|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 The Question That Explains Almost EverythingThe most important important question secular people, especially progressives, could imagine asking is probably a policy question. Today it would be "Do you support Donald Trump?" Otherwise it might be "Do you support abortion rights?" Or "do you support gay marriage?" As important as all these questions are, in attempting to understand human beings, especially large groups of human beings - i.e. their society - the most important question to ask is "What in life gives you the most meaning?" The question does not explian everything of course, but it explains the human condition better than any other question. As a member of the community you live in, what are you doing today to improve it? And why? Comments, please? |
||
|
ptitroque 24-Feb-20, 14:21 |
Deleted by ptitroque on 24-Feb-20, 14:22.
|
||
|
My community is human beings. With my neighbours (at least those who agree), I live in a semi community : I know their family, if they need a tool or something, they know that they can find in my home, they can come and borrow it, even when I'm not there (my house is not locked). If I've a problem with my car, they'll lend me one, we make beer together... I make theater in my village with other people. There is no boss, everybody brings his abilities, proving that anarchy works. In my job (I'm director in a non profit organization), I try to care about the people. I have the same consideration for everybody, whatever his job might be, etc. I do not believe in God. Why should I ? |
||
|
All, or nearly all, of those sources of meaning are being lost. In fact the present generation has few or none of those meaning providers. As regards family, Americans are marrying at a later age than ever before. Fewer Americans are marrying than ever before. And fewer are having children than ever before. With regard to religion more than a third of millennials - by far the largest percentage of any generation in American history - do not identify with any religion. As for community, a vast number of Americans - of every age - have lost ties to any community. This is a major reason for the epidemic of loneliness that afflicts so many Americans (and so many others) at the present time. For example, the New York Times reported in 2018 that in Britain, "more than nine million people in the country often or always feel lonely, according to a 2017 report published by the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness. As regarding America, what is there to believe in? For more than a generation, young Americans have been taught contempt for this country: Its past is essentially racist, genocidal, and imperialistic. So much for patriotism. So then what is to give meaning to Americans who have lost all or most of the above? Something has to because the need for meaning is as built in and as universal as the need for food. The answer is self-evident: Whatever it is, it must provide meaning without being dependent on community, family, or patriotism. And what is that? Leftism All of Leftism (not Liberalism which affirms all the traditional meaning providers) consists of meaning providers that replace community, religion, America, and even family (single women are a major, even dominate, demographic of the left.) For Leftists, feminism, environmentalism, socialism and trans rights provide meaning. The life-filling meaning of Leftism is most evident in the constant leftist use of the term "existential threat." President Donald Trump "is posing an existential threat to America," wrote Leftist Frank Rich in the latest issue of the New York Magazine. "Bloomberg, in Campaign Event, Calls Trump an 'Existential Threat,'" ABC News headlined two months ago , A Mother Jones headline ago read, "'Trump is an 'Existential' Threat: Ilana Glazer, Eric Holder, and 2020." Yadda yadda yadda |
||
|
@ Inhis Why do you care ? Aren't you allowed to live your faith in your community ? Why shouldn't the otehres be allowed to live the same in the community they chose ? After all, you advocate individual freedom, don't you ? |
||
|
@ptitroque Why do you care ? Aren't you allowed to live your faith in your community ? Why shouldn't the otehres be allowed to live the same in the community they chose ? >> This article which was taken from a recent Epoch Times newspaper is not about whether or not I am "allowed to live your faith in your community" - which, incidentally, I am having more and more problems in expressing my faith because in my community the authorities have determined that the Constitution of American does not mean what it was once meant to mean. Progressives have determined that "separation of Church and State" means that my faith must not be allowed to be expressed in the public square! Not that long ago the Christian faith was openly expressed and on display in the public square nearly everywhere and all of the time. But expression of faith of expression of no faith is not the issue here, sir. The "others" which you speak of live in my community to the point that they are careful to watch what they say and do so that they will not be reported to the authorities in expressing any Christian sentiments - that is not allowed anymore. It appears you missed the point of my last post which included the phrase "existential threat". Do you know what that means? It means that the progressives have determined that some people - especially President Trump is a threat or danger to others just by his existing or being. Can you imagine such a notion? Seriously, that is what progressives in America are saying about our president. How could that be? And basically, that is what progressives think about Christians - that my our existing or being - we are a threat! << After all, you advocate individual freedom, don't you ? >> What does advocating "individual freedom" have to do with the notion of "existential threat"? This term is a threat to FREEDOM I say. What do you say? |
||
|
The Sky Is (ISN'T) Falling Well there is one other thing: fighting for the very existence of the world itself. That is the animating impulse of the Left's obsession with global warming. "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change," says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a recent CNN town hall that the "climate crisis" is an "existential threat to the planet". There are as many assertions of fossil fuels posing an existential threat to Earth's survival as there are Leftists (and the many Liberals who fear the Left). The proof is that this alleged saving of democracy and the world from extinction are nothing more than Left-wing meaning givers is this: The only communities who don't believe this continue to possess all the traditional meaning givers. We don't need the Left's substitutes. |
||
|
@ Inhis about individual freedom Back to the subject of the thread : You asked about the sense of life. I answered you on that point : I tried to explain the sense that I give to my life, which is as legitimate as yours - I'm free not to believe in God and yet to give a sense to my existence and to act according to my principles. Trump has nothing to do with it. No political or religious leader (wether right or left, christian or muslim) is legitimate to tell me what I have to think or how I should leave (therefore my reference to individual freedom). |
||
|
@Ptitroque It has indeed nothing to do with the notion of Trump as an existential threat. I do not know the context of such an assertion and did not answered you on this point. Back to the subject of the thread : You asked about the sense of life. I answered you on that point : I tried to explain the sense that I give to my life, which is as legitimate as yours - I'm free not to believe in God and yet to give a sense to my existence and to act according to my principles. Trump has nothing to do with it. No political . . . >> Yes, your individual freedoms to decide what gives your life meaning is as "legitimate" as mine. This is how it should be in a free country. On this point we are in agreement. The one point where we have come to a misunderstanding is a finer point of the entire article from which I have quoted. The finer point is this; that the Leftists in America, who have abandoned the traditional sources for finding meaning to their lives - marriage, community, patriotism, etc - have turned to this thing they call "existential threat". The Leftists say the the president of America is that. I ask you, again, what the heck is that - existential threat? Can you find any meaning to YOUR life by calling someone else that? That's what the Leftists in America have done! |
||
|
@ Inhis I do not know the contest of their assessment. How can I judge ? |
||
|
I do not know the contest of their assessment. How can I judge ? >> Everything you suggested is very probably what they are rationalizing. That's the insanity of these Progressives. They're make up premises w/o any facts or reasonable basis. Like the dangers of climate change! Like the idea that reducing the world population is essential for saving the planet upon we live. How can you judge? How about using a little common sense? Did you hear about the leader of the DNC saying that the Communism of Cuba is a good thing for American to consider for our country? That kind of insanity! |
||
|
Inhis : "How about using a little common sense?" So that it's not common, except for you and your fellows.Therefore it's your sense but not the common one, else, it would be shared by the majority ! |
||
|
You are sidestepping the question. There's no common sense in France? What do you do or think about which you believe gives your life the most meaning? This is the subject of this thread. |
||
|
Bernie Sanders thinks Americans want a revolution. No, we want sanity! It may be a new year and a new decade, but it looks like Democrats are determined to continue their descent into utter foolishness. As we approach the 2020 presidential election, voters will weigh policies and opinions that have been pushed by the party’s far-left flank. In this country, where 70 percent still self-identify as “conservative” or “moderate,” that is unlikely to turn out well for Democrats. To indicate just how far left Democrats have travelled, consider that progressives believe: That releasing criminals from jail will make Americans safer. That gender is only remotely related to anatomy. That eating less meat will reduce carbon emissions from China. Is it any wonder that Trump is leading most of his Democratic rivals in the heartland states where people still embrace common sense? As we approach the 2020 election, the sheer nuttiness of Democratic proposals looms large. People don’t support Trump because they are racist or misogynistic. They support him because he lives in the real world, and they believe his policies are aimed at making the United States stronger and more prosperous. These are people who understand Trump. They think asking our wealthy NATO allies to shoulder a greater share of their defense budget makes sense, and that confronting China on its monstrous theft of American patents is long overdue. These are people who will reelect President Trump in 2020. thehill.com |
||
|
@ Inhis The expression in french is "sense commun" or, more often "bon sens" and many people use it. But each one considers that he is depository of the common sense and if it were the case (i.e. common), we would all agree. The fact that people have a different opinion about what each one considers as common sense implies that it's not common and therefore, that the "common sense" doesn't exist. The example you give ; democrats voting for Sander demonstrates it : many believe that Sander's ideas are common sense. You and many others believe the opposite. |
||
|
Examples of common sense Don't play on the freeway. Don't touch a hot burner. Don't pick a fight with a professional fighter. Horses kick really hard. Don't run your thumb down the edge of a knife. Don't flash a wad of cash in a bad neighborhood. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Got any more? |
||
|
@Ptitroque The fact that people have a different opinion about what each one considers as common sense implies . . . You and many others believe the opposite. >> I and many others believe the opposite for a good reason. The "depository" for our common sense lies directly to the record from our past recent history. An example of this depository steems from one of America's first effort to settle in what was then wilderness. Specifically, I am referring to the Pilgrims which tried to settle on Plymouth Rock. Did you know that they tried a form of Socialism? Indeed they did. These naive, but good natured Christians said that whatever food was grown and gathered from the entire settlement would be distributed equally amongst themselves. With that as their goal there wasn't much real incentive, generally speaking, for each one to work and put the effort in their labor. The result of the community effort turned out to be rather dismal. The next year they tried something else. Each family was allowed to farm and grow crops which they understood from the beginning would be their own come harvest time. What do you think happened in the second year? In the second season the same land that had been jointly worked on and which had yeilded little, in the second year, it yeilded an abundance! The point here is what was common sense to the Pilgrims at the first turned out to be foolishness compared with the common sense of learned from experience. Historically, common sense tells me and many other Americans that Bernie Sanders Socialism would be a bad, bad deal for America. |
||
|
@ Thumper and Inhis They are almost common sense (as the vast majority of the people do so), yet they are not quite common (as, from time to time people do not follow those advices and have accidents). Inhis tells a story about the Pilgrim fathers. There are examples where the work in community works. This old example (assuming it's true), from a particular group of people in a given situation doesn't prove anything. |
||
|
Rejecting Socialism An Example of Rejecting Insanity << Inhis tells a story about the Pilgrim fathers. There are examples where the work in community works. This old example (assuming it's true), from a particular group of people in a given situation doesn't prove anything. >> If Ptitroroque really wanted to make a point against what Thumper and I are asserting he would present an example for when Socialism worked out for the good of those who adopted it. The problem with that, however, is positive examples of good and beneficial Socialism in the real world doesn't exist. He should not doubt the example of the failure of the American Pilgrims. "The Pilgrims’ Failed Experiment With Socialism Should Teach America A Lesson" Most Americans are familiar with the story of the Puritans landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620, but few perhaps understand their early experiment with socialism and how its failure led them to embrace individual-driven capitalism. Dr. Judd W. Patton, professor of economics at Bellevue University (Nebraska), tracks the development of the Pilgrims’ settling of New England and their brief flirtation with socialism in an op-ed titled “The Pilgrim Story: Vital Insights and Lessons for Today.” One of the key points of the contract between the Pilgrims and the Adventurers said that all colonists were to get their food, clothing, drink and provisions from the colony’s “common stock and goods.” In addition, during the first seven years, all profits earned by colonists would go into the “common stock” until they were divided. “Today we would call this a socialist commune,” Patton wrote. “In other words, the Pilgrims accepted the socialist principle, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ Each person was to place his production into the common warehouse and receive back, through the Governor, only what he needed for himself or his family. The surplus after seven years was to be divided equally, along with the houses, lands, and chattels, ‘betwixt the Adventurers and Planters.’” The Pilgrims actually wanted to own their own lands and homes and to work two days a week for their own gain, but the adventurers would not allow it. Once the agreement was signed, two ships were outfitted for the journey, the Speedwell and the Mayflower. But the Speedwell proved unseaworthy, so everyone still willing to make the journey—102 persons—crowded aboard the Mayflower and set sail. Patton wrote that after landing on Dec 21, 1620, the Pilgrims suffered horribly their first winter, with around half the colonists perishing. Aid from the now-famous native, Squanto, helped them survive with new planting techniques, but the harvests of 1621 and 1622 were still small. The colony’s governor, William Bradford, wrote that its socialist philosophy greatly hindered its growth: Young men resented working for the benefit of other men’s wives and children without compensation; healthy men who worked thought it unjust that they received no more food than weak men who could not; wives resented doing household chores for other men, considering it a kind of slavery. Governor Bradford wrote that to avoid famine in 1623, the Pilgrims abandoned socialism, Patton said. “At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land,” Bradford wrote. The colonists, each of whom now had to grow their own food, suddenly became very industrious, with women and children who earlier claimed weakness now going into the fields to plant corn. Three times the amount of corn was planted that year under the new system. When a drought threatened the year’s harvest, Governor Bradford called a day of fasting and prayer to “seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer in this great distress.” God answered that same night with rain that continued in coming days, and the year brought a plentiful harvest. “By the fall of 1624, the colonists were able to export a full boat load of corn!” Patton wrote. “And the Pilgrims settled with the Adventurers. They purchased the Adventurers stock in the colony and completed the transition to private property and free markets.” And the Pilgrims learned a valuable lesson about socialism and hard work. "The Real Pilgrim Story" youtu.be www.offthegridnews.com Unfortunate that you happen to have to live with Socialism, the historical record also shows that great numbers of people leave these countries rather than immigrate TO. I personally knew of a man who told how desparate it was to live in Cuba for example. People risked everything to leave that country. You never hear of Americans taking risks to get to China or to other Socialist countries do you? "Why Socialism Failed" Collectivism is based on faulty principles. fee.org "5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies" "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -- Winston Churchill townhall.com |
