Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Re: Gaslighting, Ghetto Culture and Deadly Force

by Higgenbotham » Wed Aug 28, 2024 7:48 am

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2024 2:56 am
Higgenbotham wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2024 9:27 pm
Is this your typical two paragraph response that you described in the fourth turning forum in 2007? In that post, which I have just verified can be found in John's archives, you bragged about gaslighting other members of that forum. You referred to what you were doing as snark. Your snark is just grotesque gaslighting.
I am going with gaslighting as deliberately lying to change someone's view of reality and snark as criticizing others unfairly to hurt their feelings. I don't think either of us is lying, both sincerely believe our perspectives, but we both criticize the other in snark fashion. I note no attempt to prove world population decline, economic decline, or a federal conspiracy promoting police use of force. Are you conceding the truth of my posts?

I have resolved to respond briefly in other people's threads, thus the short one or two paragraph posts. Ideas which require longer posts probably belong here. I assume posts which address me by name in a snarky fashion are invitations to respond. It should not come as a surprise when I do. As usual, Clarkmod responds with censorship in spite of the invitation. I do think, however, your noting of racial police violence and evasion is pertinent, and your focus rather than mine.
You can "go with" that if you want, but guess what? You're twisting definitions again because gaslighting is recognized as not necessarily being intentional. What you're doing is gaslighting. Based on how I've seen you interact with other posters, it has to be assumed to be intentional, but it's what you are actually doing that matters.

Example of what you are doing:
Navigator wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:21 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2023 11:45 pm
I am kind of sorry that instead of defining any key property of a fetus, you are diverting to a whole bunch of other issues. Most are worthy. Most belong on other threads and should be debated. I am considering moving most of the other issues to my own thread and responding here only to abortion related questions. (#6)
Bob (and other interested),

What we have in the past couple of days of posts is a concrete example of what happens when you engage with others.

My post on 4 Oct, copying a post I made in 2011.
Navigator wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:49 pm
To get back at the core topic, abortion, I am reposting what I wrote about it before:
Navigator wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 12:11 am
As we get further and further from Christ's teachings as a society, things get worse and worse.

I also view Abortion (save in the cases of rape and incest) as murder.

The leftists say "a woman gets to chose what to do with her body". In a way I agree. But the choice is made when you decide to have sex. Sex, the power of procreation, is something that God wants us to be very careful about. It is meant for the creation of families, and, by commandment, is meant to be only between a man and wife.

Sex is not just some recreational activity. Immorality leads to all kinds of pain, hardship and difficulties. The worst of which is probably the damage it does to the family, the bedrock of any society/civilization itself.
I this post, I dealt with abortion and my views on it based on religion.

This is one, maybe two topics (if you want to separate the religion out, but then my views on abortion are based on my religious views; obviously).

Instead of dealing with these two issues, you brought up all the others that I have responded to, starting with this post from you:
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:58 pm
This still leaves it as a European white supremicist urge to impose one's own culture on those who do not share it. It is much like the bigot's desire to protect traditional prejudices or the rich folk's desire to keep undue influence on government. Freedom and independence imply not imposing one's way on others. Yes, the Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews share a European religious doctrine, but America is not supposed to impose religious doctrines on those who do not share it. Does the government punish women for not covering their hair, or anyone for eating meat on Friday? I think not. I do not care how profoundly you believe in your own doctrine or prejudice, do not try to impose it on others.

Again, can you identify a scientifically measurable property that a fetus has which animals we raise for meat does not? Your definition of sentient is a religious doctrine. You cannot declare an official religion then enforce it's doctrine.
You in fact started talking about not only abortion and possibly its religions implications, but the following:
1 – Accusations of Christianity being racist
2 – Accusations of the Rich desiring undue governmental influence
3 – Accusations of people imposing their views on others.
4 – Accusations that restricting or limiting abortion is to restrict freedom and independence.

Since you brought all of these up, each required a response.

Then, in your next response, you brought up, even more points as you further muddied the water, losing almost all focus on any kind of debate:
Bob Butler wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2023 1:10 am
In MSNBC’s The Last Word tonight, Lawrence O’Donnell made a point that the Republicans do not know how to nominate a competent speaker that knows how to do the job. For the longest time, the Democrats held Congress and were the speakers. In recent times the Republicans have had the occasional chance, and their people were universally disasters. They tended to resign or retire. True, this is the first time they have had to vote out their own guy, but they simply do not know how to do the job.

From my point of view, a lot of it is just having a different job. The Democrats try to help the people. The Republicans try to force their culture on others. Thus they are an alliance of bigots, religious fanatics and the rich. They made it illegal to follow one’s own morality, and they censor attempts to spread conflicting cultures. The whole point is to impose their own way of thought on others. Certain aspects of white culture are imposed by force of government on those belonging to other cultures.

I am not sure if the bigots, religious fanatics or rich are the worst.

Again, define a property that can be scientifically, repeatedly detected in a fetus, but not in your typical animal grown for meat. Your objection is to a religious doctrine. A religious doctrine. You have no right to impose it on those that do not share it.

Not that you are apt to succeed. Note in your post you quote religions, not cultures. The attempts by conservatives to dictate religious beliefs in conflict with women has resulted in the women winning the vote in the US every single time since Roe was overturned. Come 2024, if conservatives continue to attempt to impose their culture on the women of America, the Democrats are apt to win Congress. There is no other way to restore control of their own bodies. And then the conservative collapse will be on. A right to reproductive health care. Voting rights. An end to gerrymandering. Common sense gun control. Fighting censorship by underling the First Amendment. Etc... You let in a decisive progressive Congress, and they won’t stop at one issue.

I really just ought to shut my mouth and let you cut your own throats. Ah, well. You can’t say you weren’t warned.
Rather than supply counter arguments you brought up the following ADDITIONAL POINTS:

1 – Accusing all Republican Speakers of the House of having been disasters.
2 – Stating that Democrats are just trying to help others
3 – Accusing Republicans of being just an alliance of the rich, fanatics, and bigots.
4 – Stating that a fetus is meat, ala hamburger
5 – 2024 Election Predictions
6 – Voting rights
7 – Gerrymandering
8 – Gun Control
9 – Censorship

I wanted to stay on my topic of Abortion in the debate, but now had to deal with all of these additional things you brought up.

Since Abortion is the topic of debate on this thread, I answered about body control in my ORIGINAL post, and reiterated this point. I also explained why a fetus is not meat.
Navigator wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2023 8:29 pm
4 - A fetus is not a piece of meat. It will become a human being unless steps are taken to kill it. The "option" for men and women is to not engage in unprotected sex unless they want a chance at creating a human being. This is where choice occurs. Once you have created a human being, you are obligated to take care of it. By your argument, parents could just starve an infant and be ok, as forcing them to care for it is "imposing morality".
Your response to this was to do the debating equivalent of “stomping your feet” while holding your hands over your ears.

You then bring up the additional issue of:

1 – Censorship in Schools.
Bob Butler wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:06 am
A fetus is a piece of meat. Again, you have not been able to argue otherwise. I doubt you can, yet it is the major way in we differ. Define one property a fetus has which meat animals don’t. If you can’t find such a property, you are trying to impose by government force a religious doctrine. You can’t do that.

Ironic, considering it is DeSantis and others who are crippling what schools teach and are promoting censorship of books and libraries. This is a problem in rural red areas. Democrats are not seeking to force evangelicals to have abortions or promoting bigotry against bigots. They seek freedom, free speech and democracy, not imposing or creating trouble for others. This is definitely a lie.
You then end your statements by calling me a liar, blaming me for bringing up additional issues.
Bob Butler wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:06 am
You need not blabber lies about the conservative progressive divide and ruin what little credibility you have. Stick with one issue at a time. I feel like I have had to address every issue under the sun in this note. Really work on the property a fetus has that a meat animal doesn’t. All these scattered distractions on other issues count for nothing as you can’t do that. Trying to solve each issue in one paragraph really isn’t adequate. A thread is more like it.
I am going to this effort to show logically, to anyone who uses logic, that you in fact inserted all these additional topics (at least 14 by my count) into the argument yourself, and then blame me for going off topic! See proof shown above.

As for the original debate points:

I also provided you with the argument that a fetus is a human being. Multiple times. Also see above.

I also provided you with the arguments regarding morality and its necessity for society. (as in Murder cannot be allowed/condoned). I haven’t seen any counter arguments on that.

The point is that you cannot stay on topic, you cannot engage in debate, and just get mad when your points are logically disproven.
I just am having fun pointing out.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:02 am
Navigator,

I’ve dealt with this in the past, though your patience greatly outpaces mine.
My advice - cast not your pearls before swine.

Re: Gaslighting, Ghetto Culture and Deadly Force

by Bob Butler » Wed Aug 28, 2024 2:56 am

Higgenbotham wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2024 9:27 pm
Is this your typical two paragraph response that you described in the fourth turning forum in 2007? In that post, which I have just verified can be found in John's archives, you bragged about gaslighting other members of that forum. You referred to what you were doing as snark. Your snark is just grotesque gaslighting.
I am going with gaslighting as deliberately lying to change someone's view of reality and snark as criticizing others unfairly to hurt their feelings. I don't think either of us is lying, both sincerely believe our perspectives, but we both criticize the other in snark fashion. I note no attempt to prove world population decline, economic decline, or a federal conspiracy promoting police use of force. Are you conceding the truth of my posts?

I have resolved to respond briefly in other people's threads, thus the short one or two paragraph posts. Ideas which require longer posts probably belong here. I assume posts which address me by name in a snarky fashion are invitations to respond. It should not come as a surprise when I do. As usual, Clarkmod responds with censorship in spite of the invitation. I do think, however, your noting of racial police violence and evasion is pertinent, and your focus rather than mine.

Re: Gaslighting, Ghetto Culture and Deadly Force

by Higgenbotham » Tue Aug 27, 2024 9:27 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:09 pm
Higgenbotham wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:19 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:31 pm
I too have repeated my opinion that the crisis conflicts have been resolved and that we are entering a high. I have listed the domestic issues involved... race riots, Covid, police murders, the insurrection. These are over.
Bob Butler gaslighting again.
Higgenbotham lying again. I am going by the Merriam-Webster definition of gaslighting, of deliberately lying in order to change someone's perception of reality. I sincerely believe we are entering a high. I sincerely believe there have been no collapses. Population and economic growth have been steady and persistent worldwide. I could question who is gaslighting, proposing that collapse is inevitable when none has occurred. Lie persistently. Propose something with no evidence. But you are just stating your own beliefs, baseless though they may be.

There is a culture of police using excessive force. There is apparently an attempt to cover it up. I'm not sure it is coming from the federal government. A little more investigation into who is pushing the use of force might be appropriate. I was hoping that the days of Black Lives Matter were behind us, but perhaps not. There is a ghetto culture, a belief that for certain minorities in order to get ahead you have to be a drug pusher, a sports star, or a mother who exploits welfare. There is a response by some police to respond to ghetto culture with excessive force, to bypass rule of law and instead to ad lib deadly force. I suspect the aggression of the police is more local than a top level federal conspiracy. Neither perspective is desirable. Addressing the two problems are appropriate. Assigning partisan blame seems premature.
Is this your typical two paragraph response that you described in the fourth turning forum in 2007? In that post, which I have just verified can be found in John's archives, you bragged about gaslighting other members of that forum. You referred to what you were doing as snark. Your snark is just grotesque gaslighting.

Gaslighting, Ghetto Culture and Deadly Force

by Bob Butler » Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:09 pm

Higgenbotham wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:19 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:31 pm
I too have repeated my opinion that the crisis conflicts have been resolved and that we are entering a high. I have listed the domestic issues involved... race riots, Covid, police murders, the insurrection. These are over.
Bob Butler gaslighting again.
Higgenbotham lying again. I am going by the Merriam-Webster definition of gaslighting, of deliberately lying in order to change someone's perception of reality. I sincerely believe we are entering a high. I sincerely believe there have been no collapses. Population and economic growth have been steady and persistent worldwide. I could question who is gaslighting, proposing that collapse is inevitable when none has occurred. Lie persistently. Propose something with no evidence. But you are just stating your own beliefs, baseless though they may be.

There is a culture of police using excessive force. There is apparently an attempt to cover it up. I'm not sure it is coming from the federal government. A little more investigation into who is pushing the use of force might be appropriate. I was hoping that the days of Black Lives Matter were behind us, but perhaps not. There is a ghetto culture, a belief that for certain minorities in order to get ahead you have to be a drug pusher, a sports star, or a mother who exploits welfare. There is a response by some police to respond to ghetto culture with excessive force, to bypass rule of law and instead to ad lib deadly force. I suspect the aggression of the police is more local than a top level federal conspiracy. Neither perspective is desirable. Addressing the two problems are appropriate. Assigning partisan blame seems premature.

Re: Bob Butler Gaslighting Again

by Higgenbotham » Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:19 pm

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:31 pm
I too have repeated my opinion that the crisis conflicts have been resolved and that we are entering a high. I have listed the domestic issues involved... race riots, Covid, police murders, the insurrection. These are over.
Bob Butler gaslighting again.

Data for 2024 is as of August 6, 2024. On track for another year of higher police shootings, or as Butler prefers to say, police murders. And, imagine that, under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Image

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 ... e-by-race/

Note that once Biden/Harris got into office via the stolen election, the number of people shot by police with "unknown" race increased spectacularly. At least under Trump the numbers were both smaller and the race of the person who was shot was generally identified. Not so under Biden/Harris.

A Progressive Creed

by Bob Butler » Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:05 am

The preceding post got me thinking of a progressive creed. Do not conquer, oppress others or limit their options. If you do, don’t be surprised by laws or doctrines limiting your attempts to do so.

Is there an opposing creed?

Sides

by Bob Butler » Tue Aug 27, 2024 6:56 am

FullMoon wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:17 pm
It is just that some see or saw these things as a feature, and some a bug. Does a crisis introducing a new birth of freedom and new values imply old values going away and collapse of the old way of doing things? Looks that way.
We're getting somewhere, that's good. Nobody besides yourself is proposing which " side" is better or going to win. There's been no clear definition of a "side" by anyone or certainly not enough for an agreement, which is a basic prerequisite for a debate. That's where we're stuck. You do seem legitimately in a small degree able to see that it's just a debate about direction. Some of us see "worse" and you see "better". We just use different metrics. I'll say again that it's more pleasant at a time like this to believe that it will work out for the best. But consider that we might be in for a rocky road before the crisis is resolved.
Well, I think the sides are fairly clear. There are a stay the same people and progressive people. Domestically, there are Republicans and Democrats, minorities and the white supremacists, religious people and those that want to control their own families, elites welcoming their influence on the government and working people. Internationally, there are autocratic nations and democracies.

This site is predominantly conservative, tending towards favoring the earlier mentioned groups in the above paragraph. That puts them on the losing side of the typical S&H crisis. The progressive faction strives and succeeds in changing the greatest flaws in the society. Naturally, being conservative doesn’t make people think the progressive side is better. Still, there are many who do think democracy is better than autocracy, freedom better than being told what to do, equality better than oppression, etc…

Is everything resolved? Not yet. The violence peaked with January 6. The polls on the election swung after Biden dropped out. Still, court cases are yet pending and the election is yet to be held. A rocky road is possible, but the end is in sight, at least if you want to see it.

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

by FullMoon » Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:17 pm

It is just that some see or saw these things as a feature, and some a bug. Does a crisis introducing a new birth of freedom and new values imply old values going away and collapse of the old way of doing things? Looks that way.

We're getting somewhere, that's good. Nobody besides yourself is proposing which " side" is better or going to win. There's been no clear definition of a "side" by anyone or certainly not enough for an agreement, which is a basic prerequisite for a debate. That's where we're stuck. You do seem legitimately in a small degree able to see that it's just a debate about direction. Some of us see "worse" and you see "better". We just use different metrics. I'll say again that it's more pleasant at a time like this to believe that it will work out for the best. But consider that we might be in for a rocky road before the crisis is resolved.

Collapse

by Bob Butler » Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:02 pm

You know, the conservative presentation that civilization will collapse and my own supposition that the conservative culture and way of thought will collapse are sort of the same thing. The old way of doing things goes away…. Kings. Slaves. Private citizens regulating the economy rather than the government. Conquest by autocratic dictators. Bigotry. Superstition.

It is just that some see or saw these things as a feature, and some a bug. Does a crisis introducing a new birth of freedom and new values imply old values going away and collapse of the old way of doing things? Looks that way.

Change

by Bob Butler » Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:53 pm

Higgenbotham wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:31 pm
When Trump ran in 2016, there were people who were very concerned. This was already posted several years ago, but someone asked me what I thought of Trump. I said, "It's all bread and circuses anyway so might as well get some entertainment on the way down." At that time, early 2016, America as we knew it had already ended and the success of Trump was just a manifestation of it.
A crisis is about ending old traditions and fixing flaws in the culture. There will always be those pleased with or addicted to the old traditions. Trump gathered them together. It is not looking like he will succeed in maintaining the status quo. The more diverse culture will become more diverse. The will of the majority will over ride old traditions. The best strong man the conservatives could find will turn out to be a weak habitual criminal.

So you acknowledge the old pattern was already failing back then? Congratulations. It’s just that hoping the stay the same crowd will triumph in a crisis is futile. Crises are about new values overcoming old patterns. They are about change. If you don’t want to change?

Top