At a fundamental level, what are the flaws in my ideological thinking? - 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 ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14899567
Oxymandias wrote:Do you consider a Christian shooting up a black church an act of terrorism?

Well, I assume that question considers the shooter to be white, since lots of blacks are Christians too. If the shooter is not tied to a larger group and isn't inspired by one, it could be treated as a so-called "lone wolf" terrorist attack. However, I tend to think that is somewhat pointless unless they are shouting some slogan or phrase that might appeal to a larger group. Otherwise, it's a more standard "hate crime," a notion I also disagree with.

Oxymandias wrote:Do you consider a Muslim punching a random person in the face an act of terrorism?

Same answer. Is it a random Muslim too, or someone with ties to Al Qaeda or Isis and trying to achieve a political objective?

Oxymandias wrote:What does American television have to do with this?

Terrorism itself makes little sense without mass media of some sort. I don't think it stops and starts at American television, but that is generally where people have gone to get their news in the recent past. That is changing dramatically now with the internet and smart phones.

Oxymandias wrote:I am talking about Omar Mateen specifically, not all Islamists and given the information we have of his personal life, His being gay is very feasible. A male friend of his from 2006, when the two were in police academy together, said that Mateen went to gay clubs with him and that Mateen once expressed an interest in dating him. Club-goers also recalled Mateen dancing with another man. One classmate, who asked not to be identified by name, said Mateen asked him if he was gay.

Furthermore Omar Mateen was reported to have been a regular at the aforementioned night-club where the tragedy happened. Sometimes Mateen drank in a corner by himself, other times he was loud and obnoxious. A witness, who recognized Mateen outside the club an hour before the shootings, told investigators that Mateen had been messaging him for about a year using a gay dating app called "Jack'd". He gave his phone to the FBI for analysis, along with his login details for the application. Another witness said that Mateen had tried to pick up men at the nightclub.

Perhaps. So wouldn't that ultimately mean that mikema63 is really not being honest with himself? What he really has to fear isn't Christians or Muslims per se, but rather other homosexuals who are not comfortable with their own nature? And what is the rationale for people like Mohammed Atta? Are extremely violent people really just repressed homosexuals in general?

Oxymandias wrote:Furthermore, his father was an Islamist himself, had very negative thoughts on gays and lesbians, and was described as a strict, abusive father.

Ironically, he was also a Hillary Clinton supporter just like mikema63. I recall the left going bananas saying Trump needed to deliberately and repeatedly distance himself from David Duke, but the same apparently did not apply to Hillary Clinton distancing herself from Mateen's father who was something of a fan of the Taliban. Since the right picked up on that, eventually Hillary Clinton did distance herself from Mateen while providing a similar argument to Donald Trump about not controlling who supports you.
#14899578
Muslims in Britain are raping our children on an industrial scale. It was estimated that there were perhaps a thousand victims in Telford alone, a city of less than two hundred thousand people. Since that report has come out though, there has been a flood of new victims coming forward so even that estimate may be too small.

Muslim terrorism is not just these knife, gun and van attacks where some Muslims are screaming Allhu Akbar. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The terror that the authorities can't hide. Muslims in Britain have been using terror to operate sex slavery on a huge scale. The police, the social services and local health services have not only looked on but actively done their best to cover it up. They have sought to destroy any individual within these institutions that has attempted to blow the whistle.

Even now none of this, none of this will be attributed to Muslims in the statistics. At best it will be put down to mostly Asian gangs. The Cultural Marxists and their "don't rock the Boat" collaborators will joyful incite racial bigotry, anything, absolutely anything to deflect the truth about the Muslims within our societies. Its got absolutely zero to do with them being Asian and absolutely every thing to do with them being Muslims or men from Muslim communities. How many people have killed in the West by Christian anti abortion activists since 9/11? They can probably be counted on the figures of one hand.
#14899649
@blackjack21

Well, I assume that question considers the shooter to be white, since lots of blacks are Christians too. If the shooter is not tied to a larger group and isn't inspired by one, it could be treated as a so-called "lone wolf" terrorist attack. However, I tend to think that is somewhat pointless unless they are shouting some slogan or phrase that might appeal to a larger group. Otherwise, it's a more standard "hate crime," a notion I also disagree with.


Same answer. Is it a random Muslim too, or someone with ties to Al Qaeda or Isis and trying to achieve a political objective?


What I mean is what would be your gut reaction. I want you to be disgustingly honest here. I am not here to judge you for your honest opinion.

Terrorism itself makes little sense without mass media of some sort. I don't think it stops and starts at American television, but that is generally where people have gone to get their news in the recent past. That is changing dramatically now with the internet and smart phones.


I meant in the context of our discussion.

Perhaps. So wouldn't that ultimately mean that mikema63 is really not being honest with himself? What he really has to fear isn't Christians or Muslims per se, but rather other homosexuals who are not comfortable with their own nature? And what is the rationale for people like Mohammed Atta? Are extremely violent people really just repressed homosexuals in general?


Like I said, I mean Omar Mateen specifically. You have to stop generalizing here because it doesn't work. Individuals turn out to have individual motivations. Mohammed Atta had a different motivation than Omar Mateen. Furthermore, Omar Mateen wasn't an Islamist. I don't even think he had any political objectives. He was, in a sense, fighting himself rather than "infidels" or any other entity. I would also like it if you left mikema63 alone on this one. This conversation has nothing to do with him. Also, no, not all violent people are repressed homosexuals. I am looking at things from an individual perspective while you simply categorize people with no regard to circumstance at all.

Ironically, he was also a Hillary Clinton supporter just like mikema63. I recall the left going bananas saying Trump needed to deliberately and repeatedly distance himself from David Duke, but the same apparently did not apply to Hillary Clinton distancing herself from Mateen's father who was something of a fan of the Taliban. Since the right picked up on that, eventually Hillary Clinton did distance herself from Mateen while providing a similar argument to Donald Trump about not controlling who supports you.


I do not care about the left, right, up, or down. I'm an Iranian. Your politics is completely irrelevant to me and, to be completely honest, it bores me. Such an uninteresting set of times we are living in indeed. To you this fight is the fight of a century, one that will decide the future of the world, but to me, one who is aware of how little the US actually matters, I find your position quite laughable.

@Rich

Muslims in Britain are raping our children on an industrial scale


:lol:
#14899657
Crantag wrote:I really don't know and the premise is rather pretentious, but that will somewhat lead into my main response. You strike me as an adherent to mainstream American 'Liberal Democrat' ideology, replete with all the smugness and self-righteousness which goes with that. The chief flaw is that this is a bourgeous ideology, which seeks to explain away the flaws of capitalism by way of righteous thoughts (though what is considered righteous by adherents revolves around Liberal-Democratic groupthink).

You probably think Democracy Now! is at the apex of what a 'good news program' is. Democracy Now! is not a bad program and I use to listen to it, but it isn't really all that its cracked up to be.

If anything in there offended you, that's fine and well, because you asked the question and one should never ask a question if they can not accept an honest opinion in return.

Granted, as I said, the premise was pretentious--that is expecting people to be able to answer the question precisely in the first place. And while I may have been reborn on the forum rather recently, I did read numerous of your posts on my previous stints.


I think the insult your looking for is a tad closer to self-obsessive or narcissistic. I'm not actually playing at any sort of pretense towards anything. Though taking time in your post to preemptively blame me for being offended was certainly amusing.

As for everyone else there were a few interesting thoughts scattered in here. I'll give them some thoughts. :)
#14899670
mikema63 wrote:I think the insult your looking for is a tad closer to self-obsessive or narcissistic. I'm not actually playing at any sort of pretense towards anything. Though taking time in your post to preemptively blame me for being offended was certainly amusing.

As for everyone else there were a few interesting thoughts scattered in here. I'll give them some thoughts. :)

Taking time out?

That's what's called a turn of thought.

Did you suppose I harped over how to phrase it for 15 minutes or something?
#14899731
Cartertonian wrote:That's the textbook definition of a closed-minded ideologue. A 'Black & White thinking', 'I'm right - you're wrong', polarised, adversarial mentality that blights political discourse.
Truth is not an ideology. One can claim that what ones believes is true, but we all know that in the end it is just a claim. Therefore that is the beauty of truth that it belongs to no one.

But truth in the end is right and wrong. If there was no right and wrong then nothing will exist. There is a right way to build a bride for example. Sure you can build a bridge in zigzags but that wont necessary be an efficient bridge, usually a straight path works best. And that is the truth.
#14899736
Albert wrote:Truth is not an ideology. One can claim that what ones believes is true, but we all know that in the end it is just a claim. Therefore that is the beauty of truth that it belongs to no one.

But truth in the end is right and wrong. If there was no right and wrong then nothing will exist. There is a right way to build a bride for example. Sure you can build a bridge in zigzags but that wont necessary be an efficient bridge, usually a straight path works best. And that is the truth.


How you build the bridge is determined by the terrain. There are many ‘right’ ways based upon the terrain you are in. If you only allow for two choices, straight or not straight, then you miss the beautiful scenery that a half straight bridge offers. Both straight and not straight can be the correct choice depending upon what you want the bridge to accomplish, speed or beauty.
Killing others is wrong except when it is right.
Edit: What would our interstate system look like if we did not use curved bridges?
#14902014
Saeko wrote:
How do you go about deciding whether or not something is a problem that needs fixing? What is it that makes a system, in your view, "ok"?

When the system fulfills the requirements of the majority of those it serves.

quetzalcoatl wrote:
Socialism (in a formal sense) has never resolved its central dichotomy, which is whether it will be a true democracy of the workers or a dictatorship of the proletariat. The conflict was historically resolved in favor of dictatorship (Kronstadt Rebellion). The justification for DoT is utilitarian (only a vanguard can protect socialism) and is time-limited - the dictatorship's mandate was not eternal.

The end-game of socialism was supposed to be (according to accepted plan) that True Socialism of worker control of the means of production would emerge and the state would wither away.

This was, IMO, a wrong turn for socialism (though perhaps a necessary wrong turn). Socialism as an ideal is still valid, if we focus on the idea of worker control of the means of production as an initial goal, not an eventual one.

These discussions on political ideology never reveal light at the end of the tunnel but are consistently imminent in vanishing up their individual excretionary orifices

B0ycey wrote:Is there a perfect ideology? At best the ideology you should support needs to be in your interest and something you believe in. Everything else is debatable. And if there is any flaws in your ideology it is because you support something you don't believe in. So only you could answer that question.

Did'nt the ancient Greeks sort all this social ideology out, dropping democracy as downright unworkable and adopting pretty well anything that suited the current social situation like tyranny, here a dose of dictatorship there, whoops rich bastards out of hand that's gotta be an oligarchy.

Reichstraten wrote:Why do you need a clear-cut political ideology to start off with? :roll:
So you know what your standpoint is in a given situation?
Free yourself from the bonds of ideology!

Why does chaos theory come to mind in response to that?
#14902127
Saeko wrote:So if 51% of people have their requirements fulfilled but the other 49% are being constantly tortured, then that system is working just fine in your view?

Yes, but who decided it should be 51%? Requiring a higher percentage to pass any law would reduce special interest control and the passing of fewer discriminatory laws. Fewer laws, not more laws, allow greater freedom.
In the absence of knowing ‘truth’, relying on consensus is the best of remaining evils. If we must live in hell, we should at least get to choose the type of hell we want to live in.
#14903246
Saeko wrote:So if 51% of people have their requirements fulfilled but the other 49% are being constantly tortured, then that system is working just fine in your view?


The exact percentages are not that important. Whether you're ruled by a dictator, a committee, or a representative government, it remains true that someone else (usually it's a bewildering number of someone elses) has the final say over important (and no-so-important) aspects of your life. I suspect this is tied into some pretty hardwired behaviors of the human animal, so anything you come up with is going to be a compromise. I don't believe in torture, but that may just be a prejudice on my part. Certainly liberal governments have had a limited success in controlling it, and often engage in it when it suits them.

Almost none of these people are going to die. […]

It's an odd thing for you to say considering the […]

Election 2020

I could post a bunch of articles from mainstream […]

Unity 2020

I suggested public mass demonstrations a few years[…]