Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

An alternate home for the community from the legacy Fourth Turning Forum
Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Thinking in terms of Prejudice

Post by Cool Breeze »

Bob Butler wrote:
Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:32 pm
Thus when people make up stuff about my prejudices they are wrong, because my perspective is more centered on principles. They end up lying. I can see the lies as due to the way they perceive things, and totally wrong, but the opposition is still not intelligent enough to understand the opposite perspective.
You actually are the dense one. You don't understand that you yourself do not employ principles at all, you employ grievances. Yet you think you are more principled because you don't deal in reality, but you think yourself a good person - as do all lefties - because you have some vague awareness that xyz might be fair or unfair. Again, you define what those mean and they have nothing to do with truth or principle. That's the point. You actually aren't principled, because the first principle is truth.

John and I believe in holding people to the same standards. You don't. If someone doesn't achieve, you don't hold them to a standard, you summarily suggest that power structures stop them from achieving, which is a neo-marxist view, it is all centered on power struggles, NOT truth.

You would never choose an African civilization over a European one to live in, because they are less advanced and less prosperous. This is what makes you the ultimate hypocrite, like all lefties. They ask of others what they never do themselves. They believe in nothing and hate the God-man, precisely because he is King of Kings and he did exactly what they will never do - live his life according to truth and only ask others to do what HE HIMSELF did.

You are the son of another, the ruler of this world, which means you are of lies. The good news is that you can repent. The sad news is that likely, you won't.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Thinking in terms of Prejudice

Post by Bob Butler »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:13 pm
You actually are the dense one. You don't understand that you yourself do not employ principles at all, you employ grievances. Yet you think you are more principled because you don't deal in reality, but you think yourself a good person - as do all lefties - because you have some vague awareness that xyz might be fair or unfair. Again, you define what those mean and they have nothing to do with truth or principle. That's the point. You actually aren't principled, because the first principle is truth.

John and I believe in holding people to the same standards. You don't. If someone doesn't achieve, you don't hold them to a standard, you summarily suggest that power structures stop them from achieving, which is a neo-marxist view, it is all centered on power struggles, NOT truth.

You would never choose an African civilization over a European one to live in, because they are less advanced and less prosperous. This is what makes you the ultimate hypocrite, like all lefties. They ask of others what they never do themselves. They believe in nothing and hate the God-man, precisely because he is King of Kings and he did exactly what they will never do - live his life according to truth and only ask others to do what HE HIMSELF did.

You are the son of another, the ruler of this world, which means you are of lies. The good news is that you can repent. The sad news is that likely, you won't.
What is the difference between a grievance and a principle? Let’s go with my arrow of progress to provide examples: equality, democracy, human rights and rule of law. The grievance is that the ruling classes do not treat people equally. The principle is that all men should be treated equally. The grievance is that the leaders are not chosen democratically, one man one vote. The principle would be that all are allowed to vote easily. The grievance is that all men do not have the same rights. The principle is that the same rights should be applied to all. The grievance is that the same laws do not apply to all equally, that minorities are more likely to be searched and murdered. The principle is that the laws should be uniformly applied to all.

So I for one agree that there are grievances, but would disagree that each of these grievances cannot be expressed as a principle. One principle, equality, holds that all should be treated the same.

I agree that too much of the time not all are treated equally by those seeking to hold on to privilege. I agree there is a power struggle between privilege and equality. That is one of many truths. Not all cultures have achieved as much in this struggle. There are many cultures where autocracy and privilege hold much more sway. Like most, given a choice I would live where democracy and equality have more sway. The hypocrisy is in choosing to live in a culture which strives for human rights, democracy, equality and rule of law while advocating groups that deprive rights, exclude people from voting, treat minorities as inferior, and act criminally. I have lived and advocated none such.

Repent? The nuns taught the parable of the good Samaritan. [understatement] At the time of Christ, Samaritans and Jews did not get along. [/understatement]. Think of their relationship as representing tribal thinking in action. Superiority. Prejudice. Oppression. The point of the parable is that you are supposed to treat all equally and well. The early church that was closer to Christ was thus into charity, a thing the Romans were not big into. In fact, that was much of why the church was integrated into Roman culture. Tribal Thinking got them an empire, but they grew into a place where they needed to build what today is the equivalent of a welfare system. The elites needed to satisfy the poor underprivileged classes. Thus Christianity, charity and helping your fellow man, was added to the Roman system. One can observe that this was about when the empire began to fade, but it was an element they needed to build on.

Hypocrisy? How about claiming an affiliation with Christ while not embracing the principles of equality and charity? In embracing prejudice, criminality, privilege and Christ together, you are in no position to accuse others of hypocrisy.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Thinking in terms of Prejudice

Post by Cool Breeze »

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:00 pm
What is the difference between a grievance and a principle?
After this lead I knew you'd break your record for meaningless statements and lies. I was correct, again, sadly.
In embracing prejudice, criminality, privilege and Christ together, you are in no position to accuse others of hypocrisy.
Your father was an accuser, too. I'm sad to say you keep taking on his characteristics. Why do his bidding? On what basis do you accuse me, since you have no foundation, evidence, facts, or sanity?

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Thinking in terms of Prejudice

Post by Bob Butler »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:16 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:00 pm
What is the difference between a grievance and a principle?
After this lead I knew you'd break your record for meaningless statements and lies. I was correct, again, sadly.
Do you not agree that principles and grievances can be expressed as the other, that the examples I gave at least are valid? I figure that you are Tribal and see things in terms of grievances, but you seem to be coherent enough to understand the principle of principles. Apparently you are not able to comprehend principles. Again, I see you as defending your worldview not as being stupid. Not very stupid anyway.
Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:16 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:00 pm
In embracing prejudice, criminality, privilege and Christ together, you are in no position to accuse others of hypocrisy.
Your father was an accuser, too. I'm sad to say you keep taking on his characteristics. Why do his bidding? On what basis do you accuse me, since you have no foundation, evidence, facts, or sanity?
Do you mean God the Father or my own biological father? If biological, what do you know of him or did you just make up lies? What do you know of my biological father to accuse him of being an accuser?

If you mean God the Father, I perceive Him as a myth. The Bible seems to me to be a cultural document that shows an evolution of the Jewish culture in the Old Testament and the beginnings of the original Christian culture in the New. Later versions of the Christian culture often justify oppressive actions due to Christian alleged superiority and prejudice against minorities. There is a return to the Tribal Thinking found so often in the Old Testament, a significant deviation from the teachings of Christ.

For example note the passage that could be paraphrased as behold the land of milk and honey. Kill the men. Enslave the woman and children. That to me is an expression of Tribal Thinking. Oppress those who are perceived of as different. It is quite different from what Jesus expressed. In the several thousand years since parts of the Old Testament was written, western man has learned much. Engaging in prejudice, violence and oppression is in many ways frowned upon. In reading an account of an ancient culture, one has to disregard parts as well obsolete. It doesn't make me want to disregard more modern writings, including The Weirdest People in the World by Joseph Henrich.

To me, the teachings of Jesus are comparable to modern thought, to democracy, equality, rights and rule of law. Not the same. Many of the new ideas were not prevalent that far back. Jesus among other things put forgiveness ahead of strict rule of law. Still, the ideas you express are not overly compatible with being a Christian as I see it.
Last edited by Bob Butler on Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

DaKardii wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:35 pm
Politico is reporting that Biden is considering intervening to ensure SMS messages are “fact checked.”

Such a policy would be blatantly unconstitutional, and perhaps an impeachable offense.
Telling the truth as the evidence presented to the courts states is not unconstitutional or impeachable. Correcting lies told by partisans to mislead the public is not unconstitutional or impeachable. There is nothing wrong with stating another opinion, though if you lie there can easily be consequences.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by DaKardii »

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:03 pm
DaKardii wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:35 pm
Politico is reporting that Biden is considering intervening to ensure SMS messages are “fact checked.”

Such a policy would be blatantly unconstitutional, and perhaps an impeachable offense.
Telling the truth as the evidence presented to the courts states is not unconstitutional or impeachable. Correcting lies told by partisans to mislead the public is not unconstitutional or impeachable. There is nothing wrong with stating another opinion, though if you lie there can easily be consequences.
Have you ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

DaKardii wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:37 pm
Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:03 pm
DaKardii wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:35 pm
Politico is reporting that Biden is considering intervening to ensure SMS messages are “fact checked.”

Such a policy would be blatantly unconstitutional, and perhaps an impeachable offense.
Telling the truth as the evidence presented to the courts states is not unconstitutional or impeachable. Correcting lies told by partisans to mislead the public is not unconstitutional or impeachable. There is nothing wrong with stating another opinion, though if you lie there can easily be consequences.
Have you ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?
Have you heard of the First? Biden has a much a right to political speech as anyone. However, rights end when harm is done. It has since Justice Holmes declared one can’t cry fire in a crowded theater. If your false facts lead to insurrection, the harm done can be prosecuted. The First does not protect harm done through lies. If Biden has facts supported by evidence, if these facts are confirmed by the courts, if there is no evidence of systematic fraud, Trump and company can be prosecuted for the harm done. Thus far, there is absolutely no evidence of systematic fraud.

The Fourth? I doubt much significant in Trump’s lies require a warrant. Giuliani was hit with a warrant based on probable cause. Last I heard they found what they thought they would and the judge didn’t have a problem with using falsehoods to justify the warrant. Trump’s other acts were official and in theory belong to the current administration. No warrant is required.

What evidence should be blocked for the lack of a warrant?

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by DaKardii »

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:19 pm
Have you heard of the First? Biden has a much a right to political speech as anyone. However, rights end when harm is done. It has since Justice Holmes declared one can’t cry fire in a crowded theater. If your false facts lead to insurrection, the harm done can be prosecuted. The First does not protect harm done through lies. If Biden has facts supported by evidence, if these facts are confirmed by the courts, if there is no evidence of systematic fraud, Trump and company can be prosecuted for the harm done. Thus far, there is absolutely no evidence of systematic fraud.

The Fourth? I doubt much significant in Trump’s lies require a warrant. Giuliani was hit with a warrant based on probable cause. Last I heard they found what they thought they would and the judge didn’t have a problem with using falsehoods to justify the warrant. Trump’s other acts were official and in theory belong to the current administration. No warrant is required.

What evidence should be blocked for the lack of a warrant?
Holmes' opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919) was partially overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under the Brandenburg standard, the speech must be directed and likely to incite imminent lawless action for it to be prosecuted. Whether the rhetoric you cite meets that standard is very much debatable.

Meanwhile, the SMS monitoring proposal has nothing to do with Trump's post-election rhetoric. Rather, it has to do with misinformation regarding COVID-19. If you had read the article I cited (and I strongly suspect you didn't), you would know that.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

DaKardii wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:34 pm
Holmes' opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919) was partially overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under the Brandenburg standard, the speech must be directed and likely to incite imminent lawless action for it to be prosecuted. Whether the rhetoric you cite meets that standard is very much debatable.
Trump's incitement of insurrection let immediately to insurrection. Trump's calls to influence the election in Georgia and Arizona was in itself an immediate crime. This is hardly debatable.
DaKardii wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:34 pm
Meanwhile, the SMS monitoring proposal has nothing to do with Trump's post-election rhetoric. Rather, it has to do with misinformation regarding COVID-19. If you had read the article I cited (and I strongly suspect you didn't), you would know that.
If the message is over a private channel, yes. You would need a warrant to break in and it should be hard to get. As far as I can tell, the misinformation in question is being sent over public social media and causing death. It is quite proper to answer lies with truth.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by DaKardii »

Bob Butler wrote:
Thu Jul 15, 2021 6:49 pm
If the message is over a private channel, yes. You would need a warrant to break in and it should be hard to get. As far as I can tell, the misinformation in question is being sent over public social media and causing death. It is quite proper to answer lies with truth.
SMS is part of most telephone and internet systems. That means if Biden goes through with this, private channels WILL be affected across the board.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests