Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

An alternate home for the community from the legacy Fourth Turning Forum
jdcpapa
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: What does one do with conflicting values?

Post by jdcpapa »

Bob Butler wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 5:20 pm
On the last few entries I have been going back and forth on a couple of issues, the Jan 6 Committee and abortion. They will stand as examples of two issues where the people involved have different world views. Should one culture try to impose its values on another even when there seems no way the two will agree? Is the committee unbalance due to a Democratic action, or did the Republicans refuse to cooperate? We can keep going back and forth on either, but people seldom change values.
The "committee unbalance" is due to the Republicans refusal to cooperate.

spottybrowncow
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Abortion as a universal value?

Post by spottybrowncow »

Bob Butler wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:38 am
Clueless and beyond hope could be read as they have a different worldview, values, culture.

DIFFERENT(???) worldview, values, culture?
How about WORTHLESS worldview, values, culture.
Conflating babies able to survive outside of the womb with "meat" isn't an alternative worldview, it's either profound ignorance or mental illness (you choose).
Your moral relativism is an absolutely paradigm example of why leftism is a mental disorder.
Western values enabled the United States to become the most powerful country the world has ever known. Without Western values, the United States will continue to sink into mediocrity, and whatever replaces it will be a lesser entity, even if it exerts the totalitarian control you crave upon its populace.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Western Values

Post by Bob Butler »

spottybrowncow wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:54 pm
Western values enabled the United States to become the most powerful country the world has ever known. Without Western values, the United States will continue to sink into mediocrity, and whatever replaces it will be a lesser entity, even if it exerts the totalitarian control you crave upon its populace.
As I see it, western values grew out of progressives trying to overcome severe flaws in the existing culture. Start by assuming the Agricultural Age was a mess. Each S&H crisis added to western values by fixing a problem. Progressives over rode a stay the same don't fix the problem conservative faction.

Start with the revolution. The problems included colonial imperialism and noble privilege. The western values which grew out of the revolution included independence, equality (for white males), human rights and democracy.

Next, the US Civil War. The problems included slavery and an attempt by the south for the agricultural landowners to keep superior political power to the early robber baron industrial. The outcome countered slavery, moved somewhat towards equality, and enabled the industrial revolution. Again, the progressive faction won and established new western values.

In FDR's time, the problems included an economy that had fallen apart in the Great Depression, and autocratic governments abroad attempting conquest. The values incorporated included regulating the economy and containment.

This time around? The problems might include criminal activity in high office such as by Nixon, Agnew and Trump. Violent insurrection. As usual prejudice against various groups is still there. The western values countering this are old ones. Rule of law. Equality.

You won't find me speaking against traditional western values. The difference is that I see the old being bad, and in getting rid of the conservative old and bad, western values were created by defeating the major conservative factions of the time. Western values are to me inherently progressive. This includes the modern need for rule of law and equality.

I would hope there is no objection to rule of law and equality? Can we each claim western values for our own?

Meanwhile who is flirting with totalitarian control? Who wants to impose one's own culture on others? Is it not Trump who had a close relation with Putin and Kim Jong-un? It seems to me you are with the totalitarian authoritarian faction.

User avatar
Tom Mazanec
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:13 pm

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Tom Mazanec »

The question of abortion is a religious tradition of some cultures. The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
The question of slavery is a religious tradition in some cultures (ex. Islam). The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
The question of human sacrifice is a religious tradition in some cultures (ex. Aztecs). The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
Etc.
SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Religion

Post by Bob Butler »

Tom Mazanec wrote:
Fri Aug 26, 2022 12:22 am
The question of abortion is a religious tradition of some cultures. The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
The question of slavery is a religious tradition in some cultures (ex. Islam). The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
The question of human sacrifice is a religious tradition in some cultures (ex. Aztecs). The government has no business enforcing it upon other cultures.
Etc.
Bob Butler wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:05 pm
As I see it, western values grew out of progressives trying to overcome severe flaws in the existing culture. Start by assuming the Agricultural Age was a mess.
Religion is considered a force for good, and usually is. Sometimes, but not always. I hope we managed to hit the major counterexamples. The Muslim tendency towards conquest is another. Others? Should we look at religion having a bias as a force for good?

I would comment that cannibalism is generally found where no other source of meat is available. Religion is used to justify another sort of need.
Last edited by Bob Butler on Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Lincoln Project dictator ad

Post by Bob Butler »

Normally, you expect the Lincoln Protect to advocate anti Trump. They have their opinion. This ad takes it a little further. They go through all the famous dictators from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin and the like, reviewing the hatred of minorities, use of the military on citizens, the invasions, the genocides, etc... Then they end with how it could never happen here. They list all the crimes Trump is being investigated for, show an image of Trump going from all black to an exaggerated orange, all the while saying it cannot happen here. Why?

It always starts the same, but we decide how it ends...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Y-9C6ox1Y

Not subtle.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Somebody has a mental disorder...

Post by Bob Butler »

spottybrowncow wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:54 pm
DIFFERENT(???) worldview, values, culture?
How about WORTHLESS worldview, values, culture.
Conflating babies able to survive outside of the womb with "meat" isn't an alternative worldview, it's either profound ignorance or mental illness (you choose).
Your moral relativism is an absolutely paradigm example of why leftism is a mental disorder.
I suppose I ought to address the other half of the Cow’s post. By far most Americans believe sentients should not be killed under ordinary circumstances. (Exceptions like war and some criminals are not relevant?) Some believe a group of cells which might someday develop into sentients should not be killed. There is a distinct difference. The question is whether the latter should enforce their belief on others who do not share it.

If you believe in the freedom to make one’s own moral choices, you believe in choice. If you are into a totalitarian government enforcement of your own beliefes on others, you don’t.

Is it that simple?

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Religion

Post by Bob Butler »

Bob Butler wrote:
Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:11 am
Religion is considered a force for good, and usually is. Sometimes, but not always. I hope we managed to hit the major counterexamples. The Muslim tendency towards conquest is another. Others? Should we look at religion having a bias as a force for good?
A feature of Generational Dynamics is how hate is used and cost effective when certain cultures clash. If you are different, you get hated. If war is cost effective, this is effective and efficient. A contemptuous and hateful army is an effective and merciless army. Thus, it is effective for the elites to sometime create a difference, to emphasize hate. It is good to anticipate and understand this in far abroad conflicts, less good to encourage the behavior in one’s own culture.

Religion? This might be another place where religion plays a less than stellar role. If your religious beliefs are different, your culture is different, and it is possible to stir up hate. You get interactions like the Shiite and Sunni in the Middle East and the Protestants and Catholics of a while ago in Northern Ireland. Granted, there is more than a touch of politics involved in these examples. You might argue that it is not the difference in religion that forms the core of the problem. Yet, religion can be the excuse for violence and difference.

jdcpapa
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: Somebody has a mental disorder...

Post by jdcpapa »

Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:03 pm
spottybrowncow wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:54 pm

Conflating babies able to survive outside of the womb with "meat" isn't an alternative worldview,
I suppose I ought to address the other half of the Cow’s post. By far most Americans believe sentients should not be killed under ordinary circumstances. (Exceptions like war and some criminals are not relevant?) Some believe a group of cells which mightsomeday develop into sentients should not be killed. There is a distinct difference.
spottybrowncow draws that distinction: "babies able to survive outside of the womb"
Bob Butler wrote:The question is whether the latter should enforce their belief on others who do not share it.
Specifically, the "some" that believe that a group of cells that are not able to develop into a sentient being should be killed.
Bob Butler wrote:If you believe in the freedom to make one’s own moral choices, you believe in choice. If you are into a totalitarian government enforcement of your own beliefes on others, you don’t.

Is it that simple?
Like this?

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor allowed New York City to enforce its mandate that all municipal workers be vaccinated against COVID-19, against a police detective who challenged the public health policy on moral grounds.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 787
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Somebody has a mental disorder...

Post by Bob Butler »

jdcpapa wrote:
Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:51 am
Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:03 pm
spottybrowncow wrote:
Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:54 pm

Conflating babies able to survive outside of the womb with "meat" isn't an alternative worldview,
I suppose I ought to address the other half of the Cow’s post. By far most Americans believe sentients should not be killed under ordinary circumstances. (Exceptions like war and some criminals are not relevant?) Some believe a group of cells which mightsomeday develop into sentients should not be killed. There is a distinct difference.
spottybrowncow draws that distinction: "babies able to survive outside of the womb"
He might have, but I did not. There seems to be an agreement that sentients should not be killed. A baby that could survive outside the womb is close enough to being sentient that I don't know of anyone that is pursuing it. The example of my 'conflating' is just Spottybrowncow not understanding my position, is misrepresenting it badly. An outside the womb baby is a citizen, is borderline sentient, has stature under the law. A group of cells which has developed so little that the mother doesn't know she is pregnant cannot respond intelligently to stimulus. Such cannot be judged sentient by any measurable criteria.
jdcpapa wrote:
Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:51 am
Bob Butler wrote:The question is whether the latter should enforce their belief on others who do not share it.
Specifically, the "some" that believe that a group of cells that are not able to develop into a sentient being should be killed.
There are some that believe a potential mother should have control of her own body, should not be relegated to forced slavery. This is quite distinct from a movement to go around killing cells.
jdcpapa wrote:
Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:51 am
Bob Butler wrote:If you believe in the freedom to make one’s own moral choices, you believe in choice. If you are into a totalitarian government enforcement of your own beliefes on others, you don’t.

Is it that simple?
Like this?

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor allowed New York City to enforce its mandate that all municipal workers be vaccinated against COVID-19, against a police detective who challenged the public health policy on moral grounds.
There is a point that sentients should not be killed. It is one of the few points there is agreement on. If a police detective wants to kill people, he should properly be parted from the state.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests