boy uses logic: it was very effective

Geeks + Gamers Forums Community Hub Current Events boy uses logic: it was very effective

Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #298975

    I had to take a gender studies class as a part of my major, and I don’t remember the word‘gender’ being used as a grammatical term.

    Then again, I’ve forgotten most of what I learned in that class anyway since I’m a biology major.

    #299104

    @Wisdom So, in order to defeat the Left, we must gain their approval? Do you really think there’s any chance of persuading them -not- to sexualize children? They’re publicly leveraging all of their power to normalize the sexualization of children; they’re all-in on this, and they’re showing their true colors to everyone in the political spectrum.

    Incidentally, I don’t consider myself a conservative; I’m a decentralist.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by Roccandil.
    #299127

    Decentralist sounds good. Hadn’t heard the term before. But I like the theory. All problems are local so all solutions should be local as well.
    In theory, I like anarchism, but I’ll concede that it’s not perfect. Still infinitely better than government though.

    As for beating the left:
    sadly, it’s probably too late to beat the left. But in a hypothetical scenario where victory could still be possible (and who knows, such a situation may arise again), beating them at science and language is necessary for victory. The left won the culture war and science war because the right acted from a position of bigotry.
    I.e. trying to ban rap music (why? because black people enjoy it), trying to ban electronic music (why? because the kids like it), trying to ban violent video games, horror films, pot and so on. The list is endless. Basically anything people enjoyed, the right at some point tried to ban. Same with sexuality. Some inbred hick states even banned anal sex at some point. When it came to science, you had idiots out there claiming the world is 6000 years old and Dinosaur skeletons were forgeries. There were efforts to ban evolution from schools. Is it any wonder that artists and scientists then align with the left? Not to mention pissing off millions of black kids by vilifying some rap artists who’s music legitimately captured the feeling so many of them experienced growing up in those shithole ghetto areas? Artists generally interpret their life experiences. From techno music being invented in detroit by guys who worked in auto factories all day to hip hop using synths that resemble police sirens and rapping about shootings, drug use, lack of perspective for a better future and ubiquity of death. These are real experiences. The right never made an effort to understand it, the knee jerk response was always to try and ban it. Or blame it for school shootings. Either rap or video games.

    To even have a chance of beating the left, the right will have to:
    1. drop ALL bigotry. Yes, even against transgenders
    2. consistently base all moral and policy positions on the best scientific information out of there. “Because the bible says so” ain’t gonna cut it. Half the country is irreligious now.
    3. weaponize language like the left does. Consistently use scientific terminology and call the enemy out whenever they don’t use it correctly. Turn their own weapon against them.

    Sexualization of children:  Yes, the left wants to make sex with children legal. This is not a majority position. However, they conflate it with lgbt rights and transgenderism, because they know conservatives has a rabid and pathological hatred for these people and will abandon all scientific basis when it comes to going after them. The left pushes pedophilia and the sexualization of children, and uses lgbt people as human shields. The right; reliably stupid, bigoted and rabidly foaming at the mouth with hatred of anything gay, concentrates its fire on the human shields, pissing off virtually anyone who’s not an evangelical or al qaida sympathizer in the process and losing the battle against pedophilia.

    Let’s be honest here: for many on the right, it’s not about pedophilia. They just really hate gays. It’s the same with their reactions to school shootings. After every school shooting, the left goes after guns and the right goes after video games or claim it’s because “we removed god from schools”. They’re trying to use real life tragedies to go after video games and atheists. Motivated by bigotry and hatred.

    Only way to beat the left is to always have facts on your side. Bigotry ain’t gonna cut it anymore.

    #299133

    I’m sensing bigotry against what is known as the Right. :) Nevertheless, even if what you say about the Right is accurate, the Left is increasingly showing itself as worse. Like James II, they’re trying to implement an equal and opposite intolerance against those they hate.

    The problem there is manyfold: they’re justifying intolerance in principle, they’re violently pushing an extremist position (the sexualization of children), and in so doing they’re justifying all the bigotry that was ever leveled against them. And like in the time of James II, it’s evident to me that the societal pendulum is swinging back against the Left.

    In short, the Left is destroying itself.

    Couple more things:

    • The Left is against what empowers ordinary people, which includes many things people enjoy. Declaring war on natural gas, for example, is not going to win hearts and minds. The Left is also infecting entertainment with wokeness, destroying popular franchises via what I now think of as “Neopuritanism”.
    • “Trust the science” really means “trust the people in the ivory towers”. That makes society extremely easy to hack, and it’s ultimately a centralized, faith-based pattern. I’d much prefer people to be skeptical of anyone with a credential.
    #299136
    Vknid
    Moderator

      To even have a chance of beating the left, the right will have to:
      1. drop ALL bigotry. Yes, even against transgenders
      2. consistently base all moral and policy positions on the best scientific information out of there. “Because the bible says so” ain’t gonna cut it. Half the country is irreligious now.
      3. weaponize language like the left does. Consistently use scientific terminology and call the enemy out whenever they don’t use it correctly. Turn their own weapon against them.

      ===================

      1) you clearly have almost no clue about the groups of people you use such a broad brush to paint nor apparently do you understand the left as they (at this point) refer to any point of disagreement as bigotry, it’s used as a defense from logic and debate the word is very rarely used seriously any more

      2) the morality of this country is indeed derived from Christian values and most people in the USA believe in a God with over half identifying with Christianity itself and none of that even includes all the folks coming across the border of which whom are largely Catholic or Christian.  You are not going to appeal to the left with science anyway because they ignore it when it suits them.

      3) if we become what we fight against what is the point?  You are not going to convert the left with logic or science because they don’t care about it.  That entire ideology is about the ends justifies the means at the front of it and the backend of it is really all about hatred.  You will defeat neither that way.

      At the end of the day it’s not that the “right” needs to win.  To even say that plays into the way the left thinks because at this point in the game anyone right of Marx is considered “alt-right”.  The radical left just needs to lose and be beaten by a unified right, middle, and even just regular classic liberals.  It’s not that a single ideology needs to win, it’s just that one in particular needs to lose.

      #299170

      There’s really no need to overthink things.

      Be they individuals, political or social groups, ANYONE or ANYTHING that promotes the sexual exploitation/mutilation of children is evil, plain and simple.

      And by extension anyone that supports such entities is also evil.

       

      End of discussion.

       

      #299174

      Base morality on the best scientific evidence? Well, that’s a house built on sand. Wasn’t so long ago, science was saying certain kinds of people were sub-human.

      Science may tell us “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen”, but it can’t tell us if doing X and/or Y is good, or if Z is a good result.

      All you’ll get with any morality based on the best scientific evidence is someone’s morality dressed up in the thin rags of science; after all, it was only a year or two ago they were telling us to “trust the science” and take the various vaxes and boosters, and even making moral arguments that we must takes all those shots.

      #299482

      And as a reminder of how inhuman people who “trust the science” can be…

      #299485

      ” Wasn’t so long ago, science was saying certain kinds of people were sub-human.”  That wasn’t actual science. Hitler even tasked his scientists to come up with any way to determine if Jews were a different race or if there was any scientific way of telling apart a Jew from an Arian. The result was it was not possible. Naturally, this information was never made public. But the Nazis knew their own racial ideology was bullshit. They still pushed it.

      Unfortunately, then as now, politicians have corrupted scientists to advance their ideological goals. But that isn’t science. Science is a method. It’s how we determin reality. I would argue that is the only moral standard a society can be built upon. If a moral standard isn’t based on reality (with the scientific method being how we determine what is and isn’t real), then it’s ideology. No good has ever come from ideology.

      Real science is neutral, non-ideological and purely reason and fact based.

      #299493

      To repeat something I wrote earlier, “Science may tell us “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen”, but it can’t tell us if doing X and/or Y is good, or if Z is a good result.” Science, then, cannot produce morality; if anything, morality must precede science, just as it must precede art, ethics, and any other human endeavor.

      Romans 7

      7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

      And even if someone where to come up with some kind of science-based morals, the surest thing about it will be this: even those who create those morals will not live by them.

      Romans 2

      Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man— you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself— that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

      12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

      The problem isn’t that politicians are corrupt, it’s that everyone, politicians and non-politicians, and yes even scientists, are corrupt. They are all fallen. We are all fallen, sinful. We have all not only known God’s laws, because He has written them inside us as well as given them to us in His word, but we have broken those laws, and very often done so with great enthusiasm.

      We have all made ourselves God’s enemies, and we all need Christ’s sacrificial death for our sins. We all need Christ to save us. Science cannot save us, because science cannot touch the real problem with man.

       

      #299495

      Science has been as corrupted as gender. Trust the science? Not from liars that try to claim all these different genders. Same liars about the genetic modification that they called a vaccine. Science has become a total farce. Big payola goes to anyone who pushes “climate change.”

      To the youth, I have to apologize. They scientists think it is okay to corrupt your innocence. You are not really supposed to be surrounded by filth and smut and vulgarity. Your institutions are all entirely corrupted.

       

      Screenshot 2023-05-15 at 01-26-02 Pushing to the Front

       

      Screenshot 2023-05-15 at 02-48-57 Pushing to the Front

      #299518

      “Science may tell us “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen”, but it can’t tell us if doing X and/or Y is good, or if Z is a good result. Science, then, cannot produce morality; if anything, morality must precede science, just as it must precede art, ethics, and any other human endeavor.”

      Morality is not something one can produce, it’s only something one can understand. Reality is the foundation of (universal) morality, and science is our method for understanding and predicting reality.

      I can’t even attempt to explain universal morality here. Ayn Rand needed a 60+ page speech in Atlas Shrugged to explain it on even just a surface level. It’s not a simple concept, but well worth checking out if you’re interested.

      In a very very simplified manner, it goes like this: Life itself is the standard of all value. What benefits life (not just individually but universally) is therefore moral, what harms life is immoral. I.e. when you make a profit by dumping toxic waste in a river, you are acting immorally, because your individual benefit comes at a cost for others. Same with a thief. An action must be universally beneficial to be good. Like inventing the cure for cancer or enacting a public policy that helps bring people out of poverty. We know (through science) that poverty is harmful to human development. Therefore reducing poverty is moral. Science can help us predict which policy can reduce poverty.
      That is what I mean when I say our policies should be based on our best scientific knowledge as opposed to ideology. It means we should use the scienfic method to judge whether or not our policy ideas would achieve a universally good outcome. It also means we must base our morality on reality as science has helped us understand it, not on the bible. A prime example would be homosexuality. Science has proven without a doubt that it’s a birth defect and found predictive biomarkers for it (in males). This means it is no more immoral than being born with a defective heart valve or with tourette’s. In the past, people with tourette’s were often tortured, thrown into institutions, even killed because people thought they were possessed. Today science has helped us understand the condition. Understanding reality is the key to goodness. If you deny or ignore reality, then how can your morality be good? What is it based on? Whims and superstitions? That is not goodness.

      #299524

      Screenshot 2023-05-15 at 13-02-00 Pushing to the Front

      Screenshot 2023-05-15 at 13-03-13 Pushing to the Front

      #299614

      Perhaps you can tell us, please, what scientific experiments and research  were performed in order to discover where it is written in nature that “Life itself is the standard of all value”? Did some biologist come upon it while vivisecting a cat? Or maybe an astronomer saw it written upon the gases of a vast and far-off nebula? Or, for that matter, how science discovered that “An action must be universally beneficial to be good”, or even how science learned that nature gives a flying rat’s fart about human development?

      And the idea of some kind of “universal morality” is hardly a new concept; far from it, moral absolutes were around far before Rand. But Rand made the mistake of thinking she could have such rules without a law-giver. But Rand, from what I can gather, was a rather disgusting, immoral person, anyway, so it’s no wonder she wanted  to cheat by trying to make herself some kind of god-like rules-maker.

      Hebraic monotheism has ethical implications, which the fascists found particularly abhorrent. The One God is righteous, and the source of transcendent moral law. Right and wrong are not determined by nature, nor by the community, nor by human choice. Rather, God reveals absolute moral principles, which transcend nature, the community, and the self, all of which come under God’s judgment.

      The fascists preferred a relativized ethic based upon the claims of nature, the needs of the community, and the assertion of the human will. Such an ethic could override the categorical “Thou shalt not kill.” The Holocaust could thus be permitted.

      The Hebraic and Biblical ethic had profound political implications. There is a higher law than that of the state. Nations, no less than individuals, are subject to those objective moral absolutes whose authority is grounded in the transcendent God. Morality is not cultural, but theological. Because of these transcendent moral standards, it is possible to criticize the state and its leaders.

      That a prophet could come into the presence of a king and denounce him for oppression and bloodshed on the higher authority of the “word of God” was a conceptual development of the profoundest importance for Western society. We are so used to criticizing our leaders and our society that we take it for granted, but this is only because the Judeo-Christian ethic is so deeply grounded in Western thought, which ever since has had a tradition of social criticism and moral reform.

      Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism . Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition. Chapter 3

    Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 29 (of 29 total)
    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

    SIGN UP FOR UPDATES!

    NAVIGATION