Page 164 of 165 FirstFirst ... 64114154161162163164165 LastLast
Results 2,446 to 2,460 of 2466

Thread: Chaos and the Anti-Thread

  1. #2446
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    Good timing. Just caught this addition before posting"

    Quote Originally posted by Gio View Post
    PS ~ But knowing the FBI's track record, they might have even enticed this group into this whole fiasco?


    Quote Originally posted by Gio View Post
    Well Fred,
    Unfortunately this happened just east of Spokane, about 30 miles over in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. And you should know, that it's a very pro-gun conservative area of Eastern Washington - Idaho ... And in which the police out here are not known for being 'liberal lovers' by any means = Lots pf citizens have gun permits... In which could have been a reason for these individuals coming in from all around the country choose not to be armed.
    Oh, well sure Gio, I assumed that area of the country would be very conservative. But nothing about the whole thing seems a bit odd to you?

    30 guys all dressed the same, from all areas of the country, cramming into a hot cramped little U-Haul , do accomplish exactly what in a small town, gun toting community where they are outsiders? And the cops are there in force in 10 minutes flat, the Capitol Police could take some pointers.

    The FBI has informants in any sizeable group like that any more these days, no one is realistically getting caught with their pants down by sneak attacks any more, if anything, the FBI helps facilitate them to bring forth notable arrests for the evening news.

    It also all looked way too orderly the way the cops had them cuffed and on their knees with equal spacing, in nice neat rows, and they hadn't even bothered to unmask them or take what at the time supposedly would have been considered weapons laden backpacks. Instead, the cops looked more interested in posing for the cameras, with their backs all turned to these freshly busted "domestic terrorists".

    I don't know man, maybe it's just me, but I've already seen too many such cases where the feds really do set this kind of thing up just to keep scaring the bejesus out of us, and keep us needing them under the guise of boogeymen around every corner, to just brush off little out of place oddities on the say so of the CBS Evening News.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (15th June 2022), Chuckie (15th June 2022), Gio (15th June 2022), Wind (15th June 2022)

  3. #2447
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    32,711
    Thanked 38,308 Times in 9,873 Posts
    For once, I have to agree that does look weird. I wonder if that is actual footage of the event. It may be something the reporting organization used as a filler to back the story. Even the bad guys look like Law Enforcement (and I can smell those dudes, even on a computer screen). Weird! Jimmy Dore sucks!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chuckie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Fred Steeves (15th June 2022)

  5. #2448
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chuckie View Post
    For once, I have to agree that does look weird. I wonder if that is actual footage of the event. It may be something the reporting organization used as a filler to back the story. Even the bad guys look like Law Enforcement (and I can smell those dudes, even on a computer screen). Weird! Jimmy Dore sucks!
    Well I'm glad you see that too, reminds me of the provocateurs sent in to disrupt and turn violent the WTO protests in Seattle back in '99, except that was very well done, this looked very bush league. I don't even know what the fuck these guys might have hoped to accomplish in that particular setting, and what were they gonna do with those shields? Very strange...

    I know Jimmy is not real popular here, but I like the way he thinks, he definitely marches to the tune of his own drummer.

    I look forward to the clips from his daily show as well. He often digs up some edgy information or video, asks the right questions, points out inconsistencies, and has on interesting guests as well.

    Anyway, different strokes for different folks.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Chuckie (15th June 2022), Gio (15th June 2022), Wind (15th June 2022)

  7. #2449
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    32,711
    Thanked 38,308 Times in 9,873 Posts
    Go Michel de Montaigne: A man far ahead of his time or a man in his time where his contemporaries had been left behind?

    Relativism

    One of the primary targets of Montaigne’s skeptical attack against presumption is ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s culture is superior to others and therefore is the standard against which all other cultures, and their moral beliefs and practices, should be measured. This belief in the moral and cultural superiority of one’s own people, Montaigne finds, is widespread. It seems to be the default belief of all human beings. The first step toward undermining this prejudice is to display the sheer multiplicity of human beliefs and practices. Thus, in essays such as “Of some ancient customs,” “Of Custom, and not easily changing an accepted law,” and “Apology for Raymond Sebond” Montaigne catalogues the variety of behaviors to be found in the world in order to draw attention to the contingency of his own cultural norms. By reporting many customs that are direct inversions of contemporary European customs, he creates something like an inverted world for his readers, stunning their judgment by forcing them to question which way is up: here men urinate standing up and women do so sitting down; elsewhere it is the opposite. Here incest is frowned upon; in other cultures it is the norm. Here we bury our dead; there they eat them. Here we believe in the immortality of the soul; in other societies such a belief is nonsense.

    Montaigne is not terribly optimistic about reforming the prejudices of his contemporaries, for simply reminding them of the apparent contingency of their own practices in most cases will not be enough. The power of custom over our habits and beliefs, he argues, is stronger than we tend to recognize. Indeed, Montaigne devotes almost as much time in the Essays to discussing the power of custom to shape the way we see the world as he does to revealing the various customs that he has come across in his reading and his travels. Custom, whether personal or social, puts to sleep the eye of our judgment, thereby tightening its grip over us, since its effects can only be diminished through deliberate and self-conscious questioning. It begins to seem as if it is impossible to escape custom’s power over our judgment: “Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in”

    Montaigne’s concern with custom and cultural diversity, combined with his rejection of ethnocentrism, has led many scholars to argue that Montaigne is a moral relativist, that is, that he holds that that there is no objective moral truth and that therefore moral values are simply expressions of conventions that enjoy widespread acceptance at a given time and place. Yet Montaigne never explicitly expresses his commitment to moral relativism, and there are aspects of the Essays that seem to contradict such an interpretation, as other scholars have noted.

    These other scholars are inclined to interpret Montaigne as committed to moral objectivism, or the theory that there is in fact objective moral truth, and they point to a number of aspects of the Essays that would support such an interpretation. First, Montaigne does not hesitate to criticize the practices of other cultures. For instance, in “Of cannibals,” after praising the virtues of the cannibals, he criticizes them for certain behaviors that he identifies as morally vicious. For a relativist, such criticism would be unintelligible: if there is no objective moral truth, it makes little sense to criticize others for having failed to abide by it. Rather, since there is no external standard by which to judge other cultures, the only logical course of action is to pass over them in silence. Then there are moments when Montaigne seems to refer to categorical duties, or moral obligations that are not contingent upon either our own preferences or cultural norms (see, for example, the conclusion of “Of cruelty”). Finally, Montaigne sometimes seems to allude to the existence of objective moral truth, for instance in “Of some verses of Virgil” and “Of the useful and the honorable,” where he distinguishes between relative and absolute values.

    Thus Montaigne’s position regarding moral relativism remains the subject of scholarly dispute. What is not a matter of dispute, however, is that Montaigne was keenly interested in undermining his readers’ thoughtless attitudes towards members of cultures different from their own, and that his account of the force of custom along with his critique of ethnocentrism had an impact on important later thinkers

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chuckie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022)

  9. #2450
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    32,711
    Thanked 38,308 Times in 9,873 Posts
    My daughter asked me to remove this article because she doesn't have permission from the author and it hasn't been published yet ...


    She got that from her mother not me ....
    Last edited by Chuckie, 16th June 2022 at 20:27. Reason: request

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chuckie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022)

  11. #2451
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    5,202
    Thanks
    27,056
    Thanked 21,935 Times in 5,216 Posts
    Guns and abortion: Contradictory decisions, or consistent?

    They are the most fiercely polarizing issues in American life: abortion and guns. And two momentous decisions by the Supreme Court in two days have done anything but resolve them, firing up debate about whether the court’s conservative justices are being faithful and consistent to history and the Constitution — or citing them to justify political preferences.

    To some critics, the rulings represent an obvious, deeply damaging contradiction. How can the court justify restricting the ability of states to regulate guns while expanding the right of states to regulate abortion?

    “The hypocrisy is raging, but the harm is endless,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday after the court released its decision on abortion.

    To supporters, the court’s conservatives are staying true to the country’s founding principles and undoing errors of the past.

    The court corrected a historic wrong when it voided a right to abortion that has stood for nearly 50 years, former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday. On Twitter, he said the decision returned to Americans the power to “govern themselves at the state level in a manner consistent with their values and aspirations.”

    Opponents of Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 ruling that upheld the right to abortion, say the Supreme Court back then did just what some accuse the majority justices of doing now, adapting and twisting legal arguments to fit political positions.

    Members of the court’s current conservative majority, laying out their thinking in this week’s decisions, have been quite consistent, sticking to the words of the country’s founders and the precedents of history that reach back even further, those supporters say.

    In both decisions, the majority makes the case that if a right is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, the bar for any government regulation of that right is extremely high. But if a right is not explicit, state and federal governments have greater leeway to impose regulations.

    To those who study the court, though, the reality is more complicated.

    A number agree that, for all the controversy of the rulings, the majority justices at least followed a consistent legal theory in issuing the decisions on abortion and guns.

    “I understand how it might look hypocritical, but from the perspective of the conservative majority on the court, it’s a consistent approach to both cases,” said Richard Albert, law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “I’m not saying it’s correct, by the way, but from their perspective it is completely consistent and coherent.”

    Consistency, though, cannot mask the fact that there has been a seismic shift on the court since President Donald Trump appointed three conservatives. And that is likely to further muddy public perceptions of an institution that prefers to see itself as being above politics, court watchers say.

    Both decisions “come from the same court whose legitimacy is plummeting,” said Laurence Tribe, a leading scholar of Constitutional law and emeritus professor at the Harvard Law School.

    The court majority’s decisions on gun rights and the ruling a day later on abortion both rely on a philosophy of constitutional interpretation called “originalism.” To assess what rights the Constitution confers, originalists hone in on what the texts meant when they were written.

    Opinions by originalists are often laden with detailed surveys of history, as both these rulings are.

    The bulk of Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion on gun rights is devoted to history and what it says about the Founders’ intentions when they crafted the Second Amendment and when lawmakers crafted the 14th Amendment on due process in the 1860s. Thomas broached a long list of historical figures, including the English King Henry VIII, who the ruling says worried that the advent of handguns threatened his subjects’ proficiency with the longbow.

    The abortion ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito similarly delves deep into the past, concluding that there was nothing in the historical record supporting a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

    “Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single state,” Alito wrote.

    This week’s two decisions are more legally consistent than critics suggest, said Jonathan Entin, a law professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

    “We can debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment does explicitly talk about the right to keep and bear arms, whereas the right to abortion access is not explicitly in the Constitution,” he said. “If that’s where you are going to go, then maybe these decisions are not in such tension after all.”

    Not all observers agree.

    “I think there is a double standard going on here,” said Barry McDonald, a professor of law at Pepperdine University, reviewing the justices’ arguments that both decisions are grounded in a strict reading of the law and of history. That logic is shaky, he said, given the conclusion by many legal historians that the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, much narrower than the court majority insists.

    Most ordinary Americans, though, will be unfamiliar with such intricate legal theory. Instead, many will size up the court’s actions based on their perceptions of the justices’ motives and the personal implications of the decisions, experts said.

    Many are likely to view the rulings as the direct result of Trump’s appointments and the justices’ determination to carry out his agenda, making the court “more of an institution of politics than it is of law,” McDonald said.

    Tribe said the court’s majority has embraced an imaginary past and its claims that is only upholding the law are false. The majority justices can assert that they have been legally consistent. But taken together, he said, the decisions on guns and abortion create a whiplash effect from a court that claims to be protecting individual rights, then effectively limited many Americans’ control over their own bodies.

    “I think the decisions point in radically different directions,” Tribe said, “but the one thing they have in common is they are decided by a new, emboldened majority that knows no limits on its own power and is perfectly willing to toss over precedent in the name of a version of originalism that really doesn’t hold together.”

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (25th June 2022), Chuckie (25th June 2022), Fred Steeves (25th June 2022)

  13. #2452
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    It should come as no surprise that I agree with their decision on guns, but that's about it, they lose me from in a cloud of dust there.

    You know, I have a real distaste for abortion, but it's not something that should ever be criminalized, and at least they left it up to the states. It's gonna be a mess though...

    If they do indeed next go after access to contraception, and outlaw gay sex and same sex marriage, then we're spiraling back into the dark ages. FFS, what next, married hetero couples can only do it missionary style, and even only then for the purpose of procreation?

    Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

    Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.

    The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-lgbtq-rights/

    I don't think anyone but devout Christian fundamentalists are going to stand for this shit.

    Was joking with the wife last night over this: "Can't I just have a conservative court for things like guns, and a liberal court for things like legalizing weed?" (Chuckling) - That one earned me an eye roll.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (25th June 2022), Chuckie (25th June 2022), Wind (25th June 2022)

  15. #2453
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    18,162
    Thanks
    81,516
    Thanked 75,199 Times in 18,180 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    If they do indeed next go after access to contraception, and outlaw gay sex and same sex marriage, then we're spiraling back into the dark ages. FFS, what next, married hetero couples can only do it missionary style, and even only then for the purpose of procreation?
    And only after having been legally married by an ordained priest.

    P.S.: In the state of Texas, oral sex is illegal. I'm not kidding.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Chuckie (25th June 2022), Fred Steeves (25th June 2022), Wind (25th June 2022)

  17. #2454
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    Music Break, good for the soul in trying times. Texas has their problems, but they have some things going for them as well. Luckembach for one:
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (25th June 2022), Chuckie (25th June 2022), Wind (25th June 2022)

  19. #2455
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    32,711
    Thanked 38,308 Times in 9,873 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    It should come as no surprise that I agree with their decision on guns, but that's about it, they lose me from in a cloud of dust there.

    You know, I have a real distaste for abortion, but it's not something that should ever be criminalized, and at least they left it up to the states. It's gonna be a mess though...

    If they do indeed next go after access to contraception, and outlaw gay sex and same sex marriage, then we're spiraling back into the dark ages. FFS, what next, married hetero couples can only do it missionary style, and even only then for the purpose of procreation?


    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-lgbtq-rights/

    I don't think anyone but devout Christian fundamentalists are going to stand for this shit.

    Was joking with the wife last night over this: "Can't I just have a conservative court for things like guns, and a liberal court for things like legalizing weed?" (Chuckling) - That one earned me an eye roll.
    "f they do indeed next go after access to contraception, and outlaw gay sex and same sex marriage, then we're spiraling back into the dark ages. FFS, what next, married hetero couples can only do it missionary style, and even only then for the purpose of procreation?"

    If Thomas gets his way that is exactly what it will mean. The hypocrisy of his nightly anal reaming by his wife's strap-on will go un-acknowledged. If that guy was white I'd call him Trump. These types are truly sinister human beings. I don't know which is worse for humanity ... A psychotic President or a psychotic Supreme Court Justice.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    And only after having been legally married by an ordained priest.

    P.S.: In the state of Texas, oral sex is illegal. I'm not kidding.
    Only for the rank-and-file. If one could scare conservative Texans out of the closet the most liberal of folks' eyeballs would likely pop out of their heads.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Chuckie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (25th June 2022), Fred Steeves (25th June 2022), Wind (25th June 2022)

  21. #2456
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    32,711
    Thanked 38,308 Times in 9,873 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    Music Break, good for the soul in trying times. Texas has their problems, but they have some things going for them as well. Luckembach for one:
    Littlefield, TX used to be in my neck of the woods (Waylon Jennings was born there). Drove it many times from Lubbock to Clovis, New Mexico. Passed it once on a bicycle even. I was trying to bike from Lubbock to Clovis. 100 miles ... I was out of shape and and ... I didn't make it. Got about 75 miles though

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Chuckie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (25th June 2022), Fred Steeves (25th June 2022), Wind (25th June 2022)

  23. #2457
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    Funny of the day

    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (30th June 2022), Aragorn (30th June 2022), Wind (30th June 2022)

  25. #2458
    Super Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    5,202
    Thanks
    27,056
    Thanked 21,935 Times in 5,216 Posts
    Happy 4th of July to the Americans here. It's just unfortunate that things like these aren't too uncommon now.

    6 dead, 24 wounded in shooting at Chicago-area July 4 parade

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (4th July 2022), Aragorn (5th July 2022), Fred Steeves (4th July 2022), modwiz (4th July 2022)

  27. #2459
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,256
    Thanks
    38,099
    Thanked 39,659 Times in 6,234 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    Happy 4th of July to the Americans here. It's just unfortunate that things like these aren't too uncommon now.

    6 dead, 24 wounded in shooting at Chicago-area July 4 parade
    Chicago has the most stringent gun laws of any city is USA. Shootings are common there.

    It also has one of the worst mayors in the country.

    Where I live, things are relatively sane. As are most places in USA outside of the cities.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (4th July 2022), Fred Steeves (4th July 2022), Wind (4th July 2022)

  29. #2460
    Super Moderator Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    3,529
    Thanked 9,012 Times in 1,778 Posts
    I found this exchange rather interesting:
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    modwiz (5th July 2022), Wind (5th July 2022)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •