It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet... you just replied to this post, acknowledging both it and the former, however responded to the legitimate queries of neither. So the cycle continues... 

Evade. Ignore. Rant. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I think he's close to understanding; why we rinse, more than once... 🧐

[Phi for All]

On 8/3/2022 at 5:51 AM, Greg A. said:

And I consider it is my right and duty to do battle with what I see as society's #1 enemy, the Hydra that is the Left.

This would be a good stance to flesh out an argument from, so we understand why you feel the way you do. Exactly why is "the Left" society's #1 enemy? What specifically have they done to earn them this distinction? I'm looking for clear evidence, not FOX News talking points. It's easy to say "liberals are the root of all evil" but it doesn't tell me why you think that way. Does that make sense? Give me specific examples of why you hate liberals and feel like they're the enemy of humankind.

[Greg A.]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The Left wants you to have universal healthcare coverage, which isn't tied to your employer and would cost a fraction of what most folks pay now.

Conservatives want for all of us to be wealthy enough to afford medical treatments. 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They want you to have bodily autonomy and be the ultimate authority for what is done to you physically.

A woman does not spontaneously become pregnant. And government has a responsibility to it's citizens to protect them, that's including protecting them from themselves.  

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They would rather support you financially so you don't turn to crime than put you in prison for being poor and desperate.

Employment is the only successful way to re-distribute wealth. Welfare recipients make the worst criminals. 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They want people to have equal rights under the law. 

Unless of course these are white males. 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They want to be governed by principles, not authoritarian commanders pretending to lead.

The Left have by far the worst track record when it comes to deaths. Starting with Robespierre to Pol Pot more recently. Stalin 9 million dead. Mao 45 million. 620 thousand men died as a result of the Left's attack on the Right in the US Civil War. 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They want everybody who's eligible to have access to voting, and they want them to exercise that right.

If the voting age was raised to 25 and voting was not encouraged the outcome would be much better. 

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The way I see it, you either have to think those things can't happen, or you don't want them to happen. Which is it, and why?

I've been thinking about these issues over at least twenty years, whereas you don't need to think about them at all as they are what you already believe. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Conservatives want for all of us to be wealthy enough to afford medical treatments. 

What conservatives want is, wealth to be enough to afford more than them...

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Conservatives want for all of us to be wealthy enough to afford medical treatments. 

Without insurance? That would be great, wouldn't it? Liberals think we already are wealthy enough to afford medical insurance, as long as it's universal and supported by everyone. I want you to have it, because your health matters to all of us.

[Greg A.]

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Hilariously, you use words whose meaning you don't know..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

"Today, ideologies such as social liberalism are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for anti-capitalist movements, namely socialism,[8] including anarchism, communism, the labour movement, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism"

..and in another thread, you seemed to like the idea of (communist, i.e. far-left) China annexing/attacking (republican) China (aka "Taiwan")..

If you fight with the Left, as you claim, or believe in so, you should rather support non-communistic (i.e. not far-Left) Taiwan..

 

 

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

WTF dude?! Again you skip an opportunity to teach me why you're making the claims you do. I really want to know, and you're avoiding it by posting that you're not avoiding anything.

Pick even one of those items I mentioned, and give me your thoughts on why my liberal approach to the issue is wrong or bad for you.

I hadn't replied to your previous post because I'd simply overlooked it. The first post I believe I haven't replied to while being here. My intention was to rectify my mistake, as I have now done. 

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Hilariously, you use words whose meaning you don't know..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

"Today, ideologies such as social liberalism are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for anti-capitalist movements, namely socialism,[8] including anarchism, communism, the labour movement, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism"

..and in another thread, you seemed to like the idea of (communist, i.e. far-left) China annexing/attacking (republican) China (aka "Taiwan")..

If you fight with the Left, as you claim, or believe in so, you should rather support non-communistic (i.e. not far-Left) Taiwan..

 

You use a text-book approach. I use simple observations. You'll find the majority of "leftist" governments are dictatorships, this putting the majority of democracies on the right. So, do you note the absurdity of what it is you are really saying. And accept that it is in fact the other way around. Democracies are representations of the Left, dictatorships of the Right. Democracy is a 'soft' political system, dictatorships are 'hard'. 

 

 

[MigL]

I know some very good people who consider themselves conservative ( Canadian, not Republican ), and resent the fact that they are being lumped in with this guy.
In Canada, being conservative means not changing our true and tried ways, with new ideas like for-pay clinics or split cost health care.
Or getting rid of our armed forces in favor of 'peace-keeping' forces.
Or allowing armed citizens, and militias, to protect ourselves from our representative Government.

These are just a few examples that indicate there are differences in 'conservatives' as well as differences in 'liberals'.
And Greg has mentioned some instances ( Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ) where left wing idealism has gone 'off the rails' and murdered more people than even fascists like A Hitler did.

[TheVat]

The meaning of Left-wing, i.e. the specific ideologies, really depends on the location of the Overton Window at a given time and place.  You really need to specify where that is and what specific policies you are opposing.  Swedish liberal democracy and Stalin really aren't at all the same thing, and are greatly separated on any political spectrum.  

Here's a wiki definition of Left, to get started:

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.^[1][2][3][4] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.^[1] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, left-wing supporters "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated.

 

 

[Greg A.]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

And the very people he is defending are Russians and Chinese, both Communist, which is, by definition, left.

Authoritarian governments ( dictatorships ) are authoritarian no matter their political leaning; extreme right, or extreme left.

All men are created equal has biblical overtones and Christianity too is a notoriously 'soft' religion. How can democracy be anything other than a soft (liberal) form of government. 

[MigL]

Just like differences between types of conervatives and liberals, there is a huge difference between 'soft' and compassionate.

The idea is not one extreme ideology, or the other opposite.
It is a combination of the two which yield the most benefit for all people.
Democracy does that much much better than authoritanianism/dictatorship.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

A woman does not spontaneously become pregnant. And government has a responsibility to it's citizens to protect them, that's including protecting them from themselves. 

No they don't, but men historically have ignored their part in procreation and leave it all to women. One of the problems I have with your stance is that you consider an unborn fetus to be a citizen that needs protecting, but you won't let me claim it on my taxes until it's born, and you won't give it any other protections citizens get, like the right to vote. You give more worth to a glob of cells than you do to a living woman. You insist that a heartbeat is life to an embryo, but when I'm old and dying you move the goalposts and insist it's the cessation of my brain activity that signals death. Why won't you even consider abortions before six weeks, before there's brain activity?

Obviously, you aren't a small-government conservative who believes the government should intrude in citizen's lives as little as possible. I don't see how you could believe that AND believe that the government should step in to protect citizens from themselves. Do you approve of fascism as a mechanism for exercising this government protection? Kick in their doors if they don't approve of what you're doing?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Conservatives want for all of us to be wealthy enough to afford medical treatments. 

Which is impossible under pure capitalism. If more people have money, that drives prices up. There will always be people who can't afford medical treatments.

Tell me, what policies have conservatives implemented to ensure that we are all wealthy enough? They oppose a minimum wage. How do you get wealthy working for $8 an hour? Even if you work 2 jobs, that's $33,280 a year @40 hours a week. Probably less, because I don't think the GOP is a big fan of paid sick leave. How does the right feel about unions, who fight for higher wages?

They are opposed to public education, which might allow people to get better jobs. If one hits a stretch of bad luck, what is the conservative stance on help for people out of work and possibly homeless, because they can't work? 

Sounds more like the conservative want you to have a unicorn, but it's just a talking point. 

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

A woman does not spontaneously become pregnant.

So what? What business is it of yours what other people do in private?

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Employment is the only successful way to re-distribute wealth.

Where is your evidence of this? We had much better wealth equality back when taxation was much different. And see my remarks above about working for minimum wage. How successful is that at redistributing wealth?

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Welfare recipients make the worst criminals. 

Where is your evidence of this?

Of course you might be referring to tax cheats, et.al, as the best criminals, but on a dollar-by-dollar basis, I suspect that the rich are the worst criminals. The IRS estimates tax cheats cost the US $1 trillion a year.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-04-13/tax-cheats-are-costing-the-us-1-trillion-a-year-irs-estimates

Even if you had a million welfare recipients stealing $100,000 each every year, that's only 10% of the tax cheating. (and we could go into other white-collar crime and wage theft as well)

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Unless of course these are white males. 

Sorry, what? What unequal treatment do white males get?

(here is another example of my observation about only dealing in generalities and manufactured outrage)

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

The Left have by far the worst track record when it comes to deaths. Starting with Robespierre to Pol Pot more recently. Stalin 9 million dead. Mao 45 million.

Sorry, these are the fault of liberals in the US? And this suggests that the liberals you seem to dislike were supportive of these regimes. 

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

620 thousand men died as a result of the Left's attack on the Right in the US Civil War. 

The left attacked the right? What history books are you reading? Since when is slavery a liberal tenet?

(also, if you have to delve into history like this, it sounds like you have no arguments to make about politics of the current century) 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

If the voting age was raised to 25 and voting was not encouraged the outcome would be much better. 

Why 25? If this is some age of responsibility then surely nobody should be able to do other things, like own a gun, before they are 25. Doesn't seem like a conservative view.

 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Employment is the only successful way to re-distribute wealth. Welfare recipients make the worst criminals. 

Huh, that's interesting, because the most recent studies show that when welfare is removed (for example, when an 18-year-old no longer gets Social Security supplements from a parent on SS), crime goes up. Source: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BFI_WP_2022-28.pdf

Employment can be with a private company that pays a fraction of the worth of a good or service to its workers, or it can be through social cooperatives where each worker is paid closer to the actual value, and the owner is compensated fairly for providing resources. Employment can also be through the state, where goods and services are distributed and performed to all who want to deal. In this case, the emphasis is on making sure people have good products and services, and no emphasis is placed on falsely marking up the value as profit. Capitalism, socialism, and communism ALL use employment, so your distinctions need to be further defined. 

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

In Canada, being conservative means not changing our true and tried ways, with new ideas like for-pay clinics or split cost health care.

Uh, there is a push from some conservative provincial governments that actually go into that direction.

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Unless of course these are white males.

So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?! Again, I'm going to look at some studies that have actual numbers so you can stop waving your hands. Did you know that, if you take a sample of 100,000 white people in the US, 450 of them are in prison? A sample of 100,000 indigenous  people (native American or Alaskan native) shows that 1291 are in prison. Out of 100,000 black people, 2306 are in prison. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw3K2XBhAzEiwAmmgrAqX1ByZOv00NNSKl-1_yiUB7xdgvJ1rfsxrzRPuaZHsns98Bq0lWnBoCz0oQAvD_BwE

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

The Left have by far the worst track record when it comes to deaths. Starting with Robespierre to Pol Pot more recently. Stalin 9 million dead. Mao 45 million.

Yeah, the US has nothing like that kind of Left. Remember, liberals in the US like democracy.

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

620 thousand men died as a result of the Left's attack on the Right in the US Civil War. 

Since the civil war was all about kidnapping and enslaving black humans, are you in favor of bringing it back? Do you feel that the kidnap and enslavement of black people was justified by your Right?

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

If the voting age was raised to 25 and voting was not encouraged the outcome would be much better. 

Voting age is certainly open for interpretation, but what's the deal with "not encouraged"? That sounds a LOT like you think some people aren't worthy to vote. Is that true?

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I've been thinking about these issues over at least twenty years, whereas you don't need to think about them at all as they are what you already believe. 

What?! I'm 65 this year, I've been shaping my worldview my whole life. I think about it with every thought. I don't view others as above or below me. We're all living side by side, we're all stronger side by side, and I think the uber wealthy have spent a LOT of money making sure you stay uneducated, uninformed, and pointing the finger at everybody but THEM.

I've seen wages decouple from productivity, forcing average people to work two jobs to make ends meet. I've watched medical insurance go from being actuarial based and affordable to this horrorshow worldwide laughingstock we call managed healthcare. I was born an Eisenhower Republican, and I first voted after the Nixon years. I embraced the Democrats until Bernie Sanders came along, and now I'm an Independent. I don't know why you think you know my life well enough to presume what I think, but so far you've been wrong on every count. Perhaps you should read what I write, and reason it out for yourself? You have a great many prejudices, my friend.

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

All men are created equal has biblical overtones and Christianity too is a notoriously 'soft' religion. How can democracy be anything other than a soft (liberal) form of government. 

So maybe you aren't a Christian Nationalist? 

What form of government would you prefer to democracy, and why?

Thanks very much for the replies btw, this feels much more like a good-faith discussion. I look forward to more substance and meaningfulness.

[TheVat]

Seems like the same old Left Strawman emerging here, driven by the same RW talking points.  Rather than take the trouble to define what he means by Left policies, he simply goes right to bashing caricatures that appeal to the darkest incidents of historical totalitarianism.  

I doubt we can actually steer this towards discussing realworld outcomes in various countries, with comparisons of living standards, happiness index, poverty rates, access to healthcare, maternity leave, elder care, etc.  Because to go that direction would discover that center-left liberal democracies like Denmark or Japan get the highest marks on these quality of life metrics.  

When you can't pound the facts, you pound the table.  

 

[Greg A.]

On 8/3/2022 at 11:16 PM, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Split off to its own topic for focus.

 

So when you're wrong about science and get called out for not following our rules of evidence, you call that censorship. Now you'd like to talk about how the Right is your ideal. How far do you take this? Do you believe anyone who thinks liberally deserves to die? What are you going to do with these people when you take over? Are you going to repeat the colonization indoctrination policies that worked so well for the Right to suppress all those people of color? 

I don't believe I was wrong. I therefor need to believe I've been censored. My explanation for this censorship is laid out in the opening post of that thread and is I believe because I'm trying to change something that has already happened in the future and is therefor unchangeable now. The censorship is part of a chronological protection factor that prevents me (anyone) changing what will be a socio-political impact concluded symbolically, in one hundred years time.  

I'm not going to be taking over nothing. Conservatism is in its death throws, the Left is near unstoppable at this point and will be unstoppable in the near future with a point of no return situation on a near horizon rapidly approaching.  And It's the "Left" that suppresses people regardless of their color only in particular if they are white and male. 

 

America has given the world democracy, the light bulb and millions of other things. We (the world) still have light bulbs, they have undergone modifications though. It's now time to update democracy. That's because if we don't do that soon we reach a point of no return. And although democracy is an effective way of electing a government, it is not an effective way of electing an effective government. Sure, democracy is inherently fair, and valid as logic, but it is also an inherently flawed system with consequent inherent vulnerabilities. Over time these vulnerabilities will be exploited even if for no other reason than they represent vulnerabilities. We, the patriarchs of society have it as an obligation to protect democracies from these exploitations. We now have less than eight months to do that.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This would be a good stance to flesh out an argument from, so we understand why you feel the way you do. Exactly why is "the Left" society's #1 enemy? What specifically have they done to earn them this distinction? I'm looking for clear evidence, not FOX News talking points. It's easy to say "liberals are the root of all evil" but it doesn't tell me why you think that way. Does that make sense? Give me specific examples of why you hate liberals and feel like they're the enemy of humankind.

There would be no significant group of individuals on earth that would want to destroy mankind. So if that were to happen then if not someone, then something,  would need to  be responsible for that outcome. I use what I call the 'chromosome conspiracy' as an explanation for want of anything more specific as the cause. 

Put simply, in the coming battle XX X vs Y, the numerically superior X chromosome, as represented by the pure form female, will eliminate the inferior Y chromosome, as represented by the mutant male. Liberality the socio-political representation of our X chromosome. The modern media a vector for its influence. The battle, over, with the elimination of the last male on earth in one hundred years time. This is effectively inevitable with very little time to stop it happening and there being only the one option available to avoid this the process of gendercide. 

Woman can have babies. Woman do have babies. Women do have babies and or work. Where logically is there a place for males in this.

Will your misplaced faith in humanism, the religion of the Liberal, help? No, just the opposite as it too plays a part in the process. Faith in a humanity that has given us global warming while at the same time offering the only known antidote the even more horrific prospect of a nuclear winter.  

Equality, despite your idealism, is completely unrealistic and will in fact only represent a milestone in what is a supersession process. The goal of mainstream feminists, parity, when reached. will last but a second. The feminists elected not being among those primarily academic types and represent a new group. The power hungry megalomaniacs, the third and final group that arise (gravitate up in a soft environment) and take over all leftist governments, the ultimate successors. Democracy (democratic elections) ironically, making way for the ultimate dictatorship. Our primal nature, renewed with every new generation (born naked), the abandonment  of conservative values, ensuring only female candidates are nominated, and without creating any precedent result in all female governments. It being part of our primal nature to put females first. 

The inevitability of this outcome would be about 99% as there is very little time left to carry out the difficult process of reform needed. It is an inherent obligation of society's patriarchs, men and women, to protect society.

Patriarchy is being dismantled making way for the ultimate matriarchy, complete, and symbolically represented by the death of the last male human being on earth in one hundred years time, Lastman's last day.   

The evidence for this eventuation is all around us.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Greg A.

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

It is an inherent obligation of society's patriarchs, men and women, to protect society.

Just to clarify, do you mean matriarchs and patriarchs, or are you talking just about women who support your patriarchy?

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I don't believe I was wrong. I therefor need to believe I've been censored.

Ah, you need to believe. That explains a lot. Being wrong about some things means you’re wrong about anything built on them, and that can be problematic.

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

My explanation for this censorship is laid out in the opening post of that thread and is I believe because I'm trying to change something that has already happened in the future and is therefor unchangeable now. The censorship is part of a chronological protection factor that prevents me (anyone) changing what will be a socio-political impact concluded symbolically, in one hundred years time.  

And you’ve been told not to discuss this anymore, because you went ~6 pages and refused to address issues people raised, and we decided that’s enough. You aren’t engaging in good faith, and when that becomes obvious we shut threads down. In accordance with the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 It's the "Left" that suppresses people regardless of their color only in particular if they are white and male. 

Another nebulous, unsupported claim. You’re all hat and no cattle.

 

7 hours ago, Greg A. said:

America has given the world democracy, the light bulb and millions of other things. We (the world) still have light bulbs, they have undergone modifications though. It's now time to update democracy. That's because if we don't do that soon we reach a point of no return. And although democracy is an effective way of electing a government, it is not an effective way of electing an effective government. Sure, democracy is inherently fair, and valid as logic, but it is also an inherently flawed system with consequent inherent vulnerabilities. Over time these vulnerabilities will be exploited even if for no other reason than they represent vulnerabilities. We, the patriarchs of society have it as an obligation to protect democracies from these exploitations. We now have less than eight months to do that.

 

See above comment.

29 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The evidence for this eventuation is all around us

Which you’ve been asked to identify, specifically, and you don’t. Can’t, probably, but would never admit it.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you’ve been told not to discuss this anymore, because you went ~6 pages and refused to address issues people raised, and we decided that’s enough. You aren’t engaging in good faith, and when that becomes obvious we shut threads down. In accordance with the rules you agreed to when you joined.

I'm quoting this to increase the odds it gets read. Greg A, when we ask someone to support their ideas somewhat as rigorously as mainstream science does, it's so we're not wasting our time discussing unphysical/wishful/mistaken explanations for various phenomena. If you can't support an idea with at least some evidence (certainly more than your repeated insistence), then we reasonably prefer the mainstream explanation that DO have mountains of such evidence. We would love to examine the evidence that drives your trust in your belief, but if you can't give us any, we'll stick with what we know works. I hope that makes sense to you. 

It's not censorship, it's setting standards.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

 .... Our primal nature, renewed with every new generation (born naked), the abandonment  of conservative values, ensuring only female candidates are nominated, and without creating any precedent result in all female governments. It being part of our primal nature to put females first. 

 

 

A larger part of our primal nature is to rant on and on about matters we know very little about. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by TheVat

[MigL]

It was a good experiment Phi.
Trying to figure out how a deluded mind works.

But Greg's last couple of posts, talking about how things have already happened in the future, and gender wars, have veered into bat-shit crazy territory.

[Peterkin]

When it comes to conservative batshit.... ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62431415

Quote

"We must take back the institutions in Washington and in Brussels," he said. "We must co-ordinate the movement of our troops, because we face the same challenge.... On Tuesday, Mr Orban visited former President Donald Trump at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

 

[MigL]

Fighting against Globalization of economies and governance is not a 'conservative' agenda, Peterkin; no matter how much you want to villify those you consider 'conservatives' with it.
It is an opinion that Orban and Trump seem to share.

You seem to forget that a huge step towards globalization, the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) was implemented by two conservative politicians, R Reagan and B Mulroney.

Bat-shit crazy is ignoring facts, and basing opinion on personal 'beliefs'.