The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

This should end that facile discussion if you have any regard for the rule of law in a democratic nation. I hate that I have to keep making this point in thread after thread, but a civilised nation under rule of law is one where the state can go before the courts, lose, and be bound by the decision of the court anyway. That is what the Trump administration is really taking away from America today, that single basic hallmark of civilisation.

The so-called “rule of law”, as I mentioned previously (my suffering, plagued, head of rotted lettuce) was severely violated during the George Floyd Summer of Riots. In my view, when a culture of people descends so far down and away from personal morality, the social and political adhesive begins to come undone. A corrupt society cannot maintain its necessary political institutions. And we all saw this when people went on rampages, set fire to inner-cities, and in various ways succumbed to hysteria.

To have ‘civilization’ you must have a civilized individual. And if the individual becomes corrupted the force that holds him in line will be an external (police) force. But if even that representative of civilization is not respected, well things really break down.

I can only report to you that there are some who believe, sincerely I have gathered, that the state of the nation is not in a good place. They trace its corruption in varying ways. And they propose the need of various sorts of radical action. And these actions provoke reactions in different sectors. All this being symptomatic of extreme divisions, and quite likely irreconcilable ones.

The raid on the Capitol was also evidence of lawlessness and, too, a sort of manifestation of “righteous indignation” (about many things) but often “the direction of the country”.

We must face the facts: cultural decadence and the loss of the inner stance that allows “responsible freedom”.

Alexis Jacobi teaches toleration and understanding. That is, stepping back and viewing things and people from a distance. That’s my policy which I take when I consider your slobberings and outbursts. You are as riled up as anyone and you have no idea — none! — about what is going on and why. You don’t really care either. Bickering here gives you a dopamine hit.

I think you missed including the legal eagles report? Please include it. I will certainly give it consideration.

Rule of law is permanently threatened by criminals, Alexis, everywhere. dictatorship is undesirable because dictators are established by populist means.
As always, I wish you would not make dark allusions to what regime you support and instead say it in a simple sentence e.g. "I support a xyz".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Rule of law is permanently threatened by criminals, Alexis, everywhere. Dictatorship is undesirable because dictators are established by populist means.

As always, I wish you would not make dark allusions to what regime you support and instead say it in a simple sentence e.g. "I support a xyz".

The key for you to grab hold of is this one: I am not here defending one or the other side so much as I am examining the issues connected with the events of our day.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no such hope, want nor wish.

Oh. So now that you realize that physics does not cover everything, and you don't even aspire that it should?

Well, repeating the same lazy or stupid assumptions ..

If that's what they are, just refute them: do you believe physics can describe every real phenomenon, or just some real phenomena? See how simple it is to make your view clear, instead of dodging the question? Then nobody has to "assume" anything.

So what's your answer?

Well, that's good, since it doesn't.

That's another assumption.

It's not, but clear it up, then: which do you believe -- that physics can describe every phenomenon, or that it cannot?

[Will Bouwman]

Oh. So now that you realize that physics does not cover everything, and you don't even aspire that it should?

Well, repeating the same lazy or stupid assumptions ..

If that's what they are, just refute them: do you believe physics can describe every real phenomenon, or just some real phenomena?

I do not believe either. I have told you a number of times that I don't know which is true, and it doesn't strike me as the sort of question to which I need to commit any belief. That is not difficult to understand, so I apologise for insinuating that you might be lazy. You have persuaded me that you are in fact stupid.

[Gary Childress]

]
which do you believe -- that physics can describe every phenomenon, or that it cannot?

It seems to me that if something can be observed or measured then it can "described" by physics. If something can neither be observed nor measured then, by definition, we don't know about it.

'Explaining' a phenomenon that is observed or measured is something physics can also do to some extent in some cases. If something observed or measured cannot be explained by physics, then it could be because it will never be possible to do so or it could be because it is not yet possible to do so. If it will never be possible to explain by physics, then it seems to me that it will forever be an unknown, barring some kind of miraculous revelation of some unforeseeable or presently unfathomable kind.

[Belinda]

Rule of law is permanently threatened by criminals, Alexis, everywhere. Dictatorship is undesirable because dictators are established by populist means.

As always, I wish you would not make dark allusions to what regime you support and instead say it in a simple sentence e.g. "I support a xyz".

The key for you to grab hold of is this one: I am not here defending one or the other side so much as I am examining the issues connected with the events of our day.

But if you are examining them , what is the point if you disclaim any personal attachment to some moral stance. you may as well be a machine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But if you are examining them, what is the point if you disclaim any personal attachment to some moral stance. You may as well be a machine.

The world of deep power, the world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination, is I think where machine-mentality exists and operates. It is those entities that pull the strings.

My ‘morality’ has a presence in my day-to-day life.

The world, now, is in a state of warring, but it’s occurring on new levels. Seeing that might, and might not, be useful to any of us.

The “The Democrats hate America” thing is really a farce. There are power struggles that transcend those political titles.

[Trajk Logik]

It's not that Democrats or Republicans hate America. They don't even hate each other. They just want you to think they do to divide us and pit us against each other instead of focusing on them and corruption they are engaged in.

The two-party system is one step away from one-party rule and both parties are working together to make that happen. We're basically already there.

Abolish political parties. Abolish group-think and group-hate. Do your research and consider other candidates that are neither Democrat or Republican. Don't say third parties don't have a chance to win. They do, when we start changing. Be the change you want to see in the world, and don't call yourself a progressive if you keep voting to maintain the status quo.

[Belinda]

But if you are examining them, what is the point if you disclaim any personal attachment to some moral stance. You may as well be a machine.

The world of deep power, the world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination, is I think where machine-mentality exists and operates. It is those entities that pull the strings.

My ‘morality’ has a presence in my day-to-day life.

The world, now, is in a state of warring, but it’s occurring on new levels. Seeing that might, and might not, be useful to any of us.

The “The Democrats hate America” thing is really a farce. There are power struggles that transcend those political titles.

I agree with or like all of the above. However I am not hopeless and I believe the social world is at a point of deep change , not a change in control from "world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination" to some alternative "world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination" , but a change of paradigm that grows from evolution involving the whole social system.

I can't guess whether or not the driver will be that today's warring world is morally intolerable but that may be the driver of paradigm change.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, repeating the same lazy or stupid assumptions ..

If that's what they are, just refute them: do you believe physics can describe every real phenomenon, or just some real phenomena?

I do not believe either.

You "don't believe" that physics can describe every phenomenon.
You "don't believe" that physics cannot describe every phenomenon.
I'm sorry to contradict, but that's impossible. Aristotle's law of non-contradiction certainly applies here. All possible positions are covered in that dichotomy. If you "don't believe either," then inescapably, it means that you believe something nonsensical. It can be no other way.

Do you really intend us to understand that you believe the impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

which do you believe -- that physics can describe every phenomenon, or that it cannot?

It seems to me that if something can be observed or measured then it can "described" by physics. If something can neither be observed nor measured then, by definition, we don't know about it.

Well, certainly things can be observed that cannot be measured. For example, how much does person X love person Y? We can't measure that, but we certainly have good observations for it, in some cases. Or the fact that Gary is a person -- Gary knows if he is, or if he's just a bot...but nobody else can be absolutely sure, or measure how much "personhood" Gary possessed relative to any other person. It's observable, but not measurable. Or how about whether or not genocide is evil? We can't measure it, but again, we can estimate it by observation. And so on.

If something observed or measured cannot be explained by physics, then it could be because it will never be possible to do so or it could be because it is not yet possible to do so.

Wait.

We don't know which of these it is, do we? We don't know if some special formula will be discovered that will let us define Gary's selfhood as a "6.2" one day, or his moral standing as a "10," or the justness of his society as a "7.5"-- but do we have even the slightest evidence at present that physics will ever do any such thing? Is there any evidence that it's been able to detect and measure a non-physical reality in past? (If so, which one?)

So to say "it's not yet possible" is to say nothing more than "I wish that physics would one day be able to do what it has never been able to do." It's nothing like science. It's pure prophecy, and prophecy based on no special revelation or real-world evidence at all.

So we don't want to believe anything that speculative, do we? At least, not without at least some modicum of justification.

[Immanuel Can]

The “The Democrats hate America” thing is really a farce. There are power struggles that transcend those political titles.

I agree with or like all of the above. However I am not hopeless and I believe the social world is at a point of deep change , not a change in control from "world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination" to some alternative "world of enormous geo-political struggle and machination" , but a change of paradigm that grows from evolution involving the whole social system.

I can't guess whether or not the driver will be that today's warring world is morally intolerable but that may be the driver of paradigm change.

Actually, Alexis, in Belinda's reply is the response to your disclaimer. You talk about "America" here, and in her response, she alters the key term to "the world."

Thus, there is a sense in which "the Dems hate America" is a sensible thing to say; and it's if we also say, "The Dems seem to be aiming at a post-national world government, in which entities like America represent an inhibiting factor, and so they resent the very existence of such entities." We might also say, then, that the Dems hate Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, Israel, Botswana, the Koreas, China, Russia, Belgium, and every other national entity in the world, and wish to see them all eliminated in order to produce their Socialist global "utopia," the sort of thing the WEF also aims at, and the kind of thing the European Union is currently failing at.

In such a case, we would not even find the expression "The Dems hate America" strange. They would have a hatred for ALL countries -- and plausibly even more for America, since at present, it's the world's leading national entity, especially in military, economic, and cultural terms...which it undeniably is. The road to globalism would inevitably lead through the destruction of America, then.

And this would also explain their project of dissolving national borders, in increasing civic unrest, in creating ever-increasing government-dependency in Americans, in centralizing control, in expanding the bureaucracy that depends on government largesse, in destabilizing international relations...and so on. So "the Dems hate America" would actually account for the vast majority of their policies, if we understand them to be aspiring international Socialists.

[Will Bouwman]

If that's what they are, just refute them: do you believe physics can describe every real phenomenon, or just some real phenomena?

I do not believe either.

You "don't believe" that physics can describe every phenomenon.
You "don't believe" that physics cannot describe every phenomenon.
I'm sorry to contradict, but that's impossible. Aristotle's law of non-contradiction certainly applies here. All possible positions are covered in that dichotomy. If you "don't believe either," then inescapably, it means that you believe something nonsensical. It can be no other way.


Do you really intend us to understand that you believe the impossible?

You really don't understand underdetermination, do you?
Anyway, it seems physics can explain a bit more than before:
https://youtu.be/NCD2A_bhDTI?si=78dSDibVvp5Z7TOR

[Immanuel Can]

I do not believe either.

You "don't believe" that physics can describe every phenomenon.
You "don't believe" that physics cannot describe every phenomenon.
I'm sorry to contradict, but that's impossible. Aristotle's law of non-contradiction certainly applies here. All possible positions are covered in that dichotomy. If you "don't believe either," then inescapably, it means that you believe something nonsensical. It can be no other way.


Do you really intend us to understand that you believe the impossible?

You really don't understand underdetermination, do you?

I understand logic. And the law of non-contradiction covers this one beautifully.

That you don't want to answer, I understand. But reality doesn't work the way you'd like it to. It still insists on truth. And those who fight it have never won, even once.

[FlashDangerpants]

You "don't believe" that physics can describe every phenomenon.
You "don't believe" that physics cannot describe every phenomenon.
I'm sorry to contradict, but that's impossible. Aristotle's law of non-contradiction certainly applies here. All possible positions are covered in that dichotomy. If you "don't believe either," then inescapably, it means that you believe something nonsensical. It can be no other way.


Do you really intend us to understand that you believe the impossible?

You really don't understand underdetermination, do you?

I understand logic. And the law of non-contradiction covers this one beautifully.

That you don't want to answer, I understand. But reality doesn't work the way you'd like it to. It still insists on truth. And those who fight it have never won, even once.

Kid in ice cream shop: "Maybe I want Chocolate, or perhaps I might prefer Rocky Road"
Immanuel Can: "Impossible you foolish child! you have broken the law of non-contradiction."

You really do need to come to PN on a daily basis to not miss out on the genius shit that goes down here.