Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

[parmalee]

You fancy yourself a master debater it seems? Close but no cigar.

??? So you're saying I'm almost a master debater? Thanks, I guess.

 

[(Q)]

That's because you agree with her viewpoint. What's new?

I don't know if it's that so much as it is the shock of you stating you are for "inequality of wealth" and "unaffordable housing" but are against "livable wages". I'm not sure I've seen that before if that is indeed your stance. Again, that would be a dynamite thread.

 

[parmalee]

Do I need to step in here? According to Seattle, I'm pretty much a master debater, apparently, so I can probably resolve this fairly efficiently.

 

[billvon]

What systemic improvements would you like to see?

Well, so far the topics listed as part of "the system" (i.e. society) have included the government, our system of laws, corporations, religious and social organizations. So I will pick one - religion.

Most religions today concentrate on setting up a codified set of behaviors that one must practice to get a religious benefit, like admission to the "good" afterlife or appointment to a position of power (i.e. a church elder.) The underlying assumption is that there is a scorekeeper (a god or spiritual being who makes decisions) who judges you based on adherence to those laws.

I would hope that in the future those conditions change into behaviors that benefit humanity as a whole. To their credit, some religions already do promote/emphasize this; one of the charities I contribute to, for example, is the Catholic Medical Mission Board, a charity that delivers medical care to underserved third world women and children. But all too often, people prioritize things like "going to church" over spending the same time doing some kind of public service, with the idea that going to church regularly is one of the things you will be judged on.

Now, there is certainly value in community, and church services promote that community. But changing the focus for religious events from "gathering and listening to a service" to "gathering and performing service" would, I think, achieve both goals.

And of course there are still churches that exist almost purely as moneymaking operations, that take people's money and provide them only with flashy TV programming. These are the worst part of religion and I hope they die out.

 

[billvon]

I don't know if it's that so much as it is the shock of you stating you are for "inequality of wealth" and "unaffordable housing" but are against "livable wages". I'm not sure I've seen that before if that is indeed your stance. Again, that would be a dynamite thread.

Not to defend him (he can speak for himself) but it is possible to simply not care about inequality of wealth; to think that it is neither a benefit for society nor a problem to be solved.

Personally if EVERYONE is getting richer AND wealth inequality keeps increasing, I think that is both good and bad. Good because everyone's quality of life is less limited by poverty - bad because in such a society the rich exert a tighter and tighter grip on society, and the poor lose what little power they have.

Unfortunately in the case of the US the poor (specifically the lowest 20% of income earners) are not increasing in wealth over time, so there's not much in the way of the above benefit.

 

[parmalee]

I would hope that in the future those conditions change into behaviors that benefit humanity as a whole. To their credit, some religions already do promote/emphasize this; one of the charities I contribute to, for example, is the Catholic Medical Mission Board, a charity that delivers medical care to underserved third world women and children. But all too often, people prioritize things like "going to church" over spending the same time doing some kind of public service, with the idea that going to church regularly is one of the things you will be judged on.

I would say that in much of Central and South America, and parts of Africa, as well, the Catholic church is largely a force for good--not entirely without problems, of course, but that goes for everything. That said, their forms of Catholicism differ considerably from that of the Vatican.

 

[exchemist]

I would say that in much of Central and South America, and parts of Africa, as well, the Catholic church is largely a force for good--not entirely without problems, of course, but that goes for everything. That said, their forms of Catholicism differ considerably from that of the Vatican.

With Francis as pope? It seems to me he has brought some good ideas over from Argentina.

It seems to me some of the worst expressions of Catholicism are to be found, not in the Vatican but in the United States (I was pretty appalled by what I found in Houston, at least. There is an obnoxious organisation called the Catholic League, led by a ghastly man called Donoghue, whose leaflets I came across.) Though there are also pockets of reactionary far right Catholicism to be found in Western Europe too, in France and in Italy.

 

[C C]

[...] Where is the "systemic racism"? [...]

There is systemic racism (and structural oppression of various population groups in general) because humanities scholars say so. And the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc) are the nexus or entry port where the former literature and its evolving conceptions of morality and concerns influences scientists. Where the latter acquire their presuppositions that guide the manner of setting up studies and their interpretations of data in that regard. One product example (paper by two psychologists and a sociologist): Systemic racism: individuals and interactions, institutions and society

Since it is an academic echo chamber, you'll rarely find any significant critical evaluation of those thought orientations and hypotheses -- and a genealogy of their historical origins -- in the humanities and soft science disciplines themselves. Only aging old-school liberals and outsiders do that. But the outsiders accordingly contaminate their examinations with their own political biases and subcultural pet theories: Turning Higher Education and America From Racism
_

 

[Seattle]

Well, so far the topics listed as part of "the system" (i.e. society) have included the government, our system of laws, corporations, religious and social organizations. So I will pick one - religion.

Most religions today concentrate on setting up a codified set of behaviors that one must practice to get a religious benefit, like admission to the "good" afterlife or appointment to a position of power (i.e. a church elder.) The underlying assumption is that there is a scorekeeper (a god or spiritual being who makes decisions) who judges you based on adherence to those laws.

I would hope that in the future those conditions change into behaviors that benefit humanity as a whole. To their credit, some religions already do promote/emphasize this; one of the charities I contribute to, for example, is the Catholic Medical Mission Board, a charity that delivers medical care to underserved third world women and children. But all too often, people prioritize things like "going to church" over spending the same time doing some kind of public service, with the idea that going to church regularly is one of the things you will be judged on.

Now, there is certainly value in community, and church services promote that community. But changing the focus for religious events from "gathering and listening to a service" to "gathering and performing service" would, I think, achieve both goals.

And of course there are still churches that exist almost purely as moneymaking operations, that take people's money and provide them only with flashy TV programming. These are the worst part of religion and I hope they die out.

So you would like to see the laws changed to control what churches do? I agree that the tax laws are too lenient toward churches but I'm not sure churches can otherwise be legislated to meet with your preferences. Do you disagree or think otherwise?

 

[Seattle]

Fallacy. Dishonest.

But, sure, just to entertain you: If that was how things went, you might have a point.

It's such wild exaggeration and arrogance to believe that a handful of antisocials at a backwater website somehow constitutes "everyone".

Also, on the point of people being incapable of understanding something, I can only go by what they tell me↑.



But you don't really read my posts. I mean, duh.



Nazis in particular, fascists in general, Christian nationalists; rightism is diverse.

Here is a basic proposition: Right-wingers should be obliged to provide rational support for their arguments the same as, say, theists. Historically, at Sciforums, this was frowned upon for the risk of suppressing political views. Conservatives and rightists have never been expected to support their arguments.

That period, between ten and fifteen years, at least, has shaped discourse at Sciforums. Like you, for instance, just making shit up as you go.

That last statement is dishonest and a fallacy. There are legitimate viewpoints to the left of your own crackpottery.

When I said "everyone" I was referring to everyone here, obviously.

 

[billvon]

So you would like to see the laws changed to control what churches do?

No, not really. I would like to see those changes, but it is not the government's role to make that happen.

I do think that unless 100% of their efforts are towards charity, they should not be tax exempt.

 

[Seattle]

No, not really. I would like to see those changes, but it is not the government's role to make that happen.

I do think that unless 100% of their efforts are towards charity, they should not be tax exempt.

I agree although this isn't systemic racism is it?

 

[Tiassa]

Not to defend him (he can speak for himself) but it is possible to simply not care about inequality of wealth; to think that it is neither a benefit for society nor a problem to be solved.

To start halfway on that, Bill: Okay, sure.

Here's the part that still stands out: What does that actually mean?

Thus, it is easy to accept that for this or that person, inequality of wealth is simply not a concern. However, the pretense that "it is neither a benefit for society nor a problem to be solved" would seem to overlook function.

Consider our neighbor's take on ineffective government and freedom↗; he has a lot to say about homeless people, for instance.

But the thing about the suggested take on wealth inequality is that it creates more homeless people; that is, the perspective you suggest on his behalf would be one that exacerbates circumstances he complains about.

And that's not to say you're wrong; rather, your assessment, while reasonable in its context, actually describes a problem. And that question stands out. Not about just our neighbor; inasmuch as you describe something that might be happening, it would be more widespread than just our neighbor.

Nor is what you suggest really so different from Reaganomics and the Boomer ethic. Modern iterations, advocated by people like our neighbor, tend to be a little sharper and more dependent on superstition than the con jobs of the past, but yes, if what you suggest is actually the problem, it's more widespread than any one person, and thus emerges a reasonable diagnosis for what's wrong with American conservatism.

It won't be the whole of the problem, but if anyone ever wondered how the Christianists joined up with the capitalists, it's kind of like I said earlier this week↑: In the end, Horatio Alger trumped Jesus Christ, and many who voted for things to be that way then complained about the result.

So, yeah, I get you on this one, but look at what it describes.

 

[billvon]

I agree although this isn't systemic racism is it?

Not sure what tax status of religions has to do with race.

 

[Seattle]

Not sure what tax status of religions has to do with race.

Nothing. You brought it up and I agreed with it. My comments about systemic racism were the initial topic however and what others were responding to.

 

[James R]

Trek:

Do you believe that George Floyd was murdered, and the Officer Derek Chauvin was rightly convicted and sent to jail??

Obviously, I wasn't on the jury (or was it just a judge) who heard all the evidence in that case.

Did Derek Chauvin appeal the verdict? If not, then it seems reasonable to assume either (a) he does not dispute the outcome or (b) he judges that an appeal will be unlikely to succeed.

Are you across all the details of the case? Do you agree with the verdict? If not, why not?

Do you believe America is systemically racist?

I'm not sure. What do you mean by "systematically", in this context?

Are there laws in place in America that discriminate against certain races explicitly? I'm not aware of any, but perhaps there are? Do you know of any?

Or are you talking more about the practical outcomes of certain "systems", whose effect might be to create or maintain racial inequalities?

You'll probably need to be more specific about what you want to discuss. A discussion for a separate thread, probably, because this is moving quite far away from the topic of how you all got the President you deserve.

Do you think Donald Trump is a racist?

Yes, I do.

Does that worry you?

 

[Pinball1970]

??? Which one is which?

What I have picked up from reading the snippets.
Seattle is a one man band defending his rights to support a Trump approach to the Economy rather than a Biden approach.
I don't think at any point he has said he supports him as a man/human or President particularly.
Certainly not in a MAGA way.
It is not easy to support a position that everyone else is very hostile towards and this is a very long thread.

 

[Pinball1970]

Now, there is certainly value in community, and church services promote that community. But changing the focus for religious events from "gathering and listening to a service" to "gathering and performing service" would, I think, achieve both goals.

Agree, and I have said as much on another thread. Most people walked home from mass when I was a kid wondering why George was looking so thin recently, not the significance of the trinity.

Humanism attempts to do this to an extent but overall we suck at it, in my area at least. That's another thread/topic so I'll leave it there.

 

[Pinball1970]

Are you unable to grasp the idea that, historically, we have abused and suppressed religious posters much more than we have similarly crackpot supremacists and rightists?

Historically? Sure why not. Historically I was also on the internet just not on here and there was a lot of hostility. You understand things can change? Things DO change? Things HAVE changed?
That Zeitgeist is reflected in discussion forums, twenty years ago we would have still been discussing 911, Islamic terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan and Trump was just another billionaire business man. The commentators were Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins and Harris, Bill Maher and Bill O' Reilly in the red corner. We are coming up to the 2006 Dover Trial anniversary and also God is not Great and the God Delusion, controversial!

Two deaths and one CVA later, those guys are quieter/silent and people find other things to get mad at and perhaps religion does not poison absolutely everything.

 

[Pinball1970]

Pathetic; look at you: Take it back! Take it back!

No.

I was merely asking you to take back your troll comment. Reasonable I think.
You have chosen not to. Noted.

It's one thing to tilt windmills, but—important hint here—the ones made of straw that are so conveniently right in front of you are, more often than not, of your own construction.

If I am the only one who is totally ironyed out by that statement, I will be very surprised.