|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose.
I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after.
Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies?
|
Bisutopia19225 Posts
On September 03 2021 03:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. I would understand these ''abortion abolitionists" a lot better if they care as much about a life out of the womb as they do for it in the womb. If life is that sacred I would expect them to care a lot more then they generally do about welfare, healthcare, prison reform, you name it.
I’m very much against abortions, but I also am very libertarian on personal rights and believe that ultimately taking away the choice is taking away someone’s right. 100% against drugs, but also feel like that’s a personal choice. Instead, I do my best to stay educated and educate others on personal responsibilities. I wish we spent more energy on educating people about their choices wether we agree with them or not instead of legislating for or against them. In the end, I don’t trust myself or anyone else to make rights infringing laws.
|
|
|
On September 03 2021 09:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose. I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after. Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies? Im not the right person to advocate for Christians, but almost no one is because the group is so large and varied. Im not a big fan of organized religion at all (muslim, christian, so on) because the people who rise to the top can get their followers to do many terrible things because they say thats "gods word" and the books are open ended enough, and old enough that there is a lot of room for evil. On the other hand on the individual level many on the people I have met have been wonderful, there has been very few times when I have done volunteering, or even worked with volunteers and have not been vastly outnumbered by christians. Generally I just think it is good policy to not paint such broad strokes. I think its far better to say how can Gaetz or others consider him a christian when hes paying minors for sex, hes certainly not married to them, and so on. If you start at the broad strokes people presume you have bias and then other good points might get missed or at least devalued because of that.
I'll add some nuance to what I am saying:
There are a variety of people in the world who will choose to identify with a group because it gives them a sense of community or because it helps fill their incomplete self-image/ego. People who lack confidence will choose to identify with a group or a person/fandom because it fills the gaping hole. Not everyone does what they should to deserve the title/group/identity that project. In the US, a lot of people choose a religion based on what their parents are and what their community is.
In my eyes, someone is not a Christian unless they fit the following descriptors:
1) Nearly universal support for refugees
2) Extreme generous to the poor/homeless
3) Providing healthcare for the poor
Overall, the bible does a really good job at making it clear we should be extremely compassionate towards people who are suffering or poor or things like that. It is not hard to draw some correlations regarding the kinda stuff Jesus taught. He made a pretty clear set of ethics.
From there, someone can decide how much they agree with those specific things. Someone may decide they believe in god but don't really buy the stuff about being generous and compassionate. They may subscribe to some creationism stuff and whatnot but I don't think it makes sense to call them a Christian unless they believe the teachings of Jesus. We don't really have any incentive to label them as a follower of Jesus when they don't follow what Jesus taught.
We can still say they believe in god. We can still say they believe a bunch of similar stuff, but it isn't Christianity. For a lot of people who don't see philosophy as important and worth reading, the psychologically lazy approach is to just slap a "CHRISTIAN" sticker on your own forehead and call it a day. They have every right to say they are x or y, but I have no incentive to accept their label. So I don't. I think the US has an extreeeemely small number of Christians. I think most Christians are great people. Most people who *identify* as Christians are bad people, partially because they try to enhance their own social standing without making the ethical commitments to the label. I think it is a moral failing to seek a favorable label without doing the work to earn it.
One thing that I am very intentional about in my life is to either say "No, I am not (blank)" or actually be (blank). I think that when people are honest about the people they actually are, they become better people. If you feed yourself a bunch of pat on the back bullshit, it is basically ethical/philosophically lazy. I think we should only use descriptors when they fit the term. We don't have incentive to use broad definitions of personality descriptors. This is turning into a bit of a rant, so I'm cutting this sub-point here.
So just to be clear, I think the vast majority of self-identifying Christians are morally deficient. But I also think the vast majority of people in the world are morally deficient. I think it is incredibly difficult to live an ethical life and most people simply don't have the willpower. It is too easy to tell yourself you are good when you really just aren't. This situation is complicated by people's parents. Parent-child relationships hugely contribute to unethical behavior because people often sugar coat their parents because there is an inherent desire to view your parents as good people. A lot of people will adopt the behaviors and philosophies of their parents, good or bad, then force themselves to view those things as good. This is common for people who spank their children. They cite the fact that their parents spanked them as if anyone should give a shit or as if we agree their parents are good people.
And I don't think we lose anything by looking at the fact that the average member of society really just isn't trying hard enough or doing enough good in the world. Most people don't donate, volunteer or execute other forms of sacrifice. That totally sucks. We should look at it in the eyes and address it rather than starting from the basic conclusion that most people are good. Most people are *born* good and, through the course of their lives, deteriorate into bad people.
As an example, look at how many people are resistant to the idea of wearing masks or say they shouldn't have to get vaccinated. Are those good people? How many of them are parents? I bet a lot of their kids see them as good people. We are often totally incapable of seeing our parents as bad people and we often emulate their behaviors.
But people who fit a proper definition of following the teachings of Jesus are great people, mostly. One of the things that make actual Christians good people is they legitimately believe it is worthwhile and important to *actually* be good. They really buy it and they try to do it. I have met some truly extraordinary Christians.
|
United States42489 Posts
On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. Show nested quote + but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Show nested quote +Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era.
Except their abortions, abortion abolitionists think their own abortions are justified.
|
On September 03 2021 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose. I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after. Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies? Im not the right person to advocate for Christians, but almost no one is because the group is so large and varied. Im not a big fan of organized religion at all (muslim, christian, so on) because the people who rise to the top can get their followers to do many terrible things because they say thats "gods word" and the books are open ended enough, and old enough that there is a lot of room for evil. On the other hand on the individual level many on the people I have met have been wonderful, there has been very few times when I have done volunteering, or even worked with volunteers and have not been vastly outnumbered by christians. Generally I just think it is good policy to not paint such broad strokes. I think its far better to say how can Gaetz or others consider him a christian when hes paying minors for sex, hes certainly not married to them, and so on. If you start at the broad strokes people presume you have bias and then other good points might get missed or at least devalued because of that. I'll add some nuance to what I am saying: There are a variety of people in the world who will choose to identify with a group because it gives them a sense of community or because it helps fill their incomplete self-image/ego. People who lack confidence will choose to identify with a group or a person/fandom because it fills the gaping hole. Not everyone does what they should to deserve the title/group/identity that project. In the US, a lot of people choose a religion based on what their parents are and what their community is. In my eyes, someone is not a Christian unless they fit the following descriptors: 1) Nearly universal support for refugees 2) Extreme generous to the poor/homeless 3) Providing healthcare for the poor Overall, the bible does a really good job at making it clear we should be extremely compassionate towards people who are suffering or poor or things like that. It is not hard to draw some correlations regarding the kinda stuff Jesus taught. He made a pretty clear set of ethics. From there, someone can decide how much they agree with those specific things. Someone may decide they believe in god but don't really buy the stuff about being generous and compassionate. They may subscribe to some creationism stuff and whatnot but I don't think it makes sense to call them a Christian unless they believe the teachings of Jesus. We don't really have any incentive to label them as a follower of Jesus when they don't follow what Jesus taught. We can still say they believe in god. We can still say they believe a bunch of similar stuff, but it isn't Christianity. For a lot of people who don't see philosophy as important and worth reading, the psychologically lazy approach is to just slap a "CHRISTIAN" sticker on your own forehead and call it a day. They have every right to say they are x or y, but I have no incentive to accept their label. So I don't. I think the US has an extreeeemely small number of Christians. I think most Christians are great people. Most people who *identify* as Christians are bad people, partially because they try to enhance their own social standing without making the ethical commitments to the label. I think it is a moral failing to seek a favorable label without doing the work to earn it. One thing that I am very intentional about in my life is to either say "No, I am not (blank)" or actually be (blank). I think that when people are honest about the people they actually are, they become better people. If you feed yourself a bunch of pat on the back bullshit, it is basically ethical/philosophically lazy. I think we should only use descriptors when they fit the term. We don't have incentive to use broad definitions of personality descriptors. This is turning into a bit of a rant, so I'm cutting this sub-point here. So just to be clear, I think the vast majority of self-identifying Christians are morally deficient. But I also think the vast majority of people in the world are morally deficient. I think it is incredibly difficult to live an ethical life and most people simply don't have the willpower. It is too easy to tell yourself you are good when you really just aren't. This situation is complicated by people's parents. Parent-child relationships hugely contribute to unethical behavior because people often sugar coat their parents because there is an inherent desire to view your parents as good people. A lot of people will adopt the behaviors and philosophies of their parents, good or bad, then force themselves to view those things as good. This is common for people who spank their children. They cite the fact that their parents spanked them as if anyone should give a shit or as if we agree their parents are good people. And I don't think we lose anything by looking at the fact that the average member of society really just isn't trying hard enough or doing enough good in the world. Most people don't donate, volunteer or execute other forms of sacrifice. That totally sucks. We should look at it in the eyes and address it rather than starting from the basic conclusion that most people are good. Most people are *born* good and, through the course of their lives, deteriorate into bad people. As an example, look at how many people are resistant to the idea of wearing masks or say they shouldn't have to get vaccinated. Are those good people? How many of them are parents? I bet a lot of their kids see them as good people. We are often totally incapable of seeing our parents as bad people and we often emulate their behaviors. But people who fit a proper definition of following the teachings of Jesus are great people, mostly. One of the things that make actual Christians good people is they legitimately believe it is worthwhile and important to *actually* be good. They really buy it and they try to do it. I have met some truly extraordinary Christians.
The problem you have there is that you are being holier than the pope. Literally. The current Pope might fit the bill for "Christian" according to your labels, but the previous one doesn't appear to have, and most popes throughout history haven't.
So if most Popes aren't a Christian by your labelling, your labelling is probably wrong. Even though, if we look at the book Christians claim to follow, you would be right, it just isn't a very practical application of the label for real-world purposes.
Christians are people who believe in:
(1) There is only one God who created the universe.
(2) The Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I don't believe there's much else all Christians agree on, it's a rather heterogeneous group of religions.
Now following Jesus's example is part of the trinity, but not doing so in every aspect of Jesus's life and teachings doesn't make you a not-a-Christian. It doesn't even make you a bad Christian in the eyes of many Christians. Is that a problem? Maybe, but it isn't one you'll solve by taking their label away...
|
On September 03 2021 15:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:Republicans using their entire Supreme Court advantage to allow red states to inhibit abortions is truly hilarious. Such an enormous waste. They could accomplish so much if they had any intention of governing. but in general terms, it does feel like a waste of political capital to primarily target issues Part of me wonders if the abortion bill is just to draw attention away from the voting reform bill and the upcoming gerrymandering now that the census data is released. From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose. I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after. Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies? Im not the right person to advocate for Christians, but almost no one is because the group is so large and varied. Im not a big fan of organized religion at all (muslim, christian, so on) because the people who rise to the top can get their followers to do many terrible things because they say thats "gods word" and the books are open ended enough, and old enough that there is a lot of room for evil. On the other hand on the individual level many on the people I have met have been wonderful, there has been very few times when I have done volunteering, or even worked with volunteers and have not been vastly outnumbered by christians. Generally I just think it is good policy to not paint such broad strokes. I think its far better to say how can Gaetz or others consider him a christian when hes paying minors for sex, hes certainly not married to them, and so on. If you start at the broad strokes people presume you have bias and then other good points might get missed or at least devalued because of that. I'll add some nuance to what I am saying: There are a variety of people in the world who will choose to identify with a group because it gives them a sense of community or because it helps fill their incomplete self-image/ego. People who lack confidence will choose to identify with a group or a person/fandom because it fills the gaping hole. Not everyone does what they should to deserve the title/group/identity that project. In the US, a lot of people choose a religion based on what their parents are and what their community is. In my eyes, someone is not a Christian unless they fit the following descriptors: 1) Nearly universal support for refugees 2) Extreme generous to the poor/homeless 3) Providing healthcare for the poor Overall, the bible does a really good job at making it clear we should be extremely compassionate towards people who are suffering or poor or things like that. It is not hard to draw some correlations regarding the kinda stuff Jesus taught. He made a pretty clear set of ethics. From there, someone can decide how much they agree with those specific things. Someone may decide they believe in god but don't really buy the stuff about being generous and compassionate. They may subscribe to some creationism stuff and whatnot but I don't think it makes sense to call them a Christian unless they believe the teachings of Jesus. We don't really have any incentive to label them as a follower of Jesus when they don't follow what Jesus taught. We can still say they believe in god. We can still say they believe a bunch of similar stuff, but it isn't Christianity. For a lot of people who don't see philosophy as important and worth reading, the psychologically lazy approach is to just slap a "CHRISTIAN" sticker on your own forehead and call it a day. They have every right to say they are x or y, but I have no incentive to accept their label. So I don't. I think the US has an extreeeemely small number of Christians. I think most Christians are great people. Most people who *identify* as Christians are bad people, partially because they try to enhance their own social standing without making the ethical commitments to the label. I think it is a moral failing to seek a favorable label without doing the work to earn it. One thing that I am very intentional about in my life is to either say "No, I am not (blank)" or actually be (blank). I think that when people are honest about the people they actually are, they become better people. If you feed yourself a bunch of pat on the back bullshit, it is basically ethical/philosophically lazy. I think we should only use descriptors when they fit the term. We don't have incentive to use broad definitions of personality descriptors. This is turning into a bit of a rant, so I'm cutting this sub-point here. So just to be clear, I think the vast majority of self-identifying Christians are morally deficient. But I also think the vast majority of people in the world are morally deficient. I think it is incredibly difficult to live an ethical life and most people simply don't have the willpower. It is too easy to tell yourself you are good when you really just aren't. This situation is complicated by people's parents. Parent-child relationships hugely contribute to unethical behavior because people often sugar coat their parents because there is an inherent desire to view your parents as good people. A lot of people will adopt the behaviors and philosophies of their parents, good or bad, then force themselves to view those things as good. This is common for people who spank their children. They cite the fact that their parents spanked them as if anyone should give a shit or as if we agree their parents are good people. And I don't think we lose anything by looking at the fact that the average member of society really just isn't trying hard enough or doing enough good in the world. Most people don't donate, volunteer or execute other forms of sacrifice. That totally sucks. We should look at it in the eyes and address it rather than starting from the basic conclusion that most people are good. Most people are *born* good and, through the course of their lives, deteriorate into bad people. As an example, look at how many people are resistant to the idea of wearing masks or say they shouldn't have to get vaccinated. Are those good people? How many of them are parents? I bet a lot of their kids see them as good people. We are often totally incapable of seeing our parents as bad people and we often emulate their behaviors. But people who fit a proper definition of following the teachings of Jesus are great people, mostly. One of the things that make actual Christians good people is they legitimately believe it is worthwhile and important to *actually* be good. They really buy it and they try to do it. I have met some truly extraordinary Christians. The problem you have there is that you are being holier than the pope. Literally. The current Pope might fit the bill for "Christian" according to your labels, but the previous one doesn't appear to have, and most popes throughout history haven't. So if most Popes aren't a Christian by your labelling, your labelling is probably wrong. Even though, if we look at the book Christians claim to follow, you would be right, it just isn't a very practical application of the label for real-world purposes. Christians are people who believe in: (1) There is only one God who created the universe. (2) The Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't believe there's much else all Christians agree on, it's a rather heterogeneous group of religions. Now following Jesus's example is part of the trinity, but not doing so in every aspect of Jesus's life and teachings doesn't make you a not-a-Christian. It doesn't even make you a bad Christian in the eyes of many Christians. Is that a problem? Maybe, but it isn't one you'll solve by taking their label away...
Look at what the pope has done to protect the Catholic church from proper accountability and tell me he's a good guy. I am not holier than the pope. I am not a Christian and I don't try to be. I don't think being the pope really means much. What are you saying it means to be a pope?
Nah, my labeling isn't wrong. I set forth a set of requirements for my definition and explained who does and doesn't qualify. I wouldn't say I will lose any sleep over someone rejecting my definitions. I'm not sparking a revolution. I'm chatting on the internet in hopes of gaining stimulation and new perspectives.
My application doesn't need to be "practical" because I've already established the general flaws of humanity. It shouldn't be a surprise. The mistake you are making is presupposing most people are fit to call themselves the labels they attribute to themselves. Most people are phony and immoral.
I'm not solving a problem by taking their label away. The label is already gone. I didn't try to save any lives by taking their label away. I set the record straight and that's it really. I'm not their savior. I am just describing their failings.
|
On September 03 2021 16:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 15:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2021 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 03:39 Falling wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
From these quotes, I surmise there is a failure to understand social conservatives or at least a failure to recognize their arguments as they argue them. This was the entire point of people holding their noses for Trump. For abortion abolitionists (which is I think how the modern movement is framing themselves) there is nothing better to spend political capital on. Imagine as a premise- that a human is a human in the womb and out of the womb. Abortion is then murdering babies on a genocidal scale. You best believe they are spending their capital here. It follows from the premise. They see it as the slavery of our modern era. This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose. I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after. Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies? Im not the right person to advocate for Christians, but almost no one is because the group is so large and varied. Im not a big fan of organized religion at all (muslim, christian, so on) because the people who rise to the top can get their followers to do many terrible things because they say thats "gods word" and the books are open ended enough, and old enough that there is a lot of room for evil. On the other hand on the individual level many on the people I have met have been wonderful, there has been very few times when I have done volunteering, or even worked with volunteers and have not been vastly outnumbered by christians. Generally I just think it is good policy to not paint such broad strokes. I think its far better to say how can Gaetz or others consider him a christian when hes paying minors for sex, hes certainly not married to them, and so on. If you start at the broad strokes people presume you have bias and then other good points might get missed or at least devalued because of that. I'll add some nuance to what I am saying: There are a variety of people in the world who will choose to identify with a group because it gives them a sense of community or because it helps fill their incomplete self-image/ego. People who lack confidence will choose to identify with a group or a person/fandom because it fills the gaping hole. Not everyone does what they should to deserve the title/group/identity that project. In the US, a lot of people choose a religion based on what their parents are and what their community is. In my eyes, someone is not a Christian unless they fit the following descriptors: 1) Nearly universal support for refugees 2) Extreme generous to the poor/homeless 3) Providing healthcare for the poor Overall, the bible does a really good job at making it clear we should be extremely compassionate towards people who are suffering or poor or things like that. It is not hard to draw some correlations regarding the kinda stuff Jesus taught. He made a pretty clear set of ethics. From there, someone can decide how much they agree with those specific things. Someone may decide they believe in god but don't really buy the stuff about being generous and compassionate. They may subscribe to some creationism stuff and whatnot but I don't think it makes sense to call them a Christian unless they believe the teachings of Jesus. We don't really have any incentive to label them as a follower of Jesus when they don't follow what Jesus taught. We can still say they believe in god. We can still say they believe a bunch of similar stuff, but it isn't Christianity. For a lot of people who don't see philosophy as important and worth reading, the psychologically lazy approach is to just slap a "CHRISTIAN" sticker on your own forehead and call it a day. They have every right to say they are x or y, but I have no incentive to accept their label. So I don't. I think the US has an extreeeemely small number of Christians. I think most Christians are great people. Most people who *identify* as Christians are bad people, partially because they try to enhance their own social standing without making the ethical commitments to the label. I think it is a moral failing to seek a favorable label without doing the work to earn it. One thing that I am very intentional about in my life is to either say "No, I am not (blank)" or actually be (blank). I think that when people are honest about the people they actually are, they become better people. If you feed yourself a bunch of pat on the back bullshit, it is basically ethical/philosophically lazy. I think we should only use descriptors when they fit the term. We don't have incentive to use broad definitions of personality descriptors. This is turning into a bit of a rant, so I'm cutting this sub-point here. So just to be clear, I think the vast majority of self-identifying Christians are morally deficient. But I also think the vast majority of people in the world are morally deficient. I think it is incredibly difficult to live an ethical life and most people simply don't have the willpower. It is too easy to tell yourself you are good when you really just aren't. This situation is complicated by people's parents. Parent-child relationships hugely contribute to unethical behavior because people often sugar coat their parents because there is an inherent desire to view your parents as good people. A lot of people will adopt the behaviors and philosophies of their parents, good or bad, then force themselves to view those things as good. This is common for people who spank their children. They cite the fact that their parents spanked them as if anyone should give a shit or as if we agree their parents are good people. And I don't think we lose anything by looking at the fact that the average member of society really just isn't trying hard enough or doing enough good in the world. Most people don't donate, volunteer or execute other forms of sacrifice. That totally sucks. We should look at it in the eyes and address it rather than starting from the basic conclusion that most people are good. Most people are *born* good and, through the course of their lives, deteriorate into bad people. As an example, look at how many people are resistant to the idea of wearing masks or say they shouldn't have to get vaccinated. Are those good people? How many of them are parents? I bet a lot of their kids see them as good people. We are often totally incapable of seeing our parents as bad people and we often emulate their behaviors. But people who fit a proper definition of following the teachings of Jesus are great people, mostly. One of the things that make actual Christians good people is they legitimately believe it is worthwhile and important to *actually* be good. They really buy it and they try to do it. I have met some truly extraordinary Christians. The problem you have there is that you are being holier than the pope. Literally. The current Pope might fit the bill for "Christian" according to your labels, but the previous one doesn't appear to have, and most popes throughout history haven't. So if most Popes aren't a Christian by your labelling, your labelling is probably wrong. Even though, if we look at the book Christians claim to follow, you would be right, it just isn't a very practical application of the label for real-world purposes. Christians are people who believe in: (1) There is only one God who created the universe. (2) The Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't believe there's much else all Christians agree on, it's a rather heterogeneous group of religions. Now following Jesus's example is part of the trinity, but not doing so in every aspect of Jesus's life and teachings doesn't make you a not-a-Christian. It doesn't even make you a bad Christian in the eyes of many Christians. Is that a problem? Maybe, but it isn't one you'll solve by taking their label away... I'm not solving a problem by taking their label away. The label is already gone. I didn't try to save any lives by taking their label away. I set the record straight and that's it really. I'm not their savior. I am just describing their failings.
So, in other words, troll Christians on the internet. That's a fun passtime, I enjoy that myself. May I suggest /r/Christians rather than the US politics thread on TL, tho?
|
On September 03 2021 16:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 16:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 15:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 03 2021 12:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 09:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 07:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 03 2021 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 03 2021 04:31 farvacola wrote:On September 03 2021 04:23 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is true and is worth remembering. What I am saying is that these silly thoughts of theirs end up throwing a ton of their political capital into the dumpster. I'm thrilled. But I think democrats have a hard time understanding the idea that this is genocide in the eyes of some Americans. If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is incredibly fucked up. Likewise, if you think Christianity is about helping the needy, American Christianity is incredibly fucked up. I think the vast majority of Christians are only Christian because of social/family implications. It is mostly a masturbatory thing. It is a form of ego stroking to be Christian and it isn't really about being a good person or even following what Jesus says. I think you need to calm down on the generalizations. I know lots of great christians and I know lots of great boomers. I really enjoy many of your posts because you have an interesting and different perspective and our willing to really go into it. But these just provide no value and insult large swaths of people without purpose. I am only speaking from my experience living in Oregon. May be different elsewhere. I can think of an incredibly small number of Christians who are doing what Jesus taught. You can be a good person and not really doing what Jesus taught. If you aren't following the teachings of Christianity, I don't see what they are really after. Look at what the bible says about interest rates, caring for the poor and healthcare. How many Christians do you see advocating for those policies? Im not the right person to advocate for Christians, but almost no one is because the group is so large and varied. Im not a big fan of organized religion at all (muslim, christian, so on) because the people who rise to the top can get their followers to do many terrible things because they say thats "gods word" and the books are open ended enough, and old enough that there is a lot of room for evil. On the other hand on the individual level many on the people I have met have been wonderful, there has been very few times when I have done volunteering, or even worked with volunteers and have not been vastly outnumbered by christians. Generally I just think it is good policy to not paint such broad strokes. I think its far better to say how can Gaetz or others consider him a christian when hes paying minors for sex, hes certainly not married to them, and so on. If you start at the broad strokes people presume you have bias and then other good points might get missed or at least devalued because of that. I'll add some nuance to what I am saying: There are a variety of people in the world who will choose to identify with a group because it gives them a sense of community or because it helps fill their incomplete self-image/ego. People who lack confidence will choose to identify with a group or a person/fandom because it fills the gaping hole. Not everyone does what they should to deserve the title/group/identity that project. In the US, a lot of people choose a religion based on what their parents are and what their community is. In my eyes, someone is not a Christian unless they fit the following descriptors: 1) Nearly universal support for refugees 2) Extreme generous to the poor/homeless 3) Providing healthcare for the poor Overall, the bible does a really good job at making it clear we should be extremely compassionate towards people who are suffering or poor or things like that. It is not hard to draw some correlations regarding the kinda stuff Jesus taught. He made a pretty clear set of ethics. From there, someone can decide how much they agree with those specific things. Someone may decide they believe in god but don't really buy the stuff about being generous and compassionate. They may subscribe to some creationism stuff and whatnot but I don't think it makes sense to call them a Christian unless they believe the teachings of Jesus. We don't really have any incentive to label them as a follower of Jesus when they don't follow what Jesus taught. We can still say they believe in god. We can still say they believe a bunch of similar stuff, but it isn't Christianity. For a lot of people who don't see philosophy as important and worth reading, the psychologically lazy approach is to just slap a "CHRISTIAN" sticker on your own forehead and call it a day. They have every right to say they are x or y, but I have no incentive to accept their label. So I don't. I think the US has an extreeeemely small number of Christians. I think most Christians are great people. Most people who *identify* as Christians are bad people, partially because they try to enhance their own social standing without making the ethical commitments to the label. I think it is a moral failing to seek a favorable label without doing the work to earn it. One thing that I am very intentional about in my life is to either say "No, I am not (blank)" or actually be (blank). I think that when people are honest about the people they actually are, they become better people. If you feed yourself a bunch of pat on the back bullshit, it is basically ethical/philosophically lazy. I think we should only use descriptors when they fit the term. We don't have incentive to use broad definitions of personality descriptors. This is turning into a bit of a rant, so I'm cutting this sub-point here. So just to be clear, I think the vast majority of self-identifying Christians are morally deficient. But I also think the vast majority of people in the world are morally deficient. I think it is incredibly difficult to live an ethical life and most people simply don't have the willpower. It is too easy to tell yourself you are good when you really just aren't. This situation is complicated by people's parents. Parent-child relationships hugely contribute to unethical behavior because people often sugar coat their parents because there is an inherent desire to view your parents as good people. A lot of people will adopt the behaviors and philosophies of their parents, good or bad, then force themselves to view those things as good. This is common for people who spank their children. They cite the fact that their parents spanked them as if anyone should give a shit or as if we agree their parents are good people. And I don't think we lose anything by looking at the fact that the average member of society really just isn't trying hard enough or doing enough good in the world. Most people don't donate, volunteer or execute other forms of sacrifice. That totally sucks. We should look at it in the eyes and address it rather than starting from the basic conclusion that most people are good. Most people are *born* good and, through the course of their lives, deteriorate into bad people. As an example, look at how many people are resistant to the idea of wearing masks or say they shouldn't have to get vaccinated. Are those good people? How many of them are parents? I bet a lot of their kids see them as good people. We are often totally incapable of seeing our parents as bad people and we often emulate their behaviors. But people who fit a proper definition of following the teachings of Jesus are great people, mostly. One of the things that make actual Christians good people is they legitimately believe it is worthwhile and important to *actually* be good. They really buy it and they try to do it. I have met some truly extraordinary Christians. The problem you have there is that you are being holier than the pope. Literally. The current Pope might fit the bill for "Christian" according to your labels, but the previous one doesn't appear to have, and most popes throughout history haven't. So if most Popes aren't a Christian by your labelling, your labelling is probably wrong. Even though, if we look at the book Christians claim to follow, you would be right, it just isn't a very practical application of the label for real-world purposes. Christians are people who believe in: (1) There is only one God who created the universe. (2) The Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don't believe there's much else all Christians agree on, it's a rather heterogeneous group of religions. Now following Jesus's example is part of the trinity, but not doing so in every aspect of Jesus's life and teachings doesn't make you a not-a-Christian. It doesn't even make you a bad Christian in the eyes of many Christians. Is that a problem? Maybe, but it isn't one you'll solve by taking their label away... I'm not solving a problem by taking their label away. The label is already gone. I didn't try to save any lives by taking their label away. I set the record straight and that's it really. I'm not their savior. I am just describing their failings. So, in other words, troll Christians on the internet. That's a fun passtime, I enjoy that myself. May I suggest /r/Christians rather than the US politics thread on TL, tho?
I'm not trolling anyone, I'm having conversations. You're welcome to have your perspective on my posts, but keep in mind I may not listen.
|
Catholicism is not defined by being good people. The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. In the Bible. Trying to define Christian behavior by taking one aspect of the Bible and ignoring the rest is precisely what they are doing as well, just in another way. Christianity is an umbrella term for people that believe in similar things. Some of them behave in a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing that, some because that's the right way to do and some because the preacher or their parents said this is the way to behave. Others simply ignore the part that they don't feel particularly about or do bad things and hating themselves for it. Us judging them doesn't change that.
But defining Christianity just by the general tenants of being a good person from the teachings attributed to Jesus is like saying if you own a car, you must be a muscle car enthusiast. The teachings of Jesus about being a good person are jsut that, general ground rules of being a good human being. They might have been more controversial back in their time, but today not hating on your neighbour is a quite ordinary thing to ask. If this believe in itself is what defines being a christian, an atheist living a social life might be considered a Christian. What defines a christian is that they belief god is real and his rules are shaping the world and should also shape the behaviour of people. Whether they are hateful bigoted people or tolerant inclusive ones doesn't really matter. That we can logically poke holes in their beliefs because they completely ignore some parts of their holy scripture and tradition is one thing, but it does not change the fact that a horribl Karen might be as christian as the most chill social worker.
|
On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
Catholicism is not defined by being good people. The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. In the Bible. Trying to define Christian behavior by taking one aspect of the Bible and ignoring the rest is precisely what they are doing as well, just in another way. Christianity is an umbrella term for people that believe in similar things. Some of them behave in a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing that, some because that's the right way to do and some because the preacher or their parents said this is the way to behave. Others simply ignore the part that they don't feel particularly about or do bad things and hating themselves for it. Us judging them doesn't change that.
Which things?
|
I can post them when i am home, but for one he has told his followers to kill unbelievers in one of his stories. If you look at the old and the new testament, there are obviously tons of problems to consolidate both into one story, but the new testament itself is also not without contradictions.
|
On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things.
As someone who has read the new testament, I do not recall Jesus ever saying or doing anything that was "very bad". He did do some light violence, but towards people he believed were greedy.
I'm not religious, but it's pretty clear cut that if Christians actually followed the words of Jesus Christ, they would not be doing or supporting the heinous things that are currently going on in southern USA
|
On September 03 2021 20:19 Broetchenholer wrote:
I can post them when i am home, but for one he has told his followers to kill unbelievers in one of his stories. If you look at the old and the new testament, there are obviously tons of problems to consolidate both into one story, but the new testament itself is also not without contradictions.
Luke 19:27 is what I think you're referring to, and there's no doubt that it's a troublesome end to a parable that doesn't match up with basically anything else Jesus purportedly said.
But yes, I agree wholeheartedly on the point that the Bible is full to the brim with contradictions and inconsistencies, biblicism and biblical inerrancy are dangerous and wrong in part for that reason.
On September 03 2021 20:20 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. As someone who has read the new testament, I do not recall Jesus ever saying or doing anything that was "very bad". He did do some light violence, but towards people he believed were greedy. I'm not religious, but it's pretty clear cut that if Christians actually followed the words of Jesus Christ, they would not be doing or supporting the heinous things that are currently going on in southern America
Very much agreed, this was more or less my point when I started this line of conversation. As someone who grew up knowing very good and very bad people whose lives revolved around Christianity, I'm personally invested in discussing and being careful with questions of how religion (specifically the Abrahamic faiths) plays into morality. Given my belief that if God were real, he would not be worth believing in, it's not as though I find myself welcomed in most churches 
|
On September 03 2021 20:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 20:19 Broetchenholer wrote:
I can post them when i am home, but for one he has told his followers to kill unbelievers in one of his stories. If you look at the old and the new testament, there are obviously tons of problems to consolidate both into one story, but the new testament itself is also not without contradictions. Luke 19:27 is what I think you're referring to, and there's no doubt that it's a troublesome end to a parable that doesn't match up with basically anything else Jesus purportedly said. But yes, I agree wholeheartedly on the point that the Bible is full to the brim with contradictions and inconsistencies, biblicism and biblical inerrancy are dangerous and wrong in part for that reason.
As with a lot of things in the bible, things can be understood differently than at face value (Yes, I know. Often the same excuse used to support horrible ideas from the Bible as well as the good ones). I don't think there's a single right answer here, but you are correct in that it basically contradicts everything Jesus stood for, so it's worth maybe considering how it's mistakenly inferred. Here's a good explanation from a random internet user outlining it better than I ever could have:
The verse is part of a parable that Jesus taught. The parable seems intended to teach about the judgment of God at this point. It does not suggest that human governance should even follow this example. He merely uses what could and often did happen to illustrate a point of God's supreme governance. + Show Spoiler +11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’
15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’
22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” Luke 19:11-27 ESV Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all. What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.
|
Yes, i think that's the one, "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." I mean, sure, there are arguments to be made whether this is an outliner from a statistics point, or how the meaning could be completely different. But the truth is, if you believe the bible to be written by god through the hand of saints, then it is quite confusing how Jesus should have said that. Not God will kill them or punish them, no, you, my followers shall slaughter them. I am not trying to argue how this should amend view of the Bible or the believes that come from it, i am just saying that reducing Chistianity to "Jesus said to live good lifes" is not correct.
|
Now that the Taliban has declared China to be their ally and to be working together, we should ask ourselves, who did we help when we chose not to just directly ally with the Taliban? Who are we liberating when we say we won't trade with them? Did we do any good at all in the world, if China ends up enabling/securing the Taliban?
|
On September 04 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that the Taliban has declared China to be their ally and to be working together, we should ask ourselves, who did we help when we chose not to just directly ally with the Taliban? Who are we liberating when we say we won't trade with them? Did we do any good at all in the world, if China ends up enabling/securing the Taliban?
You know US used to be allied with the Taliban, right? Or rather, the "freedom fighters" who formed into Taliban. You know the guys in Rambo 3? That's them.
The problem is that no matter who they're allied with, they're not capable of forming a coherent group with aligned ideas and ideologies. It's an area in perpetual civil war. You'll always have "freedom fighters", the only thing that changes is who controls what part of the nation.
The fact that they just allied with China changes absolutely nothing in the grand scheme. It's just trading one big nation for another. The only upside for US is that they can now rid their hands of an unethical regime which shouldn't be promoted at any cost. If China wants to take over the dirty job because they don't care about ethics, then by all means let them. It's not going to reward them an iota in the short or long run
|
On September 04 2021 02:07 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that the Taliban has declared China to be their ally and to be working together, we should ask ourselves, who did we help when we chose not to just directly ally with the Taliban? Who are we liberating when we say we won't trade with them? Did we do any good at all in the world, if China ends up enabling/securing the Taliban? You know US used to be allied with the Taliban, right? Or rather, the "freedom fighters" who formed into Taliban. You know the guys in Rambo 3? That's them. The problem is that no matter who they're allied with, they're not capable of forming a coherent group with aligned ideas and ideologies. It's an area in perpetual civil war. You'll always have "freedom fighters", the only thing that changes is who controls what part of the nation. The fact that they just allied with China changes absolutely nothing in the grand scheme. It's just trading one big nation for another. The only upside for US is that they can now rid their hands of an unethical regime which shouldn't be promoted at any cost. If China wants to take over the dirty job because they don't care about ethics, then by all means let them. It's not going to reward them an iota in the short or long run
The bolded is what I am referring to. I am asking what difference we make in the world when we let China benefit from an identical situation rather than the US. In general, breaking alliances/trade/etc is intended to punish bad behavior and encourage good behavior. But when they turn around, do the exact same thing, but allow a competing country to benefit, what did we really do other than suck our own dicks?
I think the place where we disagree is if China will benefit or not. I predict China will selfishly benefit from this.
|
United States42489 Posts
The US isn't really in a position to exploit the resources of Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq. Iraq still had all the British oil infrastructure built to feed oil straight into the US dominated Persian Gulf. Afghanistan is a landlocked mountain with access through Iran or Pakistan. There was no future in which the US was extracting their resources, it was always going to be China or no-one at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
