The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

[Atla]

Examples? I didn't think so.

Don't worry your little head about that. What is really politically incorrect won't be discussed on such a forum. That's why you are hiding here.

I wonder how someone can be blind enough to believe that the yanks really run their own country, and then blame them for everything?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I don't understand how it relates to my response. I told you that executions in America don't actually save money on taxes, and you reply by telling me that big screen TVs are more expensive. I don't get it.

When you house the guilty as prisoners, you've got to keep them entertained in certain prisons. Hence big-screen tvs and increased taxes to pay for those tvs.

...So in short, execution does not save taxes.

Just the opposite. Think about it.

PhilX

[Walker]

Maybe this means the boy is destined to be President? That would be WONDERFUL!

Some reasons why Dems would support Hogg for POTUS:

- They have no one else.

- Hogg thinks anyone who doesn’t see things his way is "a pathetic f**ker" who wants to kill children, which is certainly on the party message.

He’s too young to run, but because:
- the founders who made the rules didn’t know about Hogg’s awesomeness
- the founders wanted to kill children because they allowed guns into society,
- then the age requirement for POTUS is a stupid f**king rule.*

This would get him many votes from Progressives.

To win as a Prog, his backers will hire him a coach to:

- Polish up the act for the camera.
- Smile like Hillary and not look so pissed-off all the time.
- Learn the fogging power of the ostensible.
- Never answer the question he is asked.
- Keep focusing on feelings rather than rationality.
- Focus on short, punchy sound bites rather than rationality.
- Slogans and bumper stickers instead of policy.


*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKlmCiHcgug

[Science Fan]

How would Hogg make a great president? Have you actually read his tweets? How many grammatical errors does he make in a typical two-sentence statement? What brilliant idea has he offered anyone regarding curbing violence? Name a single original idea he's come up with that has any merit?

[Walker]

Gun control?

It is to laugh.

Playing the lying Progressive game can be tedious.

Guns are already controlled by regulation, which is unconstitutional btw because it’s an infringement on the right that shall not be infringed.

Why not for once, just for once, skip the ostensible and get to the truth.

Ostensible has no place in philosophy.

The issue is gun confiscation, not control.

Deal with the truth, not the lie.

[Science Fan]

Walker: Gun control laws are not unconstitutional. There is no such thing as an absolute right under the Constitution. This is why the right to vote can be denied felons, for example, or the right to life can be denied convicted murderers, as another example. It's also true that the Second Amendment is misinterpret by both the left and the right. The right that the second amendment established was the obligation to be armed, so that one could participate in a state militia. That's what gave the government originally the authority to call citizens to arms and serve in the militia and also to make sure that they were armed so they could form the militia. Is that original right even being discussed these days? No. We simply deny the original intent and meaning behind the Constitution, and then go about interpreting its meaning in some other way.

[Walker]

Atla: Veggie admitted to me, on this forum, that she really does believe in the things she writes about Americans.

There it is! (found my soapbox)

VT is going through, not around.

There’s no ostensible reason.

The reason is pure, not muddled with indecision.

The reason is hatred.

The hatred is for America, and all that it represents to her.

The way to go through hatred, and not do the pussyfoot dance around hatred, is to hate fully. If by hating fully you manage to survive or stay out of prison, then you reach your fill of hate.

When you are sated and bloated with hate ‘till you can’t hate any stronger, you break through it.

Not many have the courage or the cause to hate fully.
Half-way hatred is forever.
The fear of full-on hate is the fear of permanent possession by hatred, and the change in identity that would result.

However, doing anything with all you’ve got, even hatred, is rooted in a power more impartial ... which could even be called an absolute truth for the temporal body.

As a spiritual practice, going through hate rather than around hate is like vowing to never tell a lie, only less conscious, less cerebral, more emotional.

It’s not for everyone, but it is a way for the uncompromising, because uncompromising is sometimes what’s required to give it your all.


Crucial Caveat:

- Hating fully does not equate to action.

- Without action, hating fully can end in stomach ulcers and/or a heart attack for the hater, along with other physical ailments.

- Without action, hatred can end in a realization of the futility of hatred.
- Easy to fall back into hating though, since hatred is actually physical energy habitually associated with attachments.

- With action, hatred ends in problems and it’s good to remember that all problems are caused by self-cherishing.

[Walker]

Walker: Gun control laws are not unconstitutional. There is no such thing as an absolute right under the Constitution. This is why the right to vote can be denied felons, for example, or the right to life can be denied convicted murderers, as another example. It's also true that the Second Amendment is misinterpret by both the left and the right. The right that the second amendment established was the obligation to be armed, so that one could participate in a state militia. That's what gave the government originally the authority to call citizens to arms and serve in the militia and also to make sure that they were armed so they could form the militia. Is that original right even being discussed these days? No. We simply deny the original intent and meaning behind the Constitution, and then go about interpreting its meaning in some other way.

Militia by any other name, is government, for a militia governs the individual's God-given right to bear arms and self-defense, (more accurately stated as arms being a defense of God-given rights) which is important since the police don't have a legal responsibility to protect your life.

God-given rights are an absolute.

[Science Fan]

There are no such things as God-given rights. As the saying goes, that's nonsense on steroids.

As far as the police not having an obligation to protect you, that's not true. You are taking the decision out of context. One does not have a civil suit against a police officer for failing to protect one, including being harmed by an escaped prisoner. That is a far cry from stating that police are not there to protect you. It's just that the legal mechanisms for enforcing police protection do not include liability for civil lawsuits based on negligence. One could, however, definitely sue if the police refused to protect someone because of their skin color, as an example.

[Walker]

There are no such things as God-given rights. As the saying goes, that's nonsense on steroids.

(You should work on those persuasive skills)

Yes, there is such a thing.
No, it's not non-sense.

You have a God-given right to live your life because you did not create the life.

You build the house, you own it, you have the right.

[Science Fan]

Walker: That makes no sense. Because I didn't create my life, I have a God-given right? That's absurd. Prove God even exists. You can't. All of your rights come from a government. You have rights, for example, as a citizen. There are no God-given rights that are legally enforced in any court of law. Unless you think a Sharia court is going to enforce your so-called God-given rights, but, I have a feeling you don't support such actual religious courts.

[Walker]

Walker: That makes no sense. Because I didn't create my life, I have a God-given right? That's absurd. Prove God even exists. You can't. All of your rights come from a government. You have rights, for example, as a citizen. There are no God-given rights that are legally enforced in any court of law. Unless you think a Sharia court is going to enforce your so-called God-given rights, but, I have a feeling you don't support such actual religious courts.

No, it's not absurd.

Call God something else if you want.
Some folks treat gubberment like it's God.

But the fact is, you did not create your life.

And the government sure didn't.

*

So, you’re living in this life you didn’t create.
And by life is meant the next breath, not lifestyle.

The gov. didn’t give you the right to live in it.

The government can sure kill your body and erase your records, if that’s what you mean.

You can be a slob, or you can be orderly.
You can risk the life needlessly, or you can cherish it.
You can even throw it away.
You can even enslave your body to another, or be enslaved by another.

What varies is your state of mind, not the ownership.

[Walker]

There are no such things as God-given rights. As the saying goes, that's nonsense on steroids.

As far as the police not having an obligation to protect you, that's not true. You are taking the decision out of context. One does not have a civil suit against a police officer for failing to protect one, including being harmed by an escaped prisoner. That is a far cry from stating that police are not there to protect you. It's just that the legal mechanisms for enforcing police protection do not include liability for civil lawsuits based on negligence. One could, however, definitely sue if the police refused to protect someone because of their skin color, as an example.

I think the context of the SCOTUS decision was, someone called the cops for protection, and the cops said, naw.

Probably wasn't in the budget.

Didn't you ever see the TV cop shows when they say they can't protect people around the clock?

*

Btw:

Ever notice how the Progressive politician knee-jerk reaction is to always pull essential services when they don’t get what they want on a budget?

- They don’t suspend pension payments.

- They threaten to tell the cops to stay home.
- To tell the firemen to stay home.
- Nasty little business, that.

- Conservatives don’t play that game.

- A Prog. Republican would be on-board the punishment paradigm, if she thought she could get away with it. (Arbitrarily assigning the default pronoun to the feminine, as is often done when assigning form to God.)

[Science Fan]

Walker: Actually, it's the right-wing that withholds funding when they don't get their way. I really don't see much difference between the two major parties in the USA. Both lie constantly, and are wedded to their echo-chambers of bullshit. From the GOP, one can now endorse white supremacy as part of mainstream politics, and on the left, one can endorse cultural annihilation in the name of preserving such things as Islamic Jihad. Both major parties in the USA have very little connection with the majority of Americans.

[Walker]

The political divide may be greater now than during the civil war, although defining it along party lines is difficult since the Dems don’t have a platform.

It’s a blue/red divide, not blue/gray.

Both parties sure spend like hogs.
Poor old Trump got snookered for trusting his party in Congress with the budget.

*

I distinctly remember Obama closing the national parks ... as if government grants the God-given right to nature.

*

Walker: That makes no sense. Because I didn't create my life, I have a God-given right? That's absurd.

You can create a business, but you didn’t create that life, and you can’t.

Because that life exists, in the form it exists, and because that form has not always existed, then we say that the life was created.
(Need the qualifiers for those who correct dualism with non-dualism.)

- Since you know you didn’t create it, something did.
- Call that something, God.
- The pertinent point is that something other than you created the life you inhabit, not the label.
- Whatever did create it, had the natural say of who takes care of it.
- The say of the caretaker has already been said by the creator of the life, by placement of the inhabitant.
- Since the government doesn’t inhabit the body, it’s not the caretaker.
- You are.
- Therefore, your right to that precious life, the only one you have a right to, is God-given.