highly controversial. I tend to be able to see many angles to the abortion debate. Personally? I would never abort voluntarily a baby of mine. Never. I don't even care if I die trying to have the baby. I will never kill a baby of mine no matter what message some government tells me is the thing to do. At the same time if you have a bunch of women engaging with superficial sex with some men they don't even know the last name of? And find the whole ordeal of raising kids without proper child care in place, extended family in place, a decent paying job, and a partner who is bringing home a steady paycheck? It becomes complicated for them. If you study chimps and gorillas in the wild females who are possible reproductive age ones? Tend to not have sex at all till the group is about composed of 25 members. Why? Safety. In the wild, you die fairly easily and you need other members of your group to raise the young ones if you fail to make it beyond a certain lifespan. Instinctually the primates who are females avoid sex till they have social support. It should say something to you about the reasons why some women in society go for abortion. But me personally? No. I would have the baby come hell or high water. If I could have had more children I would have loved to have them. I don't know why I only had one biological child. Late in life. And not in my twenties or thirties. Nothing in life is guaranteed to any of us. Not even being able to reproduce when we are ready for it. That is guaranteed.


We are more or less in agreement here.

That is fairly rare.


And on the physical level as well. That's why I find atheists and nihilists rather amusing on these sorts of subjects. To them, love is just a squirt of oxytocin--nothing more. It also brings to mind Slavoj Zizek, who says that betrayal is the ultimate act of love. Ha!

I don't know who that Z guy is. I don't care about his opinions. If you love another human being they have the ability to harm and hurt you emotionally. That is just fact. If you love someone properly? You love them probably more than you do yourself and if you lose them? Life can be excruciatingly painful. I have no doubt that loving people is risky. Having sex I guess can be just a biological act. I don't know though. it is easy to be vulnerable. And to get hurt too. If they reject you or mistreat you after you are open about your need for intimacy with them. It is a sensitive subject and a lot of people lie all the time about sex because they don't want to open to ridicule.


Really? Having the state take away your goods doesn't cause anguish and depression? If the state is all Erich Fromm-like, wouldn't they be interfering for the good of the people involved?

People who get more worried about losing their possessions rather than their lovers and relationships? I find a little bit suspect about how sound their priorities in life are? If you are more worried about your china and your sofa rather than losing your children in a divorce settlement or the affections of a woman you adored for years? It is a bit suspicious? Lol. I love teasing you BJ. You don't have my value systems so I tease you eh? I truly can say that material shit is not what I am about. But many are eh?


You need more if you want to innovate, take risks, create new product lines, etc. States really suck at it.


Yes, and that's why they have the one euro houses in small towns in Italy, or in Detroit. Falling populations is an interesting phenomenon too.


You can take risks safely with the backing of the state via cooperative worker units and earn your leadership in innovation skills via vote by the majority of your fellow colleagues recognizing you as a very innovative and creative and positive force in your field of expertise. All of you together working towards a goal in common relieves stressors BJ on having to do it all alone and thinking if there is a failure? You are alone in the wind without a chance to do something better the next time? I think the state should absorb the risk and also allow the entire group to commit to which plan to adopt and execute. It makes for more cohesion and less instability in that sense.

Use group knowledge and power and don't allow individualism to dictate power in society. that is the reason monarchy was scrapped. You might get a good king that rules well, but often you get a despot that destroys things for ego. ANd everyone else has to pay the broken crockery of those egomaniacs. Best to allow the society to do rational negotiation and the power that comes from group responsibility to help the path of innovation.

In the end? It becomes a mass adaptation anyway. Share in the pain and the glories of victory and failure. It is best that way.
#15174475

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (German: Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus) is a book written by Max Weber, a German sociologist, economist, and politician. Begun as a series of essays, the original German text was composed in 1904 and 1905, and was translated into English for the first time by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1930.[1] It is considered a founding text in economic sociology and a milestone contribution to sociological thought in general.

In the book, Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism.[2] In his book, apart from Calvinists, Weber also discusses Lutherans (especially Pietists, but also notes differences between traditional Lutherans and Calvinists), Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and Moravians (specifically referring to the Herrnhut-based community under Count von Zinzendorf's spiritual lead).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prote ... Capitalism
#15174490
ckaihatsu wrote:That's far too light-minded.

What about income inequality and wealth inequality? Are these to be similarly bandied-about in your wordplay exercise?


With income inequality, having no regulations and allowing the wealthy/powerful to accumulate most of the wealth and treat their employees like crap is bad for society and unfair to the masses. However, having perfect income equality and everyone making the same regardless of productive output provides no incentive to be more productive, innovative, efficient etc. So obviously somewhere in the middle of these far-right and far-left extremes is ideal. Most anyone who has worked in government and also in the private sector with an a-hole boss knows this.

That isn't to say every policy has to be right in the center, but overall ideologically IMO being somewhere around the center is the most reasonable because both left and right have some value to them. The left says things like "equality for all" and "treat everyone with kindness and compassion" while the right says "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" and "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger". There is value to each of these ways of thinking, but I think you need some of both.

I frame it like raising a child. If you're much too giving to a child and let them get away with all sorts behaviour they'll grow up spoiled, lazy, entitled, etc. but if you're too tough on the child it becomes cruel to them and they'll be scarred emotionally and likely grow up an uncompassionate bully towards others, so you need to find a healthy middle path. People on the left can often be too nice and people on the right can often be too uncompassionate.
#15174493
Unthinking Majority wrote:
With income inequality, having no regulations and allowing the wealthy/powerful to accumulate most of the wealth and treat their employees like crap is bad for society and unfair to the masses. However, having perfect income equality and everyone making the same regardless of productive output provides no incentive to be more productive, innovative, efficient etc. So obviously somewhere in the middle of these far-right and far-left extremes is ideal. Most anyone who has worked in government and also in the private sector with an a-hole boss knows this.

That isn't to say every policy has to be right in the center, but overall ideologically IMO being somewhere around the center is the most reasonable because both left and right have some value to them. The left says things like "equality for all" and "treat everyone with kindness and compassion" while the right says "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" and "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger". There is value to each of these ways of thinking, but I think you need some of both.

I frame it like raising a child. If you're much too giving to a child and let them get away with all sorts behaviour they'll grow up spoiled, lazy, entitled, etc. but if you're too tough on the child it becomes cruel to them and they'll be scarred emotionally and likely grow up an uncompassionate bully towards others, so you need to find a healthy middle path. People on the left can often be too nice and people on the right can often be too uncompassionate.



I'd like to point out that you're working with *two* different scales here -- [1] the *individual*, and [2] everyone in society.

In terms of *political economy* I've come to the philosophical / ideological conclusion that modern-day capitalistic-type material incentives are *inappropriate* for our present-day material-world of material *overproduction* and existing capacity for abundance of virtually *all* goods and services of any humane criticality / importance.

Here's an introductory treatment, at that other thread, which you were around, if you'd like to entertain it:


Wellsy wrote:
In fact, this seems to be a possible issue I see with socialism is while there are more benevolent forces in motivating people, there must still be a limiting factor to keep production up such as some inequality in which those who are less productive are less compensated.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I have to reiterate that this whole *approach* of 'rewards-for-labor', is politically problematic. though, because it effectively *commodifies* labor time, though the labor value is not privately appropriated -- it's basically the political economy of *Stalinism*, which is incrementally better than capitalism's private property relations, but is certainly not full communism or collective workers control since a separatist bureaucratic *administration* is obviously required to institutionally keep track of all of these material quantities, more-or-less in realtime.



---


Wellsy wrote:



His [Robinson Crusoe's] stock-book contains a catalogue of the various objects he possesses, of the various operations necessary for their production, and finally, of the labour-time that specific quantities of these products have on average cost him.



We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, but there's no guarantee of quantities adding-up, inventory-wise, on the whole -- just *saying* 'rewards-for-labor-[time]' doesn't necessarily mean that quantities produced will properly correspond to materials consumed, because quantities-produced is apples-and-oranges in comparison to quantities-consumed, since workers individually produce at different rates, over different items, than they consume-at.



viewtopic.php?p=15172107#p15172107



---


And:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, though, I'm not taking issue with people's own varying *work* abilities, and the varying individualized *compensation*, per individual, indexed to the overall average rate of socially-necessary productivity, per work role, per hour -- what I'm finding lacking, technically-speaking, is what the most fundamental, key-indexing factor / variable is to be. With all labor notes / labor vouchers / labor chit proposals, it's work-role time (hours), indexed to *other* work-role time (hours), and I'm saying that, technically, that's *problematic*, because people are still being incentivized *individually*, with labor notes, while there's an overarching socio-political political interest in collective *egalitarianism*, for all rates of productivity, to the common good, to be equivalent (per work role, per hour of work).

In other words the *politics* of collectivism is lacking and taking a hit if the post-capitalist political economy isn't taking per-hour varying *productivity* into account, which these conventional labor-notes-type proposals / frameworks *don't*.

To be stark, if I work at the factory for 8 hours doing socially necessary work that produces 1,000,000 widgets, while the next person does 8 hours of the same but only produces 800,000 widgets, and we both get the same compensation, of an 8-hours-note, this is *not* equal productivity to *the collective*.

There would be a macro-level (socio-political) *societal* interest in all 8-hour-notes being issued to workers for work done with the same *productivity* resulting. Why should one person be off by 200,000 units compared to someone else, for the same compensation *from* the social commons?



viewtopic.php?p=15171952#p15171952



---


So it should be apparent that I'm critical, from the left, of Marx's conventional 'labor vouchers' vehicle, for its lack of reconciling the individual with the collective.


Pies Must Line Up

Spoiler: show
Image



My position regarding a *post-capitalist* political economy is that *all* interchangeability / exchanges need to be done away with entirely ('rewards-for-labor'), so that there's not the slightest *hint* of commodification -- economically, politically, or otherwise.

I see the communist-type *gift economy* as being the best potential premise for a post-capitalist political economy, with 'controlled backsliding' to increased proportionate political (socio-political) power from increased numbers of necessarily-individually-earned 'labor credits' (my formulation) for uncoerced / freely-chosen greater individual liberated-labor work inputs, with a hazard / difficulty / distastefulness *multiplier*, per-hour, per work role, per individual liberated-laborer.

[EDIT: *Not* per individual liberated-laborer. Per work-role, per hour.]

Here's an overview sketch of the 'gift economy' concept:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



And here's a full treatment for the 'labor credits' vehicle:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
#15174892
Tainari88 wrote:For me, the most materialistic and immoral are the ones who claim to be Christians and judgmental and get into power positions for very questionable reasons.

Who are your examples? Jim Bakker? Jimmy Swagart? Or do you have other people in mind?

Tainari88 wrote:To serve the society at large and bring positive changes or to take advantage of their positions to enrich themselves and their associates?

That's human behavior, not Christianity. Lots of selfish people try to wrap themselves in some sort of piety whilst pursuing selfish ends. It would not surprise me in the least, for example, if the covid pandemic came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and some communist party officials skimmed money intended for biosafety to line their own pockets. The question is what are your mechanisms for preventing that sort of corruption?

Tainari88 wrote:Both major parties are basically sellouts BJ. To the neoliberal and neoconservative class. Liz Chaney, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, etc are all those kinds of politicians.

Yes. I'm very aware of that.

Tainari88 wrote:Hedonism? Licentious? A bit of a Protestant type of language you use. I come from a colorful and fun-loving celebration-ridden society that loves to dance, sing and have fun in the sun. A dower type of serious Protestant Calvinist culture would see us with disapproval. Being from that culture I can tell you we are emotionally healthy in terms of celebrating life and closeness. Very little about our culture is about secrets and feeling guilt for liking food, wine, and sex a lot.

The medieval Catholics were more of the "deny the pleasures of the flesh" sort. In Christianity, much of that comes from Augustine, not Christ. The Calvinist types thought work was a good thing, and even pushed back on absolutist usury laws--opening some of the foundations of modern capitalism.

Tainari88 wrote:Interpretation of what something is in a particular culture should be examined for bias and lack of truth.

And also for environmental factors, infection vectors, etc. If you want to survive a Northern winter, you need to preserve food and maintain a surplus for the leaner winter months. That's why Northern cultures have so many fermented foods. Cheese, salami, wine, sauerkraut, pickles, kimchi, and so on. If they have a presence of sexually transmitted disease, monogamy is preferred.

Tainari88 wrote:I am glad I am not the property of my father or my husband BJ. That would be very oppressive for me to accept.

Yes, but it is very common. That's why I think of America's efforts to modernize Afghanistan misses so much culturally. In only 100 years, the US has gone from a society where women didn't vote to one where the establishment is horrified by societies where women are not part of the political class.

Tainari88 wrote:If your entire social group is composed of strict Christians with strict moral codes against gay sex? And you are a gay teen trying to figure out how to keep your family and your social circles without being ridiculed, or mocked, or insulted? that entire teen period is dangerous. Too many suicides and such.

Yeah, but depression and homosexuality seem to go hand in hand, because as a homosexual you are different from other people. Homosexuals do not quite understand how heterosexual people feel, and heterosexual people do not quite understand how homosexuals feel. So I think that sense of alienation exists well outside of strict Christian morality.

Tainari88 wrote:You and I will have radically different attitudes and concepts about private property and it will be based on our concepts of what is the function of private property. That is a very interesting subject and maybe we can go at it one of these days? I am sticking to American Christian Nationalism. I think it a flawed way of governing.

I'm not trying to hijack your thread. I just think it's interesting that your sexual morality is libertarian--generally among the most capitalist types around.

Tainari88 wrote:Too many child molesters, child rapists in the RC church, the Protestant churches, and the general Christian church communities in the USA for them to be pointing themselves out as moral authorities on sexual matters to almost all the rest of society.

Well, there's more to that dynamic. Christianity teaches forgiveness, and it appeals to people who are "sinners" for among those reasons, such that they can hide their "sins" behind a mask of piety. Additionally, the Simony reforms weren't intended to deny a family life to priests, but rather to prevent heritable titles within the church--the son of the bishop becomes the next bishop and so forth. They were addressing some of their own problems with corruption.

Tainari88 wrote:At the same time if you have a bunch of women engaging with superficial sex with some men they don't even know the last name of? And find the whole ordeal of raising kids without proper child care in place, extended family in place, a decent paying job, and a partner who is bringing home a steady paycheck? It becomes complicated for them.

Yes, and that's why traditional morality existed/exists. Most liberal arguments against it begin with, "There's no logical reason that blah, blah, blah... " There is a reason. It's just that most people don't know the reason. Much of religion is well-worn if->then inferences without the rigor of the scientific method that have simply held up well over time. When you take away those moral "guardrails" if you will, you end up with huge social problems. This is one of the points that Charles Murray was making in Coming Apart--that the establishment continues to live their lives in traditional structures, but has lost the confidence to project those values on to society as a whole. So we end up with a further gap between rich and poor as the rich live the more conservative traditional morals even if they feign to be liberal, while the poor live lives of marginal morality and economics.

Tainari88 wrote:If you study chimps and gorillas in the wild females who are possible reproductive age ones? Tend to not have sex at all till the group is about composed of 25 members. Why? Safety. In the wild, you die fairly easily and you need other members of your group to raise the young ones if you fail to make it beyond a certain lifespan. Instinctually the primates who are females avoid sex till they have social support.

Ha ha! This is amusing. I'm guessing if I had said this, you would assume I was making a racial argument and then lecture me about the importance of equality. Now, we could flip that around and say that welfare, then, could create the conditions for licentious sexuality and breeding in poor family structures. This is among the issues that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was raising in the mid-1960s.

Tainari88 wrote:It should say something to you about the reasons why some women in society go for abortion.

Yes, but if you think this is instinctual in other primates, why not in humans? Are you going to jump back to humans as tabula rasa and other animals operating on pure instinct?

Tainari88 wrote:People who get more worried about losing their possessions rather than their lovers and relationships?

I'm speaking more to why a government might have a reason to interfere. Preventing bastardy also prevents many social problems that follow. By contrast, making "bastard" into a bad word and providing welfare to unwed mothers may create precisely the type of problems society avoided with traditional morality. More people had guns back then, but there were fewer mass shootings.

Tainari88 wrote:You can take risks safely with the backing of the state via cooperative worker units and earn your leadership in innovation skills via vote by the majority of your fellow colleagues recognizing you as a very innovative and creative and positive force in your field of expertise.

That sounds lovely in theory. In practice, if you don't have methods in place to address human behavior, you end up with problems. The solutions are often non-intuitive, or perhaps seem frustrating or cruel. You can change economic systems, but you are not going to change human behavior. For example, the SEG Plaza Tower in China is a fine example, as probably covid is too. Why have we mostly put such problems behind us in Western Europe and the United States? Banks, insurance companies, and regulators. Banks do not want to lend against a building that is going to collapse. Insurance companies do not want to ensure buildings that short-cut good building standards. Cooperative worker units and majorities are not a guarantee against greed, graft, or corruption.

Shenzhen’s Shaky Tower Is a Cautionary Tale

When a tower the size of the Empire State Building begins to sway, the tenants panic. Last week, that’s what happened in Shenzhen, China’s top technology hub. Video shows thousands of people sprinting and screaming out of the SEG Plaza, an iconic 20-year-old skyscraper. The sway returned on Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, Shenzhen Electronics Group Co., the owner of the building, closed it to tenants and visitors while inspectors sought to determine the cause.

In Shenzhen, it’s an overdue reckoning. For many years, local authorities turned their backs as entrepreneurs prioritized profits and speed over safety and quality. In one sense, it worked: Over four decades, the area grew from a string of underdeveloped rural towns to a major global tech hub. But as last week’s events demonstrated, it also meant that Shenzhen would be haunted by the accumulated risks for many years to come.

Think about the Great Fire of London or the Great Fire of Chicago. You haven't seen too much of that in 20th Century Western Europe or the United States outside the context of war. They learned from their lessons. China still hasn't. The United States and Western Europe do not prioritize profits and speed over safety when it comes to the construction of buildings, the manufacturing of automobiles, etc.

For years, Shenzhen’s contractors made cement with sea sand. It’s far cheaper than river sand, and for good reason: It corrodes the structural steel that holds up buildings.

Conservatism is preserving this sort of knowledge and experience over time to guard against the impulsiveness of human nature. It's not intended as a buzz kill. It's intended to prevent disasters and build generational wealth, health and well being.

Tainari88 wrote:I think the state should absorb the risk and also allow the entire group to commit to which plan to adopt and execute.

You mean like the housing bubble of the mid-2000s that led to the Tea Party as the government bailed out the banks? If the state is not responsive to the people, it may take totally unnecessary risks.
#15174921
[usermention=27034]@blackjack21[/usermention] you are indeed a very Relampaguito man with the quotes. I got to cook, clean and deal with stuff (including disposing of a dead iguana) etc and you go and write a bunch of stuff?

Then I got to dance for a while.....

[quote][highlight=yellow]That sounds lovely in theory. In practice, if you don't have methods in place to address human behavior, you end up with problems. The solutions are often non-intuitive, or perhaps seem frustrating or cruel. You can change economic systems, but you are not going to change human behavior. For example, the SEG Plaza Tower in China is a fine example, as probably covid is too. Why have we mostly put such problems behind us in Western Europe and the United States? Banks, insurance companies, and regulators. Banks do not want to lend against a building that is going to collapse. Insurance companies do not want to ensure buildings that short-cut good building standards. Cooperative worker units and majorities are not a guarantee against greed, graft, or corruption[/highlight].[/quote]

People with bad values exist in all human societies BJ. That is not new. How to cope with them? That is the problem. Many studies have been done on how to cope with corruption in a government system. The goal of zero corruption is kind of out of reach. What you can do is get the corruption down to a very low level. Where the general public can confide in a system to respond with some trustworthy behavior. Corruption again is about some part of criminal behavior too. Outside norms or rules. Again one can lower it substantially knowing what has worked in the past and in the present.

It is interesting having discussions with the Mexicans who are in a midterm political campaign here to discuss corruption in Mexican political parties. They got an election coming on June 6th and they are all out now in the final week. I ask them about the most corrupt parties and how they feel about corruption? I get an education on the suggestions on how to detect, control, and change corruption. It is indeed human. But there are many things one can do to make it very difficult to have corruption happening and not be able to follow the money trail. Lol. More than anything you need to have the will to end it and to hold people accountable. Letting corruption go unpunished is never the solution.

I tell you one thing BJ? The amount of people the state of Yucatan has vaccinated efficiently is very impressive. I was whisked through a huge convention center in the middle of the city and it was fast and well done and professional. The entire thing was impressive organizational ability. Other things in Mexican bureaucracy don't work well at all. Whoever was in charge of this mass vaccination campaign was doing well.

According to many Mexicans, the state of Yucatan is good at law enforcement, roads, tourism, medical, elderly care and education, sports complexes, and food distribution. They are good at small business too. They are incredibly oppressive at raising minimum wages. They repress brutally any hint of raising very low wages. So the reality of each society is a challenge and you have to struggle for improvement BJ. No one will hand it to you on a silver platter. Ever.

[quote][highlight=yellow]That's human behavior, not Christianity. Lots of selfish people try to wrap themselves in some sort of piety whilst pursuing selfish ends. It would not surprise me in the least, for example, if the covid pandemic came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and some communist party officials skimmed money intended for biosafety to line their own pockets. The question is what are your mechanisms for preventing that sort of corruption?
[/highlight]
[/quote]

According to other sources, they were partially funded by a USA research source or fund. The USA was in some kind of scheme with the virology lab. Corruption is rife in the USA as well Relampaguito. Sellouts in general are very problematic.

Iceland had a very corrupt PM or something. One of the most fascinating studies on what leads a government to be full of corrupt people is allowing again, MONEY, to be legally allowed into political campaigns. Or? For laws to change to accommodate exclusive elitist interests to the detriment of the public good. Again, good values are what political candidates should be about. Always. Capping salaries, terms, etc.


[quote][highlight=yellow]The medieval Catholics were more of the "deny the pleasures of the flesh" sort. In Christianity, much of that comes from Augustine, not Christ. The Calvinist types thought work was a good thing, and even pushed back on absolutist usury laws--opening some of the foundations of modern capitalism.[/highlight]
[/quote]

I think Calvinism is not the foundation of Latin culture at all. It is Rome. On that all Latin Americans agree. A more Roman Catholic nation than Spain? Would be hard to find on this Earth. But the Caribbean has a lot of cultures mixed together. West African and Indigenous and a lot more. Calvinism is not our foundation. Each culture has to follow a historical context that is adapting to its own past. That is just common sense. It is were national ethos develops. Again I am straying from the subject a bit. Mixing church and state is not a USA constitutional foundational principle. Something the fundamentalists and evangelicals from the USA tend to ignore.

[quote][highlight=yellow]And also for environmental factors, infection vectors, etc. If you want to survive a Northern winter, you need to preserve food and maintain a surplus for the leaner winter months. That's why Northern cultures have so many fermented foods. Cheese, salami, wine, sauerkraut, pickles, kimchi, and so on. If they have a presence of sexually transmitted disease, monogamy is preferred.[/highlight]
[/quote]

Fermentation is not a strictly Northern invention. Neither is monogamy. Lol. I think you would not like to get into a debate about food and the way it has influenced human civvies in the world BJ with me. I think you would lose those arguments eh? But you might enjoy it. Chinampa systems are complex. But many don't know how much of a complex system it is? Till you study them extensively.

There is a link between reliable and acceptably nutritious foods and the ability to create advanced civilizations. How that varies in human history is quite fascinating.

[quote][highlight=yellow]Yes, but it is very common. That's why I think of America's efforts to modernize Afghanistan misses so much culturally. In only 100 years, the US has gone from a society where women didn't vote to one where the establishment is horrified by societies where women are not part of the political class.[/highlight]
[/quote]

Relampaguito, it all has to do with conditions in society and how that struggle goes within a certain social and economic development model. And how good activists are in pushing a political agenda with a specific ask. The suffragette movements in the USA during Susan B. Anthony's time? It was about having control and a say in political life. Nothing again is conceded without a struggle. The Afghani women themselves have to decide to change things and they can seek support through other organizations that support women. In the end? The struggles of daily life and the conditions lived usually make change unavoidable. Life in all societies is never about remaining static. There is tradition but there is also evolution and change. Both ride history together and adapt to whatever is imperative and insistent for survival. No one really knows a society quite as well all its beauty and its sorrows quite as much as the people living that culture BJ.


[quote]I[highlight=yellow]'m not trying to hijack your thread. I just think it's interesting that your sexual morality is libertarian--generally among the most capitalist types around.[/highlight]
[/quote]

Lol. My sexual morality is about Tainari88's internal value system. I don't share it with all people. For me? I got to be deeply in love with a man to get into bed with him. He better be committed to me 100% and he better be willing to see me as an equal in rights to him? But I am not a man. I won't ever think like one. I don't want to be a man. I love being a woman. He won't be the same in biological composition or in mental composition. But he will recognize I am a human being and that both sexes are vital and important for humanity to continue into the foreseeable future. I also think being too individualistic with government or large groups of humans trying to accomplish very important social and economic goals is detrimental. Keep the damn ego under control. At all times. As a wife? Apologize when you make a mistake. Admit to the husband you failed. You made a damn mistake don't be prideful. Be human. Allow for vulnerability. And serve him as the wife. And give of yourself a lot. Serving and giving and working and doing for him and the family. Protect him with your life. Respect him fully as a man and as a human being. Respect his sense of dignity and his male dignity above all else. You don't need the bible or to be religious to know that is vital in an intimate relationship. Don't weaponize sex. EVER. It is a very beautiful thing and fragile and sweet and passionate and a great act full of emotional content. Give it a sacred space. And don't violate it with ugly words and things.

My sexual morality has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has to do with emotional intelligence. Something sadly lacking in a lot of people nowadays.

I got to go cook for my son.

[b]Sorry about the technical issue Blackjack. [/b]

You Blackjack21 wrote:
[b]Think about the Great Fire of London or the Great Fire of Chicago. You haven't seen too much of that in 20th Century Western Europe or the United States outside the context of war. They learned from their lessons. China still hasn't. The United States and Western Europe do not prioritize profits and speed over safety when it comes to the construction of buildings, the manufacturing of automobiles, etc.
[/b]

BJ, consumer safety for products like seat belts and other safety measures? Anti-Tobacco campaigns and so on? All about citizen activism and political organizing for furthering rights of consumers, workers, people You got Flint with the water crisis due to greed by polluting industry. The USA can't crow about greed not being a factor in shoddy products. All nations learn with mistakes committed and problems. Even China had to stop with the one-child policy in 2015. They realized it was draconian and awful and also in the end they wound up with too many males and not enough females. Their sexism is costing them a lot. All societies got to cope with their internal contradictions. That is normal.
#15174941
@blackjack21 wrote:
Yes, but if you think this is instinctual in other primates, why not in humans? Are you going to jump back to humans as tabula rasa and other animals operating on pure instinct?


Whoever thought I ever said humans were tabula rasa? You should know that linguistics as a field of anthropology has scrapped that as a viable scientific theory about human language and other aspects of cognitive abilities a long time ago. Why are you bringing in debunked theories and trying to say I said that as law or truth when I have never said that ever? Animals vary in behavior. The primates closest to us don't speak because they don't have a voice box to speak with and lack a certain mechanism that is present in the human brain that facilitates human language acquisition. My father was a linguist. I read most of his books on precisely that BJ. So why are you telling me things and saying I believe that at all?

Do you want to discuss the history of human grammar, language and so on? That is another topic. Humans rely on certain ways of adapting to their environments and learning. So do many sentient beings. Horses, dogs, cats, elephants, and many other species are learning animals. But instinct is embedded in them because it helps in their survival. Humans are instinctive too but they also have a part of their brain that can override instinct but it has to be taught. Humans are learning and acquiring new knowledge all the time. Our brains are fascinating.

The reason that humans are kind of unique from our mammalian ancestors is the female cycle. Estrus. In chimps, gorillas, etc. females only mate or allow sex during estrus. They don't engage in unproductive sex. This means that chimps with the exception of maybe bonobos a bit? Don't have gratuitous sex. Humans do. Humans also engage in sexual activity when there is no possibility of pregnancy. There are various explanations for this unique feature of human beings.

But you are straying from the subject again BJ. Mainly the cult of American Christian Nationalism. The definition of a cult is this according to this video from youtube?



There is a lot of controversy regarding cults. But for me? American Christian Nationalism is not being true to the core of the foundation that is based on the constitution in the history of the USA.

Religion is an interesting field. I studied many. It is a very very interesting subject as a way to understand a culture in human society.
#15175017
Tainari88 wrote:But you are straying from the subject again BJ. Mainly the cult of American Christian Nationalism.

I just don't see it the way you do. If you look at American history, many of the people who came were fleeing the Church of England for their own puritanical beliefs, Catholicism, and other sects.

Tainari88 wrote:But for me? American Christian Nationalism is not being true to the core of the foundation that is based on the constitution in the history of the USA.

How so? The first amendment is intended to preclude a Church of America. It's not meant to suppress free expression of religion. Think of the Civil War. The Union billed it as a religious crusade. I used to debate a now deceased translator from the Rome area, and put to her the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. She was horrified by it.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,[15]
While God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

That's the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Does that sound to you like perhaps a little religious extremism?

A lot of modern folks are horrified by the United States. This notion of "being true" to the constitution is kind of amusing, because people on the political left are not true to it at all. I mean seriously... "gay marriage"?
#15175020
This movement is about three things. God, Guns and Gays. These are the three things that the leaders of this republican party marketing unit are using in service of racism against people with dark skin. There is absolutely no doubt that Trump and his followers are racist. They freely admit it. There is no doubt that republicans see people with dark skin as existential threats to their power. They are a threat to republican power. The Republican Party admits it and openly engages in minority voter suppression.

There should be no debate here about whether this is happening. It is quite obvious that it is. It is abundantly clear that the Republican Party knows that it can use talk of God, Guns and Gays to rally white people to its flag. They are doing it openly and quite publicly.

The only real debate should be be to determine what the party's ultimate goals are. Of course they are serving the money stream which, for them, has traditionally come from big business interests. But this goes farther. Are foreign powers behind this? Of course.

Russia and China are served by the destruction of nominal democracy in the US. We have been the proof that their oligarchies (Russian) and one party totalitarian rule (China) are less than desirable. That is not necessarily true now. Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" died nationally with the election of Trump and at the state level long before that in a majority of states. Does the average republican politician understand this? Nope. And they have been taught to see just the opposite. Is it a masterful piece of espionage? Or are the despots of the world just sitting back and gleefully watching the only remaining check to their power join the club?

The Republican Party plan is a winning one. Consider:

There are protests against police which have become more general and less about brutality. There are protests and a great deal of attention being paid to women's issues of harassment in the marketplace. As far as I can tell there has not been a single major protest in favor of voting rights. Not one. A few protesters here and there. As soon as the mid terms there will be millions of democratic voters who will no longer vote because they either will not figure out the new rules or will find them inconvenient. Republicans will retake the house and senate in all likelihood. This will "bake in" the republican rule of the country for decades.

Will Trump come back? Probably not. He is too old. My guess is that it may be Paul Ryan next in line. That is why Trump is all over him right now. Trump will probably be taken down personally by his former business dealings. My guess is that New York will get him. But if they don't and Trump stays healthy, he will be the next president, will have the house and the senate and will not have to worry about reelection or impeachment. Imagine that.

The aforementioned is what I think will happen. It will happen while the democrats are eating their own. As one after another democratic power figure falls to its own party orthodoxy because he made a joke (ala Franken) or had sex with a drunk girlfriend fifty years ago, or did not hire female clerks, or hired too many female clerks, or owned a house on a street built on land that belonged to an extinct nomadic Native American tribe, the republicans will be quietly be saying, "come to my house white male, there is room in my tent for you. Come here white woman. We will protect your babies from marrying a black and your husband's job from Mexicans".

And it will work beautifully. Will democracy die in America? It died long ago. But if you relish the last vestiges of it then things will look the same. As long as you are white.

Christianity serves this movement because, like all religions, it sees itself as the source of moral compass. It does not see itself as the rule maker but rather the rule follower. It is, after all, possessed of a morally justifiable excuse for sexism, and homophobia. It is in the Bible, right? Women belong to their men and homosexuality is an abomination to God. It logically follows that God is mad at America and punishing us with plagues, loss of power in the world and an invasion of illegal migrants. Right? If we get back to 1950 He will save us from the liberals, communists and lawless blacks who want to destroy the country.

All that really remains is to see is which face this inevitable right wing power shift will put on. If it is Trump or his anointed (probably son) it will be very Mussolini like. Uniforms, guns and pageantry. If it is the Randian wing like Ryan it will just quietly disassemble the social safety net and let minorities and the elderly fend for themselves. They will likely need boomers for about three more presidential election cycles then they can just shut the door on Social Security and Medicare. But by that time the US will look more like 1950 but without the socialist "pay us back" WWII generation as a balance.

It is, at this point, inevitable. Whites will retake America under the Republican banner and I see no real opposition to it at this point, nor any motivation for the Republicans to try to build a bigger tent. And it will happen with a whimper and not a shout. And if it should start to falter because blacks and other minorities take to the streets? Guns.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

There is no logical way for everyone to know that […]

There are no safe zones in Gaza. Even the ones the[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]