Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:50 am
You come from the 'postive think' side of thinking which your label, "Immanuel KAN" and your right-wing demeanor implies.
Oh ho. You got that 100% wrong. I can see you don't know what "Immanuel" means. The name is a pun on Kant, obviously; but it has zero to do with "positive think." I'm nowhere near that trivial.
So ARE you a supporter of the "positive thinking" movements, most commonly associated to business training seminars and network marketing schemes? I have to ask given you didn't deny this as though my ONLY concern relates to the label you selected.
And while you're at it, tell me your intended meaning of it that you didn't provide but just asserted was a 'pun'. I already assumed it is a 'pun' on the name and gave my interpretation. So if I'm wrong, what IS your meaning.
If it helps, I only notice right-wingers favoring things like rhetoric for the sake of appeal REGARDLESS of any 'truth'. The QAnon issue is an example of the extreme but the lying is still at least presumed 'normal' for conservatives when lying on ads as though it is okay to attempt to appeal to others using tricks and expecting that society has to have the burden to screen through which things are true and not.
...
...the "anti-socialist" haters...
That's funny. It's like the phrase, "anti-Fascist haters," or "anti-Inquisition haters." One can't help but take it as a compliment, given what the system in question has been associated with in past.
No, I don't "hate" Socialists. But this much I'll grant you: I know what Socialism has done, and so I know that anybody who loves mankind does not love Socialism.
The reverse is the case. The intent of the 'socialist' is to extend compassion to legislating laws that serve PEOPLE. The right-wing ideals only support the 'leaders' based most preferentially on 'ownership' privilege. The 'Democratic' party is labeled to indicate the priority to treat each person's power as EQUAL. Now I know that the GROUPs that fund the party will still favor religious extremism but differs ONLY in that the groups are NOT of one kind. On the right, the predominance there is representative of those extreme religions that favor a smaller subset of people, such as 'White Fundamentalist Christians' or "Israeli Nationalism" (a National Socialist system, to point out what you write below.) That the consolidation of the GROUPS based on religios thinking is no less dangerous than the ISIS terrorists who think the same way but believe their own religion and people are absolutely correct.
That is, the right-wing ideal FAVORS religion IN PRINCIPLE for the same reason that they do lying, as though life is a game about how well you can trick people into losing for your profit.
You support an anti-democratic position when you presume a 'right' to impose upon others for merely having power over them through things like wealth or religious authority.
Wrong again, Scott. I've advocated for neither. I'm quite sure you've missed the mark on that one. Again, you're trying to fit me into a suit you've built for me, based on some idea you've got in your head, there. I'm neither an advocate of of wealth nor of religious authority.
What strange ideas you get!
I sense that YOU are not that extreme but you falsely interpret the left as though they are the very 'conspiratorial' evil doers IN PRINCIPLE. [The 'in principle' here means that the foundation of the system's intent, not the actual financial supporters of groups using the left as a mere TOOL for their own right-wing agendas.
An example of today's extreme agendas on the left might be like the "Matriarchal" groups founded on an extreme interpretation of feminism. Another might be to the 'moderate' religious of all the major classes. As such, many Catholics, for instance, would favor the left for how most have become less extreme than their prior power during things like the Inquistion, the nature of the Pope's of these modern times adapting to CHANGE (ie 'progress') by accepting things like evolution or gay rights (very recent).
...a belief that "ownership" is intrinsic to nature beyond what one requires for existing.
Again, you'll have to show me where I said this. To my knowledge, I never did. But I do believe in property rights, which I believe in for the same reason John Locke did -- namely, their connection to freedom of conscience.
"Conscience" is a belief about 'morals' that is an invented term extending the non-religious "conscious" states of mind. That is, it is 'dualistic' and imposes a 'right' to people who already do not NEED permission to believe. They need a right to express their thoughts, not merely have 'freedom' to
think.
The point about asserting the right as 'anti-democratic' is that about the concept of 'republicanism', which believes intrinsically in the virtue of an isolated set of authority figures who do the voting, .....like the electorial college that was thought to be a check on the capacity for irrational crowd mentalities. One of the very issues that gave rise to the downfall of the Soviet Union relates to how the 'soviets' (groups based upon one's authority and occupation): those groups who represent unions of people demanding CONSERVATION of their industries even where the output of those systems no longer have validity. [Example, if a group of employees running a carriage company for horses might demand that they maintain a right to exist even where the products lack any actual consumers. This is THE issue of the left that contributes to stalling, especially when or where such societies already happen to come from poverty and then are further isolated by other countries that prevent them from competition. ...something that is at fault of those like yourself who might agree to placing trade embargoes on Socialist countries.
The right-wing side derived from those favoring the Royalty and Churches leaders as 'authoritative' regardless of their intellectual qualifications. They are 'anti-democratic' thus, by implying that some people are born with relative 'superiority' over others. And if this standard is
wealth, this certainly BEGS intelligence unless you qualify those who intentionally use manipulating 'sales' tactics as 'superior' intellects for succeeding!?
Did 'evil' not exist prior to th 1800s when "socialism" wasn't an official expression?
Of course it did. The impulses that Socialism makes worse and gives greater license are very old...as old as the human race. But Socialism gave evil a new lease and credibility it had never had before. What's ironic is that Socialism takes a "good" and "compassionate" line of argument, but uses it to debase the value of individual humans. It makes their value defined by their utility to the collective, instead of it being intrinsic to their existence as human beings.
That is why Socialist regimes kill so many people -- because the State and collective completely supersede and replace the value of the individual. So individuals can be rounded up, beaten down, sent to gulags, or shot into a ditch...because the collective "needs" it done.
But the evil that makes men kill each other? No, that came long before Socialism. Socialism just dressed it up in the language of "the common good."
Your right. But the alternative to this is WORSE. Contrary to your classification scheme, for instance, National Socialism is NOT a 'Socialist' government that treats the 'demos' as their authority. Rather, they believe that some race and particular set of beliefs are APPROPRIATELY 'social' and that, where used to AIDE people, it ONLY aides those of the particular Nationality first and foremost.
The White Supremacists are an example. They are not on the left and are Neo-national Socialists. Why are these groups found only on the right? And then how can you presume them as "socialist" by the standards of universal appeal?
I already AM a big critic of those on the left where I am involved. I had to back out of supporting the NDP here in Canada, a 'socialist' but non-communist, precisely for supporting 'culture' laws that discriminate by TRADING which people get to have the 'equal rights to abuse'! I still have no alternative choice because the 'right' here would condemn me as 'evil' for simply NOT being religious.
If you are presume the poor person is evil for asking for handouts...
That was nothing I ever said.
Then maybe you need to check out whether you actually 'fit' in with the actual policies of the 'right'. You appear to be more of a mixed centralist, a libertarian perhaps? But the concept of 'conservativism' is founded on the tenet that there should be a 'right' to make laws pertaining to particular religious ideology, to remove 'social services', like health care, welfare, human-rights branches of government, regulatory bodies, etc. What else do you presume 'socialism' to apply that you don't like? [You can't use non-representative abusers of the left where the principle intents are NOT defining. The Conservative favors a subset of people who 'own' debt of others and who believe intrisically in those 'exploits' I keep mentioning, such as seeking to pay the least of someone's labor to gain the most of other PEOPLE. We aren't talking cattle here. Yet people are considered 'commodities' to or 'consumers'.
You expect non-regulatory systems, for instance, correct? If you don't believe in these things, I think you need to redress what those on the left who share similar views to yours believe.
If you assume all (or even 'most') of these wealthy people 'earned' their way from poverty, prove it...
I don't. Some did, some didn't. I make a distinction, and treat people who have money as individuals. With those who are decent people, or who have earned what they have, I have no problem; but I have just as much objection as you do to those who are not decent or got their gains by ill means. What I don't do, that you seem to want to do, is treat them as a "class," as a group that's all the same. They, too, deserve to be recognized individually, according to who they really are, not according to a cliche or stereotype of the evil wealthy.
But what you don't realize is that YOU are the wealthy.
Yes, that's right: relative to most of the world, you are a rich man, Scott. You own a computer, your own clothes, maybe a residence and maybe a car. You have health care, disposable income, enough food every day...Looked at that way, the global community has a Socialist claim
against you, Scott -- namely, that you ARE a member of the wealthy class. Most of the world does not have what you have. Be careful what you wish for; because what you have is forfeit if globalism and Socialism ever join up.
I've always lived by comparing myself to others less fortunate. The only actual reason I have things like a computer and the internet is due to my accepting things that most would normally not endure. For instance, I don't date, am not nor ever was married, never owned a car (nor could afford to if I wanted to) and learned to adapt to isolation that permits me to control my variables better than others under similar conditions.
Am am 'rich' if you interpret that I have a 'library' perhaps? But that again is due to what I could not afford to do competitively. Those books are also relatively cheap to most who would only prefer to see them as 'decorations'. I am 'rich' if I consider my own invested interest in intellectual pursuits and collecting talents, like playing guitar, for instance. I am 'rich' if I consider the kind of
Forest-Gump experiences I've had.
But here is where I am not so 'rich': I won the lottery once but was technically too young (by a mere few months), was dependent upon the relatives who stole my ticket and had to keep it to myself not knowing that other people would believe me given I lacked supports.
I am not 'rich' in that I was forced even living with the same relatives who stole the ticket to go to social services for support while attempting to finish highschool (not to mention that one of them ended up 'volunteering' for the same social services I struggled hard to get.
I am not 'rich' in that others whom I had to associate with being poor who presumed I
should not have had difficulties but must not have tried hard enough. The conservatives whom I had almost no choice to get entry-level jobs from, have always utilized my enthusiasm to benefit from by taking credit for what I may have done and have paid me based upon how desperate my situation was. Thus I was discriminated from all sides,...bad family, ...bad friends, ....bad employers. And I assure you that the 'left' did no better for how they 'conserved' things like Union jobs for insiders with priority. And where I HAD to work in positions that union workers of some establishment wouldn't DARE do for whatever reasons, I was scolded if I dared to look at their employment boards in the lunch rooms.
The lack of things that many take for granted, like allowances, for instance, were non-existent for me and my siblings. We were all adopted to parents who thought we were pets that should have absolute respect for them, experienced corporal punishments that were already presumed dead even in the seventies.
I assure you that I am not deluded into thinking that the 'left' is somehow the most ideal system. And I can't mention much more than these but to state that I have a sibling that lives in a tent city to this day (if she is even still alive.) Supporting those on the 'right' are tantamount to suggesting that I shouldn't have even
had what sources/resources of 'socialist' concepts I had to fight for to survive. Even the workers employed by governments wanting to curb the costs there, were 'conservatives' of some sort for the most part, whether they be of a system that is 'socialist' in concept. You would not, for instance, find someone in power of those 'social services' available as coming FROM those communities. To the conservative, they'd just prefer to scrap all social services and let the increased demand for jobs force the poor to have to accept the conditions of virtual slavery.
I'm only asserting these things here in respect that I do NOT believe you are an 'evil' person but rather you are naive to the relaties. Yet I STILL look at my conditions throughout as always being 'better' than someone else's as though I
should if only to give me relative hope. But I still didn't give up. I had to endure living with people I did not want to, I had to endure the biases that even the middle-class average people took for granted as though EVERYONE received the same benefits. I would bet that if you took a stat on the successful people have as a minimum is family supports (that not even social govenments can guarantee), a car by the time you are 20 (even if it was a beater), and an ability to work while still at home and be able to have the freedom to spend it without being expected to contribute to the household. It was defeating when you work as a 13 year old making money only to have it taken from you by my 'authorities' who were virutally EVERYONE. No automy nor compassion existed simply based on the stereotype that "white people are privileged" by all sides except for those who were far removed from being able to do anything regardless.
The nature of the seemingly trivial things, like having enough food for lunch when going to school, or to how those presuming that your failure are always your own and who then turn around to exploit THAT to their benefit. The "get-a-jobbers" of the general population turns the tables on who the real 'owners' of the businesses you apply to work ARE. And if you burn out and cannot keep trying, you then get accused of being 'negative' and advised with the same doled out, "you haven't tried hard enough because you aren't (now) still knocking on doors" as though anything officiated as a 'job' suffices.
Had some of the social services existed back then that now exists, like the 'child advocates', I and my siblings could have had supports that prevented parental abuses. Even now these are still limited. And the only advocacy tend to be of those very GROUPS who support extremes of some sort or other, like how the laws in my country favor giving tax-free status to other fellow strugglers in my own poverty class based solely on a genetic association without noticing that the GROUP's classification scheme should have been "Impoverished" , not merely the
socially defined "cultural" class of some relative 'majority' OF the poor.
It doesn't matter that the social services had not always been there in ways that favored me nor that they served others for being defined on racially discriminating grounds. The fact that the 'left' favors social services at all makes them a relatively appealing system in contrast to the right who would have both shamed me when young for not having decent clothes, no car, or no credible history of employment worthy of respect. That I still notice successes as relating to family is itself MORE supported on the left than the right. So I'm forced to vote for the parties that LEAST harm me or others that I now have sufficient compassion to recognize.
I've never had drug problems, though I've been surrounded by those who have. (I only started pot recently for it being legalized and not something that I'd use for 'socializing') I've been fortunate in my own redressing that, "it could be worse" mentality that you just presumed that I lacked respecting. I DO. And the very fact that I'm risking what I am saying here publicly just to appeal to your sense of compassion about the left versue the right
should in response to what you just said, make me think again, "it could have been worse". My parents were 'conservative' minded and the one that still exists has at least two homes in gated communities both here in Canada and in the U.S., are very well respected, and all on the basis of being able to hide his head in the sand as soon as me and my siblings reached the official 'legal' age of 18.
Even my natural family turned out to be 'conservative' to the extreme. Yet how? My natural mother had four kids she adopted out and kept only two. And she based her choice to adopt out on the religious absurdity of feeling that they'd be penalized in an afterlife if they aborted us instead, something that I think, contrary to my own existence, would have been appropriate.
I'm going to stop on this. I have more I could say about OTHERS, but cannot. I think you get the point. The 'left', as problematic as it is, is faulted for the same identical problems that exist on the right IN PRINCIPLE: a belief that it is a 'good' thing to profit upon others' losses. They got ahead for what responsibilities they were able to pass onto society as a whole. And if those protections aren't there, you SUPPORT a rise in things like Communism on one end and National Socialism at the other. The reason for the uprising of groups like "Black Lives Matter", that represent a form of 'supremacy' by some, wouldn't exist if the right had NOT exploited benefiting from the losses of others.
You DECLARE that Socialism has 'evils' but only have the same old general classes of evidence: The Soviet Union's 'purging' (something that isn't even documented sufficiently enough by contrast to the right-winged Hitler of the same period).
Hitler was Left wing too: "national Socialist," remember? NAZI. Here ya go:
https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek- ... ocialists/ But actually, we can skip Russia, if Russia offends you. Let's use China, or Romania, or Albania, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cambodia...You see, Scott, Socialism has NEVER worked. It's NEVER not killed a whole bunch of people, and it's NEVER not ruined economies.
So why does anyone still plump for it? Only because they don't know Socialism's own deeds. They prefer to imagine that they could manage to avoid all the human rights and economics disasters that plagued every singe Socialist regime before them. But what makes them so specially wise and virtuous? Did not the Soviets or the Maoists start with their heads full of collectivist ideals? And what became of all those ideals? Gulags. Re-education camps. Purges. Secret police. Pogroms. Genocides. Misery, poverty and social collapse.
This is PURE rhetoric and crap. My family growing up, when actually relatively functional, worked for NATO. You know one of those 'Forest Gump' moments for us was to have a day at the White House during Christmas in the Carter Administration. You speak here of an extremely naive stereotype that gets put out by the right, like the QAnon conspirators. The Soviets' problem was that they STARTED out as due to real impoverished conditions during and after WWI. The same in an opposite way that granted Germany their National Socialism, also suggests that the litral stresses of wide spread suffering is what causes these issues.
But we have more evidence of the Nazi exterminations than we do of any of what you are asserting that has existed as rumours even before the U.S.S.R. dissolution. But take China in contrast. They've managed to survive, are and will be the dominant new economic power. They survived and while there are 'abuses' that only those of the arrogant 'religious' communities suffer, we still have far more abuses here in our Western systems that supercede the worst of the worst in those socialist countries.
I'm not FOR 'socialist' flaws. But that 'side' of the political spectra reflects compassion that I know would have assured me dead long ago. And I might have gambled into trying those extremes that lead to the degradation in ghettos, like criminal gangs, prostitution, and drug abuse. Thus, had those 'socialist' things as relatively trivial they were for me, still had 100% more power to enable me to succeed to where I am now, as humble as it may be, than to have suffered either for starving, for exposure, or to the conditions of slavery that the right-wing ideals of capitalism has always profited most for.
I have to close here. I think I've said enough for my points here. And do NOT feel 'sorry' for anything I've said. I'm not looking for 'pity' of those experiences....because.....as I have always reminded myself of...
"it could have been worse." Others certainly have had worse conditions by far than me.