Compartmentalizing

[MSimon]

There seems to be less meat and meaning in the responses. Then again, I hope people can compartmentalize that my views or intentions on Politics are completely separate from Science issues.

That is the way it has worked around here so far.

I even have "vivid" discussions with my friends. All is put aside for F=ma. Or F=k q q/r^2

[Diogenes]

Interesting topic. Here's my input.


Compartmentalization is an illusion of human perception. The boundaries between Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. don't really exist. People just like having things "fit" into a category.


I use this example, because i'm always trying to convey the notion that there are no boundaries between social conservatism and economic conservatism either. People want there to be, so they create them in their minds.

Likewise, the notion that one person's behavior is somehow "compartmentalized." Meaning, affecting only themselves. Nope, people's behavior affects other people around them. They are not islands. Again, we just like to think that it works this way.

[IntLibber]

Interesting topic. Here's my input.


Compartmentalization is an illusion of human perception. The boundaries between Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. don't really exist. People just like having things "fit" into a category.


I use this example, because i'm always trying to convey the notion that there are no boundaries between social conservatism and economic conservatism either. People want there to be, so they create them in their minds.

Of course there are boundaries between social and economic conservatism. Social conservatism is fascism of the mind, while economic conservatism is freedom of property. distinguishing between two completely different axes of political leanings isn't compartementalization. Compartementalization is to be socially conservative about one thing but socially liberal about another thing (like being for medical marijuana legalization but also being against interstate shopping for health insurance, or being pro-abortion but anti-death penalty)

[MSimon]

Diogenes,

Mike Huckabee - although nominally a social conservative is no fiscal conservative.

And where does Ben Franklin fit in to your scheme?

When the Tea Parties go off the rails it will be because the leaders conflate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism. It is a mistake Republicans make often. They think that being ardently socially conservative is enough and only lip service need be paid to fiscal conservatism.

Bass ackwards.

[IntLibber]

Diogenes,

Mike Huckabee - although nominally a social conservative is no fiscal conservative.

And where does Ben Franklin fit in to your scheme?

When the Tea Parties go off the rails it will be because the leaders conflate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism. It is a mistake Republicans make often. They think that being ardently socially conservative is enough and only lip service need be paid to fiscal conservatism.

Bass ackwards.

Yup, when I was an LP official, GOP consultants and campaigners would ask me about my own history, and I'd proudly tell them as a teenager I was a Reagan republican, that as editor of my high school newspaper, next door to Dartmouth College, I'd known Dinesh D'Souza, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter while they were students there, but that the GOP became hijacked by the christian fundamentalists and allowed nothing for libertarians like myself, who valued real family values but not the christian fascism that the evangelicals want to impose.

I'd tell em that their major malfunction is they're using government just like democrats do, but in pursuit of their own agenda, rather than seeing that government is the impediment to letting individuals pursue their own personal agendas in life, whether they be economically or socially conservative.

[Diogenes]

Interesting topic. Here's my input.


Compartmentalization is an illusion of human perception. The boundaries between Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. don't really exist. People just like having things "fit" into a category.


I use this example, because i'm always trying to convey the notion that there are no boundaries between social conservatism and economic conservatism either. People want there to be, so they create them in their minds.

Of course there are boundaries between social and economic conservatism. Social conservatism is fascism of the mind, while economic conservatism is freedom of property.

What is this "Freedom" concept of which you speak? Are we not all the property of our masters? (without an appropriate moral basis, the concept is meaningless. "Freedom" is in fact a product of morality.)

Distinguishing between two completely different axes of political leanings isn't compartementalization.

The Tenets of economic freedom are rooted in the moral arguments. The ability to function economically is entirely dependent on the moral underpinnings of a fair society. You eliminate the fair (moral) society, and your economic freedoms cannot exist.

Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill are not just slogans. Without them, there is no freedom. There is only servitude imposed by the powerful.

Compartementalization is to be socially conservative about one thing but socially liberal about another thing (like being for medical marijuana legalization but also being against interstate shopping for health insurance, or being pro-abortion but anti-death penalty)

I look at the concept very differently. To me, in this context, "Compartmentalization" is the creation of artificial boundaries between subjects that if looked at from a big enough picture, are one continuous flow, and not separate at all.


Consider the notes on a Piano. Humans have created notes to establish boundaries between one tone and another. The notes are in effect, "Compartmentalized." (note that the word has "Mentalized" in it.) In fact, there are not boundaries. You can have an infinite number of tones between one note and the next. In reality, it's just one continuous flow. The individual, separate , (compartmentalized) notes are just for human consumption.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

Mike Huckabee - although nominally a social conservative is no fiscal conservative.

He is making the opposite mistake that most people make. That doesn't make him and more wrong than others, it just makes him wrong in a different direction.

And where does Ben Franklin fit in to your scheme?

I assume you are referring to Franklin's propensity to be a Womanizer or something? There are many successful people who don't live according to the established moral rules of society, and get away with it. We hear about those, because the one's that don't get away with it become historical nobodies.

Had Franklin died of Syphilis, (which was a problem in the Georgian Era) he might not have gone on to be historic.

Apart from that, just as it requires a large quantity of herbivores to support a local population of Carnivores, Just so does it require a large quantity of relatively moral population to sustain a small group of immoral people. (at least up till now.)

The fact that immoral people can exist and prosper is entirely the result of the functionality of the rest of society.

When the Tea Parties go off the rails it will be because the leaders conflate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism. It is a mistake Republicans make often. They think that being ardently socially conservative is enough and only lip service need be paid to fiscal conservatism.

Bass ackwards.

To me, (and others, i'm sure) The Fiscal issue looms as the greatest and most pressing crisis that we face, near term. This fact has become most apparent to the bulk of the Tea Party people to the exclusion of other concerns that are not so suddenly dire.

This is not to suggest that other concerns have any less validity, It is to say that the battle which needs to be fought most now, is the one that is imminent.

The reason we are in this fiscal crisis is because people have ignored or forgotten the simple moral rules which would have kept us out of it. Like not allowing the government to STEAL our money.

They have created a constituency which supports the notion of SLAVERY as long as it doesn't apply to them.

The idea that people shouldn't have to WORK to earn a living is also part and parcel of how we got into this financial mess.

Money is nothing more than the score keeping card for WORK. People have found they can play games with the score keeping system, and avoid the work.

This is nothing but a moral issue projected on to the screen of a fiscal issue.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

Mike Huckabee - although nominally a social conservative is no fiscal conservative.

And where does Ben Franklin fit in to your scheme?

When the Tea Parties go off the rails it will be because the leaders conflate social conservatism with fiscal conservatism. It is a mistake Republicans make often. They think that being ardently socially conservative is enough and only lip service need be paid to fiscal conservatism.

Bass ackwards.

Yup, when I was an LP official, GOP consultants and campaigners would ask me about my own history, and I'd proudly tell them as a teenager I was a Reagan republican, that as editor of my high school newspaper, next door to Dartmouth College, I'd known Dinesh D'Souza, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter while they were students there, but that the GOP became hijacked by the christian fundamentalists and allowed nothing for libertarians like myself, who valued real family values but not the christian fascism that the evangelicals want to impose.

The contention that the GOP was "Hijacked" and the accusation of "Christian Fascism" is political propaganda. The philosophies in question are the same philosophies as Reagan. Many people recognized their principles in Reagan, and enjoyed having someone to enunciate their beliefs. The media, of course HATED Reagan, and especially HATED anyone who criticized their lack of morality, and therefore the media made it their personal crusade to attack Reagan's Beliefs, and those for whom he was advocate.

This was easy under Bush, but couldn't be done under Reagan.

Furthermore, the gut response to Bill Clinton was one of intense revulsion, and more people decided to speak out and become politically active as a result of the vileness that Bill Clinton represented. (Bill Clinton would have lost the election if not for Timothy McVeigh) The Media attacked the opponents of Clinton using this "Hijacked" and "Christian Fascist" rhetoric in exactly the same manner that they are currently using the "Racist" rhetoric to describe Tea Partiers.


As Jonah Goldberg points out, the Left started the Culture war, and now complain about having to fight it. The left (media) has a far greater megaphone than the right, and that's why there is an illusion of "Christian Fascism".

Pray tell, what form would this "Christian Fascism" take? Since most of them simply want things to be the way they were before the Left started tampering with them, "Christian Fascism" at worst would simply be American Culture of the 1950s, minus the Racism.


Somehow I don't think that equates to the murder and oppression of the real Fascists, but it's convenient for the haters to over exaggerate their claims.

[
I'd tell em that their major malfunction is they're using government just like democrats do, but in pursuit of their own agenda, rather than seeing that government is the impediment to letting individuals pursue their own personal agendas in life, whether they be economically or socially conservative.

How exactly would they be "Using government" when they are simply wanting to put it back the way it was before it was futzed up?


What freedoms would the "Christian Fascists" deprive us of?

[Diogenes]

Exactly, you can't legislate morality. .

I've heard this confused statement all my life.


ALL Laws are LEGISLATED MORALITY. You ARE going to have LEGISLATED MORALITY. The only question is who's.

Just because they pass laws doesn't eliminate the motivation. There will always be a certain percentage of kooks and weirdos, drug abuse who affect society, killers, adulterers, drunk drivers, people without liability insurance..etc..

I do not believe this concept is too difficult for you to understand. It appears you have just been misled. Laws do not ELIMINATE crime. They simply reduce it, hopefully to an optimal (least possible) level.

The fact that MURDER cannot be prevented, is no argument to repeal the laws against murder. They serve a legitimate and beneficial purpose to society. Those who are punished for murder, serve as negative examples to others who may contemplate committing murder. The punishment of a murderer reminds people of a very personal reason why they should not do it, lest they share a murderer's fate.

It is understood by virtually everybody, that the laws won't stop it all, but they do greatly reduce it.

They looked back in the records of early American and it was shocking to find out that it was reported to happen even in "conservative" times.
Even worse, much of it went unreported and the police were not as effective at enforcement back then.

See, you ARE aware of this fact, yet you aren't carrying it out to it's logical conclusion. Laws (meaning punishment) reduce, not eliminate, crime.

Those that are hungry for power at the dinner table of the budget... Some simple advice...

Stick to fighting over the steak that powers the economy, the peas and onions are essential for diet, but be careful fighting over them as they are slippery and can be lost onto the floor.

The "Steak" , is fed by the Vegetables. Contemplate the Steak without the Vegetables and you will end up with neither.

No morality. No Freedom. Freedom is a side effect of morality.

[MSimon]

Pray tell, what form would this "Christian Fascism" take? Since most of them simply want things to be the way they were before the Left started tampering with them, "Christian Fascism" at worst would simply be American Culture of the 1950s, minus the Racism.

Having been a victim of Christian Fascism in the 50s I can tell you I didn't enjoy it. It has made me suspicious of Christians ever since.

They mean well but they are not very savvy about human nature.

I find the attitude : "I love Jesus. Doesn't Everybody? And if you don't you should." Nauseating in the extreme. And please. Spare me the latest moral panic. I don't panic worth a danm any more.

I did run into some pro-lifers at a T-Party who absolutely didn't want the government involved - pro or con. I wonder if they will still feel that way once they get the upper hand.

[Diogenes]

Pray tell, what form would this "Christian Fascism" take? Since most of them simply want things to be the way they were before the Left started tampering with them, "Christian Fascism" at worst would simply be American Culture of the 1950s, minus the Racism.

---
Oh, how can you have the nuclear 1950's family with both parents working to sustain the same income as then, and provide good supervision and upbringing for the kids at the same time?

Irrelevant to the point. Parents managed in the 1950s. Their biggest mistake was raising a generation of children who were self centered and spoiled rotten from prosperity.

How exactly would they be "Using government" when they are simply wanting to put it back the way it was before it was futzed up?


What freedoms would the "Christian Fascists" deprive us of?

--

Oh silly things like censorship in the public libraries,

You mean the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit? The Sado-Masochistic homo-erotic pornography with images of him posing with a bull whip up his AIDS infected anus?

Well, first of all, it didn't get censored, and Secondly, it's not speech or an idea, so the concept of censorship doesn't even apply.

I've personally never heard of a human being that doesn't believe in some form of censorship, so it's really cute of you to trot that hobby horse out.

and overturning Roe V Wade.

Roe V. Wade is bad law based on false claims and testimony, and needs to be overturned. It is SOO bad, that the last Supreme Court ruling regarding it was "stare decisis", which means that the Supreme Court Justices cannot even explain the legal principle it's supposed to be based on. (Stare Decisis means the Decision Stands! (with no explanation) )

The original Ruling by the Warren Court was based on the "Penumbra" of the 14th Amendment. (Which was created to guarantee the rights of freed slaves)

To use the 14th amendment to justify legalizing abortion is to distort it's meaning in a sick and twisted manner.

Now I suspect you do not have a sufficient knowledge base to understand what i'm trying to tell you, but Roe V. Wade, is in fact, BAD LAW.

They support pro-life, but want to abort the person financially in their 90th to 120th trimester. You sign on to promote life, but want the spoils and not pay for the support structure?

You are obviously suffering from political synesthesia and have got some wires crossed in your thinking. I'm not sure i'm capable of communicating with you.

Witch hunts on only the opposing political party meanwhile they sponsor and promote their pedophillic/gay/philandering Senator?

Barney Frank and Eric Massa are Democrats. That's YOUR side.

[Skipjack]

Having been a victim of Christian Fascism in the 50s I can tell you I didn't enjoy it. It has made me suspicious of Christians ever since.

And it made me extremely suspicious of the Reps.

They mean well but they are not very savvy about human nature.

Same can be said about every religion/ideology.
That is why I am an atheist.

Oh and in regards to what Christian Fascism will do, read up on Austrofascism in Austria. They were pretty much as bad as the Nazis, some say worse. They just put the "baby Jesus" at the front as an excuse for everything they did.

Roe V. Wade is bad law based on false claims and testimony, and needs to be overturned.

Wrong! I am very, very much against abortion. My personal reasoning is that we are dying out and that we need to ensure that this does not happen. Also, we should be taking responsibility for our actions. However, there are many, many good examples when abortions are reasonable and when they make sense.
Rapes, e.g. or when the life and wellbeing of the mother is at stake. I am also considering an abortion in case of severe illness of the child as an acceptable cause for abortion, even though I myself would not be able to go ahead with it.