Bernie 2020 Field Organizer States “F***ing Cities Will Burn” if Trump Wins Re-Election

Odd, he quotes both, and agrees with both on some principles, but disagrees fundamentally with Friedman about capitalism.

 

Speaking of Democrat violence, win or lose it is coming in 2020.

 

That seems a bit paranoid. Christians are no monolithic block. Evangelicals are of a variety of races and tend to support individual liberty. Catholics lean a bit more Democrat.

 

I haven’t been to space, but I know you can’t breathe in a vacuum.

Self-inflicted blindness often causes the afflicted to miss the obvious—there is a political civil war taking place between the Secular Progressive Left and the White Christian Nationalists, or if you prefer, the Democratic Socialists and the Religious Right, or if you like, the Seculars and the Mystics, or if you wish to go deeper, Aristotle and Plato. It’s most broadest and most common form is Reason against Faith.

And, if one believes in Man’s future, one hopes reason wins. At moment, it’s losing ground to faith. More’s the pity for the lovers of liberty.

 

And whose pushing the anti-abortion laws? Who’s pushing the anti-pornography laws? Who’s pushing prayer back into public education? Who’s demanding Creationism be taught in science classes? Who’s demanding capitalism be bridled to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, no matter how many individuals must be sacrificed? (Actually both, though altruism is generally viewed as a religious moral).

I suspect, using present trends, Atlas Shrugged will be banned, and Ayn Rand branded as the Anti-Christ, long before LA is under water from melting glaciers, and the polar bears go extinct.

My Prayer? God forbid the the Religious Right from gaining political power, and never forgive them for trying.

 

Creation used to be taught in schools and abortion used to be illegal. We didn't have anything that resembled a "religious dictatorship." No one is going to take away your pornography, Tipper Gore from the left was the big advocate for that back when that was any kind of movement. Christians aren't a threat to your way of life.

 

Tell it to the women and doctors in Alabama and Georgia, as well as too many more, they have nothing to fear. I know better.

 

Many do believe that is a child you are killing. Being pro-life doesn't mean you want anything to do you want anything to do with a religious dictator. It just means you believe that what they perceive as an innocent child should have the right to not be killed. So it sounds like this is really just about abortion.

 

It’s about reason vs faith, knowledge vs divine inspiration, selfishness vs altruism, liberty vs tyranny, my life to live or God’s to command, society’s to control, the state’s to own, in other words, life vs death.

 

[QUOTE="glitch, post: 1071376570, member: 755"]Many do believe that is a child you are killing. Being pro-life doesn't mean you want anything to do you want anything to do with a religious dictator. It just means you believe that what they perceive as an innocent child should have the right to not be killed. So it sounds like this is really just about abortion.[/QUOTE]


And that’s Christian ethos, not objectivity.

 

So when does science tell us a child's life begins? I think we can both agree that 99.9% of evangelical Christians want nothing to do with a religious dictator. Catholics do have their pope and Mormons their prophet.

 

It’s independent physical existence begins when the umbilical cord is severed and the fetus takes its first independent breath and becomes a baby. Until the cord is cut and that breath is taken, it’s a fetus.

 

That's your religious position but nothing in science says that's when human life begins.

 

So you say, I disagree--and there's the problem--my position doesn't require the government's gun, your position does--you want the government's gun to force me to live by your religious ethos.

A woman doesn't want an abortion, she's not required to have one, yet according to your religious ethos, if she wants to have an abortion, the government has the moral right to use its gun under the guidance of divine inspiration, not objective reality, to deny her rights and to force her to give birth. And that's the evil, and its the pathway to a religious dictatorship.

Putting women and doctors in prison for exercising their rights is but a short step to the Dark Ages of Christian Rule. No, not again. No more banned books. No more Inquisition torture chambers. No more Witch hunters. No more Witch trials. No more back-alleys. No more evil.

Yaron Brook: Does Pro-Life violate rights?


And no more massacres:
Yaron Brook Show: NZ Massacre & "White Genocide"

 

But you have zero science to back your disagreement. Therefore your position is based upon your faith system.

So is the government under any obligation to protect children from the actions of their parents? If so then they must enact this moral right by the gun.

 

Reasoned argument doesn't give you the tools of reaching the conclusion on whether a social movement, "Christian Nationalists," is, as you say, Trump's largest voting bloc. Particularly since it seems to fly under the radar with no prominent national leaders, no think tanks, no PAC's no periodicals...no nothing.

What would give you the tools to prove your case would be data.

You've provided none because there is none to make your case, so yes, you actually have been wasting my time and yours. Why though? You can't possibly have believed this nonsense, so what exactly was your goal?

 

Really:

https://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/human-biology-fertilization-through-birth/
Fertilization, zygote, embryo, fetus, birth--a baby is born.

Couldn't be any more objective, could it?

As to the rights of children: Different subject, different argument, same fundamentals--objectivity and reason. The purpose of government is not the procreation of the human species, its to protect the rights of the individual to choose--the actual, not the potential.

 

And before a baby is born a baby is in the womb. Some would believe, regardless of their faith system, that it is just as much a living human five minutes before it is born as it is five minutes after it is born. Your article does not in anyway demonstrate otherwise. It is your religious credo that you want to force science to conform with.

 

And before a tree is climbed and gives shade, it's inside the chemistry of a seed, but its still just a seed and not a tree from which to carve walkers, cribs, and highchairs. That's the logic of biology, no matter what a supernatural deity might ordain or proclaim.

 

Said a believer to a man of reason. Keep the faith, and the prayers, and your government's gun out of my face, and your mysticism out of my bedroom.

 

Show me any scientist that believes human life begins after birth and I'll believe you're a man of reason. Until then I'll have to reason that you're a man of religious dogma.

 

Human life? Are you referring to tonsils cells? Stem cells? The sperm traveling towards the egg? Or any human cell that is alive? A human heart beating? It’s been theorized that any human cell with DNA can be used to grow a human being. Are these cells human life? Do they have politically protected rights?


The concept “human life” is a very broad concept that has many subsets, including cell DNA, the creator of the individual being.

You are misapplying the biological concept, human life to a political concept, the right to life, ie., the right to be more than God’s Chattel—the right to live as a free being—the right to refuse to be a birthing vessel for a religious elite

Furthermore, the argument isn’t about what does or does not constitute human life—under that criteria, I might argue Christians don’t, they’re humanoid at best—the argument is: When does the fetus become a physiological independent being—as a sperm, as a zygote, as embryo, as a fetus, or as a baby when its first breath is taken and mother’s umbilical cord is cut. That is when it gains the basic right to life, to live.

 

It gains the right according to your dogma at that point. Just don't pretend your views are based upon anything more than your belief system. Cutting the cord doesn't magically transform the baby into something it wasn't before you cut that cord. It is still dependent on others for its survival.

 

If you can’t tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, the fault lies in your mysticism, not in my objectivity.

You see, I don’t believe 2+2 = 4, I know it, logically and objectivity, in the the same way I know lift minus drag = flight, not because I believe it, but because it is so. That’s reality. That’s objectivity. That’s reason.

And yes, cutting that umbilical cord makes all the difference in the world—the existence of the fetus is no longer dependent upon the mother’s physiology, it now has its own physiology and has become a baby.


See? Logic, the art of non-contradictory identification. And unlike mysticism, it doesn’t require a omnipotent magical deity, just a mind that can see and reason.

 

Umm a fetus is a baby. Cutting the umbilical cord doesn't magically make it a baby. That's mysticism not science.