Criticism of Generational Dynamics

[Bob Butler]

Are you suggesting that Catholics are not Christian? That might be an interesting debate.

Again, please stop the lazy thinking. I stated that the teaching in question is incorrect. And it is. Not once did I bring up what makes one a christian, but of course, there has to be an answer to that.

Generally, if a group calls themselves Christian, I don't argue. This doesn't mean I'm enthused about their doctrines. You don't agree with the nuns. Neither did I. There is a huge collection of doctrines in the many Christian texts and organizations. That doesn't give anyone the right to call them not Christians.

For the most part, most of the worlds religions date to the Agricultural Age and promote remnants of Agricultural Age thinking. For example, I'm used to people calling Jesus 'The Lord'. Do you really think He took that attitude when He was alive?

You don't know anything about this topic, please stop. The odds are that you don't even know what the Septuagint is, so I won't go any further.

I'm afraid I don't speak medieval Greek, so I've never dealt with that particular version of the Bible. Does this somehow disqualify me from having an opinion on Christianity? How many people do you know that speak Ancient Greek? Seventy?

While I am not currently very religious, I was a Catholic in my youth, a member of the Christian Fellowship through college, pursued Neo paganism for a while, and studied a Taoist version of Kung Fu. While there are an abundant number of people who are much into specific doctrines, I can do OK as a generalist.

[Bob Butler]

John often enough presents himself as being right so much that like people such as Cassandra and Solomon he is hated into being treated as a social pariah. I have contested that it is not being right that earns him this status, but presenting a cavalier, tribal, red worldview in the center of the most roundhead, WIERD, blue environment you are apt to find, the corner of Havahd and MIT.

Suppose it were flipped? Suppose a sincere believer in the roundhead WEIRD blue perspective were to go to a highly cavalier tribal red environment and spoke sincerely of his worldview? What would happen? Could I find such an environment? Could I find such a WEIRD individual? Would such a person be rejected in a similar way?

Hmm…. Maybe I have more in common with John than I thought.

[Cool Breeze]

Are you suggesting that Catholics are not Christian? That might be an interesting debate.

Again, please stop the lazy thinking. I stated that the teaching in question is incorrect. And it is. Not once did I bring up what makes one a christian, but of course, there has to be an answer to that.

Generally, if a group calls themselves Christian, I don't argue. This doesn't mean I'm enthused about their doctrines. You don't agree with the nuns. Neither did I. There is a huge collection of doctrines in the many Christian texts and organizations. That doesn't give anyone the right to call them not Christians.

For the most part, most of the worlds religions date to the Agricultural Age and promote remnants of Agricultural Age thinking. For example, I'm used to people calling Jesus 'The Lord'. Do you really think He took that attitude when He was alive?

You don't know anything about this topic, please stop. The odds are that you don't even know what the Septuagint is, so I won't go any further.

I'm afraid I don't speak medieval Greek, so I've never dealt with that particular version of the Bible. Does this somehow disqualify me from having an opinion on Christianity? How many people do you know that speak Ancient Greek? Seventy?

While I am not currently very religious, I was a Catholic in my youth, a member of the Christian Fellowship through college, pursued Neo paganism for a while, and studied a Taoist version of Kung Fu. While there are an abundant number of people who are much into specific doctrines, I can do OK as a generalist.

Thank you for confirming that you don't know or believe in much. We don't need to continue on that topic, beyond your bad logic again, and non-sequitirs.

[Cool Breeze]

John often enough presents himself as being right so much that like people such as Cassandra and Solomon he is hated into being treated as a social pariah. I have contested that it is not being right that earns him this status, but presenting a cavalier, tribal, red worldview in the center of the most roundhead, WIERD, blue environment you are apt to find, the corner of Havahd and MIT.

Suppose it were flipped? Suppose a sincere believer in the roundhead WEIRD blue perspective were to go to a highly cavalier tribal red environment and spoke sincerely of his worldview? What would happen? Could I find such an environment? Could I find such a WEIRD individual? Would such a person be rejected in a similar way?

Hmm…. Maybe I have more in common with John than I thought.

Exactly. Why are you here? It seems that you just dog John, btw. Like a demon, in an sense. fitting

[Bob Butler]

Exactly. Why are you here? It seems that you just dog John, btw. Like a demon, in an sense. fitting

I had a conflicted mindset when young. There was the young engineer who learned of the word by examining the world, by chasing science as proscribed by Newton's Principia. Then there was the religious guy who wanted to know God's will, who observed often enough what we called 'Christian Coincidence' in the Fellowship, unusual events that were just on the edge of being plausible. I wondered just how, when and why God would interfere in the world, and chased various religious doctrines to resolve this. Trying to resolve this conflict led me into parapsychology, the scientific study of how the mind effects matter. A very different pursuit than religion. Looking at the data, I eventually decided we were slightly more likely to observe an emotional future. It was an odd combination of many worlds quantum physics and experimental parapsychology. Of course, neither the quantum physicists or the parapsychologists were interested.

Thus, Newton and his Principea perspective won out. I grew disinterested in pushing religion, and have only the remnants of my old pursuits to call in. This is enough to be a generalist, but I'm no match for one who throws himself into one particular dogma in his own dogma. Who would be? Who would care to be?

Why was John in the MyBB turning forum? He believed in his system, and believed he was doing the dominant blue population a favor by presenting honestly his worldview. He wasn't exactly greeted with enthusiasm by the blue majority, but he periodically presented his Cassandra perspective. Woe is me. Doomed to be right all the time. For some reason, the majority blue posters were dubious.

Why am I at phpBB? Much the same.

[John]

** 03-Jan-2021 World View: Why are you here?

> Why was John in the MyBB turning forum? He believed in his
> system, and believed he was doing the dominant blue population a
> favor by presenting honestly his worldview. He wasn't exactly
> greeted with enthusiasm by the blue majority, but he periodically
> presented his Cassandra perspective. Woe is me. Doomed to be
> right all the time. For some reason, the majority blue posters
> were dubious. Why am I at phpBB? Much the same.

No, that's not true. I was never in the Fourth Turning forum to
convince Democrats of anything. I was there to learn. I pretty much
stuck to my own thread, which I called "Objections to Generational
Dynamics," because I wanted to hear criticisms that I could learn from.
I learned a great deal from Mike Alexander, who relentlessly
criticized me, but did so intelligently and instructively. On the
other hand, I learned nothing from Sean Love, your spiritual
predecessor, because he was there just to post troll garbage.

For years I posted some three thousand articles on Breitbart. I was
constantly attacked by people who called me a trojan horse liberal or
scum globalist. People told me that I didn't have to respond to the
comments, but I always did because I learned a great deal from people
in doing so.

You've come into this forum with no intention of learning anything, so
don't ever say that you're anything like me. You're not here to
learn. You're only here to post troll garbage. Yesterday you asked
me if I was setting 2021 as a deadline. You know that's ridiculous,
but you posted it anyway, and you posted it to annoy me. And it did
annoy me, so you accomplished your goal, and gleefully enjoyed doing
so.

The problem for me is that you post endless amounts of troll garbage
to annoy me and others. You bring out the worst in me, and you're
taking up too much of my time worthlessly. In the end, you're nothing
but an asshole. And you seem to be getting worse, posting more troll
garbage every day, to the point where you seem totally obsessed.

So I'm warning you that I'm going to do something about it. I'm going
to think about it for a few days, and then decide. I've already
removed several of your posts because they're racist, and I'm thinking
in the direction of removing more of your posts because they're
nothing but troll garbage. That would be much less time consuming and
much less annoying. That's what I'll be thinking about for the next
few days.

If anybody else has any input, pro or con, feel free to post it here,
or write to me at <john at generationaldynamics dot com>.

[FullMoon]

Bob should stay but he knows when and how he's pulling John's strings. John and Bob, please show some restraint. You both have the common good in mind. You are both good people helping others. Likely more than you know. Please keep it civil for that sake.

[Cool Breeze]

My view is that John is more than accommodating and fair in allowing any types of posts. I'm not for censoring, but if you are warned like Bob is, and repeatedly, I do believe that he should pay a price, at least in suspension for a while.

[Bob Butler]

My view is that John is more than accommodating and fair in allowing any types of posts. I'm not for censoring, but if you are warned like Bob is, and repeatedly, I do believe that he should pay a price, at least in suspension for a while.

If you want to know what the blues are really driving for, ask a blue. What has been happening is that the posters here are posting false and very emotional ideas about blue with heat. My initial instinct was to return with truth but with an equal amount of heat.

Now it is a cliche to speak truth to power. I guess you are not quite power, but still. It is easy enough to stay polite in presenting undesired opinions, but responding with the truth about history and blue thought alone should not be judged as a violation.

For example, I think the attorney general should defend the Constitution and defend the people rather than be personally loyal to the president. The AG interfered frequently with cases involved with the president, which seems problematic. I and many others believe the pardon power should be to relieve miscarriages of justice or to show mercy, not to immunize people committed crimes in being loyal to the president. These seems to be the opinion of many blues, but not occurring for the last few years. I can state that opinion without a lot of emotional baggage. Anything wrong with that? Is it that I shouldn't assault with insults and slanders those who might believe otherwise?

Would it go both ways?

[Cool Breeze]

Yes, Holder did do that, illegally and unconstitutionally, for many years. Thanks for finally noticing.