Us and them, them and us. It's like a child fitting together on a board two basic shapes that only have one possible arrangement and feeling comforted by the simplicity because he can understand it. Like a jigsaw puzzle with one piece black and one piece white. Your view of the world is so grossly oversimplified and abstract that it bears no relation to reality. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Well WW, tell me is there a conflict between the secular ideology of progressivism and religious believers judging by their creeds? Yes or no?

Muhammad's laughing beneath his green dome. — Heister Eggcart

Well I have to start by saying that my knowledge of Islam is very limited so please bare that in mind. All that I know is from a few Muslim friends that I've made over the duration of my life and from what I hear in the mass-media. It's true that the mass-media paints a not very nice picture generally. I haven't personally studied the religion in any level of detail so I don't know to say if this is accurate. I'll merely talk about my experience with Muslim people that I've known. In general they were quite nice people - decent, kind and moral. They valued sexual morality - including abstaining from pre-martial sex, promiscuity, adultery and so forth. In fact - these people were ahead of most of the so called "Christians" I've known in terms of this. The only negative I really noticed in some - not all - is that they do insist - overtly or covertly - that you convert to their religion. But apart from this dogmatism, those that I know have been good people, at least in their behaviour towards me.

So when you say Muhammad is laughing - I don't know what to understand - because it seems to me, from the Muslims I know (none of them were of the sort of radical kind that we see ISIS being for example), that they do take their morality seriously - and they do share the Christian idea of what constitutes sexual morality - as do the other religions from my readings and experience. So I'm not sure what is true and what isn't true about Muhammad - but it seems that these people who follow him do take morality seriously.

You're never going to get that. You'll be searching for that forever, all the while propping up creeps like Trump in the delusion that he'll help fix the problem. It's quite frankly shocking how on one hand you say that the world is fallen, yet think it to be entirely "fixable", to coin some Trump terminology. — Heister Eggcart

"You're never going to get that" is the lie the progressives are telling us every single day. They want religious believers to sit down and accept their dominance over the world. And I don't want to do this. Why should religious believers sit down? They manipulate us - they say "Oh you are such moral people - you can't break your principles and vote for someone who doesn't represent you... you can't tell others that their way of life is immoral... you go back to sitting down while we reshape your world the way we want to... you just have to ride out the wave, don't worry, just take a seat - the boat has already left". That's what they're telling us. And obviously the truth is I don't know if Judaeo-Christian moral values can be brought back in Western society. But the complementary truth to this, is that the progressives don't know that they can't be brought back either. So all we have to do is take up the sword and fight for what we believe in - just like they're doing. They're doing exactly the same thing. Why should we let them do it? That's why they're beating us - that's why they're winning. I don't think the world is fixable - I hope it is, but I have no certainty in this. I will try to change it for the better.

We've lost for long enough. Religion has been losing for more than a hundread years. Why should we keep on losing? Because they're telling us, and brainwashing us from childhood that we've already lost, not to bother? I will bother - because even if we have already lost, it's honorable that we fight to the end - upholding the truth and the light. Isn't that what we're called to do as religious believers? That we will live proclaiming the truth, and fighting for the truth?

How is a Trump presidency going to achieve this? Do you really think that Trump being President is going to stop people from having casual sex? How? — Michael

I have said Trump personally and his administration will not improve sexual morality. But it will make the problem of sexual morality very clear to the public.

And how is a Trump presidency going to help stop abortion? The Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a constitutional right, and that's not something that the President can overrule. The best he can do is appoint a pro-life Justice to replace Scalia — Michael

Exactly.

it's simply delusional to think that Trump being President is going to somehow bring back Christian sexual morality. That ship has long sailed. The U.S. has moved on (thankfully). — Michael

That's what you progressives want to trick us to believe. You want us to give up - "the ship has already sailed - you'll never get your world back. Go back to sitting in your desk and bear it out - watch how your children abandon your values, just bear it out while we take your world" - who are you to say that? Do you know the future? Otherwise this is just propaganda. The truth is you hope that the ship has sailed - just like how I hope it hasn't.

This is really the heart it it. For all the moralising that Agustino does, he still doesn't understand what every normal, decent person so obviously gets without these grand moral theories of sexual sin. It's so warped. You don't knowingly elect a sexual predator to president. Trump should be put on trial, not into the fucking oval office. You don't give him the success and power he wants. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And I've agreed he should be put on trial and probably arrested - after his first term.

It is also so painfully obvious that sexual assault has nothing to do with progressivism. Sexual assault has always existed as long as there have been people who cannot control themselves sexually when in a position of power over others. Are you going to say that someone sexually abusing a woman in the 6th century was a progressive? — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, but I have never claimed any of this. I merely claimed progressivism removed sexual morality, and made a virtue out of promiscuity. I claimed that this is merely the outcome of that. Do you disagree?

It has nothing to do with being alpha male, either. Alpha males, which is a stupid bloody term, do not need to molest women against their will. That's the definition of being alpha male. It just makes you a disgusting human being. — WhiskeyWhiskers

He didn't do it against their will - they let him do it. How many times does one need to repeat that? It's true that he's abusing them, and they should never have let him do it - but they did. Because they too wanted to have sex with a rich and powerful person - like everyone else in a progressive culture, they wanted the social status that comes out of it. It's not my fault that they have continuously since the 1960s been removing all sexual morality and encouraging promiscuity as a source of self-esteem. Men like Donald Trump are the result of that. And what do you want to do? You want to get rid of him, but you want to keep on encouraging sexual promiscuity right? Because that's good for society - so long as they let you do it - but hey, they did let him do it. Is this the world you want to live in? Where men are encouraged as a source of value to have sex with as many women - and where women are encouraged similarly?

As if progressives weren't more interested in equal access to education, eliminating discrimination, affordable healthcare, and creating economic opportunities for all regardless of their social class — Baden

And conservatives aren't interested in these I suppose? We don't need progressivism as it is practiced and understood today in order to be interested in all these other important considerations of the state. I haven't criticised progressivism for its attitudes on these issues in any case, so I don't know why you're throwing this red herring out there. I didn't say we need to stop progressivism because it encourages the elimination of discrimination, etc.

So, this post isn't aimed at him. It's just to state for the record that to understand progressivism and its impact on society, a quick internet search for the most progressive countries out there, a follow-up search for the term "Human Development Index", and a consideration of the latter's meaning and its correlations with the former could be useful in understanding why we are not dealing here with a cancer that needs the chemotherapy of a corrupt sexual predator with an insatiable narcissism to help excise it from the planet. — Baden

Oh so you apparently don't think the growth of technology itself, and improving economic conditions is the major cause of this? It's the ideology of progressivism... You should be aware first of all, that countries like Sweden have proeminent ultra-right groups that are a lot worse than you think I am. These people hate immigrants, and have even been involved in the murder of immigrants. In many other parts of central and northern Europe extremists very similar to the Nazis are rising up. Proeminent ultra-right groups that, by the way, I don't agree with, because they're not socially conservative. But they will rise up, and we may get another war, because some dumb progressives want to let all the immigrants in, and this annoys their own people. But they don't care what their people want - and so they let these nazis rise up. The nazis are the outcome of their own worldview - of its own shortcomings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3349890/Sweden-Home-IKEA-meatballs-ABBA-racism-Swedish-right-wing-went-joke-big-political-player-just-seven-years.html

These right wingers also share progressivism's sexual immorality, and I despise them - just to make that clear. So all your post is, is again some non-intellectual cursing and stomping of your feet. If you have anything useful to say that actually adds to the discussion please go ahead. But just to insult and claim some counterfactual statements about me, and base your thinking of certain countries on what you read in the corrupt media, instead of actually on having gone there - that's a shame.

I, unfortunately, see no difference in the world run however anyone imagines it. The societies of man will always fail. — Heister Eggcart

I agree. But the progressives have stolen society. It used to be conservatives, for most of history, with people all having respect for values and morality. Nobody questioned moral standards. People made mistakes and had failings, that's true, but everyone was aware of what is right and wrong. Now there is no moral standard anymore. We see all sorts of despicable people coming on TV - including Trump, Crooked, and all of them. Society has never been so corrupt. It's about time we put an end to progressivism and restore the moral order that has always kept society stable - for a certain time.

To think you can change the world and somehow make it better in your own image...naw. — Heister Eggcart

It's not in my own image. All religious people - according to their traditions at least - would like to see the world this way. No religion for example morally permits sexual immorality, promiscuity and all these disgusting vices. If any religious leader from the past would be alive - he'd march with a sword in hand today. Immorality has never been at the surface as much as today.

"If the world is not a fiery pit, we'll make it one. Then they'll understand the horror they've turned the world into." — TheWillowOfDarkness

The world is a fiery pit already. It's just that people have to wake up and understand it. We have to bring religion back. We have to bring social order back. We have to bring morality - including sexual morality back. We have to bring back family stability. We have to stop the proceedings of going for an abortion as if one is going to buy candy. Really we're having a lot of problems. It's time we wake up, and take this world back - and Trump, even though he is evil - is like the pitch black just before the break of dawn (as Heidegger would say). We've had enough darkness, vice and immorality. Let's bring it to a culmination with Trump.

So he's meant to run the country from jail is he? — TheWillowOfDarkness

No he should be arrested after he finishes his first term.

Furthermore, the evidence is against progressivism causing people like him. Even a quick look at history shows the rich and powerful doing exactly the actions like him all over the place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

At least it was just the rich and powerful. Now it's everyone. That's the problem. Back then it was contained.

Perhaps worse, one arm of "progressivism" (feminism) is one of the few social movements to sexual harassment and assault seriously, which has had a significant impact on the issue within last few decades. In terms of sexual harassment and assualt, your politcal answers would actually take us backwards. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The first wave of feminism was respectable - requesting suffrage, etc. But the current feminazis .... they are utter disaster. They want women to go naked on the street. They want women to have 1000 sexual partners and say to everyone how many sexual partners they have without ever being called sluts or being told what they're doing is immoral. That's lunacy.

If your idea of destroying progressivism is replacing it with the rotten throwaways of some social conservatism playing as the devil, then sorry, I'mma say nope to that all day, every day. — Heister Eggcart

A destruction is painful. Of course. But it's necessary BEFORE we can introduce social conservatism. A corrupt and decadent society like today will not accept social conservatism unless we can show them the tragedy that is the end result of progressivism. They still cling to fictions, that Trump really isn't the end product of their society, or it's possible to have the promiscuity while avoiding men like Trump - those are lies. Trump is the perfect baboon to do it.

Judged how? You are giving him a free pass. You don't specify any sanction against, either lawful or social. Indeed, you activatly say it doesn't really matter, that's "it's just the system" and place responsibility for the action on the woman looking for a job. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Judged by being trialed and if found guilty put in jail. Simple. I have never said it's just the system. I've always insisted he is responsible. But the system has encouraged and will keep encouraging the existence of people like him unless we take down progressivism.

A more concise expression of your faults I have not seen. What matters is, you know, avoiding immoral actions in the first place, but rather just that those who perform them are punished (by becoming president???).

In practice, you are only interested in punishment. The question of one's moral responsibility to other individuals is irrelevant. Trump's responsibility to not sexuality hassass and assault women doesn't matter to you, not when there is punishment to be had.

Even punishing someone for being in a situation where they become a victim of immortality is more important to you. A woman meets a hassasser on the chance there might be a job, and the wrongness of that action, and it's punishment (i.e. "Well, what did you expect. You deserved it), is more significant than Trump's moral responsibility to others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No Trump's moral responsibility is important. That's why I said he should be judged for it. I do recommend voting him for President because it's a vote for pulling the masks off from progressivism and unmasking all its lies, including the sexually immoral society it has created. Hence why it's a strategic vote - not a vote for support.

It's already been answered. She did give him her number and went to meet him in private despite the fact that he kissed her unsolicited and despite the fact that it made her uncomfortable. As she said, she put it up to an unusual greeting rather than something more. — Michael

So then I suppose the answer is yes. If your favorite movie star forcibly kisses you, and you're hoping to have a Hollywood career, you give them your phone number and agree to meet them in a PRIVATE PLACE. Is this the advice you would give your daughter for example - would you tell her the kiss is just a greeting?

For some reason I think you're not being honest. We both really do know this isn't what you'd do. And yet you refuse to admit what this implies about her honesty and how she really perceived the events at the time.

You really have no leg to stand on here, Agustino. Trump is promoting and allegedly engaging in the exact type of behaviour that you condemn, and yet you're willing to vote him into the Presidency. That's hypocrisy. And your reasoning for this – that it will undermine the progressivism that promotes sexual assault – is both a strawman, as progressivism doesn't promote sexual assault, and, again, hypocritical, given that you're voting into a power a man who does promote such immoral behaviour. — Michael

Yes because I want to unmask this sexually immoral progressive culture. Trump is the baboon to do it. That's the type of person we need.

Aaaaaand yet you still believe he'll do something for social conservatism. — Heister Eggcart

Yes he'll destroy progressivism. He won't actually do anything positive for social conservatism. He'll just do the negative part of the job. He'll expose this corruption, including himself, for what they really are!

It's sad that you actually think Trump is an honest man and will do anything good, let alone anything that he's actually said. — Heister Eggcart

I don't believe he's an honest person, I don't know where you get this from. He's more honest than Hillary that is true - but he's not an honest person. I have told Thorongil in our discussion today exactly this.

It's amazing how the most vocal moralisers often have the fewest moral principles. — Michael

Have you answered the question? Why are you avoiding it Michael?

Ah, yes, so let us then elect a man that has, is, and will continue to abuse this American society that, I might add, has so kindly propelled him to such a place of power as he now finds himself.

In other..."words", Agustino...

????????????????? — Heister Eggcart

Good - so this system now must be destroyed by him before we can put something else in its place. Then it will all be obvious what is at fault. Trump will cure us from progressivism.

"It's his fault, but it's only the fault of the system so he has no responsibility to prevent it."

Yeah... this is contradictory bullshit, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it's his fault means he should be judged and trialed for his actions. It's the fault of the system means in order to prevent future Trumps, we need to change our governing philosophy, which has led to Trump.

And your solution to do this is to vote for Trump to be President? — Michael

Yes because I want you to see what the end conclusion of your philosophy is. I want those progressives to be destroyed by him - because they deserve it.

Again, she met him again because she was hoping for a job. What she didn't want was his unsolicited sexual advances. — Michael

I haven't heard the answer to my question. So I will ask you again. If a man forcibly kisses you, and you strongly dislike this and feel abused, will you give him your phone number and agree to meet him IN PRIVATE? Yes or no?

It's also a possible sign that he wants to talk about her coming to work for him, which is what she was hoping for. — Michael

>:O in Alice in Wonderland maybe. Look I've lived in your country. People in the UK for example don't think like this. I can tell you very clearly. Because I know, especially from the days I was in University. A girl knows why she is called for if a guy were to say something "Oh let's go to my place to have some drinks" and it's just the two of them. She's not dumb living under a rock. So don't run away from the glaringly obvious truth. She liked it. She shouldn't have liked it - yes that is true - but that's a different discussion.

So Trump said what he did because of...progressives? Erm, wat? It's not actually Trump's fault, but who, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

It is his fault. But he's merely the product of a system. So to prevent future Trumps we have to change this system which produced him and caused him to be like this. This system based on self-esteem earned at the compromise of other people's sexual integrity.

For the third time, his behaviour has nothing to do with progressivism. Repeating that ridiculous strawman won't make it true. — Michael

My point is that she's a progressive - she really was proud of this event. She shouldn't have been because she was abused. But she was. That's why she let him do it. She only claims she didn't like it now - much later. If she really disliked the fact that he kissed her without her permission, she should never have met him again. But her actions are telling us the truth. She did meet him again, despite this fact.

"undoubtedly some form of greeting and that I should not take it as anything other than that" — Michael

Oh yes - that's what her parents suggested too - that's what she actually says. How absurd. Is that what you'd tell your daughter? "Oh daddy, Donald J. Trump forcibly kissed me on the lips and I felt very embarrassed, what should I do" - "Oh don't worry honey, it must just be a form of greeting"... really? Is that how you'd advise your child? How can anyone be so naive? Any girl knows that when a man invites her somewhere completely in private where they are all alone it's a possible sign that he's interested in something else. You don't have to be a genius to know this.

I'm NOT! I'm blaming his conduct, and using his conduct to point the finger where it should really be pointed - the progressives. Trump is just their product. It's the product of the culture they have created...

Okay so please answer me. If someone does something like kiss you without your permission and you don't like it, do you then give them your phone number and agree to meet them in private? Is that honestly what you would do if you really don't like that they kissed you without your permission?

You really don't have any moral principles, do you? You talk about liberals being immoral and yet here you are, defending Trump's sexual assault and taking the route of victim-blaming. — Michael

If someone does that to you and you really don't want it, then you avoid them - you stop talking to them. — Agustino

So you don't avoid someone who does something like that to you and you don't like him right? You go ahead and meet them in private....

If someone lets me shoot them in the face, I 'spose there's nothing wrong there, amirite? — Heister Eggcart

Nope - I never said that. What Trump did was very wrong in fact. It's just that it wasn't wrong according to progressive culture. According to progressive culture he is the greatest of men.

Are you serious? She gave him the number and answered his call because she was looking for a "mentor and employer" and that "I felt as though my dream of working for Mr Trump might come true". She didn't let him kiss her or touch her or anything like that; he just went ahead and did it.

Were you even listening? Do you have selective hearing? — Michael

Okay so if you're a woman okay, and a guy kisses you without your permission - regardless that he is your favorite movie star and you want a career in Hollywood - will you then give him your phone number and accept to meet him in private? >:O That's like asking to be abused. If someone does that to you and you really don't want it, then you avoid them - you stop talking to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S8fKll4gGg

Look at this. She let him do it. So the guy kisses her on the lips, she gives him her phone number, and then she picks up and actually has a conversation with him and agrees to meet him much later on. My days... is this for real? Now she's upset that she let him do it. What has this culture come to... people sell themselves for nothing. She gave herself over for nothing for Trump, and now she's upset. She should be upset at herself. She says it's not what she wanted for him to kiss her on the lips. That's why she agreed to meet him AFTER THIS INCIDENT and give him her phone number right? >:O My days... What a pathetic progressive culture. We all know that she was proud that Trump kissed her. She wanted it. She only claims otherwise now because she's embarrassed she's been dumped by him, and she's using this as a way to take revenge. We all know that women and men alike extract self-esteem in this progressive culture out of their sex. So that's what she was doing as well - tell all her friends she shagged Mr. Donald J. Trump.

Where did he say he assaults them and forcefully has them have sex with him?

Again, there's a difference between having casual, consensual sex with a number of different women and forcing yourself on women. Trump's condoning, and allegedly engaging in, the latter, not just the former, whereas I only ever talked about the former. — Michael

No he's not condoning assault. He said they let him do it. He didn't say "I force them to stay while I grab them by the pussy and they try to run away from me".

Look mate - you went by Yahadreas on the other forum right? you said it yourself in the other forum long ago. I remember it clearly. An orgasm is the best gift you can give someone. Why would anyone be against casual sex? If you can give such a wonderful gift to your friend. I remember it clearly. And now you're up in arms that Donald J. Trump wants to give as many women as possible this wonderful gift. The honour of receiving such a gift from the man himself! So I'm curious. Did you change your position? Is casual sex with as many women as possible no longer the ideal? And Donald J. Trump didn't rape them - they let him do it. He was very clear about that. So what happened? Where is the assault? He doesn't need to ask for permission - they let him do it - isn't that clear from what he has said?

Oh noooo... promiscuity is much different >:O like Trump says in promiscuity they let you grab them by the pussy >:O

Yeah yeah it just finds it cool. It's cool to shag many women - admit it. That's what progressivism says.

Look in fact, in your country of choice, the UK, one of my work colleagues (UK born and bred) was having a friend visit him - a girl he knew for a long time. And he told me that when I meet her I should give her a hug and grab her ass. That's what he told me. In no different words. It's just the truth. Now of course I didn't do it, but neither did I reprimand him - because that just is the culture there. Nothing I can do about that. You've allowed these progressives to run around mad and destroy all sexual morality. This is exactly what you get. Then when your wife cheats on you, you'll also be all fuming. But you didn't care before that you have a 1 in 2 chance of divorcing if you marry any random person. You didn't care about sexual morality - that's just the reward you get.

I've been talking about these issues day in and day out telling you. Be careful what you're doing... be careful what behaviours you're encouraging, it will affect you... but you didn't listen. You were all like "oh yeah people should be entirely free, free to do whatever, we shouldn't have the shackles of morality bind us"... this is simply what you get!

You think you have no business in the bedroom - good, then you'll get lots of Donalds. Many men in today's world are mini Donalds.

But if that wasn't enough, he also said about a 10 year old girl that he "will be dating her in 10 years". Donald Trump is literally looking at 10 year old girls and thinking he can't wait to shag them when they're legal. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No actually in a progressive culture this is not what he's thinking at all. He's thinking that he's the alpha male if he can show he can have sex with any woman. It's the status. Not the actually doing it that he's in for.

And to top it off, we now have video and audio evidence of Trump saying you can get away with grabbing women by the pussy if you're rich and famous. We're seeing this movie all the more frequently with historic sex crimes committed by rich and powerful people. — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's true - he's just telling you the truth. Look I grew up amongst rich people. This is nothing but the truth. But of course, you ain't listening to me to stop these fucking progressives with their total lack of sexual morality, and the animals that they themselves have created like Trump. You want to destroy the STUDENT while leaving the MASTER. Trump is Hillary's apprentice. He's the apprentice of progressivism. He is the end product of that ideology. So why not let him destroy them? This is what they deserve, they should be allowed to have it.

One of the most disgusting parts of that video, beside the most obvious part, is how, after having this gross conversation behind closed doors, they step off the bus into public and his friend Billy Bush tells the woman who greets them to hug Trump. It should send a shiver down the spine of any decent person. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Have you not gone to school? That's what folks do in school all the time. I agree it's disgusting. But the progressives have taught them to behave like this. You seem to have nothing contrary to Crooked and her cronies, all of which support all these forms of sexual immorality behind closed doors. Again - this is nothing but the effect of modern progressive culture with its moral laxity with regards to sexuality. Modern culture have taught men, like Trump, that they have high status if they can shag any woman they want to. The more women they can get the higher the status. You've been teaching them this. So why are you surprised? When you heard your friend brag about how many girls he shagged, why haven't you said anything?

I will not tackle with most of the unsubstantiated insults you keep throwing my way in your post, I'll tackle the more "substantive" issues.

Then I had the demonisation of everyone in America and the western hemisphere who isn't socially conservative as therefore progressive and "cancerous — WhiskeyWhiskers

Not the demonisation - rather I think these people have been deceived by consumerism and the mass-media to live in ways that have destroyed and demeaned their true potential - and of course they cannot recognize this, for the psychological burden would be too much. They'll never say "yes we are wrong" - they've invested too much in such a life. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel are right - they don't want God to exist - because if He does - then they're fucked. I do think what is understood in today's world by progressivism is cancerous. This over-emphasis on sex, this over-emphasis on gender, on race, on transgender, on I don't know what other lunacy is crazy - because it seeks to impose itself over everyone, and through means of social pressure pull all of society in its direction.

that Trump and his socially conservative support network are going to somehow make hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people throughout America and the rest of the western world do a 180 on their way of life, their fundamental beliefs, and their emotive behaviour, by following the Puritan-esque moral precepts of Agustino from the philosophy forum. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I have never claimed that Trump or his administration would change this. Also, none of my morality is puritanical - unless of course you also think that Judaic, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu morality is also puritanical. Now I'm asking you honestly - do you think that is the case?

Trade restrictions on currency manipulators. Oh wait, none of the US’s big trading partners had engaged in currency manipulation in the past year, the Treasury said in its twice yearly foreign exchange market report to Congress. But you and Trump know, despite not working for the Treasury, something they don't, I bet. — WhiskeyWhiskers

:-! lol - the article doesn't work for me as I need to pay to read it, but alas. Currency manipulation isn't a one-act event. It's a continuous long-term way of behaving by a central bank in order to influence its currency in order to achieve a certain goal. Now there are boundaries which limit what a country can do without undermining itself. An expensive currency means cheap imports but expensive and thus unattractive exports. A cheap currency means the opposite - expensive imports but very attractive exports. The fact is that the Chinese yuan vs the dollar is quite probably undervalued despite the protests of the IMF to the contrary. It's not as undervalued as it was in the past, because rampant Chinese inflation - something that they have been struggling to control - increased the value of the yuan beyond the point where they could fully control it by dumping it in exchange for USD. This doesn't mean they have stopped doing it - not at all. They're still doing their best to do it. China runs trade deficits with all the partners from whom it has large imports - these are mostly natural resources - countries like Saudi Arabi - which China needs to manufacture. Why are they running trade deficits? Because the yuan is still cheap - and therefore their imports are more expensive than they ought to be.

I don't need any experts to tell me China is manipulating their currency. I know it first-hand. I've worked in construction, and quite a few of the materials we were ordering were China made. I know that the Chinese get ahead due to their low price, despite inferior quality and inferior production efficiency (the two of them end up being quite tied). To stay on budget people use their materials - not the best, but good enough. Part of the reasons why they achieve such low prices - apart from low wages, which many other poorer nations also have - is their currency manipulation. In fact, China is probably draining a large part of the wealth of sorrounding Asian countries - especially the poor ones like Bangladesh, etc. through their currency manipulation. Donald Trump, sorry to tell you, actually does know what the fuck he's talking about on this point. This is actually one of the few points that he very smartly noticed.

Furthermore - you should expand your understanding. It seems to me you are stuck to what some experts are telling you. You have to consider all the constraints that are needed for publication. You need evidence for this, evidence for that - well life is such that you don't have such evidence. Many times when you really speak to an expert and get to know them, you'll find out that their actual opinions may be quite different from what they can or actually end up publishing - because they're not stuck in the "evidence evidence we want evidence" scheme - and they are freed to use their own understanding of what could possibly be happening, even if they can't prove it 100%.

He'll also "encourage an entrepreneurial mindset". As if potentially becoming a billionaire wasn't enough incentive. As if people are going to stop what they're doing with their lives to become entrepreneurs because President Trump is a billionaire. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Potentially becoming a billionaire is not a realistic incentive for your average Joe.

How can this be a strategic vote for social conservatives when Trump himself is quite clearly, under your own definition, blatantly not a social conservative? His track record proves that. He's been married three times, divorced twice, cheated on his wife, had extra-marital sex, and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You actually should be voting for Hillary - she's still married to her first husband, she hasn't committed adultery, nor has she had children out of wedlock. Trump is a "cancerous" progressive, Hillary is a social conservative according to your definition. So what the hell are you even talking about anymore? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Because by voting Trump I'm not voting FOR social conservatives, I'm voting AGAINST progressives. I have said that a million times. It's not a vote for support, it's a strategic vote. Trump will be - pragmatically - more effective at harming the progressive movement than any socially conservative candidate. So he is needed to prepare the way, as I have said.

As for Crooked being socially conservative - I highly highly highly doubt that. I highly doubt that she hasn't committed adultery. I more than highly doubt it. I would make a bet with you if I could that she has. The environment she grew up in and went to university in - the environment she worked in afterwards, and the social environment she was surrounded by would make this an extraordinary fact. Almost a miracle! Again I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't believe it. She's not the type of person.

Yes, I'm being nasty and demanding. Because the burden of proof is on you to provide me with evidence to justify your decision. Yes, I want evidence. Your decision will affect me. Even though I don't even live in America, it will drastically affect me because we live in a globalised world. — WhiskeyWhiskers

All of our decisions affect each other. But do you see me crying to the progressives "Oh your decision to encourage promiscuity will affect me!! My children will be encouraged to follow your ways, my wife will be encouraged to screw other men and divorce me!! Ahhh such a disaster!! I demand you tell me what evidence that my wife and children won't be affected by this exists?? I am being very nasty and demanding with you, because the burden of proof is on you! You are engaging in actions which affect me!! Not directly, but they will influence my cultural environment which will in turn influence me!!!"

Of course I don't behave that way. Why would a reasonable person do that? I understand they have their interests, and I have mine, and we're both looking for ways to achieve them.

Obamacare (nothing to do with Trump). — WhiskeyWhiskers

No because it's not like Trump wants to repeal Obamacare (which by the way is what most Americans have consistently said they wanted - check the polls that I linked to you before). So stop ignoring evidence.

First of all I asked for evidence of Trumps expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc. I got nothing except watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

A President does not require expertise on any of these issues. He requires the capacity to listen to a bunch of suggestions, and choose the best course of action. Trump, after having worked in a business which is quite possibly the most complicated business you can work in - construction - has what it takes to look at different plans and proposed courses of actions and to say "we do it this way" and then make sure that it gets done. His business as CEO of Trump Organization is precisely that - to choose from what people tell him, and to ensure that it gets done - cheaply, quickly and well. That's why he's qualified. Crooked has no real experience in doing things. Neither do many other politicians. They have experience in talking about stuff, and making big plans, we're gonna do this and we're gonna do that, while they sit with a finger up their asses. The real question is can they actually get the job done in the real world, with real people, and with all the difficulties that will come their way - difficulties one cannot plan for, and that one cannot spend hundreads of years analysing. Obama proved that he can't - with both Iraq and Obamacare for example.

I then asked for a cause and effect explanation of how being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, has any bearing on a persons ability to improve the economy, gun control, terrorism, immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation etc. I got watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

There is no direct effect of social conservatism on economics. There is an indirect one as I have argued and explained to you before. Do you have any qualms with my explanation? Any reason for thinking it may not be the case? I have explained for example how out of wedlock birth rate which is very high keeps people in cycles of perpetual poverty, crime and so forth. See you're asking me for all these detailed explanations but it seems besides the point - you're not being open minded about this, you have decided Trump is the devil and that's it.

I then asked, if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive? I was again asking for a cause and effect explanation, evidence would be nice. Instead you ignored it. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I will get to this sometime later in another post, when I tackle the factcheck matters.

I asked how, in concrete terms, a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates. I got watery bullshit. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And I told you in very concrete terms that it will not.

If you interviewed someone for a job as an economist, a foreign affairs advisor, a healthcare systems adviser, a counter-terrorism expert, etc all rolled into one, and in response to you asking for their qualifications they said "I build great buildings and great companies" you would be as mad as them if you didn't laugh them out the door, down the street, and have them locked up in the nearest mental institution. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes - except that Crooked and Trump aren't running for such a job :)

Then I asked if you could also cite actual evidence detailing the link between progressivism and societies moral decay. This is an empirical claim that can be observed and studied - and it would behoove society to do so, for its existence depends on recognising its own decay. You then refuse to cite any studies, and instead insist that they are in fact one and the same thing. A tautology, a trick of definitions and language. Why bother trying to establish B being caused by A when you can just say B is the same thing as A? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's not a sleight of hand at all. It's what I mean by moral decay. A society which applauds sexual promiscuity, which approves of abortion and so forth is exactly a society undergoing moral decay.

and how you wanted the SIMPLEST possible raw calculation of divorces, which if you were to read the pages I gave you you would see why that raw number is not appropriate, but as you said earlier simplicity makes complicated things easier — WhiskeyWhiskers

No - it is actually YOU who pointed me to the simplest calculations. You pointed me to the divorce rate and said "Oh look, past 9 years it's going down". Of course you didn't perform any fucking analysis on that data. I had to do that for you, and notice that the population for the past 9 years was increasing, while the number of marriages decreased, hence obviously the divorce rate would also have a downward pressure on it. Again this is nothing but the university educated kid who knows nothing about the real world. Things aren't so simple as your simple calculations. What you should do is take that divorce rate and divide it by the marriage rate - that, although is not the best stat to measure this - does give an indiction of what chances a marriage has to end in divorce.

If you don't support Trump then you have a bloody funny way of showing it. If you support social conservatives, and Trump is a social conservative, then you support Trump. If he wasn't a social conservative, you wouldn't support him. Not only that, I'll remind you that, according to your own definition, Hillary is more socially conservative than Trump. Why don't you vote for Hillary? Let me guess, she's on team blue and Trump is on team red. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Trump ain't a social conservative. Did I ever say he was? I'm voting against the progressives - that's in accordance with a social conservative agenda.

Just because certain institutions have a liberal bias does not mean you have grounds to entirely dismiss everything they have to say. It means you take it with a pinch of salt and look at both sides of the story. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure - did I say you should never agree with them? Why are you jumping to such unwarranted conclusions?

Just because they don't, logically, necessarily, know any better does not mean they don't know anything at all and they're not to be trusted. Do you honestly think that a person who goes to university, studies hard on a specific subject, is tested by professors, scrutinised, corrected, recorrected, for years and years under the most stringent learning conditions and then has a successful career in their field, is not "necessarily" going to know what they're talking about?

Where else does this apply? Would you say your doctor, after having spent years in medical school and working in hospitals, doesn't "necessarily" know what they're talking about? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure it doesn't mean that they're not to be trusted at all - I never said that. You keep engaging in all these biases that's it's very difficult to carry this conversation. But I do think people ought to be able to think for themselves, and talk from a standpoint of knowledge with the experts.

I actually don't trust my doctor overly much. I discuss with him issues from equal to equal. My medical knowledge is very good - in fact extremely good for a lay person. I could discuss with you almost whatever subject you want about it. I have friends who currently work as doctors. They say that my knowledge is easily the equivalent of a fourth year medical student - all that I lack really is practical experience and theoretical understanding of some more obscure conditions. I have however very good pragmatic understanding of the body - when I must do something, what a certain symptom can mean, what to do in certain cases, how to track vital functions, what actions to take if someone faints, and so forth. I can read my own blood tests, i know what tests to do, I can read an EKG by myself, i know what each wave means, etc. In fact I get quite pissed if I ever go to a specialist who doesn't treat me with the necessary respect - because most doctors are quite arrogant bastards, who expect you to bow your head and submit to their "great" authority. I despise this attitude. I find the same to be the case with the lawyers I've dealt with. And I absolutely hate it - although my knowledge and understanding of the law is indeed much poorer than that of medicine - so I do tolerate it there to a certain extent. I don't have much choice.

Thank you, I have the book but haven't yet got around to reading it! So I will look into it.

I was reading this essay by Peter Kreeft which I found very good regarding sexual morality about a week ago. I got reminded of it because of the negative reactions some folks have when discussing sexual matters:

"Sexual sins like sodomy, adultery, fornication, contraception, and masturbation are wrong not simply because the laws of the Church or society forbid them, or simply because they are not psychologically mature, and not even simply because they hurt other people (they always do, but sometimes it is easy to see how they do and sometimes it is not). They are wrong because they sin against truth, against being, against reality; because they lie about the nature of love, that is, about the nature of God, and about God's image, man. They contradict the design of the Designer who created sex in His own image."

"In fact, almost the only reason anyone in our society ever believes and teaches a philosophy of moral relativism is to justify sexual immorality. All the controversial issues in the culture war are sexual. How often have you heard arguments for moral relativism to justify nuclear war, or insider trading, or child abuse, or genocide, or racism, or even environmental pollution?"

And this is all true. I've honestly not seen a moral relativist upholding sexual morality in their lives. I've not seen it. Sure correlation isn't causation - but one must only wonder... could it be that their entire worldview is such as it's necessary for it to be merely to justify their sexual (mis)behaviour? And if so would that be true for conservatives as well? A dangerous question because it suggests the possibility that one may not decide the important questions because of their allegiance to truth, but rather because they are coherent with their sexual practices. As I see it though, conservatives are ultimately siding with what is objectively correct, as they aspire to what is highest and most beautiful in sex, and despise what is low and brings harm to themselves and others - at least in the long term.

Interesting you're not the first to recommend that movie to me, so I will now watch it :P I'll let you know what I think.

The reason why I'm hellbent on holding fast to suspicions and impressions is because I believe we should train our minds to draw the right conclusions (if possible) even with little data available. In life we need to make judgements, because things have practical implications - we can't afford not to for fear that we may be wrong - because not making a judgement is often making a wrong judgement. I've learned from my work (and studies) as an engineer - quick educated guesses when there is a problem is much better than analysis paralysis or waiting for data. You have to act quick - yes you can get things wrong, but your judgement should be trained. I used to be the opposite as a teenager and even until my final year in university - I would be very paranoid about things and would always see possibilities how I may have been wrong. This is also why I could be quite anxious, and also frequently worried about my health at small signs. But I've learned to train my judgement - to take a decision and stick to it - trust my judgement instead of doubt it. Now I'm very rarely if at all troubled by anxiety for example. Because I can judge situations. And because I've seen that I judge them accurately in general, both in my professional and personal life - I trust my knack.

People here seem to adopt a very impractical attitude of withholding judgement. This just doesn't work in life. You can't withhold judgement. You're thinking about marrying woman X. There's many things about her character you don't know - she could possibly turn out to be a nasty person. So what do you do? You need to judge! You need to choose - how is she? Is she a person with good moral character or not? You have to have the courage to risk it - is it white or black. So yes - I may be prone to mistakes, but I'm also sharpening my judgement in the process.

No, not there we go. He settled the other case. Curious how your suspicion and cynicism evaporates when it's about Trump. You don't suspect that there was any link, any relation, any pressure, any negotiation, between settling the one case and dropping the other? No, of course you don't, because of your bias. — Sapientia

No, but with my limited knowledge of the situation, I suspect that Trump had done something that was illegal in the business and he would have lost that case, hence why he settled. Simple. And I also suspect that the wife started the other case merely to add pressure on Trump for the case he was having against her husband, which is exactly why she dropped it as soon as they got what they wanted from that case.

Outside of better education, nothing. — Thorongil

But education obviously isn't working, so we have a very real problem. People are more educated than ever today, and many are more immoral than ever. So what does it mean then?

The international community has various ways: diplomacy, economic sanctions, military assistance and guarantees of it to threatened states, and as a last resort, direct military intervention. — Thorongil

Again you're ignoring the fact that the international community cannot do anything. Firstly because Russia is a superpower. Secondly because even if they do - it will not change things, since things come from the mentality and ways of life adopted by the people there. They will not change - regardless of the intervention. You do an intervention in Iraq - does anything change? No - you still get the same terrorists and animals running the show. Because that's just the culture of that region. You appoint someone to government - he, or his underlings - will end up doing the same things. The culture must evolve itself - and that cannot be imposed by any outside force. Now from the inside change is possible but probably cannot be achieved in a single lifetime.

You described removing barriers for the business to succeed (specifically taxes). That's not a positive reward being bestowed. — Thorongil

Yes only that I'm speaking about people starting businesses. To quit my job and start a business I receive certain advantages. This can and often does include tax-breaks. Since my company would not pay as much corporate tax as my previous employer did I will be able to allocate myself a higher salary. That's an incentive to start a business. Another incentive could possibly be state given, non-returnable funds. Say given that I present a strong business plan which gets approval I receive up to 30,000 USD in start-up capital - not all at once of course, but over the course of starting my business with the state verifying things on the way. That's another intervention in the market that's possible. And so forth. So again - my point is that regardless of how you call it - removing barriers or not - the government should be actively involved in shaping the macro-economic environment. They should for example decide that it is good that more people start new businesses - and therefore allocate tax breaks to such businesses, while not to others. And so forth - these are government level decisions in favor of all sorts of different interventions. So in-so-far as such actions may entail big government, they may. But that's not necessarily bad I don't think. That's what I mean by controlling the macro-economic environment - controlling the environment in order to achieve some objectives.

Okay good, thank you. Now you will have to wait a little until I go through that so that I can get back to you.

Just concede it, you assumed I was pro-Hillary because I'm anti-Trump. You were wrong, because you look at everything in black and white. There's social conservatives on one side and cancerous progressives on the other. Trump will Make America Great Again, and Hillary is the devil. This is how you sound. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No I haven't assumed you are pro-Hillary - I have however assumed that if you would be forced to pick between Trump and Hillary you'd pick Hillary. Is that statement true or false?

Now I have never said Trump will make America great again. I haven't even said he will fix the divorce problems, the abortion problems and many of the other issues social conservatives are fighting for. I simply said he will disrupt the progressives, which is necessary before being able to introduce the social conservative policies in question.

I will address the rest of your long post in some time.

I did not merely point you to "a whole fucking big website", I pointed you to the exact page that details, with massive great big up and down arrows to make it as crystal clear as day, how well Obama has fared in different aspects of his administration. Or are the massive arrows and double digit percentage points not simple enough for you? — WhiskeyWhiskers

No you actually haven't. Check the link which you gave. It leads to the home page of factcheck.org.