Paradox for Conservatives

[PoliTalker]

Hello Micawber,

I’ll bite, how does an atheist believe in “natural rights.”

I don't think atheists would, (they don't believe in creation,) but they could certainly be logical enough to understand the concept that everyone should be treated equally. Socialism would attempt to do that. It is capitalism which seeks to pick winners and losers.

 

[Sailor]

So, you think living in America is a mistake.

I cannot wait to see this answer.......

 

[TTQ64]

Hello TTQ64,



Well the problem is: neither side is without fault.

Sure, I see more fault on the conservative side, but I'm liberal. So how much of the fault I see is real?

One thing is for certain. Some people only want to tell others off. If your beliefs place you into a stereotype of theirs, then all they want to do is tell you off. I don't see where anything is being accomplished by engaging with them.

If talking to some people only results in flames, there is not much point in addressing them. That would be like seeing a button on the wall with a little sign that says: "Press for flames," And pressing it repeatedly.

What the fuck is there to say to ignorant racist white?

Why should they be taken seriously?

Why would anyone want to compromise with them?

 

[sear]

"By voting for Trump, whatever upside they believe comes with that, nobody can take any argument made
from them rooted in good morality. They have ceded any claim whatsoever to being of high morals." Mc #72

Obviously.

Their political / legal actions are deeply offensive. Separating children from parents is despicable.

But it is deeply offensive to persons of principle like me for them to do so under the pretense of being the political party of moral superiority.
Claiming moral superiority is an automatic red flag.
Making the claim and being conspicuously dishonest and wrong about simply multiplies their offense.

Trump is unredeemable.

At this point it's a matter of damage control until we can get an adult to replace him.

 

[evince]

Hello Micawber,



No, it doesn't have to.

And if you make it that?

Still a bad deal compared to staying out of the fray.

The choices are:

a) Get immersed in the flaming, thus reducing yourself to the level of the trolls. You're flaming on them, but you're getting flamed back.

b) You're not getting flamed and you're not doing any flaming. Instead, you focus more on the subjects and the abstract.

But then staying out of it does require a rather unique quality, which is apparently illusive to flamers: The ability to simply not care about what is said about you, and refusing to comment on it, whatever it is. You have to assume some trolls will continue to rag on your comments even if you don't care to read them. At first, the curiosity is overwhelming. There is a temptation to peek. It should be avoided. Saying anything would be enabling the troll. If you read their comments you will think of things you want to say. But that needs to be avoided. Eventually, the urge wears off. And then you are free of being trolled. That's a tough transition. To go from being rather closely involved in a relationship, to no contact at all. It is a relationship, you know. The Enabler/Troll relationship. It takes two for those conversations. Otherwise the troll is reduced to trying to draw a response out of a party that everyone knows is not going to ever take the bait. When trolls find new enablers, they refocus their attention on easier marks.

You have to consider that people are going to talk about you. That's not unique to the internet. Your friends talk about you. And others do too. You're not going to stop that. It goes on anyway. All you can do is to try to conduct yourself in a manner which best results in the image you want out there. That way if anybody says something that doesn't sound like you? People who know you will know it is probably not true.

there are people who read and don't post



hello gentle reader



its for the sake of all who read these pages to see evil be kicked into the corner



ignoring the nazis didn't make them go away huh

 

[Flash]

I’ll bite, how does an atheist believe in “natural rights.” Just to tip my hand, that concept seems oxymoronic. Natural rights are a construct, imo. They are not material. I can agree that this concept exists and that it is salubrious for human beings, but they are inanimate ideas either agreed to, applied by force or otherwise applied.

Yes, it is too abstract a concept to apply in real situations. However, we can view it as "freedoms" rather than rights which humans possessed in a state of nature before government existed. They had absolute freedom of speech, religion, drug use, etc. This argument says humans chose to give up some of their freedoms in order to have a government that protected their lives and property.

A more realistic view is probably that they were subjected to the government that conquered their tribe.

 

[Truth Detector]

What the fuck is there to say to ignorant racist white?

Why should they be taken seriously?

Why would anyone want to compromise with them?

Lying whiny leftist race hustling asshole triggered.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello TTQ64,

What the fuck is there to say to ignorant racist white?

Nothing. And if you keep talking to me like that I'll have nothing more to say to you, either.

Why should they be taken seriously?

Racists should be properly placed on permanent Ignore.

Why would anyone want to compromise with them?

No compromise should be made. They should be ignored. If you enter into any discussion, it lends them legitimacy. Ignore them. Let them be marginalized from civil discourse.

 

[Flash]

What the fuck is there to say to ignorant racist white?

Why should they be taken seriously?

Why would anyone want to compromise with them?

What if you could have convinced enough white supremacists to change their vote to Hillary in 2016 to change the election results. Would that have been worth talking to them?

 

[TTQ64]

What if you could have convinced enough white supremacists to change their vote to Hillary in 2016 to change the election results. Would that have been worth talking to them?

I don't want racist in my party. Then we have to compromise with them.

Racist white men have been cheating the country out of votes for centuries, it's why they need the electoral college. They can't win without it.

So, until voting is one person, one vote, it will never be fair no matter how many "racist" you convince to vote democrat.

Besides, I will never try to convince a racist not to be racist, I just don't want them making laws or involved in government. They can be as racist as they want.

 

[TTQ64]

Hello TTQ64,



Nothing. And if you keep talking to me like that I'll have nothing more to say to you, either.



Racists should be properly placed on permanent Ignore.



No compromise should be made. They should be ignored. If you enter into any discussion, it lends them legitimacy. Ignore them. Let them be marginalized from civil discourse.

Like I care. ...honestly, you don't fool me.

 

[Flash]

I don't want racist in my party. Then we have to compromise with them.

Racist white men have been cheating the country out of votes for centuries, it's why they need the electoral college. They can't win without it.

So, until voting is one person, one vote, it will never be fair no matter how many "racist" you convince to democrat.

Besides, I will never try to convince a racist not to be racist, I just don't want them making laws or involved in government. They can be as racist as they want.

I have known groups of union guys all my life who are very racist who would not consider voting anything but Democratic. So, they are already in your party.

 

[PoliTalker]

Like I care. ...honestly, you don't fool me.

You do understand that when I place a poster on Ignore it is permanent, correct? I make that clear in my Signature. If I perceive that you have no respect for me my position is: I have no reason to ever read nor respond to anything you say.

Since permanent is irreversible I do like to make sure before I take that step.

I am completely sincere in my posts. If you think there is something I'm trying to fool you about, please do elaborate.

Perhaps this can be settled rather quickly.

I offer you all the respect in the world. All you have to do is agree to the same in return.

Do we have a meeting of the minds?

Or can you not resist telling me off.

People have meaning to me.

Trolls don't.

 

[Timshel]

Hello Micawber,



I don't think atheists would, (they don't believe in creation,) but they could certainly be logical enough to understand the concept that everyone should be treated equally. Socialism would attempt to do that. It is capitalism which seeks to pick winners and losers.

Plenty of atheists believe in natural rights.

 

[Timshel]

I’ll bite, how does an atheist believe in “natural rights.” Just to tip my hand, that concept seems oxymoronic. Natural rights are a construct, imo. They are not material. I can agree that this concept exists and that it is salubrious for human beings, but they are inanimate ideas either agreed to, applied by force or otherwise applied.

They are ideas, so?

You are arguing that atheists must reject moral principles which is wrong.

It is not necessary that they be "applied by force." Natural rights flourish as a result of prohibitions on the application of force.

 

[Micawber]

What if you could have convinced enough white supremacists to change their vote to Hillary in 2016 to change the election results. Would that have been worth talking to them?

The only way that would happen is if she went to fundraisers and Bill was wearing a klan hat.

 

[Micawber]

Yes, it is too abstract a concept to apply in real situations. However, we can view it as "freedoms" rather than rights which humans possessed in a state of nature before government existed. They had absolute freedom of speech, religion, drug use, etc. This argument says humans chose to give up some of their freedoms in order to have a government that protected their lives and property.

A more realistic view is probably that they were subjected to the government that conquered their tribe.

OK I'll sign on that there was in cave man days a then an existing state of nature with various attributes. I'll agree that rule of law, religious rules, customs and morays and traditions have augmented them.
I simply have seen religious and poltiically active people before online claiming this thing called "natural law" as a tool to claim to this or that behavioror prohibition of behavior as a right they enjoy when it contravenes Scotus opinions
on constitutional law. But pecking apart the construct of natural law it is masking a deity but performing its function as some meta law concept, yet it comes down to a person simply asserting an arbitrary behavior they want or don't want
is correct, without anything in reality to elevate it or support it.

You could say we all have a natural law right to be free. I could assert a natural law right to slaughter each first born son who was born on a wednesday of all farmers.
In the final analysis the only difference is that most people agree with you and not with me, not that you are provably right by reference to this invisible and indescribably
whatever that nobody has sufficiently identified.

Fair play, substantial justice, peace, prosperity, life, egality, truth.... these are bedrock as much as we can get by reason to broad inductive concepts. I don't see what "natural law" adds at all.
It' a religious persons end run to skirt the law, IMO

 

[MSgt]

I cannot wait to see this answer.......

He basically thinks that, even though he believes that the Declaration and Constitution are rubbish, he still wants to live here in hopes of one day dragging the country down into third-world status.

 

[Truth Detector]

He basically thinks that, even though he believes that the Declaration and Constitution are rubbish, he still wants to live here in hopes of one day dragging the country down into third-world status.

 

[Flash]

The only way that would happen is if she went to fundraisers and Bill was wearing a klan hat.

Or, if she went to Wisconsin. Or, if she would have given her immigration and gay marriage views from 2012.