Dinesh D’Souza on socialism:

_{kairosfocus
November 21, 2021

Defending our Civilization, Geo-strategic issues, Lessons of History, rhetoric

1}_{Categories
Defending our Civilization
Geo-strategic issues
Lessons of History
rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Let us watch:

Food for thought. END

PS: As it seems necessary here is the historically anchored political spectrum with Overton Window:

And, here is what we need to know on culture/colour revolution pushes

Comments

JS, you continue to twist language (cf 72 above, where your "others continue to discuss the issues" is in reality, continue to distract, distort and polarise in the teeth of a matter of first importance given Barna survey results on Millennials), showing the consequences of rejecting first duties of responsible reason. And this too is yet another distraction in the face of the sobering issue of the realities of socialism headlined by the ghosts of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million victims. Beyond a point, such a pattern of toxic needless distraction sends its own message on the main subject. It is obvious the consistent realities of socialism are patently indefensible but inveterate objectors are here to frustrate serious discussion regardless of significance of the issue. That speaks volumes on the consequences of turning backs on first duties of responsible reason, as you have explicitly done. In turn, as the pupil becomes as the teacher, it inadvertently reveals what has gone wrong with academic, education, media, policy and opinion leadership that led to the result Barna headlined. KFkairosfocus_{November 26, 2021
November
11
Nov
26
26
2021
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

As to trying to project improper cancellation, I have pointed out as thread owner that there is a focal topic of great significance and that your implication shut up and let us drag off into toxic side tracks was and is out of order.
So, answering a simple question with 12 words is justification for this threat of cancellation? Very telling.Joe Schooner_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Seversky: But, yes, I admit the truth. Do you even know what truth is?
Truth is the accurate description of reality. But, not according to your weltanschauung, which tells us that truth (and admitting the truth) is brain chemistry. And, like everything else, this brain chemistry is the inescapable consequence of things outside your control——laws of nature & events long before you were born.Origenes_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Querius,
The 2D umbra of a 3D cylinder of height = diameter can be a circle or a square depending on the direction of a distant light. This means our perception depends entirely on our perspective (presuppositions), and that Reality (which transcends “objective” and “subjective”) can be surprisingly difficult to understand!
Which of course fails to demonstrate that one and the same entity under same circumstances is a circle and simultaneously a square. All you have is that one cross section may be a square and another a circle. Just today I was looking at a drinking glass that is a square [with rounded corners] at bottom and circular at top, similar to how some waste paper baskets play off the same theme. That said, yes reality can be difficult to understand especially given how we may have conceptual distortions. The Sci Fi work, Flatland, explored that many years ago. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Seversky, truth, from Ari, Metaphysics 1011b, says of what is that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. That is, accurate description of reality. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

ET, there is no further need to feed side tracks. MNY et al, I hope enough is on the table to open up reconsideration of the principle that warrant is key to guiding prudent evaluation of knowledge claims and decisions, where obviously the attempted redefinition of socialism is a failed side track. JS, The ghosts of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million victims wish to have a word with you, in hope you would open yourself to reason on the focal issue. As to trying to project improper cancellation, I have pointed out as thread owner that there is a focal topic of great significance and that your implication shut up and let us drag off into toxic side tracks was and is out of order. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

JVL:
How would you decide if climate change is happening because of human interventions?
Science has already shown us it cannot be CO2. So if it is us it is with the rise in population from 1 billion at the turn of the 19th century to the over 7 billion today.
How would you decide if same-sex marriage should be made legal?
By answering the question "can same sex partners procreate with their chosen mate?"ET_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

seversky:
I wonder when climate-change deniers might concede there is a problem. When the Maldives disappear beneath the waves? Or Florida?
Totally clueless. The only thing being denied is the lying claim that CO2 is to blame for any climate change. The reality is our atmosphere needs MORE CO2 so that agriculture will flourish.ET_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Jerry/75
Question: do you ever admit the truth?
An ironic question from an admitted Mad Man given that the advertising industry has little interest in the truth. But, yes, I admit the truth. Do you even know what truth is?Seversky_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

JS, you would find it advisable to pay heed to the just above to JVL, and you may wish to also ponder on thread ownership
Yes, cancel culture is a concern for everyone.Joe Schooner_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

The existence of any material thing is a matter of fact. Materialism therefore validates the concept of fact.
You are incredibly naive to think that idealism (emotion) plays no role for the materialist. Do I really have to point out the obvious? "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
If the concept of choice is redefined in terms of as like a chesscomputer calculating a move, then there is obviously no role for emotion in that concept of choice. Therefore emotion is thrown out.
Except for the ignorant, no one redefines a choice in computer terms. So you are arguing a straw man.
And emotion is solely agency of choices, so if you throw out emotion from the concept of choice, then you have thrown out all emotions.
Obviously, choices are not only based on emotions. And no, a person cannot throw out "all emotions". Nobody can. If you are torn between wanting to eat cookies and not wanting to become fat, and you make a choice one way or the other, than either 'wanting to eat cookies' or 'not wanting to become fat' is "thrown out". However, both are emotions, so not "all emotions" are thrown out.
And that is obviously what is happening under the psychological pressure for people to do their best, that the meaning of the concept of choice is corrupted and degenerates into this kind of calculation as like a chesscomputer.
Nonsense. Ppl are manipulated into doing things, because they want to belong, because they want appreciation by a perceived authority. Obviously these are all emotions.
And it is proven that this is what happens, because otherwise there would not be any materialists. Because in the correct definition of making a choice, the agency of the choice is subjective and spiritual, and not material and objective. .
Nonsense. People are materialists for all sorts of emotional reasons. Do you really think that they believe this materialism nonsense because they are "objective" and have "thrown out" all emotions? If so, read the Nagel quote again.Origenes_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

@Origenes The existence of any material thing is a matter of fact. Materialism therefore validates the concept of fact. As distinct from the spiritual, which validates the concept of opinion. And creationism, which incorporates both spiritual and material, which therefore validates both opinion and fact. If the concept of choice is redefined in terms of as like a chesscomputer calculating a move, then there is obviously no role for emotion in that concept of choice. Therefore emotion is thrown out. And emotion is solely agency of choices, so if you throw out emotion from the concept of choice, then you have thrown out all emotions. And that is obviously what is happening under the psychological pressure for people to do their best, that the meaning of the concept of choice is corrupted and degenerates into this kind of calculation as like a chesscomputer. And if you ask people how making a choice works, then you will get answers in terms of figuring out the best, which is the wrong fundamental definition of making a choice. Also in dictionaries, making a choice is defined in terms of figuring out the best option. And it is proven that this is what happens, because otherwise there would not be any materialists. Because in the correct definition of making a choice, the agency of the choice is subjective and spiritual, and not material and objective.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu
... materialism solely validates objectivity, facts.
You keep saying that, but you are sadly mistaken. Materialism ignores the facts.
And in such goaldirected ideas of choosing in terms of what is best, emotions are ignored, because they have no place in the logic of it.
*Newsflash*: not all emotions point into the same direction. When some emotions are not satisfied by a choice but others are, then it is inaccurate to say, as you do, that emotions "are ignored" or "thrown out".Origenes_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

@Origenes The proper idea of emotions is thrown out, in redefining the fundamental meaning of making a choice, in terms of figuring out the best option. I am not a fool for saying emotions are thrown out, you are the fool for not reading for comprehension. And in such goaldirected ideas of choosing in terms of what is best, emotions are ignored, because they have no place in the logic of it. And socialists are generally materialists, and materialism solely validates objectivity, facts. You obviously don't think about anything, and all what you say is totally worthless because of it. There is just no point in replying to your nonsense. These kinds of assertive statements that you make about emotions and informed decisons, are pure fantasy. You do not investigate how the logic works in common discourse, you just fantasize how things work, and then you assert your fantasies, and then supposedly I have to deal with your total and utter nonsense with respect. You are not allowed to fantasize definitions of how subjectivity and objectivity work. All what is on the side of what makes a choice, is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. The worth of a decison is in the agency of the decision, and not in values or whatever. If a decision is made out of courage, or love, then that's worthwhile.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu
When kids are very young, then generally kids are more spontaneous. And then they would have the correct fundamental understanding of choice still, in terms of spontaneity.
Being determined by one’s emotions, like kids often are, unthinking, has not to with (informed) choice. A decision has value in as much as it is an informed decision.
if you explain choice like how a computer does it ...
Computers do not make choices, instead they execute algorithms ; this should be common knowledge.
… then you have thrown out your emotions. Throwing out emotions, is a very bad idea.
No one can “throw out” his emotions. You seem to think that this is possible. Why is that?
They [socialists] don’t have a mature emotional life, because they are obsessed with objectivity, and clueless about subjectivity.
Socialists are “obsessed with objectivity”? Not at all. Socialists are obsessed with protecting their subjectively preferred narrative.Origenes_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

@JVL It just depends, society is not automatically right, neither am I automatically right. I propose an article zero is introduced into the constitution of any country, which defines basic terms like choice, opinion and fact. That would get rid of socialism, and get rid of most homosexuality, because all of that is based on being clueless about subjectivity, emotions.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

JVL Are you willing to be on the ‘losing’ side of that argument?
:))) What in the world...Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

JVl et al, you are posing a toxic distractor in the face of the ghosts of 100 million victims. I gavel the distraction as of no utility on the main question and given attitudes on display through posing such distractors, something that would come to no good result. We duly draw the conclusion that there is nothing substantial from the usual circles of objectors in the face of the 100 million voices of ghosts. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Seversky, note your rhetorically loaded usage, "climate change . . ." where by definition climate is a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather and by definition changes, so the debate so many wish to foreclose by locking out serious questions is sources of trends, linear or quasi-linear, quasi cyclical etc with stabilising feedback components, then headaches over modelling and simulation etc. Hence the fallacy of false, claimed settled consensus:
We commit the settled-question fallacy when we behave as if there is broad-based consensus on answers to important and controversial questions that aren’t actually settled. Often this comes up when there is evidence available to support competing answers to a question, or when a claim is nearly impossible to prove or disprove. A particularly pernicious form of the settled-question fallacy appears when one side of the political spectrum asserts that a question is no longer up for debate.
This is one of the focal issues we need to ponder, and through that pondering, see why I put on the table the prudential policy principle that "[we] should undertake no policy initiatives that do not make sense on other far firmer grounds." That is something I have repeatedly put in relevant RW policy analyses for fairly obvious good reason. Where, of course, your resort to "deniers" is a nasty little rhetorical echo of holocaust denialism. So, kindly drop that sort of invidious suggestion. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu: in my judgement homosexuality is generally superficial, and related to mental illness, while heterosexuality is worthwhile, especially in relation to raising children, and that is why samesex marrigage should not be allowed. As a society a decision has to be made in order to determine what will and won't be protected by law and for support funds. Are you willing to be on the 'losing' side of that argument?JVL_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

JS, you would find it advisable to pay heed to the just above to JVL, and you may wish to also ponder on thread ownership. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

JVL, again, kindly show me a square circle. Obviously you cannot, thereby showing that you understand basics of logic of being, including that an actual thing or state of affairs A is such in light of its core distinct compossible characteristics. Where, a proposed circle square CS is such that suggested characteristics are not compossible so it cannot be in any possible world. So while we can form words and representations, they have no power to poof into existence what is impossible of actualisation due to contradictions of required characteristics. Words only get you so far. So, we know we can form words that represent non being, and we may even use power to impose CS under colour of law, even with penalties and stigmatisation of those who point out the nakedness of the Emperor. We can induce many to lie against sound conscience and say that there are CS'es. All, to no avail in reality save to wreak havoc. So, we need to do some rethinking about what we are doing and where it will end. That starts with the unwelcome realities as opposed to imagined utopias of socialism, and it holds for your latest red herring distractors. This thread is about where such myth making can take us, in the name of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million murdered victims, not to mention a lot of needless waste, impoverishment, frustration and general oppression. Where, that you pose distractors in the face of so soberingly serious a subject with high relevance, speaks telling volumes about you. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

JVL @76, As a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ, my mission is NOT to change or restrict anyone's immoral behavior, whether it's homosexual, heterosexual, or other sin. The 2D umbra of a 3D cylinder of height = diameter can be a circle or a square depending on the direction of a distant light. This means our perception depends entirely on our perspective (presuppositions), and that Reality (which transcends "objective" and "subjective") can be surprisingly difficult to understand! Note: Occasionally, I also find myself blocked from commenting--I think it's an intermittent problem unrelated to anything that I post. -QQuerius_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

JVL Please explain to me, as a loving, caring, Christian, why it is that you can’t even use the word homosexual? What is it that you are so afraid of?
:) Looks like someone likes the smell of turd and is confused why there are people that find it repulsive.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Kindly, show me a square circle. Please explain to me, as a loving, caring, Christian, why it is that you can't even use the word homosexual? What is it that you are so afraid of? And I have to apologise to many of you here: I find that many times I am blocked from commenting. I get a '503' error which says something about the site is blocking me. So, sometimes, when I don't respond it's because I'm not allowed to. If you think that's wrong then you should talk to the site administrators.JVL_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

When the Maldives disappear beneath the waves? Or Florida?
When Obama’s beach house disappears or the Statue of Liberty? There are photos of each from the beginning. Question: do you ever admit the truth?jerry_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

I wonder when climate-change deniers might concede there is a problem. When the Maldives disappear beneath the waves? Or Florida?Seversky_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

@JVL If climate change is caused by human intervention, is a factual issue, and factual issues are not chosen, they are forced by the evidence. If samesex marriage should be legal. One can feel that it is disgusting, and that would be one reason for not allowing it. And one can feel it's loving, and that would be a reason for allowing it. And so many judgements can be made, and in my judgement homosexuality is generally superficial, and related to mental illness, while heterosexuality is worthwhile, especially in relation to raising children, and that is why samesex marrigage should not be allowed.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

… there is utterly no reason to pay more attention to your fulminations than the burping of a cow.
There is nothing stopping you from heeding your own advice while others continue to discuss the issues.Joe Schooner_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

JS, there is a fallacy of the false consensus narrative, often travelling with no true Englishman ans appeal to the stick. As for climate, by definition, a 30 - 33 year moving average so it is always changing, and it shows quasi-periodic cycles of varying epoch, we should be a lot less confident in fairly crude models and simulations of a known chaotic system and should undertake no policy initiatives that do not make sense on other far firmer grounds. Finally, kindly join JVL in the square circle hunt. Then, come back to us on the law of identity, that A is A i/l/o its core characteristics vs the bewitching power of word magic in a general policy and legal nihilism, will to power age that imagines might and manipulation make "right" etc. Oh, I forget, you already discredited responsible rationality and its government by first duties starting with truth, right reason and warrant so there is utterly no reason to pay more attention to your fulminations than the burping of a cow. My bad. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2021
November
11
Nov
25
25
2021
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply