JFC Cult DeProgramming Help Thread

[idestroyedthetoilet]

In response to Ron's remarks on religion, I'd like to do a little essay. Please don't delete this, mods.

All cults are fundamentally religious. I don't make an exception for either Marxism, or Socialism, or Progressivism. In fact, Ron's remarks are fundamentally religious assertions about the value of traditional religions, or problems therewith. It does not require having a specific God to be religious. We have every right, and every capacity, to believe what we want, and to be pious about it, and to try to use government force to compel compliance with what we believe is right. That is the intrinsic value of freedom, of individual freedoms like the right to speak, publish, or assemble in our various interests or causes.

There is a kind of piety in being a Jazz Fan, as well. In fact, we have the right to decry phony Jazz Fans, or non-compliant fans, for all their manifold sins. I don't care who you are or what you believe, if you cheer for the Jazz...or even try to make the Jazz an Established State Team, I am right there for you. The State of Utah does not have a constitutional clause that prohibits us from have a State Team in any sport.

Any human belief, any human ideology or belief set, whether science-based, politically-based, or emotionally-based, that purports to have fundamental truth in it, is a "religion".

Anyone who holds such a belief is, by human nature, inclined to teach it and enforce it in the community as an essential "good".

In that context, Ron, your remarks about specific..... I'd call them "consequential" rituals or practices..... shiboleths arising from "religion" are addressing more or less the nonsense necessarily entailed in believing anything. If you believe something, human logic just runs down a bunch of rabbit trails in the woods of human reason. If you're a progressive, a modern secularist, or a practical enthusiast for good management, you've got all kinds of stuff entailed in your good vision of the world, that makes about as much sense to outsiders who don't share your specific belief.....

And immediately, we all rally around the nonsense as the obvious proof of our belief......

I've made the same argument here but in less eloquent terms. I consider people's politics and economic inclinations to be highly religious but without the hierarchy. You can pass that on to any fad or groupthink community. People have a noted tendency of forming like minded groups. That is what religion is at the foundation.

Worship as you will, y'all.

 

[Ron Mexico]

We have every right, and every capacity, to believe what we want, and to be pious about it, and to try to use government force to compel compliance with what we believe is right. That is the intrinsic value of freedom, of individual freedoms like the right to speak, publish, or assemble in our various interests or causes.

This is where I disagree. I think we have every right to believe what we want. I think it is not anyones right to try and force their morals or beliefs on someone else when it does not affect them.

Yes, some morals of others affect you. Such as I am morally opposed to murder. I would seek any society I live in to punish and stop people from murdering. That directly affects me and people around me. On the other hand who you are married to does not affect me. As long as its a consensual relationship, that is their own business not mine.

Yes, you have the right to preach your morals and try to convince other people of them. Its annoying but pretty much everyone does it and thats fine. I only have a problem with making laws to support your morals that attack or impede other people from theirs.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

@babe I still need to tell you in private about your old employer out west so when you come in town hit me up.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

This is where I disagree. I think we have every right to believe what we want. I think it is not anyones right to try and force their morals or beliefs on someone else when it does not affect them.

Yes, some morals of others affect you. Such as I am morally opposed to murder. I would seek any society I live in to punish and stop people from murdering. That directly affects me and people around me. On the other hand who you are married to does not affect me. As long as its a consensual relationship, that is their own business not mine.

Yes, you have the right to preach your morals and try to convince other people of them. Its annoying but pretty much everyone does it and thats fine. I only have a problem with making laws to support your morals that attack or impede other people from theirs.

That's the basics and I'm going to speak for babe that you aren't in disagreement. Where I cross your line is in situations of "consentual" is in cases of indoctrination that pretty much enslave people. Am I wrong for wanting to eradicate the polygamy cults? They don't directly harm me but indirectly do due to the tax code, but that's not why I care.

 

[babe]

There are simply not very many people I know with this kind of intelligence.

So consider my brayings about limited government, Founders, swampthings in general on terms of "present company excepted" or sumsuch. Please do not leave any PM in the supposedly private box OK. Our debate has gotta be under the sunshine laws such as they should be for discussions with any public servants on topics of interest to the citizenry.

I am certain OB will feel absolutely supportive of the general faith in experts which you have embraced. And I will be hard pressed to make a really good argument which could make sense to the dopish general public, or to the professional class rulers of America.

I will make it my point to treat your faith in professionalism and inertial knowledge bases such as history or science as a true cult. But can we actually hope to improve the way things are? Hope, as Ron has noted, is nonsense in the ring with actual reality.

First of all, I have no intention of dumping the accumulated human knowledge and understanding in going forward with any plan. Perhaps Siro could help me figure out a way to digitize it and program it into a new managerial class of AI robotic civil servants......

But Second most in importance on this point, is keeping the concept of governance within bounds in the first place. The problem with big government is at root the empire syndrome which managers are inclined towards. There is no inherent limitation on the scope of any branch of government, once it takes root. And I don't think robots would prove any different, and I fear much worse in that department.

So our "Hope" as civilization, as humans, must be essentially religious, a devout skepticism about our own goodness, maybe even a kind of slavish adoration for a nonexistent unseen authority which may be presumed to be omniscient and worthy of our undivided loyalty and reverence. If there actually is such an overseeing authority, of course, our puny efforts to out-regulate, out-maneuver, or overpower such a thing would of course prove futile anyways, but I think I see a Divine purpose in a "God" who is willing to let us fail, learn our lesson, and resort to Faith once again.... but enough already....

 

[Ron Mexico]

That's the basics and I'm going to speak for babe that you aren't in disagreement. Where I cross your line is in situations of "consentual" is in cases of indoctrination that pretty much enslave people. Am I wrong for wanting to eradicate the polygamy cults? They don't directly harm me but indirectly do due to the tax code, but that's not why I care.

I understand this point and am willing to debate those and am comfortable with being in disagreement but that is not what I am talking about. If there is a legit reason for something to affect you then by all means try and change the law. I am talking about areas where it is just you trying to force your morals on other people. We have far too many of those in the US.

Consent is a tricky word. I am opposed to polygamy cults because they abuse children and force them to marry for too young. I agree that people in certain situations are not consenting. I dont think kids can consent to adults. I think people can be brainwashed in cults and have lost consent. I am not opposed to adults who want to be married to multiple people though.

 

[babe]

@babe I still need to tell you in private about your old employer out west so when you come in town hit me up.

I would love to do lunch at that China Buffet. I think it has changed it's name. I'm in the phone book, or on any little search service, and I guess you know my name.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

There are simply not very many people I know with this kind of intelligence.

So consider my brayings about limited government, Founders, swampthings in general on terms of "present company excepted" or sumsuch. Please do not leave any PM in the supposedly private box OK. Our debate has gotta be under the sunshine laws such as they should be for discussions with any public servants on topics of interest to the citizenry.

I am certain OB will feel absolutely supportive of the general faith in experts which you have embraced. And I will be hard pressed to make a really good argument which could make sense to the dopish general public, or to the professional class rulers of America.

I will make it my point to treat your faith in professionalism and inertial knowledge bases such as history or science as a true cult. But can we actually hope to improve the way things are? Hope, as Ron has noted, is nonsense in the ring with actual reality.

First of all, I have no intention of dumping the accumulated human knowledge and understanding in going forward with any plan. Perhaps Siro could help me figure out a way to digitize it and program it into a new managerial class of AI robotic civil servants......

But Second most in importance on this point, is keeping the concept of governance within bounds in the first place. The problem with big government is at root the empire syndrome which managers are inclined towards. There is no inherent limitation on the scope of any branch of government, once it takes root. And I don't think robots would prove any different, and I fear much worse in that department.

So our "Hope" as civilization, as humans, must be essentially religious, a devout skepticism about our own goodness, maybe even a kind of slavish adoration for a nonexistent unseen authority which may be presumed to be omniscient and worthy of our undivided loyalty and reverence. If there actually is such an overseeing authority, of course, our puny efforts to out-regulate, out-maneuver, or overpower such a thing would of course prove futile anyways, but I think I see a Divine purpose in a "God" who is willing to let us fail, learn our lesson, and resort to Faith once again.... but enough already....

I haven't supported any faith in supposed experts, only support for accumulated knowledge. I share your idea of questioning experts. I can tell you that in my own experience government wastes more money in a lot of ways when checks and balance efforts are put in place. Like I said earlier, this is top down, which is what you tend to complain about. In addition, all the lawyering is hamstringing society with overregulation due to insurance costs. Insurance decides so many of our regulations on the local level these days that it's ridiculous. People wake up in their insured home, in a HOV with separate overriding insurance, get into their insured vehicle, and drive on insured city, county and state roads to earn their insured paycheck.

/rant and related side points

 

[babe]

That's the basics and I'm going to speak for babe that you aren't in disagreement. Where I cross your line is in situations of "consentual" is in cases of indoctrination that pretty much enslave people. Am I wrong for wanting to eradicate the polygamy cults? They don't directly harm me but indirectly do due to the tax code, but that's not why I care.

This subject is indeed worthy of pursuit. Any system of authority which can without contradiction in the minds of believers direct human choice either within family bonds, financial means, or social position is a cult, which imo carries within it a fundamental denial of human rights.

The answer is stronger concepts of human rights. The polygamy cults are communal property generally with the teaching that one must "consecrate" essentially all your stuff to the cause. Government assistance is sucked into the pot and used according to the dictates of leadership. The followers are trapped because they have no ownership of home or business...
kids are controlled and directed in fundamental life choices and simply do not learn self-management on a normal time frame.

However, efforts to enact laws proscribing these cults or their practices has proven to effectively strengthen them. The walls dividing the cults from the larger society become more impermeable. New recruits still see them as a way out of a controlling larger society that restricts and constrains and directs, and by comparison these groups will smile, listen, and sympathize with individuals quite effectively. They will support divorced women and their kids, drive off single "lurker" men, and build their "families".

I think the drive to socialize the mainstream is much like these socialist little groups. I think we win if we let Freedom prevail in the main.

So.... no.... no to polygamy laws. No to laws banning "collectives" or "co-ops" or "insurance pools" or "health groups", and no to any law prescribing human belief or compelling human compliance to a government system. Private "solutions" will have all the scammers, all the derelicts, all the charlatans society can provide.... but without the force of government, people will learn well enough what's what and what works, and for the most part will love the life they have with their own choice absolute.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I would love to do lunch at that China Buffet. I think it has changed it's name. I'm in the phone book, or on any little search service, and I guess you know my name.

I don't have your number saved, I'm not that big of a creep. I googled your number years ago and found your name from a political campaign because calling you babe in person is weird for my generation, so I'm that type of creepy. Anyway, PM me if you are in town. I have an open invitation to buy lunch for anyone flying in to SLC. That would be Sunnies Bistro if you want Chinese. Excellent hole in the Ramada wall.

And tell your daughter that I found her adorable, her twin probably was the same. You never know when a compliment will help out a kid.

Finally, this post is meant to further suspicion that you and I are the same and that I'm having a conversation with myself.

 

[babe]

where I come from, it helps to assume the worst in the first place.

and oh, I never fly anywhere. Since that trip to Israel years ago, anyway.

My bil and some of his kids were in a severe accident today. We're watching two of the kids today while others are in surgery.

I have reason to come talk to you like anyone else you have to deal with, asking for information in an ordinary sort of way.

 

[babe]

And how exactly do you plan on replacing government workers' knowledge of the history behind their jobs? I can't even replace my superiors' after being where I'm at for a very long time.

I simply don't understand any of the reasoning behind this form of thinking that pairs up with the term limit folk. We need competent folk who have knowledge of history behind regulations and situations.

There is no practical argument otherwise, and, since you are prone to worshipping The Founding, you should understand that they were all career politicians. The establishment is a necessity despite its faults and draining the swamp mantra.

So tell me how you are going to have this proposed 5 year turnover and retain valuable knowlege.

I dunno. Maybe we should invent some kind of writing system.

This is of course a conundrum for the ages. A lot of philosophers have dreamed of conserving wisdom from one generation to the next. Some are in fact indignantly offended that we fail to improve things consistently. Others naively assert that we're doing very well on this subject.

The underlying problem is we humans get to be born once, and die once. Sometimes folks wanna assist that dying step. And everyone insists on learning stuff the hard way..... first hand.

OK, then. Let's elect civil servants, oh, say every seven years. Anyone with any kind of rule-making or regulatory authority. Make it an election of qualified voters with some defined sort of stakeholder status. Maybe empanel an oversight committee, and just elect those folks, say every seven years.

You get to go out in public and discuss the role of your agency or office, and explain the problems you see and what you'd like to do about it.....

and swear to uphold the US Constitution in your official actions.....

We'd need a Constitutional Amendment to provide for this fourth branch of government......

But I'd vote for someone who cared to do the job, maybe for several stints in office.....