SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

No I’m not saying that AT ALL. What I said is exactly what I said. My grammar, diction, and spelling may not be perfect but I don’t believe they significantly obscure the meaning of my statements and questions. Please don’t attempt to read more into what I say than what is actually said. Though I am not always successful in this, I usually try to be precise when I choose my wording.

 

I don’t know. I don’t know that there would be any way of (even approximately) measuring and then comparing the good against the bad nor, for that matter, getting a fairly clear consensus on what would be qualified as good and bad. Perspectives around the world and even within our own country would differ greatly. I think this would likely be the case for any nation or civilization one were to consider. After all, “what have the Romans ever done for us?”

 

...

 

Like most countries---with the possible exception of the Scandinavian countries ( IMO)---the US does both good and bad here and around the world. What the good / bad would be , are up to the interpretation of those that ruminate on such.

 

...

 

Certainly one man’s calculations are not as good as another. Some are clearly more accurate and less biased. Our progression from the four basic elements to modern chemistry is a clear example that immediately comes to mind.

If my hyperbolic or tongue in cheek statements are not clear as such then that is due to my own limitations and of written communication. Oh well, I think some here would agree that part of the reason we’re having this conversation is to entertain ourselves. Since I’m well aware of my humorous intents, at least I’ve achieved that from time to time.

 

(to post 366)True enough to you and I, however some in society feel the opposite. Mystery to me as to why---but ----so it goes. There are written and unwritten rules that societies adapt or do not adapt. It's pretty easy to pick those that adhere and those that don't. Those that don't find deleterious ways of non adaption. Right before our very eyes.

 

I got your humor / irony in those two posts, Bocci.

 

...

 

Agreed. Not by all,though. Unfortunately.

 

Oooh, a fellow Vonnegut fan?!?!

 

Oh yeah!

 

I don’t recall having claimed my speculations or conclusions are unbiased or even the most accurate. I have simply stated what they are. I have stated some that differ from yours. I like exploring the differences. I’d like to understand your OWN thoughts and opinions and reasons but you tend to just present others’ pronouncements as proof that your opinions are the correct ones and then you tell me I’m in error because they say so. I don’t even recall having said that your opinions or beliefs are inaccurate. I believe objectivity, like perfection, is a worthy goal for which to aspire. I also believe neither one is attainable in our subjective existence.

I have stated that I’m not here to convince anyone; merely to express my divination of the shadows on the cave wall and to listen to others’ divination of the same. I have also stated that I think you are here to “win” an argument. You have several tactics that you employ. I find the one that starts, “so what you’re saying is,” to be both annoying and entertaining. Having seen it employed by partisans before to create false equivalencies, false dichotomies, and straw man arguments, it’s annoying because it makes me suspect your sincerity. It’s entertaining because I see it coming and wonder which one it’s going to be and how you’re going to attempt to twist (or maybe just misinterpret?) my words or meaning.

 

Do you have a favorite?

 

...

 

You explained your perspective and you didn’t cite sources for it. Thank you. I really like that bit about, “man, they sure are shadowy.” That was funny and fairly accurate.

As to blanketing HF with propaganda, you give me too much credit. I have no such goals or even intentions. If you see such, then I think you may be seeing what you want to see. I will, though, take it as some sort of compliment that you think my expressions could qualify as propaganda. Perhaps I’ve stumbled upon a talent I didn’t know I had. I’ll have to give this some thought.

Damaging to responsible political discourse? What even is “responsible political discourse”? Who gets to define it and how? What happens when the political winds change and those who previously defined it no longer do? I’m not the only “normie” who has noticed that when the right is in power, the left preaches tolerance of difference, to include opinion. When the left is in power, they preach suppression of all double-plus un-goodthink.

If my ideas and opinions are incorrect, what significant damage can they do? Does truth not win in the end? Our history books tell me the good guys and the truth have won every single time in the end. Why should you be overly concerned with such “obvious untruths” as mine?

As to my comments being “irresponsible — especially when it downgrades the US,” well, I’m just not a mindless patriot. “My country, right or wrong” is a pretty slippery slope that I’d rather not tread. I’ve demonstrated my patriotism with four years of my early life. I’ve remained loyal to my country my whole life. Our country’s political parties, their benefactors, and the consequent foreign and domestic polices are not our country. I owe them no loyalty and they clearly feel the same toward me.

 

...

 

This thread has drifted far from the original topic, which was the Supreme Court's decision on the Fourteenth Amendment provisions against the eligibility of former insurrectionists for elected office. Bocci has introduced a veritable laundry list of topics ranging from international trade and relations to border policy to matters of race and gender to Trump, fascism, and broad philosophical questions of truth and morality--kind of a microcosm of a number of our threads. i don't know if that's a problem or not, but it does make it hard to stay on topic.