I really am not here just to run futile arguments with anyone. Nobody has to pay any attention if they don't want to. I don't actually think I will change anybody's mind except maybe my own with my exercises. But it is apparent that a lot of Jazz Fanz Community folks really want to engage me in political debates. So they won't have to follow me over into the Jazz or Sports forums, this thread is a dummy site for anyone who has anything to say about me or my political essays. Here, the topic is "Babe" with one qualifier for participation..... the issue of what actually constitutes being a "Reasonable American".
I suppose some might think you need to be a supporter of the American Constitution or the American Tradition, American Exceptionalism, some recognizable facet of what people sometimes would consider "American" values or opportunities or causes.
I give it up right now that some might also think saving the whole damn world from catastrophic calamities like climate change, social injustice, or any of hundreds of others good causes, even saving the whales. OK. You are an American.
Some might believe in some variant strain of Marxism. If you live here in the United States, you're an American.
The subject of this thread is how you can make out some reasonable position in a civil manner.
But if you can't, I'm here to help.
My point will always be some pitiful attempt to convince you that human liberty and human rights are priority values in every case. People have an innate gift of nature some call volition, or choice, that is inalienable and personal. Individual, not collective.
If you deny that first fact of human nature, you've lost your path of good reason.
When someone walks into your house, they don't give up their rights. If anyone comes here to join the JFC, they don't give up their rights.
It's an old argument. Some years ago, I am told...... I never saw it myself nor lived in a community where I saw anything like that...... some business people owning oh cafes or motels,whatever would hang out a sign that said "Whites Only". They said they had the right because it's their place.
People have tghe same rights in opinions or other categorical views. Open to the public means open to the public.
The issue then goes to how to have good manners, be civil and courteous. A lot of opinions are hate, or invoke violence. Force against others is not a good first choice, in fact, not a good last choice either.
A lawful public action, demonstration, or lobbying campaign does not involve assaulting peace officers or police or security personnel, crossing perimeter lines or walkway markers or police lines of any kind. Political rhetoric sometimes crosses those lines in the form of words, without being instructions to act out the words. All political parties use the word "fight" as in let's fight for our cause. Usually it's asking for donations or letters to politicians and such.
A rule-abiding person on this forum also can use words in the abstract without people needing to consider it breaking the rules. Personal insults are not that kind of thing. It is uncivil, impolite, and when carried forward in a sustained manner should be disciplined with membership in this forum on the line.
Personal criticisms of a legitimate sort might include offerings of information to sustain the criticism. Sometimes, in crude terms, there is no possible way to prove the point. Comments like that are just "stupid".
Making a serious charge with legal implications is, well, stupid. If you could prove it, this is not the place to do it. If it were true, you should go to the police with whatever evidence you think you have.
Just saying an idea is stupid is not a personal attack. Saying Marxists are stupid isn't a personal attack so much as a rhetorical or general criticism. Saying Marxism is a false belief is something that can be argued. Some might think they have evidence for it in natural studies, or historical renditions of human experiences. Some might think they can show those arguments flawed, or false in some regard. I would likely trend towards showing it is a kind of political subterfuge used by some clever manipulators of world politics, whose purveyors do not themselves really believe, or aim to install in political constructs around the world. What they do install is their own power, not yours.
We as a nation chose not to consider being a Marxist a matter of "Treason" unless it came to a specific act. Plotting some treasonable act like occupying Congress or the Supreme Court, handcuffing the elected or appointed officials, with some intent to change the way things done....... Change through elections is constitutional. Change by sending in the military to take over the Capitol is not.
So a belief or opinion is something our Constitution has historically protected so some extent, maybe not well enough. Certainly, not as much as it deserves.
A political movement that involves actual intolerance for personal liberties like freedom of thought, speech, belief cannot ever be a legitimate claimant of "progress" or "social justice". But people believe all sorts of things, can believe anything imaginable, so imo a political movement that invokes reasons for regulating opinions is on a fools errand and they won't even be able to keep their own minds fixed on the "correct" stuff they try to enforce on others.
Which goes back to why volition and choice is intrinsically, as a consequence of nature, an inalienable human right. The better a government can go with that flow, the better the the government. Maybe the more stable that government can be. Well, with any kind of success in protecting individual rights from whatever assaults are made on those rights.
Historically, the Emperors of China and the Czars of Russia did not , nor did Rome. The British monarchs were historically perhaps the worst set of oppressors on this score, but they caved to accept the Magna Carta, which is the main source document for American rights.
So anyway, I predict the progressive movement in the US will fail, unhappily only after causing a lot of human misery. I also predict the UN will fail, after doing even more damage to mankind. Well, in my view, the failure has been the reality for a long time, but then some people have benefitted in some ways. A few always do benefit from misgovernance. Some think reducing world population to a fraction of today's burden is necessary. No one who believes that really makes an example of his own life or friends or family. Not that some who believe they are the saviors of mankind have not actually thrown their wives and kids and themselves out the hotel window. But let's say Bill Gates is probably not going to do that. Probably not trying to have a big family either. But signing on with a plan that will reduce population is not something anyone does with an intent to obliterate his own kind of people. It's usually wealthy people trying to set up abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods. Fix world population by reducing the other people first. Not really a cause that has a good fit with the idea of human rights, choice or volition.
Xi, for example, has been advocating that the world can be improved by spreading the Han genetics more thoroughly to neighboring countries, giving incentives to single men to go abroad and bring back wives, and maybe have two children instead of one.
I am perfectly willing to argue about climate change and what would be a reasonable line of action rather than the Paris Accords or other socialist/fascist power grabbing schemes. I note that Biden is sorta rumored to have difficulty in restraining himself from grabbing at whatever immediate attraction is within reach. I think he is not actually the man with the plan, but the manikin doing the plan, so to speak. The puppet in chief. I'm sure there's about as many folks in the mix of influencers with him as there were with Trump, and whatever you think of Trump, Trump is dumped, and now the same folks have another target, a softer more manageable target. I don't know all about that crowd, but the fact is, it's always there.
People with prestige, money, interests are always there around any government.
The question is, how can ordinary people get in there and get results.
A conspiracy theory is always an ignoramus;' imagination, but no damn theory is ever all as bad as the fact. And we're mostly ignoramuses all around the political spectrum.
There is no world crisis in climate or environment or population that can really be as serious to our planet or our survival as a bad idea believed by most, enforced by law, enshrined as patriotism or progress.
And there is no other remedy for such serious dangers than someone willing to show how it's just the wrong idea, somehow, with some provocative reasons.
Used to be, the idea of the Scientific Method was a sort of socially acceptable path for discarding the wrong ideas and showing reason or proof to sustain a new one.
Do we ever really want to be a static community of folks with "Consensus-verified" beliefs, or do we want to be free to move forward with better ideas. That's what Progress is, really.
I suppose some might think you need to be a supporter of the American Constitution or the American Tradition, American Exceptionalism, some recognizable facet of what people sometimes would consider "American" values or opportunities or causes.
I give it up right now that some might also think saving the whole damn world from catastrophic calamities like climate change, social injustice, or any of hundreds of others good causes, even saving the whales. OK. You are an American.
Some might believe in some variant strain of Marxism. If you live here in the United States, you're an American.
The subject of this thread is how you can make out some reasonable position in a civil manner.
But if you can't, I'm here to help.
My point will always be some pitiful attempt to convince you that human liberty and human rights are priority values in every case. People have an innate gift of nature some call volition, or choice, that is inalienable and personal. Individual, not collective.
If you deny that first fact of human nature, you've lost your path of good reason.
When someone walks into your house, they don't give up their rights. If anyone comes here to join the JFC, they don't give up their rights.
It's an old argument. Some years ago, I am told...... I never saw it myself nor lived in a community where I saw anything like that...... some business people owning oh cafes or motels,whatever would hang out a sign that said "Whites Only". They said they had the right because it's their place.
People have tghe same rights in opinions or other categorical views. Open to the public means open to the public.
The issue then goes to how to have good manners, be civil and courteous. A lot of opinions are hate, or invoke violence. Force against others is not a good first choice, in fact, not a good last choice either.
A lawful public action, demonstration, or lobbying campaign does not involve assaulting peace officers or police or security personnel, crossing perimeter lines or walkway markers or police lines of any kind. Political rhetoric sometimes crosses those lines in the form of words, without being instructions to act out the words. All political parties use the word "fight" as in let's fight for our cause. Usually it's asking for donations or letters to politicians and such.
A rule-abiding person on this forum also can use words in the abstract without people needing to consider it breaking the rules. Personal insults are not that kind of thing. It is uncivil, impolite, and when carried forward in a sustained manner should be disciplined with membership in this forum on the line.
Personal criticisms of a legitimate sort might include offerings of information to sustain the criticism. Sometimes, in crude terms, there is no possible way to prove the point. Comments like that are just "stupid".
Making a serious charge with legal implications is, well, stupid. If you could prove it, this is not the place to do it. If it were true, you should go to the police with whatever evidence you think you have.
Just saying an idea is stupid is not a personal attack. Saying Marxists are stupid isn't a personal attack so much as a rhetorical or general criticism. Saying Marxism is a false belief is something that can be argued. Some might think they have evidence for it in natural studies, or historical renditions of human experiences. Some might think they can show those arguments flawed, or false in some regard. I would likely trend towards showing it is a kind of political subterfuge used by some clever manipulators of world politics, whose purveyors do not themselves really believe, or aim to install in political constructs around the world. What they do install is their own power, not yours.
We as a nation chose not to consider being a Marxist a matter of "Treason" unless it came to a specific act. Plotting some treasonable act like occupying Congress or the Supreme Court, handcuffing the elected or appointed officials, with some intent to change the way things done....... Change through elections is constitutional. Change by sending in the military to take over the Capitol is not.
So a belief or opinion is something our Constitution has historically protected so some extent, maybe not well enough. Certainly, not as much as it deserves.
A political movement that involves actual intolerance for personal liberties like freedom of thought, speech, belief cannot ever be a legitimate claimant of "progress" or "social justice". But people believe all sorts of things, can believe anything imaginable, so imo a political movement that invokes reasons for regulating opinions is on a fools errand and they won't even be able to keep their own minds fixed on the "correct" stuff they try to enforce on others.
Which goes back to why volition and choice is intrinsically, as a consequence of nature, an inalienable human right. The better a government can go with that flow, the better the the government. Maybe the more stable that government can be. Well, with any kind of success in protecting individual rights from whatever assaults are made on those rights.
Historically, the Emperors of China and the Czars of Russia did not , nor did Rome. The British monarchs were historically perhaps the worst set of oppressors on this score, but they caved to accept the Magna Carta, which is the main source document for American rights.
So anyway, I predict the progressive movement in the US will fail, unhappily only after causing a lot of human misery. I also predict the UN will fail, after doing even more damage to mankind. Well, in my view, the failure has been the reality for a long time, but then some people have benefitted in some ways. A few always do benefit from misgovernance. Some think reducing world population to a fraction of today's burden is necessary. No one who believes that really makes an example of his own life or friends or family. Not that some who believe they are the saviors of mankind have not actually thrown their wives and kids and themselves out the hotel window. But let's say Bill Gates is probably not going to do that. Probably not trying to have a big family either. But signing on with a plan that will reduce population is not something anyone does with an intent to obliterate his own kind of people. It's usually wealthy people trying to set up abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods. Fix world population by reducing the other people first. Not really a cause that has a good fit with the idea of human rights, choice or volition.
Xi, for example, has been advocating that the world can be improved by spreading the Han genetics more thoroughly to neighboring countries, giving incentives to single men to go abroad and bring back wives, and maybe have two children instead of one.
I am perfectly willing to argue about climate change and what would be a reasonable line of action rather than the Paris Accords or other socialist/fascist power grabbing schemes. I note that Biden is sorta rumored to have difficulty in restraining himself from grabbing at whatever immediate attraction is within reach. I think he is not actually the man with the plan, but the manikin doing the plan, so to speak. The puppet in chief. I'm sure there's about as many folks in the mix of influencers with him as there were with Trump, and whatever you think of Trump, Trump is dumped, and now the same folks have another target, a softer more manageable target. I don't know all about that crowd, but the fact is, it's always there.
People with prestige, money, interests are always there around any government.
The question is, how can ordinary people get in there and get results.
A conspiracy theory is always an ignoramus;' imagination, but no damn theory is ever all as bad as the fact. And we're mostly ignoramuses all around the political spectrum.
There is no world crisis in climate or environment or population that can really be as serious to our planet or our survival as a bad idea believed by most, enforced by law, enshrined as patriotism or progress.
And there is no other remedy for such serious dangers than someone willing to show how it's just the wrong idea, somehow, with some provocative reasons.
Used to be, the idea of the Scientific Method was a sort of socially acceptable path for discarding the wrong ideas and showing reason or proof to sustain a new one.
Do we ever really want to be a static community of folks with "Consensus-verified" beliefs, or do we want to be free to move forward with better ideas. That's what Progress is, really.
