Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
#26

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-03-2019, 12:02 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(09-02-2019, 02:35 AM)grympy Wrote: I do not intentionally make enemies on forums or in real life. I apologise for any offence. Can we please move on.

Absolutely, we can. It may be me misreading as well, and if that's the case you have my apologies for such.

It's in the rear-view mirror here, these things happen. Peace, brotha.

Nonsense! Only one of you can be captain of the Milano Knives, knives to the death!

[Image: tumblr_p74xewdqTz1tlgqkgo5_250.gif]
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#27

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-03-2019, 05:02 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(09-01-2019, 11:36 PM)grympy Wrote: Although your understanding is historically correct, today the term 'realpolitic' has a broader meaning.  I use it  in that sense. 


"Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and [i]Politik[/i]; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik




In the US,  realpolitik took on a rather ugly connotation after Nixon and Henry Kissinger.  It became an excuse to do amoral and illegal activities.  Being 'Stralian, you may not know that for many Americans, realpolitik is a dirty word. Just saying...


"Well, when the president does it, it means it is not illegal."
- Richard Nixon


Yes,I'm aware the ignorant and the romantic tend to use the term as a pejorative, as indeed they tend to  use the term  "Machiavellian' 

(they should read Sun Tzu. THAT would shock  their sensitive little souls)

My understanding  of 'realpolitik' boils down to"the ends justify the means"  . My observation is that this is the way politics actually works.

THAT political decisions are seldom if ever made on moral principle, but on the  perceived best  of country, or of party, or of self .  Or any combination of the three. 

That relations between countries are  almost always on the basis of quid pro quo. 

That nations do not have  friends. They have interests, allies, 'neutral' (there's really no such thing, inaction is a choice)  and enemies. 

An example; Port Arthur Tasmania, 1996. A lone gunman killed 32 people injured many more.The Prime Minister of the day was John Howard. He was shown on TV hugging the family members of victims. I remember thinking at he time that was the most human I'd ever seen him appear. 

Within a matter of weeks ,the government had passed legislation banning hand guns.  It is now  very difficult to own ANY firearm and several other weapons  in Oz.  (a bit easier for farmers to own low calibre rifles for killing foxes ,'roos, etc)

At the time, the country  applauded. Australia is not America , we have no second amendment. The majority view wast that the government had acted morally, in the best interest of the country. That was also my view at the time .

A cynical person could say the exercise was about more power for government t, which is objectively true.  I suspect that would be a common attitude in the US if a government did ANYTHING to restrict gun ownership,  let alone banning any kind of firearm .  

-and who would say Donald Trump governs in any other way than through the lense of his personal self interest? Consider .
Reply
#28
Thumbs Down 
Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
Sorry for so late.  Busier than a hive of bees.

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: This is definitely a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good.

WTFGDH does this mean?  Sure you forgot something since this statement makes absolutely no comprehensible sense.  Perhaps restate it with a higher literacy vocabulary...

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: You're basically saying that democracy doesn't work.

Please provide objective hard empirical evidence that democracy actually works.

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: The alternatives are better then?

Depends upon the alternatives.  China has proven that their socialism mixed with capitalism works.  When disasters occur, they have aid within the area in less than 24 hours.  Here with our "loose" definition of democracy ruled by capitalism is a complete failure.  Why is it a failure?  Because the Religious Absolutists have completely taken control of our politics.  The USA is NO longer a government "for the people, by the people, of the people."  Prove me wrong.

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: No, they wouldn't be, either, because politicians, and by extension, politics and public policy are inherently corrupt and unworkable.

Thus the reason no one deserves my vote.  Least of all, you.

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: So in other words politics involves people, therefore, there's no point in trying to make it work, and you're not suggesting any alternatives either.

Politics only involve the "rich and wealthy."

As far as alternatives, I say we need to follow how Canada, the UK, and China run and take the best from all.  Perhaps America does need a monarchy that rules with an iron fist.  Ain't from it from it anyway.

(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: Makes it easy for you at least, as you enjoy the benefits of civil society until it collapses -- in part because folks like you won't participate.

Yes I enjoy the benefits of civil society, but I also give back to that society.  Only on a local level.  Last year, I actually donated 55% of my salary back to the local civil society.  How much do you give back?  I also donate about 25% of my time.  How much do you donate?

My biggest beef is Washington DC.  What needs to be done is catch all those bloated wallet liars there at once, then nuke it.  Wipe it completely from the face of the Earth.  Start over from Square Zero.

Another point is that it is the SCIENTISTS that would best serve this country within politics.  However, just like me, they tend to not be stupid enough to get involved in politics.  Remember the three things I listed that do not require any intelligence?

1) Stupidity
2) Religion
3) Politics

I am absolutely certain of #2 and #3.  Not so sure of #1.

Thus, mordant, don't ever assume I have said things I did not.  That makes you look the fool.

rmfr
It shall always be more important to know how to think rather than to be told what to think - rmfr
Reply
#29

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-01-2019, 05:16 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(08-31-2019, 10:39 PM)arakish Wrote: Ain't no damned politician ever been worth my vote.

I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President...

In my opinion, an informal vote is as bad as a non-vote (obviously) and shows a lack of necessary interest in our democratic political mechanisms.

And when has "interest in our democratic political mechanisms" ever been neccessary?

(09-01-2019, 05:16 AM)SYZ Wrote: A deliberately "spoilt" vote is an abrogation of peoples' duty to preserve the very system of democracy that allows them to make such a silly decision, and can only be seen as counterproductive in the overall process of appointing a government.

My decision to not vote for the listed candidates is a silly decision?  Well excuse me if I knock you off your high horse.  What makes you so special that my decision is silly?

(09-01-2019, 05:16 AM)SYZ Wrote: And all too often, those same non-voters have the temerity to talk shit about politicians they may've well thrown out of power had they used their vote in a responsible manner.  As far as I'm concerned, for example, any American who voted informally at the 2016 election simply helped Trump to defeat Clinton, by an error of omission.  No informal voter thus has the right to criticise Trump's performance as you get the government you deserve.

And it is the non-voters like me who have absolutely every right to talk shit and complain about the government people like you vote into office.  It is you who do vote who have absolutely NO right whatsoever to complain about the horse hoowhee you put into office.

ONLY US NON-VOTERS HAVE ANY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SHIT YOU VOTERS ELECT INTO OFFICE.

Another person here who reads their extra bullshit into what someone else has said.  I guess these ain't the forums to come and speak my mind without others lying about what I have said or putting their bullshit into what others have said.

First mordant does it.  Then syz.  Hmm...

rmfr
It shall always be more important to know how to think rather than to be told what to think - rmfr
Reply
#30

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(09-01-2019, 05:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:I vote by writing in Jean-Luc Picard for President and William T. Riker for Vice President.

Then you may as well save yourself the trouble of voting because you accomplish nothing.

Yes I did accomplish something.  You just can't see it.

(09-01-2019, 05:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote: It is not a "protest."

Says only you.

(09-01-2019, 05:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote: No one will give a flying fuck what you did.

I SHALL.  I could care less what you think about it.

One thing I have learned in my many decades of living as a scientist, I have learned there is one inevitable truth.  You cannot write/say anything of substance without offending someone somewhere sometime.  Only YOU have the power to give anything the power to offend YOU!  Don't like what I have to say about the truth, then go to a religious website where everybody is a liar.

So far, I count three theists: mordant, syz, minimalist.

And as long as 99+% of politicians are also Religious Absolutists, none shall ever be worth my vote.

And someone said Obama is atheist.  Boy, you can't see the sun if it were in the sky.  Obama is as religiously absolutist as one can get.

rmfr
It shall always be more important to know how to think rather than to be told what to think - rmfr
Reply
#31

Democratic Party Embraces Nonreligious Voters Officially
(Yesterday, 06:21 PM)arakish Wrote:
(09-01-2019, 12:33 AM)mordant Wrote: This is definitely a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good.

WTFGDH does this mean?  Sure you forgot something since this statement makes absolutely no comprehensible sense.  Perhaps restate it with a higher literacy vocabulary...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is...my_of_good

(Yesterday, 06:21 PM)arakish Wrote: Thus, mordant, don't ever assume I have said things I did not.  That makes you look the fool.

rmfr

Well I guess you showed me. Do carry on then.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)