Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: PS,

I really do love your theory about conservatives/liberals and collectivism/individualism.  While I still think people bounce back and forth in their arguments to be convenient to the conclusion that they've already decided, I think if I'd have to lean any direction, it would be yours in a heartbeat.  Especially as I see liberals championing the causes of further and further fringe groups, like men who think they are women wanting to play women's basketball. (Facepalm emoticon)

Trannies suck.

Isn't it interesting to think about? Just picture their ideal societies.

The ideal conservative society is marked by sameness. Everyone's the same race, follows the same religion, lives in the same kinds of houses, and sends their kids to the same schools. There is one family model: the husband-wife-children family, with the permitted variant of adding on grandparents once they get too old to live by themselves. Everyone likes and follows the community norms, and deviation from them is punished socially.  There is a strong leader who exemplifies these norms behind whom everybody is happy and proud to line up. Everyone works hard and work is emotionally satisfying; all able-bodied male members of the community (women are too busy raising children) are good little worker bees, busily buzzing along to build something magnificent. Everyone is happy with this state of affairs; people who don't like it are invisible, nonexistent, even.

In the ideal conservative society, people compete amongst one another to aggressively follow the norms; the end goal of this society is for everyone to be socially bound to everyone else on multiple levels to ensure maximum group cohesion.

By contrast, picture the idealized liberal society: it's safe enough for everyone to do whatever the hell the want without having to worry about the consequences. If you want to have children or not, that's fine. If you want to go partying and get drunk, it's cool, and you don't have to worry about anyone taking advantage of you. If you want to marry a man, a woman, two women, five men, a dog, whatever... that's all fine. There are no community norms at all except for the universality of extreme tolerance for anything at all--save for those things that are seen to diminish other people's free choice, which is itself subjective, and nobody agrees on it, leading to constant conflict over which actions are impermissible because they negatively affect others; there is constant debate over what constitutes an externality. Really it's barely a society at all, just a collection of atomized individuals all following their personal pleasure, interacting with other humans only when it it mutually beneficial, meaning everyone's lonely a lot. Work sucks and is optional; robots do most of it, leaving people more free to pursue their subjective pleasures.

In the ideal liberal society, people compete amongst one another to aggressively deviate from the norms; the end goal of this society is for everyone to be totally disconnected from everyone else, leaving them 100% free to pursue their personal pleasure with zero externalities resulting from it.

Pointedstick wrote: In the ideal conservative society, people compete amongst one another to aggressively follow the norms; the end goal of this society is for everyone to be socially bound to everyone else on multiple levels to ensure maximum group cohesion.

What are we, a herd of elephants?    We wouldn't even be having this conversation in such an ideal conservative society.  It reminds me of Mormons in suburban Utah, The Stepford Wives or even Brave New World.  Ignorance is bliss, truly.  But then there's that island where all the outcasts/heretics like me are living...

PS,

What you have just said... +1.

That's why I can't stand most political arguments/debates.  It's such an obvious contradiction of accusations and philosophies.  "Family Values" wreak of dictatorial patriarchy.  "Social Equality" wreaks of convincing every $hitball that they're a unique, special snowflake that should pursue their individual dreams.

Who's the individualist, and who's the collectivist?  And it gets even better when they call each other out for their contradictions, without even realizing that they're making contradictions of their own.

A good example of the hypocrisy is liberals not supporting the minority who have their free political speech rights censored or insane bureaucratic paperwork, regulations and/or rules against $.01 in "campaign contributions" even if its just volunteer labor.  No, instead they are for "campaign finance reform" which will further squelch the rights of minorities and entrench the majority.  In this case, minority == conservatives.  So liberals are literally full of shit, in my book.

I'm sooo glad I'm built to be a libertarian.  I couldn't stand being a living, walking hypocrite.  You know who you are!

Back to the subject matter :

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015032 ... 28e1d.html

Isn't blowing up houses of worship and killing hundreds something that all religions do?

Reub wrote: Back to the subject matter :

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015032 ... 28e1d.html

Isn't blowing up houses of worship and killing hundreds something that all religions do?

If you think the U.S. government hasn't condoned some absolutely abhorrent behavior that has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths (of innocent non-combatants), you're sadly mistaken.

Maybe we should split this into two threads.

Pointedstick wrote: Maybe we should split this into two threads.

Only two?  That might strengthen our dualistic tendencies even more toward "my way or the highway" vs. "everything must be paved so we can each go our separate ways".  I did like your analysis of C vs. L.    I wish you would have added in the sterotypical libertarian and the statist - would be a fun read.

By the way, your comment about splitting into two threads - very conservative of you to deviously endorse sticking to the topic. 

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote:

Reub wrote: Back to the subject matter :

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015032 ... 28e1d.html

Isn't blowing up houses of worship and killing hundreds something that all religions do?

Not the U.S.'s problem.

Do you live in Yemen?

No. New York. Those crazy Islamists would never strike here.  Right?

Reub wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:

Reub wrote: Back to the subject matter :

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015032 ... 28e1d.html

Isn't blowing up houses of worship and killing hundreds something that all religions do?

Not the U.S.'s problem.

Do you live in Yemen?

No. New York. Those crazy Islamists would never strike here.  Right?

Correction.  Crazy Radical Islamist Fundamentalist Fanatics aka CRIFF's.

Since Reub hasn't gotten a chance to post on this yet...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ia=FB_Page

moda0306 wrote: Since Reub hasn't gotten a chance to post on this yet...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ia=FB_Page

Sadly, Reub's been banned from the forum for a while.

(Apparently we Muslims can’t be mentally ill.)

I think the crux of the matter here is that we in the West find Muslims are already mentally ill unless they've strayed from fundamentalism.

However, as I have written about before, in recent years overwhelmingly the terrorist attacks in United States and Europe have been committed by non-Muslims.

Is he frackin' serious?  Deranged kids on SSRI's don't count as terrorism.

Since this White Christian Extremist didn't attack anyone but Federal officers, it's not terrorism either.  Terrorism, by default, is a political strategy to terrorize innocent civilians on the theory that reduced demand for war will float to the top.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Since Reub hasn't gotten a chance to post on this yet...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ia=FB_Page

Sadly, Reub's been banned from the forum for a while.

So someone else noticed his odd behavior? I can't say I'm upset about that.

MachineGhost wrote:

(Apparently we Muslims can’t be mentally ill.)

I think the crux of the matter here is that we in the West find Muslims are already mentally ill unless they've strayed from fundamentalism.

However, as I have written about before, in recent years overwhelmingly the terrorist attacks in United States and Europe have been committed by non-Muslims.

Is he frackin' serious?  Deranged kids on SSRI's don't count as terrorism.

Since this White Christian Extremist didn't attack anyone but Federal officers, it's not terrorism either.  Terrorism, by default, is a political strategy to terrorize innocent civilians on the theory that reduced demand for war will float to the top.

Ok, so what is attacking non-civilians (or guilty civilians) called then?

Libertarian666 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: ~~
Since this White Christian Extremist didn't attack anyone but Federal officers, it's not terrorism either.  Terrorism, by default, is a political strategy to terrorize innocent civilians on the theory that reduced demand for war will float to the top.

Ok, so what is attacking non-civilians (or guilty civilians) called then?

This feels like terrorism to me, but I'm guessing the answer, in *some* cases, is "asymmetric warfare." and revolutionary...ism. 

So someone else noticed his odd behavior? I can't say I'm upset about that.

What odd behavior?  I didn't notice anything unusual.  Point me to it, Watson?

Ok, so what is attacking non-civilians (or guilty civilians) called then?

War?  Invasion?  Insurrection?

MangoMan wrote: Why was he banned, then?

No idea.  You'll have to ask TennPaGa (who is the moderator now that MT and craigr have absconded with the throne!).

Back to the thread title.  The following seems to be from a time when leaders had balls and were well grounded in standing for something worthwhile.  You may agree or disagree with the content of the Augsburg Confession, but it is refreshing to read something from leaders that call things what they are.  Can you imagine many officials standing up to Obama like this?  Can you imagine Obama calling his leaders together on a similar subject as did Charles V?

To Emperor Charles V

Most invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, most clement Lord:  Your Imperial Majesty has summoned a meeting of the Empire here at Augsburg to consider taking action against the Turk, discussing how best to stand effectively against his fury and attacks by means of military force.  The Turk is the most atrocious and ancient hereditary enemy of the Christian name and religion.

Source: Opening statement in the Preface to the Augsburg Confession, June 25, 1530.  Written by Philip Melanchthon and signed and presented by several of the Emperor's nobility and governing bodies. 

Note: Today we call "The Turk" Muslims who practice the religion of Islam.  "The Turks" were at the gates of Vienna in 1530.

... Mountaineer