Total topics: 5
#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.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
"Charles Barkley recently explained why "we as black people are never going to be successful." His reasoning is painful:
"We as black people are never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you are black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people," Barkley said.
Barkley, a native of Leeds, [Alabama,] said African Americans are too concerned with street cred than true success and that's holding the community back.
"For some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you're not a thug or an idiot, you're not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don't break the law, you're not a good black person. It's a dirty, dark secret in the black community.
"There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don't have success. It's best to knock a successful black person down because they're intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they're successful. It's just typical BS that goes on when you're black, man."
It's worth noting that there isn't much difference between Barkley's claim that "there are a lot black people who are unintelligent" and the claims of a garden-variety racist. I assume that Barkley meant to say something more nuanced. That more charitable analysis, though, is far from a "dirty dark secret." The notion that black irresponsibility is at least part of the "race problem" is widely shared among black America's most prominent figures, beginning—but not ending—with the president of the United States.
~ Thinking people have a decision to make. Will they follow a tradition that half-apologizes when powerful people commit awful crimes? Or will they follow the tradition of Ida B. Wells, of study and investigation, of trying to understand, no matter how horrible that understanding may ultimately seem to be?
It never ceases to amaze me how it is okay for a black person to tell the truth about blacks and certain aspects of the black experience (community, life, etc.) with little to no criticism, but if a white person says no different, they are labeled "a garden-variety racist." However as of late, when educated black individuals speak no differently than Charles Barkley, even expanding on that truth with facts over the left's fiction, they are labeled "the Black face of white supremacy" like Larry Elder, among others.
Another example is Jonathan Capehart, who has been accused just the same as being the black face of white supremacy.
"To be fair, he’s one of many black faces of white supremacy — one of many famous black media figures who whimper for white progressive sympathy while enjoying the lavish life of a 1 percenter.
As someone who’s been poor, homeless multiple times and lived check-to-check, I don’t appreciate it when the world’s most fortunate black people bastardize my existence and expect me to live in fear while being applauded for selling me out.
They are the bigots of low expectations, and we should always remind them of our present-day and historical fortitude."
Flagrant wanton denialism of truth, facts, evidence of those on the progressive left, democrats, and their cohorts is rather disturbing and self-destructive.
Thoughts?
Discuss.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
Officer B. Tatum breaks it down succinctly. And it’s exactly what I’ve said for years. Prove him wrong. Prove me wrong.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
94% of ALL abortions take place BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those being BEFORE 6 weeks gestation. Absolutely. Positively. NO BABY involved.
Words have meaning. That meaning is defined by the context in which they are given. Semantics matters. Syntax matters. When you use words out of context, out of syntax, and semantically incorrect...you end with emotively charged terms based on a perverted context in which they are given. As a result, many words are used as misnomers and many are also conflated with others, albeit incorrectly. Terms like baby, child, children...the "pro-life" crowd never, ever uses the scientifically accurate terminology of any of the stages of pregnancy. Be it biology, psychology, legally, or reproductively. They are too truthful, too dry and meaningless for them because they cannot handle the truth of it all.
The obvious ignorant (uneducated) #prolife bandwagon considers #conception = to [a] #humanlife or [a] #humanbeing. Problem with that statement is, #cellularlife does NOT equal #ahumanbeing or #personhood.
Cellular life (i.e., conception), the basic biological criteria for #life, is merely potentiality. Without #viability (capable of extrauterine survival), the pregnancy is immaterial. It will not exist until it gestates long enough within the female #womb, period.
Again, 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks, and viability is technically 19-20 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions are AFTER 22-24 weeks. So, the whole "baby killers" argument is unsubstantiated uneducated nonsense. While there are some late term abortions, they are far, few and between (the noted 1.2%).
While fertilization, or conception, meets the very basic biological criterial for cellular life, that cellular life simply does not equal an actual #humanbeing. It just doesn't; as potentiality can never equal actuality. And yet the pro-life crowd keeps using incorrect terminology, misnomers, to describe accurately labeled stages of human reproductive development of a pregnancy. Baby this, baby that.
A zygote is NOT a baby.
A blastocyst is NOT a baby.
An embryo is NOT a baby.
An unviable fetus is NOT a baby.
An initial heartbeat does NOT equal a baby either. A heartbeat only means that an albeit immature organ (not entirely fully developed) is functional. Take the embryo/fetus out of the womb too early (before 19-22 weeks), and it will cease to exist. That being said, #viability is the ONLY issue that should concern anyone where a pregnancy is concerned. This proves why 94% of ALL abortions are before 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those being before 6 weeks. NO girl or woman wants to be responsible for the outright death of a viable fetus (i.e., if viable, an actual "baby"). Despite viability, the pregnancy still has no legal rights outside of Roe v Wade (i.e. - prohibition of late term abortions for mere contraceptive purposes).
Yes, many come back at me with the laws concerning double homicide of a pregnant woman; yet the fact remains that both the state and federal laws written of same categorize or ascribe the label of "legal victim" to the pregnancy, regardless of stage, and never that of [a] human being. The legislators knew that to state otherwise would immediately conflict with established case law (precedence) and Roe v Wade; not to mention the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. So that argument is dead in the water (pardon the pun).
The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Why is it that blacks from abroad who come to America do far better than native born black Americans?
Simple answer, native born black Americans have both too much freedom that they take advantage of, and in doing so blame everyone else (namely white people) for their failures when they do not succeed where others (namely white people) have.
Of the surviving 11 million Africans brought across the Atlantic, only an estimated 335k were brought to North America whereas the remaining 10.7 million were taken to the Caribbean and South America. Yet to this very day, no one the world over ever hears about racism against blacks except against those blacks in America. Sure, there is some racism in other places, but it pales in comparison to the racism claimed in America against blacks.
Growing up in the 70s into the 80s, blacks were more than present in television, movies and commercials. Yet as of late, racist self-oppressed celebrities like Jadda Pinkett Smith claims blacks are too underrepresented in the motion picture arts due to racism. Racism has nothing to do with it, but rather a lack of interest amongst their own to get into the motion picture arts. Download Brit Box (British Television) and choose any show or movie and blacks are equally, if not heavily represented in those shows or movies the same as it was in the past in America. Underrepresentation in television, movies or any other profession has very little to do with racism and everything to do with a lack of interest.
Look at Nichelle Nichols from the original Star Trek. Did she inspire a lot of black women to become communications specialists/experts? No. Dr. McCoy inspired many to become doctors. Scotty inspired many to become engineers. Captain Kirk inspired others to become leaders. Even Spock inspired others to get into the sciences. While Nichols broke barriers in television, especially with the first racial kiss with William Shatner, a Canadian actor, she simply did little to inspire other black girls to get into the communication fields. Which goes beyond merely answering calls and transmitting data. Far beyond it.
Bottom line, no one in America or abroad hears about any level of racism, oppression, or supremacy experienced by blacks in America on par anywhere else in the world. Why is that? Perhaps it has more to do with how blacks in America, no thanks to the Black Panther Party and its lasting effects, have been a far more detriment to black success in America than any so-called claimed oppression or racism. The latter of which is more of a creation of (i.e., cause and effect) of black outlash than any overt oppression by the general society on the whole, or even in part. Blacks are much to blame for their own failures and problems in America than anyone else. If you raise a victim, you will always be a victim, generation after generation.
It is of no coincidence that the number one place recommended for black Americans to move to is Costa Rica, among other Caribbean, South America and European places. Everywhere else where blacks have learned to live and let live, making a life for themselves, appreciating what life they have (which is precisely why when foreign blacks move to the US, they do far far better than native born blacks).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society