Some ideas for Trumpers that don't believe science (Page 14): I was the author of that comment concerning people dying with, not of C****-**--Ricktloml...

Ricktloml

JohnCorrespondent wrote:

Somebody left out a bracket so I'm not sure who sa... (show quote)

I was the author of that comment concerning people dying with, not of C****-**--Ricktloml

JoyV

moldyoldy wrote:

Joy claimed that this was over long ago.

I never made any such claim! I said that Trump was called a liar when he disagreed with the assertion that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Fact checking at the debate said Trump was wrong and the Supreme Court DID rule it unconstitutional. But it was the fact checkers who were wrong. This is on the list of the so called Trump lies even though Trump was correct.

the J man Loc: California

JoyV wrote:

I never made any such claim! I said that Trump was called a liar when he disagreed with the assertion that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Fact checking at the debate said Trump was wrong and the Supreme Court DID rule it unconstitutional. But it was the fact checkers who were wrong. This is on the list of the so called Trump lies even though Trump was correct.

so we give him one, still the biggest liar in chief

JohnCorrespondent

JoyV wrote:

Whoever that stick wielding man in camo is, he sur... (show quote)

Where _were_ the trained federal law enforcement officers?

JohnCorrespondent

JoyV wrote:

You say, "One problem with this set of things... (show quote)

I see you are emphasizing "property rights" as a kind of foundation for other things. The following paragraph goes into that idea.

I've met several women and several men who weren't allowed to see their children except in restricted circumstances. (Sometimes it's called "supervised visitation" but there are other kinds of restrictive circumstances too.). At least one wasn't allowed to see the children at all for several years. Don't assume they were guilty of anything (some were, I suppose); to really understand this you have to have seen a lot of injustice in courts. A lot of these are desperate people, because life doesn't have the same meaning at all when one's children are taken away like that. One who had done a lot of research came up with this idea: declare the children "property" and then argue "property rights". This is because we have well-developed "property rights" but not well-developed "human rights". What do you think of it? Why should children have access to their parents, and parents have access to their children? Why should they have a right of privacy (instead of being restricted to "supervised" visitation)? Should "property rights" be the foundation from which to consider all that?

I'm really doubtful that "property rights" is a good foundation on which to build lives. Is money more important than love, also? Are people really "property"? Was it okay to sell a black s***e to one owner and sell her husband or children to another owner, because you could get a higher sale price for them that way? Or is there some other, _more_important_ consideration that should be taken into account first? Should s***ery, on the one hand, and emancipation, on the other hand, be compared according to which will generate the most revenue? If not, why not?

In the other topic, you asked for an example of "conservative ideal" stifling dissent or creativity. As a first example, I start with conservative religion. I'll get into politics in a moment. My experience of most churches, especially the ones I call "conservative" ones, which is most of them, is that they are places where the congregants are _told_, not asked, about values, God, etc. These churches cannot all be right, because they disagree with each other, even more so when regarding whole other "religions" which have their own churches or church-like things however they call them. So what does a person do, when "told" values and rules and history and theology, some of which is either wrong or arbitrary? Dissent? And stay in the same church? My creative process led me to ask this question, "If God were powerless, would we still worship God?" The more senior church person said it was an improper question, and hinted that the person asking such a question had a character problem to be asking such questions. By the way, that church person was a great guy and a good explainer, but I crossed some limit of his, in the discussion.

I could go on a little more about religion, but let's set religion aside for now and get into politics. Conservative politics (these days in the U.S. at least) usually includes some kind of social conservatism. So, for example, politically "Conservative" people are the more likely to want to preserve traditional sexual binary thought and traditional g****r roles, although a lot of people "LBTQ" ... I can't keep up with all the letters but there are at least 5 ... are ready to have NON-traditional roles and NON-traditional relationships. Conservative government doesn't want to grant the same economic benefits to non-traditional partnerships (like same-sex marriages) as to traditional ones. Which side is the more creative? Which side is dissenting against the status quo? Who is stifling whom? My answer: Conservatives stifle dissent and creativity.

Maybe this little paragraph is incidental, but I like to say it anyway. I've known a few non-traditionally-g****red people (two gays and one lesbian, plus probably a few more I don't remember as well at the moment), and they were all very creative in ways such as art, activism, dance, vocation, or conversation.

As for me, I'm proud and happy to have known what I like to think is a great variety of people. They have opened up my world like a breath of fresh air compared with a stagnant room. Social, Religious, and Political conservatives would have, if they could, done things which would have limited my access to that variety of people. For example, political "Conservatives" are more likely than political "Liberals" to want to restrict immigration, pre-judge asylum seekers, and abuse people who are unlike themselves. And where did I get my first really big breath of cultural "fresh air" that I needed so much? It was at a "Liberal" Arts college; and I think it's more than a coincidence that it's called "Liberal" Arts. It was a place where diversity was valued. That place had students from a variety of countries -- Iran and Peru -- I had a close friend from each of those countries -- and Japan and Nigeria (I was acquainted but didn't know them as well). Those are the nationalities I remember from that place. A few more that I recall just now were Bolivia, San Salvador, and Cuba. I love foreign languages (though I'm not fluent in any -- I've studied at least four -- and two or three more if short times are counted) and I like that Bolivians speak Spanish a lot slower than, say, Cubans. It's just one more new thing that I've encountered in languages. Every language is different in some way that I never imagined until I studied that language. It stirs the imagination. People and society are somewhat like languages: there are ways to be that we don't even imagine until we've been exposed to them. Here's a better example of that: Vietnamese has a whole big variety of personal pronouns but doesn't use verb tenses nearly as much as English does. This matches the fact that Vietnamese people are more interested in interpersonal relationships than in time, whereas English speakers (in the U.S. at least) are more interested in time than Vietnamese people are.

You ask, "Is there conservative political correctness?" I'm not sure exactly what that means. But: Yes. Do you think otherwise? What is "political correctness", other than a buzzword or buzz phrase? Does it mean "If you're one of us, you subscribe to these ideas, and if you don't, then we don't want you?" That was my experience of conservative society before I got to college, with one big difference: conservative society (as I experienced it when I was a boy) doesn't articulate what it thinks -- instead, it just expects everybody to think the same way, and so doesn't see the need to say (and is often not able to say) what that way is, because it doesn't imagine that there could be any other way.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JoyV wrote:

You say, "One problem with this set of things... (show quote)

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

federally indicted mattoid

JohnCorrespondent wrote:

I see you are emphasizing "property rights" as a kind of foundation for other things. The following paragraph goes into that idea.

I've met several women and several men who weren't allowed to see their children except in restricted circumstances. (Sometimes it's called "supervised visitation" but there are other kinds of restrictive circumstances too.). At least one wasn't allowed to see the children at all for several years. Don't assume they were guilty of anything (some were, I suppose); to really understand this you have to have seen a lot of injustice in courts. A lot of these are desperate people, because life doesn't have the same meaning at all when one's children are taken away like that. One who had done a lot of research came up with this idea: declare the children "property" and then argue "property rights". This is because we have well-developed "property rights" but not well-developed "human rights". What do you think of it? Why should children have access to their parents, and parents have access to their children? Why should they have a right of privacy (instead of being restricted to "supervised" visitation)? Should "property rights" be the foundation from which to consider all that?

I'm really doubtful that "property rights" is a good foundation on which to build lives. Is money more important than love, also? Are people really "property"? Was it okay to sell a black s***e to one owner and sell her husband or children to another owner, because you could get a higher sale price for them that way? Or is there some other, _more_important_ consideration that should be taken into account first? Should s***ery, on the one hand, and emancipation, on the other hand, be compared according to which will generate the most revenue? If not, why not?

In the other topic, you asked for an example of "conservative ideal" stifling dissent or creativity. As a first example, I start with conservative religion. I'll get into politics in a moment. My experience of most churches, especially the ones I call "conservative" ones, which is most of them, is that they are places where the congregants are _told_, not asked, about values, God, etc. These churches cannot all be right, because they disagree with each other, even more so when regarding whole other "religions" which have their own churches or church-like things however they call them. So what does a person do, when "told" values and rules and history and theology, some of which is either wrong or arbitrary? Dissent? And stay in the same church? My creative process led me to ask this question, "If God were powerless, would we still worship God?" The more senior church person said it was an improper question, and hinted that the person asking such a question had a character problem to be asking such questions. By the way, that church person was a great guy and a good explainer, but I crossed some limit of his, in the discussion.

I could go on a little more about religion, but let's set religion aside for now and get into politics. Conservative politics (these days in the U.S. at least) usually includes some kind of social conservatism. So, for example, politically "Conservative" people are the more likely to want to preserve traditional sexual binary thought and traditional g****r roles, although a lot of people "LBTQ" ... I can't keep up with all the letters but there are at least 5 ... are ready to have NON-traditional roles and NON-traditional relationships. Conservative government doesn't want to grant the same economic benefits to non-traditional partnerships (like same-sex marriages) as to traditional ones. Which side is the more creative? Which side is dissenting against the status quo? Who is stifling whom? My answer: Conservatives stifle dissent and creativity.

Maybe this little paragraph is incidental, but I like to say it anyway. I've known a few non-traditionally-g****red people (two gays and one lesbian, plus probably a few more I don't remember as well at the moment), and they were all very creative in ways such as art, activism, dance, vocation, or conversation.

As for me, I'm proud and happy to have known what I like to think is a great variety of people. They have opened up my world like a breath of fresh air compared with a stagnant room. Social, Religious, and Political conservatives would have, if they could, done things which would have limited my access to that variety of people. For example, political "Conservatives" are more likely than political "Liberals" to want to restrict immigration, pre-judge asylum seekers, and abuse people who are unlike themselves. And where did I get my first really big breath of cultural "fresh air" that I needed so much? It was at a "Liberal" Arts college; and I think it's more than a coincidence that it's called "Liberal" Arts. It was a place where diversity was valued. That place had students from a variety of countries -- Iran and Peru -- I had a close friend from each of those countries -- and Japan and Nigeria (I was acquainted but didn't know them as well). Those are the nationalities I remember from that place. A few more that I recall just now were Bolivia, San Salvador, and Cuba. I love foreign languages (though I'm not fluent in any -- I've studied at least four -- and two or three more if short times are counted) and I like that Bolivians speak Spanish a lot slower than, say, Cubans. It's just one more new thing that I've encountered in languages. Every language is different in some way that I never imagined until I studied that language. It stirs the imagination. People and society are somewhat like languages: there are ways to be that we don't even imagine until we've been exposed to them. Here's a better example of that: Vietnamese has a whole big variety of personal pronouns but doesn't use verb tenses nearly as much as English does. This matches the fact that Vietnamese people are more interested in interpersonal relationships than in time, whereas English speakers (in the U.S. at least) are more interested in time than Vietnamese people are.

You ask, "Is there conservative political correctness?" I'm not sure exactly what that means. But: Yes. Do you think otherwise? What is "political correctness", other than a buzzword or buzz phrase? Does it mean "If you're one of us, you subscribe to these ideas, and if you don't, then we don't want you?" That was my experience of conservative society before I got to college, with one big difference: conservative society (as I experienced it when I was a boy) doesn't articulate what it thinks -- instead, it just expects everybody to think the same way, and so doesn't see the need to say (and is often not able to say) what that way is, because it doesn't imagine that there could be any other way.

I see you are emphasizing "property rights&qu... (show quote)

"I'm really doubtful that "property rights" is a good foundation on which to build lives. Is money more important than love, also?"

Such a good question.

What about health?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

useful mattoid 45 wrote:

"I'm really doubtful that "property rights" is a good foundation on which to build lives. Is money more important than love, also?"

Such a good question.

What about health?

Greed is a bad motive.
Sadly; An attribute that attracts lawyers and politicians to their professions.

JohnCorrespondent

JoyV wrote:

I agree with you regarding the use of unmarked car... (show quote)

"...peaceably...". I have no problem with arresting people who are setting fires, destroying property, climbing on other people's cars, shooting (most especially), or throwing things at people. The problem is when those people are NOT arrested while people who are NOT doing those things ARE arrested. So the point is to distinguish according to what this person, that person, these people, or those people are doing. (An additional point is that the response should be fitting; it would be unfitting, for example, to shoot to k**l a person who had only thrown a rock.)

It would be wrong, for example, to send a provocateur into a crowd of peaceful protesters and then arrest everyone except that provocateur for what the provocateur was doing. It would even be wrong if somebody _else_ had sent in the provocateur or if somebody _else_ were doing random bad acts.

JoyV

JohnCorrespondent wrote:

I see you are emphasizing "property rights" as a kind of foundation for other things. The following paragraph goes into that idea.

I've met several women and several men who weren't allowed to see their children except in restricted circumstances. (Sometimes it's called "supervised visitation" but there are other kinds of restrictive circumstances too.). At least one wasn't allowed to see the children at all for several years. Don't assume they were guilty of anything (some were, I suppose); to really understand this you have to have seen a lot of injustice in courts. A lot of these are desperate people, because life doesn't have the same meaning at all when one's children are taken away like that. One who had done a lot of research came up with this idea: declare the children "property" and then argue "property rights". This is because we have well-developed "property rights" but not well-developed "human rights". What do you think of it? Why should children have access to their parents, and parents have access to their children? Why should they have a right of privacy (instead of being restricted to "supervised" visitation)? Should "property rights" be the foundation from which to consider all that?

I'm really doubtful that "property rights" is a good foundation on which to build lives. Is money more important than love, also? Are people really "property"? Was it okay to sell a black s***e to one owner and sell her husband or children to another owner, because you could get a higher sale price for them that way? Or is there some other, _more_important_ consideration that should be taken into account first? Should s***ery, on the one hand, and emancipation, on the other hand, be compared according to which will generate the most revenue? If not, why not?

In the other topic, you asked for an example of "conservative ideal" stifling dissent or creativity. As a first example, I start with conservative religion. I'll get into politics in a moment. My experience of most churches, especially the ones I call "conservative" ones, which is most of them, is that they are places where the congregants are _told_, not asked, about values, God, etc. These churches cannot all be right, because they disagree with each other, even more so when regarding whole other "religions" which have their own churches or church-like things however they call them. So what does a person do, when "told" values and rules and history and theology, some of which is either wrong or arbitrary? Dissent? And stay in the same church? My creative process led me to ask this question, "If God were powerless, would we still worship God?" The more senior church person said it was an improper question, and hinted that the person asking such a question had a character problem to be asking such questions. By the way, that church person was a great guy and a good explainer, but I crossed some limit of his, in the discussion.

I could go on a little more about religion, but let's set religion aside for now and get into politics. Conservative politics (these days in the U.S. at least) usually includes some kind of social conservatism. So, for example, politically "Conservative" people are the more likely to want to preserve traditional sexual binary thought and traditional g****r roles, although a lot of people "LBTQ" ... I can't keep up with all the letters but there are at least 5 ... are ready to have NON-traditional roles and NON-traditional relationships. Conservative government doesn't want to grant the same economic benefits to non-traditional partnerships (like same-sex marriages) as to traditional ones. Which side is the more creative? Which side is dissenting against the status quo? Who is stifling whom? My answer: Conservatives stifle dissent and creativity.

Maybe this little paragraph is incidental, but I like to say it anyway. I've known a few non-traditionally-g****red people (two gays and one lesbian, plus probably a few more I don't remember as well at the moment), and they were all very creative in ways such as art, activism, dance, vocation, or conversation.

As for me, I'm proud and happy to have known what I like to think is a great variety of people. They have opened up my world like a breath of fresh air compared with a stagnant room. Social, Religious, and Political conservatives would have, if they could, done things which would have limited my access to that variety of people. For example, political "Conservatives" are more likely than political "Liberals" to want to restrict immigration, pre-judge asylum seekers, and abuse people who are unlike themselves. And where did I get my first really big breath of cultural "fresh air" that I needed so much? It was at a "Liberal" Arts college; and I think it's more than a coincidence that it's called "Liberal" Arts. It was a place where diversity was valued. That place had students from a variety of countries -- Iran and Peru -- I had a close friend from each of those countries -- and Japan and Nigeria (I was acquainted but didn't know them as well). Those are the nationalities I remember from that place. A few more that I recall just now were Bolivia, San Salvador, and Cuba. I love foreign languages (though I'm not fluent in any -- I've studied at least four -- and two or three more if short times are counted) and I like that Bolivians speak Spanish a lot slower than, say, Cubans. It's just one more new thing that I've encountered in languages. Every language is different in some way that I never imagined until I studied that language. It stirs the imagination. People and society are somewhat like languages: there are ways to be that we don't even imagine until we've been exposed to them. Here's a better example of that: Vietnamese has a whole big variety of personal pronouns but doesn't use verb tenses nearly as much as English does. This matches the fact that Vietnamese people are more interested in interpersonal relationships than in time, whereas English speakers (in the U.S. at least) are more interested in time than Vietnamese people are.

You ask, "Is there conservative political correctness?" I'm not sure exactly what that means. But: Yes. Do you think otherwise? What is "political correctness", other than a buzzword or buzz phrase? Does it mean "If you're one of us, you subscribe to these ideas, and if you don't, then we don't want you?" That was my experience of conservative society before I got to college, with one big difference: conservative society (as I experienced it when I was a boy) doesn't articulate what it thinks -- instead, it just expects everybody to think the same way, and so doesn't see the need to say (and is often not able to say) what that way is, because it doesn't imagine that there could be any other way.

I see you are emphasizing "property rights&qu... (show quote)

First I want to say you have presented well reasoned arguments. It is refreshing to discuss a difference of opinion with logic and not just emotion.

Your example of defining children as property was not what I was relating, even though in the past that is exactly as the law defined them. Instead I was referring to a person owning their own creations, ideas, and self. But I will talk about your example.

I fit in your first example. My 2nd husband had been laid off and he started drinking heavily. He was a mean drunk. I won't go into the circumstances, but I made plans to leave him. Before the day came to leave, after I had made a deposit on an apartment, a couple of social workers showed up at our house to tell me they had taken my son from school. Apparently while I was away from the house, my husband beat my son and my son didn't tell me but did tell the school principal. I was accused of neglect for not preventing my son from being beaten. They had him for months until I won a court case to get him back after they had nothing to present the judge on their investigation of me. In the meantime he was threatened that if he didn't tell them the t***h (which was wh**ever they wanted to hear) instead of persisting in saying his mother had never beaten him nor stood and allowed him to be beaten; he would never see his mother again. My view on this situation as it relates to property rights is though it goes against the emotional grain, property rights would have protected him. Human rights in the case of minors sounds great. But who determines what is in the minors best interest? In an ideal world, a social worker would care about the well being of the child over at best covering their butt because they jumped the gun and made an assumption which proved wrong. They were working under human rights, which they defined. But property rights in this case would have been far better. I know that having children treated as property under the law can also be bad for the child depending on the circumstance unless countered by strong consequences for abusing children. But neither the parents not child has any protection under the former example of human rights laws.

You ask if money is more important than love? Can you define love in a way that is not nebulous and mean various things to various people? Basing law on love can be a recipe for disaster. But property rights protects the poor from the rich. That every person has the right to what they own, and can't have it taken simply because someone rich wants it, was a novel concept in the age of enlightenment.

My use of conservative is in the political or ideological sphere, not in the religious sphere. Someone could be conservative in their religion (often termed fundamental) and not be a Conservative. Just as someone could major in Liberal Arts without being a Liberal. The same words can be used for different concepts. I do nor believe my previous post did not convey that by conservative I was referring to the differences between political Conservatives, Progressives, Liberals, Anarchists, and any others. And although many people who are both Conservative and traditionalists (note the lower case); a political conservative and a traditionalist is not the same thing. So again, how do Conservative ideals stifle creativity? In fact I see just the opposite. That Conservative ideals can promote creativity. Just look at the patent office as one example of Conservative's creativity. Most are by Conservatives. There are also many examples of creative people who are nor Conservative, whether they are apolitical or fall under another political ideal. By many are born with a gift, such as music. Being naturally musically inclined is not quite the same thing as coming up with a new creation by taking an idea and working out how to bring it to a workable reality. Under socialist regimes, creativity is stifled. Everyone,except the elite rulers, are pressured or even mandated into conforming. This starts with political correctness (everyone conforming to the same words, actions, and eventually thinking of what is accepted). And yes, within a religion or group political correctness can also be found. Everyone being pressured to conform to the same beliefs, ideal, and accepted norms. But these are within a relatively small population, such as a particular sect, and not the near entire political ideal. In fact today's political correctness is the same for virtually all liberals and progressives. For example, you refer to immigration. I would guess that by immigration you are using the politically correct term for those who are in the country illegally, and NOT immigration. I would hazard that the vast majority of Conservatives have no problem with immigration. Most were born here because their ancestors immigrated to our country. Immigration is legal and has certain laws which must be followed. While those who trespass or invade are NOT immigrants. And what do you mean about pre-judging asylum seekers. There are specific reasons under the law for which a person must meet to be accepted under asylum. And you must never have looked at who are Conservatives. Conservatives come from all walks of life, all races and ethnicities, any religion, any sex, and any economic bracket. There are college graduates, blue collar workers, and low income. There are w****s, b****s LOTS of Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, and others. There are Catholics, Protestants, Budhists, Atheists, Deists, and Pagans.

You refer to knowing people of various nationalities as if you think that is something you don't see with Conservatives. Knowing, or having friends, of different nationalities; ethnicities; religions; or creeds, is neither a Conservative nor either a Progressive or Liberal trait.

You refer to knowing members of the LBGT community. Well so have I. In fact I have assisted in gay p***e parades. I have nothing against any lifestyle adults choose, whether they were drawn to it as children or not. I do have a problem with g****r suppression of children. The law in many States allows g****r suppression drugs to be given as young as 8 years old. I am also against taxpayers funding t***sitioning. If you choose to do so, everyone else shouldn't pick up the tab. And I am against a t***s who is under "treatments" to serve in the military. The medical needs interrupt their duty. Now if someone has no longer any need for treatments, that is a different story. Though acceptance and unit cohesion may be a problem, in time I hope people would adjust. But from what I've read, treatments often need to continue throughout the life of the t***ssexual or their inherent g****r may begin to reassert itself.

As for your example of Conservatives preventing legal economic freedom, there are some Conservatives who fit that bill. But it is hardly a universal ideal of Conservatives. While the Progressive ideals of open borders, redistribution of wealth, patronizing minorities, and insisting we all use the same terms, are near universal.

No political correctness does not mean if you are one of us you will use these words. It means everyone must conform to the words and actions that those in power (whether individual power or group power) deem the "correct" words or actions whether they are one of you or not.

JoyV

Blade_Runner wrote:

James Madison, Property

29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that d******n which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, wh**ever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which p***es itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

i b James Madison, Property /b br br 29 Mar. 1... (show quote)

Thanks for posting this. Madison said it far better than I could!

JoyV

JohnCorrespondent wrote:

"...peaceably...". I have no problem wi... (show quote)

"Only thrown a rock". A rock IS a deadly weapon. That it has a shorter range than a projectile thrown by a firearm does not prevent it from being a deadly weapon. It is still to this day used as a means of execution in some countries or some religions. And a single rock, thrown with force, can k**l a strong man. So yes it IS justifiable to shoot someone throwing rocks.

So who has been arrested that had NOT committed, or encouraged other to commit, violence?

JohnCorrespondent

JoyV wrote:

First I want to say you have presented well reasoned arguments. It is refreshing to discuss a difference of opinion with logic and not just emotion.

Your example of defining children as property was not what I was relating, even though in the past that is exactly as the law defined them. Instead I was referring to a person owning their own creations, ideas, and self. But I will talk about your example.

I fit in your first example. My 2nd husband had been laid off and he started drinking heavily. He was a mean drunk. I won't go into the circumstances, but I made plans to leave him. Before the day came to leave, after I had made a deposit on an apartment, a couple of social workers showed up at our house to tell me they had taken my son from school. Apparently while I was away from the house, my husband beat my son and my son didn't tell me but did tell the school principal. I was accused of neglect for not preventing my son from being beaten. They had him for months until I won a court case to get him back after they had nothing to present the judge on their investigation of me. In the meantime he was threatened that if he didn't tell them the t***h (which was wh**ever they wanted to hear) instead of persisting in saying his mother had never beaten him nor stood and allowed him to be beaten; he would never see his mother again. My view on this situation as it relates to property rights is though it goes against the emotional grain, property rights would have protected him. Human rights in the case of minors sounds great. But who determines what is in the minors best interest? In an ideal world, a social worker would care about the well being of the child over at best covering their butt because they jumped the gun and made an assumption which proved wrong. They were working under human rights, which they defined. But property rights in this case would have been far better. I know that having children treated as property under the law can also be bad for the child depending on the circumstance unless countered by strong consequences for abusing children. But neither the parents not child has any protection under the former example of human rights laws.

You ask if money is more important than love? Can you define love in a way that is not nebulous and mean various things to various people? Basing law on love can be a recipe for disaster. But property rights protects the poor from the rich. That every person has the right to what they own, and can't have it taken simply because someone rich wants it, was a novel concept in the age of enlightenment.

My use of conservative is in the political or ideological sphere, not in the religious sphere. Someone could be conservative in their religion (often termed fundamental) and not be a Conservative. Just as someone could major in Liberal Arts without being a Liberal. The same words can be used for different concepts. I do nor believe my previous post did not convey that by conservative I was referring to the differences between political Conservatives, Progressives, Liberals, Anarchists, and any others. And although many people who are both Conservative and traditionalists (note the lower case); a political conservative and a traditionalist is not the same thing. So again, how do Conservative ideals stifle creativity? In fact I see just the opposite. That Conservative ideals can promote creativity. Just look at the patent office as one example of Conservative's creativity. Most are by Conservatives. There are also many examples of creative people who are nor Conservative, whether they are apolitical or fall under another political ideal. By many are born with a gift, such as music. Being naturally musically inclined is not quite the same thing as coming up with a new creation by taking an idea and working out how to bring it to a workable reality. Under socialist regimes, creativity is stifled. Everyone,except the elite rulers, are pressured or even mandated into conforming. This starts with political correctness (everyone conforming to the same words, actions, and eventually thinking of what is accepted). And yes, within a religion or group political correctness can also be found. Everyone being pressured to conform to the same beliefs, ideal, and accepted norms. But these are within a relatively small population, such as a particular sect, and not the near entire political ideal. In fact today's political correctness is the same for virtually all liberals and progressives. For example, you refer to immigration. I would guess that by immigration you are using the politically correct term for those who are in the country illegally, and NOT immigration. I would hazard that the vast majority of Conservatives have no problem with immigration. Most were born here because their ancestors immigrated to our country. Immigration is legal and has certain laws which must be followed. While those who trespass or invade are NOT immigrants. And what do you mean about pre-judging asylum seekers. There are specific reasons under the law for which a person must meet to be accepted under asylum. And you must never have looked at who are Conservatives. Conservatives come from all walks of life, all races and ethnicities, any religion, any sex, and any economic bracket. There are college graduates, blue collar workers, and low income. There are w****s, b****s LOTS of Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, and others. There are Catholics, Protestants, Budhists, Atheists, Deists, and Pagans.

You refer to knowing people of various nationalities as if you think that is something you don't see with Conservatives. Knowing, or having friends, of different nationalities; ethnicities; religions; or creeds, is neither a Conservative nor either a Progressive or Liberal trait.

You refer to knowing members of the LBGT community. Well so have I. In fact I have assisted in gay p***e parades. I have nothing against any lifestyle adults choose, whether they were drawn to it as children or not. I do have a problem with g****r suppression of children. The law in many States allows g****r suppression drugs to be given as young as 8 years old. I am also against taxpayers funding t***sitioning. If you choose to do so, everyone else shouldn't pick up the tab. And I am against a t***s who is under "treatments" to serve in the military. The medical needs interrupt their duty. Now if someone has no longer any need for treatments, that is a different story. Though acceptance and unit cohesion may be a problem, in time I hope people would adjust. But from what I've read, treatments often need to continue throughout the life of the t***ssexual or their inherent g****r may begin to reassert itself.

As for your example of Conservatives preventing legal economic freedom, there are some Conservatives who fit that bill. But it is hardly a universal ideal of Conservatives. While the Progressive ideals of open borders, redistribution of wealth, patronizing minorities, and insisting we all use the same terms, are near universal.

No political correctness does not mean if you are one of us you will use these words. It means everyone must conform to the words and actions that those in power (whether individual power or group power) deem the "correct" words or actions whether they are one of you or not.

First I want to say you have presented well reason... (show quote)

I'm glad you won your court case. I've met a lot of people who didn't because they couldn't get that far with the court system to even have a serious court process. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the courts or of whomever oversees them and causes the courts to be as they are. I believe the general solution is a kind of "t***sparency" in which the processes are documented, the documentation is verifiable, and proceedings are tape-recorded by the litigants (the parents) (transcripts are sometimes false and I wouldn't trust court personnel with tapes either).

I doubt that I'll be able to respond to your entire post.

You say property rights protects the poor from the rich. Good, if it does. I thought there was a concept of "property rights" which was protecting or benefitting rich people too much, to the detriment of the poor and most people.

I'm fuzzy on what exactly _are_ the "Conservative ideals" (although I think you did describe some); so maybe I should have pursued or studied _that_ point some more, before launching into an argument about them. I think the difference between us might have more to do with implementation than ideals. If current Republicans in power were correctly following Conservative ideals, and implementing them correctly at least within their own party, then maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with them as I do now. For example:

One Conservative ideal (A) might be to honor and obey and trust whomever's in power, such as Donald Trump. However, it might instead be true that one Conservative ideal (B) is to hold high officials accountable to the People, and to prevent too much centralization of power. Under (B) Republicans in the Senate might be reining in Trump or making him behave better or holding him accountable. So, for example, Mitt Romney might be the only Republican Senator honoring the ideal (B) (when v****g about the impeachment).

Pre-judging asylum seekers: I formed my ideas (or adopted certain ideas) about this many months ago from news I was hearing and reading. Now I'm doing a few quick lookups online to get some illustrations of the ideas:

Headline: "Stranded Asylum Seekers Facing Rio Grande Flooding Plead With U.S—Stop Ignoring Us". (Thought: Is the U.S. "ignoring" asylum seekers?). Ref: https://www.newsweek.com/stranded-asylum-seekers-facing-rio-grande-flooding-plead-u-sstop-ignoring-us-1522052

Trump "seem[s] to defy U.S. and international laws protecting the rights of the desperate to seek asylum from persecution in their home countries." (Thought: If he _is_ "defying" "laws", wouldn't that mean he's _not_ being "Conservative", but instead being "radical" in a destructive way? What do "Conservatives" say about that? I thought that most Trump supporters called themselves Conservatives.). Ref: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-16/trumps-asylum-immigration-daca-dreamers-e******n

"Trump Implies Asylum Seekers Are Liars..." (Thought: Depending on the timing, this might represent prejudice, or "pre-judging", by Trump.). Ref: https://splinternews.com/trump-implies-asylum-seekers-are-liars-so-its-not-hard-1827016969

"... This Is The Language Trump Uses To Talk About Immigrants". Ref: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/trump-immigrant-language-words-infest-snake-violent What I think is: There's been a backlog of asylum hearings: asylum seekers have to wait months to get a hearing. (This is before C****-**; of course it's even worse under C****-**.) So, _I_ think it would have been appropriate for the President to say, "The problem is we don't have enough facilities or trained personnel to handle all the asylum seekers." And so then a solution could be considered: make more facilities or train more personnel. There's asylum law, so follow it. Hear each case before deciding it. But instead what I heard Trump doing is to pre-judge those people, and then his followers do similarly. Rather than own the problem that it takes more facilities and personnel to hold hearings, Trump just derides the asylum seekers rather than provide the hearings. He pre-judges them.

JohnCorrespondent

JoyV wrote:

"Only thrown a rock". A rock IS a deadly weapon. That it has a shorter range than a projectile thrown by a firearm does not prevent it from being a deadly weapon. It is still to this day used as a means of execution in some countries or some religions. And a single rock, thrown with force, can k**l a strong man. So yes it IS justifiable to shoot someone throwing rocks.

So who has been arrested that had NOT committed, or encouraged other to commit, violence?

I don't think your explanation about the rock is much good. (Discussed below.)

Yes, a rock _could_ k**l a person. Yes, a whole lot of rocks can be as deadly as one bullet.

But so could the shoving, that some police have been doing, be as deadly as a rock. So could the tear gas canisters and rubber bullets, the same way a rock can. It depends on how things land. I think the more important point about rocks and guns is that guns are more violent than rocks.

This middle section is not totally part of an argument. Some of it is supplemental or may even be beside the point:

I was once hit by a rock when I was small. It was thrown by another small child (a girl a year younger than I) and to this day I still admire the throw (and I feel it was partially justified because I had accidentally said something hurtful). It hit me on the temple and made a big bruise. From a pretty good distance, too. Still, it's a lot better than being shot at by a gun, even one with a rubber bullet. Other things being equal, people throwing rocks are less dangerous than people shooting guns, even within rock-throwing range, even with full-grown men doing the throwing, and (I presume) even when the shooters use some kinds of rubber bullets, depending on the kind of rubber bullet.

A few years later, I threw a rock at another person, as a warning and an expression of anger. It whizzed six inches over the head of the person, as desired. At that time I was a good thrower.

Suggestions have been made to me that I should have been more violent when I was a boy.

If you read Ilhan Omar's book _This Is What America Looks Like_, you'll see pretty early in the book that as a tiny child, small for her age, she fought a lot of bigger people and won, physically. She refused to be bullied and even stood up for others when they were bullied (I clearly remember reading of one such incident of standing up for another person, in the book). When I was a child, somewhere I got the idea that it was wrong to be violent, so I didn't develop the art. One well-placed blow, as a gesture of defiance, is what I would do on rare occasions. But she got more into _fights_. She turned out better than I did. This is not in our argument, but just as an aside: Which way is right: to be violent or not to be violent? Children cannot depend on the church for the right answer. Most adults are not much good for it either.

Someone suggested that I should have used a weapon when I was abused (I'm talking about just one incident here). However, weapons I could have used are just too dangerous. I was taught to handle dangerous things responsibly and safely, not risk permanently maiming or k*****g someone. I think I was right to _not_ use a weapon, even though I was abused, but it's bad either way I had chosen.

In answer to your question about arrests, here's such an arrest:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/blinded-arrested-police-attack-journalists-covering-protests-200616023545157.html?fbclid=IwAR2TevYoXin78BEntn0eAF18F-n__Ak6G-3Sjeu1EHG42AIIoQB3cOwwf0A

Here are a few more:

https://itsgoingdown.org/phone-zap-campaign-drop-charges-stanislaus/?fbclid=IwAR3V5Eq9yIay-DL1kZZzZ2FZ3XpZ3jAZ7VR-lJBm3UtdVLqHJ7UdJVHG2Q0

And more:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/george-floyd-protests-reporters-press-teargas-arrested?fbclid=IwAR3x9D9ZHUYkMnz_BFzrFO59ZxKiADNBFqVy0PSfHinpXpaaBO45P6eIupA

And: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/minneapolis-police-injure-arrest-journalists-protests.html?fbclid=IwAR3VVjzVV6dcyuYBNDpN992QiHoGdJSvV6x8FASgoTqMYEY7iUEXzJmF5vU but I didn't check carefully for overlap, to see whether anything in this article might be in the previously listed article. At the bottom of this article it says:

"Attacks on the press were not limited to Minneapolis. A day earlier, for example, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker said Sunday morning that it was working to “verify and document at least 68 instances of journalists assaulted, arrested and equipment damaged from protests the last two nights.” which statement doesn't _prove_ anything but it's a further indication of what the pictures and videos and first-person accounts are showing.

SWMBO

JohnCorrespondent wrote:

I don't think your explanation about the rock is m... (show quote)

Anything that someone USES to hurt another person is a weapon, whether it is a 2 x4, a baseball bat,a chair thrown at a person, a jar of acid or a car that you intentionally hit someone with is a weapon. An automatic pistol locked in a drawer so your child cannot get at it is NOT a weapon. If you have a dog trained to attack people it is a weapon if you command it to attack, but not if it is sleeping by the fireplace. Certain foods are weapons if fed to someone you know is seriously allergic to them. On the other hand the brain power of 95% of the progressives on OPP is never a weapon because it is to small to be dangerous.