Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:26 pmI don't know. What's your explanation? Are people more morally inferior than they were 50 years ago?

Morally superior? Evolution is more relevant. In the old days before machine guns and nukes, prejudice, violence, oppression and death were cost effective. The dominant group of humans took the resources, spread their genes, and assumed dominant roles. Do not confuse tribal thinking with morality. They have nothing to do with each other, save in how tribal thinkers ignore morality a lot. Was this anything to do with moral superiority?

Similarly, the amount of physical work done was greater and food available was less. Eating more and saving up energy was necessary in the occasional glut. The greater work done with less food kept most people in a healthier place. Are we evolved for the current situation of machines doing the work and plentiful food? Is the apparent change in our handling of calories or in the environment?

I’m a bit heavy myself. While I didn’t make the record Tim apparently did, I’m in a similar place. I just don’t consider it a moral failing. We wound up doing what we were bred to do in a changed environment. In a while, with genetic tinkering, we could optimize ourselves for a new environment. In the meanwhile I am not inclined to blame ourselves for how we evolved, or consider people different because we’re fairly typical.

Morality? Should we care for the environment? Should we be into prejudice, oppression, and violence? Should we try in this age of Covid to save our family and neighbors? Why go to a conservative for morality? Unravellings are for selfishness. Conservatives cling to a 'me first' ethic and decline to shift into the 'for the common benefit' mood of the crisis. You ought not to expect a based on morality stance from a conservative. That's the position of the other guys.

Apparently, another court found the claims of election fraud in 2020 baseless and are forcing the lawyers who brought the suits to pay legal costs.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/politics ... index.html

Just as Selco predicted, the US Govt is going to label anyone who challenges their power as "terrorists". They saw the protests in Europe and aim to head it off. So if you protest because you're tired of wearing a mask or don't want a vaccine, you are a terrorist. And they gonna come take your guns too because you're a domestic terrorist threat.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/1 ... orism-risk

The Constitution is just an illusion, and the idea of "inalienable rights" is a fantasy. You can riot and burn down cities if you're in an approved grievance identity group, but if you wear silly clothes and march, you are a domestic terrorist and you'll be getting a knock on the door.

Burner Prime wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:15 am Just as Selco predicted, the US Govt is going to label anyone who challenges their power as "terrorists". They saw the protests in Europe and aim to head it off. So if you protest because you're tired of wearing a mask or don't want a vaccine, you are a terrorist. And they gonna come take your guns too because you're a domestic terrorist threat.

To protest in response to a grievance is a right. To use violence in response to a grievance is a crime. The distinction should be kept. It is the distinction between the protests of BLM, and insurrectionists of January 6th. You could also paint poorly the looters of last summer who took advantage of the cops being more concerned with protecting their own buildings than enforcing the laws.

As long as you are more concerned with rule of law than political issues, you will be all right. If you believe the laws should apply to one political faction but not to the other you are just being partisan.

Bob Butler wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:16 am As long as you are more concerned with rule of law than political issues, you will be all right. If you believe the laws should apply to one political faction but not to the other you are just being partisan.

Are you really this mentally disturbed? You believe that (ignorance and "systematic" non enforcement of) laws currently are not to the benefit of your perceived "aggrieved" groups compared to the normal citizen?

Burner Prime wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:15 am Just as Selco predicted, the US Govt is going to label anyone who challenges their power as "terrorists". They saw the protests in Europe and aim to head it off. So if you protest because you're tired of wearing a mask or don't want a vaccine, you are a terrorist. And they gonna come take your guns too because you're a domestic terrorist threat.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/1 ... orism-risk

The Constitution is just an illusion, and the idea of "inalienable rights" is a fantasy. You can riot and burn down cities if you're in an approved grievance identity group, but if you wear silly clothes and march, you are a domestic terrorist and you'll be getting a knock on the door.

Totally agree. The fact that we have dopes like Bish further confirms that the spirit of the age that influences them is more demonic than ever. He still doesn't know who is father is, either, even further proof of the guile and snares of the evil one.

Cool Breeze wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:02 am

Bob Butler wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:16 am As long as you are more concerned with rule of law than political issues, you will be all right. If you believe the laws should apply to one political faction but not to the other you are just being partisan.

Are you really this mentally disturbed? You believe that (ignorance and "systematic" non enforcement of) laws currently are not to the benefit of your perceived "aggrieved" groups compared to the normal citizen?

He's not mentally disturbed. He belongs to a cult. Although I'm not a "religious" person, I consider it something satanical.
The "logic" governing this group of enablers is one of the greatest tragedies of this time period. They're committed to doing "good" and "helping". White middle class suburbanites. When they realize their mistake they'll be demonized and eliminated. They're enacting the German quote " when they came for....."

Cool Breeze wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:02 am

Bob Butler wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 4:16 amTo protest in response to a grievance is a right. To use violence in response to a grievance is a crime. The distinction should be kept. It is the distinction between the protests of BLM, and insurrectionists of January 6th. You could also paint poorly the looters of last summer who took advantage of the cops being more concerned with protecting their own buildings than enforcing the laws.

As long as you are more concerned with rule of law than political issues, you will be all right. If you believe the laws should apply to one political faction but not to the other you are just being partisan.

Are you really this mentally disturbed? You believe that (ignorance and "systematic" non enforcement of) laws currently are not to the benefit of your perceived "aggrieved" groups compared to the normal citizen?

A few more examples of equal enforcement of the laws, both not generally associated with terrorism.

The Trump Administration ended in a slew of pardons. Various inspector generals filed reports of violation of laws that were ignored by the Trump justice department. Trump did not isolate himself from having his organizations profit from government decisions, in violation of law. Now I would not label this as terrorism. No violence involved. But it is a case where justice became partisan. But if the law is there and the statute of limitations has not run out, any attempts to enforce the law should not be considered partisan.

In another issue entirely, in the blue states there is more emphasis on the vaccines, masking and other precautions than in red states. This is less a matter of people following the guidance and regulations than these being different in different places. Terrorism? Deaths due to political difference? More US deaths due to Covid than World War II? A dedication to kill in the name of political difference? This is not considered terrorism yet, but it is a percieved right to disregard the common good for one’s own convenience?

Now there are accusations of satanism. I will note that there are secular crimes and religious sins. The two concepts seem related in including a willingness to hurt others for benefit. I do see the equal enforcement of laws being one principle that should be held. If you are a Trump white collar criminal, a racist bad cop treating some people murderously, a looter taking advantage of protests keeping the cops busy, a rural racist traveling into a minority are to create mischief, or whatever, I support laws which are aimed at protecting from hurting others for one’s own perceived gain. I am not interested in mixing in a religious or satanist perspective. That seems to be entirely partisan name calling.

A few examples of bending the law to benefit blue cliques?

Inspectors general

In the US and elsewhere, political parties advocate equal enforcement of laws, but at least Christian religions are supposed to advocate the forgiveness of sins. I would advocate the former, but am not concerned with the latter. They do seem to be in conflict though.