Mixed Political Discussion (split from Political Humor)

[MSC]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t know why people are surprised that Trump cheated death at his rally. Cheating is something he’s really good at.

I have an evangelical acquaintance who claimed God saved Trump at the last minute; I executed a perfect scripture based attack by pointing out that the bible claims the devil actually has dominion over this world until jesus returns after the tribulation. I don't believe it but hey you gotta meet some people where they are at. So who really saved Trump? Satan. Having salvation army ministers for grandparents has it's benefits... a few at least. Won some respect there at least and it also gave me a few ideas for advocating for rehabilitation based justice versus punitive justice within religious demographics. I think I felt my diplomatic reasoning skills level up! 

Although I think you could also make the argument, that god did save him but only from a "you're no martyr of mine mf!" sort of state of mind. 

I do actually have a legit deity, in the sense that I only deify that which I know WILL have the opportunity to judge me, future generations. I guess you'd call that generationism? So much better than a church. Just act in ways that will help future generations thrive and since most of those are things that help a human thrive in the moment in at least a resource based capacity, it's usually a symbiotic relationship. Plant peas for me today, enrich the soil for someone else next tomorrow. 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

I felt my diplomatic reasoning skills level up! 

It’s difficult using reason and logic to change the mind of someone who arrived on their position using neither. Be wary arguing with those who feel god saved one man from a shooter but keeps ignoring classrooms full of innocent children facing that same foe. 

Also, this is the humor thread and this shit isn’t funny 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s difficult using reason and logic to change the mind of someone who arrived on their position using neither. Be wary arguing with those who feel god saved one man from a shooter but keeps ignoring classrooms full of innocent children facing that same foe. 

Also, this is the humor thread and this shit isn’t funny 

I've been in laugh to keep from crying mode for so long it's all beyond a joke now to me really. I mean the guy responsible for countless deaths due to ridiculous levels of incompetence, negligence and shameless disinformation during a pandemic is now suddenly a hero because he dodged karma at the last second?! 

Don't mind me too much just now, I've had a few to drink and haven't drank in awhile so even my Celtic ass can get a wee bit tipsy on just a couple. That said, I'm sorry if I upset you. 

[LaurieAG]

The real funny thing about the posters on this site is that there's nobody who is sick enough to ill wish Biden after he caught Covid.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

The real funny thing about the posters on this site is that there's nobody who is sick enough to ill wish Biden after he caught Covid.

I'm unsure why that makes us "funny".

[LaurieAG]

On 7/20/2024 at 2:08 PM, zapatos said:

I'm unsure why that makes us "funny".

All the sick bastards are ill wishing Trump.

[StringJunky]

40 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

All the sick bastards are ill wishing Trump.

If Trump has his way, it'll be akin to the Third Reich. He is an absolute autocrat. Do you want one of those running America?

Edited July 21 by StringJunky

[MSC]

 Someone should tell Trump that if his polling improves after every bullet he almost takes to the head, maybe he should just stand on stage going full Matrix at every rally. "Ahhhh but Donald, if you're so great, you should be able to dodge the bullet every time right?"

@LaurieAG was that sick enough for you? Fyi in Trump friendly spaces they are wishing Biden dies of covid.

That said, I've never wondered why Hitler was hated but Mandela wasn't. Maybe it was the vast chasm of difference in moral character, maybe its maybeline. Who knows?

Edited July 21 by MSC
Emphasis

[MigL]

On 7/17/2024 at 11:21 PM, MSC said:

I do actually have a legit deity, in the sense that I only deify that which I know WILL have the opportunity to judge me, future generations.

Evolution is essentially 'survival of the fittest'.
You would do the greatest benefit to future generations by being strong and not caring about the weak; taking care of the weak ensures that specific 'weakness' survives and reproduces.

But I don't think that's what you had in mind ...

On 7/19/2024 at 6:25 PM, StringJunky said:

It's sad to say, but that kind of lunacy is affecting politicians here now, echoing the same kind of Jingoistic MAGABLX

It's about to get much worse than Hulk Hogan ripping his shirt at a political convention ...

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

I shall call him Sarah Palin with slightly more facial hair.

Sarah Palin was 'shallow' and not too bright; This guy is an evil ass-kisser who is just out for himself; just like his boss ran for a Democrat nomination back in the 2000s, but then switched to Republican when he realized they were easier to manipulate.
And at least Sarah Palin was good looking ...

By the way, I don't find any of part of this situation funny.

[TheVat]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sarah Palin was 'shallow' and not too bright; This guy is an evil ass-kisser who is just out for himself; just like his boss ran for a Democrat nomination back in the 2000s, but then switched to Republican when he realized they were easier to manipulate.
And at least Sarah Palin was good looking ...

By the way, I don't find any of part of this situation funny.

It is quite not funny.  Which may be why people are trying to find something to laugh at - as Stephen Colbert once said, it's harder to be afraid of something when you're laughing at it.  I think many of us are managing our anxiety in silly ways.  

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

It is quite not funny.  Which may be why people are trying to find something to laugh at - as Stephen Colbert once said, it's harder to be afraid of something when you're laughing at it.  I think many of us are managing our anxiety in silly ways.  

Humour comes out in stressful scenarios. I suppose it's a way of stepping back a bit. Last thing one needs to feel is concern turning into fear. It looks like we are now leaving peace and heading for a global conflict on many levels and not just militarily.

Edited July 21 by StringJunky

[MSC]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Evolution is essentially 'survival of the fittest'.
You would do the greatest benefit to future generations by being strong and not caring about the weak; taking care of the weak ensures that specific 'weakness' survives and reproduces.

But I don't think that's what you had in mind ...

That's a very short sighted view of what it means to be strong. You would think the greatest benefit to future generations would be to not care about the weak, but not so, at least not in human society. This could be a whole thread on it's own but there are some very simple facts that illustrate why the survival of the fittest morality is a detriment to everyone. 

A) As Qui-Gon says "There is always a bigger fish." And what this means is that it doesn't matter if you believe you are strong and it doesn't matter if you indeed are strong, because there is always going to be someone stronger. 

B) The weak have family, friends and loved ones who aren't all weak. Kick the bear cub and get mauled by the mother. 

C) Memory and history run deep, you may be strong today but your descendants can still be weak tomorrow. While the descendants of those you wronged may be strong.

D) Many hands make light work, the weak and the strong together can only be stronger than strong and weak on their own. 

E) If I am physically strong I can take the weak mans bread for myself. If I am mentally strong I can convince him to share with me or help me get my own and resist violent means which can only bring about violent ends. 

F) Revenge is a very strong motivator and a man you have wronged on a weak day may come back on a strong day.

G) Strength combined with recklessness is a recipe for disaster, not survival. 

Sorry to pollute the humour thread with logic lol can open this up as a thread on it's own somewhere.

[MigL]

Please do.
I'd like to educate you on how natural selection works in evolution.
( or possibly, be educated by you )

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Please do.
I'd like to educate you on how natural selection works in evolution.
( or possibly, be educated by you )

I've found it always works both ways. I learn from you, you learn from me. Everybody wins. 

But yeah I'll open this up as a thread later today. Got my hands full with my daughter at the moment! We can get into the nitty gritty of traits conducive to survival via both natural selection and now human based conscientious selection later. 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

These posts were split off from Political Humor.

 

[TheVat]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

You would do the greatest benefit to future generations by being strong and not caring about the weak; taking care of the weak ensures that specific 'weakness' survives and reproduces.

But there is also an adaptive advantage, in social species, to codifying actions which promote tribal cohesion and trust between all members of the group.  So taking care of a weak member could strengthen group dynamics and increase overall survival chances - caring could prove adaptive in this way and its effects would be net positive, the transmission of "kind" genes promoting group survival outweighing the possible transmission of an infirmity (assuming it is even genetic in the first place)(and that someone would accept a weakened person for mating).

[iNow]

Collaboration frequently outperforms competition in evolutionary contexts

[LaurieAG]

On 7/21/2024 at 2:53 PM, StringJunky said:

If Trump has his way, it'll be akin to the Third Reich. He is an absolute autocrat. Do you want one of those running America?

Too late, while vested interests control the US what's the difference?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

Too late, while vested interests control the US what's the difference?

False equivalence 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, LaurieAG said:

Too late, while vested interests control the US what's the difference?

There maybe vested interests but they are competing vested interests. They are decentralized. Trump would neuter them to centralize the power around himself. Competition is good, monopoly not so much.

[MigL]

On 7/22/2024 at 9:01 AM, MSC said:

I've found it always works both ways. I learn from you, you learn from me. Everybody wins. 

That's why we're here.

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

But there is also an adaptive advantage, in social species, to codifying actions which promote tribal cohesion and trust between all members of the group.

We may be discussing two differing conepts; benefit of society, and benefit of the species.

Your, and I suspect MSC's, point is certainly valid for benefitting society, but benefit of the species has no morals attached to it. It is simply the purpose of life to procreate.
Our species may have morals, but we are still essentially just animals.
The wildebeest have no problem giving up the weak and infirm  for the lion's lunch, because it means disease and weaknesses are not passed on to future generations, making them 'stronger' as a species. The ones that are fast enough to outrun the lion pass on their genes.
Similarly, a monkey with bad eyesight will not catch the next vine or branch, when swinging through the trees, and will fall to its death, never reproducing, and never passing on the 'bad eyesight' genes.
Our morals don't permit that, so we give people eyeglasses ( and surgery ), they reproduce and pass on inherited eye disease.

Even social animals, ants, bees, etc., will sacrifice the diseased or weak to save their colony, although our morals don't really allow for their 'kind of society' ( except maybe in India, where the caste system allows for different value of different people ).

So, as an advanced society, we have the luxury of morals, only because evolutionary environmental forcings don't affect us as much anymore. The eyeglasses I mentioned earlier, and research into curing inherited disease, are some examples.
The fact that we don't need to be fast or strong as protection from predators since we have guns.
We don't need differing skin melanin levels as we don't need to adapt to our environment, rather we adapt our environment to us with glass and steel shelters and heating/air conditioning.

It is not that I'm advocating against morals, yet they do seem to conflict with our nature.
A nature that has served us well for about 65 Million years, and has made mammals, and us humans ( the only ones with morals ), the dominant life form on this planet.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is not that I'm advocating against morals, yet they do seem to conflict with our nature.
A nature that has served us well for about 65 Million years, and has made mammals, and us humans ( the only ones with morals ), the dominant life form on this planet.

Consider as well that our morals, our compassion for one another, matches up well with our ability to overcome physical limitations through intelligent means. Our animal nature, the one that served us well as animals, is something to be overcome now, imo, now that we're smart enough to know that time and smart will heal a broken leg or fix bad eyesight. Our human nature, the one where we override base instincts with compassion, cooperation, and communication, is what made us the dominant life form. If we could now spread the smart instead of insisting on being animals again....

[CharonY]

On 7/21/2024 at 12:27 PM, MigL said:

Evolution is essentially 'survival of the fittest'.
You would do the greatest benefit to future generations by being strong and not caring about the weak; taking care of the weak ensures that specific 'weakness' survives and reproduces.

I see here and in the following quite a bit of mixing up of biological, political and culturally concepts. It is important to note adding biologically to these discussions generally just muddles up things as the relationship is not well understood and it is easy to falsely extrapolate.

But this sentence has already multiple misconceptions. As mentioned in the biology section on this forum, survival of the fittest relates not to strength or even survivability, but to reproductive success. There are many, many species who prioritize the letter over what one might presume to be strength.

In addition, "strength" is not a universal unit, and it can be very very counter-intuitive. In many species there is sexual selection towards some sort of outward features that are a hindrance. A stronger rival may be present but lacking the ability to attract partners could then consider a weakness. I.e. strength and weakness in this example are on two entirely different traits.

Also, many species protect their young, who are by definition weak compared to adults. It is not that they just watch to figure out who is strong just groom those that survive. Some herd animals (e.g. buffalos) band together to protect the young and in others (e.g. elephants) elderly members stick around for a long time and do not just get abandoned outside of emergency situations. There are reports from bisons that members of the herd stayed behind to protect the rest of the herd from wolf attacks, similarly African buffalos form up defensively (interestingly, aggressive dominant males are occasionally pushed out, typically by other males and are thus more vulnerable, despite being one of the strongest of the herd).

Another interesting behaviour is that it has been frequently observed that when a lion has brought down a buffalo, sometimes the herd returns on mass and retrieves the fallen individual.

Animals are not automatons and can exhibit a wide range of behvaior that frequently do not align with simple narratives. Behavioral studies have shown that frequently there are altruistic as well as cheating behaviors in social animals, which means that e.g. cheating cannot eliminate the benefits of altruistic behaviour.

In other words, the description of animal behavior and evolution itself is erroneous and as such already not a great platform to extrapolate politics from it.

 

 

 

[MigL]

Strong and weak do not refer to physicality per se, but were in reference to 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' of particular attributes that make a species  more suitable to their environment, and more likely to reproduce.
They could refer to properties such as appearance, intelligence, or ( at least for humans ) a good sense of humor and ability to listen.

Most animals that tend to herd ( have a somewhat social behavior ) protect their young by keeping them in the middle of the herd, but I'm sure you've seen all the videos ( narrated by D Attenborough ) of a youngster getting separated from the herd and falling behind.
A lion has no qualms about passing up 'beef' when it can have 'veal'.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Strong and weak do not refer to physicality per se, but were in reference to 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' of particular attributes that make a species  more suitable to their environment, and more likely to reproduce.

The last part is the important bit, as it can lead to traits and behavior that make a species less suitable for the environment (but for example more attractive to their potential mates). 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

of a youngster getting separated from the herd and falling behind.

The tricky bit here is that extrapolating this to general behaviour is a bit like using anecdotes to apply to human. We could take footage from a stampede during a terror attack or some other mass-incident and then claim that humans have the propensity to trample each other to death. Individual animal behaviour takes a long time to explore, something that the field is has only started to recognize very recently. Not only for that reason it is silly to try to apply these vague narratives to human societies (either for or against certain elements in society). And also, if predators get to the injured and sick ones, it does not mean that it has any effect on the quality of the gene pool. After all, even fit folks can get injured or sick. Though especially for the latter there is no need for predation, it would be between them and the pathogen.