In the past, when a king died, that was the end of him.
— Athena
But not of his regime: there was usually a recognized successor to carry on. Otherwise, bloody civil war. That, I'm afraid, is what will happen in the disunited states of America.

:heart: I love your arguing points. I have not wrapped my head around the insanity of having to have a king, except man relied on the Bible for their understanding of reality. How was it determined if someone qualified as a king? Britain was the only euro country to have a ruling queen. While this belief system did lead to wars, it is nothing like the bureaucratic order we have today. I wish everyone read my old public policy and administration textbook. The organization of bureaucracies matters. I say that so people don't think I am talking conspiracy theory.
— Vera Mont

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental efficiency. Tje spirit of tranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely.
Aldous Huxley.

Trump is not all wrong in his efforts to disrupt that bureaucratic reality.
— Athena
Yes, he is. He and his henchmen are disrupting exactly those departments that have done the best job. A whole lot of people will suffer for a long time as a result.

I am trying to figure out how to present facts so we are not futilely arguing opinions. In the news today, again and again, people in the know have said reform has been necessary for some time.

How about a question? Do you approve of the Military Industrial Complex established when Eisenhower was in office? Here is the best explanation of Eisenhower's warning I have ever found.



That is not just a MIC concern. Kennedy to scrutinizing the medical industry. If there ever was corruption for the unethical gain of money, it is those profiting from our medical needs and the need for assistance in our later years. I am engaged by the cost of medicine and medical supplies. That is crass capitalism that should not be tolerated by a civilization.

How about the corruption of banking and housing, and the failure to deal with finite reality? What if home buyers had to pay only 4.33% on their loans? How about the practice of banks declaring their assets are much greater than their reality? How about we can argue forever about the left and the right (an emotional concern), but extremely few of us can think about the reality issues that really matter?

Trump is getting rid of all those who do not salute him and march with his agenda.
— Athena
Top brass. Not all the men and women who obey the top brass - or refuse to. My feeling is that armed forces will split along ideological and/or ethical lines (Remember, they swore to uphold the constitution.) Civil War reboot.

How many people have any understanding of the Constitution? I don't know of anyone who listened to defend the Constitution. Our young enlist for adventure or because they were supercharged by emotions when they believed the US was attacked. Tribal us against them thinking.

Some see the military as their best chance to get out of poverty and climb the ladder to the top. Our schools have not prepared our young for democracy and defending the constitution since 1958, when civics and debate teams were dropped from school budgets in favor of classes required by the MIC and therefore funded by the federal government.

Decisions are more apt to depend on personal interest than on ideals. They will follow charismatic leaders like so many followed Hitler.

A good - that is, well functioning - society does not require compliance and conformity, but rather a consensus on matters of common interest. Belonging to a community does not entail rejection of other communities, unless there is a strong motive to do so, such as conflict over water and territory. Pre-European societies did a lot more trading and intermarrying than fighting. Even if you fight with another tribe, you're not required to hate its members: you can respect an enemy and become trading partners or allies after peace is made. ( see Haudenosaunee Confederacy)
The modern version, both in so-called advanced societies and former European colonies, is a bastardized form of tribalism, brought about by artificial divisions within a larger polity.
In this thread, people are working hard to prove that people can be categorized as one of us or one of them. — Vera Mont

Of what good is that consensus if there isn't a human instinct to conform?

I have the impression that defending the viewpoint of people of color can be a serious social and financial problem in the South. That fact is what we call culture.

I love the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and they were culturally very different from the Apache and the Hopi. I think the Haudenosaunee Confederacy played a strong role in the manifestation of our present democracy. United but also having sovereignty.

— Athena
I don't see a hard work here. We all categorize people according to how their words and actions compare with our own mind-set, expectations and aspirations. We cannot know millions of people as individuals and judge them each according to their degree of Trumpism or whatever.

About proving if someone is one of us or one of them, DNA testing works well. :lol: I think what is happening here is manifesting myths that justify behaviors. My DNA test will prove if I am a conservative or a liberal. These labels are not facts, like a train coming to a crossing, is a fact. Drop the mythology of us and them and get to the issues that matter. :confused: My words fail me. I am not mentally and linguistically prepared to convey the concepts of peace; however, I am quite sure peace is more likely without the make-believe notions of us and them. We are all in this together. Let us not make a war by creating the notions of us and them. Facts matter, and we need to work together on what the facts are and why they matter. Life is not a football game. At least some of us think being a football fanatic is ridiculous.

I do not need to know you. I need to respect you no matter what. I need to respect you and protect your dignity, and I must do everything with integrity. Ancient Greek morality- to know the law (universal law, logos) and good manners.

How was it determined if someone qualified as a king? — Vera Mont

*They bled the infants: blues on top, reds on the bottom.* Qualifications rarely came into monarch selection. In Hungary in the middle ages, the nobility elected kings from among their number. Still hereditary, but it didn't reward incompetence or mental instability. (Now, of course, it's reversed.)
Another way, of course, is conquest. Whoever leads a successful invasion is king, and so is his son - or, if needs must, daughter, since bloodline is more important than gender. (Not everywhere)

While this belief system did lead to wars, it is nothing like the bureaucratic order we have today. — Vera Mont

War and bureaucracy can co-exist. In fact, bureaucracy tends to increase before and during warfare.
Monarchs also needed civil servants to keep track of logistics and finances. Social services were left to the church... for what that was worth.

In the news today, again and again, people in the know have said reform has been necessary for some time. — Athena

Reform would be good. Slash-and-burn tactics merely deform. It's easier to destroy things than to build them. Smashing the departments of education, health and housing will not end corruption. And of course, you costs will go up, not down.

Do you approve of the Military Industrial Complex established when Eisenhower was in office? — Athena

I approve of very little that was established in the Red Menace years. Or, indeed, US foreign policy generally - with some bureaucratic exceptions, like USAID.

Decisions are more apt to depend on personal interest than on ideals. They will follow charismatic leaders like so many followed Hitler. — Athena

That's the worst case scenario, yes. (What I utterly fail to grasp is the charismatic leader.)

Of what good is that consensus if there isn't a human instinct to conform? — Athena

Self-interest; interdependence. The instinct is not to conform but to co-operate.

These labels are not facts, like a train coming to a crossing, is a fact. — Athena

Words and actions are real enough. Anyone who screams at people instead of talking with them, who wants to take away other people's country, who buys foreign prisons for his countrymen, I characterize as as evil and categorize as enemy, regardless of what label he's stuck on himself.

I need to respect you no matter what. — Athena

I save my respect for those who have not torn up and trampled on my values.

If someone identifies as MAGA, you have a very good idea of what they're about: anti-vax, stolen election, climate change denialism, cultish adoration of Trump, xenophobia, etc. Hillary was right about these people being deplorable, but wrong about their numbers- They're all deplorable cult members who cheer Trump's cruelty. Maybe some are "fine people", but I haven't met one yet. — RogueAI

Not true because I am not playing that game. I am not paying attention to the mythology of left and right. Those divisions never held any meaning for me. I have explained why I think these mythologies are preventing us from having better reasoning.

I have friends who are good people and also Trump supporters. I also had Palestinian friends and feel terrible about what Zionists have done to Palestine. There are people of color in my family. When the school was teaching us about our families coming from Europe, I was told to ask my parents what I am. My mother was irate and she said, "You are American, 57 varieties. It goes with being told to look for God in everyone and believing that respecting others is about our character, not about who the other is.

Instead of making up stories about who they are, perhaps we should all pay attention to our own understanding of virtues and character.

Not true because I am not playing that game. — Athena

What game? In a Venn Diagram, MAGA and Democrat will have a tiny bit of overlap. Maybe. The rest of their beliefs will be night and day with each other. Are you disputing this? Do you think there are MAGA out there who are climate warriors? Democrats who want to "drill-baby-drill"? Democrats who want to round up and deport illegals without due process? Democrats who like Trump and MAGA who can't stand him? Qanon Democrats? Andrew Tate and Tucker Carlson Democrats?

War and bureaucracy can co-exist. In fact, bureaucracy tends to increase before and during warfare.
Monarchs also needed civil servants to keep track of logistics and finances. Social services were left to the church... for what that was worth. — Vera Mont

I will try this again:

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental efficiency. Tje spirit of tranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely. Aldous Huxley.

Do we want to believe there is no difference between the past and present bureaucracies? How about this, our new real identity cards are no different from our old ones, and Social Security numbers have nothing to do with war and tracking people in a way that was never done before, except in Germany.
Or do we want to believe the US could not have a Social Security system and other social need bureaucracies without also adopting the German model of bureaucracy?

*They bled the infants: blues on top, reds on the bottom.* Qualifications rarely came into monarch selection. — Vera Mont

Is that equal to how we select people for different jobs? Has the belief system possibly changed, changing the power of those in authority? How are people judged in the past and present?

Slash-and-burn tactics merely deform. — Vera Mont

Remember the explanation of the US system of checks and balances. Our forefathers were very leery about giving anyone too much power and they created a form of government that limits power. However, the Bible is about kings and a God who stands with the king, and in 2025, ministers on TV are telling us Trump is strong because God stands with him. Since leaving moral training to the church, we are living with the old world mentality of a controlling God and kings. I am afraid we are not going to resolve this problem until we realize what education has to do with having a democracy. Bush gave us a war on evil and we internalized the evil. Some think it is the right, and others think it is the left. Form! a democracy or a king? A Military Industrial Complex or a nation we can be proud of?

Here is an opinion of USAID that justifies closing it down.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5266753-usaid-macedonia-political-crisis/

I may not believe it has merit, but I saw a public broadcasting program that alarms me. I listened to a man known for his international charity work, and he also commented about the errors of USAID and how things can be done better. I don't think we can be a Military Industrial Complex and be the nation we want.

That's the worst case scenario, yes. (What I utterly fail to grasp is the charismatic leader.) — Vera Mont

You might like the book "Empire of Illusion- The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" by Chris Hedges. I never imagined this man would become the president of our country.

What game? In a Venn Diagram, MAGA and Democrat will have a tiny bit of overlap. Maybe. The rest of their beliefs will be night and day with each other. Are you disputing this? Do you think there are MAGA out there who are climate warriors? Democrats who want to "drill-baby-drill"? Democrats who want to round up and deport illegals without due process? Democrats who like Trump and MAGA who can't stand him? Qanon Democrats? Andrew Tate and Tucker Carlson Democrats? — RogueAI

I am not disputing what you say. I am not paying attention to the bull shit. Why do you think MAGA and the illusion of the day is more important than the Military Industrial Complex that is behind what happens? Why does everyone ignore Eisenhower's warning? We are all limited in time and energy, and just don't have the time and energy for today's wars of illusion. It is a divisive distraction.

I do not want to be identified as us or them. :grin: If I must be identified as a member of a group, how about the group that takes Eisenhower's warning seriously and believes the 1958 National Defense Education Act, along with adopting the German model of bureaucracy, turned us into what we defended our democracy against.

I am not a fan of Kennedy, but this message opens me to wanting to know him better.


This explanation of John Kennedy is interesting to me.


By the way, one of my friends who likes Trump is right about the good reasons for Trump's actions. The president is supposed to control the CIA but it has acted independently of the president and lied about this. I will say it again, Trump is not totally wrong and I can believe the CIA killed John Kennedy.

I believe that If Kucinich had won against Bush Jr. the world would be a better place. Kucinich would have focused on grief following 911 and used this time to improve our global relationships. Whereas Bush and the Neocons took us on the Military Industrial Complex path, which has much of the world in a state of war or nearing war. Kucinich's philosophy was for peace. Instead of peace, we have the Neocon tension of world domination through military might.

I guess that is fitting to say in a thread about our morality.

Words and actions are real enough. Anyone who screams at people instead of talking with them, who wants to take away other people's country, who buys foreign prisons for his countrymen, I characterize as as evil and categorize as enemy, regardless of what label he's stuck on himself.
I need to respect you no matter what.
— Athena
I save my respect for those who have not torn up and trampled on my values. — Vera Mont

Some people talk about fairies as though they are as real as butterflies and deer. Does that make fairies and unicorns real? Philosophy covers this but I forget the explanation. Actions, however, deal with reality.

Now, are we to believe all the hateful things a White Supremacist believes to be true of people of color? How is that different from the words of hate flying between the left and right?

When it comes to respect, either we are respectful people or we are not, because what we say and what we do depends on who we are, not the other person. From experience, I know it can be extremely hard to be respectful of some people, and many times I am ashamed of myself for falling below my better judgment. I do not think Trump in the WrestleMania show is behaving like someone I can respect, but if I am disrespectful, I am disrespectful. That is not a good thing. I can not blame others for my bad behavior.

But here is a heart-warming memory. Because I make an effort to be respectful to everyone, several homeless men who lived in my neighborhood thought we were good friends. When they apprcoched me they would be on their best behavior, and when college grants came available, some of them showed me their efforts to get into college. I am not Christian, but surely when we are good to others, we can bring out the best in them. I think that is the work of Jesus and I wish more people engaged in this small consideration of others.

In nazi Germany respect was earned that justified disrespecting and dehumanizing others. Please, not in America. Quakers were important moral national leaders.

Quaker morality is deeply rooted in respect for each individual, viewing everyone as having something of God within them, and valuing their unique worth. This perspective leads to a commitment to equality, peace, and integrity, and guides Quakers in their relationships and interactions with others. AI

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental efficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak.

Much as I respect the Huxleys, that's total bilge. Had he never heard of Caligula or Ivan the Terrible?

Do we want to believe there is no difference between the past and present bureaucracies? — Athena

Which past? Which present? Which places? It's not a question of wanting to believe: the fact is, some kind of civil service has existed since the advent of city states. They are necessary to the running of a nation. If that nation is compassionate enough to take care of the weak, the sick, the needy, the old and the children, more civil service is required, because, frankly, the churches made a dog's breakfast of social services. Big, diverse societies need more bureaucracy than monarchies by divine right, that's true - but fewer people are killed at the whim of their liege or starve to death in a severe winter.
You know there have been some pretty good kings, just as there have been pretty good presidents and prime ministers.

Is that equal to how we select people for different jobs? Has the belief system possibly changed, changing the power of those in authority? How are people judged in the past and present? — Athena

Which past? Which present? Which places? Hereditary rule is most obviously not equal to democratic elections. Different jobs have different selection processes. People are judged, as they have always been, by their peers for civic responsibility, by their spouses for compatibility and fidelity, by their employers for job performance, by their congregation for piety, by their regiments for bravery and discipline, by law enforcement for adherence or infraction. How is any of this relevant to the moral divide?

Our forefathers were very leery about giving anyone too much power and they created a form of government that limits power. — Athena

They're dead. They don't get a say anymore.

I listened to a man known for his international charity work, and he also commented about the errors of USAID and how things can be done better. — Athena

Everywhere humans operate, mistakes are made and things could be done better. Everything can be corrupted. Shutting off all aid doesn't end corruption or profiteering; just moves it to another agency. Reform, yes. Indiscriminate woodchipper, no.

You might like the book "Empire of Illusion- The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" by Chris Hedges. — Athena

I used to be familiar with Hedges - liked his commentary in Bush times. How American politics have devolved since then was somewhat predictable, no matter how we wished it were unthinkable.

I am not a fan of Kennedy, but this message opens me to wanting to know him better. — Athena

You mean the Kennedy mutant who makes up his own version of science? Concerned about food additives, but not about the wholesale firing of food safety inspectors? Doing yet another study on autism and vaccines, but okay with terminating research projects? Ugh!

When it comes to respect, either we are respectful people or we are not, because what we say and what we do depends on who we are, not the other person. — Athena

I'm not. A feeling is not a behaviour; it's neither good nor bad until you act on it. I respect or despise or condemn on the basis of what the other person does. I cannot respect sleaze, cruelty, dishonesty, meanness or evil. Sorry!

Some people talk about fairies as though they are as real as butterflies and deer. Does that make fairies and unicorns real? — Athena

The words are real, whether true or not. Yes, I categorize those who speak untruth as liars. What someone says about fairies and unicorns does not affect the unreality of fairies or unicorns, but it does show that person to be a fantasist, and that is how I categorize them.

Now, are we to believe all the hateful things a White Supremacist believes to be true of people of color? How is that different from the words of hate flying between the left and right? — Athena

Words are real, whether true or untrue. As to differentiating left rhetoric from right, you need to listen a little more closely to the actual words. They're not the same on both sides.

Actions, however, deal with reality. — Athena

Words signal, incite and precede actions. They can do quite a lot of harm even before the actions are taken. Trump and Vance told us what they were going to do, and a great many people didn't believe they'd actually do it. They did more and worse. Hate speech consists of words, as do slander, racial slurs, verbal abuse and propaganda.

That is a culture change following the change in education. We changed how we teach young minds to work. They are no longer prepared for good reasoning.

This is a cultural problem. — Athena

Totally agree. Education needs a major overhaul with mandatory classes in critical thinking and administration.

Most people are tribal to some degree. — Vera Mont

Sure - the people that are weak-minded and look to others to confirm their own beliefs, and if they don't then they need to force them confirm their beliefs.

The two-party system is American. Most other nations have several parties represented in their legislatures, so that minority voices are also heard - indeed, if one of the largest parties does not get a clear majority, their administration depends on support from the minor ones.
(Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Vera Mont

I'm not. Only socialists and theocrats tell others what to think.

The smallest minority is the individual. If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks. Now that may be your choice to join a group that shares your ideas, but what about when others join the group that do not necessarily share all of your ideas? The same problem that you raise regarding Libertarians and interacting with others applies to all groups.

In joining a group, you always run the risk of the group not sharing all of your ideas. You, and only you, can only accurately represent yourself.

The operative word there is bold. They might beable to, sometimes, if a competent leader is acknowledged by all participants and they are all equally willing to do their part. But in order for that that to happen with any reliable frequency, the people involved would have to be very much in agreement about all kinds of fundamental things. What you have in your little coloured chart is aparty platform, not a formula for most people's actual lives. Once a political party gains power, it's not eager to cede to any other organizing entity. — Vera Mont

Sure. In this thread we are talking about politics which is a very broad range of ideas. Individuals can join other types of groups, like a company, or a team, that have much more specific goals in mind - where other differences do not come into play and are completely irrelevant to the purpose of the group. The same cannot be said of political groups.

My point is, it took me a while to understand I was not one of them! — Athena

Exactly. This is what I've been telling Vera Mont. These political groups manipulate individuals into joining their group, using all the Libertarian buzz-words of "liberal", "choice", "freedom", etc. to get others to join only for these people to realize that are only for freedom and choice for themselves and not others.

Frankly, this lift-right thing baffles me. I so much wish people would give up their imagined left-right thinking. — Athena

I don't expect communists and fascists to give up their left-right thinking. I do expect intellectually honest and open-minded people that are part of a political party to wake up and realize they've been conned into supporting left and right authoritarian policies for fear of the other side taking away their freedoms.

Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Vera Mont
I'm not. Only socialists and theocrats tell others what to think. — Harry Hindu

In fact, we seem to have some very notions of what things mean.

If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks. — Harry Hindu

BS

In joining a group, you always run the risk of the group not sharing all of your ideas. — Harry Hindu

You're born into a group whether you like it or not. Could nos survive without the group until you reach at least puberty - by when you belong to several groups, either by choice or circumstance. All this individualist nonsense is wishful at best, disingenuous at worst.

Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Harry Hindu

You do not believe that there are people that have joined groups for the wrong reasons, or were duped into joining a group because of the way the group falsely portrayed themselves?

Besides, I'm telling people what they think. I'm asking them to think differently about their political parties they are a member of.

If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks.
— Harry Hindu
BS — Vera Mont

Then why join a group?

You're born into a group whether you like it or not. Could nos survive without the group until you reach at least puberty - by when you belong to several groups, either by choice or circumstance. All this individualist nonsense is wishful at best, disingenuous at worst. — Vera Mont

You still don't understand. Libertarians are fine with joining groups that promote their individual freedom - like their right to live. You might ask who is using who here? Is the baby using its mother to promote it's own survival, or is the mother protecting its baby to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation? If both are achieving their goals without their goals infringing upon the other's rights, then what is the problem? The goals of the two might be different, but they are not necessarily opposing goals. They are different goals that promote the goals of the other rather than inhibit them.

And yes, individuals should belong to certain groups by choice - not by being lied to and conned into joining.

Why do you think MAGA and the illusion of the day is more important than the Military Industrial Complex that is behind what happens? — Athena

Military spending as a percent of GDP is quite low (2.7%), compared to when Ike gave that warning (7%). It's also a much lower percent of the budget.

You do not believe that there are people that have joined groups for the wrong reasons, or were duped into joining a group because of the way the group falsely portrayed themselves? — Harry Hindu

Certainly. Gullibility is a major human trait.

Then why join a group? — Harry Hindu

Lots of reasons, both societal and individual. A common interest, such as rugby or landscape painting, strength of numbers for political activism or labour-management bargaining, country club for social climbing, team-building corporate board for financial advantage, book club for friendly discussion, fan club for celebrity gossip, car pool to save money and environment, PTA to track child's education, army for.... a number of idiotic and/or idealistic and/or economic reasons... In none of these groups are you expected - or able - to share the other members' views on any subject other than the purpose of the group.

If both are achieving their goals without their goals infringing upon the other's rights, then what is the problem? — Harry Hindu

Rights? Never mind infants' goals and rights - they haven't any, but may be protected by the governance, so that even if the mother's goal is to throw one into the sea, she is deprived of that right by society.
Groups of people may have a common goal, but even in families individual goals often conflict. In a larger society, there is no evidence that mutually beneficial goals are the norm rather than the exception.

You keep talking about 'rights' as if that were something conferred upon individuals by a supernatural entity. A right is nothing but a social concept about who is allowed to do what. Who has what rights and what obligations under a given regime is arrived-at by a generally held belief system, which in turn engenders their legal code. It seem you're a big fan of "property rights." (I sure don't have much respect for the current state of ownership!)
Various political philosophies have varying views on what can or should be owned, by whom, under what conditions. Whichever political philosophy prevails (determined by majority of numbers or coercive power) makes the rules and sets up the mechanisms of enforcement. Government and law. Infrastructure. Agencies.
Political parties are just groups that people join by choice to express their preference for the style of governance they want for their country. The members don't need to think similarly on any other subject but the issues of their platform. If most people were Libertarian, why did the party finish just below the Greens in popular vote.

And yes, individuals should belong to certain groups by choice - not by being lied to and conned into joining. — Harry Hindu

And yet, people are ignorant, opinionated, kind, selfish, forgetful, ambitious, clever, mean, greedy, violent, co-operative, compliant, manipulative, generous, reckless... People do lie. And cheat. And steal. And fight. And kill one another. Nobody has a "right to live" - only the protection of a lawful society.

There are plenty of men who understand… — RogueAI

Then there is no reason to say “because you are a man” (which you did) as an explanation for something bad/wrong someone says?

Which is my simple point.

There are no actual baskets more than one person can fit in at a time. It’s wrong to see whole human beings as fitting in some notion of “maga” or “marxist” or “white”.

Politics, like the state, by nature, treats people as “citizens” or “voters” or as some other small facet of what a whole human being actually is. We are wrong to buy into the propaganda that holds any individual out to be some mere member of some mere class or type.

Classes or types like “maga” can be useful shortcuts when speaking politics, but they are woefully inadequate to characterize an individual person.

Hating “MAGA” (if that means people who wear maga hats), like hating “Mexicans” (if that means people who are from Mexico), is not addressing any actual people, and only shows a lack of interest in actual people.

You only hate your own ideas when you hate whole groups of people for all being members of your idea of that group.

Hating “MAGA” (if that means people who wear maga hats), like hating “Mexicans” (if that means people who are from Mexico), is not addressing any actual people, and only shows a lack of interest in actual people. — Fire Ologist

It's not like hating Mexicans. Being Mexican isn't a choice. It doesn't denote anything except the person is from Mexico. MAGA is a choice. It denotes a set of morally repugnant attitudes and beliefs.

MAGA is a choice. It denotes a set of morally repugnant attitudes and beliefs. — RogueAI

Ok, so you can hate those attitudes and beliefs, but the people, they can still be loved and respected. Is that what you mean? Because that is what I mean.

The fact that someone votes for trump or against Harris, or for Harris or against Trump, or doesn’t vote, or votes someone else - that can all be hated as repugnant if you so choose to look for repugnance or stupidity or ill-intent - but the individual people themselves, and their whole individual lives when they aren’t voting or aren’t saying what politics they are for and what they are against, the people are as good as any other people, right?

Or are you saying all good people should all hate every person who votes maga because “maga” as understood by good people, says enough to sum up each maga voting individual?

Ok, so you can hate those attitudes and beliefs, but the people, they can still be loved and respected. — Fire Ologist

Not by anyone who is horrified by the brutality of the regime they support.
'Hate the sin, but love the sinner is for saints.' Those of us ordinary humans who suffer and witness the abuses of these sinners cannot love the perpetrators of those abuses.

but the individual people themselves, and their whole individual lives when they aren’t voting or aren’t saying what politics they are for and what they are against, the people are as good as any other people, right? — Fire Ologist

No. MAGA is dangerous. It's a cancer on the body politic. Their vision of a 1950's utopia would roll back women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights. Their scapegoating of various groups is reminiscent of 1930's Germany. They even traffic in the same tropes: https://apnews.com/article/trump-hitler-poison-blood-history-f8c3ff512edd120252596a4743324352 . Their leader is cruel and vindictive and they revel in it.

They certainly could - but I am not under the impression we're talking about individuals (though, I did address this extremely briefly in that I see less coherence within a single person's morality on the left than on the right) but the aggregates, such as they can be spoken about.

Even there I think in aggregate a smaller number on "the right" will have that issue (though, this is notwithstanding something like personal crisis (closeted right-wingers maybe)). It also may be the case that if two 'lefties' have obviously different moralities which are both well-reasoned and somewhat pitched on 'reality' then they are probably not both lefties. One might be, the other not. It seems highly unlikely both would be int he same vein, generally, but have specifically differing views.

That said, this also seems to be the case (on a less dramatic level) for those on the Right. A Charlie Kirk vs a Ken Hamm vs a black, gay conservative of some kind - they will have more in common that a trio of disparate lefties, I think as their general ethical outlook will align, allowing for only modest differences at the margins.

I also thikn "conformist" might be misleading. "Conformed" probably makes more sense to avoid the charge of being decidedly not well-developed, and simply towing a line.

Their vision of a 1950's utopia would roll back women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights — RogueAI

Errr what civil/womens** rights are they trying to take?

**I am vehemently against the banning of abortions, but that is absolutely a conversation about two people's rights and which wins out, so not quite what I'm asking.

Abortion rights are women's rights.

https://thehill.com/homenews/race-politics/5265021-donald-trump-executive-orders-disparate-impact-civil-rights/
"President Trump has taken steps to nullify a key component to the Civil Rights Act as he works to remove diversity, equity and inclusion policies from the federal government.

One of the executive orders issued Wednesday, dubbed Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, would dismantle disparate impact liability — a legal theory codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that holds agencies accountable for practices that have an outsized discriminatory effect on protected groups, even when there is no intent to discriminate."


https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11268
"On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, entitled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." The executive order (EO) states as one of its purposes to enforce federal civil rights laws "for the benefit of all Americans." As part of the President's directive to "streamline[]" federal contracting and "require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws," EO 14173 revokes Executive Order 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity." EO 11246 is a long-standing executive order establishing antidiscrimination requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors and in the administration of federally assisted construction contracts.

That's your view. But that is obviously not true and you're slanging a slogan. Shame, really.

Of your references:

1. That's good;
2. That is the opposite of your claim.

I can see why things are the way they are for you.

why are you talking about aggregates? So well developed just means more "conformed" as a group, why are you talking about it like it's a virtue? And talking about it like it's obvious this whole time, why in the world would it be obvious that well developed means "more conformed"?

Your entire approach to this conversation has been nothing short of bonkers.

If you wanted answers, don't give them yourself and then call the entire approach "bonkers". Secondly, perhaps don't pepper clearly loaded questions based on meager grasp of what's being said (this is not derogatory - it seems you have just read quickly, or something, and pick up some buzz words and gone from there. It happens. I am suggesting to not do it, is all).

Your entire approach to this conversation has been nothing short of bonkers. — flannel jesus

Well, it's up to you to feel that way and fair enough, but that's not going to mean much given i've had three reviewers of my comments here (one from either side of the aisle and my wife. Additionally, your lack of understanding leads me to think "Fair enough, on those terms". I felt the same about yours before a thorough review prior to the last substantial reply to the one you're quoting.

why are you talking about aggregates? — flannel jesus

That is, in fact, what the entire exchange has been about. If you haven't noticed, that's preposterous.
The other three questions are patently ridiculous.

So well developed just means more "conformed" as a group — flannel jesus

No, but that's certainly an aspect. Otherwise the development wouldn't be along party lines. This is pretty simple.

why are you talking about it like it's a virtue? — flannel jesus

I'm not. Im answering questions about why the right seem more coherent, and well-developed. I think a well-developed morality can be a virtue, for what it's worth, and I hazard a guess you wouldn't disagree. So what the heck is this question doing?

And talking about it like it's obvious this whole time — flannel jesus

Nope. I've said it's clear to me.

why in the world would it be obvious that well developed means "more conformed" — flannel jesus

I can't understand the basis for this question. I haven't suggested this, particularly. But I also challenge you to object, subnstantially, to the idea that a group morality is more developed when the group is, in aggregate, well-aligned (given some requisites about the views themselves). It is a hallmark.

Look, you clearly have an intense distrust and dislike for the right wing. Fine. I'm not a fan either. But If you're not going to engage in good faith here, I'll just leave it. These all seem like neat tricks to get out of the pool anyway, prima facie, to avoid perhaps allowing some positive language to be used about a group you dislike. Perhaps is just time to get out of the pool at any rate...

I'm not. Im answering questions about why the right seem more coherent, and well-developed. I think a well-developed morality can be a virtue, for what it's worth, and I hazard a guess you wouldn't disagree. So what the heck is this question doing? — AmadeusD

You start the paragraph with "I'm not" but end by confirming that you are.

Bonkers

Look, you clearly have an intense distrust and dislike for the right wing — AmadeusD

Asking you to justify why right wing morality is "obviously more well developed" isn't about intense distrust or dislike. Someone saying left wing morality is "obviously more well developed" would need similar justification. You haven't justified it. The only thing you've said that comes close to a justification is that their mortalities are more similar to each other, closer to each other, than the myriad flavours of left wing morality. Conformist, or "conformed", morality isn't what most people mean by well developed, and philosophically it's clearly not a virtue. It's not a vice either, it's just nothing, it's meaningless. You can't judge the quality of a morality based on how conformist or not conformist it is.

In none of these groups are you expected - or able - to share the other members' views on any subject other than the purpose of the group. — Vera Mont

Which is what I've already said and further to the point that political parties are not like these groups in that they hold many views on many issues, and if you disagree on any of them then you are a heretic. Political parties today are like if you are playing on one football team and you decide to shake hands with the member of the other team and wish them good luck, you are "canceled", or banned, from your team.

Rights? Never mind infants' goals and rights - they haven't any, but may be protected by the governance, so that even if the mother's goal is to throw one into the sea, she is deprived of that right by society. — Vera Mont

Yet a vast majority of babies survive to adulthood regardless of which society you live in. How does that happen?

You keep talking about 'rights' as if that were something conferred upon individuals by a supernatural entity. — Vera Mont

Where did I ever imply such a thing? When you see the world through the prism of politics, it warps your view of reality.

Various political philosophies have varying views on what can or should be owned, by whom, under what conditions. Whichever political philosophy prevails (determined by majority of numbers or coercive power) makes the rules and sets up the mechanisms of enforcement. Government and law. Infrastructure. Agencies. — Vera Mont

Again, nothing that contradicts what I have said. You are just reiterating what I have said.

I have said numerous times now that there should be a level playing field of competing ideas where logic is the only referee, and let the best idea win. My money would be on Libertarianism - with one bit of evidence being that you have yet to provide a logical, coherent argument against anything I have said or proposed, relying on straw-men and moving goal posts.

Political parties are just groups that people join by choice to express their preference for the style of governance they want for their country. The members don't need to think similarly on any other subject but the issues of their platform. If most people were Libertarian, why did the party finish just below the Greens in popular vote. — Vera Mont

Because

Gullibility is a major human trait. — Vera Mont

. You seem incapable of putting the pieces together.

Another reason they lost is because there isn't a level playing field where logic is the referee.

And how does any of this contradict what I've said about people being able to freely choose which group they are a member of and that there are many people that are gullible to be conned into joining a group that misrepresents their positions on issues? For instance, Dems claim to be pro-choice only when it comes to abortion, but do not want you to have choice in pronouns to use. Reps claim to support economic freedom while at the same time supporting monopolies which leads to less competition, which leads to less choice, which leads to less freedom.

And yet, people are ignorant, opinionated, kind, selfish, forgetful, ambitious, clever, mean, greedy, violent, co-operative, compliant, manipulative, generous, reckless... People do lie. And cheat. And steal. And fight. And kill one another. Nobody has a "right to live" - only the protection of a lawful society. — Vera Mont

The issue is defining what a lawful society looks like. Does a lawful society include authoritarianism?

Military spending as a percent of GDP is quite low (2.7%), compared to when Ike gave that warning (7%). It's also a much lower percent of the budget. — RogueAI

What is your point?

When I speak of the Military Industrial Complex, I also speak of a change in education that has strong social, economic, and political ramifications. It is a cultural change that comes with major problems, such as a mass prepared to be followers instead of prepared to be leaders who feel responsible. The conservatives are more apt to have a weak sense of responsibility with a high reliance on God. They read their Bible and may ignore science because science may be the word of Satan. :roll: And if the minister tells them Trump is strong because God is with him, they vote for the person they believe stands with God. There is an ugly "us against them" thing going on here. In the past, Jews were the victims, and today, Muslims and immigrants are the victims.

Bottom line for me is education and culture, not how we spend money.