Advancement in one area of society doesn't mean society as a whole has advanced.
People can say whatever they wish, I don't consider the oversensitivity and disrespect of free expression to be a step forward. Whether it be political correctness or patriotic correctness that's been taken too far.
First, I am not saying that those who do not believe or reject God cannot be good people. But I simply feel high morality is more likely to be fostered upon a firm foundation of faith in the lord. Rather than faith in the state.
I do for many reasons as it's borderline evil when it comes down to it. It was begun by immoral people for immoral purposes in the late 19th to early 20th century and has resulted in the greatest infanticide ever committed in human history. Not to mention outright democidal crusades against anyone deemed a Lebensunwertes Leben as it was once called or a "Life unworthy of life".
And no... I'm of the mind of President Calvin Col, that anymore taxation than absolutely necessary is theft as it is a necessary evil. I disagree vehemently with social engineering by the state as I believe society should control the government not the other way around. And I'm not saying society doesn't exist but that it is an artificial construct at a certain scale.
No they've been called that since the beginning of welfare states in the 1800s. I recommend reading The Law by Frederic Bastiat.
I see the most functioning societies as simply communities with shared values. The reason I made the mention of multiculturalism was not because I believe in any sort of intolerance, quite the opposite in fact. It's simply the fact that when people don't share values there is a division that can arise. Due to tribalist loyalties that are inherent in various groups.
I don't see us respecting our moral foundations considering every moral institute that they came from feels we have strayed rapidly in recent times.
Then they are a walking contradiction with no real comprehension of what Free Speech actually is.
Perhaps but the shift has been away from moral traditions. Which is detached from cultural traditions, for instance the application of the same values can change.
Not an argument nor is the effort futile when you are in power.
The first is a cancer and the second is misplaced unfocused anger.
But the "progressive" left mass media commonly promotes postive writings on them.
It is morally unjustified and therefore murder in 98% of cases. Regardless of your personal thoughts or the governments rulings objective morality is not dicated by either.
Objective morality is very different from moral relativism. But you can't be both.
Because it takes away value judgments of good or evil and reduces humans choice to uncontrolled chemical reactions.
I view it as an untruth to take away responsibity and rise up their new redefined moral dominace hierarchy. And my point has been widely studied and proven.
In short terms it sucks.
No, I find them the least sorted of all peoples. Who are walking moral contradictions to the point of being laughable.
No, it's on the rise due to greater demand. I've studied this in depth and am well involved with the Anti-Trafficking movement. It's simple economics with a moral undertone to it.
Then you don't understand my reasoning. You are innocent till proven guilty, period. Or maybe you don't understand what that legal term entitles when is taking someones stuff without proving them guilty of anything and commonly not giving it back. Meaning a cop stops you and things you got a little too much money on ya so he takes it from you suspecting you of being a drug dealer. It's not justifiable constiutionally or morally.
I'm not aware of any mass pushback at the moment. Plus even if people don't buy the government subsidizing the green companies anyways who wouldn't survive without the public money. And people are aware more or less but don't care it seems when it comes to most of these matters.
I'm saying there are deeper issues that wern't resolved and simply have now manfiested themselves in different forms. And yes it's bad and it got a bit better but then got worse all over again after sparks got blown on enough.
Facts don't have moral judgments. And yes the cause went insane in the recent decades.
They are completely logically incoherent.
Both Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia and many others have explained this in many speeches and daily lectures.
Yet these people are quite clearly not biologists or phycologists. And yes those are mainly quite false.
Your source cites no sources and has no economic education.
" People or nations with some natural resources could eliminate poverty."
Does he realize resource rich nations are commonly dirt poor and nations with no natural resources are rich like Signapore for example VS Venezuela. The biggest decider of if you will be rich or poor in the west is your IQ. If anyone thinks it has anything to do with natural resources then they have zero economic education into the nature of Capital from the 18th-21st century.
But again the biggest single factor is if you have one or two parents. It's very well documented.
Again, the source cites no sources. Even I've published better-sourced material than that. If you wish to use google then use Google Scholar to pull up actual academic sources.
It is so obvious that single parent families are most commonly in poverty that I'm suprised I have to even point it out.
Follow three simple rules and there's an only 2% chance you will remain in poverty in the US.
- At least finish high school,
- Get a full-time job and
- Wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
For England it's about 13%.
It is decision-based.(Yes I've personally met Mr. Shapiro.) And not even moral decision based but objectively speaking.
Peak of what? Standard of living has still risen to the point where poor people are commonly fat in the west.
The US's last boom was the .com boom I would say, the housing boom. Now there's a tech and service industry bubble.
Yes, it's a product of it as I mentioned.
That's like saying simply because a tower is knocked down and a new building is built that somehow the old tower still exists. You can't build up a new structure which ignores the foundation it is built upon which is an Objective Moral Framework in the west.
No they just rob whole nations indirectly and throw out some cents. On average, similar to power, wealth also corrupts many or even the pursuit of it. To jokingly quote Ron Swanson:
"Capitalism....god's way of determining who is smart and who is poor"
Very well though I thought you said "white state".
I didn't say any of those things. Quite a few assumptions. My point was it's highly unlikely there's any racially based systematic cause of their poverty except for their terrible policies and mass amount of individually bad economic decisions.
It's not distributed at all. That's not how wealth works.
I'm saying government has nothing to do with the majority of your economic moral decisions. You reap what you sow though governments do somethings screw people over. But only if they are big governments most of the time.
People are forced to take personal responsiblity for their actions and most commonly do and the community works in the absence of the morally corcisive government.
"Religious" doesn't equal moral. Obviously, if they have high crime rates they are fake. If one breaks their moral values that they claim to adhere to then they aren't really their moral values. But a cultural cover.
Notice I say religious values being lived out. And the west is definitely the most religious area as Mormons are the most religious sect in the nation in perhaps every way. With the highest church attendance rates for one example.
Noticing a cultural trend there now arent you?
My Mormon ancestors were homeless. Driven from their homes and robbed of everything they had many times. If you are poor depends on your actions. There's no likelihood, there's just the fact of reality. If you work smart you will rise. My great-grandfather was born poor and unknown picking potatoes and Idaho and rose to be Federal Judge and in the book written about him, it details his long way to the top which required a lot of work.
You build your future, you start off from where your parents were yes, what they hand you if anything. But after that there is no limit, the richest men and women on earth now didn't come from rich backgrounds. And everyone knows their stories.
In the articles, I first gave about Utah.
The truth shouldn't be controversial. But what people don't matter. What matters is if they have the opportunity to become whatever they want to be.
Also, Correlation doesn't equal causation, unless you believe that blacks have an average lower IQ which that matter has not yet reached conscience.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Studying economics this fact is apparant to me daily.
When a certain group commits the most crimes they shouldn't be suprised that they are incarated at a higher percentage.
It's statistically proven as I already mentioned. It's a cultural kneejerk presupposition to assume that they are worse off due to their skin tone.
It's the core of the entire secular humanist Pro Life Argument made by Austin Petersen who is on the edge of being elected to the Senate.
I'm outlining the logical weakness here. That it's irrational. It has nothing to do with me but the idea in and of itself.
It's well proven.
Good luck with enforcing your moral opinions in that case while all the rest would do the same.
Doesn't mean their ideas didn't meld together into a new evolutionized form.
Please show how then. Or provide your best reason you feel I could provide if we are being intellectually honest.
The people will either stop or precipitate immoral acts. The government is but a tool in a democracy.
Three words; The Gini Coefficient. Poverty doesn't cause crime.
It should defend people negative rights. That is it's moral role constitutionally and within the natural law in the west.
Not an argument.
You seem to have a twisted perception of that word.
Our nihilistic death will happen when we've reached our technological peak and we have nothing left to strive for. We are nowhere
Me: Why strive for even that? There is objective why because there isn't intrinsic value.
So you're perfectly fine with people getting their morality from the laws of the land if it serves a utilitarian purpose? I don't really see how that would be the case with only theistic law.
Me: No, I don't feel the law or secular government should be treated as a God to look to for moral guidance.
It was enacted knowingly, with all participants understanding what was to come.
Me: So was the Holocaust and The Great Leap Forward.
There was very likely mass single cases of violence and yes I mentioned that machetes are common to possess there.
People aren't going to kill other people purely because they can.
Oh well, that's good when that occurs.
So basically killing anyone could be justified within that line of logic. Literally professors arguing for Post Birth Abortion or in short terms allowing parents to murder their defenseless kids for their benefit. It's a dangerous values system to base a system upon.
Because they fear the coinquences either physical or spiritual. Or out of love.
Ever studied into the philosophy of the joker from batman?
“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.”
That idea may have some merit.