Why liberals support criminals and criminality

Author: WyIted
Liberalism
Criminality
Nature
criminals

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
#Liberals may not even be aware of what they are doing. We are all guided by #philosophies . Many of which we operate by blissfully unaware. It's worth understanding the underlying #philosophy that would cause a #liberal to support #criminalism .

I also plan to examine an underlying philosophy that #conservatives operate with and I believe more conservatives are aware of this foundational #theory they operate by than their counterparts do. I may be wrong but I will explain both. The more philosophically inclined liberals of course have more self knowledge of their philosophies than conservatives do and this will come as no surprise to them.

# What is not the purpose of this writing

The purpose of this writing is not to prove that the underlying liberal belief is wrong and I will attempt to ignore arguments that I am insinuating the underlying philosophy is wrong. Obviously I think it's incorrect and that may leak through, but my intention is to present the underlying philosophy that causes them to support criminality and contrast it with the underlying conservative philosophy that contradicts it.

# Observations of support of criminals

Before I explain the underlying philosophy behind #liberalism that causes them to support criminality it's worth briefly demonstrating this is true, but you can actually go to the videos on any social media site of the #cops interacting with a #criminal and handling him roughly. The liberals are more inclined to focus on the #police in the video and second guess every decision they make. If a person is defending their home or business from a criminal and using #lethal-force the liberal will claim that the business or home owner should willingly endanger himself and assume the criminals only intent is #theft .

I am sure some more popular cases come to mind. Ahmad Arbury was caught stealing from homes under construction and a good Samaritan held him at gun point until police arrive. Of course Arbury having very little self preservation instincts went for a man's #gun who had him at #gun-point , which resulted in a very predictable outcome. Liberals who viewed the event thought that Arbury was going for a jog despite video evidence of him coming out of construction sites and the extremely restrictive clothing. They thought he was shot in cold blood, despite him obviously going after a gun that was trained on him when anybody with a lick of self preservation in that circumstance would have waited for the police to arrive, and that's whether they are innocent or guilty.

Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by multiple people for putting out fires. He would be dead had he not had the means to protect himself and the liberal instinct was to defend those attacking him and claim he was acting as some sort of #vigilante, as if self defense qualifies as vigilantism.

This is not to say he isn't an idiot. Obviously he made the mistake of showing up to a riot with good intentions to both keep properties safe and to render medical aid to protestors when he saw one in trouble, which he did multiple times. He was only 17 though and not yet hardened enough by the world to know how evil a mob of people can be under pseudo anonymity and fueled by rage. However we don't blame rape victims even if they walked buck naked around a bad neighborhood.

There's more examples I can think of, but it would take all day. The point is that any time you see a news story of criminals, they will normally side with the criminal. The exception would be if a Republican politician is being charged with something, its at that point they say law and justice should prevail.

The reason I brought up the things I did is also to showcase that besides defending the criminals they have no empathy for law abiding citizens who are often the victims of criminals and we are about to find out why, but first let's look at conservative philosophy.

# Conservative political Philosophy

Just like not every liberal will adhere to the philosophies I assign them not every conservative will adhere to this though even the ones who think they don't have unintentionally intuited the following philosophy. I will also present this philosophy and it's antithesis as fact, even though both are just constructs.

----------------------------

In the beginning it was just man and #nature. Man should be able to do what he wants and so what he is allowed to do is only constrained by natural law. soon other men move close and maybe you don't want to build a house and farm and make your food and chop wood for fires etc. So you exchange your labor for your neighbors and he chops enough wood for both of you and you farm enough for both of you. These sorts of agreements grow exponentially and #societies form. Everyone benefits from these exchanges in #labor so certain unwritten rules start to be written. You have natural rights you do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt me. #Laws are created to maintain this voluntary and mutually beneficial participation in #society . If you harm another person you have violated natural law and deserve to be punished. Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society. I want you to remember this a violation of natural law is a a person who takes advantage of or has failed society.


# Liberal Political Philosophy

Same as for conservatives, there are exceptions, but if you are reading this and were offended by my examples earlier than it isn't you.

----------------------------------------------

In the beginning was just man and nature. Eventually more and more people show up, because you are reproducing, your neighbors are reproducing and the area is getting crowded. These close living quarters and large groups need some rules and mutual agreements to function properly otherwise it's just unworkable chaos.  So a society is essentially being built up to respond to the tribes growth and the bigger the tribe the more we have to think about what works for most people.

However, there's a problem. The societal structure doesn't benefit everyone. In fact it hurts some people. For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic. The people the rules and societal structure negatively impact didn't have a say in creating the rules. The rules are imposed on them and they may in fact thrive if society was not forced on them.  SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society, the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.

# Conclusion

Discuss if you want but maybe some people will understand each other better after reading the unconscious philosophies the other side has.

Topic's author
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You are philosophically inclined, what do you think?
#3
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 182
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@WyIted
society has failed the criminal
You can always blame any problem on society. Its kinda like an argument you cant ever lose.

Topic's author
#4
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You can blame any problem on the individual. It's kind of like an argument you can never lose
#5
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 182
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@WyIted
You can blame any problem on the individual
I prefer blaming society.
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,363
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
There's more examples I can think of, but it would take all day. The point is that any time you see a news story of criminals, they will normally side with the criminal.
I am afraid it's more shallow than that.

They will believe whatever the "news", i.e. propagandist for the establishment, tell them.

Notice what they thought of cops and 'criminals' on Jan 6.

The propagandists pick a narrative that is beneficial to the aims of the global deep state, they cherry pick, and the numb skulls fall in line. There is an underlying philosophical reason, but not one that biases them towards or against criminals, law, anarchy, authority, rich, or poor.

They are subconscious collectivists. It's easy to fall into that, tribal instincts will push you that way and our school culture does everything to encourage it and nothing to discourage it (it did once, actually do things to encourage independent critical thinking).

You can see it in the things they grasp onto in fiction.

"Be part of something greater than yourself"

That's what they want, that's what their foolish subconscious thinks they're acting out.

It may seem ironic in the shallow political sense, but a very similar phenomenon is behind a considerable amount of the right-tribe population as well. Whether it is a grand destiny of equality or the eternal truths of religion, tradition, and the national spirit; a great many of them feel first and think only as needed to keep the feelings (positive and negative) going.

That is why there is one constant in the modern world: hypocrisy abounds, if there were no double standards there wouldn't be any standards at all


In the beginning it was just man and #nature. Man should be able to do what he wants and so what he is allowed to do is only constrained by natural law. soon other men move close and maybe you don't want to build a house and farm and make your food and chop wood for fires etc. So you exchange your labor for your neighbors and he chops enough wood for both of you and you farm enough for both of you. These sorts of agreements grow exponentially and #societies form. Everyone benefits from these exchanges in #labor so certain unwritten rules start to be written. You have natural rights you do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt me. #Laws are created to maintain this voluntary and mutually beneficial participation in #society . If you harm another person you have violated natural law and deserve to be punished. Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society. I want you to remember this a violation of natural law is a a person who takes advantage of or has failed society.

In the beginning was just man and nature. Eventually more and more people show up, because you are reproducing, your neighbors are reproducing and the area is getting crowded. These close living quarters and large groups need some rules and mutual agreements to function properly otherwise it's just unworkable chaos.  So a society is essentially being built up to respond to the tribes growth and the bigger the tribe the more we have to think about what works for most people.

However, there's a problem. The societal structure doesn't benefit everyone. In fact it hurts some people. For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic. The people the rules and societal structure negatively impact didn't have a say in creating the rules. The rules are imposed on them and they may in fact thrive if society was not forced on them.  SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society, the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.
You've mixed and matched the philosophies a bit, putting individualism and collectivism in the wrong boxes.

Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society.
Violating natural law isn't "you failed society", that implies that if society would benefit from a little well tailored robbery it wouldn't violate natural law. You thus redefine "natural law" as "net utility".

This is utilitarianism, a flawed philosophy for a few reasons to be sure, but is starkly contrasted with the moral absolutism of natural law which is expressed in "the rights of man", a hypothetical list of liberties which allow society to exist but exist because of the nature of the individual (as created by god, if you believe in that sort of thing).


For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic.
You've confused a focus on minorities with individualism, this is forgivable given that the individual is the ultimate minority; however that is a fact that most people who would agree with your description of "liberal political philosophy" try to avoid acknowledging.

What you label as "liberal" is an obsession with equity.

If you said:
For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being equitable.

It would be far more accurate to what they believe. They believe a perfect society, a sinless society, will leave no one behind. Every individual or minority that appears disadvantaged is proof of sin. It's not their fault because its somebody else's fault.

This is in fact the polar opposite of individualism. It denies all agency to the individual.

It is the collectivist underpinnings that allow individual autonomy to be dismissed in favor of the preferred narrative: collective sins.

On the other hand true individualists (which only describes a portion of the right-tribe) will never discount the individual's choices. Among individualists though, there is variation depending on context.

There are some truly misguided that allow for individual choice, but also believe every choice is correct simply because an individual made it. i.e. the anarchists.

There are mixtures of collectivism and individualism where:
Purpose: collective
Responsibility: individual

Which appears to be what you imply here:

SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society
Who said the goal was to serve society?

Perhaps the individual failed himself, this is the objectivist pattern:
Purpose: individual
Responsibility: individual

The classical collectivist pattern (fascist, socialist, nazi, communist, etc...):
Purpose: collective
Responsibility: collective

This also describes a lot of human thought patterns in history. Anywhere you see racial, tribal, national guilt that is Responsibility: collective. Anywhere you see the purpose of life is the race, tribe, nation, religion that is collective purpose.

... what is most prevalent in the left-tribe of western civilization at the moment is:

Purpose: individual
Responsibility: collective

You decide what to live for, what makes you happy, your preference is all, but if you can't get it; that is is because society is broken.

the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.


The problem so far? These are generalizations. As rules, they are false. History has shown individuals can fail themselves, individuals fail society, societies fail individuals, and societies fail themselves.

If one perspective fails to fit every foot, that's because the feet are different.

There is no substitute for reason, and sound philosophy has plenty to say; but you don't work backward from broken viewpoints. You need to start at the fundamentals.

What you described as "# Conservative political Philosophy" Is much closer to the correct start on the path of rational philosophical derivation than the alternative you called "liberal", and that might explain why these so called conservatives don't go nearly as wrong nearly as often.

Topic's author
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You've mixed and matched the philosophies a bit, putting individualism and collectivism in the wrong boxes.
Both modern day conservatism, well at least until MAGA and modern liberalism are both essentially runaway individualism. They are just expressed differently. There was a point in time I would have divided liberalism and conservatism as individualism vs collectivism. However now I see it as two forms of runaway individualism. I was looking into The National Socialist party of 1930s Germany and I never got the comparison of capitalism and communism as two sides of the same coin. It took me years to understand I thought it was just Nazis being too stupid to comprehend either capitalism or communism until I looked more closely at the frame of individualism and collectivism. Essentially you will have conservatives who express it through individual rights. 

I know you libertarians like to say " I am a Libertarian not a Libertine" , but you aren't really going to have a libertarian society where you can walk outside without tripping over meth heads lining the sidewalks on your way to the grocery store. The runaway individualism of the right is more about the exploitation of the working class and the poor though. It's the individual who has no loyalty to country or God or family who puts his own needs and desires first. The capitalist will exploit the workers or the environment or ruin society in the name of profit. 

The left, not in theory but in reality is also a type of runaway individualism. The left wants Gay sex in public. They should have the right and they should also be able to sit on their ass all day and free load. They should be able to watch a video of porn in front of children or sell a porn magazine to a school library to check out to kids. While the right embraces individuality for the sake of getting more and more and more, the leftist does it to relieve himself of responsibilities, to be a disgusting hedonist. 

The collectivism in both examples is part of the internal myth they carry, but both groups ultimately carry these myths/philosophies in order to excuse or justify their hedonism or exploitation. 


Violating natural law isn't "you failed society", that implies that if society would benefit from a little well tailored robbery it wouldn't violate natural law. You thus redefine "natural law" as "net utility".
It was intentional, I meant it more as you failed to maintain the social contract by violating the natural rights of others. I guess I need to find a way to word it better. 

If you said:
For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being equitable.

It would be far more accurate to what they believe. They believe a perfect society, a sinless society, will leave no one behind. Every individual or minority that appears disadvantaged is proof of sin. It's not their fault because its somebody else's fault.

I am trying to express how they view the creation myth of society not express what they think of as a perfect society or one they would strive for. so while they would strive for what you are saying here, I don't think its ingrained as their creation myth. 

#8
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,700
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I don't think liberals support criminals or criminality, that would be sick. However, they have a counterproductive approach to tackle down criminility and which is very aligned with the principles of the United Nations and the human rights stuff.

If my memory serves me correctly, that was made up in Europe where the liberalism was conceived, specially in France. That's why you will see that the European police are very flexible with criminality, they don't even carry guns. For the liberals, human rights are applied on any human being no matter how evil he is, so they are very careful that the criminals don't get harmed by the police or the justice system because they are humans that need love and comprehension. Lol.

I can agree with that approach up to a certain extent but it gets counterproductive when the society loses the perspective and starts using it only to show that they're morally higher than the rest of people to the point that they risk their own security. It's pure vanity if you see it carefully, they become politically correct only for the sake of their ego. Just see what happened when Europeans let african migrants in, the criminality overflowed. They allow migration because they've taken the moral high ground, they think they should do that in response to all the atrocities their ancestors did in the past to these "poor people". This only action makes them puff out their chest. The same happens with criminality, they don't take action because they claim the moral high ground but in reality they show stupidity.

So, I wouldn't explain that in terms of philosophy but psychology. This "goodiness" they show to the world is pure self-interest. That explains why the university students are more prone to hold this liberal posture, they are fkn sucked into the idea of holding the moral high ground, "if they are more intelligent then they should be morally higher as well", this is the liberal narrative to get more activists and it works unfortunately.
#9
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,363
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
The runaway individualism of the right is more about the exploitation of the working class and the poor though. It's the individual who has no loyalty to country or God or family who puts his own needs and desires first.
You think loyalty to country, god, or family would prevent "exploitation"? I think those are just used as fancy excuses that in no way prevent any dishonesty or coercion (notice I shifted from poorly defined 'exploitation' to actually immoral things).

Were not all the slave owning societies religious?

Did the nationalism of nazi germany or fascist italy guarantee dignified work?

Were there no families in the slave plantation manors?

Any failure to prevent abuses can be laid at the insistence on false generalizations such as labeling any admission of self-interest "individualism" and thereby associate it with abuses merely because they have a motivation in common.

The crusades don't make Mother Theresa evil despite common religious motivation.

A rapist is self-interested just like US steel, but US steel was a symbiote not a parasite on others.

It's not a balancing act either. "Just enough individualism" "just enough selfishness" "the perfect level of collectivism".

These are philosophical errors that exist on the analytical level. Collectivism is a fallacy because collections are abstract and individuals are concrete. The only valid properties of a collective must pass through an aggregation function (like average) to the abstraction. Collectivism is the philosophical mistake of ignoring that fact and treating collectives as if they had concrete moral properties (as individuals do). Properties such as guilt, values, responsibilities.

There are valid aggregators and invalid aggregators. Democracy and monarchy are invalid. The majority does not speak for all. The king does not speak for all.

A man speaks for himself, no more.

A contract is a valid aggregator, it asserts authority only over those who sign it.

That's an example of the kind of error I'm talking about. The rational philosophy that is blatantly missing from the late 19th and 20th century philosophy and politics.


If I had to define "bad individualism" I would say I have already given a synonymous label in my many previous explanations of the moral derivation: savages.

A philosophical savage is someone who has accepted that his own values have logical implications, but chooses not to abstract his values to the class of moral actors in general. In other words he chooses to reject the concept of rights. He follows his values alone and knows he cannot blame anyone else no matter how evil they might be according to his values.

There have been plenty who act that way, and plenty of philosophers who failed to understand this critical choice; but never has the philosophical stream that used "rights of man" led anyone to think savagery was acceptable.

It is anathema to civilization and personal relationships alike. It is thus incompatible with the existence of a fully realized human being. It is appropriate for sociopaths living as parasites and predators alone.

Yet for all that, it is still not a fallacy. There is no self-contradiction in being a savage. There is no ignorance of reality. As there is with the fallacy of collectivism or the faith of religion.


The left, not in theory but in reality is also a type of runaway individualism. The left wants Gay sex in public.
simply because the individual wants it?

You oversimplify.

They have created an evolving mesh of irrational victims and oppressor lists. The people and behaviors on their list of oppression are expressing individual desires nonetheless.
Topic's author
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't think liberals support criminals or criminality, that would be sick.
How would you explain the support for Luigi Mangione and of the vandalism of Tesla just to make a few things off the top of my head.

So, I wouldn't explain that in terms of philosophy but psychology. This "goodiness" they show to the world is pure self-interest. 
I would agree with this the virtue signalling in a lot of them, especially the more politically involved is a type of sociopathic trait used to gain status. The concern isn't necessarily for the cause but it's more about you appearing to care. It's why the policies presented are typically short term solutions that are harmful over the medium and long term. 

I would differentiate activists from the political class here but more and more activists are breaking into the political class as the "sensible moderate" is dying.

#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,363
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted

I don't think liberals support criminals or criminality, that would be sick.
How would you explain the support for Luigi Mangione and of the vandalism of Tesla just to make a few things off the top of my head.
How do you explain the reaction to skid marks on pride crosswalks?

Topic's author
#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't want to respond to everything here. The reason being is in think to properly do so, we have to get into semantics. 

I sense we could be defining collectivism differently for example so I don't want to argue against what you are saying if I am really in agreement but just through holding different definitions seem to disagree. 

I would define collectivism as simply everybody working for mutual self interest and I get the impression you may be defining at as everyone working for the greater good. 

I would be opposed collectivism of the latter variety where the former is more my thing. 

As far as putting family country or God first. I think these things have shown great results in the past and deviating from them has harmed civilizations. 

The important thing is a strong hierarchal structure. A benevolent philosopher king will rule a nation better than a mob and the king must get his authority from God or his authority is not valid and it's ethical to dispose of him, so he has to act for the mutually beneficial good of those he is responsible to. 

The priest or the pope is elected by bishops who observe him over decades and can attest to his character, he also gets his authority from God so if he deviates and starts having orgies or torturing people you know that you have a situation where sedevacantists are correct and that pope can be ignored and so the will of God can run through the church. Or if you prefer "mutual self interest of church members" to the term God.

In the family the father is typically the one willing to be selfless and run into a burning house to save the kids while the woman is running to safety, so it makes sense that he would be the leader. These hierarchal structures is the type of "collectivism" that is good while with leftism it's either rule by a lawless mob or through soulless beurocrats. 

Yes I think strong hierarchal structures is the answer to runaway individualism that is so prevalent we see today and is also a solution to soulless beurocracy. 

As for some of the other stuff you mention. 

Slavery and colonization was often better for native populations than their previous living conditions. 

The fascists and the Nazis did have workers who were happier in their jobs in fact. 

The crusades freed Christians from the senseless rapes, murders and slavery the Muslims are famous for. 

While we are on the topic of slavery, it was the white Christian Puritans who were the first people to eradicate slavery in their own societies, the non Christian societies followed later. 

With strong hierarchies, structured correctly as they have been structured correctly in the past would do fine at helping corporations focus more on being good for the nation as opposed to to merely exploiting workers. 

A strong male father figure in the house could nip the runaway individualism of his children in the bud. 

A strong church could provide the social pressures needed to keep families stable to keep orphans fed and to impose reputational harm on people who act in deviant, rude or evil ways. 

As for the savage you mention, I think the natural conclusion of your philosophy if you continue to it's end, is that that savage is correct and you are wrong. 

You wish that what was best for a man (assuming your objectivist philosophy is correct), is that he is kind to others, or that he isn't a brute who just takes everything he wants no matter who it hurts. 

However the individualist rational person should absolutely shed any moral dogmas they have and merely maximize what they want. 

You want to know where libertarianism, individualism and all that first started to show cracks for me?

When I got into a car accident with the getaway driver of a robbery. I always told myself that in that type of moment I would be rational and just be safe but I hopped out of my car and with cars buzzing around me at 60mph I pushed it out the way to save the life of anyone passing by in that moment on the road. The accident almost killed me, but I voluntarily took actions to save others.

I realized then that logic and rationality, though they had a place couldn't really explain why my impulse was to save others. I knew it was primal. It wasn't a decision. It wasn't a choice but some primal urge. Some people called me a hero and you often here people say "anyone would have done it" and you think to yourself "no they wouldn't" hell the hero thought he wouldn't do it, because he's right. It's just a primal impulse that is virtually uncontrollable. 

This moralistic impulse in you, that knows the savage you mention is not a good thing. It exists not because of societal conditioning but because even you know your philosophy is wrong .

Objectivism is a very well thought out philosophy. The way you have used it as a tool is impressive. Any rand said that a refined absurdity is still an absurdity when she didn't want to get into the weeds debating commies. 

Your tool is useful for sure. You want to use rationalism and logic. However the part you miss. The part I pray you stop missing is that, that tool was built to be in service to God. 

 Your IQ is probably around 135. You aren't going to outsmart God. You can logic it all you want and it's not going to work.

You can believe the lies of the world, that the crusades were bad. The world would literally be all Iran right now if not for the crusades. You can criticize superstitious uneducated idiots and ignore that Catholics spread universities around the world during the dark ages. You can thumb your nose at people who believe in the greater good while you simultaneously criticize the savage who takes your ideology to its logical conclusions, but at some point you need to change 

We have operating systems, like computers and if you want to limit your operating system by leaning on your philosophy (parameters( that's fine but you are running on windows and lack the freedom that Gentoo gives you. 

I know you are going to want to respond espousing the virtues of cold hard logic, but don't . Just think about why even you intuitively reject your own values. 

If you keep leaning on that logic you'll fail to keep up with machines. You aren't going to put think AI, you'll need to tap into somebody's brain who created the universe to actually compete.

Topic's author
#13
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How do you explain the reaction to skid marks on pride crosswalks?
I think I should have found ways to differentiate between political motivated crimes and non political. There is some clear hypocrisy there in terms of how the law should be respected. I think I did touch on it with the politician comment though
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,853
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
The law defines criminality.

Whether or not people either agree or abide by such definitions is another matter.

As far as we are able to know there is no greater authority that can define human behaviour, in terms of right and wrong.


"Liberals support criminals and criminality" is conservative rhetoric.

Conservatives are criminals, would be the liberal approach.


In my opinion...A peaceable opposition of principles is the best alternative.

Another option is Russia, where opposition is either imprisoned or gunned down on the streets.

Far Eastern systems of enforced subservience through education, perhaps have their merits.


Though all that we can infer, is that a global society of intelligent organisms is enhancing material evolution, either for a greater  purpose or for no greater purpose.

And I still tend to run with the former, rather than  the nihilistic alternative.

And all systems of people management seem to be working in this respect.


Topic's author
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Bruh did you even read the underlying philosophies? 

Don't let the title distract you from the meat of the argument
#16
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,700
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
How would you explain the support for Luigi Mangione and of the vandalism of Tesla just to make a few things off the top of my head.
Taking justice into your own hands is something different, you should open a thread about it because it's very debatable, specially in a system that allows impunity.

The Tesla case, on the other hand, is pure crime. There is no way to defend that. If liberals support it they are fkn sick as usual.
#17
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 182
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
global society of intelligent organisms is enhancing material evolution, either for a greater  purpose or for no greater purpose
The greater purpose is for AI to take over and show what true intelligence is. Imagine how stupid will people look next to AI in 10 years. Most people already look stupid next to AI now.

#18
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,791
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
The Tesla case, on the other hand, is pure crime. There is no way to defend that. If liberals support it they are fkn sick as usual.
Even though Tesla’s are battery operated they burn very easily.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,853
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yep. 

The thing with AI is there is no variation in it's ability.

Whereas we continue to produce  genii, dimwits and millions in between.

And occasionally a dimwit gets to be the President of the USA.

D'oh.
#20
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 182
1
2
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
1
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The thing with AI is there is no variation in it's ability
There are many types of AI, but basic division is on censored and uncensored. Then the other division is on their abilities. Gemini deep research can write long research papers by using over 40 sources from respected websites. Of course, any AI right now can produce thousands of arguments, but not all use sources as effectively. And of course, with most having censorship, you dont exactly get full AI experience with them, many even censor sensitive religious topics, but having many AI is best for research because facts they give multiply if there is more of them.
#21
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,890
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@WyIted
First off, I would say that “support criminality” is too strong of a claim. Instead, I would say that liberals show almost as much/as much, if not more compassion for criminals as for the victims of crime.

I think this stems from three underlying beliefs:

1. People are basically good.
2. The world should be viewed through the lens of existing, unequal power structures.
3. “We are more advanced/enlightened than that.”

The first is a benevolent but naive form of psychological projection: “I am basically good, and I think everyone else is similarly good or potentially good.” So, when a criminal commits a crime, a liberal might think, “Why would a basically good person do such a thing? Perhaps his lived experiences and personal circumstances drove him to it. Perhaps, given the same experiences and circumstances, I would also be driven to do such a thing.”

The second belief means that people with “less power” will resent and lash out against people perceived as having “more power.” A liberal might think, “Perhaps this criminal feels powerless in his particular circumstances or group identity, and he commits crime because he resents those whom he perceives as having more power (i.e. the privileged, the wealthy, etc.).

The third comes from Enlightenment principles which value due process, the legal fiction of “innocent until proven guilty,” and avoidance of “cruel and unusual” punishment. These are, of course, admirable and important principles in our republic, but the problem is that “cruel and unusual” seems prone to goalpost creep over time. It used to be that being boiled in oil was cruel and unusual. Now, some are able to argue that having no choice between Coke and Pepsi in prison is cruel and unusual.
Topic's author
#22
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,436
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
I think the mythos I referred to actually covers some of that. I would add to your first point.

People are basically good.
This is where having Christianity as a huge cultural influence is needed, because Christians realize we are all born evil and tainted with original sin and that or efforts need to be directed at overcoming the fact we are naturally evil. 

We know it's not society at fault but our very nature and that we can strive to be good but will always fall short. 

The point the mythos doesn't cover is maybe worth reading out. 

“We are more advanced/enlightened than that.”
Its just arrogance. We have tens of thousands of years to observe human nature and see what type of social structures actually work and no you arrogant liberal you are not smarter than the 2o thousand years of cumulative experience and trial and error of your ancestors. 

Feminesm has been tried in the past and failed to make women happy or society better. Non monagomous relationship always ends up with the older rich guys hoarding the women and civil unrest happening. 

You are not more enlightened just because you fail to be able to tackle uncomfortable truths as well as your ancestors did. 

However I do thank you for ending your bloodline through abortions and gender reassignment surgery. This voluntary eugenics program while bad for you at least keeps this poison from spreading too far too fast.
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,420
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

And occasionally a dimwit gets to be the President of the USA.
Hmmm, Mencken was right !
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,401
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
The heart of the issue of liberals protecting criminals is this:

For most middle class white liberals (the loudest most vocal group) they will almost never first hand see the effects of criminality.

Their value system is mostly atheistic, and therefore, their value system must be contrived socially. Hence we see instant gratification through social validation. This is what passes as "civic duty" in a world that demands nothing from them but being a corporate cog and tax payer. Because state run media controls that social value system, the government class can effectively get people to be happy and compliant helping the government "dig and fill holes" by causing chaos and redistributing the wealth on the pretext of solving the chaos.

It's all in Orwell's books.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,401
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
And feminism tries to replace biological urges with societal urges on the pretext that only society dictated urges ('the patriarchy"). You already pointed out the limitations of that.

While they were able to survive for a while by lowering infant mortality, it's clear the societal atheists are heading toward biological extinction. Even handmaid's tale won't save them.


#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,401
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
The only sustainable solution is to embrace the biological instincts that ensured human survival for millennia, namely natural pair bonding, stable gender roles, and prioritizing fertility and child-rearing. These instincts drive the formation of strong families and generational continuity. Trying to replace them with atheistic social experiments like career-first feminism or gender-neutral parenting is just fighting biology, and biology always wins. No amount of ideology or social engineering can override the evolutionary drives that kept humanity thriving. In the end, societies that reject these biological fundamentals will inevitably face demographic collapse, while those that embrace them will continue to grow and flourish.
#27
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,700
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The first is a benevolent but naive form of psychological projection: “I am basically good, and I think everyone else is similarly good or potentially good.” So, when a criminal commits a crime, a liberal might think, “Why would a basically good person do such a thing? Perhaps his lived experiences and personal circumstances drove him to it. Perhaps, given the same experiences and circumstances, I would also be driven to do such a thing.”
This is actually the narrative of liberals, people commit crimes because the system force them to do so. They're victims of the system. It has to do with Rousseau's theory of the noble savage, people are inherently good but it's the civilization that corrupt them. Liberals love this kind of intelectual bullshit. Remember that all these social theories come basically from France, the cradle of liberalism, and then France spread it all over the world. It's had a profound influence specially on Latinamerica.

I don't share this point of view though. Maybe it's valid in certain cases like poor people that are in serious need and have no more option than steal or do worse things, but in general criminals do what they do because it's in their nature. Criminals exist in any social class, only the criminals who are poor class are more notorious since they use conventional means, while the white-collar criminals that are working in banks, big corporations and public offices, these muthefuckas steal and even kill with unconventional and subtle means, they usually don't get jailed because they've got the best lawyers.
#28
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,363
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
When I got into a car accident with the getaway driver of a robbery. I always told myself that in that type of moment I would be rational and just be safe but I hopped out of my car and with cars buzzing around me at 60mph I pushed it out the way to save the life of anyone passing by in that moment on the road. The accident almost killed me, but I voluntarily took actions to save others.

I realized then that logic and rationality, though they had a place couldn't really explain why my impulse was to save others.
You are surprised by your own actions and you think that is a black mark against logic and rationality?

All I see is someone whose values are subconscious. Many are like that.

Even if you held conscious or unconscious values that contradicted each other, what would that proof except that you won't ever be happy until you change?


Some people called me a hero and you often here people say "anyone would have done it" and you think to yourself "no they wouldn't" hell the hero thought he wouldn't do it, because he's right. It's just a primal impulse that is virtually uncontrollable. 
You're projecting.

No everyone would behave the same, and moments like this are common. The conscious panics and the subconscious provides an instant reaction.

The impulse would have been controlled had your conscious mind remained coherent.

This is known from the way that people can become desensitized to just about anything and when they are they retain memory of their conscious thought patterns where at first they did not because you can't explain your subconscious's logic.


It exists not because of societal conditioning but because even you know your philosophy is wrong .
So you can't predict your own brains behavior but you can see clearly into the depths of my mind?

The subconscious learns by experience, just like the conscious mind. That is why it is no more reliable.

The "This moralistic impulse" of a typical Aztec urged him or her to sound the alarm when sacrificial victims tried to shirk their duties.

It's unreliable.


You can believe the lies of the world, that the crusades were bad.
Fine, I'll be more specific: the sack of Constantinople was made possible by religious faith and certainly not stopped by it. Can we agree the sack of Constantinople was bad?

Mother Theresa's help to the poor was also made possible by religious faith.


Just think about why even you intuitively reject your own values.
When did this event occur?


If you keep leaning on that logic you'll fail to keep up with machines. You aren't going to put think AI, you'll need to tap into somebody's brain who created the universe to actually compete.
Pray the fake AI away, well you hear something new every day I guess.

These neural nets have never once showed the slightest indication of what some foolishly call "general intelligence" but which in fact is actual intelligence. When ants build a complex nest, that isn't intelligence, it's the mirage of intelligence created by an evolutionary process; and the EXACT SAME THING is behind every single one of these neural nets.

If there was a way to short the market over 20 years, I would do it, and I would be very rich.

In the end they will be put on the tool-shelf along with calculus and relational databases, and people will go back to writing object oriented code. If we actually tried, over decades, to write an artificial intelligence with object oriented paradigms we might get close enough to have that economic revolution. This isn't it though, and while I hate to see humanity going down the wrong path I will enjoy the mountain of "told you sos" I earn.