4 ms·

I'm not having much success trying to find anything in this rather incoherent rant that could, even charitably, be described as a good faith effort to accuratel

I'm not having much success trying to find anything in this rather incoherent rant that could, even charitably, be described as a good faith effort to accurately describe whatever it's subject is supposed to be... I suspect you're a big fan of the US constitution? In that case I fear you won't like to hear how that document was really quite like what you are complaining about: upsetting the (god-given) status quo to grant newfangled "rights" to the masses that cannot handle them. Replacing what had worked so well for so long with risky, top-down experiments in government-engineered "elite" ideas of equality, etc. The foundational philosophy of the US happens to be the so-called "Enlightenment", if only because that was what was hip in 1759. If you need proof, just find the reason the French send the US such a generous gift as Lady Liberty. As to empirical evidence of progress, it would seem that you can have your pick among any number of geographic areas and you will find a astonishingly strong correlation between general welfare and the sort of "undefined futuristic government-sanctioned destruction" you bemoan. Even within the outlier, namely the US, the less God-fearing parts on the coast seem to be doing quite well. Of course I'm defining "general welfare" to include the right of women to vote and the rights of gay people to not be stoned, and I'm getting the vibe that you would disagree with that. Tough luck, I guess: That's the government-sanctioned metric now. (although I suspect even most born-again white men would prefer today's godless dentists and scandalous, dangerous ideas of "all men are created equal")

pokemongoaway 8y ago
"I'm not having much success trying to find anything in this rather incoherent rant that could, even charitably, be described as a good faith effort to accurately describe whatever it's subject is supposed to be..." Ditto here - how is this supposed to add to the discussion? How would you reply to this if someone said it to you? The subject is culture - and indeed the subject of the study cited by the article is describing its effects as well. "I suspect you're a big fan of the US constitution? In that case I fear you won't like to hear how that document was really quite like what you are complaining about: upsetting the (god-given) status quo to grant newfangled "rights" to the masses that cannot handle them. Replacing what had worked so well for so long with risky, top-down experiments in government-engineered "elite" ideas of equality, etc." What does it mean to be a big fan of the US constitution? Especially if your following passage is destroying the straw man of a highly held US constitution! Again bringing up god... Strange - all three comments defaming me did this, and I did not mention god or religion (just culture). Your argument here seems to be that the US constitution was against the trend of its time - and that I am against the trend of my time (hence the need for censorship and downvoting of my comments)... So I don't see how that is at odds. The second half of your argument here was that US constitution was at odds with its time because it was replacing what had worked so well before. I would say this is a mischaracterization or revisionist view of history. An increase in personal liberty was what the American settlers were seeking. This was not because the desire for independence, freedom, and liberty suddenly arose in this group - but rather because they realize a decrease in those aspects of their lives (and the opportunity for independence arose). Furthermore, the most characteristic freedoms detailed in the US constitution came from earlier European movements, but were able to take deeper root without the competition of previous establishments in the "new world." "The foundational philosophy of the US happens to be the so-called "Enlightenment", if only because that was what was hip in 1759. If you need proof, just find the reason the French send the US such a generous gift as Lady Liberty." I'm not sure how this adds to your argument, but I am happy to reply to it if you help me understand its context within your argument. "As to empirical evidence of progress, it would seem that you can have your pick among any number of geographic areas and you will find a astonishingly strong correlation between general welfare and the sort of "undefined futuristic government-sanctioned destruction" you bemoan." You're going to need to actually make an argument if you want to make an argument. For example, what are the empirical evidences of progress you are citing here? Let's be specific so we can communicate effectively. And where is the evidence that you'll find a strong correlation between general welfare and "the sort of undefined futuristic government-sanctioned destruction." I'm not sure why you paraphrase me sarcastically here. Is the surveillance state not futuristic and government-sanctioned? Are prescription drug abuse, infant mortality, suicide, mental health issues, fertility issues, useless university degrees, and the size of the government not all on the rise? "Even within the outlier, namely the US, the less God-fearing parts on the coast seem to be doing quite well." Again talking about God... And I'm not sure what you mean by it - as it is not a reply to my argumentation. It seems as if you mean to imply that the west coast and big cities are "less God-fearing," at least that is how a CNN news anchor would probably characterize it. You can find hundreds of articles about the "mass exodus" from California of the middle class - and this directly contradicts your point. There are dozens of other statistics that contradict your point that the "less God-fearing" parts of the US are doing better: homelessness, crime, etc. I'm happy to provide citations for all of my claims too - but when my comments get killed (censored) and all of the replies turn out to be straw man arguments and mischaracterizations, it is disheartening. "Of course I'm defining "general welfare" to include the right of women to vote and the rights of gay people to not be stoned, and I'm getting the vibe that you would disagree with that. Tough luck, I guess: That's the government-sanctioned metric now." So you've proven you can make up a new definition of "general welfare" on the fly... I don't see how this supports your argument or diminishes mine either. If you want to bring up the rights of gays not to be stoned, then that would be in support of European traditionalism. Need I remind you that the last "woman's march" in DC was lead by a pro-sharia woman in a burka? The left's anti-borders, anti-traditionalism, anti-free speech stances are more dangerous to groups like gays due to these facts. Do I need to remind you that around 50% of British Muslims support sharia? You're arguing against a straw man again here - as if I said that gays should be stoned... No! Your true opponents - the ones seemingly allied with the left these days - are the ones that have a sharia law that requires women to be covered and promotes the stoning of gays. Are you forgetting which culture gave women the right to vote and which culture outlawed slavery first (and which cultures actually still have slavery)? None of what you say seems to be true! And the rest of your writing seems to be sarcastic and using "born-again white men" like it should be defaultly insulting. Is being white bad or something? It really seems like you believe it.

pokemongoaway 8y ago

"I'm not having much success trying to find anything in this rather incoherent rant that could, even charitably, be described as a good faith effort to accurately describe whatever it's subject is supposed to be..." Ditto here - how is this supposed to add to the discussion? How would you reply to this if someone said it to you? The subject is culture - and indeed the subject of the study cited by the article is describing its effects as well. "I suspect you're a big fan of the US constitution? In that case I fear you won't like to hear how that document was really quite like what you are complaining about: upsetting the (god-given) status quo to grant newfangled "rights" to the masses that cannot handle them. Replacing what had worked so well for so long with risky, top-down experiments in government-engineered "elite" ideas of equality, etc." What does it mean to be a big fan of the US constitution? Especially if your following passage is destroying the straw man of a highly held US constitution! Again bringing up god... Strange - all three comments defaming me did this, and I did not mention god or religion (just culture). Your argument here seems to be that the US constitution was against the trend of its time - and that I am against the trend of my time (hence the need for censorship and downvoting of my comments)... So I don't see how that is at odds. The second half of your argument here was that US constitution was at odds with its time because it was replacing what had worked so well before. I would say this is a mischaracterization or revisionist view of history. An increase in personal liberty was what the American settlers were seeking. This was not because the desire for independence, freedom, and liberty suddenly arose in this group - but rather because they realize a decrease in those aspects of their lives (and the opportunity for independence arose). Furthermore, the most characteristic freedoms detailed in the US constitution came from earlier European movements, but were able to take deeper root without the competition of previous establishments in the "new world." "The foundational philosophy of the US happens to be the so-called "Enlightenment", if only because that was what was hip in 1759. If you need proof, just find the reason the French send the US such a generous gift as Lady Liberty." I'm not sure how this adds to your argument, but I am happy to reply to it if you help me understand its context within your argument. "As to empirical evidence of progress, it would seem that you can have your pick among any number of geographic areas and you will find a astonishingly strong correlation between general welfare and the sort of "undefined futuristic government-sanctioned destruction" you bemoan." You're going to need to actually make an argument if you want to make an argument. For example, what are the empirical evidences of progress you are citing here? Let's be specific so we can communicate effectively. And where is the evidence that you'll find a strong correlation between general welfare and "the sort of undefined futuristic government-sanctioned destruction." I'm not sure why you paraphrase me sarcastically here. Is the surveillance state not futuristic and government-sanctioned? Are prescription drug abuse, infant mortality, suicide, mental health issues, fertility issues, useless university degrees, and the size of the government not all on the rise? "Even within the outlier, namely the US, the less God-fearing parts on the coast seem to be doing quite well." Again talking about God... And I'm not sure what you mean by it - as it is not a reply to my argumentation. It seems as if you mean to imply that the west coast and big cities are "less God-fearing," at least that is how a CNN news anchor would probably characterize it. You can find hundreds of articles about the "mass exodus" from California of the middle class - and this directly contradicts your point. There are dozens of other statistics that contradict your point that the "less God-fearing" parts of the US are doing better: homelessness, crime, etc. I'm happy to provide citations for all of my claims too - but when my comments get killed (censored) and all of the replies turn out to be straw man arguments and mischaracterizations, it is disheartening. "Of course I'm defining "general welfare" to include the right of women to vote and the rights of gay people to not be stoned, and I'm getting the vibe that you would disagree with that. Tough luck, I guess: That's the government-sanctioned metric now." So you've proven you can make up a new definition of "general welfare" on the fly... I don't see how this supports your argument or diminishes mine either. If you want to bring up the rights of gays not to be stoned, then that would be in support of European traditionalism. Need I remind you that the last "woman's march" in DC was lead by a pro-sharia woman in a burka? The left's anti-borders, anti-traditionalism, anti-free speech stances are more dangerous to groups like gays due to these facts. Do I need to remind you that around 50% of British Muslims support sharia? You're arguing against a straw man again here - as if I said that gays should be stoned... No! Your true opponents - the ones seemingly allied with the left these days - are the ones that have a sharia law that requires women to be covered and promotes the stoning of gays. Are you forgetting which culture gave women the right to vote and which culture outlawed slavery first (and which cultures actually still have slavery)? None of what you say seems to be true! And the rest of your writing seems to be sarcastic and using "born-again white men" like it should be defaultly insulting. Is being white bad or something? It really seems like you believe it.