Basic civics according to Mussolini. — NOS4A2

I didn't read that because I don't take my definitions or leadership from fascists. Here's something you could try outside your fascist bubble:

"Examples of civic responsibility include voting in elections, signing up for the military, volunteering in the community, participating in government politics, and holding public office." Here's a link: https://study.com/academy/lesson/civic-duty-definition-examples.html Go educate yourself.

Small Pox, Chicken Pox, and a bunch of other viruses were eradicated by civic mindedness.

P.S. Every single solitary thing that you love or like, and which you currently enjoy (beyond the non-human natural environment), was brought to you by the left, by society, by civic minded people. Was greed part of it? Yes, but greed was harnessed and put to work by us to deliver what you enjoy. Get used to it. Don't be ungrateful. Don't be a parasite.

You tried, I guess, but the teaching is so authoritarian and statist that I cannot help to reject it. The parallels between your beliefs and that of fascism are frighteningly similar, I’m afraid, that my revulsion is visceral. So it goes, I guess. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I guess basic civics is authoritarian and statist and fascist. So it goes.

But lockdowns, limitations on travel, gatherings, industry, trade, have and are occurring worldwide. All I can say is that it is weird that you pretend they don’t exist, even as an exercise in casuistry. — NOS4A2

I tried to teach you about privileges vs. rights. That was the driving example. You don't have any rights to access privilege. None. So get over your sense of entitlement. Thus, there is no state limitation of rights. Shoes, shirt, service, etc.

As to world-wide, outside my little U.S., again, do those with more stringent limitations have lower or higher rates of infection/hospitalization/death? And why? Because of state failure to be strict enough? Because if that is the case, then you have not been held down and vaxxed, or locked up. And besides, how would any of that matter as long as people who think like you are left to spread their disease all over hell and gone?

Also remember what I taught you: Freedom isn't free. People have to pay for it. Doctors, nurses, essential workers, your fellow citizens, stepping up and fighting a virus. While some kids resist. Oh, what rebels! :roll:

As a side note of curiosity, just how involved in human rights to freedom are you, when it comes to these foreign lands on non-Covid issues? I'll be you were a real trooper for freedom in Xland back in the day. :roll:

How are compulsory vaccinations, lockdowns, limitations on travel, gatherings, not state control? — NOS4A2

They are,if there were any. But you don't have to get vaxxed, you don't have to stay home, you can still gather. That is why we haven't defeated Covid. DOH!

I remember early on when the scientists said that it won't do any good if the first world beats this thing without vaxxing the third world. As long as antivaxxers, antimaskers, antidistancers are still out and about, it will continue to spread and morph. So we ask you nicely and you refuse. Then you whine when Austria, et al, start doing what you say is happening but which is not (yet).

So, if and when your dystopian state nightmare actually does come into existence, you will have brought it on yourself. So far though, the state is still just asking.

Are you vaccinated? — john27

If he's anything like every single person who works at Fox News, or Donald Trump, then I'm sure he's vaxxed.

Earlier I was speaking about the compulsory vaccination in Austria. — NOS4A2

Apparently that has not happened yet. It was just one of your parade of horribles that I warned you about. That is what could happen if people don't step up. It's like a draft. If you won't help us fight an enemy virus, we may (but have not yet) make you. Coming to a theater near you if you don't step up.

Your evidence for state control not existing is to list evidence of state control. Brilliant. — NOS4A2

The evidence of state control does not yet exist. Do you even see how you are doing this to yourself? :rofl:

I don’t see it because you cannot show it. — NOS4A2

I've shown it but you cannot see.

You’ve taught nothing. — NOS4A2

I have taught but you have not learned.

You’ve only asserted without evidence. — NOS4A2

This thread is full of evidence.

Is compulsory vaccination not state control? — NOS4A2

Compulsory vaccination is when the state tracks you down, hog ties you, or runs you through a squeeze chute and vaccinates you. Not when someone puts up a sign that says "No shoes, no shirts, no service." Remember when I taught you about your hyperbole? No? Didn't think so. Oh, wait, I forgot about the Karen Amendment, allowing you to go shirtless and shoeless while still demanding service. Sorry.

Is the limitations on travel and gathering not state control? — NOS4A2

No, it is not. There is, at least in the U.S., a Constitutional Right to travel. But you may have to walk if you don't want to get a driver's license and if you want to use our roads. See the difference? No? I didn't think so.

Is the mandates and lockdowns not state control? — NOS4A2

No. They are not. They are the state depriving you of access to state services. You can carry on in your libertarian Eden. You just can't avail yourself of our stuff.

Continue your lessons. — NOS4A2

Seems rather futile, but if you insist.

P.S. Have you provided us with an analysis of infection/hospitalization/death rate comparisons between jurisdictions? I know the U.S. is one of the most lenient countries, but we've had over 750k deaths. Who spun up the variants? The state?

↪john27

Your claim that the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already if there was censorship and state control is nonsense. Not only is it counterfactual, but manifestly untrue. States worldwide have shut down entire industries, travel, religion, and most gatherings, and the pandemic continues. — NOS4A2

You said:

All this science on your side and look how well you’ve done. Mass death, the denial of fundamental liberties, medical discrimination, huge transfers of wealth, police states, rampant authoritarianism. Defenders of freedom? More like defenders of regimented societies, segregation, state control, censorship.
— NOS4A2

If it was a true example of state control and censorship, the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already... — john27

I know you don't see how you just stuck your foot in your mouth, but I'm sure everyone else does. We have taught you two things: 1. The state control that you fear does not exist; 2. Even if it did, Covid would overcome it with the aiding, comforting and abetting of people who agree with you. But you have not learned. That inability to learn lessons is precisely why science and the state has not defeated Covid.

Anyone have any idea whether global warming/climate change and COVID-19 are related? — TheMadFool

Human population growth.

Speaking generally (allow me to repeat that word for those who might have missed it) speaking generally, women are capable of great humility. Unfortunately, the humble are also subject to humiliation. Humility is a sign of strength. Those who humiliate might mistake the humble for the humbled. The former can withstand humiliation, but they should not be called upon to do so. It is incumbent upon good men to prevent bad men from humiliating women.

But note: As women begin to flex (in the U.S., if not in Afghanistan), they should keep in mind that there is likewise a pecking order among men. There are a few moderating factors: civics, the gun, and money. But absent these, a big man, in his prime can treat other men the way some women feel men treat them. So it's not always a viable argument for a women to say to a man "You don't know what it's like!" He might know very well what it is like.

To avoid the gun and money (while not abandoning them), we need to focus on civics. We should honor humility and defend the humble. To the extent we honor the proud and refrain from shooting them, we should exalt those who protect the humble from bullies. Let the proud tease and rough-house with each other; and in the process teach each other civics.

This applies to women and men.

P.S. This is not New Consciousness & Changing Responsibility. This is old.

The only way to achieve the good (from your point of view) is a strong authoritarian state, one that is able to resist the common will. — frank

:100: Exactly. A state that fails to control should be celebrated for failing to control; unless one champions success in state control. An alternative is for the state to channel the common will and ask politely. But some see that as a sign of weakness and tell the state to fuck off. Tough guys gotta flex. :roll:

I’ve already stated my problems with state control. Its tendency to fail is just another problem with state control. — NOS4A2

So far, all the state has been doing is asking. So, if as you say, the state tendency to fail is a problem, then you should distance, mask, vax, boost, and encourage others to do likewise. Otherwise, the state may have to succeed where you have failed. You wouldn't like that. The state fails because a minority of petulant, obstinate people won't do as they are asked. It would certainly add a gleam to the eye of those cowboys who otherwise really wouldn't have one.

That’s just false. The failure of state control is no refutation of the existence of state control. — NOS4A2

If state control is a failure, then what the hell are you whining about? You aren't even in prison, and yet you complain as if the Covid response is a dystopian hellscape of lock-downs; and cowboys roping, throwing, and branding with the vax. The mask police are out to get you! :rofl: All your misuse of Scotsman, and trying to hide your own inconsistent statements, with false accusations in Latin, are not going to get you out of the hole you keep digging.

I already taught you that if the state has failed, it's because of those who refuse to distance, mask, vax and boost. The fact that state has NOT forced you to do anything is proof there is no state control, failed or otherwise. DOH!

I never said that. No, I’m speaking of the one you fell for. — NOS4A2

I didn't fall for anything, least of all the hole you keep digging for yourself. In response to john27, you said:

↪john27

If it was a true example of state control and censorship, the Covid-19 outbreak would be over already...

Countless prisons have had massive outbreaks, so I’m not sure a “true example of state control” would help any. — NOS4A2

I refuted your example of state control (you know, the ones you keep complaining about as an infringement of your freedom), true or otherwise, by showing the state has been unable to control Covid due to those who fail to mask, distance, vax and boost.

The trick to refuting my examples of state control is to assert that it is not true state control. — NOS4A2

You mean like you did when you said the state prisons don't even count as state control?

Countless prisons have had massive outbreaks, so I’m not sure a “true example of state control” would help any. — NOS4A2

Emphasis added. Meaning all the other hyperbolic examples are not true examples of state control. They're just examples of rhetorical whining about a non-issue ginned up by Faux News, et al.

Suppose when you were in school you had trouble learning to read. Would it be unfair to the better students if you received tutoring? — frank

It is only fair if the child who wants or needs the tutoring is required to pay for it. Otherwise, how are they going to learn about bootstrapping self-sufficiency? If their parents or society pay for it, then the kid is going to grow up as a self-entitled little communist socialist.

I'm sure that if the parents, or others who care actually care, they can find a position in a factory or somewhere the indentured obligation can be worked off.

Treating everyone the same isn't fair — frank

Treating people differently isn’t fair. — NOS4A2

Two ships, passing in the night.

That means they have better access to justice. — frank

They also have better access to injustice. :wink:

I’m not sure how “I see nothing political in it” means “political distinctions don’t exist”, but doublethink is rife in clownworld. — NOS4A2

Of course you are not sure. You don't see anything political in right and left wing politicians having brought fascism upon us. That's okay. We're used to it.

That’s a lie. I never denied political distinctions didn’t exist. — NOS4A2

You said:

I see nothing political in it. — NOS4A2

Then you said:

Reactionary right and left wing politicians have brought upon us this Covid fascism. — NOS4A2

I'll just let the record speak for itself.

your attempt to make it a left vs. right thing is stupid. — NOS4A2

It's not stupid. It is a political thing. It's just that my politicians have science and you're do not.

Your help is not required. Your political distinctions are meaningless here, but you cannot help to evoke them, for whatever reason. I’m not sure how stating that fact is risible. — NOS4A2

You just made no sense. Congratulations. :rofl:

"Required" has nothing to do with it. My political distinctions are the same ones you made, yet denied to exist. I evoked them to agree with your regarding that which you said existed after denying that they did. I did it to try and educate you. What you said was indeed funny. Stating that you stated it is not. Never said it was.

Huh? First you say:

I see nothing political in it. — NOS4A2

Then you say:

Reactionary right and left wing politicians have brought upon us this Covid fascism. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Anyway, let me help you:

Covid 19 brought upon us this Covid 19. Some people decided to give aid and comfort to a virus. There’s no escape into blame-games for this one. You’re either for science and freedom and fundamental human rights or you’re for the Covid virus, illness and death and Faux News. Which is it?

I wrote sometime ago: "There is X and there is Y, and the simple fact that neither one matters itself does not matter, so they proceed apace as if they did, and that is all that matters."

If nothing matters, then that does not matter. Fork that bronc and ride!

legal jurisdiction over the land for the purposes of civil and criminal law. — T Clark

It's beyond me. On the issue of jurisdiction, I've never been up on that. It does seem convoluted, from what I've seen. Indians on res, but still have U.S. Bill of Rights? Indians off res subject to state/local law. Whites on res are not subject to res jurisdiction. Hunting and fishing treaty rights off res. It's all a mess. But I do remember a prof talking about "quasi-sovereignty," so I asked "Is that like limited infinity?"

All this science on your side and look how well you’ve done. Mass death, the denial of fundamental liberties, medical discrimination, huge transfers of wealth, police states, rampant authoritarianism. Defenders of freedom? More like defenders of regimented societies, segregation, state control, censorship. — NOS4A2

Yeah, it's amazing how emasculated science and civics can be, especially when faced by selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, greedy individuals who insist on their freedoms at everyone else's expense. It's kind of like the mask/distance/boost/vax thing: Imagine where we'd be as a society if more people stood up and fought for freedom, instead of sitting around with the "I got mine" or the "I hope to get some so I'll suck the dick of those who took theirs" attitudes.

Oh well, history is one long proof of the irrefutable fact that the left has to drag the right, kicking and screaming, into a future they will then love and try to hang on to as the march of progress continues against their will. It's that slow, gentle arc of history.

That's why I was shocked by the Oklahoma ruling. It seemed so radical, far-reaching. — T Clark

Did the court rule they could have the land, or just some money? The former would be radical and far-reaching. The latter would be more of the same. Beads and trinkets. Guilt loves money. It's so easy because you don't have to do the right thing while pretending you have. It's a capitalist thing.

Perhaps those that require a politician to tell them how to protect themselves are the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

Meh. Your side requires a politician to tell you how to protect yourself; it's just a different politician. My politicians listen to science. Your politicians just hate my politicians; that's all they are running with because they have no science on their side.

As usual, those who stepped up and answered the call are the defenders of freedom. The rest sit back and demand it. The former know that that freedom isn't free. The latter haven't figured that out yet. They don't have to figure it out because, as usual, someone else is carrying their freight for them. They are freeloaders, not freedom lovers.

Back in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma was on land that belongs to the Muscogee tribe. Have you heard anything about how that is working out? — T Clark

I have not. All my understanding is very dated. A lot of Indians had no treaty or, it could be argued, they breached first. But there is a lot out there that is all on us.

Vaxxed, masked, boostered, locked-down…the pandemic continues. — NOS4A2

It continues because not vaxxed, not masked, not boostered, not locked-down. It would be long-gone if only masked and distanced. But no. Too many freedom-lovers. :roll:

I can't imagine how much worse it would have been (and probably will be) if no one vaxxed, no one masked, no one boosted, no one distanced.

As I remember it, "specific performance" is a common law legal principle in equity. It requires that you have parties. One party could be an Indian Tribe. The other party could be the Federal Government. But the court is enforcing an agreement. So there had to have been an agreement (offer, acceptance, consideration). The parties must be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The court figures out what the agreement was, and then enforces the agreement. The court can award damages (i.e. money, like the U.S. Supreme Court did in a case the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians). But the Indians rejected that money. They want the land, as specified (specific) in the treaty. Perform ; do what you said you would do.

The U.S. has a long history of 1. Screwing Indians; and 2. Buying it's way out of it, when it's own courts find it has screwed the Indians.

By going to court in the first place, Indians have subjected (subordinated) themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the other party. That is questionable in the first place. Should not an international court, sitting as an independent arbiter, hear the case, under international law, between sovereign nations? I say yes, but, like Indians, I don't matter. It's all a charade designed to fuck Indians.

If one understands war, and might-makes-right, then it is easier to live with. So, the U.S. won, Indians lost, and they are lucky to get what the U.S. courts give them. But there is a problem: Forget the Indians for a minute. The U.S.'s own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. So the U.S. is violating it's own laws when it fails to abide it's own word. The U.S. is not only fucking the Indians then; it is fucking it's own citizens and itself.

The U.S. might argue "pacta sunt servanda, rebus sic stantibus" which is an international law principle that "treaties shall be obeyed; so long as things remain the same." The U.S. would argue that things have changed. But there is also a principle that a party to an agreement can't purposefully change things to get out of an obligation. If the Indians, or time, or a third party had caused the change, maybe. But the U.S. damned the rivers, stopped the grass from growing, blah blah blah. So it can't, in equity or law, get out of it's obligations.

Thus, if money is to be paid, pay it as a Fifth Amendment "takings" to all the trespassers who have made a living on, and invested in the Indian lands, and then kick them out and let them start over somewhere else. In other words, don't try to buy your way out by giving chump change to the Indians. Buy your way out by giving chump change to your citizen trespassers who relied upon your failure to keep them out, per the treaty. It's a U.S. thing. Not an Indian thing. If the U.S. stood up, it could then look at Israel with cleaner hands.

like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? — Harry Hindu

No one appointed them as the 4th estate gate-keepers. They must earn credibility before truth will spend time with them. Truth will need to vet the sincerity of curiosity before deigning to satisfy it. One way to do that would be: 1. Contract 100% editorial control over the work-product generated as a result of interaction. That will not happen because work-product is ratings- and/or ego-driven. 2. Submit questions in writing and expect responses in kind.

Since you mentioned "debate" then parties must be willing to agree to a moderator and conditions so the exchange does not devolve into a Maher, Rogan, Rubin ratings-driven circus where the truth is lost on "gotcha" and "whataboutism" and other fallacy-driven, ratings-driven, ego-driven children's games.

It is not the truth which is afraid of falsehood that we are talking about here. Refusal to subject oneself to those you would set up as gatekeepers, is not a refusal of truth to engage falsehood. AOC is a person, not the truth. Maher is a person, not the truth.

I did not know AOC had refused to subject herself to Maher but now that you told me, she just jumped another notch in my estimation.

And the fact that they are unwilling to expose their ideas to criticism. — Harry Hindu

That is simply untrue. AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al, have all had their ideas subjected to criticism. The question is, do their counterparts on the other side have any ideas to subject to criticism? Donald Trump? Gosar? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Lauren Boebert? Matt Gaetz?

Both sides have taken indefensible positions on many issues, which is why we won't ever see a real debate between them and someone isn't part of their choir. — Harry Hindu

We won't know if their positions are indefensible if we don't research the defenses. It is incumbent upon those who want to know what those defenses are, to do a little reading, and not rely upon carnival barkers in the press to elicit the truth, or to do their thinking for them. This takes analytic thinking skills. Not just critical thinking skills. It takes the latter too, but you don't get to be critical and taken seriously unless you've done the analysis first.

. This idea that one is righteous and the other is to be demonized just exposes ones own biases. — Harry Hindu

Do some analysis. The truth has a liberal bias that should be exposed. There is nothing more fundamentally stupid than to think that 50/50 is righteous, or that it is not itself a demon. But it sure is good for ratings. Heaven forbid the truth should win. If it did, we might have to progress to another subject.

What of the Native Americans renewing their fight to have treaties respected and where their land can not be returned to have fair compensation for that? What of the Blacks pointing out how housing discrimination has hurt them for generations bleeding into wanting acknowledgement of the wrongs done to them, and White people feeling very threatened by what could be the end of their domination? — Athena

Sounds good to me. But if it's in a treaty, then don't fall for the "fair compensation" BS. Just give them back the land. It's called "specific performance" in equity. If we want to give money to those who "improved" the land, then pay them, as they pack their trash and get the hell out.

Curious, why do you say they are better? — Athena

Well, like I said, every group has there 10%, but in general:

I think the old paradigm was more patriarchal and as women gain power we become more matriarchal. That is more focused on feelings and children and the welfare of women. I remember when women did not exist except as extensions of men. Then one day I read a New Woman magazine there was the word "she" where always before there had been only the word "he". I don't know if women have changed, but rather our environment has changed in a huge way!

I am not sure all the consequences of that change will be good? Wanting our children to be as college students and competing against each other for their place is society, may have a very bad effect. Children need an atmosphere of play to explore who they are and have good feelings with their peers which become good feelings about who they are. I am afraid too many children are denied this childhood safety and end up mass murderers or struggling with emotional demons of unworthiness and helplessness? — Athena

I'm man enough to turn over the reigns and step back. It's time for a change, as far as I'm concerned. Good luck. Oh, and please don't do to us what we did to you. Although I can understand it if you do. And one other thing: Keep an eye on the Lauren Boeberts, Marjorie Taylor Greens and Sarah Palins of the world.

Surely its value is mostly in the experience of life — TiredThinker

Experience, yes. Especially the experience of being human, male, straight, and white.

P.S. Add value for being American and Republican.

vote Democratic. — T Clark

:up: Agreed.

What's this? :confused: — Caldwell

That's the answer you deserve. :cool:

That's the answer you deserve. :cool: — Caldwell

:up:

Censure still has zero effect. — NOS4A2

We're talking about it. So there's that.

P.S. As a little background, I'm always giving NOS shit about a lack of alternatives. We just have to suck it up whether we like it or not. But I wanted to dive a little deeper and see if there is a way to accommodate those who don't want to play. Especially if the game being played is inimical to wellbeing.