United States Discussions on Hollow Rhetoric

[Abhishekm]

There is nothing worse we can do to the next generation, either. I guess as long as we're okay making them suffer so we can avoid paying a price today...

Heh, thats why you don't let others raise your kids for you. As long as you take care of yours and make sure they have a good head on their shoulders it doesn't matter how much others fuckuo themselves or theirs. The only line is making sure they don't spread it to affect yours. And if you fail that that falls you've got it coming at that point as far as I care.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

Heh, thats why you don't let others raise your kids for you. As long as you take care of yours and make sure they have a good head on their shoulders it doesn't matter how much others fuckuo themselves or theirs. The only line is making sure they don't spread it to affect yours. And if you fail that that falls you've got it coming at that point as far as I care.

"they" will be the law-makers, judges, enforcers, and the juries and informers who back them up. "our country will go to hell, but my kids will be raised right" is an awfully low bar, and not a kind thing to do ones children.

 

[Abhishekm]

"they" will be the law-makers, judges, enforcers, and the juries and informers who back them up. "our country will go to hell, but my kids will be raised right" is an awfully low bar, and not a kind thing to do ones children.

Either that or fail your kids trying to fix a country and people that don't want to be fixed as opposed to prioritizing them.

You aren't responsible for much apart from yourself dude. You don't owe 'society' much apart from not being a drain on it. Not your fault or problem that most seem to fail even that.

Most any arguments to the contrary either way is generally Hollow Rhetoric (title drop😺).

 

[LordsFire]

You seem to have forgot libertarianism exists.

There are more than two choices for the future of the US.

Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a philosophical or theological root. Libertarianism is compatible with Christianity, and politically I am mostly Libertarian myself. I believe that the government should not interfere with the day-to-day affairs of people's lives unless they are attacking another.

Put another way, I more or less believe in the Non Aggression Principle, and I can justify it through Christian ethos. There are a fair number of other Christians who have a similar political attitude.

The thing is, libertarianism can also come from post-modern roots. And that kind of libertarian is the sort who will argue that there shouldn't just be drug legalization, but also that there's nothing immoral about being a drug addict. Or that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia.

And yes, there are more than two 'choices,' but the only ones that are seriously in the running right now are Christianity and Post-modernism. They've basically been the only contenders since the 1960's.

Of course, given you suffer the mistaken impression that the political right should jettison the religious right, and this would somehow help it rather than cause it to collapse as a political movement like the Whigs did, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this with you.

 

[Bacle]

Libertarianism is a political ideology, not a philosophical or theological root. Libertarianism is compatible with Christianity, and politically I am mostly Libertarian myself. I believe that the government should not interfere with the day-to-day affairs of people's lives unless they are attacking another.

Put another way, I more or less believe in the Non Aggression Principle, and I can justify it through Christian ethos. There are a fair number of other Christians who have a similar political attitude.

The thing is, libertarianism can also come from post-modern roots. And that kind of libertarian is the sort who will argue that there shouldn't just be drug legalization, but also that there's nothing immoral about being a drug addict. Or that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia.

And yes, there are more than two 'choices,' but the only ones that are seriously in the running right now are Christianity and Post-modernism. They've basically been the only contenders since the 1960's.

Of course, given you suffer the mistaken impression that the political right should jettison the religious right, and this would somehow help it rather than cause it to collapse as a political movement like the Whigs did, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this with you.

I think the religious Right should not be in the drivers seat of the Right, or even the front passengers seat, instead it's back with fiscal conservatism in the 'quaint grandma/grandpa duo in the back seat', while the Libertartain and nationalist Right sit upfront, raising the next generation, and religious zealots shouldn't be welcomed or encouraged no matter the ideology.

I think Christianity has been a mixed influence on humanity, both a bringer of peace and an excuse for war, with a lot of corruption and malice in it's leadership for centuries, and that any connection to Christ in most modern churches is tenuous at best.

I believe in the divine, and that Christ was definitely part of it.

But I am not sold that the divine would confine itself to only one expression of it's presence on the material plane, for simple reason that the divine does not suffer light-lag so could appear to species multiple billions of lightyears apart at the same, never mind a continent over, in any form it damn well pleased, and I do not trust the textual integrity of the modern Christian Bible.

So I do not see Christian dogma and morality as uniquely convincing in the full context of human and universal history. Thus I do not trust appeals to it for political purposes, when secular arguments can be readily made for most any position in the Right wishes to make.

 

[LordsFire]

So I do not see Christian dogma and morality as uniquely convincing in the full context of human and universal history. Thus I do not trust appeals to it for political purposes, when secular arguments can be readily made for most any position in the Right wishes to make.

1. While such arguments can 'readily' be made, they cannot effectively be made.
2. Read the Federalist papers, or at least some of them. It's a struggle to try to get through any real quantity, they're thick reading, but this nation was undisputably founded on Christian principles. Its governmental and legal system do not work without them.

 

[Bacle]

1. While such arguments can 'readily' be made, they cannot effectively be made.
2. Read the Federalist papers, or at least some of them. It's a struggle to try to get through any real quantity, they're thick reading, but this nation was undisputably founded on Christian principles. Its governmental and legal system do not work without them.

Yes, I know that old saw, it's been touted/embellished many a time to try to make the same argument you are making now.

Christian principles did play a major part in the world the Founders lived in and inspired parts of their setting up the US, but there is a distinct reason they made this a secularl country; most Christians cannot even agree on what 'real' Christianity is. The Founders wanted to nip those inter-denominational fights in the bud, before they ended up with another Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox domestic conflict on their hands. They knew what had happened in Europe when the churches were allowed to be a part of state affairs and policy making, and the Salem Witch Trials were a thing not so distant from their own time.

I will also argue that the Iroquois Confederacy, which existed among the New England tribes apart from the Colonies for a long time, was an equal inspiration for much of the Constitution, and one completely divorced from the Judaeo-Christian world's ideological and political history because of it's roots in native American tribes in pre-Columbian times.

This is why I do not trust arguments that appeal to Christianity or any religion when it comes to arguing US politics.

US civic structures are not solely the result of Judaeo-Christian philosophy, or even philosophy from the Old World, and in fact take heavily from a political/ideological structure that evolved completely independently of the Judaeo-Christian world, but the Founders thought highly enough to use as a inspiration when crafting the governmental structure of the US.

So if you want to make an argument can be made regarding US politics, do not try to fall back on religious reasoning or appeals (unless you are just trying to preach to the choir), if a secular one can be made in it's place for the same result. because Christianity is not the only sets of ideology or philospohy to have heavily influenced the Founders, nor were the Founders unaware of the dangers of letting churches and religions officially influence policy in nation-states.

 

[LordsFire]

So if you want to make an argument can be made regarding US politics, do not try to fall back on religious reasoning or appeals (unless you are just trying to preach to the choir), if a secular one can be made in it's place for the same result. because Christianity is not the only sets of ideology or philospohy to have heavily influenced the Founders, nor were the Founders unaware of the dangers of letting churches and religions officially influence policy in nation-states.

I'm aware that they learned from others outside of Judeo-Christian heritage, I've never claimed otherwise. Greek philosophy, some Roman conceptions about the Republic, some concepts that the Iriqouis had, sure, but the core philosophy was Christian.

Also, the founding fathers never wanted a 'secular' state in the definition that militant atheists now try to turn it into. They wanted a state that would take no part in religious ideological conflicts, neither for, nor against, and specifically tried to keep the state from becoming a tool to punish people of other faiths.

Then the atheists came and declared 'we don't count as a religion, so it's okay for us to oppress other religious groups with the power of the state.'

This is so far from what the Founding Fathers intended, it is literally a direct inversion. They had absolutely no problem with religious people in positions of power, and using religiously-grounded ethics behind making their decisions.

If you don't believe me, why were the Founding Fathers openly leading public prayers in government buildings? IIRC, they outright went to the level of holding church services in government buildings. The constitution simply declared that if such a thing was done under the auspices of the government, it could neither favor nor exclude anyone.

Now, we are instead come to a time where, as you aptly demonstrate, religious persecution and exclusion from government is perfectly acceptable...

...So long as that persecution is directed at Christians.

 

[Bassoe]

The point is moot, the law says the US isn't supposed to be any kind of theocracy regardless of if the religion in question is Christianity or Wokeism and keeping fanatics who want to turn it into a theocracy out of power is a good idea regardless of their religion. As for Christianity's decreasing support and Wokeism's increasing support, that's probably just a matter of Christianity no longer possessing and Wokeism having acquired the societal powers to forcibly compel support. In the past, openly declaring yourself non-Christian and advocating against Christian values would turn everyone against you, destroying your social life and employment opportunities. Today, the same is true of Wokeism.

 

[Cherico]

The point is moot, the law says the US isn't supposed to be any kind of theocracy regardless of if the religion in question is Christianity or Wokeism and keeping fanatics who want to turn it into a theocracy out of power is a good idea regardless of their religion. As for Christianity's decreasing support and Wokeism's increasing support, that's probably just a matter of Christianity no longer possessing and Wokeism having acquired the societal powers to forcibly compel support. In the past, openly declaring yourself non-Christian and advocating against Christian values would turn everyone against you, destroying your social life and employment opportunities. Today, the same is true of Wokeism.

this is one of the reasons why I think christianity, judism, buddism, islam and other older traditional religions are about to have a major come back in the next couple decades. People will find that Wokeism is on top of being spiritually empty actually a lot worse then traditional religon.

 

[Bacle]

I'm aware that they learned from others outside of Judeo-Christian heritage, I've never claimed otherwise. Greek philosophy, some Roman conceptions about the Republic, some concepts that the Iriqouis had, sure, but the core philosophy was Christian.

Also, the founding fathers never wanted a 'secular' state in the definition that militant atheists now try to turn it into. They wanted a state that would take no part in religious ideological conflicts, neither for, nor against, and specifically tried to keep the state from becoming a tool to punish people of other faiths.

Then the atheists came and declared 'we don't count as a religion, so it's okay for us to oppress other religious groups with the power of the state.'

This is so far from what the Founding Fathers intended, it is literally a direct inversion. They had absolutely no problem with religious people in positions of power, and using religiously-grounded ethics behind making their decisions.

If you don't believe me, why were the Founding Fathers openly leading public prayers in government buildings? IIRC, they outright went to the level of holding church services in government buildings. The constitution simply declared that if such a thing was done under the auspices of the government, it could neither favor nor exclude anyone.

Now, we are instead come to a time where, as you aptly demonstrate, religious persecution and exclusion from government is perfectly acceptable...

...So long as that persecution is directed at Christians.

Not following Christianity as a national religion/allowing other faiths and those without a religion (atheism is a religion the same way male pattern baldness is a hairstyle) =\= persecuting Christians.

This is another reason I do not trust arguments that are based in appeals to Christianity or it's dogma.

Too many Christians see the world becoming less religious as them bring persecuted personally, even when it really just means Christianity is not being given special favor over other faiths or ideologies.

Also, Wokism isn't a religion, it's a social and political fad influenced by Marxist philosophy. Conflating it with religion is putting blinders on your thinking about how to treat Woke subjects or arguments, which is again part of why the religious Right is not equipped to fight Wokism the same way libertarian and nationalist philosophy can.

this is one of the reasons why I think christianity, judism, buddism, islam and other older traditional religions are about to have a major come back in the next couple decades. People will find that Wokeism is on top of being spiritually empty actually a lot worse then traditional religon.

I think you are relying too much on the 'cycles of history' mindset.

We are not at the end of history, but neither are we stuck in a pre-determined cycle of societal events/generational mindsets.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

Either that or fail your kids trying to fix a country and people that don't want to be fixed as opposed to prioritizing them.

You aren't responsible for much apart from yourself dude. You don't owe 'society' much apart from not being a drain on it. Not your fault or problem that most seem to fail even that.

This is a common modern attitude, self-serving defeatism: 'oh I can't do anything and I shouldn't have to anyway its all just too big', a comforting lie that absolves man of his obligations. Raising kids to be fed into a wood chipper of african bigotry and violence is not raising them well, it's raising them for slaughter.

It's not even self-serving in the long run, either, because the outcome will be children hating their parents. Either because they are trained to be woke and hate them for their systematic racism and climate violence, or because they escape wokism and see their parents for what they are: self-serving cowards who avoided conflict at the price of dooming their children to greater conflict on worse terms.

 

[Abhishekm]

This is a common modern attitude, self-serving defeatism: 'oh I can't do anything and I shouldn't have to anyway its all just too big', a comforting lie that absolves man of his obligations. Raising kids to be fed into a wood chipper of african bigotry and violence is not raising them well, it's raising them for slaughter.

It's not even self-serving in the long run, either, because the outcome will be children hating their parents. Either because they are trained to be woke and hate them for their systematic racism and climate violence, or because they escape wokism and see their parents for what they are: self-serving cowards who avoided conflict at the price of dooming their children to greater conflict on worse terms.

See? Mostly Empty Rhetoric right there. Not your fault but any statements like that always ring a bit hollow. And the entire point is focusing on making sure YOUR kids WOULDNT be shredded by the woodchipper as opposed to dismantling the thing when others are adamant on it being a thing.

As odd as analogies are for stuff like this.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

See? Mostly Empty Rhetoric right there. Not your fault but any statements like that always ring a bit hollow. And the entire point is focusing on making sure YOUR kids WOULDNT be shredded by the woodchipper as opposed to dismantling the thing when others are adamant on it being a thing.

As odd as analogies are for stuff like this.

You don't actually know what "empty rhetoric" means, do you? It doesn't matter how you feel about a statement, if it feels hollow to you or not. It doesn't matter if you agree with the statement, or even if the statement is logically sound.

A statement is "empty rhetoric" when it is not backed up with action.

 

[JagerIV]

Not following Christianity as a national religion/allowing other faiths and those without a religion (atheism is a religion the same way male pattern baldness is a hairstyle) =\= persecuting Christians.

This is another reason I do not trust arguments that are based in appeals to Christianity or it's dogma.

Too many Christians see the world becoming less religious as them bring persecuted personally, even when it really just means Christianity is not being given special favor over other faiths or ideologies.

Also, Wokism isn't a religion, it's a social and political fad influenced by Marxist philosophy. Conflating it with religion is putting blinders on your thinking about how to treat Woke subjects or arguments, which is again part of why the religious Right is not equipped to fight Wokism the same way libertarian and nationalist philosophy can.

I think you are relying too much on the 'cycles of history' mindset.

We are not at the end of history, but neither are we stuck in a pre-determined cycle of societal events/generational mindsets.

Barcle, you argue for political persecution of Christians in your prior post. Your equal treatment is to be second if not third class members of the power.

While also demonstrating the point you seemed to be arguing against: someone has to be in charge, and that groups morals and interests will be, basically must be, pushed and taught, by nature of being the rulers.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Barcle, you argue for political persecution of Christians in your prior post. Your equal treatment is to be second if not third class members of the power.

While also demonstrating the point you seemed to be arguing against: someone has to be in charge, and that groups morals and interests will be, basically must be, pushed and taught, by nature of being the rulers.

Yeah, it's rhetoric like the example coming from the oh-so-tolerant left which convinced me that it's either rule or be ruled. idk about you, but I'd rather like in a christian nation than one that prosecutes me for being christian and/or white.

 

[Cherico]

Yeah, it's rhetoric like the example coming from the oh-so-tolerant left which convinced me that it's either rule or be ruled. idk about you, but I'd rather like in a christian nation than one that prosecutes me for being christian and/or white.

Id personally prefer it if we had a government that didn't care about how people worshiped or lived their personal lives. You know give people autonomy, unfortantly I think were past the point where an ideal or even good outcome is possible and we essentally have to try to pick the least bad outcome we can.

All because some people had to belive in a bunch of utopian bullshit.

 

[Typhonis]

 

[WolfBear]

I think we've already established it was a case of you misreading rather than me saying anything glowie. And yes, I get it, we can't all be serious all the time nor do I suggest it but you did ask me what we should be doing in general terms. As I also said, I think you need to view these internet discussions as a pressure valve rather than then using it as a "first strike"; again, you need to read before engaging in a knee jerk response. They would rather you waste all of your political energies here or in the various mazes they've created for people (There's a reason people like Ben Shapiro haven't been deplatformed) because when you're doing that all the time, you're not actually hurting the system.

In the long run, yes, there is the danger of them using your online presence against you. You think Cancel Culture is bad, wait until it's no longer social ostracization but using those memes you posted a few years ago to dunk on Biden as an excuse to throw you in prison for "domestic terrorism". I'm not even fucking joking, you really do need to be paying attention to the shit they've been pulling on people since January 6th.

How exactly do you suggest that we combat left-wing authoritarianism? Because IMHO conservatives were idiots for attempting to overturn the 2020 election since that simply gave the left MUCH more ammo to use against them. Out of all of the things that conservatives could have picked a fight over, that was probably one of the worst ones. This wasn't a razor-thin election like 2000.

 

[LordsFire]

How exactly do you suggest that we combat left-wing authoritarianism? Because IMHO conservatives were idiots for attempting to overturn the 2020 election since that simply gave the left MUCH more ammo to use against them. Out of all of the things that conservatives could have picked a fight over, that was probably one of the worst ones. This wasn't a razor-thin election like 2000.

See, Conservatives are concerned with this thing called 'the truth.'

A lot of us will pick fights over things that are true, even if it isn't politically expedient. The 2020 election was one of them.