Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Conservationist at 2008-08-30 19:21:47

Your bullshit amounts to one principle: you want division because you pigeonhole people and their ideologies, which is rigid and non-realistic. People exist, and the only way to synthesize is to have as many minds working toward goals as possible, and I don't see how anything you've brought forth is at all constructive.

So we've gone from POLITICAL analysis to POP PSYCHOLOGY?

Minds are mostly deterministic; see THE BLANK SLATE by STEVEN PINKER. You are your abilities, and those determine most of your outlook.

Further, I'm aware that for most situations, there is one good approach with some variations; anything else is pretense.

For this reason, I see that people are inherently divided by their degree of realism and that for the most part, it is inherent.

I don't necessarily like this division, in a moral or preferential sense, but it exists and I think we should deal with it and move on. It comes down to the same psychology of "I wish I looked like Brad Pitt" or "I wish I had Marg Helgenberg's mammaries." We are different but we live in the same world, although this knowledge is not commonly known.

Now on to the political part:

No matter what you say it is impossible to maintain a healthy, economically sound, and domestically-fluid nation allowing States to supercede Federal law.

I am not speaking of states superceding Federal law, as one might have to do in order to secede from the nation.

I am speaking of states' rights applying in scope, so that certain laws (abortion, gun control, drugs, etc) could be seen as within the realm of the state and not the federation.

This was how America was originally designed, 1776-1789, and it works best when there is no consensus and there's unlikely to be one.

(Not to split hairs, but this is actually a separate issue from ethnonationalism. The reasons for ethnonationalism are many; I'm talking here about the divisions within the electorate as a whole, and I believe it would also apply to an all-white or all-black electorate in America, and so on. The word PARASITE is not used to refer to a specific genetic group, just people who behave like parasites. I think we all know them and realize they are not limited to any one ethnic group, although some will argue they occur in different percentages in different ethnic groups; my argument is that PARASITISM occurs as a psychology and that nations are healthier without much of it.)

Here's some interesting genetic determination evidence:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...tsview/2008/07/political-parti.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html

I do admit though, this Conservationist fellow is eloquent enough that he could probably sell many people in this country a piece of dog shit and convince them it's gold.

Thank you for the kind words. I love this stuff. Parents, don't let your kids be debaters. And if they do become debaters, don't let them study philosophy. After that, keep them from writing on politics. Drug addiction is better than being obsessed with the structure of logical argument.

[default homepage]

[print][

7:18:17pm Apr 27,2024
load time 0.02371 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]