Post by birdwatcher on Jul 22, 2023 23:35:51 GMT -5
Since the original thread was already crowded, I just opted to start a new one answering your queries MD. I edited it right this time, I embedded my responses within your original post clearly delineated...
So it's good to see you, and I'm sorry for the health challenges you've faced and from which you are continuing to recover. I can relate, as we've discussed. But I thought I'd start a separate thread to ask some questions about things you've said since your return, both pre- and post-anonymity.
I want to try to keep it more general, and not specific to Hunter, Joe, Donald, and the specific detailed controversies of today . . . but I'm always interested in epistemology. So I want to know why you think the way you do. And I do want to be civil, I don't mean any of this to be an attack, or unkind . . . I'm genuinely curious.
You said, in the post revealing your identity: "I am neither liberal nor conservative, not on board with either party, I am a moderate pragmatist. I also don’t believe in any specific dogma, political agenda . . ." I think that's either dishonest or delusional, perhaps you can show me how it's neither? I posit that dialectic because just about everything that you said after that I disagree with diametrically. If you were a centrist/moderate, I'd agree with you at least some of the time, right?
***************************
To answer that question, you would have to assume that you are at least somewhat moderate in your thinking, and I don’t think that is the case. Just my opinion from what I have read in your posts. To suggest that I am either a liar (dishonest) or have false beliefs (delusional) is rude at best, and offensive in general. It did not take long to insert your personal judgment of me. If I somehow made you think that I created my personal philosophy out of thin air, I’m sorry you took it that way. What I have done is research multiple philosophies from the ancient Greeks to Eastern philosophies and many others along the way. From that I created a personal philosophy that resonates with me, and it does not align with any single doctrine. As far as why I ‘think’ the way I do, I am more of a liberal thinker than a conservative, and I came to that conclusion after studying the matter. The following link shows that people are actually studying this topic, and I think it explains our differences better than I could.
I am not saying either is wrong, we are just different with different priorities.
***************************
You said in that same post that Republicans "play the politics of fear, anger, and hatred. They want you upset and thinking emotionally. From Trump to Santos, corruption abounds in the GOP, and no, the dems aren't immune, but the most destructive rhetoric comes from the right." You went on to say, "Thousands of Asian Americans were assaulted after Covid because red blooded Americans blamed them for it."
So I'm wondering - can you support any of that with facts? How many Asian Americans were assaulted, by whom, and why? Also I'd like to hear more about how "the dems aren't immune" - can you compare/contrast "destructive rhetoric" from both left and right and show how the right's rhetoric is "most destructive?" Or maybe you could also show how "the dems" appeal to the intellect and don't use scare tactics and emotional appeals?
******************************
As far as supporting evidence, the next link is an article that documents ‘incidents’ involving Asian Americans between 2020 and 2021. Not all of the 9000+ reported incidents were physical assaults, but threats, harassment, and intimidation are forms of assault, as they are intended to cause fear. Do I think that all these assaults were all from conservatives? Hell no, I am sure that many ‘liberals’ joined in on the hate, but it is wrong no matter who does it. And what exactly instigated it, perhaps our POTUS calling COVID the ‘China virus?’ Bigotry is not just a conservative issue, it is something all of us are prone to experience, and unless we face the fact that it still exists, we will never end it.As far as dangerous rhetoric, here is another article that illustrates my point:
*************************************
Then you said "Jews are under attack again, always by white supremacist fascists." Whew! "Always" is a really big word, my friend. [My wife and I are amateur relationship counselors. When the couple we're talking to starts with the "you always/you never" rhetoric, one of us throws the yellow flag.] So anyway, can you document this claim? That white supremacists are assaulting Jews? Do you really want to have a conversation about which ideological "side" is anti-Semite?
************************************
I admit I went hyperbolic on the Jewish issue, Instead of always, I should have said, far too often. I apologize for that; it was over the top. As far as ‘proof,’ I offer you an article by the ADL, people who track this stuff. I will also mention the guy who shot up the synagogue a year or two ago in Pittsburgh? was found to have a white supremacist manifesto once they apprehended him. I don’t care which ‘side’ does it, it is wrong, but evidence gathered suggests white supremacists account for a lot of the ‘incidents’ against Jews.************************************
And THEN you (ever escalating) said that "LGBTQ folks are again under assault by the right, another scapegoat group that will suffer to keep you angry. Moms for Liberty is out there making sure we ban books to prevent indoctrination of children." [It's tough to just keep asking questions and not to opine myself, but . . . I'll keep trying.] So, can you name a book that Moms for Liberty seeks to "ban" and defend why that book's content should be available in my kindergarten grandchild's library?***********************************
A couple of links for this one, but first I have to mention, none of these books are K level reading, it is middle/high school material mainly. but is there some form of knowledge you don’t want your granddaughter to learn? You indoctrinate when you teach a narrow view of things, excluding things that may contradict what you choose to believe. Like the Florida School Board. where they want to teach that pre-civil war slaves learned skills that benefited them as a result of being enslaved. First off, there is no benefit to enslavement, and those ‘skills’ they learned were for the profit of their owners, not them. So here are two links, the first is about the number of laws recently enacted or in the process of enacting that deny rights to LGBTQ folk. The other is a list of books the MFL proposed banning. And I added a third link for an article that traces how this Mom’s For Liberty group arose.
I find it disturbinging that books like Of Mice and Men, Slaughterhouse Five, The Color Purple, and 1984 to name a few, are considered unacceptable to MFL.
This last one points to a discredited theory by someone named Lisa Littman, who posited, gender dysphoria is spreading among children through peer networks, almost like an infectious disease. It was a bad study, much like the quack that started the recent anti-vaxx movement with another bad study that linked Autism to vaccines. Harmful anl unproven, inflammatory rhetoric again.
****************************************************************
So that's enough for now. I'm not retired like Jesus, so that's all the time I have for tonight. (Tweak aimed at RR.) I hope you don't interpret my questions as an attack, or insulting. I'm genuinely curious. I think that you have a distorted view of your own outlook on the world. If you're a leftist (and I think the evidence in your own words indicates that you are) - that's OK, we'll argue like cats and dogs, but . . . own it and be realistic about your worldview. Don't pretend like you're wearing black-and-white stripes and you're neutral and objective in your pronouncements.
************************************************
Somewhere in the thread that sprouted from this original post, you wondered how I could be more conservative than you. I am more like an old school Republican, back when they were fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Those days did exist, remember when NY and California were GOP states, I do. But to answer your question, I will stack my personal fiscal conservatism against anybody. The only thing I ever mortgaged is my home, I never even bought a car on credit. I don’t live like a pauper, in fact I have all the modern conveniences, but I have managed to keep my debt load very low, and I’m about to become basically debt free. The medical costs will dog me for a while, but since the hospital is letting me pay over time interest free, it is not a big issue. I actually retired at 55 on my own dime, after I spent 25 years in corporate management. I made a lot of investments along the way, denying myself the bling I could have afforded, and now live off my capital gains. I am not living the ‘high’ life, I still exercise plenty of fiscal restraint and I live on a budget. I could have continued on and added to my wealth, but when I deemed I had enough to live comfortably, I left the rat race. So don’t take me for some ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist’ that doesn’t understand how the world works, there is more to me than you may want to believe.
Finally, you wondered why I did not immediately respond and why I needed time, as if there was something wrong with that. You asked me a lot of questions, and I saw the post late at night after a long day, so I gave a quick reply to let you know I got your message. As my reply should show you, I did take some time to dig up reference materials that defended my premise, that's usually how I discuss/argue a point. I'm curious about how you will respond to this, I don't expect you to just accept my assertions, so I'm interested about how you will address what I just said.
