Rediscover Communication

Are we going to dig up FDR's bones and string them up, too?

...define, 'tolerate' and 'criminal ignorance'.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Would you please outline the consequential actions you will take for said acts of criminal ignorance?

Is tolerance the currency for political or moral discourse?

Is criminal ignorance tolerable if it is not willful?
 

And to answer as best I can:

FDR? Not sure about that one. Not aware of any illegal wars he perpetrated. I believe his worst crime was being a socialist. Oh - and his ideas helped to stave this faulty free market/capitalist system from sure destruction.

I hope my example of the criminally ignorant (07/26/05 post) answers part of your question.

Criminal Ignorance is when someone is presented with fact, and because it challenges the base of their ideology, they get this twisty look on their face and their bloodpressure rises. Do you know why? Because they're STRUGGLING to forget/ignore/disavow everything you say to them. Due to the proactive nature of this activity I would argue that it is willful.

Now the result of the 53% majority (not fairly contested results by the way... ghost votes! come on people!) electing more fascist killers into office to deliver more bloodshed. Thereby making my government a criminal enity, and by proxy, or (trickle down) - the threat, the judgement, the bad karma, the reputation .... its ON ME AS AN AMERICAN. The little prison boys being raped. Its on my head now. Because of the masses willful criminal ignorance.

I do believe that a very small percentage of them know what they're doing. But they couldn't take a majority without the help of the Willfully, Criminally, Ignorant.

J: The consequences? I say that I am much less likely to entertain the unreceptive parrot any longer than he/she/it has ignored 6 consecutive arguments without so much as a meaningful retort (see post 07/26/05). My tolerence has signifigantly shortened.

[Capital, Grease, Currency] of Political or Moral Discourse?
I want to be clear when I say that moral discourse should not happen in a political realm ever. Morals are individually based, and not be be legistlated sofar as a country remains free. The limits of course being infringment on another's rights. If my moral code says I can murder you, it still does not make it legal to do so because your moral code does not allow it.

UNwillful Tolerable?
In the scenario where the paper boy throws a paper at the door, scares the tenant into a heart attack - He is now guilty of Criminal Manslaughter... however involentary. NO, I do not fault this case.

In the scenario where the 20 year old Bush supporter votes straight ticket R because his daddy did, and his daddy before him, with no indication of a spec of thought into his decision making process. He wouldn't even know what issues to stick to if FoxNews wasn't there telling him which way republicans believe, and which way democrats believe. The leaders that his vote helped to 'elect' perpetrate terror around the globe, while he's just waiting for the homosexuals to be outlawed.


sigh.... I wish people were more aware... there's just more too it than that.
 

::shits!!!::

Well, you've come to your two-minutes hate. :)

53% majority? So the other 45% (guess) or so have a better option? I would say that at least 98 points are running us into the ground.

You express such anger at the Bush machine, but fail to see that he, Kerry, Edwards, Rove, Rummy, etc are just COGS in the machine.

I won't replace one tool for another. We've been doing that since well before Woodrow Wilson.

I'd have to read three pages on FDR again, and could go on for hours. The public is ignorant to his crimes. He made the ownership of gold ILLEGAL. He turned our somewhat Federalist Republic into a National Leviathan. JFK was murdered while attempting to undo some of the damage.

TONS of examples: http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/history/FDR.htm\
I know, I know...it is AOL, and because of that you will discredit its accountability. It is an excellent collection of links, despite.

Bush's "War on Terror", FDR's "New Deal". Prime examples of the FedGov extending their hand to grab more power.
 

Wow...
Two-minutes hate, indeed.
I am a bit confused by some of the things, but I will try to respond to at least some of them. This will probably become a bit disconnected and scattered, but I will try to tie it together as best as possible.
First, I read a wonderfully coincidental passage last night in my latest CS Lewis book that I wanted to share here. A bit of background: Mark is a sociologist who is commisioned to write fake news articles to steer public opinion on Alcasan, an as yet undefined character who was convicted and executed for a crime that he may or may not have committed; Mark must cast doubt on Alcasan's guilt. Today we would call Mark a spin doctor. The NICE is a shadowy organization that hires Mark to do this for its own dystopian purposes. Miss Hardcastle is Mark's handler for NICE.

"I've no notion of spending my life writing newspaper articles," Mark said. "And if I had, I'd want to know a good deal more about the politics the NICE before I went in for that sort of thing. "

"Haven't you been told that it's strictly non-political?"

"I've been told so many things that I don't know whether I am on my head or my heels," said Mark. "But I don't see how one's going to start a newspaper stunt (which is about what this comes to) without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot about Alcasan?"

"Both, honey, both," said Miss Hardcastle. "Don't you understand *anything*? Isn't it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That's how we get things done. Any opposition to the NICE is represented as a Left racket in the Right newspapers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it's properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us-to refute the enemy slanders. *Of course*, we're non-political. The real power always is."
- CS Lewis, "That Hideous Strength"
Anyhow, I thought that was a well put passage.

I must heartily disagree with the general flow of your arguments in your posts, but I will only hit a few points that stuck out to me, for time and space reasons.

I think that you did a very good job of repeatedly setting up and knocking down a straw man. I don't know of anyone who follows Bush or anyone that blindly. Some people in extreme positions may, but the mainstream, even of his own party, does not, at least to the degree you illustrated in your posts. I would probably be the closest thing to a Bush supporter here (Which in a way is kind of amusing - I really am not, but I appear so only in contrast here. I do have large reservations about him, though), and I certainly don't think that way.

The biggest issue I want to tackle was with this statement:
"I want to be clear when I say that moral discourse should not happen in a political realm ever. Morals are individually based, and not be be legistlated sofar as a country remains free. The limits of course being infringment on another's rights. If my moral code says I can murder you, it still does not make it legal to do so because your moral code does not allow it."

This is absolutely, unreservedly wrong. You are espousing an essentially relativist position which has no standing as a moral theory, even in the loosest of ethical circles. Yet, it is a common misconception. First of all, I think you misunderstood my question, but I will get to that in a bit. The core of what you are saying is that morality is defined in different ways by different people at different times, and absolute moral statements are impossible, which is in itself an absolute moral statement. This logical failure immediately disqualifies this as a moral code, but we will continue. Morality is then required to be neutral, to not make claims in a universal sense. But ask yourself: *WHY* should I be morally neutral? Any answer you can give requires a far from neutral response. You are required to make value judgements to describe the benefits (if any) of your moral theory. Further, to say that there is no objective moral truth is to invalidate all your own arguments. To illustrate... Eavesdrop on any particular argument - the topic being argued is irrelevant here. What is occurring? Two people are trying to convince the other that they have breached a universal moral code that the other has kept. You say that Bush, Republicans and whoever else has commited a long list of immoral acts, and nestled within your diatribe, you say that all morality is individually based! How can this be? Saying that they committed immoral acts appeals to a universal moral code you don't believe exists. There is a fundamental flaw here.

But I think you misunderstood my question. To put my question more bluntly: "Who cares if you tolerate something or not? Why is tolerance important to anything?". I am not saying this in a mean-spirited way... I am trying to draw out of you the point that tolerance in reality has nothing to do with virtue, but it is the prime virtue in a morally neutral, relativist mode of thinking. Real virtues, such as love, truth or justice when combined with tolerance create an absurdity. Love is not tolerated, it is embraced. Truth or justice are not tolerated, they are demanded. I have an exceptionally eloquent article on this on my web page. I would like to cite it as part of my argument here. I would strongly recommend everyone reading it. It is at: http://www.geocities.com/jose3k/the_myth_of_moral_neutrality.htm
It will look somewhat familiar... The one caveat here is his mention of libertarian society - Being from Canada, I think he is unfamiliar with our Libertarian party and that he is referring to a relativist society (where nobody can criticize anyone for anything), not a society governed in a Jeffersonian manner. There are some aspects of relativism in libertarianism, as per my previously stated reservations with it.

That was the single biggest problem I had, but there were other objections I will mention as well. I object to the use of the Cristo[sic]-Fascist term. Using it, you illustrate a lack of understanding of both Christianity and Fascism. I must object to extensive comparisons between Nazi Germany and the US. Godwin's law aside, there are lots of ways that you can justify any position by talking about Nazi's. For instance, gun-toters note that Hitler outlawed the posession of private arms as part of his rise to power, and argue that any level of gun control is therefore a precursor to a dictatorship. This is one example... many others exist. I also object to the use of (somewhat modified) socratic irony to make claims. Socratic irony is very good and effective at disproving claims or exposing errors, but it is insufficient for prescriptive statements. It is better to just go out and say what you think should be done instead.

Well, I have gone on long enough. I must sleep now.
 

Wow. That John Patrick guy is a cocksucker. A real slurper. I read the whole damn article, while he claimed that moral neutrality was the bane of existence throughout, never to offer up a single objective moral virtue. If you believe in objective morals than fucking name one. Objective (def[b]..condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers) morals should be tangible by all observers. ... please do enlighten me.

No Jeff, I do not believe in objective morals. That is hilarious to me. My principles are based on my own life expirience. They obviously are influenced by global gov. and cultural ideas, however in the end, are completely under my control. Just like my Viking ancestors raped and pillaged, so could I.... and believe it to be moral. I believe in certain objective truths, such as: In this reality, I need air to survive. etc. I don't believe that I am all perceptive either, and invite the will of God to strike me down... lets say... um.... NOW.

Nope, still here.

Furthermore - I do not refer to the political figures in my rant as "immoral". Not once. As I said, I will re-state that I do not bother trying to confuse moral tastes with political governance. It doesn't make any sense. The morals that we accept to enable self-governance are the morals that they have violated. These are principles outlined by the laws we wrote. The laws and words that we live under, and SUBJECT ourselves to. Part of our Culture. I'm doing my part not to rape and pillage as a citizen. AT LEAST THEY COULD DO THE FUCKING SAME WHILE HOLDING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE GOVERNMENT!

If you go back you'll see that I refer to them as Killers, Criminals, Violators of Treaties, all accusations to which there is mounds of evidence, and not a single hearing from this totalitarian(R) congress. Jeff you know the congress is a rubber stamp. The Democracts had to write a letter of protest to Dennis Hastert (Hs.Spk.) because Tom Delay added extra provisions into the Energy bill AFTER the last vote. The bill that gives billions in subsidies to oil companies that are reporting record profits, and paying record low income taxes. They break the law continually, and go unpunished.

I very much enjoy this conversation, please do not mistake my profanity and empassioned arguing with anger toward you. It's simply more entertaining to converse this way.
 

Chad is gonna ga-ga over this.

http://bushayb.ytmnd.com/
 

Well... I waited for a bit to respond for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I have been too busy to respond the last few days. The other reason was that I wanted to wait was to correctly respond. I am glad, because my response has changed from my initial one.

I admit that I find all of this extremely tiresome. We settle into the same ruts... You make wild, raving statements. I try to come up with reasoned arguments to point out fallacies. You then ignore my points, dismiss references as "cocksuckers", and continue on with another diatribe (calling that "debate", under the broader umbrella of "dissent"), and so on ad nauseam.

I deplore political debate, because the other side (why are there always sides?) always manages to come up with some conspiracy theory to discount what the first side says. It goes both ways, between right and left or whatever continuum of thought exists between the two. Someone is always more left than another or more right than the other guy. And it always seems to degenerate into name-calling and over-generalization. Red-herrings and straw-men.

I prefer moral debate (the two are not entirely disconnected, though, however we may try to sever them), because at least there can be some talk of absolutes. Right actions (when they are identified) are always right regardless of the circumstances, history or the political orientation of the actors. But that has become wearisome, because you refuse to engage in moral debate. Talk of Nazis, cocksuckers, dolts and slurpers unnecessarily slosh over the gunnel, as if a revolting-enough label nullifies the content of the speakers words, circumventing the undesirable act of actually thinking about what they say or modifying ones position when a clearer argument becomes available.

So, I will attempt to refrain from political or moral discussions from now on. I am tired of putting in thought and research and time and not even receiving serious consideration or engagement on my themes. I did want to attach a small list of virtues, however. John Patrick outlined 4 virtues (contrary to the assertion that there were none): love, honor, truth and justice. I have included a few more off the top of my head. This list is by no means exhastive. These are just some basic virtues that have undergirded civilization for the last 4000 years, and are necessary to its continuance. Those who deny their necessity do so to their own destruction.

love
joy
peace
patience
kindness
goodness
faithfulness
gentleness
self-control
charity
truth
justice
honor
chastity
humility
meekness
grace
mercy
hope
courage
perseverance
 

Yech,
love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness,gentleness,self-control,charity,truth,justice,honor,chastity,humility,meekness,grace,mercy,hope,courage,perseverance.

[I prefer moral debate (the two are not entirely disconnected, though, however we may try to sever them), because at least there can be some talk of absolutes.]

Double yech. ;)

The only absolutes are in logic and reason. Morality is an individually -based item to be debated. The truth of the matter is that the FedGov and its jack-booted shock troops have been comitting crimes against the inherent and enumerated rights of the American citizen and the individuals of the world since the Alien and Sedition Act. I attack FDR because the exponents of the Leviathan have taken place during he and GWB's reign more than anybody else's.

When SCOTUS claims that a state-licensed medical marijuana voter growing for personal use can still be raided, detained, and prosecuted by the agents of the FedGov under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, we're all fux0red.