So for a real-world example, let us say that I become homeless and need help to get back on my feet. Let's also assume that all state/fed social safety nets that might once have helped me out have been dismantled by the Godfearing Trump administration and that my only salvation can be found in religious social programs. Having benefited from their help, I'm compelled to convert to conservativism and henceforth use my voting power to further the conservative agenda, as well as generously donate to the church.

Is that about how it's supposed to work?

nice straw man

I'm merely trying to glean something meaningful from your abstractions. Feel free to help me out.

you are not compelled but there are obvious social psychological pressures to support an organization of which you are a part. have you studied no psychology whatsoever?

My studies in psychology inform me that you're being unnecessarily hostile.

So my example does illustrate how it's supposed to work? What is the fallacy then?

I had a shitty day at work and you seem weirdly obtuse about this topic.

You said "compelled". That suggests a degree of force I didn't insinuate, like there's some kind of obligation backed by force comparable to that of law. If all you meant was that people who are helped by religions will be more likely to do things to support them in turn, then we're in agreement.

I am not sure where the knife is balanced between being a result of causes and being responsible for the choices one makes.
Basing an ethic strictly upon one or another method seems to be all mixed up with the topic of what the hell is going on.

I had a shitty day at work... — Pfhorrest

Not the stoic apparently.

...you seem weirdly obtuse about this topic. — Pfhorrest

I imagine that it might seem weirdly obtuse to someone who could see no problems with your theory. Did you come up with it, by the way, or did you get it from someone else?

If all you meant was that people who are helped by religions will be more likely to do things to support them in turn, then we're in agreement. — Pfhorrest

We are most definitely not in agreement. This does help to clarify your theory though, such as it is.

Yeah I'm through talking to someone who doesn't even know the difference between "definitely" and "defiantly".

c'mon you know that was a typo

Oh yeah, well, I’m not going to continue talking with someone who doesn’t know what a typo is, so there!

I suddenly feel 10 years old.

I suddenly feel 10 years old. — praxis

You just discovered the elixir of eternal youth. (-:

That has a business angle, too, you know.

You said "compelled". That suggests a degree of force I didn't insinuate, like there's some kind of obligation backed by force comparable to that of law. — Pfhorrest

I would have mentally substituted "morally obliged" or "due to feelings of gratitude" for "compelled". Compelling does not necessarily involve law; but gratitude and moral conviction are forces to reckon with.

In all fairness, I don't know what strength of force you did not insinuate, I must go back further in this thread to find it out.

What exactly is a religion (such as Christianity in the United States) competing with the state over? — praxis

things considered for competing in politics between religion and state:
1. Income.
2. Military power.
3. Abortions.
4. Votes. (Everyone loves them.)

Things NOT considered for competing in politics between state and religions:
1. Social services (Yuck... this man is stinky, that woman is a crack ho, that kid is delinquent, must build more jails immediately, must privatize government, and must privatize democracy.)
2. Social services (Hey, guys... this costs money. Nobody said that before we started. Must abort this involvement immediately.)
3. Social services. (Settle down, guys... we don't want to be branded "bloody commies".)

It's not just religion in general of course. Buddhists, for instance, are too busy navel-gazing to care about politics, and in the US they're mostly liberal besides. Religious conservatives are the demographic being discussed, which from what I can glean from the Pew Research Center is around 60-70%. It makes me wonder what the religious left does with all that cash they're not spending on the needy in order to apply psychological pressure on them. Yachts, I'll bet.

Who said the religious left are not spending their money on the needy? You really seem to love your straw men.

Religions often operate social services. That's a good thing I don't think anyone's complaining about. Some religious people might be perfectly happy if the state also operated social services. But there is also a clear motive for religions to oppose state-operated social services, so that religion is the only place to turn to for social services, and so more people turn to religion. That would be a motive more for people who are concerned about their religion "winning" over alternative worldviews and lifestyles, and less for people who see other religions and the state providing those same things as allies in a common cause. In other words, the right vs the left.

Who said the religious left are not spending their money on the needy? You really seem to love your straw men. — Pfhorrest

You seriously couldn’t tell that I was being facetious?

But there is also a clear motive for religions to oppose state-operated social services, so that religion is the only place to turn to for social services, and so more people turn to religion. That would be a motive more for people who are concerned about their religion "winning" over alternative worldviews and lifestyles, and less for people who see other religions and the state providing those same things as allies in a common cause. In other words, the right vs the left. — Pfhorrest

Your meaning isn’t clear, but you seem to be suggesting that the religious left doesn’t care about “winning.” Why should they care any less about winning than the right? I can assure you that the left cares a great deal about not losing in political issues like abortion, etc.

So does the religious left use their psychological pressure on the needy to promote Pro-choice laws and policies, and effectively work against their Conservative religious brethren in the adjacent pew?

You seriously couldn’t tell that I was being facetious?

But there is also a clear motive for religions to oppose state-operated social services, so that religion is the only place to turn to for social services, and so more people turn to religion. That would be a motive more for people who are concerned about their religion "winning" over alternative worldviews and lifestyles, and less for people who see other religions and the state providing those same things as allies in a common cause. In other words, the right vs the left.
— Pfhorrest

Your meaning isn’t clear, but you seem to be suggesting that the religious left doesn’t care about “winning.” Why should they care any less about winning than the right? I can assure you that the left cares a great deal about not losing in political issues like abortion, etc.

So does the religious left use their psychological pressure on the needy to promote Pro-choice laws and policies, and effectively work against their Conservative religious brethren in the adjacent pew? — praxis

The meaning of Pfhorrest's post is clear. It does not suggest at all what you say it suggests, because it does not differentiate between religious left, and religious right.

Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations?

Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations? — god must be atheist

Where did I claim that was the case?

Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations? — god must be atheist

Where did I claim that was the case? — praxis

You did not claim this, @Praxis. You said that the correspondent @PfHorrest did not claim this. And you claimed that Here:

Your meaning isn’t clear, but you seem to be suggesting that the religious left doesn’t care about “winning.” Why should they care any less about winning than the right? I can assure you that the left cares a great deal about not losing in political issues like abortion, etc. — praxis

I am now asked by you to explain the most obvious. Do you want to continue in this vein, @Praxis? If you do, please state it now, because I refuse to give minute baby step-by-step reiterations of what has gone down only because you pretend to not follow the flow of discussion.

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes (increase the number of unwanted children in society or whatever). Then I wrote something. Then he wrote something. I wrote something else. He got cranky, having had a bad day at work. Then I said, “not the stoic apparently.” Not my best moment. Anyway, at some point I mentioned something about boats. Wait, no I said yhats... yachts? That’s hard to spell. What was I talking about?

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes — praxis

You got that backwards. I’m not saying they use religion to further their political ends, but that they use politics to further their religious ends. That they oppose government doing what they see as religion’s job because if it does then fewer people will turn to religion.

I've been noticing, too, that @Praxis got this backwards. Somehow along the line a switch happened in his comprehension of the posts. I am abandoning the conversation with him on this topic for a while. I will consider conversing with him on other topics, I think he is a good man, but here he got fatally confused, and there seems to be no way to reverse his confusion.

My point was that he claims you differentiate between the religious right and the religious left, while you never once did that in this thead.

To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes
— praxis

You got that backwards. I’m not saying they use religion to further their political ends, but that they use politics to further their religious ends. — Pfhorrest

The conservative ends and religious ends of the RR differ?

I am abandoning the conversation with him on this topic for a while. — god must be atheist

It's not the stoic way, but for some it's good to stay within their comfort zone.

My point was that he claims you differentiate between the religious right and the religious left, while you never once did that in this thead. — god must be atheist

the religious right is so antisocialist — Pfhorrest

You don't value truth, God. May I call you God for short? What do you value?

I think religion in the USA, particularly Christianity, has lost it's real essence. They have stuck to a few principles that complement their culture and left the rest of them. Religion is just used for getting people together these days, it isn't an individual thing anymore. That's why the political right finds religion to be the most effective tool to gather support, since they do not have much to offer. This is also why we have both extreme ends in politics these days, it is either all conservative or all liberal. It has become difficult for people to identify themselves in the political spectrum if they do not lean far right or far left.

Their ends have religious and political components. I’m talking about using political action to further the religious components of their ends. And not saying anything either way about any other combinations of those things just now.

Where did this theory originate? I’ve asked this before and received no answer. Also, can you back it up with any evidence at all?

This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward. — Wallows

Stoics believe that we have complete control of thought, judgment, and action. For my personal experience in controlling thought, I just check my meditation app and it says that over the last 12 months I've meditated for 127 hours and eighteen minutes. Very very little of that time was I able to control thoughts as I intended to. On the other hand, I did have some success and having had that success I know how to go about arranging the conditions that are conducive to quieting the mind (how I practice controlling thought in meditation). Basically the same story for judgment and action. I have biases and bad habits that are deeply ingrained but I can nevertheless make plans of action to overcome them, should I choose to.

So it's not quite as bad as you suggest, I believe. A more apt analogy might be something like a tugboat controlling an oil tanker. An oil tanker has such mass and momentum that it takes time for changes in speed and direction to take significant effect. Also, the oil tanker can be affected by other tugboats in ways that we may not be consciously aware of.

Whatever the case, the point of the Stoic dichotomy of control is serenity, or to put it in neurological terms, to deactivate a hyperactive default mode network. I don't know much about CBT but it sounds very similar, if not practically identical.

I think you are looking too deeply into the purpose of stoicism. Stoicism is a way of trying to stay content and in control of one's self in a world that is discontent and out of one's control. I think cultivating this skill, while difficult, is a necessary step toward mapping the chaos of the world. Embracing the chaos at an individual level makes the nature of world issues uninterpretable.