you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen

I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with.

True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous. — 3017amen

No, not "true and false." I said prone. There are animals, some fish for example, that eat their own as a matter of course. Others will when starving (as will people). But I have specifically and pointedly been talking in generalities in the hopes that you would not parse that hair. Woe is me.

We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc.. — 3017amen

Uh, yes, we were. That is the lesson I tried to teach you about the difference between "killing other people for food" (which is what you said) and "killing other people to eat them" (which is apparently what you meant). We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it.

Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you? — 3017amen

I did. But apparently it's over your head.

You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.

Honestly, am I missing your point? — 3017amen

I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,

1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them.

Let's PARTY!

:100: :cheer:

The biggest, richest, most powerful industry in the world will point at the opposition science and say "You can't trust their science! It's all about the money! Their scientists are bought with a money agenda!"

They should take a fucking seat. Jeesh.

Yep. An old man who costs more than he contributes, or a baby that has potential, but it's speculative, a wage earner, etc. Crazy shit. By that metric alone, I could hunt a person down, kill them, gut them, skin them, quarter them, have them mounted on my wall and enjoy the trophy while dining over a plate of them. If anyone had a problem with it, I'd just pay them $X.XX and we'd all be good. Oh boy, man may not be separate, but he sure is different.

Take a survey of the court decisions, and create a potentially reliable average of a randomized plot design*. — god must be atheist

You may not need to dig through a bunch of case law. When I practiced, I remember the State Worker's Compensation outfit actually had a formal, written, publicly available (but of course, not widely advertised) valuation module for pretty much everything, from a little toe to a big toe to an arm, a leg, an eye, a life, etc. In my exceeding naivety, I was shocked to find out such a thing existed. But, I was young, and dumber than I am now.

Anyway, if one wants to use our subjective, mercenary metric of value, money is there. I don't agree with it, but it's there.

. . . do we ever know enough to know that what is has been exhausted? — Manuel

I think we will know when we miss it, when we hunger for it, when we die because of it's absence.

I think yGasset can be tricky and has to be read in context. In a book on hunting, one of my favorite quotes has to do with man's need to divert himself from life. Out of context, and with our modern, "sporting" view, I at first thought he might be talking of hunting as the diversion. But what he's really saying is that hunting is life; hunting is "what is", and our other pursuits are the diversion. Likewise, in the quote you are talking about, his use of the words "should be" is referencing our subjective, mistaken, desperate desire as what we think we want, and not an empirical, objective "should." The empirical, objective should is, of course, the "what is" that he refers to. Our dissatisfaction with what is is manifest in our desperate acts.

"What is" is all around us and, rather than trying to "know" all about it through some cognitive, analytical, critical, scientific dissection of it, it can better be known by living it, by being it. A first step in the journey is to not perceive of ourselves as separate, but merely different, and then observing, and entering into a relationship with what is. In his example, that relationship is the hunt.

But we're still not listening enough. — Manuel

:100:

But destroying all living species just to buy more stuff, is lunacy. — Manuel

It is. That is the desperation I referred to, manifesting itself. Sometimes the life of quiet desperation (H.D. Thoreau) is not so quiet.

Jose Ortega yGasset:

"In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is mans supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of it's own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted." [[i]Emphasis added[/i]]

That which makes us different does not make us separate; nor does it make us better. If we think the way we think makes us separate, it makes us mistaken. If we think the way we think makes us better, it makes us mistaken.

Just as the blind person may receive a boost in other sense(s), so too, our differences have given us a boost here and there. But we are still animals. Thinking that our thinking makes us separate, or better, not only makes us mistaken, it makes us more desperate. And that is the reason we are the way we are.

All this reminds me of a poem I wrote some 25 years ago, for child who had just be born, named Colter:

When you get older you will discover a flaw
You are sorely lacking in tooth and claw
You will also find you are pink and bare
Sorely lacking in fur and hair

But wobbling atop that tiny frame
You will also find a great big brain
If properly used it will suffice
To makes some cloths and a great big knife

So you might trek cross Colter's Hell
And return to us with stories to tell
You'll also return with wisdom learned
From those who live there on Her terms

That's the glaring problem with your argument, right? I haven't eliminated humans from the equation, and you didn't either from your theory. — 3017amen

No, it's not. My argument is sound. I only took humans off the plate which I was proving we were on, simply to try and help you with your mistaken assumption about cannibalism. Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said:

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen

you obviously had it in your mind "why shouldn't we eat each other for food in order to survive?" But that is not what you said. You said "why shouldn't we kill each other for food . . ." And I said we do. I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse, of if you still don't get the distinction. I hope you do. Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory.

And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen

I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike.

You must incorporate humans for your theory to wash or become clear, and otherwise for your logic to follow. — 3017amen

I know. And I did. I only parsed out animals to show you their disinclination toward cannibalism was like ours.

Are we not back to the justification for why the treatment of humans and animals should be different? You're saying that they/there shouldn't be. — 3017amen

We are back to that (and never should have left, but-for your introduction of cannibalism as some strange deflection). And yes, I am saying that they/there shouldn't be. So, if you go back and read my response to the OP, before your cannibalism BS, you will see my argument has been "no difference," and "Darwin applies," and "same value" (if not more value accorded to animals). I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals.

I posted a separate post regarding the idea that, rather than us having something, we might be missing something, but that post was unrelated to anything you have brought up and was only addressed by Janus.

We are. most likely, the only beings who conceive of value at all, — Janus

I am, unfortunately, forced to agree with your post. But as to the value part, I guess it all depends upon how value is defined or perceived. I know animals conceive of value as I do, at least in many respects.

There's few Palestinians who would try to defend the methods of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Unlike some people in this thread, they have long since realized that such violence fuels only one agenda, and that is Israel's. — Tzeentch

No doubt. There's probably no shortage of them feeding intel to Israel. Again, I liken it to the American West, where many an Indian rode against their own. Kind of like the Plutocracy sewing discord and pitting left against right. Age old tactic.

If that's all you want to talk about, I see no point. — Echarmion

Don't ever create a situation where that is all there is. Simple, right?

I think this is a terrible moral philosophy. It turns persons into just replaceable cogs in a machine. Essentially giving whatever sovereign rules a country the right to dispose of their citizens lifes. — Echarmion

Yup. We agree. So, should the U.S. pull the pack our bags (of money) and go home? I'm hip. After all, as others opined on this thread, Jews can't count on anyone else to protect them. They have nukes, they are a self-sufficient island now, ala the "individualist" who doesn't need anybody any more.

This is just ad-hominem. Do you suppose the Palestinians read this thread as a guideline as to what to do? — Echarmion

First, it's not ad-hominem. It's fact. And second, the Palestinians don't need us to tell them they are getting fucked or how to stop it from happening. They are there. They aren't thousands of miles away second-guessing their own actions, like an armchair quarterback who would have them concede because, well, they are the underdog.

But your theory states that we should, no? — 3017amen

No. Take humans off the plate. Look at animals only. Eating members of their own species is either an aberration within species, or species specific. Most mammals don't go around eating each other for food. They do, however, fight each other for food all the time. Do you see the difference between fighting for food, over food, and eating each other?

I guess your specific theory then, using your sense of logic, would not support Darwinism. — 3017amen

Wrong. It falls four-square within Darwinism.

Mainly because they hate us. — frank

Meh, so do the Sunni. Nothing a little money can't buy.

Saudi and Hamas are both Sunni and kind of fundamentalist. Iran is Shia. Iraq is both. Pakistan is both. Since Iran is theocratic, they foment sectarian violence just by existing. — frank

I once read an article by Scott Ritter about the sectarian issues in the Middle East. It got so deep, and so detailed that I felt like I was reading a physics chalk board with a complicated equation. It went WAY deeper than the sunni/shia divide. Way deeper. But when I step back, as your typical American simpleton, I can't figure why we aren't in bed with the Shia. The Sunni seem further from our leanings; though Saudi Oil fields seem to be a player. There is always those strategic concerns that we aren't clued in on.

The point is death? For its own sake or what? — Echarmion

See "How does it feel" below.

Yeah, that's just straight up evil in my book. — Echarmion

If you'd like to avoid evil, then, I guess you won't support the activities that engender such feelings.

Who is "they" here? Are we treating all Israelis as some kind of faceless amalgam, where one part can stand in for the sins of another? — Echarmion

You said "I'm saying that what you're doing must have some practical chance of resulting in a situation that is "less bad". And I don't see such a chance here." The they is Hamas. Nothing they do will present a situation that is less bad. As to your second question, yes. The Israelis are a sovereign. As sovereign is an amalgam of the faceless. You suffer for the sins of your sovereign. That's why, as an American, I don't want my sovereign backing another sovereign that is making people feel like straight up evil is the only card they have to play in response to what they feel is straight up evil.

If morality goes out the window in difficult situation, why have it at all? — Echarmion

You said "justify, no." I said justice apparently has nothing to do with it. I you want morality to stay in the room, then get off the Palestinian's back.

My problem is with people sitting in front of a computer casually accepting or dismissing death and destruction. — Echarmion

Oh, okay. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. I feel the same way about people sitting thousands of miles away, allowing their sovereign to send money to prop up an oppressive, apartheid regime that makes people feel like straight up evil is the option in response to straight up evil. So yeah, I get what you're saying.

I think the world is just going to watch — frank

That and spend money on whichever side.

Unless the Saudis decide to attack Israel. — frank

I'm always confused about who's in bed with who, and when. But it does seem the common denominator is religion. I always root for the underdog.

I don't support the intentional murder of Israeli civilians via Hamas rocket launches into residential areas, but I do understand it.

If Israel doesn't like it, they should give Hamas smart weapons and the lat lon of Israeli military bases. That way Hamas could limit their attacks to combatants. No? Why not?

Biden needs to say something. — frank

Maybe, rather than talk, he should reverse all the Trump actions. Move embassies, etc.

What's the utility of pointless death? — Echarmion

It's not pointless. You're paying attention, aren't you? That's the point.

I'll believe that if anyone can point out a practical way that rocket attacks or similar actions have the least bit of a positive effect on the situation of the oppressed. — Echarmion

It's kind of a "How does it feel, MFs?" kind of statement.

I'm saying that what you're doing must have some practical chance of resulting in a situation that is "less bad". And I don't see such a chance here. — Echarmion

You see, that's just it. Nothing they do would present such a case. Your argument reminds me of the arguments of some preceding the Civil War in the U.S. "Just wait, it will work itself out and go away." It had been generations. Sometimes, the gig is up. You can get on the trains or you can kick them in the nuts as you go down.

Understand, yes. Justify, no. — Echarmion

If justice had anything to do with it, we wouldn't have the situation in the first place.

At least the comanche raiders could believe that if they killed a bunch of civilians, the Europeans might retreat and they might get to keep their lands. But you'd have to be delusional to think that firing rockets at cities is going to get the Isreali military to back down, much less improve the chance of anyone else coming in to help you. — Echarmion

I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. The exact, exact same arguments were made to the Comanche. In fact, some leaders were brought back east to see the might of the U.S. and the futility of resistance. That didn't help and, understandably, it wouldn't.

Edited to add: The Palestinians have a much greater chance than did the Comanche.

are you suggesting thatall humans should kill each other to achieve social dominance — 3017amen

You dragged in the words "all" and "should" which distracted from your first question "in what ways?" To that, I say look around you: Most conflict is either over food, or the conflict is over secondary considerations permitted by an abundance of food.

Really? This seems to make me think of cannibalism. — 3017amen

Ah, I see: When you saw the words "kill each other for food" you thought "eat each other." Rethink that. We don't eat each other for food. But we kill each other for food.

Please share your theory. — 3017amen

I did.

What are you trying to argue? — 3017amen

Spend some more time with it. I went back and checked it and it's pretty clear. Perhaps it's like your cannibal mistake.

Better to die in silence than take other innocent people with you. — Echarmion

No, it's not.

Pointless violence, however, definetly is. Hamas isn't fighting oppression. They're getting Palestinians and Israelis killed for zero gain. — Echarmion

It's never pointless. They are fighting oppression. Use of methods which adversely impact innocents is a consequence of inequality. You want a fair fight? Then arm up the parties until they are on an equal footing. Don't want to do that? Okay, I understand why you would not want to do that. But then you live with the consequences of your oppression.

By what logic should you do something especially if it's unlikely to succeed? That's just indulging in a heroic fantasy. — Echarmion

By the same logic used to oppress you. I would fully understand Comanches raiding settler's homesteads and slaughtering the "innocent" women and children, and inviting reprisals against their own kin. If we wanted a fair fight, we should have got naked, jumped on a horse and took over their land that way, leaving our guns at home. Or we could have armed them up and trained them to fight and kill us on the terms we want to be fought and killed on. That's just fundamentally stupid.

Then suppose that there are mistakes (whatever that means, but just for thought experiment purposes) where some primates get to have something more in the way of self-awareness and intellect. — 3017amen

But maybe there were mistakes where some primates (us for example) got to have something less; where we are missing something, and that is why we don't fit in with all the other creatures, why we are never sated, why we never stop.

I always wondered, if those we perceive to be so wise were really wise (and somehow came upon the secrets of life), why don't they share? If you are sitting on a mountain top in Tibet, all alone, and have figured something out, why not come down and let us all in on the secret? Wouldn't we have world peace and kumbha ya and all that shit?

I then try to conjure up the logical arguments they may have for not sharing. And I get it. And that brings me back to animals. They are just like the wise guy on the hill top. If they know so much, if they are closer to god, if they are tuned in, if they know their place in the order of things, then why then don't they let us in on it? I get why they don't. I'm not as wise as they are, but I get why they don't feel it is incumbent upon them, necessary, or even helpful to try and explain to an idiot, an idiot whose missing the right evolutionary outcomes to comprehend, what the secret of life is.

Animals go about their lives, and if they give us a thought, that thought contains none of the anthropomorphic "feelings" that we would impute to them about us. If they gave us a thought it would be something akin to "Live!" And if and when we ever figure it out, like the guy on the hill top, their simple thought would be "Welcome!"

If they would, they might feel sorry for us, or wish we knew what they knew. But I think they are too busy living, and living in grace. And by living, and living in grace, they are leading by example; they are showing us, they are telling us what we want to know. It's just that we don't know how to listen.

why shouldn't we treat each other like other primates? — 3017amen

We do.

For example, why shouldn't we kill each other for food in order to survive? — 3017amen

We do.

Why should we care? — 3017amen

Because an abundance of food allows us to think we are different, and better.

are those questions reasonable — 3017amen

Yes.

And if they are absurd, why? — 3017amen

They are not absurd.

Whenever an invasive species enters a new territory, it has a honeymoon period where food is not an issue. Indigenous species suffer, of course, and often go extinct, but eventually there is, as Wall Street would call it, "an adjustment" or "correction" and sometimes there is a lot of bouncing until things settle. We, with our self-awareness and intellect, have been pushing the due date out and extending the honeymoon period. We are not on the ground yet so we think we are flying. But that is yet to be determined. We could wake up one day and find the decrease in biodiversity has cut our own throat. We weren't flying after all; we were falling and just hadn't hit the ground yet. That's why some have their eye on outer space.

Anyway, on the micro scale, it's been proven, time and again, that people will indeed kill each other for food. Take the food away and a whole host of modern problems (like depression, boredom, etc.) go away and things get real again.

I think it is important to distinguish between the Palestinian people on the one hand, and the surrounding Arab states on the other hand. Conflating the two in an effort to lay blame for inter-state warfare of the past on the indigenous people is like blaming this or that Native American tribe for the activities of France, England or Spain back in the day. Were some warriors lining up with this side or that? Yes, but remember who’s land it was in the first place.
There were people on that land before the Jews showed up. The Jews claim god gave them the land. BS. They took it.
Palestinians should be in Palestine. Go back to whatever was originally agreed upon after WWII. Conservatives love to let bygones be bygones and start over. Okay. But to make these people the problem of neighboring states, or make them responsible for the actions of neighboring states is BS.

If humans are more valuable, why? — hypericin

They aren't.

How do you justify this assertion? — hypericin

I don't.

Yet, if you maintain the equality of animal and human, then choosing the poodle is therefore perfectly reasonable. — hypericin

I distinguish between domesticated animals and wild animals. Domesticated animals are, to me, extensions of us. So, if we re-word the analysis to say "wolf" instead of "poodle" we arrive at the real dilemma for me.

You use the term "valuable." Value can be subjective, or cultural, or evolutionary, or monetary, or god knows what else. Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to me and mine? Which one presents a more substantial, credible threat to the essential workers I find convenient to rely upon? Clearly, the wolf is more innocuous on both counts. From a market standpoint of supply and demand, with 7.5 billion homo sap, I'd say we are a dime a dozen.

If you consider Scalia's concentric circles of care, then, contrary to what he probably thought, it becomes clear that that which is closer in may actually deserve less care than that which is, at least ostensibly, at first blush, further out. I'm pretty sure a snail darter in some stream some where is better for me and humanity at large than is, say, another bawling brat somewhere getting ready to stick a big, sloppy, rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful footprint into the middle of the Earth's back.

There is an orgy of reason, caring and might, which engenders a concept which justifies "progress" at the expense of all else. This concept is the supreme and overriding sanctity of human life. So sacred has this concept become that in some circles it even reigns over the quality of life itself, nothing withstanding.

The sanctity of human life is shown in many ways, not the least of which is our preoccupation with "safety". Safety for our children who will not know the true essence of adventure; safety for ourselves so we lose our ability to deal with adversity; and safety for others so our insurance rates stay low enough that we can afford to pay for our safety. This preoccupation is epitomized by the statement "Let’s all play safe together".

An objective look at our condition would reveal a constant, overwhelming, unsolicited celebration of humanity. Life has been an unbroken exaltation of the accomplishments of man. It has been nothing but us walking around patting ourselves on the back and raving about the qualities that we supposedly have by choice or character. We give ourselves credit for breathing and existence deserves a medal. The examples are endless. From the "courageous" infant, born with a handicap, a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world, to the resilient community bouncing back from a flood, as if they had a choice. Local T.V. news stations are famous for fostering this crap. Next to the last fleeting seconds of Sunday Morning, and a trip to the wilderness now and then, when do we ever do anything that is not absorbed in "us"? Even adulation for the natural world is usually tainted by anthropomorphism or artistic impression.

In light of these circumstances, it is no wonder that man has had the "progress" that he has experienced. As long as people pay at least superficial heed to the golden rule, and avoid "unsociable conduct", they can do no wrong. If they can couch their actions in terms of their own or another's benefit then it will be acceptable.

Personally, this “Up Up With People” shit gets me nauseous. If we're so great we would not shit in our nest. So yeah, bring on the wolf and let him at the poodle.

Here we go again. — Manuel

Wait, what? I thought Jared Kushner brought peace to the middle east?

Damn! I hate when that happens.

James strikes me as someone having too much integrity to become POTUS in the same manner as Trump. — praxis

It would help had I been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, if I was a liar, and a narcissist. I read some wag who said Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and stupid man's idea of a wise man. That wag about nailed it. I might qualify it by saying "some" but he about nailed it.

I did. You still don't have credibility.

Okay. I don't see a disagreement. I think it's more a question of me getting used to your way of saying things. :grin:

What did Einstein mean by “Spooky Action at a Distance"? — Down The Rabbit Hole

You guys are already past me on this, but I always thought he was saying that A being here and there at the same time is spooky (i.e. BS).

Tim Wood: You confused the hell out of me Tim. ". . . she claimed there were billions of stars in the universe. True . . ."

then "in a 50 lb. sack of rice there are a few grains of rice. True, that is, but at the same time terribly and ignorantly wrong."

What am I supposed to make of that? Claim - true. Claim - true - wrong.

— tim wood

The accountability of democratic governments is strictly higher than that of non-democratic coroporations. — Echarmion

:100: That cannot be overstated.

Government, for all it's failings, is (or should be) accountable to more than the next quarter bottom line fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Some conservatives will actually champion the inefficiency or incompetence of government (Trumpettes) because they believe they will be left alone to pursue their own selfish interests. Then, when government demonstrates inefficiency or incompetence, they say "See!"

Regardless, I'd rather the trains not run on time, than have corporate trains taking us to work on schedule. And there is something insidious about the Plutocracy picking and choosing which government functions they will assume via philanthropy. We end up having to choose sides between the Plutocracy and cartels, whilst leaving government, emasculated, as a punching bag; diverting the anger of the masses away from the Plutocracy and the cartels.

Two lessons I've learned, in contravention of conservative principles:

Government can indeed be the solution;
Trickle down is BS.

(I remember the now-conservative wag, Dennis Miller, once said something to the effect: If 'trickle down' is not fair warning that you are about to get pissed on, I don't know what is.

What have you accomplished in this life? — synthesis

There you go again, trying to change the subject. And lying again. I thought you were going to leave me to wallow in my genius?

his issue does raise passions a bit — Manuel

Is the English that are known for understatement? Are you English? That's got to rank right up there at the tippy top old chap!

After we pounded Germany to a pulp, we should have gone through for a second round, pounded it again, one more time for good measure, and then said: "Here, Jews, is your new state. We also have some nice property in Italy and Japan if you're interested."

Too late now. What I don't like is U.S. support of religious states. They aren't any better than monarchies or dictatorships. If you call out state policy, you get accused of antisemitism. BS. I've got no truck with Jews. But the settlements are hard to parse from our own immoral, illegal invasion and settlement of Indian Land.

The U.S. should use it's purse strings to influence what we deem to be proper behavior. But I'm sure there are strategic concerns in the Dept. of State that are over my head. It just seems we have more than Indian blood on our hands.

I shall try to make due in my world of not knowing anything at all. — synthesis

Ah, Padawan, the first step in learning is to admit you don't know anything. So, you admitted Trump lost. Now you admit you don't know anything at all. We are making progress. Now, admit you lied (if you did, I'm still willing to acknowledge I may have said what you said I said, but you haven't shown me), admit Trump is a loser, and a sore loser, and then you will be on a path to regaining credibility.

Here would be a good start on the Trump thing: "Liz Cheney has bigger balls, more courage, more wisdom, more honor, more integrity, and is a truer conservative relative to Trump. Trump could not carry the corn in her shit. She should lead the Republican Party and bring it back to it's conservative roots."

Yeah, if you could say that, that's the ticket!

Imagine if I said you said that! I would have no credibility.

All of that makes sense.

When I referred to the idea of those who don't want to be lead, I was thinking of the parent child relationship. I enrolled my son in a martial arts class because I knew others make better teachers. I would show him something, trying to teach, and I could see the information go in one eye/ear and right out the other; usually with some obvious derision. Then he'd come home from class all full of excitement and motivation, wanting to share with me the new thing he just learned (which happened to be the exact same thing I had tried to show him earlier). LOL! When sharing this with other parents, old hands, they said "welcome to the club."

This has since gone from teaching to leading. I'm neither. But I do know some parents who have an entirely different (better?) relationship with their kids.

So we come back to "the people" of a nation/state. It reminds me of an old saying: "It's easy to herd buffalo; you just figure out where they want to go, and follow."

:100: Spot on.

I'm no teacher, but I do know the art of teaching has the necessary methodologies, starting with pre-school/kindergarten on up.

But like you said, good little producers and consumers are the goal.

I honestly think STEM, and better STEM, STEM that would put the Chinese and Indians in third place, would be that STEM which is approached from a position of genuine intellectual curiosity that itself springs from the Liberal Arts. I think the greatest minds of the Enlightenment were first steeped in reading, the languages (Greek, Latin), philosophy, history, etc. and then, when the "child mind" was nurtured, biology, math, etc. all were pursued with zeal.

We are resting on our laurels. We reward the wrong things.

Have you never lied? Are you somewhere above the rest of humanity? — synthesis

You got called out on it at the time, when it was fresh. Rather than admitting you put something I allegedly said, in quotes over my name, or showing me where I said it, you just tried the typical conservative dodge of hoping time would make it go away.

While you did admit Trump lost (that was like pulling teeth, and you still won't acknowledge he's a loser and a sore loser), I was going to get back to spanking you on the merits. But then you pulled that quotation thing.

Now you are pulling another conservative card called "whataboutism." Yeah, I've lied, but not to you (so you don't have standing) and when I have lied, I admitted it and expressed regret to those who had standing.

I suspect your next move will be something like "Well, if I lied, I'm sorry, now can we move on?" BS. There is an element of knowing involved here. Confess your sins, my son. It will be cathartic! Then we can move on. It's hard to earn credibility, easy to lose it, and even harder to get it back. When you are in a hole, first stop digging.

And Fabians, of course, are among the first to applaud the advances of the nanny state. — Apollodorus

It's an open conspiracy and everyone, everyone (me included) is in on it. Even those who would pretend to be the adults in the room.