Liberals Are Psychotic, not Conservatives Like We Thought -Study correction says

[Town Heretic]

For the sake of brevity I'm going to limit response to a few points.

Family values are biased values, agreed. They also just happen to be the 'right' values.There is plenty of proof. Causality just happens to conveniently follow the data.

You can put together all sorts of data that isn't causal. Here's a link to a good bit of funny linkage. My favorite? Number of Nicholas Cage films in a given year and swimming pool drownings.

Typically, you need to look at three things: temporal precedence, or does the cause always precede the effect; covariation of cause and effect, or the establishment of an observable relationship; and the absence of possible alternative explanations. And I don't agree that because most conservatives value the family it becomes a conservative value, by which I mean to say dependent upon or springing from conservatism.

Obama certainly did not, he championed and talked of fringe groups and fringe interests and gave resources to them. He was NOT a family advocate. He was a 'bleeding heart' liberal, but liberals simply do not understand Jesus teaching: "you will always have the poor and needy among you."

No one is popularly elected president by championing fringe groups, Lon. It just can't happen.

Jesus said, rather pointedly, what you do for the least of these you do for me and what you fail to do for them you fail to do for me. Your quote is truncated. He was saying that while there would always be the needy, the poor, he was there among them for a brief time. There was a certain hypocrisy on the part of the accuser of Mary. He almost certainly didn't spend every possible bit of coin on them, make every possible sacrifice and take every possible shortcut to help them, but he was accusing her of wasting money on Christ that could go a greater good. He was being a hypocrite and Christ rarely had anything good to say to or about hypocrites.

He also said clearly, you do not take bread from the mouths of your own children.

Sure. Life is often about understanding relationships in obligation.

In this, He was talking about our political action as well. You cannot overtly give without harming your base and America's base, frankly, is Christian families.

You shouldn't give what you need or be required to give everything that you literally don't need, but no one in this country is remotely asked to do that.

There are only so many resources for abused animals and those chronically needy and poor. Whatever the percentages, THAT is their share of resources. We can and do give of our resources after that BUT it is voluntary and Conservatives definitely do outgive, by far, our liberal counterparts.

Here, arguably. But you could argue that in France, by way of example, the opposite is true, since liberals have seen to it that the needs of the poor are met by their compact. Some, sadly, that still aren't met by our own.

Bleeding heart liberals give 'other people's money.'

As per my last, there's no liberal exception to the tax code. They give their own too.

Nope. Gallup poll confirms that conservatives are the largest group.

I really don't recall saying they weren't. . . What the latest Gallup polling indicates is that conservatives are 36% and liberals at 25%. In the 90s the gap was a 22% edge for conservatives and it was 14% just a couple of years ago.

If we had reason for showing up every election, there would be no such thing as democrats in federal and many state offices.

Sorry, but 36% of anything isn't going to run roughshod even if galvanized unless the rest don't care.

It was and is important, what the 'gotcha' was, to this OP, as much as the data itself, because it already shows a true polarization.

Did that need a demonstration?

IOW, they were just trying to say we were hypocrites rather than espousing those values themselves potentially.

From here it looks like that's about how either side is attempting to use it. But they both have the same problem, a want of demonstrable causality.

These two groups: Liberals and Conservatives, are very different. Of politicians voted in, only 26% of democrats say they are religions, and less than half that number (according to Gallup) would say they are dedicated Christians.Conversely, nearly 30% of republican politicians would say they are deeply dedicated Christians and about 20% ascribe themselves as Christian (about 10% of each Democrat and Republican would say they are not religious at all).

It's not the converse if you measure the two groups differently. The last time I saw it, the division (using the same comparative groups) was around 49% of Republicans qualified for the very religious category and 36% of Democrats. In the moderately religious column it went the other way, with that group dividing 38% Republican and 44% Democrat. Of the nonreligious group, the split went heavily to the Democrats, with 29% found in Republican ranks and 52% found in the Democratic side. (Gallup link)

Between you and I? God.

We both know there's a good bit of divergence, which accounts for everything from the largest separation, between Catholic and Protestant, and the lesser divisions on issues that matter enough to spawn the divisions.

Regarding the thread? The .gov report

No government report is going to define family values.

AND, I think, even the most casual glance at what the two groups talk about as well as what their platforms are. Conservatives march on Washington to stop abortion (family interests and values). Liberals march on rights for fringe groups and the right of women to get out of the home and not raise their children, not wear bras, etc. To me, even these most cursory glances, make objectives and very contrasted values, clear and plain.

Liberals marched on Washington to promote human rights, civil rights, the right of everyone to be treated equally before the law. Families rest on those rights. Conservatives have marched on Washington to deny some of those. See, it's all in how and where you focus.

There is only one kind of Christian.

Every Christian would say that moments before tearing into the other one for a dispute on exegesis. Consider your own suspicion of the liberal's faith. You think he's going to agree with your notion of what comprises that "one kind"? Because I suspect he's not, unless you include him.

We as a people, are democratic in the sense that might does make right, by way of vote.

I'd say we're democratic in the sense that we believe in the right of the individual to self-determination, absent important qualifiers that tend to come into play whenever one fellow's rights have to come into balance with another's, to keep your right to travel freely from interfering with my right to the quiet enjoyment of my property, by way of illustration.

If Socialist communists have taught us anything, they have taught us that the liberal agenda doesn't work, it wrecks.

Nah. Communist totalitarians have amply demonstrated the dysfunctionality and failure of communism. Socialism? Depends on the form. It can work and does. Does it work as well as a free market? Not if it's intelligently regulated, to my mind.

But any note to any particular, and he or she, is no longer 'grouped.'

My point being that if you empower the individual you empower the group, unless the group is dedicated to the harm of an individual or certain other groups of individuals.

70% of programing on TV supporting our values?

If you want a market economy, that's what will dictate what you see on television. If most people don't buy a thing that thing won't survive long or won't thrive and dominate.

:nono: 70% of representation in resources?

Socialist.

70% of the ear of Congress and Representatives?

Everyone has the vote.

1% of us is gay,

Gallup had the LGBT pop at 3.8% in 2015 (link).

yet they get 60% of programing dedicated to their agenda.

:idunno: It's a pretty strong lobby though. No doubt about it.

Other's will pick up I'm sure, where we leave off. I'm loving the minecraft stuff. It is like legos television.

It is, but without the ridiculously prohibitive prices...well, thanks to his grandfather that's not an issue, but it's a wonderful educational tool. It's impacted his spelling and problem solving. We limit the time on it though. Balance with that trampoline in the front yard and reading, etc.

A conversation worth a whole other discussion. My mother is a democrat with conservative values. She is interesting in that she doesn't want to shove God, or shove politics on anybody, however. She is a very interesting person in that sense. She will get along with everybody. The other day, the Mormons came to my door. I 'discussed' differences politely. When they came to my mother's door, she baked them banana bread and made them dinner and they never did talk about Mormonism :noway: They came back two days later and gave her a rose and a mother's day card! At times, I envy my mother....Other times, I'm glad I say something, because truth is important.

I had two elders who were on mission and would stop by my apartment when I was in law school. Once a week they'd drop in and we'd talk, have tea. Good kids. I think we can be honest in our difference and amicable in our approach. But if someone wants to take a poke at me I'm going to whack them with the funny stick.

:cheers:

 

[Lon]

Yes. But not because it's driven by personality traits. In fact, as your cited research indicates, both of them are caused by something else. Turns out, it's brain structure.

As I pointed out, personality types don't cause political orientation. The evidence is that it's driven by details of brain architecture (at least it is in young adults).

Well, for me, as a remade Christian, my thinking has largely changed being in Christ. At one time, I was more like my Democratic family and definitely a Democrat. I suppose it can be a case study for both personality and brain activity, that I am Republican. Here is truly what changed me: Abortion. While I felt Regan caved in on doctors getting to decide, I had a suspicion it'd go the route it did with the flood gates opened and the bars eventually being removed. At any rate, I was always my hope that Republican 'sentiment' would have an effect where Republican movement seemed impotent. Today, I'm feeling a bit betrayed because I absolutely know that voting Republican was a vote against the middle class. At the time, I was willing to be poor if even one life were saved from such voting. I think there has been some success so I'm not going to cry about being a bit poorer. For me, I voted with my heart and sacrifice at that point. My mother, conversely, has voted democrat consistently except for the last election. She was adamant that Hilary would be a terrible president. She has always voted democrat, however, because she has always thought the democrat was more interested in families as a hold-over from days gone-by when they were family oriented and interested.

I showed you, personality traits don't cause political orientation. Steve Bannon, for example. They both are caused by a different factor.

I'm not sure I agree with that summation, however. Because we vote our values, I think we do vote from our personality. Conservatives Christians, also tend to be Conservative in politics, and such is definitely holistic. "They" could not predict personality traits from political leanings, but I do not doubt they exist, just that they could not verify them. That to me, is a whole different matter. I agree not many studies are done. As I was telling Town, a good many liberals aren't family men and women like Republicans. Sure, when it comes to career politicians, we have to see corruption with power, BUT there are more Republicans married with families, than Democrat counterparts. One proof for this: We don't have many same-sex politicians in the Republican party, with very very few exceptions, all of these are Democrats. Of the few who have been Republican, it is always an embarrassment and usually surrounds his/her exit from office. Not trying to make a huge deal out of a different issue, just trying to show the social make-up to some degree, of the difference in agendas and make-up of these groups. I 'think' one follows the other fairly clearly and does show personality traits, but it depends, on that note, what traits we are talking about. It does, for one, show a stark difference between the religious nature of the two groups. Liberal politics tends to come from liberal theology and conservative- conservative, at least I think you and I attest to that, though I've never asked. Would you consider yourself liberal or conservative as far as theology? An amount of your theology is definitely liberal, but I should ask before making more than the passing observation.

To a degree it is. I and my siblings vary a great deal in terms of neatnik vs. sloppy. But the best predictor of a conservative is a robust amygdala.

It's the part of the brain that mediates fear, conflict, and threat assessment.

Well, that'd be theologically liberal in my estimation. While these centers process information, I yet believe 'we' determine the way such happens. Psychologically, I've always been Pavlovian/Skinnarian, because scripture tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, etc. Science, to me, follows scriptural truth rather than vice versa. God knows and the Bible is the perfect blue-print for men and women, to deal with lif

The best predictor of a liberal is a robust anterior cingulate gyrus. It's the part of the brain that mediates resolution of conflict and conflicting information.

Well, it might be in the sense atf, that one can scan an adult mind and compare scans prior. While chemicals can and do affect parts of our motor skills and physical operation, I am positive if any man is in Christ, he/she is a new creation beyond the constraints of chemicals. At the same time, I am an advocate of vitamins and science that helps us follow desirable traits and patterns of our lives. I am also convinced that such has very little to do with my politics. I am a Democrat, at heart but vote Republican simply because dire issues matter more to me than issues of 'freedom' and wants dressed up as 'needs' from the Democratic agenda. Nobody 'needs' an abortion, or at least very few. Originally, doctors were to call that shot and I think rightly so. We were never supposed to dress up a 'desire' to be sexually irresponsible as a supposed-need to eliminate a consequence.

I didn't see your posts as aggressive or inflammatory. The subject is interesting, because it's one of those cases where the truth is actually pretty clear.

And it's technical, but accessible to the non-scientific person.

All props to our mods for that when you can't even tell they were here! They are awesome.

 

[Lon]

For the sake of brevity I'm going to limit response to a few points.
[/COLOR]
You can put together all sorts of data that isn't causal. Here's a link to a good bit of funny linkage. My favorite? Number of Nicholas Cage films in a given year and swimming pool drownings.

That's hilarious! And brings Mark Twain and statistics to mind....

Typically, you need to look at three things: temporal precedence, or does the cause always precede the effect; covariation of cause and effect, or the establishment of an observable relationship; and the absence of possible alternative explanations. And I don't agree that because most conservatives value the family it becomes a conservative value, by which I mean to say dependent upon or springing from conservatism.

Well, that is the moderate position and understanding, but I do see the tie-in, in real life. All the evangelicals around me are Republican. It is no coincidence and there is causation. For the most part, it is and always has been about abortions and trying to help a nation understand and embrace the good of Christian values in government. Imho, one only need look at the alternative agendas prevalent between the two parties. I know who wrote book of virtues. I know who wrote chicken soup for the soul, etc. I couldn't tell you about any family values books put out by a democrat. You realize that the past democrats in presidential office for the last half century were unfaithful to their wives? Stats follow realities we do see. A collation of those is needed, I grant, but these stack up against the assertion otherwise, imo. I don't see Nicolas Cage behind infidelity in the Oval office.

No one is popularly elected president by championing fringe groups, Lon. It just can't happen.

And I'm telling you Obama would never have made it into office if we didn't have Romney and McCain. There were good candidates. When they didn't make it past primaries, we packed up and went home and Obama was elected. We had the numbers and have the numbers, to stop that. Trump is in office simply because we felt 'he isn't worse and may be able to undo damage caused by the liberal immoral decisions of the past 8 years."

Jesus said, rather pointedly, what you do for the least of these you do for me and what you fail to do for them you fail to do for me. Your quote is truncated. He was saying that while there would always be the needy, the poor, he was there among them for a brief time. There was a certain hypocrisy on the part of the accuser of Mary. He almost certainly didn't spend every possible bit of coin on them, make every possible sacrifice and take every possible shortcut to help them, but he was accusing her of wasting money on Christ that could go a greater good. He was being a hypocrite and Christ rarely had anything good to say to or about hypocrites.

He also talked about putting milestones that cause children to sin. As I said, whatever my politics, I know there are children alive and well today, because I sponsored them over their lifetimes through Compassion International at a significant cost. The 'least' isn't necessarily the bum on the street in drug addiction and self-inflicted poor health. I care about him, but am not sure we need to be sending the fire truck to his home at 100K a visit when he is having a panic attack or withdrawl symptoms. James said pure religion was to take care of the fatherless (children) and widow (helpless). I tend to see 'the least' as those truly needed. In addition to Compassion, I volunteer and provide financially when I can, for our local foodbank. My conservative evangelical side of the family, does the same thing, and sacrificially. I will again say, for the record and what it is worth, I don't see using tax dollars we already have and allocating it, as 'giving to the least of these.' I certainly am glad we have Medicaid and welfare, but I think we could do better than 'enablement' at times. I can't stop someone from smoking, but I'd sure like to try with some of those dollars.

Sure. Life is often about understanding relationships in obligation.

To me, this goes back to how bleeding, a bleeding heart must be. I think it best to bleed a bit more out each day and give those coats. I've been on both sides of this. One day my roommate was giving out a gorgeous sweater to the homeless. I said "Dave, they'll have that full of urine and in the trash in two days!" He said, "so?" I traded 6 coats and sweaters for that sweater and he was mad at me. A week later, unable to enjoy that sweater, I gave it away too. I've also given well beyond my means much of the time, but as I look back, I don't think pragmatic is a bad thing either BUT I didn't need that sweater. I just think it went to someone who may have enjoyed the warmth of it, but may not have taken care of it like I would have. Stewardship and giving are a tough balance. It wasn't mine to be steward over, and I still feel funny talking about it to this day, though it happened when I was a young college kid, long ago.

You shouldn't give what you need or be required to give everything that you literally don't need, but no one in this country is remotely asked to do that.

Had a time where I did exactly that, as well. Having nothing, I gave away my paychecks to those in need when I was living at home and didn't much care about my needs, didn't save up for a rainy day, etc. God is able to care for all needs and He uses us to meet those needs as He sees fit. The widow, I'd think, needed that mite-coin, being all she had. Sometimes, we do give till it hurts, but I'm not exactly sure how to apply that to government spending. I am with you, if we find genuine needs, we should bleed a little more. My concern was more the guy that was spending $100k left and right as soon as his Obamacare ship came in, for frivolous perceptions of illegitimate needs while St. Jude is asking for help with children and their families going through cancer.... Perhaps I just need to bleed a little more. If I wasn't so anemic, I'd go to the local blood bank tomorrow.

Here, arguably. But you could argue that in France, by way of example, the opposite is true, since liberals have seen to it that the needs of the poor are met by their compact. Some, sadly, that still aren't met by our own.

I used to remember some of the wealthy around here, used to adopt the needs of some of those women who lost husbands one way or another. I haven't heard of that sort of thing lately. Perhaps it is skewed media, perhaps the practicality of such isn't feasible like it used to be.... :idunno: What I guess I am saying is, that liberal or conservative by sentiment, either way, I'm with you on this particular.

As per my last, there's no liberal exception to the tax code. They give their own too.

Well, yes, but I'm saying that by percentages, it isn't a 50/50 deal. We are partisan in our politics so $ does go where whoever is in offices designate it. To whatever extent the partisanship exists, it would be by the percentages, something like 35% interest allocating 65% of the other guy's taxes.... It would be akin to me buying something for my family of girls, that is manly and calling it a 'family' purchase, by example. It wouldn't be fair to spend with only my interests in mind.


I really don't recall saying they weren't. . . What the latest Gallup polling indicates is that conservatives are 36% and liberals at 25%. In the 90s the gap was a 22% edge for conservatives and it was 14% just a couple of years ago.


Sorry, but 36% of anything isn't going to run roughshod even if galvanized unless the rest don't care.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. In a two-party system, that edge is stronger than paper expresses. Moderates are different than Independents, according to this article, in that they are really either closet liberals or the majority, closet conservative Republicans who are disenfranchised with the party (as I've been saying). I believe you are the rare bird, in that you used to be Democrat, as a now-Moderate.

Did that need a demonstration?

To whatever extent this OP started. It is morphing a little bit from that initial post. I simply thought it was an interesting political commentary and problematic egg-on-face at the time of posting....

From here it looks like that's about how either side is attempting to use it. But they both have the same problem, a want of demonstrable causality.

I agree, the .gov research didn't give causality but it is interesting to me, even the researchers showed some bias at initial mistaken identity. That is, some of the data is certainly indicative, even by the researcher's standards else it wouldn't have caused the stir it did. To me, it is an interesting case study and not as much of a faux pas, but rather springboarding for another interesting observation. We seldom get to see behind curtains, and I think this does a nice job of giving an 'ah ha' moment regarding reaction and drawn bias conclusion (on both sides perhaps).

It's not the converse if you measure the two groups differently. The last time I saw it, the division (using the same comparative groups) was around 49% of Republicans qualified for the very religious category and 36% of Democrats. In the moderately religious column it went the other way, with that group dividing 38% Republican and 44% Democrat. Of the nonreligious group, the split went heavily to the Democrats, with 29% found in Republican ranks and 52% found in the Democratic side. (Gallup link)

All interesting stats. I'd like to seem them collate a bit, as this is different than the #'s I saw and reported. I think I linked them as well, but not immediately in context as you have. I should have, given the difference here.

We both know there's a good bit of divergence, which accounts for everything from the largest separation, between Catholic and Protestant, and the lesser divisions on issues that matter enough to spawn the divisions.

And whether the Bible is authoritative over such matters. When you bring in Catholics, I'm not sure what their percentages are. We have some on TOL who take scriptures as authoritative, and others who question the veracity, are liberal in their scriptural interpretation, even if the College of Cardinals and the Pope takes it literally, so that I think we are at a different discussion. For that reason, I limited it to 'you and I'

No government report is going to define family values.

Define? Sure it can. Dictate? :nono: Anybody can 'define' a thing.

Liberals marched on Washington to promote human rights, civil rights, the right of everyone to be treated equally before the law. Families rest on those rights. Conservatives have marched on Washington to deny some of those. See, it's all in how and where you focus.

I disagree. Imo, politics socially isn't by any necessity family oriented and twice removed. In order to help families, you have to 'talk' families' and make family oriented policies that address those family concerns. A right to not wear bra's or a right of gays are not 'family' issues and I'd argue, are the case of dysfunctional, broken, non-families in the first place. Nobody was thinking "family" when the pride parade came around. By definition, it is not a family issue and is actually an alternative to what being a family entails and are artificial, not even step-families or repaired families at that.

Every Christian would say that moments before tearing into the other one for a dispute on exegesis. Consider your own suspicion of the liberal's faith. You think he's going to agree with your notion of what comprises that "one kind"? Because I suspect he's not, unless you include him.

There is, and will only ever be one kind of Christian. Will we disagree on issues? Yeah, but only one in Christ is a Christian. Only the Lord Jesus Christ makes that call. We only have one judge. Because of that, you nor I get to participate in that imho. I rather point people to what scripture says. The Lord Jesus Christ's words are the only ones that matter. My point was, between you and I, there is only one kind of Christian and I believe we both know it. Others will have to come to that same conclusion, but where you and I count, I don't believe we can dispute such.

I'd say we're democratic in the sense that we believe in the right of the individual to self-determination, absent important qualifiers that tend to come into play whenever one fellow's rights have to come into balance with another's, to keep your right to travel freely from interfering with my right to the quiet enjoyment of my property, by way of illustration.

Somewhere, between there, is an arbitrary where I tend to take over the reigns and assert that at least I know 'my' values, as they are God's values, are the right ones and assert that in God (one nation under), we have these unalienable rights that aren't agreed upon, BUT that's what makes me and I think even you, against your notion, a bit more than just along for the ride. We are leaders of truth and righteousness for every man, and it is given to us, not by our country, not by government, but by God. If that ever leaves our government, in some poor attempt to be 'fair' we weren't tyrannical enough. Truth has to be the victor, and sometimes, it will only be 'our' truth. Politically, it is a power play. We cannot be doves as far as whatever responsibility God has placed this particular government upon our shoulders. We do have to do some dictating, to whatever degree. I think of it like a father over his family, he has to lead strongly at times. I believe we have this responsibility, both from our Forefathers and God, upon our shoulders. I don't believe we can allow a secular society. A secular society, I believe, is an atheist society. This we cannot allow. It is against the wording of our documents regarding unalienable God-given rights and responsibility. I believe the friction necessary and impossible to be rid of. We will be in this struggle as long as we are a nation and until the Lord returns and the friction needs to exist lest our nation fall into the hands of the secular humanist, who really isn't that great when it comes to families, government, or religious spiritual matters.

Nah. Communist totalitarians have amply demonstrated the dysfunctionality and failure of communism. Socialism? Depends on the form. It can work and does. Does it work as well as a free market? Not if it's intelligently regulated, to my mind.

My above touches on some of this. Reducing all society to the lowest common denominator is no good. A march for 'rights' is always about that. We all, rather, should be encouraged to rise above that and be who God intends. There is no political fulfillment or 'equality' that can possibly fill that void. Opportunity to rise? Sure, as much as is humanly possible, but it doesn't mean taking the food out of one mouth and giving it to another. My rule of thumb for such is always 'wants' vs needs. There are a lot of times a want gets precedence over real needs.

My point being that if you empower the individual you empower the group, unless the group is dedicated to the harm of an individual or certain other groups of individuals.

Bussing across city doesn't necessarily give them that advantage though. What it does, is ineptly causes 'no child left behind' where we fall for the lowest common denominator rather than being intelligent or proactive about something. Inner city kids, imo, simply need to be in school longer. They don't have to be in college when they are 18. 20 or 22 might work better for some of them. Instead of realizing it is an inner city problem, they make it into a racial issue. Misdiagnosis is a part of jumping the liberal bleeding heart gun. Bleed 'when' it is the right time. We throw more money at school in WA state, but then find because of poor allocation, that we are still being fined by federal government for not meeting standards. To me? Government inept spending and not understanding better ways and less expensive ways to meet needs. Liberal 'bleeding' doesn't help if 'blood' or money isn't needed.

If you want a market economy, that's what will dictate what you see on television. If most people don't buy a thing that thing won't survive long or won't thrive and dominate

Not exactly true. Some people will buy pet rocks....and chia pets...

Socialist.

Well, not really, it is just 'when' you already have it from taxation....

Everyone has the vote.

That's the frustrating part about the discrepancy...

Gallup had the LGBT pop at 3.8% in 2015 (link).

If by it, you mean even they get it wrong, good point. If to correct? The number is reported lower than previously thought, from stats I've seen these last 3 years. There was some conflating data. The number is somewhere between so I'm not going to die on the 1% mountain, if that is what you were thinking. One of the issues that caused trouble, I remember, was that some 'dabbled' and it was suggested that made them necessarily gay or bi, thus was one of the factors that contributed.

:idunno: It's a pretty strong lobby though. No doubt about it.

I think too, actors and musicians, have an inordinate amount of dysfunctional families according James Lipton of Inside the Actor's Studio.

It is, but without the ridiculously prohibitive prices...well, thanks to his grandfather that's not an issue, but it's a wonderful educational tool. It's impacted his spelling and problem solving. We limit the time on it though. Balance with that trampoline in the front yard and reading, etc.

Is it me, or is childhood more awesome these days? :idunno: We had more independences, but I'm wondering which might be better :think:

I had two elders who were on mission and would stop by my apartment when I was in law school. Once a week they'd drop in and we'd talk, have tea. Good kids. I think we can be honest in our difference and amicable in our approach. But if someone wants to take a poke at me I'm going to whack them with the funny stick.

I never understood this. I have a funny bone but don't find edges or sticks that whack it that humorous. There has to be a history on this one :idunno:

:cheers:

One day, for sure, tea, Earl Grey or otherwise is fine.

 

[Town Heretic]

In two parts then...

That's hilarious! And brings Mark Twain and statistics to mind....

It's pretty funny stuff.

Well, that is the moderate position and understanding, but I do see the tie-in, in real life.

It's not a moderate position, Lon. It's how causality works, how you make the case for it. What you're doing in "seeing" is, absent that, isn't demonstrably different from the connection of Nick Cage films and pool drownings.

All the evangelicals around me are Republican.

Evangelicals are much more likely to be Republicans. And those without any faith are more likely to be democrats. But when you look at the breakdown of people whose faith is vital to them, 11% more is more, but it's not overwhelmingly more and it leaves a considerable number of Democrats in that same boat. Or, if I told you 11% of Dems were among those whose faith was integral to their lives you might, might try to note it as a strong exception. But not 36%. And the strong exception is actually in the difference in that group between republicans and democrats.

It is no coincidence and there is causation.

The statistics don't support it. All that really does is your world view, and that's just bias.

For the most part, it is and always has been about abortions

I think that's probably central to how you formed that view. Of course, there's a pro life part of the Democratic party and there's a pro choice contingent in the Republican.

According to Pew, as of this year 57% of Americans believe in the pro-choice position. And 40% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

65% of Republicans say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (the most is a problem with the number) and 34% disagree with that position. Or, 3 in 10 Republicans don't toe the party line. 27% of Republicans who identify as conservative believe abortion should be legal in most cases.

and trying to help a nation understand and embrace the good of Christian values in government. Imho, one only need look at the alternative agendas prevalent between the two parties. I know who wrote book of virtues. I know who wrote chicken soup for the soul, etc. I couldn't tell you about any family values books put out by a democrat. You realize that the past democrats in presidential office for the last half century were unfaithful to their wives? Stats follow realities we do see. A collation of those is needed, I grant, but these stack up against the assertion otherwise, imo. I don't see Nicolas Cage behind infidelity in the Oval office.

You want a laundry list of conservative sex scandals? But infidelity isn't a liberal or conservative problem. It's a people/power/opportunity/maturity problem.

And I'm telling you Obama would never have made it into office if we didn't have Romney and McCain.

I think he was a strong candidate who knew how to project a hopeful message. I'm not sure who else the Democrats could have proffered to win it, so I'm not disagreeing with the outcome note, only the idea that a minority of the people can (as a rule) push the majority around.

There were good candidates. When they didn't make it past primaries, we packed up and went home and Obama was elected. We had the numbers and have the numbers, to stop that. Trump is in office simply because we felt 'he isn't worse and may be able to undo damage caused by the liberal immoral decisions of the past 8 years."

Lon, conservative turnout wasn't thin. And this time around you got moderat help and still lost the popular election.

As I said, whatever my politics, I know there are children alive and well today, because I sponsored them over their lifetimes through Compassion International at a significant cost. The 'least' isn't necessarily the bum on the street in drug addiction and self-inflicted poor health.

Rather, Lon, he isn't only that bum. And there are a lot of people out there in need who aren't there because they weren't as good, hard working, or whatever qualifier you'd care to put in play to distance them from the more worthy objects of your charity. The good news for bums though is that Christ didn't and doesn't value them any less. I suspect that's why he included prisoners among the list of those to whom our charity and kindness mattered.

I care about him, but am not sure we need to be sending the fire truck to his home at 100K a visit when he is having a panic attack or withdrawl symptoms.

Until we can tell from a distance who really needs help we have to help those we have reason to believe need it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Part II.

James said pure religion was to take care of the fatherless (children) and widow (helpless).

James was a very great man. But as between the good instruction of James and the broader, better instruction of Christ...

I tend to see 'the least' as those truly needed.

If they're hungry, cold, in prison, sick, they're truly needy. However they got there, through fault or not.

My conservative evangelical side of the family, does the same thing, and sacrificially. I will again say, for the record and what it is worth, I don't see using tax dollars we already have and allocating it, as 'giving to the least of these.'

Then, respectfully, you're mistaken and should look harder. A lot of poor kids eat nutritious meals because of government programs. A lot of elderly people have heat in the winter because of government programs. I could keep listing, but that's sufficient to make the point.

To me, this goes back to how bleeding, a bleeding heart must be.

Lon, I hate that phrase, because it's so often used as a way to disparage another's good work or to raise a want of charitable spirit to the level of a public virtue. Either an act is compassionate or it isn't. There is no degree in that.

I think it best to bleed a bit more out each day and give those coats. I've been on both sides of this. One day my roommate was giving out a gorgeous sweater to the homeless. I said "Dave, they'll have that full of urine and in the trash in two days!"

Was the point to make the man stylish or warm?

He said, "so?"

Warm then. Good on your friend.

I traded 6 coats and sweaters for that sweater and he was mad at me. A week later, unable to enjoy that sweater, I gave it away too.

That's a great lesson.

I've also given well beyond my means much of the time, but as I look back, I don't think pragmatic is a bad thing either BUT I didn't need that sweater. I just think it went to someone who may have enjoyed the warmth of it, but may not have taken care of it like I would have.

Likely. The destitute don't have your resources.

Stewardship and giving are a tough balance. It wasn't mine to be steward over, and I still feel funny talking about it to this day, though it happened when I was a young college kid, long ago.

Maybe there's still a little of the lesson to learn if it bothers you. Maybe it isn't so much how much you give as how and you're being generous in the way that matters most to others (which is a real good) but not as unreservedly in the way that would bless you more.


re: 36% of anything isn't going to run roughshod even if galvanized unless the rest don't care.

I believe you are the rare bird, in that you used to be Democrat, as a now-Moderate.

Actually, my first association was with the Republican Party. Then I became disillusioned as moderates were driven from the ranks and sought solace with moderate Democrats. But it wasn't an easy fit and I gave it up, resigned myself to being an independent and to support candidates I believed in. That led to my technical return to the ranks of Republicans here because most of the people I knew and liked tended to be and if I didn't declare I couldn't help them and weed the worst during primaries.

Imo, politics socially isn't by any necessity family oriented and twice removed. In order to help families, you have to 'talk' families' and make family oriented policies that address those family concerns.

Rhetoric is cheap. Republicans have a whole plank against abortion.

A right to not wear bra's

You realize that was never really a march/thing, right? It was a symbolic act of liberating women from male dictated accouterment and symbolism. Now burning draft cards, that was illegal.

or a right of gays are not 'family' issues

Well, they're not your notion of family issues. But here are a few liberal notions that likely play into what should be: public education, child labor laws, maternity leave, a living wage, to name a few. Those are pretty impactful.

Somewhere, between there, is an arbitrary where I tend to take over the reigns and assert that at least I know 'my' values, as they are God's values, are the right ones

I'd say most people believe their values are the right ones or why would they keep them? And many who believe their values are God's values would offend your sensibility (the Hindu, the Muslim, maybe the Mormon, etc.).

We are leaders of truth and righteousness for every man, and it is given to us, not by our country, not by government, but by God.

Okay. As a Christian, I'm fine with that.

Truth has to be the victor, and sometimes, it will only be 'our' truth. Politically, it is a power play. We cannot be doves as far as whatever responsibility God has placed this particular government upon our shoulders. We do have to do some dictating, to whatever degree.

I think most great moral truths find an anchor and defender in the law.

I don't believe we can allow a secular society.

That's up to people. We have a secular government and a largely Christian society within it. Allowance doesn't really enter into it.

My above touches on some of this. Reducing all society to the lowest common denominator is no good. A march for 'rights' is always about that.

I not only don't believe that's true, I believe it's a dangerous sentiment to hold. Black people marching for legal equality was in no part a diminution of right, or good. It was a war on an illegitimate and unconscionable restriction and denial of right. What was done to blacks in this country was both a moral evil and a secularly unjustifiable harm. Marching and fighting to end that was both a moral and a secular good.

Bussing across city doesn't necessarily give them that advantage though.

Separate but equal only managed the separate part. If remedies are imperfect then they are the lesser of impairments (in affect, not value).

What it does, is ineptly causes 'no child left behind' where we fall for the lowest common denominator rather than being intelligent or proactive about something.

Wasn't that a conservative proffer?

Inner city kids, imo, simply need to be in school longer. They don't have to be in college when they are 18. 20 or 22 might work better for some of them. Instead of realizing it is an inner city problem, they make it into a racial issue.

If you dig into the research you'll find the problem of inner city education is complicated. Those schools tend to pay worse and having more children from disadvantaged households are field student populations that are harder to teach (than households with college educated parents and more stable home environments, on average). You get, on average, the worst paid, least experienced, and most out of field teachers (language-arts teachers teaching math) there. It's a recipe for under performance, but we also have studies that demonstrate that when you clean that up and put those same students on par, in terms of quality resources and instruction, they do just about as well as their more privileged counterparts.

Or, the problem in urban education isn't the students so much as what the student's get. I had to prepare a paper on educational inequity and inequalities. It was an eye opener for me.

Not exactly true. Some people will buy pet rocks....and chia pets...

Then that's the market and the complaint is really about people not living up to their own standards.

Well, not really, it is just 'when' you already have it from taxation....

Hey, you were the one complaining about resources.

That's the frustrating part about the discrepancy...

Or a symptom of real division within the appearance of unity.

I think too, actors and musicians, have an inordinate amount of dysfunctional families according James Lipton of Inside the Actor's Studio.

Beats me. Lipton is entertaining, but I don't believe he has any particular scientific credentials or studies under his belt.

Is it me, or is childhood more awesome these days? :idunno: We had more independences, but I'm wondering which might be better :think:

I'll still take the safety and relative naivete of my own childhood. I'd give Jack that if I could, but I have to (gently) prepare him for a different world. He has to be wiser than we were, shrewder and less trusting. But I can insulate him to some degree and give him a portion of what I took for granted.

I never understood this. I have a funny bone but don't find edges or sticks that whack it that humorous. There has to be a history on this one

I was weened on repartee. I find real value in it as rhetoric in service to ideas goes. Sometimes it's satirizing authority. Sometimes it's turning an ugly, ruthless bit of nonsense on its ear.

One day, for sure, tea, Earl Grey or otherwise is fine.

Oolong is better for you.

 

[Lon]

In two parts then...

It's pretty funny stuff.


It's not a moderate position, Lon. It's how causality works, how you make the case for it. What you're doing in "seeing" is, absent that, isn't demonstrably different from the connection of Nick Cage films and pool drownings.

Kind of lose its humor by the accusation, somewhat regains it when I 'think' you are calling a duck a pigeon, though. To me, it seems your comments, twice removed, twice unsubstantiated Nicolas Cagian. To me, ducks walk like ducks and is its own kind of proof however, I think description is forthcoming as we go, and for me, it confirms its a duck.

Evangelicals are much more likely to be Republicans. And those without any faith are more likely to be democrats. But when you look at the breakdown of people whose faith is vital to them, 11% more is more, but it's not overwhelmingly more and it leaves a considerable number of Democrats in that same boat. Or, if I told you 11% of Dems were among those whose faith was integral to their lives you might, might try to note it as a strong exception. But not 36%. And the strong exception is actually in the difference in that group between republicans and democrats.

Barna gives about that same 10-11 point spread but both Gallup and Barna gave other statistics that display 'the other half' of those parties. While only .07 percent of Republicans would follow another religion, Democrats are 20% (more than just that 50%, literally one in 5 Democrats are not Christian by any name. Both Barna and Gallup (sometimes together even in some polling efforts), were addressing those who were strong Christians vs. the rest. When it comes down to it, there are much less non Christians among republicans beyond the 11% disparity among strong Christians AND realize this is 'self-identification' rather than with any criteria of what that means. As I said, in word, my distant step-brother, is a very committed Christian. What he is saying by that, however, is not the same as what a Conservative means. He doesn't go to church, or do regular devotions, etc. What does he mean by dedicated Christian at that point? Walking like a duck, when it comes to Christianity, is important. A "Christian" who simply identifies, may not waddle. It is a problem when we are no longer meaning the same thing by 'Christian.' In that limelight, a Republican, knowing he/she isn't reading their bible as much as they should, may not identify as 'strong' Christian or 'dedicated' at that point. Because of that, I think the point spread is likely different than the cursory poll suggests.

The statistics don't support it. All that really does is your world view, and that's just bias.

Nope. It is actually because I am analytical. I always look for 1) more statistics as well as 2) look at what they really mean. As a moderate, you are better suited to doing unbiased and I'd suggest you do some unbiased research. While I am not particularly interested in political discussion in debate, I'm not a slouch. The Nicolas cage association, while funny initially, gets to be three-fingers pointing back. It walks like a duck, Town.
It IS family vs non-family issues. To me, it seems your head is in the sand, not mine.

I think that's probably central to how you formed that view. Of course, there's a pro life part of the Democratic party and there's a pro choice contingent in the Republican.

It is central. Whatever the parties used to be, there is a stark divide between values that is clearly evident. At times, I think you are in an area that causes some of this myopia.

According to Pew, as of this year 57% of Americans believe in the pro-choice position. And 40% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

I was talking about evangelicals in my area. These are very much tied together in churches around here.

65% of Republicans say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (the most is a problem with the number) and 34% disagree with that position. Or, 3 in 10 Republicans don't toe the party line. 27% of Republicans who identify as conservative believe abortion should be legal in most cases.

More so among evangelicals.

You want a laundry list of conservative sex scandals? But infidelity isn't a liberal or conservative problem. It's a people/power/opportunity/maturity problem.

I already linked to some of this. Again, imho, it is a near-sightedness. Interestingly, dueling data BUT you aren't supposed to have a horse in this race to be slanting a bias. I posted studies showing Republicans have a lower divorce rate, then comes 2 opposing articles saying the opposite is true. I post an article showing clearly, that a lot more Democrat politicians aren't married, cohabitating and living against family values. What it does mean, is, it walks like a duck. I think you can argue for a liberal, but some of this overt posturing makes you look like a closet Democrat rather than a Moderate. Similarly, I too would be seen as a closet Republican, I'd agree. In reality, I tend to vote my Christian values and have no higher allegiance than that. I will follow any party in that direction.

I think he was a strong candidate who knew how to project a hopeful message. I'm not sure who else the Democrats could have proffered to win it, so I'm not disagreeing with the outcome note, only the idea that a minority of the people can (as a rule) push the majority around.

Agree. I 'felt' pushed around for 8 years, too.

Lon, conservative turnout wasn't thin. And this time around you got moderat help and still lost the popular election.

Hard to tell if we actually lost. Not only that, I didn't vote for him nor did a good many of my church family. We all voted third-party against the accusation of throwing our vote away. We'd have to do research other than posturing over these initial stat ideas, though.

Rather, Lon, he isn't only that bum. And there are a lot of people out there in need who aren't there because they weren't as good, hard working, or whatever qualifier you'd care to put in play to distance them from the more worthy objects of your charity. The good news for bums though is that Christ didn't and doesn't value them any less. I suspect that's why he included prisoners among the list of those to whom our charity and kindness mattered.

I'm not talking about actual needs. Policy is policy and welfare already feels like a communist state for the hoops. Ever see one of those lines? More depressing than the DMV as far as service without smiles, so Republican or Democrat, I don't think we are doing a good job. I have a lot more fun at the foodbank. There are some hoops, but we try to make them pleasant and with a smile. I 'think' ministry/volunteer always has the potential to do a better job, simply because somebody wants to be there. I think, that said, neither here nor there, perhaps lost in details on this particular, simply because I think we are arguing over details. I suspect our moderate meeting is a meeting of minds over this particular.

Until we can tell from a distance who really needs help we have to help those we have reason to believe need it.

Similar to above, we are just arguing 'ways' and delivery. Too much 'us/we' than 'them' for a polarizing political discussion :e4e: Catch you on part two. Have a great day, fully blessed -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

Kind of lose its humor by the accusation, somewhat regains it when I 'think' you are calling a duck a pigeon, though. To me, it seems your comments, twice removed, twice unsubstantiated Nicolas Cagian. To me, ducks walk like ducks and is its own kind of proof however, I think description is forthcoming as we go, and for me, it confirms its a duck.

I'm distinguishing between your willingness to believe the Cagian connection when it looks like something else and noting what we have to do to actually distinguish causality.

Barna gives about that same 10-11 point spread but both Gallup and Barna gave other statistics that display 'the other half' of those parties...

I set out that the likelihood is if you have no particular religion you're going to be a Democrat. But it's equally true that there isn't a great deal of statistical difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the percent of people who are very or moderately religious.

As I said, in word, my distant step-brother, is a very committed Christian. What he is saying by that, however, is not the same as what a Conservative means. He doesn't go to church, or do regular devotions, etc. What does he mean by dedicated Christian at that point?

You'd have to ask him. I'd guess he'd answer, as some right wingers here who don't attend church would, that he's dedicated to Christ and the larger Body and not to the divisions men have made in it. Now I happen to think there's real value in a more particular family of faith and I think the Bible supports it, but I wouldn't say that someone who isn't in a professional organization lacks professionality in their dealings, only that it's easier to maintain with assistance and oversight.

Walking like a duck, when it comes to Christianity, is important. A "Christian" who simply identifies, may not waddle. It is a problem when we are no longer meaning the same thing by 'Christian.' In that limelight, a Republican, knowing he/she isn't reading their bible as much as they should, may not identify as 'strong' Christian or 'dedicated' at that point. Because of that, I think the point spread is likely different than the cursory poll suggests.

Where I'd only note your suspicion serves your bias and that's how it tends to work when we go on something other than empirical evidence.

Nope. It is actually because I am analytical. I always look for 1) more statistics as well as 2) look at what they really mean. As a moderate, you are better suited to doing unbiased and I'd suggest you do some unbiased research.

The assumption being I haven't.

It IS family vs non-family issues. To me, it seems your head is in the sand, not mine. It is central. Whatever the parties used to be, there is a stark divide between values that is clearly evident. At times, I think you are in an area that causes some of this myopia.

You can declare this a hundred different ways, old friend, but until you can prove it there's no real difference and my answer above will suffice. I understand how you feel. I think it clouds you.

I was talking about evangelicals in my area. These are very much tied together in churches around here.

Okay. How is that relevant to the larger argument?

I already linked to some of this. Again, imho, it is a near-sightedness. Interestingly, dueling data BUT you aren't supposed to have a horse in this race to be slanting a bias.

What dueling data? I'm just noting we've had a lot of sexual scandal on the right too. There's no particular value in isolating it to the White House except to make a point that of late we've had an unfaithful president (Clinton) and as far as I know two faithful presidents (Obama and Carter) who were Democrats? Who else? Kennedy? He'd be a Republican today (said Reagan). Going back to FDR? Sure. Then Dwight had an affair. He was a republican. Reagan didn't, so far as we know. The Bushes, whatever other flaws they have, don't seem to be the faithless sort. Doesn't really appear to have much to do with party though.

I posted studies showing Republicans have a lower divorce rate

Didn't see those, though it wouldn't surprise me. Also wouldn't surprise me if the difference isn't a great one. I know that when Wilcox and Wolfinger did a study back in 2000 conservatives were 6% more likely to say they had a good marriage. I've also seen polling that red states have higher divorce rates. :idunno:

I post an article showing clearly, that a lot more Democrat politicians aren't married, cohabitating and living against family values.

Goldie Hawn has been not married and within what anyone who didn't know that would say is a family (to borrow your duck) for a very long time. I wouldn't be surprised about cohabitation, given that a little over of those who declared themselves without a religion identified as Democrat. That sort would tend to eschew convention in that particular, I'd expect.

I think you can argue for a liberal,

Which I'm not really, any more than I'm speaking for your brother. Now if you ask a question I'm going to do my best to answer it, usually noting that I don't and can't really speak for anyone who isn't me.

but some of this overt posturing makes you look like a closet Democrat rather than a Moderate.

One of the more unfortunate things about the bias of the right is how it drags otherwise reasonable people into that habit, Lon. I hope you avoid the pitfall. The only people who ever suggest that are on the right, unless I'm arguing with someone on the left, in which case I get labeled (and have been more than once) an apologist for the religious right. :think: So I must be doing the moderate thing right.

Similarly, I too would be seen as a closet Republican, I'd agree.

I see you as you offer yourself. I suppose that between the two of us you know your mind better than I ever will. Now you may have different parameters on X than what I expect going in, but most people do. I don't believe that most anyone is purely one thing, only mostly or mostly favoring, so I expect variance.

In reality, I tend to vote my Christian values and have no higher allegiance than that. I will follow any party in that direction.

Sounds like an independent, at least potentially.

Hard to tell if we actually lost

Which we? And how do you figure? Are we talking about Trump now? I was on Obama and his opposition. On Trump, it's pretty clear (three million or so votes clear) that he lost the popular vote, but he won the one that mattered in terms of flying in Air Force One and living in the White House, so...

Not only that, I didn't vote for him nor did a good many of my church family. We all voted third-party against the accusation of throwing our vote away. We'd have to do research other than posturing over these initial stat ideas, though.

I tried to get people to do that. Life.

I'm not talking about actual needs. Policy is policy and welfare already feels like a communist state for the hoops. Ever see one of those lines? More depressing than the DMV as far as service without smiles, so Republican or Democrat, I don't think we are doing a good job. I have a lot more fun at the foodbank. There are some hoops, but we try to make them pleasant and with a smile. I 'think' ministry/volunteer always has the potential to do a better job, simply because somebody wants to be there. I think, that said, neither here nor there, perhaps lost in details on this particular, simply because I think we are arguing over details. I suspect our moderate meeting is a meeting of minds over this particular.

I agree that all of us can do a better job. No one who is in real need should be turned away and no one who is capable should be on the dole.

:cheers:

 

[Lon]

Part II.

James was a very great man. But as between the good instruction of James and the broader, better instruction of Christ...

Seeing more of this 'lately.' It used to be, what Paul or James said, WAS what Jesus said too. As both you and I are from Covenant backgrounds, seeing agreement and not pitting one against the other is par for our denomination and theology. We don't pit James or Paul against Jesus :idunno:

If they're hungry, cold, in prison, sick, they're truly needy. However they got there, through fault or not.

Yes, but 'aways having the poor' was over an expensive bottle of perfume. In some ways, I believe Jesus was in line with capitalism on such, more than socialism/communism. I'm personally looking forward to a complete Theocratic rule. All of these needs will no longer exist. Until then? I suppose any way we can, but I have less 'natural' empathy for those who do it to themselves. When it comes to pennies, I try to cast them where they do the most good. I realize it makes me look cold-hearted in the process. Even the non-Jew received crumbs. Jesus DID say it wasn't right to take food from the children. I think, ideally, your ideals are good, I simply think they are too bleeding and move you a bit left of moderate in the process. Bad? :nono: It just makes us a bit different in how we dole out our heart-blood.

Then, respectfully, you're mistaken and should look harder. A lot of poor kids eat nutritious meals because of government programs. A lot of elderly people have heat in the winter because of government programs. I could keep listing, but that's sufficient to make the point.

No, I think you missed my point. I believe those scriptures to 'us' not to government tax dollars. What I was saying is there is no sacrifice in it, regarding allocating tax dollars. I think on your side, yes, it is taking care of the needy BUT a government doesn't go to heaven. My point is that what governments do is different on that note, not that we cannot follow the 'principle.' Rather I'm saying only you and I can follow Jesus' teaching. A Christian body could follow that directive, not our government, however. So, not necessarily the disagreement you were seeing on this one, just a difference as far as following Jesus directive in particular. Only you and I, as Christians, can do that. A government cannot but follow some of the principle and example toward the good of its constituents.

Lon, I hate that phrase, because it's so often used as a way to disparage another's good work or to raise a want of charitable spirit to the level of a public virtue. Either an act is compassionate or it isn't. There is no degree in that.

To me, it is a duck waddle and quack: "Bleeding heart" is embraced by liberals. As a moderate, both you and I wouldn't be seen as part of the description process unless we are throwing it as accusation or embracing some form of extremes. I'm not 'as' moderate, definitely lean Republican, but less these days. During Regan George Bush Sr, I was self-identified Republican with some moderate leanings. "Bleeding" tends to mean 'without discernment.' As you and I have argued part one and two, it is obvious you are liberal in this aspect and I am conservative regarding taking care of needs/wants. A 'chronic' need is to me 'the poor always among you.' Note that the contrast was over a seeming frivolous perfume bottle. I think discernment and being cautious is the contrast to 'bleeding heart' and points directly to discernment and wisdom. Another earmark of Democrats, is, against the notion of intelligence, a certain overt amount of 'emoting' without clear direction. This too, comes from my research as substantiated. There are so many, I don't tend to like the shotgun approach of citing everything I'm saying, but I probably should change that tack since you aren't taking my word for it. As I said, none of this is Nicolas Cagian. Unless I've stated otherwise, this is all coming from reading statistics and reports. I'm by no means alone or isolated nor particular biased. It walks like a duck because it is a duck. These traits and trends are easily google-able.

Was the point to make the man stylish or warm?

See, I thought warm. Mind you, and let me repeat, I was a teenager at the time. I'd never have done that today. The idea was that he/she would have something nice, as well: both. I see his point now and because I interfered, it took away his gesture. He was not only trying to take care of a utilitarian need, but a need of dignity and something nice. I think it illustrates a bit of pragmatics (which I still carry) but I think I learned something that day: Not my call. It was a beautiful AND serviceable gift. I only use it, 1) because I often show my good side, this is a bad-side and so I felt I should ensure there is a balance to how I want people to see me (you in this case and any other that happens to read), my own need for a Savior, as well as, I think a note about the differences between 'bleeding heart' and 'pragmatic heart.' It was a way for me to say that there is something good about a bleeding heart. It isn't always necessary to be thoughtful or analytical. There is a beauty to impulsive bleeding, if it is wrought from love. I admire knee-jerk. My roommate was right, I was wrong. Could be some of this in thread too, has me needing adjustments, at least in what I might 'disallow.' Bleeding heart is sometime none of my business. Rather, I think it important to discuss how we may be the same, and may be different. I 'think' however, it a bit odd that two who are not really Left or Right are carrying this thread :chuckle:

Warm then. Good on your friend.


That's a great lesson.

Agree and agree. Lesson (hopefully) well-learned. It is trickier, imho, regarding politics. For the most part, we are small voices in a grander scheme and don't really affect policy but for our collective. It is part of why I don't really do politics often. I tend to believe theology is where the real difference is made, in discussions and in lives. Such will follow into sentiments but I really don't think we do much earth-shaking when discussing politics. I do think we clarify our values, which is helpful, but that is about it, at least to me, so I don't do the political section often.

Likely. The destitute don't have your resources.

:chuckle: or rather they do, if you catch my meaning

Maybe there's still a little of the lesson to learn if it bothers you. Maybe it isn't so much how much you give as how and you're being generous in the way that matters most to others (which is a real good) but not as unreservedly in the way that would bless you more.

Well, it is more to do with not liking to retread old poor lessons of myself as the object lesson, but I believe it effectively bridges discussions like this. So rather, I hate reliving my awkwardness where I'd been less than stellar. Doesn't it bother you to relive some of your old poor life-examples? Maybe others are more emotionally detached from their past (true, btw, without the maybe, emotion is attached to a lot of my childhood memories).

re: 36% of anything isn't going to run roughshod even if galvanized unless the rest don't care.

Or are frustrated into non-action. The last 8 years were a frustration and we 'felt' we had nothing we 'could' do about it. We didn't have choice. Still don't but as I said, I think the vote this year was a 'stopper' vote.

Actually, my first association was with the Republican Party. Then I became disillusioned as moderates were driven from the ranks and sought solace with moderate Democrats. But it wasn't an easy fit and I gave it up, resigned myself to being an independent and to support candidates I believed in. That led to my technical return to the ranks of Republicans here because most of the people I knew and liked tended to be and if I didn't declare I couldn't help them and weed the worst during primaries.

Interesting. I'd have thought, prior to your conversion, you were democrat. As I said, I was democrat as long as I thought there were Christians values expressed in the party simply because my family were all democrats and they instilled those values (my grandfather was a teamsters union rep).

Rhetoric is cheap. Republicans have a whole plank against abortion.

I think it is better than cheap, if it is a desire. A 'desire' to do something against a wall is important to me. Regan brought down the East Wall, virtually single-handedly. It was a long time coming and we were all a bit pleasantly shocked.

You realize that was never really a march/thing, right? It was a symbolic act of liberating women from male dictated accouterment and symbolism. Now burning draft cards, that was illegal.

I think Miley Cyrus was pretty serious. View attachment 25860

Well, they're not your notion of family issues.

It isn't 'family' at that point. Family is something you are born into, not something artificial or copy-able. Only God can make a family. Only God can make a marriage, and this for the nonreligious as well. They can 'try' to argue the point, but it intuitively and organically, is wrong. Nobody can argue " a child is produced by a man and a woman." It is organic. There is no way to argue against it. It cannot be done without obvious looks of incredulity.

But here are a few liberal notions that likely play into what should be: public education, child labor laws, maternity leave, a living wage, to name a few. Those are pretty impactful.

I don't believe a one of them is liberal. It is bipartisan, perhaps with living wage having more democratic voice of all of them.

I'd say most people believe their values are the right ones or why would they keep them? And many who believe their values are God's values would offend your sensibility (the Hindu, the Muslim, maybe the Mormon, etc.).

Preferences. I do not truly believe, an addict values his/her addiction. They 'preserve' it, but I question 'value.' Even they know it is wrong. We have to entertain that when talking about the difference here as well. While I don't believe going bra-less a huge issue, it never-the-less shows something more of angst-valued, than an actual value of going bra-less. It is a disconnect or twice-removed regarding an actual value. "Equality" is the suggestion but it fails to recognize that there is a difference between male and female that rightly exists. Women, by that token do not 'need' to wear an athletic supporter. "Equality" and "Bleeding heart" go hand-in-hand regarding discernment. A lot of 'equality' lacks analysis and discernment and becomes a value of egocentric non-thinking.

Okay. As a Christian, I'm fine with that.

:up:

I think most great moral truths find an anchor and defender in the law.

I think they can, but again, what is God-given, is the standard, by our Constitution and Declaration. It cannot be thwarted by SCOTUS and we must advocate what no man can give us or take away.

That's up to people. We have a secular government and a largely Christian society within it. Allowance doesn't really enter into it.

This is a political position I'm very much against because we Christians have our rights only from God alone. As soon as you say 'secular' government, it is not longer a government 'by' and 'for' the people, but a ruling entity removed, thus an oligarchy. I know, as part of they system, you don't see this, but it is true (also a different topic).

I not only don't believe that's true, I believe it's a dangerous sentiment to hold. Black people marching for legal equality was in no part a diminution of right, or good. It was a war on an illegitimate and unconscionable restriction and denial of right. What was done to blacks in this country was both a moral evil and a secularly unjustifiable harm. Marching and fighting to end that was both a moral and a secular good.

Again, a march for 'rights' is always ego-centric. If they are genuine rights, well and good because they have those rights, given by God. Rather, I was talking about the 'equality' issue. We are different but equal. Throwing an exact ball at all concerned isn't recognizing differences. As I said, I believe a 'better' fix for inter-city kids (regardless of color), is to have them in school longer as pertains to their unique needs, not bussing them across the city and reducing that group as well. After that, forgive the blanket statement, I wasn't meaning all rights marches, but ones that are thoughtless regarding equality or feigned 'rights' that are really just desires and misplaced angst.

Wasn't that a conservative proffer?

Yes, don't remind me. Bush was democratic at times :Z

If you dig into the research you'll find the problem of inner city education is complicated. Those schools tend to pay worse and having more children from disadvantaged households are field student populations that are harder to teach (than households with college educated parents and more stable home environments, on average). You get, on average, the worst paid, least experienced, and most out of field teachers (language-arts teachers teaching math) there. It's a recipe for under performance, but we also have studies that demonstrate that when you clean that up and put those same students on par, in terms of quality resources and instruction, they do just about as well as their more privileged counterparts.

As you join the teaching foray, more of this will come to light as well. I agree but 'bussing' and integration were about the only plan they came up with. Part of it was affirmative action, trickled down to schools. While I appreciate that, it really is counter-education and not meeting specific needs. As an educator, I know what I'm talking about. Each school needs to be given the resources it needs to address its own needs and interests. If a few of those kids can keep up, bus those particular kids but lets get rid of 'affirmative action' trickling into obstructing taking care of actual 'needs' peculiar to students where they are. Such integration should be part of ability, not slowing down the school that is now getting students who are unable to keep up. We had a 'reading' program of bussed in kids in one of our local high schools. Again, such reduces the whole school to the lowest common denominator in terms of progression where these particular students need to be in a school that specifically addresses their intercity needs. Again, a different topic but somewhat illustrative of 'bleeding heart' vs. 'discerning.' To be honest, I think you and I could turn a lot of things around in government if they'd just listen to us. Between us, we'd make America great, maybe for the first time (at least as far as my naïve audacity allows for wishful thinking).

Or, the problem in urban education isn't the students so much as what the student's get. I had to prepare a paper on educational inequity and inequalities. It was an eye opener for me.

I've done the same paper. While I think integration can and does work, it necessarily slows the learning process of those faster. Also in our area, we had a high school where students worked on modules and only graduated after completing those, regardless of how long it took them. The only real problem, was that it was harder to set goals for those kids, because it fostered working at their own pace, and thus, also had its converse problems. I think the online school perhaps a good alternative today, because it also fosters working at one's own pace, while still setting deadlines, trying to help kids keep pace.

Then that's the market and the complaint is really about people not living up to their own standards.

It is interesting, but I'm saying market can drive demand, similar to media forming public opinion rather than always reflecting it, as well. I believe it goes both directions. You can form public opinion. The gay agenda has shown that to be true, even if some of us are resistant to media attempt.

Hey, you were the one complaining about resources.

Not really complaining, just saying the funds shouldn't be untoward favoring any particular. That said, there is a bit of bleeding heart in me too, as I've intimated in this and the previous post. I'm just taking the devil's advocate side on the Republican objection (I think).

Beats me. Lipton is entertaining, but I don't believe he has any particular scientific credentials or studies under his belt.

Rather, he said the them of most of his students, was broken childhood. It isn't really part of our concern, but worth a moment regarding the values of media. I've not really looked into studies, but there is a larger proportion of gay actors. To me, it makes sense, when other actors drop out and spend time raising their families for a few years. Singles don't have that need, and it also would reveal why the inordinate amount of attention to such agendas. Families just don't have time to put into the entertainment industry and long hours, that single people do.

I'll still take the safety and relative naivete of my own childhood. I'd give Jack that if I could, but I have to (gently) prepare him for a different world. He has to be wiser than we were, shrewder and less trusting. But I can insulate him to some degree and give him a portion of what I took for granted.

Yeah, same here and I believe you are correct, by that token.

I was weened on repartee. I find real value in it as rhetoric in service to ideas goes. Sometimes it's satirizing authority. Sometimes it's turning an ugly, ruthless bit of nonsense on its ear.

Makes for creative dialogue and writing as well as, I think, makes the other guy have to read you better. It is a gift in as much as it might be a potential curse, especially if you can't help yourself

Oolong is better for you.

Being that Earl Grey is lavender, I'd think you could combine lavender and green together to make something twice as good. I am a fan of oolong as well. :e4e: Again, hope your day is blessed. -Lon

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd never heard of this study before, but I think it's fairly obvious that on both the far-left and far-right there is plenty of ignorance, dogmatism, hostility toward differing ideology, etc. it's just the tribal nature of politics nowadays.

Pretending one side is more guilty than the other seems a fools errand to me.

Examples of both:
Right: Calling proven and legitimate news outlets "fake news" in order to downplay their reporting
Left: Shutting down free speech on too many campuses around the country, and professors/faculty not properly standing up for it against the will of their students

Your point is well-taken. These examples are more about tribalism than legitimate left/rigth issues.

But it does come out in Left/Right expression. The notion that there is a "MSM" with an agenda to harm Americans is completely consistent with a tendency to find threats. The inclination to build "safe spaces" for ideas is completely consistent with a tendency to address conflict and find resolution.

Both of them are malladaptive in this case, but they are maladaptive in right/left ways.

 

[Town Heretic]

Seeing more of this 'lately.' It used to be, what Paul or James said, WAS what Jesus said too. As both you and I are from Covenant backgrounds, seeing agreement and not pitting one against the other is par for our denomination and theology. We don't pit James or Paul against Jesus :idunno:

I don't see a conflict so much as an expansion in what Christ says. So I go with that.

Yes, but 'aways having the poor' was over an expensive bottle of perfume.

Right. But the charge against her still suffered from the same thing that made the law damning. We don't do what we can, let alone what we should. The charge against her was rooted in hypocrisy. And you could meet in a field and give the church fund building money to the poor too, but...and so on.

In some ways, I believe Jesus was in line with capitalism on such, more than socialism/communism.

I don't think God particularly cares about monetary systems, but he seems to care a great deal about what we do with them and in them.

I'm personally looking forward to a complete Theocratic rule. All of these needs will no longer exist. Until then? I suppose any way we can, but I have less 'natural' empathy for those who do it to themselves.

But then every sinner creates their sin and absent grace what does that get us? So how can we judge a different version of the same foolish impulse in man without becoming at least a little like the fellow who forgiven much failed to forgive?

I think, ideally, your ideals are good, I simply think they are too bleeding and move you a bit left of moderate in the process. Bad? It just makes us a bit different in how we dole out our heart-blood.

Being a moderate doesn't mean I'm somewhere in the middle on every position battled over by either side. It only means I see some good and good sense in many a principle and notion held by one side or the other, which will find me frequently aligned with either side on a particular issue. And which also find me differing with both on some. That sort of thing.

No, I think you missed my point. I believe those scriptures to 'us' not to government tax dollars. What I was saying is there is no sacrifice in it, regarding allocating tax dollars.

I'd say that unless you mean to give more than the taxes (and you still can) there's no difference except in our attitude and even that isn't necessary.

I think on your side, yes, it is taking care of the needy BUT a government doesn't go to heaven.

No one does on the strength of their giving. That not being the point why make it a part of one?

To me, it is a duck waddle and quack: "Bleeding heart" is embraced by liberals.

Not in my experience. I mostly hear it used by right wingers who want to appear to give credit to the impulse before lowering the old, inevitable and comparatively self-serving, "BUT".

"Bleeding" tends to mean 'without discernment.'

Which would be a great argument against your notion that liberals believe that accurately describes them.

As you and I have argued part one and two, it is obvious you are liberal in this aspect and I am conservative regarding taking care of needs/wants.

If believing that we, as a people, can do some things more effectively than we as individuals and that we shouldn't leave something as important as, say, those in need having food and shelter to chance is liberal then, okay, in that sense I'm a liberal.

A 'chronic' need is to me 'the poor always among you.'

I don't believe Christ used 'chronic' in his description, though I have in on good authority that Snoop Dog routinely does.... I don't believe only the chronically destitute were permitted to gather what was left in the fields by law in Israel. I doubt prisoners would be considered chronic, in any event. I think the more we subcategorize and group like that the more we distance ourselves from both the example and our own human connection, which makes it easier to put people in the "not getting any" camp without as much discomfort.

Another earmark of Democrats, is, against the notion of intelligence, a certain overt amount of 'emoting' without clear direction. This too, comes from my research as substantiated. There are so many, I don't tend to like the shotgun approach of citing everything I'm saying, but I probably should change that tack since you aren't taking my word for it.

I don't agree with you on a few things. I think you continue to miss on the causality argument and it doesn't have anything to do with your veracity. So it's less about taking your word and more about differing with your reason.

As I said, none of this is Nicolas Cagian.

Saying a thing isn't offering proof, Lon. I've set out how causality is determinable. If, instead, you look at data and say, in essence, "But where you see this you see that," and are convinced that the correlation speaks to causality I'll only answer that it isn't necessarily true, which is what the Cage reference illustrated. The rest is meeting the obligation of establishing causality or not. You're still in the "not" category, objectively speaking.

Unless I've stated otherwise, this is all coming from reading statistics and reports. It walks like a duck because it is a duck. These traits and trends are easily google-able.

It looks like it because it is isn't proof and is an example of how someone comes to the Cagian conclusion sans literally and actually demonstrating causality, which isn't correlation, again. So while blacks are disproportionately poor and incarcerated, there is nothing in skin pigmentation that accounts for it, except to people whose bias confuses correlation with causality, by way of illustration.

(I'm trimming some agreement and shared chuckles for space)

Doesn't it bother you to relive some of your old poor life-examples?

Depends on who was hurt by them. If it's only me, no. Then I thank God for learning something important and will try to steer Jack away from my mistakes.

I think it is better than cheap, if it is a desire.

A desire to do a good, absent the effort to do that good, is a coin spent on oneself. And therein lies the virtue.

I think Miley Cyrus was pretty serious.

A
About the symbolism, sure. Again, not a march or a movement against a law requiring bras. Just an expression owing its power to a larger connection. So when you marginalize the left by repeating they march for bra burning I have to say, no and give you a fairer parallel, like the Civil Rights marches and movement.

It isn't 'family' at that point. Family is something you are born into, not something artificial or copy-able.

I'll go tell that to orphans and adoptive parents. Or, we fundamentally differ.

Only God can make a marriage

Only God can consecrate a marriage for those who believe. But not everyone does and a marriage (to the state and those people) is a contract before the state, subject to review and remedy, and one of some value.

I noted liberal institutions like public education, child labor laws, maternity leave, a living wage, to name a few...

I don't believe a one of them is liberal.

Each of those was the idea and cause of liberals. That they had to get support doesn't alter the fact. The same is largely true of any right sponsored measure.

The Civil Rights act is a good example. The conservative South voted almost to a man against it.

Preferences. I do not truly believe, an addict values his/her addiction. They 'preserve' it, but I question 'value.'

I said most people believe their values are right and noted several disparate religious groups you'd likely take exception to...I didn't suggest addiction as a 'value' and I'm not sure why you chose that vein to respond, or how it's actually responsive to my point. Unless you're saying that people are worshipping in their temple or mosque but secretly realize they're wasting their time?

While I don't believe going bra-less a huge issue, it never-the-less shows something more of angst-valued, than an actual value of going bra-less. It is a disconnect or twice-removed regarding an actual value. "Equality" is the suggestion but it fails to recognize that there is a difference between male and female that rightly exists. Women, by that token do not 'need' to wear an athletic supporter. "Equality" and "Bleeding heart" go hand-in-hand regarding discernment. A lot of 'equality' lacks analysis and discernment and becomes a value of egocentric non-thinking.

And I think you miss their point, which was to create a symbol, a symbol that encompassed objectification and in doing so carried with it the inherent inequality of objects with the people who decide their value. That's what the burning was about.

This is a political position I'm very much against because we Christians have our rights only from God alone. As soon as you say 'secular' government, it is not longer a government 'by' and 'for' the people, but a ruling entity removed, thus an oligarchy. I know, as part of they system, you don't see this, but it is true (also a different topic).

A secular government is necessary to protect the rights of every man to his conscience and safeguards your right to worship as well and as freely as the Catholic, and the Jew, free of state interference.

Again, a march for 'rights' is always ego-centric.

If you want that can be said of anything that serves us, including morality. King thought his death was the likely end of an attempt to free his people from a vestige of inequality born of the slave state. I don't find that ego-centric. Or if it is then everything we value in freedom and equality is, everything we fought for as a nation ultimately is as well. All of that was in service to the right of individuals, collectively expressed.

If they are genuine rights, well and good because they have those rights, given by God. Rather, I was talking about the 'equality' issue. We are different but equal. Throwing an exact ball at all concerned isn't recognizing differences.

Equality in right before the law is the ball and the ball game. What we do with those rights, how they express, that's the distinction and uniqueness.

As I said, I believe a 'better' fix for inter-city kids (regardless of color), is to have them in school longer as pertains to their unique needs,

Then I'd say again that the kids aren't the problem. Resources and teachers are the problem. They get the appearance of equal without the actual equality and it's an empirically certain thing. Inexperienced teachers teaching out of their field are a grossly disproportionate problem in urban schools, as comparative resource inequity. If you put those same kids in the same environment with their non-urban counterparts they do as well. So let's do a better job of making sure they get teachers who actually specialize in the subject and that they get the same mix of teachers the better off schools enjoy.

not bussing them across the city and reducing that group as well. After that, forgive the blanket statement, I wasn't meaning all rights marches, but ones that are thoughtless regarding equality or feigned 'rights' that are really just desires and misplaced angst.

You're going to have to tell me which marches and which rights you're referencing.

Yes, don't remind me. Bush was democratic at times :Z

I didn't know you were a Scott.

As you join the teaching foray, more of this will come to light as well.

I grew up in the home of a teacher, then professor, but the amount of information and serious studies on hand today are giving teachers the ability to do so much more and do it more effectively, at least when they adopt it. I observed in several classrooms in our local school, including observation in the lead Kindergarten teacher's room and none of them were teaching math. They were handing out the old, mistaken instructivistic, mile wide and an inch deep math model.

I hope to get in there and gently evangelize them. And the school I mean to teach in is a Title One school serving a largely poor population. I enrolled Jack there. He placed in the top ten percent of students his age nationally, across disciplines.

I've done the same paper. While I think integration can and does work, it necessarily slows the learning process of those faster.

The only thing that slows kids is being afraid of grouping. That will drag down the upper tier. But there are alternatives, schools where everyone did better. What they did was allow for grouping by ability, but make certain that every group had real fluidity and max effort at bringing anyone in a lower group into a higher group. Or, they were and are actively committed to upward mobility as an academic reality instead of tracking students to death and isolating and keeping them there. Just looked at a school that managed it well. The administration, without micromanaging teachers, had conferences within grades where teachers talked about where their students were in progressing. Everyone was in and dedicated to the welfare of their individual students. Made all the difference in the world.

I'd say use technology as enrichment and tie it into an effort to make academic value intrinsic. I like the practical social value of mentorship though and wouldn't want to lose the socialization impact on kids by having them away from class, or the value of partnering and small groups.

It is interesting, but I'm saying market can drive demand, similar to media forming public opinion rather than always reflecting it, as well. I believe it goes both directions. You can form public opinion. The gay agenda has shown that to be true, even if some of us are resistant to media attempt.

I'd say familiarity has a way of either undoing or increasing contempt, along with how you agendize the representation. For instance, if you depict every evangelical as a homophobic, hateful nutter and every gay character as empathic and sincere you're going to move the margins a bit. I was talking to my pastor the other day about how hard it is to find a character on tv whose faith is integral to their lives, to find a positive expression of that anywhere on the television landscape. And when you consider how many people profess Christ and even how many still regularly practice their faith and note it as integral to their daily grind, it's a staggering lack.

But Christians bear a great deal of responsibility for it by not leaving the low hanging fruit on the vine and not demanding more from their providers.

Rather,

Just a point, but nothing in what follows is an alternative to what I noted about him. Continuing...

he said the them of most of his students, was broken childhood.

Which would be an anecdote, assuming his perception is accurate and not a reflection of his expectation, etc., in search of an illustrating principle established by...wait for it, actual causality.

People still think full moons bring out the worst in us. Some of them work in hospitals. All of them are wrong.

It isn't really part of our concern, but worth a moment regarding the values of media. I've not really looked into studies, but there is a larger proportion of gay actors. To me, it makes sense, when other actors drop out and spend time raising their families for a few years. Singles don't have that need, and it also would reveal why the inordinate amount of attention to such agendas. Families just don't have time to put into the entertainment industry and long hours, that single people do.

I don't know. An interesting side bar fact that I only discovered recently. Frasier, a very funny show about two brothers who are so "metrosexual" they're occasionally mistaken as a couple had a number of gay actors. The actor who portrays Niles, which surprised me given the chemistry between him and the actress that played the object of Nile's obsession. Bulldog, the alpha male skirt chaser on the show was also gay, as it turns out. Completely didn't see that one. And the biggest surprise was the fellow who plays Martin, Frasier's father. Would have bet money against that. Apparently, a great many of the actors employed by the show were. Who knew? Really good actors then.

:cheers: Well, I suppose it wasn't quite as long. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

I don't see a conflict so much as an expansion in what Christ says. So I go with that.

But, as far as my voiced concern, Paul and James weren't speaking a word against the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather qualifying.

Right. But the charge against her still suffered from the same thing that made the law damning. We don't do what we can, let alone what we should. The charge against her was rooted in hypocrisy. And you could meet in a field and give the church fund building money to the poor too, but...and so on.

The accusation then is the same. it was a year's salary. I'm not against all frivolity, when love is the expression, as it was. The theme continues...

I don't think God particularly cares about monetary systems, but he seems to care a great deal about what we do with them and in them.

He spoke more about this than heaven or hell. The first century was Capitalism (not to laud capitalism overtly, that isn't and wasn't my meaning). Rather, we learn a lot about what to do with funds.

But then every sinner creates their sin and absent grace what does that get us? So how can we judge a different version of the same foolish impulse in man without becoming at least a little like the fellow who forgiven much failed to forgive?

1 Timothy 5:22, again, discernment vs bleeding. Wisdom vs emoting. As I said as well, I am a bleeding heart, but I definitely give where I know the need is greatest. If I didn't give to Compassion, Christian kids in third world countries died. "IF" I had more $, less taxes, I would do it to a greater degree. You can bleed, but doing so without discernment is against the story of the perfume bottle (imho). We cannot change each other's character traits and values, but God can. We are transformed by the renewing of our minds. Ephesians 2:10

Being a moderate doesn't mean I'm somewhere in the middle on every position battled over by either side. It only means I see some good and good sense in many a principle and notion held by one side or the other, which will find me frequently aligned with either side on a particular issue. And which also find me differing with both on some. That sort of thing.

Same here, but, as I said, I suspect rather, you lean left and I right by expression and sentiment. You definitely are part of the bleeding heart movement. I am too, but discernment, always first. I don't like throwing $100k for a guy who is having an anxiety attack when $100k would go a long way at St. Jude, etc. By such, btw, I'm not intimating you aren't discerning, just don't lead in conversation what that on the table. I'd think you value discernment in giving somewhat akin to mine.

I'd say that unless you mean to give more than the taxes (and you still can) there's no difference except in our attitude and even that isn't necessary.


No one does on the strength of their giving. That not being the point why make it a part of one?

Because in that sense, the goals and even concern is not the same. A Christian will give because of Jesus as Lord in His life. A government gives as responsible stewardship. I would defund planned-parenthood, but the difference. My charitable concern is in genuine needs and absolutely according God's standards. Always, then, there will be a difference between my political compromise and my spiritual duty. It seems to me, you begrudge the Republican agenda and second-guess the motive. Some, sure: greed and self-interest. All? :nono: If I get the tax rebate or lowering, I use it appropriately and for me, better the government can. Public schools will never do as good a job as private schools. I would love to start a 'free-Christian school' movement. The voucher system would have not only paid for one kid, but due to the amount, like 3 or 4 kids or more. The objection and obstruction is more political strong-arming and worry over a government system than people. There can be no bad consequence when education is better and less expensive. I don't necessarily think the issue partisan, but there is a split opinion regarding education in the U.S. I think it crosses platforms, though.

Not in my experience. I mostly hear it used by right wingers who want to appear to give credit to the impulse before lowering the old, inevitable and comparatively self-serving, "BUT".

I don't believe the 'but' self-serving but rather more intelligent serving. In a way, you can compare it to the perfume bottle. She felt Jesus deserved it. We have a lot of 'deserve' and 'entitlement' thinking. I've repeatedly told my kids," We are 'millionaires' compared to the rest of the world. We aren't 'as' rich as others here, and even losing our middle class status, but we aren't poor by the rest of the world standards."

Which would be a great argument against your notion that liberals believe that accurately describes them.

I didn't coin it, and it is accurate to a man with a panic attack frivolously spending $100k. Enablement isn't too discerning and is the actual definition of 'bleeding heart.' You, by the definition and impetus, are a bleeding heart. As I said, my heart can bleed and does, but I'm not, by the definition, a bleeding heart. I have a stopper so it isn't always dumping and wasting blood (waste vs discernment is one qualifier of difference).

If believing that we, as a people, can do some things more effectively than we as individuals and that we shouldn't leave something as important as, say, those in need having food and shelter to chance is liberal then, okay, in that sense I'm a liberal.

Agree. I am governed by 1 Timothy 5:22 lest I become an enabler. Grace is good but where it is despised and presumed upon. Some discipline is good. One of my relatives was asking for $$ in dire straights, apparently but they smoke a lot. If you have money for vice, you haven't been wise. My brother gave out of his resources, instead of appreciating the help, they asked again the next month. I'm all for love-in-action, but sometimes we interfere with God and teachable discipline. I'm not the one 'doing' the discipline, and accordingly, we are but the enablers of side-stepping consequences. Such doesn't impart a value. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 Ephesians 4:28

I don't believe Christ used 'chronic' in his description, though I have in on good authority that Snoop Dog routinely does.... I don't believe only the chronically destitute were permitted to gather what was left in the fields by law in Israel. I doubt prisoners would be considered chronic, in any event. I think the more we subcategorize and group like that the more we distance ourselves from both the example and our own human connection, which makes it easier to put people in the "not getting any" camp without as much discomfort.

Same: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 Ephesians 4:28

I don't agree with you on a few things. I think you continue to miss on the causality argument and it doesn't have anything to do with your veracity. So it's less about taking your word and more about differing with your reason.

It does, simply by numbers of who is who. A liberal can compare divorce rates (and as I said, different studies show problems as to veracity), but comparison isn't cause/effect. Whatever 'same' is, is not because of the same things when not as many liberals marry or are inclined to marry. At that point, you aren't getting an accurate statistic because 'many liberals don't bother getting married.' There are some studies about which stay with their partner, but it doesn't do enough nor dig enough to come up with such data. A study can easily verify marriage certificates with the state. How many partners a person has lived with before marriage or staying with one in particular? :nono: If you were moderate, I'd think you'd not be against this data. As I said before, I'd suggest at least opening yourself up to studying this out a bit more. I'm not making any of this up and I'm not the only one drawing these substantiated conclusions. Some of it, you'll have to be creative, such as finding out the difference between married republican politicians vs democrat. That stat isn't readily available. Three is a connection, however and so the duck walks and the robin perches.

Saying a thing isn't offering proof, Lon. I've set out how causality is determinable. If, instead, you look at data and say, in essence, "But where you see this you see that," and are convinced that the correlation speaks to causality I'll only answer that it isn't necessarily true, which is what the Cage reference illustrated. The rest is meeting the obligation of establishing causality or not. You're still in the "not" category, objectively speaking.

Proof isn't as important as actually researching what a person is saying. If you want to stick fingers in your ears, you can. You are in the midst of studying and some of this can be part of your natural study in school. If you don't want to know, okay. Statistics aren't 'proof' but the way something plays out is important to what is seen and emphasized. Whatever policies are proffered, it shows by and large 1) who makes up that group, and 2) what their values are.

It looks like it because it is isn't proof and is an example of how someone comes to the Cagian conclusion sans literally and actually demonstrating causality, which isn't correlation, again. So while blacks are disproportionately poor and incarcerated, there is nothing in skin pigmentation that accounts for it, except to people whose bias confuses correlation with causality, by way of illustration.

Such is connected to pigmentation ELSE the point and example is lost. Correlation is of at least essential secondary importance, you can look as cause effect BETTER afterwards because of it. There are needs associated with one's skin color. We can minimize and erase some, but not all of them. There are genetics and genetic needs that we don't share.

Depends on who was hurt by them. If it's only me, no. Then I thank God for learning something important and will try to steer Jack away from my mistakes.

I believe it illustrates the point here too. I'm bothered because someone was hurt, my roommate, a homeless, and me for the poor decision. It isn't a big deal, but you seemed to be reading more between the lines, than was there. I'm simply uncomfortable bringing up things where someone was hurt by my action. Only if there was some good that could come from replaying such, would I ever bring it up, and my only reason for doing so. In a word, I think you misdiagnosed a bit and such is the conveyance for the need of mention for the 3rd post between us (6 posts in all).

A desire to do a good, absent the effort to do that good, is a coin spent on oneself. And therein lies the virtue.

:nono: If you don't have it, but by desire, if you had it and would use it, it is no poor thing. Well, it is a 'poor' thing, but not lost by virtue of the desire. Rather, it is whether it is a sentiment or an actual value. I've long said, if I won the lottery, I'd give most of it away. How could you know? Only by my present example: when I have anything over and above regular income, I give it away. Imo, the desire, rather than an insincere sentiment, causes the action. Desire is more than half the battle, when it comes, I give without the thought, though discernment is behind it already. I researched Compassion International for example.

About the symbolism, sure. Again, not a march or a movement against a law requiring bras. Just an expression owing its power to a larger connection. So when you marginalize the left by repeating they march for bra burning I have to say, no and give you a fairer parallel, like the Civil Rights marches and movement.

Trump protest marches? Right to vote? Some of these not all Democrat, but all Liberal. Did you see a march against Obama? No, Republicans marched against abortion (family, life).

I'll go tell that to orphans and adoptive parents. Or, we fundamentally differ.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, what did you think I meant? :think:

Only God can consecrate a marriage for those who believe. But not everyone does and a marriage (to the state and those people) is a contract before the state, subject to review and remedy, and one of some value.

This...

I noted liberal institutions like public education, child labor laws, maternity leave, a living wage, to name a few...

...isn't this.

Each of those was the idea and cause of liberals. That they had to get support doesn't alter the fact. The same is largely true of any right sponsored measure.

:nono: It was bipartisan among anyone with a love for fellow man and a desire to do good while in office. It doesn't matter who initiated policy, as policy passed and upheld. It is bipartisan.

The Civil Rights act is a good example. The conservative South voted almost to a man against it.

I've watched several research videos, now, suggesting it was the democrat 'conservative' that was against it. The reality is probably somewhere between regarding prejudice across party lines but both sides distancing from that past.

I said most people believe their values are right and noted several disparate religious groups you'd likely take exception to...I didn't suggest addiction as a 'value' and I'm not sure why you chose that vein to respond, or how it's actually responsive to my point. Unless you're saying that people are worshipping in their temple or mosque but secretly realize they're wasting their time?

No. Rather, it is regarding 'bleeding' vs discerning,' again.

And I think you miss their point, which was to create a symbol, a symbol that encompassed objectification and in doing so carried with it the inherent inequality of objects with the people who decide their value. That's what the burning was about.

Er, I don't think so, not when we both said the same thing: It was about inequity, which is why it wasn't a great symbol. They used a mandatory inequity of anatomy difference to try to gain something inequitable. It was about work, and women can weld, except when they are pregnant... As I said and still say, emoting without further needed contemplation. Perhaps marching does get at least something done, but it is like going to war, it is fighting first, asking questions later. Marching against abortion, contrarily, is trying to save someone else' life. That's the contrast.

A secular government is necessary to protect the rights of every man to his conscience and safeguards your right to worship as well and as freely as the Catholic, and the Jew, free of state interference.

I disagree. A government is rather a service and tool for a people, whoever they are. "Secular" serves a different purpose, than serving the people of said government. A 'secular' government is an anti-Christian government and atheist government.

If you want that can be said of anything that serves us, including morality. King thought his death was the likely end of an attempt to free his people from a vestige of inequality born of the slave state. I don't find that ego-centric. Or if it is then everything we value in freedom and equality is, everything we fought for as a nation ultimately is as well. All of that was in service to the right of individuals, collectively expressed.

I agree. Any time we fight for our 'own' rights, we aren't thinking of others nor who we are necessarily demonstrating against. When women marched, and even now, against Trump, it causes a rift between gender. Such indeed, is egocentric. Power struggles are always fights. If we ever fight, we should have very good reasons, because it always causes bad feelings, including the Civil Rights movement. Winning a fight, generally causes inequity in and of itself as well. A kid is picked on in school, he sticks up for himself, both kids are expelled. One kids is clearly more at fault and the other kid had reported the bully on a number of occasions (true and repeated story in several schools I've been in).
A neater story to me: Kid bullied another kids. A different kid stepped in, knowing he'd be expelled, to stop the bully. This later was an unselfish decision. He too (and his brother) had reported this bullying to the principal and a few teachers. They bully was talked to, but nothing was done. The parent supported the sacrifice. I'm still not seeing much but 'bullying' behind the 'nasty women' marches. Polarizing just tends to look ugly than anything noble. Sometimes from ashes something good happens, though. There is an insurgence of women running for office (a better tack, pushy obnoxious women against pushy obnoxious men is just another fight waiting to happen ).

Equality in right before the law is the ball and the ball game. What we do with those rights, how they express, that's the distinction and uniqueness.

Equitable is different than equal, though. If you have no pigskins in your area, slaughtering a pig may not be the best move, especially if it is someone's pet. A bit esoteric, but my point is a soccer field may suffice, or a basketball court. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, but a similar value, imho.

Then I'd say again that the kids aren't the problem. Resources and teachers are the problem. They get the appearance of equal without the actual equality and it's an empirically certain thing. Inexperienced teachers teaching out of their field are a grossly disproportionate problem in urban schools, as comparative resource inequity. If you put those same kids in the same environment with their non-urban counterparts they do as well. So let's do a better job of making sure they get teachers who actually specialize in the subject and that they get the same mix of teachers the better off schools enjoy.

It is, the kids, though. Some of it family, some of it, sociological. One of the inner city schools asked me to be a permanent teacher simply because I was able meet the real needs of kids. I couldn't do it consistently, on a daily basis though. Their home situations was more than I was equipped to be able to effectively meet, and I was overwhelmed so had to decline the offer.

You're going to have to tell me which marches and which rights you're referencing.

Vietnam war marches spitting on vets, anti-trump marches that can do nothing. Gay parades.

I didn't know you were a Scott.

...Not a true Scot. Wait, "Scott?"

I grew up in the home of a teacher, then professor, but the amount of information and serious studies on hand today are giving teachers the ability to do so much more and do it more effectively, at least when they adopt it. I observed in several classrooms in our local school, including observation in the lead Kindergarten teacher's room and none of them were teaching math. They were handing out the old, mistaken instructivistic, mile wide and an inch deep math model.

I hope to get in there and gently evangelize them. And the school I mean to teach in is a Title One school serving a largely poor population. I enrolled Jack there. He placed in the top ten percent of students his age nationally, across disciplines.

I started out as a sub. It was eye-opening. Even with a teacher for a parent, there is nothing like getting out there. You'll see some of it through your observation and student-teaching, but for me, subbing solo, then getting a job was immersion.

The only thing that slows kids is being afraid of grouping. That will drag down the upper tier. But there are alternatives, schools where everyone did better. What they did was allow for grouping by ability, but make certain that every group had real fluidity and max effort at bringing anyone in a lower group into a higher group. Or, they were and are actively committed to upward mobility as an academic reality instead of tracking students to death and isolating and keeping them there. Just looked at a school that managed it well. The administration, without micromanaging teachers, had conferences within grades where teachers talked about where their students were in progressing. Everyone was in and dedicated to the welfare of their individual students. Made all the difference in the world.

My master's project was cooperative learning, and I agree it works, but I yet think some of the integration is allowed to drag down a school. My kid's high school should have been the top in the city. Across town, there is a unique school in that the hospitals and clinics are all in the inner city. That school had the highest academic success (no real bussing, just the dynamic of that area). I was involved in a Christian school in Alaska, no child was turned down that desired a Christian education, it was a 'what-you-can-afford' school with a set tuition price, but no child was turned away.

I'd say use technology as enrichment and tie it into an effort to make academic value intrinsic. I like the practical social value of mentorship though and wouldn't want to lose the socialization impact on kids by having them away from class, or the value of partnering and small groups.

Generally, they go to school for gym and arts.

I'd say familiarity has a way of either undoing or increasing contempt, along with how you agendize the representation. For instance, if you depict every evangelical as a homophobic, hateful nutter and every gay character as empathic and sincere you're going to move the margins a bit. I was talking to my pastor the other day about how hard it is to find a character on tv whose faith is integral to their lives, to find a positive expression of that anywhere on the television landscape. And when you consider how many people profess Christ and even how many still regularly practice their faith and note it as integral to their daily grind, it's a staggering lack.

It is. We appreciated Tim Allen's show. The old shows still are good for it though.

But Christians bear a great deal of responsibility for it by not leaving the low hanging fruit on the vine and not demanding more from their providers.

Or even eating the poorer fruit regularly as well. I try to purchase any Christian DVD/Blu-ray, simply to promote the attempt as well as hopefully stimulating more and better. Seen Ted Baer's Movieguide or Dove Foundation? (More movies than television).

Just a point, but nothing in what follows is an alternative to what I noted about him. Continuing...


Which would be an anecdote, assuming his perception is accurate and not a reflection of his expectation, etc., in search of an illustrating principle established by...wait for it, actual causality.

I dunno. At times, I predict a full-moon accurately by such cagean observances. That, and I love granny on the Beverly Hillbillies (not really superstitious, just funnin' here). Such does interest me. I used to have an Alaskan barometer. It was a moose with a piece of twine and read: If this tail is wet, it is raining. Warm? --> sunny. Moving? --> windy Still? --> calm White? --> snowing. To me, not really Nicolas Cagean, it just is.

People still think full moons bring out the worst in us. Some of them work in hospitals. All of them are wrong.

What if there is a meteorologist in a hospital bed? :think: Answers.com disagrees with some of the studies but seems Cagean to me.

My day to avoid school was the day after Halloween. Lack of sleep and tons of sugar really do effect the mood of kid. The next full moon on Halloween will be 2020 but I recommend always taking November 1 and sometimes November 2 off for teachers.

I don't know. An interesting side bar fact that I only discovered recently. Frasier, a very funny show about two brothers who are so "metrosexual" they're occasionally mistaken as a couple had a number of gay actors. The actor who portrays Niles, which surprised me given the chemistry between him and the actress that played the object of Nile's obsession. Bulldog, the alpha male skirt chaser on the show was also gay, as it turns out. Completely didn't see that one. And the biggest surprise was the fellow who plays Martin, Frasier's father. Would have bet money against that. Apparently, a great many of the actors employed by the show were. Who knew? Really good actors then.

:cheers: Well, I suppose it wasn't quite as long. :chuckle:

There are and were, quite a few, even on stage before (and after) television and movies, clear back to Shakespeare.

 

[Town Heretic]

But, as far as my voiced concern, Paul and James weren't speaking a word against the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather qualifying.

And I'd say Christ speaks the whole truth where James speaks to some of it. Nothing wrong with half the alphabet, but I'd rather have the whole thing. And on the subject that's Jesus, not James.

The accusation then is the same. it was a year's salary. I'm not against all frivolity, when love is the expression, as it was. The theme continues...

I think I'm going to leave this and future areas where I see us mostly repeating a difference we've set out clearly enough by saying, I rest on our difference. It will save both of us time and additional finger strain. I'll give you the last word on each point absent additional commentary.

You definitely are part of the bleeding heart movement. I am too, but discernment, always first.

Not seeing any separation on our positions in that, unless you mean something different by discernment.

I don't like throwing $100k for a guy who is having an anxiety attack when $100k would go a long way at St. Jude, etc.

When did I say that was something I like?

Because in that sense, the goals and even concern is not the same. A Christian will give because of Jesus as Lord in His life. A government gives as responsible stewardship.

You know who doesn't really care why we put a hot meal in front of him? The guy who needs it. If what's in our hearts is as important as you note a little later, then both meaningful distinctions are met, since we can meet both obligations with the same intent.

My charitable concern is in genuine needs and absolutely according God's standards.

Still looking for the difference and not finding it. Who is supporting disingenuous needs again? :idunno: I mean outside of Congress.

It seems to me, you begrudge the Republican agenda and second-guess the motive.

No idea why it seems that way to you. I begrudge a Republican cobbled health care bill that will put millions of people off the health care rolls who have coverage. Their motives are of a lesser concern to me on the point and I suspect vary a good bit.

I don't believe the 'but' self-serving but rather more intelligent serving.

How is that not self-serving if you're on the other side of the but again?

In a way, you can compare it to the perfume bottle. She felt Jesus deserved it. We have a lot of 'deserve' and 'entitlement' thinking.

Jesus agreed with her, so as far as parallels go I'm liking this one.

I've repeatedly told my kids," We are 'millionaires' compared to the rest of the world. We aren't 'as' rich as others here, and even losing our middle class status, but we aren't poor by the rest of the world standards."

My mom always told me, "I don't care what the other countries are doing, we have a higher standard in this house."

Same: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 1 Thessalonians 4:11,12 Ephesians 4:28

I don't see that as a rebuttal of anything I've proffered. Good scripture, but most of those who receive charitable assistance aren't in a position to do that.

If you were moderate, I'd think you'd not be against this data.

Because I'm a moderate who knows his mind I'm not particularly concerned with anyone else's litmus on the point, Lon. As for my position about data and causality, I don't believe I can state either with any greater degree of particularity, and so I have to rest on our differences as expressed prior.

As I said before, I'd suggest at least opening yourself up to studying this out a bit more.

The problem with your position on the point is that it presumes that's the problem. I didn’t agree that it was the last time you told me you knew more (inferentially) and I still don’t. So please refrain from telling me to study more and I’ll refrain from telling you to presume a little less self-congratulatorily. Seems fair.

I'm not making any of this up and I'm not the only one drawing these substantiated conclusions.

Same here.

Proof isn't as important as actually researching what a person is saying. If you want to stick fingers in your ears, you can. You are in the midst of studying and some of this can be part of your natural study in school. If you don't want to know, okay. Statistics aren't 'proof' but the way something plays out is important to what is seen and emphasized. Whatever policies are proffered, it shows by and large 1) who makes up that group, and 2) what their values are.

I can’t be any clearer about my position that you’re insisting on conflating apparent correlation with causality, that causality demands a lot more and until that’s presented I’m going to have to rest on our difference as previously expressed. Lastly, where a man keeps his fingers is less of a concern for me than where he keeps his head.

Correlation is of at least essential secondary importance, you can look as cause effect BETTER afterwards because of it. There are needs associated with one's skin color. We can minimize and erase some, but not all of them. There are genetics and genetic needs that we don't share.

What needs do you see associated with melanin content outside of propensities for particular medical conditions?

I believe it illustrates the point here too. I'm bothered because someone was hurt, my roommate, a homeless, and me for the poor decision. It isn't a big deal, but you seemed to be reading more between the lines, than was there.

That’s the nature of contemplating a narrative. I’m not speaking authoritatively and only suggested a possibility. If you don’t think it has value or misses the mark I’m not going to argue with you on it.

On virtue that exists in thought alone:

Well, it is a 'poor' thing, but not lost by virtue of the desire. Rather, it is whether it is a sentiment or an actual value. I've long said, if I won the lottery, I'd give most of it away. How could you know? Only by my present example: when I have anything over and above regular income, I give it away. Imo, the desire, rather than an insincere sentiment, causes the action. Desire is more than half the battle, when it comes,

But desire is easier without temptation and we’re not tempted to keep what we don’t actually possess. So maybe we’d do the best imaginable thing with sudden wealth. Or maybe we’d be corrupted by the power and look at our wealth like a woman bathing on a roof when the moment came.

Trump protest marches? Right to vote? Some of these not all Democrat, but all Liberal. Did you see a march against Obama? No, Republicans marched against abortion (family, life).

You might want to Google “Protests against Obama.” It’s normal American politics. Carter got a lot of it in his day and Trump is catching some in his first stretch. It’s dialed up a bit because the president is dialed up a bit.

Sarcasm notwithstanding, what did you think I meant?

I thought you meant what you wrote, but didn’t consider it fully enough and gave an example that illustrated that.

This......isn't this.

It absolutely is. I noted I thought you were reducing important distinctions to the point where words began to lose a functional distinction when I noted that no or little legislation passes without some (however minor) help from the other side. This truth remains: if you design a widget, it’s still your widget, even if you get some help producing it.

I've watched several research videos, now, suggesting it was the democrat 'conservative' that was against it. The reality is probably somewhere between regarding prejudice across party lines but both sides distancing from that past.

I’m speaking to liberal/conservative, not the confusion of party alliance as membership shifts. The Dixie Dems were conservatives. They simply continued the tradition of opposing the party of Lincoln until their own party began to turn progressive on them. Then the South became largely Republican and remains so to this day.

No. Rather, it is regarding 'bleeding' vs discerning,' again.

An approach I’ve never accepted as accurate, so the qualification is you believe it and I don't for reasons presented prior by both of us.

Er, I don't think so, not when we both said the same thing: It was about inequity, which is why it wasn't a great symbol.

I don’t agree with your summation and stand on our differences illustrated prior.

I disagree. A government is rather a service and tool for a people, whoever they are. "Secular" serves a different purpose, than serving the people of said government. A 'secular' government is an anti-Christian government and atheist government.

I think that’s profoundly wrong, Lon, but there’s no talking you out of it, so we’ll just differ.

I agree. Any time we fight for our 'own' rights, we aren't thinking of others nor who we are necessarily demonstrating against.

Then you aren’t agreeing with me because I don’t hold that position.

When women marched, and even now, against Trump, it causes a rift between gender.

No, it underscored a difference among some of the gender. In the same way a Klan march distinguishes between people who already hold contrary views on race relations.

A neater story to me: Kid bullied another kids. A different kid stepped in, knowing he'd be expelled, to stop the bully. This later was an unselfish decision.

Good on the kid if there was no way to stop the skirmish within the rules, but it is a far sight less impressive than illustrating a love which the Bible tells us there is no greater than. King gave up his life for others, for their freedom and right to stand in equal dignity before the law. Gandhi gave his life for the same thing. And I’m sure both would have been proud of that kid.

Equitable is different than equal, though.

Right. If I give a tall kid and a short kid the same size box to stand on and look over a fence and see the game it’s treating them with equality, even if the shorter kid still can't see over the fence. Equity asks for more, for what it takes to help the shorter kid see the same game as the taller kid.

It is, the kids, though.

It isn’t, Lon. That’s why I noted that when you present equity they perform at comparable levels. I’m not suggesting that advantages at home aren’t advantages that matter, only that in academic terms they can be overcome by good teaching.

Vietnam war marches spitting on vets, anti-trump marches that can do nothing. Gay parades.

Civil Rights marches, Voting rights marches, Suffrage, etc. But any peaceful, lawful demonstration is a fulfillment of our experiment as it relates to speech and speaking to power, so I don’t have a problem with it, agree with the point of the protest in particular or not. Let the Klan speak and speak against them.

...Not a true Scot. Wait, "Scott?"

Not according to the Oxford. Unless it’s true for Scott too. :think:

I started out as a sub. It was eye-opening. Even with a teacher for a parent, there is nothing like getting out there.

I subbed for years in a Title One school. I took over a ninth-grade class for a full semester under waiver. My experience applying that to Jack simply pushed me over the edge and into a calling.

You'll see some of it through your observation and student-teaching, but for me, subbing solo, then getting a job was immersion.

Can’t wait to have my own class. I've done a lot of observation and have a psych. course and educational media, a reading and general Praxis to take and then it's student teaching after Christmas. We have a mentor program to help with the actual day to day, but I know it will be a lot like my first year of practice, trying to figure out when to use the theory, how to pace the day, week, etc.

My master's project was cooperative learning, and I agree it works, but I yet think some of the integration is allowed to drag down a school.

I think it has a place, but we have to remember that introverts constitute a sizeable portion of the classroom and it’s not so thrilling for them. So room for individual and group practice is essential for producing the right learning environment.

:cheers:

 

[Lon]

And I'd say Christ speaks the whole truth where James speaks to some of it. Nothing wrong with half the alphabet, but I'd rather have the whole thing. And on the subject that's Jesus, not James.

Or Paul. I still believe the message is connected between Savior and Disciples. 2 Peter 1:21

I think I'm going to leave this and future areas where I see us mostly repeating a difference we've set out clearly enough by saying, I rest on our difference. It will save both of us time and additional finger strain. I'll give you the last word on each point absent additional commentary.

Most of this needs little or no response, then, but I found a couple of these that, given time, you might want to respond to, I'll mark them with an * so that you can if you feel inclined. I'd like to see others post their own research and findings as well. I recognize there are conflicting studies on much of this. I don't tend to jump the gun with wives tales but assumed what I've been seeing between parties, as evident, is true. *Some prejudism? Sure, a bit. It is 'us/them' regarding polarizing issues, however. Because this is true, especially shown the way we vote, I'm convinced yet these traits are clear. Examples are abortion: Republican, no wise selfish, can't be. Democrat? desires rather than 'needs' of the woman in all but incredibly few cases, lobbying for drug us (liberal, generally Democrat), rather than 'protection of themselves and society (conservatives, mostly Republicans), etc. etc.

Not seeing any separation on our positions in that, unless you mean something different by discernment.


When did I say that was something I like?

Such is a bit less bleeding. A homeless man can help clean up tables and sweep.

You know who doesn't really care why we put a hot meal in front of him? The guy who needs it. If what's in our hearts is as important as you note a little later, then both meaningful distinctions are met, since we can meet both obligations with the same intent.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Still looking for the difference and not finding it. Who is supporting disingenuous needs again? :idunno: I mean outside of Congress.

As stated, abortion is one such liberal agenda. Not a genuine need among the 99% that have the abortion. I've watched a good many beggars walk away from their signs and go grab a beer, not a meal. Their 'need' is for a meal. I've seen folks on welfare smoking cigarettes too, out of the $ that should have gone to the needs of their children. No asterisk here because I'm answering the question. Because I lost all of this when the laptop ran out of memory, I also lost the flow of thought here a bit, so just attempting to answer your question without really remembering the full context (that and we are both long on posts).

No idea why it seems that way to you. I begrudge a Republican cobbled health care bill that will put millions of people off the health care rolls who have coverage. Their motives are of a lesser concern to me on the point and I suspect vary a good bit.


How is that not self-serving if you're on the other side of the but again?

1) entitlement doesn't mean any particular has to provide, especially if it was initiated without really meeting the need. 2) They had/have to pay for it from their own pockets as well. While some are complaining, some are not. 3) I think we need to tackle insurance in this country. The middle-men are in it for the $ so whatever we are giving them is going to profit. Insurance should be regulated as first and foremost a service. Those premiums were driven up, so even Obamacare didn't help when greedy insurance companies starting wringing their hands. Obamacare made it worse. Republicans and Democrats both had put pressure on hospitals to accept all regardless of ability to pay. Obamacare may have recovered some of those funds, but from the people that couldn't really afford to pay in the first place. I'm just saying I don't think doing it the "Obama" way is the only reasonable or compassionate way. As long as Republicans are working on something, I appreciate the sentiment to continue to care for people even while stopping a poor decision in the first place. It isn't about cold or hard-hearted.

Jesus agreed with her, so as far as parallels go I'm liking this one.

Agree, but Judas was right, the $ could have gone a long way to help the poor. I was trying to show it isn't always a selfish thing, tacking it onto the repeal of Obamacare, by a similar token.

My mom always told me, "I don't care what the other countries are doing, we have a higher standard in this house."

Ours was "there are starving children." Never heard your home sentiment, we did hear 'if your friends all jumped off a bridge..."

I don't see that as a rebuttal of anything I've proffered. Good scripture, but most of those who receive charitable assistance aren't in a position to do that.

I think even mothers could sew blankets for the homeless. Even those who were able to glean grain or fruit from orchards and farms, had to go pick it up. They weren't commanded to do it for them.

Because I'm a moderate who knows his mind I'm not particularly concerned with anyone else's litmus on the point, Lon. As for my position about data and causality, I don't believe I can state either with any greater degree of particularity, and so I have to rest on our differences as expressed prior.

It isn't meant to be accusatory, I contrasted my own leaning by the same token, because I think it qualified two moderates discussing a topic, each taking opposite concerns. Sometimes TOL leaves bad habits and defensiveness might be one of them. This wasn't meant to be anything but an observation and somewhat if/as others read along.

The problem with your position on the point is that it presumes that's the problem. I didn’t agree that it was the last time you told me you knew more (inferentially) and I still don’t. So please refrain from telling me to study more and I’ll refrain from telling you to presume a little less self-congratulatorily. Seems fair.

It does go both ways, I'm not particularly offended by your positing that I presume any more than assuming the same in conversation. Politics isn't one of my hills to die on, so it doesn't bother me, perhaps as much. I don't believe you and I inventing the wheel here, I've heard this conversation before, rather, I was thinking perhaps we'd bring a bit of meaning to that which has preceded us.

Same here.

* Well, to me, it doesn't make one of us more ignorant, just polarizing. My point in asking you to study was because you seem unaware that these aren't my original thoughts, or at least not novel. We are both posting links regarding stats and research.
For me, not as cagean as is suspected so there is a need to both post links and recognize when such is challenged as unfounded or unfoundable. As I've intimated, if it walks like a duck, it is one. By way of issues and demonstration, there is readily viewable difference. One of these was talk of Obama protests. It was always over issues of his politics. I looked it up. Trump? Marches against him, personally, not against, say repeal of Obamacare etc. The marches are/were to get him impeached by 'nasty' women by their own reckoning. If

I can’t be any clearer about my position that you’re insisting on conflating apparent correlation with causality, that causality demands a lot more and until that’s presented I’m going to have to rest on our difference as previously expressed. Lastly, where a man keeps his fingers is less of a concern for me than where he keeps his head.

This is why I wondered if you'd studied or looked this up. I'm not the originator of this data and a good bit of it from reputable sources and statistics. If you'd seen them before, I can't understand thinking them merely correlation. No few of them, that I've seen, substantiate the connections. Also, by definitions of the difference alone. I didn't coin bleeding heart, for example, and the term is more than Cagean, but substantiated with several articles and findings. I do acquiesce that we can and do, as larger parts of society, believe in wives tales enmass at times. "Cagean" is more conspiracy theory and superstition, however. I don't believe seeing character traits in society follows that same pattern. I believe they are clearer by the express purposes and interests of each. Liberals spend more time on liberal ideas, else 'liberal' wouldn't be an apt name. Obviously (imho), liberals are liberal and conservatives really are conservative.

What needs do you see associated with melanin content outside of propensities for particular medical conditions?

I don't have to take precautions for sickle cell anemia. I do, being white, have to take precautions against melanoma.
I don't struggle with ESL or Ebonics, etc. etc.

That’s the nature of contemplating a narrative. I’m not speaking authoritatively and only suggested a possibility. If you don’t think it has value or misses the mark I’m not going to argue with you on it.

Seems the point gets lost in details. I brought it up that it'd help define as well as bring some meaning to a struggle between values between camps. The 'awkward' was a sidenote, mostly having to do with whether it was something I wanted to relive from my teens. Granted it was late teens. Note no asterisk, I think it served as long as it did without my or your desiring to go much further on about but because it was brought up, AND because I'm overtly analytical, it carried over several posts (still, but no asterisk). All this imho, much ado about nothing, since it was all illustrative anyway.

On virtue that exists in thought alone:

But desire is easier without temptation and we’re not tempted to keep what we don’t actually possess. So maybe we’d do the best imaginable thing with sudden wealth. Or maybe we’d be corrupted by the power and look at our wealth like a woman bathing on a roof when the moment came.

You might want to Google “Protests against Obama.” It’s normal American politics. Carter got a lot of it in his day and Trump is catching some in his first stretch. It’s dialed up a bit because the president is dialed up a bit.

All listed as issues he raised rather than against him in office, though that first term, no march, but tweets regarding his citizenship. Still not a march though, not like happened several times in Seattle.

I thought you meant what you wrote, but didn’t consider it fully enough and gave an example that illustrated that.

To me? Illustrates some of the extremes and polarization, even when two not so committed to Republican or Democrat, have the same disagreement. It seems polarization between them will be only a wider stretch. I'm talking about the fact that we don't think each other has studied the other side out. That alone illustrates a belief that the other is ignorant regarding the other party, all polarizing and demonizing issues.
Some of these are 'Liberal/Conservative' more than Republican/Democrat, though they may certainly be the same. I don't, by example, blame homosexual rights to 'marriage' on Obama or Democrats, but the Liberal agenda and influence. I yet think a Conservative lawsuit that pushes for 'separation of church and state' regarding the religious nature of the word 'marriage' would remove SCOTUS' ruling and relegate the matter to a civil and legal concern. They won't because of 'taxes' initially, but that lawsuit needs to happen. *(might need addressed, but we've talked about this before to some extent).

It absolutely is. I noted I thought you were reducing important distinctions to the point where words began to lose a functional distinction when I noted that no or little legislation passes without some (however minor) help from the other side. This truth remains: if you design a widget, it’s still your widget, even if you get some help producing it.

I'm not sure, in politics, that it works that way. For instance, Regan's administration came up with abortion legalities where the medical profession was supposed to determine need regarding any abortion. It wound up that not only physicians, but insurance and Planned Parenthood started abortion clinics, set up for the purpose of those 'needed/necessary.' A 'liberal' stroke had services provided for all that 'wanted' the service rather than the need of the life and death health of the mother or child.
So, while the employment might be one or the other, it is owned by who else is on board. The free-for-all abortions wasn't the Republican agenda. No Republican has repealed welfare either.

I’m speaking to liberal/conservative, not the confusion of party alliance as membership shifts. The Dixie Dems were conservatives. They simply continued the tradition of opposing the party of Lincoln until their own party began to turn progressive on them. Then the South became largely Republican and remains so to this day.

Thanks, I think the clarification was important on this one.

An approach I’ve never accepted as accurate, so the qualification is you believe it and I don't for reasons presented prior by both of us.

Yes, but it is the subject matter of the thread, so even as we disagree, it was/is important discussion of those in this thread, covering the difference, and thank you for participating meaningfully. I don't think we change each other, but perhaps it helps get us to think more outside of ourselves or at least serves any who may read the thread along with us.

I don’t agree with your summation and stand on our differences illustrated prior.

I think that’s profoundly wrong, Lon, but there’s no talking you out of it, so we’ll just differ.

A hammer in my hand, is not a secular hammer, by virtue of who is wielding it. It yields to the one it serves. Pressing 'me' into secularism? Not 'serving' me. Gettysburg: by the people 'for' the people. Secular isn't 'for.' The separation clause is supposed to protect people, not government. There is no such thing as values in a void or absence.

Then you aren’t agreeing with me because I don’t hold that position.

You think demanding gay marriage is a shared community value? I'm not sure S&M parades are done for the larger community at large. There may be some altruism in some civil marches, but spitting on vets, or dumping paint on furs isn't a family concern. There is a demonstrable difference between Conservative vs. Liberal interests and values, by definition of Liberal and Conservative.

No, it underscored a difference among some of the gender. In the same way a Klan march distinguishes between people who already hold contrary views on race relations.

Again, more liberal than democrat, likely. Otherwise probably not much here.

Good on the kid if there was no way to stop the skirmish within the rules, but it is a far sight less impressive than illustrating a love which the Bible tells us there is no greater than. King gave up his life for others, for their freedom and right to stand in equal dignity before the law. Gandhi gave his life for the same thing. And I’m sure both would have been proud of that kid.
Right. If I give a tall kid and a short kid the same size box to stand on and look over a fence and see the game it’s treating them with equality, even if the shorter kid still can't see over the fence. Equity asks for more, for what it takes to help the shorter kid see the same game as the taller kid.

Yes, but also regarding the 'need' to stand and watch over the fence (illustrations always get a second going over). There is a need to prepare a kid as well as, I think with you, make sure that kid has equal opportunities, but affirmative action sometimes takes those kids out of their own communities (like bussing). I think, "well-meaning harm." It does some good to integrate, but I think we could still do this much better than we do, for example: Bus ALL kids everywhere, then. Not sure, but bussing is one of those things where I don't believe we've thought it out academically, just bowed to politics and social pressures. One isn't necessarily as good in and among the other. It isn't that I'm against doing things, just, as I repeat, that we think a bit longer about what we are doing and what it will actually accomplish. Bussing, doesn't seem to have been much of an academic maneuver. To me, that move was Nicolas Cagean because school is primarily about academic need and results.

It isn’t, Lon. That’s why I noted that when you present equity they perform at comparable levels. I’m not suggesting that advantages at home aren’t advantages that matter, only that in academic terms they can be overcome by good teaching.

Access to those exceptional teachers is ever the struggle, not who gets to sit under them. I didn't always get the better teachers in elementary school, and I knew it.
That said, some kids are not school-ready. A good teacher 'may' be able to meet that needs but it tends to make for a large attrition rate among teachers (90% on the whole). It is a big burden on teachers. If you are up to task, good on you.

Civil Rights marches, Voting rights marches, Suffrage, etc. But any peaceful, lawful demonstration is a fulfillment of our experiment as it relates to speech and speaking to power, so I don’t have a problem with it, agree with the point of the protest in particular or not. Let the Klan speak and speak against them.

Are the Klan mostly Democrats or Republicans? :think: :idunno:

Not according to the Oxford. Unless it’s true for Scott too. :think:

Who's Scott?

I subbed for years in a Title One school. I took over a ninth-grade class for a full semester under waiver. My experience applying that to Jack simply pushed me over the edge and into a calling.


Can’t wait to have my own class. I've done a lot of observation and have a psych. course and educational media, a reading and general Praxis to take and then it's student teaching after Christmas. We have a mentor program to help with the actual day to day, but I know it will be a lot like my first year of practice, trying to figure out when to use the theory, how to pace the day, week, etc.

I think it has a place, but we have to remember that introverts constitute a sizeable portion of the classroom and it’s not so thrilling for them. So room for individual and group practice is essential for producing the right learning environment.

:cheers:

That is part of cooperative learning though, it is a check and provides extra help for the teacher during the monitoring and adjusting phase. My paper was 57 pages because they told me it could not be doctrinal length. I had to cut out about 300 pages from my original work. 57 pages was longer than they allowed others on their thesis, so I was pleased if at all stifled. There is a lot to ensuring it is cooperative 'learning.'

Not much to reply to, as I endeavored. I'm hopeful those less than moderate might pick up the thread by interest also. Thanks for walking these pages with me. In Him -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

Such is a bit less bleeding. A homeless man can help clean up tables and sweep.
2 Thessalonians 3:10

I'm not arguing that the able shouldn't work. I would say if a man can work he should and if he's hungry between now and that work it's in our interest to feed him, because you can't work if you can't stand. That said, he's not the rule. The rule is single mothers with kids. And the larger rule I'm thinking of goes back to our charge as the Body to bear witness to the good news and example of our Lord and Savior.

We're all the recipients of unmerited charity. None of us would end up well if we only got what was coming to us.

As stated, abortion is one such liberal agenda. Not a genuine need among the 99% that have the abortion.

Sadly, abortion is largely about inconvenience when you look at the data. I'm not ready, financial worries, impediment to the planned future, that sort of thing. :sigh: But most people in need aren't your beer drinking beggars either. As for addiction, I'm sure the poor and miserable have a disproportionate share of it.

On insurance. The main thing I like about the ACA is that millions more people have access to healthcare. By all means make the thing better, work to drive premiums down, ect.

Agree, but Judas was right, the $ could have gone a long way to help the poor. I was trying to show it isn't always a selfish thing, tacking it onto the repeal of Obamacare, by a similar token.

He was right by the letter and wrong by the spirit. Christ favors the spirit every time, as he did then.

It does go both ways, I'm not particularly offended by your positing that I presume any more than assuming the same in conversation.

If or when I put words in your mouth that aren't in line with your thinking by all means tell me and I'll happily accept the correction. I think it's important that we're clear, both with each other and to each other.

* Well, to me, it doesn't make one of us more ignorant, just polarizing. My point in asking you to study was because you seem unaware that these aren't my original thoughts, or at least not novel. We are both posting links regarding stats and research.

Okay. I felt that was mostly it, which is why one of my responses was something like, "Same here" in opposition.

As I've intimated, if it walks like a duck, it is one

This makes me want to pull my hair out, which would take a while. That's correlation, not causality. How it appears. Data in common, but not necessarily causal, as per my remarks about objective litmus.

One of these was talk of Obama protests. It was always over issues of his politics. I looked it up. Trump? Marches against him, personally, not against, say repeal of Obamacare etc. The marches are/were to get him impeached by 'nasty' women by their own reckoning.

That's not accurate. I literally posted a compilation link of Obama being hung in effigy and similar distasteful treatments that weren't about policy, they were about him. So were the loud and repeated questions about his faith.

I don't have to take precautions for sickle cell anemia. I do, being white, have to take precautions against melanoma.

I did say outside of the medical.

I don't struggle with ESL or Ebonics, etc. etc.

You might want to reconsider that one. People talk funny all over. Grammar is horrible all over. It's especially poor among the especially poor. Blacks are disproportionately poor. But it's not about being black. Melanin has nothing to do with it. And most of our ESLs are of Hispanic/Latino extraction.

I'm talking about the fact that we don't think each other has studied the other side out. That alone illustrates a belief that the other is ignorant regarding the other party, all polarizing and demonizing issues.

With respect, that's been your charge, repeated. I don't believe I've leveled it. I've only answered and I provided an authority who'd studied the issue for a decade across a fairly wide pool. I don't know of a contrary report with that sort of depth. Did you read him and it?

Some of these are 'Liberal/Conservative' more than Republican/Democrat, though they may certainly be the same. I don't, by example, blame homosexual rights to 'marriage' on Obama or Democrats, but the Liberal agenda and influence.

I don't blame anyone. I said some time ago that it was inevitable. There simply wasn't a legitimate secular reason for denying them the right to that contract.

I yet think a Conservative lawsuit that pushes for 'separation of church and state' regarding the religious nature of the word 'marriage' would remove SCOTUS' ruling and relegate the matter to a civil and legal concern. They won't because of 'taxes' initially, but that lawsuit needs to happen. *(might need addressed, but we've talked about this before to some extent).

Well, given marriages in relation to the state aren't religious in ceremony, I don't see the teeth in a suit on the point. No part of a Christian ceremony is compromised by allowing gays to contract marriage, unless they can insist your church perform the ceremony. Then I'm taking your case pro bono.

A hammer in my hand, is not a secular hammer, by virtue of who is wielding it. It yields to the one it serves. Pressing 'me' into secularism? Not 'serving' me. Gettysburg: by the people 'for' the people. Secular isn't 'for.' The separation clause is supposed to protect people, not government. There is no such thing as values in a void or absence.

Secular law serves everyone and in the same way, by protecting their right to hold their values and traditions with the understanding that they cannot use either to violate the next fellow's.

Yes, but also regarding the 'need' to stand and watch over the fence (illustrations always get a second going over). There is a need to prepare a kid as well as, I think with you, make sure that kid has equal opportunities, but affirmative action sometimes takes those kids out of their own communities (like bussing).

I'm pretty sure affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional some time back. Bussing is about making sure that we don't have a modern version of separate but equal, which again only managed the former.

I think, "well-meaning harm." It does some good to integrate

Where I'd say it does real harm to segregate.

Access to those exceptional teachers is ever the struggle, not who gets to sit under them. I didn't always get the better teachers in elementary school, and I knew it.That said, some kids are not school-ready. A good teacher 'may' be able to meet that needs but it tends to make for a large attrition rate among teachers (90% on the whole). It is a big burden on teachers. If you are up to task, good on you.

IRIs and solid screening should help us with needed interventions. Teaching should be a calling and those who feel that calling will wade in and remain. Too many people (especially youngsters) go into it expecting open summers and an easy academic path. I suspect the weeding has a lot to do with that as well.

Are the Klan mostly Democrats or Republicans?

Let's see. Would a white racist be more comfortable among a minority focused party that includes most blacks and Latinos, and advances liberal causes, or would he be more comfortable among aging white people who value traditions?

It's a tough call. lain:

Not much to reply to, as I endeavored. I'm hopeful those less than moderate might pick up the thread by interest also. Thanks for walking these pages with me. In Him -Lon

Always a pleasure. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Rhetorical equivalent? Don't have the guts to just say coward and to my face while you're at it?

I've been enjoying my back and forth with Lon for a bit now, but this keeps bothering me.I knew at some point I was going to have to stop and consider why... I was talking with another friend about method and principle and one thing I've always tried to do is self-examine and make the effort at owning my own rhetoric and doing something about it when I don't like what I see.

I felt obliged to do it recently with PJ for a few words that were permissible within the rules, but outside of what I permit myself in dealing with others. There are approaches and things we simply shouldn't say to one another. And it troubled me, so I made an effort to as publicly own and to some extent, hopefully, undo what I had publicly done and regretted. Now PJ is a likable cuss, but that shouldn't factor into it and doesn't with me. Neither does amelioration of responsibility because of hurtful words spoken to me, either before or after the offense. Our words are our own and if they don't frame us properly we should say something else.

CS, I didn't simply call you a coward because I have no reason to believe you are, and I've noted repeatedly how little I think of the use of that word within this context, which should have warned me off its use. My barb was meant and aimed entirely at your method, your approach of positing a thing as truth without argument too routinely, resisting examination, and being unwilling to examine contrary authority on a point...but, that's how I should have said it. When we use words charged with insult and meaning that is contradicted by use, it mostly means that's a poor choice of words or we aren't being honest with the object of them or ourselves.

I believe that forum life should, with rare and provoked exception, remain civil. And I don't believe the use of that word can be, upon reflection. Because I believe this and in ownership of our rhetoric, I am genuinely sorry for the hurt that accompanied my words and I sincerely apologize for them and everything ugly that they sponsored between us because without my use none of that would have transpired.

I keep one thread (Cub Reporters) on the hope people will laugh and alter habit the way I did once (thanks chrys). I've kept another, MOTD, as a sad memento of behavior I couldn't believe happened in a place like this. I've never particularly liked the thread and considered closing it from time to time. Maybe this is the right time to do that and my own comment a fitting place to rest there as a reminder of what can happen to us when we stop thinking of one another first and foremost as people.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I believe that forum life should, with rare and provoked exception, remain civil. And I don't believe the use of that word can be, upon reflection. Because I believe this and in ownership of our rhetoric, I am genuinely sorry for the hurt that accompanied my words and I sincerely apologize for them and everything ugly that they sponsored between us because without my use none of that would have transpired.

Well done, brother. Providentially came as a reminder to myself this morning. :thumb:

AMR

 

[Lon]

Three things important for a note:

He was right by the letter and wrong by the spirit. Christ favors the spirit every time, as he did then.

John 4:23 The balance is always Truth and relationship, Truth and Spirit. It is always as far as my theology understanding, a balance.
Love is always commended, but so is truth. It is never one without the other.

Let's see. Would a white racist be more comfortable among a minority focused party that includes most blacks and Latinos, and advances liberal causes, or would he be more comfortable among aging white people who value traditions?

It's a tough call. lain:

Well, a Google seems to say democrat.

I'm still thinking of Genesis 11:1-9 I believe it was a genuine separation, not a genuine inequality.
Making our skin color different was effective for the intent, we are all separated by it. I don't believe God's intent was inequality, but the intent was to give us some needed skills in reaching across continents. :think: I'm not sure if we are two passing ships on this, I'm just trying to give my thoughts concerning it. I appreciate other cultures for their uniqueness, All of us needing Christ. Ebonics, may be a poor cultural thing, but I don't believe it is a mark of anything bad, I just don't do it, because it isn't my culture. Ebonics, to me, sounds of Southern influence.

Always a pleasure. :cheers:

:cheers: Oolong?