Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:43 am
More demonization from Diogenes. Same shit, different day.
Ahh to be perfect in one's own mind.
Ahh to be perfect in one's own mind.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Stubby wrote:More demonization from Diogenes. Same shit, different day.
Ahh to be perfect in one's own mind.
Even if I accept the premise of a mental disorder, that does not imply an inability to work in a specific field or even a tendency towards dangerous or reckless behavior. It doesn't even imply a need for treatment.Diogenes wrote: Nah dude, Mental illness is definitely implied in someone who thinks they need to switch genders. There is some sort of deep seated psychological problem going on in such people's minds.
The linked article makes it perfectly clear that a lot of this lack of peace is due to external factors. I.e. discrimination and bullying. You know, actual evil.Diogenes wrote: You do know that suicide is an epidemic in transgenders? For some reason, pretending they are another sex just doesn't seem to give them the peace which they thought it would.
Teahive wrote:Even if I accept the premise of a mental disorder, that does not imply an inability to work in a specific field or even a tendency towards dangerous or reckless behavior. It doesn't even imply a need for treatment.Diogenes wrote: Nah dude, Mental illness is definitely implied in someone who thinks they need to switch genders. There is some sort of deep seated psychological problem going on in such people's minds.
Teahive wrote:The linked article makes it perfectly clear that a lot of this lack of peace is due to external factors. I.e. discrimination and bullying. You know, actual evil.Diogenes wrote: You do know that suicide is an epidemic in transgenders? For some reason, pretending they are another sex just doesn't seem to give them the peace which they thought it would.
If you’re a New Yorker who is dissatisfied with the original set of chromosomes you were dealt at birth, good news is on the way. Historically, various types of reassignment surgeries involved in switching genders have been considered to be either cosmetic or optional by insurance companies and have generally not been covered. These procedures are not cheap, so they remained beyond the reach of a lot of people. But now, Governor Andrew Cuomo has sent a letter to insurers in the Empire State letting them know that they are going to have to start footing the bill.
An unprecedented opinion survey commissioned by the Carnegie Endowment indicates that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin has remained widely admired in Russia and other former Soviet nations, even though millions of people died under his brutally repressive rule.
The Carnegie report, released Friday, was based on the first-ever comparative opinion polls in Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It found that support for Stalin in Russia has actually increased since the Soviet collapse.
The report concluded that attitudes toward Stalin have improved during President Vladimir Putin's 13-year rule, as the Kremlin has found Stalin's image useful in its efforts to tighten control.
Stalin led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. Communists and other hard-liners credit him with leading the country to victory in World War II and making it a nuclear superpower. Others condemn the brutal purges, which killed millions of people.
One of the report's authors, Lev Gudkov, a sociologist at the Levada Center, which conducted the survey, noted that in 1989, the peak of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's efforts to liberalize the country and expose Stalinist crimes, only 12 percent of Russians polled described Stalin as one of the most prominent historical figures.
In the Carnegie poll last year, 42 percent of Russian respondents named Stalin as the most influential historical figure.
"Vladimir Putin's Russia of 2012 needs symbols of authority and national strength, however controversial they may be, to validate the newly authoritarian political order," Gudkov wrote in the Carnegie report. "Stalin, a despotic leader responsible for mass bloodshed but also still identified with wartime victory and national unity, fits this need for symbols that reinforce the current political ideology."
Putin has avoided open public praise or criticism of Stalin, but he has restored Soviet-era symbols and focused on the nation's Soviet-era achievements rather than Stalinist crimes. Kremlin critics have seen attempts to whitewash Stalin's image as part of Putin's rollback on democracy.
Many in Russia have been dismayed by government-sponsored school textbooks that paint Stalin in a largely positive light and by a reconstruction of Kurskaya metro station that restored old Soviet national anthem lyrics praising Stalin.
In the most recent sign of respect for the dictator, earlier this year the Volgograd regional legislature decreed that the city of Volgograd, which was known as Stalingrad until its renaming in 1961, should once again be known by its old name on days commemorating the historic WWII battle.
In some Russian cities, authorities ordered images of Stalin to be put on city buses as part of festivities.
The Carnegie report revealed that although a high number of Russians have a positive view of Stalin, his era mostly draws negative perceptions, an ambiguity that reflects public confusion, the legacy of totalitarian "doublethink" and a paternalistic state.
An even greater admiration of Stalin was seen in his homeland, Georgia, where 45 percent of respondents expressed a positive view of him.
In Armenia, 38 percent of those polled said their country will always need leaders like Stalin. In Azerbaijan, where respondents viewed Stalin more negatively compared with the three other countries, 22 percent of those polled didn't even know who Stalin was.
and a commenter replied:That is what I find so odd about them politically. Not that they are despicable. That goes with the territory. But it is now an obvious disadvantage and still they cling to it.
I’m sure the calculation is “I have to win the next primary and to do that I have to be as base as the base”.
I’m sure you recall all the Ds running from Obama in the last election. It didn’t do them a lot of good, but at least it showed some political sense.
Over here another commenter said: http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/12/s ... ment-74391Simon,
You are spot on about the Republicans having no political sense. Last month’s Republican victory wasn’t an affirmation of social conservative policy, it was a rejection of Obama and the Democrats. But the socon dominated Republican Party continues to incorrectly interpret any election wins as voters embracing their socon agenda. They aren’t.
The socon agenda is why so few people now self-identify as Republicans anymore. But the socon’s can’t figure this out. And they can’t pivot from their issues because many see themselves on a mission from God, not unlike The Blues Brothers. And there’s is no end to doing the Lord’s work for these people. They are bound and determined to use the government to whip people into shape. And they wonder why they are so unpopular.
I have noted elsewhere that the left will work with you even if they oppose you 99%. "Work with us on this one issue and we will ignore our differences elsewhere for the time being." On the right (Reagan noted this) the requirement is 99% congruence or there can be no cooperation. Guess who advances in that kind of political situation?Conservatives don’t have a political ideology in the way that the left does, and I think that’s a huge problem for them. Most self-styled conservatives don’t even know that they don’t have an ideology though, which is quite funny to watch some of the try and wrangle with. They call themselves “constitutional conservatives” or as I heard a caller ID himself on Mark Levin the other night, “a Christian constitutionalist”. I mean, what the frick is that?
Most of them don’t know that, for example. “conservatives” opposed the very notion of liberty that informed our founding. They wanted to preserve an aristocratic system in which the elite ran things – conservatives of the day like Burke were the philosophical opponents of Jefferson and Paine. Yet conservatives now wrap themselves in the principles of liberty that their ideological heroes opposed.
When you analyze conservatives in the public sphere, you find they mostly fall into 2 categories. The first are fundo Christians who believe in so much that isn’t true about the world that they simply are impossible to work with politically.
Again an issue you're posting about and relating to drugs that has no relation to drugs, and about which you know nothing. No Fault Divorce is not easier than standard divorce proceedings in which a cause needs to be admitted. In states that have No Fault like Oregon, a divorce typically takes 2 years. In places with more traditional divorce requirements, divorces typically take half as long. Requiring cause in divorce proceedings actually speeds them along. No Fault scenarios are typically far more complex to adjudicate. So once again, you are posting about stuff you know nothing about, all as an excuse to share your views on drugs, despite you have promised to knock this shit off.MSimon wrote:. . .For instance "no fault divorce" is destroying families and men. It has led to the marriage strike and the decline of reproduction. "No fault divorce" isn't even on the Republican radar. All they think about is continuing the pogroms against gays and druggies.
Easy divorce is more of a threat to the nation than gays and cannabis.
hanelyp wrote:By their "logic" can you force a muslem owned deli to serve a ham sandwich?