Leftist Child Grooming

[King Arts]

A lot more was going on at that time, including this country failing to live up to its ideals.

So if the country never lived up to its ideals and it was rotten since forever, why should we revere those ideals?

Like I understand that racism was a bad thing in American history and was hypocritical but you are saying it was more than just racism right?

 

[Abhorsen]

So if the country never lived up to its ideals and it was rotten since forever, why should we revere those ideals?

Like I understand that racism was a bad thing in American history and was hypocritical but you are saying it was more than just racism right?

Because in the pursuit of those ideals we've constantly improved. No one lives up to the ideal, especially not a nation. The point of an ideal isn't just to reach it, but that even in failing to reach it you still make things better.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So if the country never lived up to its ideals and it was rotten since forever, why should we revere those ideals?

Like I understand that racism was a bad thing in American history and was hypocritical but you are saying it was more than just racism right?

Because in the pursuit of those ideals we've constantly improved. No one lives up to the ideal, especially not a nation. The point of an ideal isn't just to reach it, but that even in failing to reach it you still make things better.

And honestly, what's the alternative? "The strong will do as they will and the weak will bleed at the Strong's convenience? You want to talk about Choas, imagine a world where everyone is trying to cripple or kill everyone else before it can be done to them...or a Thanos type figure that periodically slaughters a population as a show of power and keep the rest of the peasants in line.

 

[King Arts]

And honestly, what's the alternative? "The strong will do as they will and the weak will bleed at the Strong's convenience? You want to talk about Choas, imagine a world where everyone is trying to cripple or kill everyone else before it can be done to them...or a Thanos type figure that periodically slaughters a population as a show of power and keep the rest of the peasants in line.

No it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have ideals. But it does raise the question of why should we respect or have the ideals that Americas founding fathers wrote about and the other enlightenment thinkers. Why not pick other ideals that are better at giving order or providing for people’s needs or make our own ideals?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

No it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have ideals. But it does raise the question of why should we respect or have the ideals that Americas founding fathers wrote about and the other enlightenment thinkers. Why not pick other ideals that are better at giving order or providing for people’s needs or make our own ideals?

because some of us do believe in those ideals even if they didn't.

 

[LordsFire]

No it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have ideals. But it does raise the question of why should we respect or have the ideals that Americas founding fathers wrote about and the other enlightenment thinkers. Why not pick other ideals that are better at giving order or providing for people’s needs or make our own ideals?

The ideals America was founded on have observably done the best job in human history at bringing prosperity, and are at least a contender for the best at a stable society.

What exactly are you comparing American history to?

 

[King Arts]

The ideals America was founded on have observably done the best job in human history at bringing prosperity, and are at least a contender for the best at a stable society.

What exactly are you comparing American history to?

But if those ideals were never implemented then you are wrong and those ideals you like were not responsible for Americas prosperity. In that case either random chance is or the ideas we actually implemented and not the ones that are revered are responsible for the wealth and success.

 

[Abhorsen]

But if those ideals were never implemented then you are wrong and those ideals you like were not responsible for Americas prosperity. In that case either random chance is or the ideas we actually implemented and not the ones that are revered are responsible for the wealth and success.

Did you even read what I posted? It responds to this perfectly:

Because in the pursuit of those ideals we've constantly improved. No one lives up to the ideal, especially not a nation. The point of an ideal isn't just to reach it, but that even in failing to reach it you still make things better.

The US was founded on ideals that it didn't implement yet, and still is reaching for those ideals. The USA has fallen short of those ideals, but it's more or less pursued them, and through that pursuit, created the greatest country on earth.

What makes the USA great is that it was even founded on ideals, and those ideals were good ideals. Most nations weren't even founded on ideals, and of the nations that were, most are simply awful (USSR for example).

 

[LordsFire]

But if those ideals were never implemented then you are wrong and those ideals you like were not responsible for Americas prosperity. In that case either random chance is or the ideas we actually implemented and not the ones that are revered are responsible for the wealth and success.

There are very, very few ideals that are possible to 'fully implement' in a civilization made up of fallible humans.

And all of those ideal are incredibly bad things to aim for, because the only reason they're attainable, is because they're easy, not because they're good.

Any meaningful ideal you're going to always be trying to reach towards, and only succeeding at sometimes.

How are you not familiar with this concept?

 

[strunkenwhite]

 

[King Arts]

Did you even read what I posted? It responds to this perfectly:

The US was founded on ideals that it didn't implement yet, and still is reaching for those ideals. The USA has fallen short of those ideals, but it's more or less pursued them, and through that pursuit, created the greatest country on earth.

What makes the USA great is that it was even founded on ideals, and those ideals were good ideals. Most nations weren't even founded on ideals, and of the nations that were, most are simply awful (USSR for example).

No your answer and @KilroywasNOTHere makes sense. You said "I like those ideals thats why I support them."

I'm questioning the people who did not make that answer.

There are very, very few ideals that are possible to 'fully implement' in a civilization made up of fallible humans.

And all of those ideal are incredibly bad things to aim for, because the only reason they're attainable, is because they're easy, not because they're good.

Any meaningful ideal you're going to always be trying to reach towards, and only succeeding at sometimes.

How are you not familiar with this concept?

But if those ideals are not put in place then they can't be responsible for economic wealth. You get that wealth does not magically come from the sky right? Wealth is a result of luck and hard work and skill. That means it's only real material things that determine if you are succesful or not. Saying happy thoughts does nothing. You have to put in the work.

 

[LordsFire]

No your answer and @KilroywasNOTHere makes sense. You said "I like those ideals thats why I support them."

I'm questioning the people who did not make that answer.


But if those ideals are not put in place then they can't be responsible for economic wealth. You get that wealth does not magically come from the sky right? Wealth is a result of luck and hard work and skill. That means it's only real material things that determine if you are succesful or not. Saying happy thoughts does nothing. You have to put in the work.

...Yes.

And 'putting in the work' is an ideal.

One that is pursued imperfectly.

 

[King Arts]

...Yes.

And 'putting in the work' is an ideal.

One that is pursued imperfectly.

I forgot who, but someone says those ideals were never implemented. There is a differance between not being implemented AT ALL and being implemented imperfectly.

 

[Poe]

But if those ideals were never implemented then you are wrong and those ideals you like were not responsible for Americas prosperity. In that case either random chance is or the ideas we actually implemented and not the ones that are revered are responsible for the wealth and success.

I have no idea what ideals you are getting at here but America has always been a nation with multiple competing ideas about what society should look like. Seems like a no true scotsman to argue its "ideals were never implemented" when at this point we've been everything from a Mercantile Republic to a democracy where every man and woman can vote.

 

[Abhorsen]

I have no idea what ideals you are getting at here but America has always been a nation with multiple competing ideas about what society should look like. Seems like a no true scotsman to argue its "ideals were never implemented" when at this point we've been everything from a Mercantile Republic to a democracy where every man and woman can vote.

No. America was a nation very much founded on a shared set of ideals, namely freedom, equality, and some form of capitalism ("the pursuit of happiness" was originally "the pursuit of property", and the fifth amendment's ban on uncompensated takings). Now what form of equality (equality before the law, or equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome)? That's up to debate somewhat, as people took the core idea and put their spin on it. And what freedom means is also somewhat up to debate. But the ideals still existed for how vague they are, and people in America identified with them, even in their breech. There's a lot of struggle over who properly embodies the ideals versus the struggle of what the ideals are.

The issue with your argument is that the type of government and how it works isn't very related to the ideals, but mostly related to "how best to implement the ideals". So that style of government can change wildly, while still having the same ideals.

In contrast, most nations are founded on a native populace, not a set of ideals. France is for the French, Italy for the Italians, etc. The UK is a little more complicated, as its founded on 4 nationalities banding (or being bound) together under a monarch. Note that in these countries, the struggle is over who counts as French, or Italian, or British.

The weakest countries are founded on occupying a certain area, hence why people bemoan the arbitrary splits made by European powers in Africa, etc. This has not been helpful to them, as there's nothing really uniting them together.

 

[Poe]

No. America was a nation very much founded on a shared set of ideals, namely freedom, equality, and some form of capitalism ("the pursuit of happiness" was originally "the pursuit of property", and the fifth amendment's ban on uncompensated takings). Now what form of equality (equality before the law, or equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome)? That's up to debate somewhat, as people took the core idea and put their spin on it. And what freedom means is also somewhat up to debate. But the ideals still existed for how vague they are, and people in America identified with them, even in their breech. There's a lot of struggle over who properly embodies the ideals versus the struggle of what the ideals are.

The issue with your argument is that the type of government and how it works isn't very related to the ideals, but mostly related to "how best to implement the ideals". So that style of government can change wildly, while still having the same ideals.

In contrast, most nations are founded on a native populace, not a set of ideals. France is for the French, Italy for the Italians, etc. The UK is a little more complicated, as its founded on 4 nationalities banding (or being bound) together under a monarch. Note that in these countries, the struggle is over who counts as French, or Italian, or British.

The weakest countries are founded on occupying a certain area, hence why people bemoan the arbitrary splits made by European powers in Africa, etc. This has not been helpful to them, as there's nothing really uniting them together.

No this is rose colored propaganda at best. America as a nation was founded through a dialectic of 12 independent colonies, each with their own factions and interests, and what we got was the minimum set of things they could all agree to live with. The only thing they all (by which I mean the richest elites) agreed upon was that moneyed white men should be able to live good lives and have a say in their government; that the government should be minimal and as constrained as humanely possible. Basically everything you're saying here is a retcon at the very least invented once the war was already on and a nation would be born regardless of any "ideals."

Also: the US was very much founded on a native populace, that is Englishman living in America (the revolution itself was argued as legal due to rights granted to all englishman.) It's also been a constant struggle over who is considered American with that only expanding once a new population immigrates over for them to unite against. My nation isn't some thought experiment and these are the arguments being used to justify the destruction and replacement of its people.

 

[Abhorsen]

No this is rose colored propaganda at best. America as a nation was founded through a dialectic of 12 independent colonies [emphasis mine], each with their own factions and interests, and what we got was the minimum set of things they could all agree to live with.

Given you apparently think there were only 12 colonies, I'm not inclined to trust any of the rest of your dubious knowledge of history.

Also, they seemed to have all signed a few documents in which they all agreed on some basic ideals. You might want to read those as well after opening a history book. America was founded upon ideals, that's what makes it special.

 

[LordsFire]

No this is rose colored propaganda at best. America as a nation was founded through a dialectic of 12 independent colonies, each with their own factions and interests, and what we got was the minimum set of things they could all agree to live with. The only thing they all (by which I mean the richest elites) agreed upon was that moneyed white men should be able to live good lives and have a say in their government; that the government should be minimal and as constrained as humanely possible. Basically everything you're saying here is a retcon at the very least invented once the war was already on and a nation would be born regardless of any "ideals."

Also: the US was very much founded on a native populace, that is Englishman living in America (the revolution itself was argued as legal due to rights granted to all englishman.) It's also been a constant struggle over who is considered American with that only expanding once a new population immigrates over for them to unite against. My nation isn't some thought experiment and these are the arguments being used to justify the destruction and replacement of its people.

I see someone has been absorbing at least some of the leftist propaganda about the founding fathers.

Why?

 

[Poe]

I see someone has been absorbing at least some of the leftist propaganda about the founding fathers.

Why?

Everything I said is the exact opposite of the leftist interpretation of the founders. The history and founding of this nation is one of real world events shaped by and tied to a people and not some set of "ideals."

Given you apparently think there were only 12 colonies, I'm not inclined to trust any of the rest of your dubious knowledge of history.

It was a mistype and its clear this is a hilarious projection. What is it with mods on this site being the most dishonest douche bags I've ever witnessed? Literally reddit tier pedantry where they don't even engage with the real ideas or points behind post, almost like they lack the ability and instead go for gotchas and attacking obvious strawman or typos in an attempt to get likes.

Also, they seemed to have all signed a few documents in which they all agreed on some basic ideals. You might want to read those as well after opening a history book. America was founded upon ideals, that's what makes it special.

You might want to fuck off and read even a fifth graders intro to us history. The US had a whole constitutional convention which barely resulted in a constitution, only passing after rigorous compromise where no one got everything they wanted and it was a very heated affair which itself was a follow up after the first attempt at a nation totally failed. Or did you completely miss this from all those history books you totally read?

To be honest I shouldn't even respond since its impossible for you to have not understood this is what I meant, and if you then disagreed with something to have stated it in response to that. Given you didn't its obvious you're either retarded, blinded by ideology or just responding in bad faith here.

 

[Cherico]

Given you apparently think there were only 12 colonies, I'm not inclined to trust any of the rest of your dubious knowledge of history.

Also, they seemed to have all signed a few documents in which they all agreed on some basic ideals. You might want to read those as well after opening a history book. America was founded upon ideals, that's what makes it special.

the foundation of a nation is a complex thing, real world events, ideals, cultural differences political realities all of these played a factor. To say just one thing went into the creation of a nation is like 5 blind men discribing an elephant by touch. History is complex because people are complex.