Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:16 pm
I'm "Left" of center. And I am also highly at odds with the extremes. So you still impose upon me...
Not at all. I didn't say you were extreme. I was just saying what the far Left says about themselves. You don't have to take it personally; it wasn't meant that way.
All you have to do is look at what CRT theorists say themselves...what they're proud to declare, not what I have to say they believe, and you'll know I'm just telling you the truth.
The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance...
If they do that, they're being very, very foolish. If somebody is prepared to stand on the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, then they can be accused of things they never did, and yet will be regarded as guilty until they can conclusively prove they didn't do them...often impossible to do.
You are falsely placing the Right on a pedestal
I didn't do that, at all. All I asked is that you show some evidence there's some "right wingers" who should worry us on a national scale. And you've not shown any. I have to wonder why, if they're really the "threat" that some people want us to believe they are. It should be easy to do.
You appear not to be against 'collecting' powers of those who think like you do.
I'm not even sure what you mean, here. Where are these nameless "powers" being "collected'?
How is the American system almost divided evenly among the population where those on the Right are ABLE to act freely as independent 'rulers' over others yet those on the Left are REQUIRED to collect without a choice?
It's not the right who claim this: it's the Left. You've got the case backward. It's the CRT Leftists who absolutely insist that there is no such thing as an "individual," and that everybody is nothing other than a product of one or another racial, sex or sexuality "collective."
So if that's unfair, your argument is not with me: personally, I think they're being very foolish. Your argument is really with the Left itself, then.
They don't have the money or the guns...
The Left?
They're in power, both in the US and in Canada. And they have exactly the same access to guns as everybody else. So that's just not so.
I believe that the Right is intensionally trying to malign those universally on the Left by forcing some of them into becoming more extreme.
That's pretty funny. So it's supposed to be the fault of "the right" -- the people you can't even find -- that the Left is so lunatic?
I've got to admit...that's not a line I've ever heard before. Well done.
Your extreme anti-Left interpretation...
Now I'm starting to think maybe you don't even know what the Left is writing these days. You should just read what the CRTers themselves are penning. Then I wouldn't need to say a thing in order to make the same case.
But you ARE blaming MORE others by denying the 'collective' voluntary association
Not at all. One can "voluntarily" associate with anybody one wants to. The conservatives are very much in favour of that. It's the Left that says you can't "voluntarily" associate -- that rather, you are
compelled to be nothing but a tool of whatever group is associated with your skin colour, race, culture or sexual practice. The right doesn't say that.
KKK
Do you not know that the KKK was, in fact, the militant wing of the Democrat Party? The Democrats created it, in fact. I'm not making that up...look it up, because it's in the history books. I should add that all the slave owners, to a person, and every one of the governors who opposed Desegregation were also Democrats. But you can find that out for yourself, so you don't have to believe me.
The reason the Right is 'conservative' then, means they ARE in power and want to save their accidental predisposed fortunes.
That's actually kind of funny, given that many of the most conservative folks are from poor communities, and nobody's farther Left than New York and Hollywood. Most of the Democrats in California, for example, don't pay taxes, don't allow low income housing to be built in their neighbourhoods, and use migrants as cheap nannies and gardeners. And I'm not making that stuff up: I've been there. Go and see for yourself, if you dont' believe me. The "predisposed fortunes" you speak of are owned by Leftists.
What would you say about the fortunes held by Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi? Or Joe Biden's millions? Or what about the Trudeau fortune? Are these not the same kind sof "accidentally predisposed fortunes" you wish to see redistributed? And since all are held by Leftists, should they not provide themselves as examples to us all, by distributing their fortunes immediately?
If not, why not? Why would this "compassionate" Left fall behind in its compassion in this way?
There ARE those who are 'conservative' pretending to be 'liberal'!
Oh, that is soooo funny!
Justin Trudeau, the closet "conservative"? And Hollywood...you think it's secretly conservative? And New York, that nest of right wingers?
Dear oh dear...that's hilarious. They'll be so unhappy to find out.
The ones running ALL political control are the wealthy!
Joe Biden, you mean? Or Justin Trudeau? They're both wealthy AND in power...you mean them?
The city poor are actually more 'intellectually' privileged...
Hilarous. The slums are just brimming with intellectuals, are they?
If merit were your sincere argument, you'd have to first be sure that each individual BEGINS with the same 'right' of default power.
You and I know that's impossible, Scott.
We all have to start from where we are. A woman might complain that you and I are men, and that gives us advantages in power; there's nothing we can do about that -- we can't make her a man. You and I might be tall; but we can't help a short man out with that. You might be athletic in some way, and I might not be; can you give me your athleticism? You and I might have access to good education; but we can't do much about somebody who lives nowhere near any good education or who chooses not to educate himself, can we? And some of us might have genetic predispositions toward Huntington's, or Parkinson's, or heart disease; but we cannot ask anybody to fix that for us.
In what sense are any two people on earth actually "equal"?
Life is unequal. It just is. What matters is what you do with what you've got.
YES, but why are you not recognizing this as due to the contradiction of life itself [Darwinian evolution] [/quote]
Well, one reason is that I'm not a Darwinian. But beyond that, if Darwinism were true, then it would mean that differences in capacities and opportunties would be good, not bad. The strong survive, and the weak die, under Darwinism; and Darwinian theory has no mercy on the latter at all. So I can't see that appealing to Darwin helps your case.
The 'equity' then needs SOME recognition
No.
Equality does, but "equity" is nonsense. We can give people opportunties, but we can't make them take them. And meanwhile, we must be cautious lest, in our desire to be nice to one group, we become mean, petty and racist in our disposition toward another.
That's one of the problems with "equity": it tries to use racism to cure racism.
But the actual 'equity' refers to wealth and power.[/quote]
No, you should read the Leftist's own definition of "equity." Here's what they say:
“Equity” is often conflated with the term “Equality” (meaning sameness). In fact, true equity implies that an individual may need to experience or receive something different (not equal) in order to maintain fairness and access. (Brandeis)
In other words, "equity" means treating one group badly in order to advantage another.
So, for example, at Harvard U, Asian students are restricted as to number and given a higher standard to meet than whites, and considerably higher than persons of other colours. The theory of Harvard is that by mistreating Asian applicants, they can create "equity" for other constitutencies.
That's "equity" theory. It's the opposite of "equality," actually. You have to decide which one you want (say the Leftists), because they are incompatible with each other.
In our society where we believe in passing on inheritance
Inheritance is not the way power and wealth are passed in this society...at least, not in most cases. People like Justin Trudeau are an exception. But then, he's an ardent Leftist.
But really, if your father earned some money, why should he not be allowed to give it to you, his son? Why, since I didn't earn it, would I imagine that I, or anybody else, had a claim on your inheritance, created honestly, for you, by your own father?
...government is a relatively 'socialist' construct...
No, not at all. There are many different forms of government, actually; and most of them vastly predate Socialism. Socialism really only gets going with Marx. He's the guy who theorized it.
Do you not notice that even when you support 'individual' rights, this has to include the free choice of those same individuals to choose to associate as collectives?
Of course. It's called "freedom of association," and it's a basic human right upheld especially by classical conservatives.
Then you have to accept that EVEN IF such associations are UNFAIR,
I don't even understand the claim here. Why is freedom of association "unfair"?
Your use of CRT (Critical Race Theory) is NOT universally accepted on the Left
Yeah, it is...by everybody who understands CRT, including the extreme Left itself. I'm pretty sure you have bad information on this, Scott. You need to read what they actually write. Then you'd know, and not because I had to tell you.
The distribution of wealth has to be non-culturally based. This is the failure of Marxist revolutionary approaches.
You don't know Marxism, either, then. Marx didn't even speak about "culture." He spoke about "class." He thought it was all about economics, not culture. It's Neo-Marxism (like CRT) that has replaced "class" with "culture"...and also with "gender," "race," "sexuality," "ability," and so on. The Neo-Marxists have tried to fix up the faults of Marx by changing his terms.
