US Politics: Bike tricks

[cerebus]

Private charity is the name of the game for Christianity.
Tell you what. Abolish all welfare and make it unconstitutional in the US and you can have open borders.

Ah so Christian values are privately held beliefs that shouldn't be imposed on society as a whole?

 

[konfab]

Ah so Christian values are privately held beliefs that shouldn't be imposed on society as a whole?

Well they should be.

You have non-Christian values like individual rights which, even though they are derived from Christian values, have to be imposed on everyone for society to function. Right to life, liberty and property.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Well they should be.

You have non-Christian values like individual rights which, even though they are derived from Christian values, have to be imposed on everyone for society to function. Right to life, liberty and property.

Those values have been with humanity since humanity began. They can be found in almost every culture and civilization throughout time. Christianity plagiarized them wholely and so did every other religion and culture, because it is universal.

Claiming these concepts were are "Christian" is ridiculous. Just don't.

 

[Maurice Kitching]

Maybe he should fly some of those addicts and criminals to Florida.

Both sides have been doing this since the late 1800's. Heard of Greyhound therapy? Named late 50's, but going on since depression years. That's how Washington state and California ended up with the numbers they have in the first place.

 

[cerebus]

Those values have been with humanity since humanity began. They can be found in almost every culture and civilization throughout time. Christianity plagiarized them wholely and so did every other religion and culture, because it is universal.

Claiming these concepts were are "Christian" is ridiculous. Just don't.

It's all just based on what's convenient. Charity? That's a private value, don't dare impose it on society. Right to life for a foetus? That's universal, because...reasons. It's hypocritical balderdash.

 

[Kieppie]

While the illegals are enjoying their paid for vacation..

Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election

Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 electio…

nypost.com

Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.

“It was done outside the legal process and without probable cause,” alleged one of the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Facebook provides the FBI with private conversations which are protected by the First Amendment without any subpoena.”

Abolish the weaponised FBI

 

[Kieppie]

Those values have been with humanity since humanity began. They can be found in almost every culture and civilization throughout time. Christianity plagiarized them wholely and so did every other religion and culture, because it is universal.

Claiming these concepts were are "Christian" is ridiculous. Just don't.

You're conflating natural rights with human rights. Also no, in the past any "rights" you may have had was at the mercy of the one ruling over you. Basically might makes right.

A short article about the roots of Human Rights. <linky>

The idea that we should retain our natural or human rights in a political society, which is what most of today’s democratic societies are based on, starts to surface during the 14th century.

This complex history contextualizes the main current international human rights document – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. In some respects, this deep history is a little inconvenient because the U.N. declaration was written in a way that hides the scaffolding it’s based on. And that scaffolding includes this very Western, Christian natural law tradition that incorporates aspects of English common law and the Enlightenment-era declarations.

On what basis do we all have human rights? The U.N. declaration claims it’s because we have this inherent human dignity. And that’s a lot of weight to put on the word “dignity.” Why does our human dignity endow us with these rights? The answer lies in these natural law traditions and declarations, including those of the United States, France and other primarily Western European countries.

But every 18th-century declaration of rights refers to the laws of nature and says that nature is created by God. So there is good reason for the universal declaration to cut those references out. However, then, it’s no longer clear by what authority we all have these inalienable rights.

 

[konfab]

Those values have been with humanity since humanity began. They can be found in almost every culture and civilization throughout time. Christianity plagiarized them wholely and so did every other religion and culture, because it is universal.

Claiming these concepts were are "Christian" is ridiculous. Just don't.

Not really.
Going way off topic here, but it has to do with the fact that Christianity is one of the few (if not the only) religions that explicitly stated that man was made in God's image, and furthermore that God became a mortal man. Thus if you value God, you have to value all people as individuals because every person is made in God's image. There is a touch of the divine in everyone so to speak. The other Abrahamic religions don't have this. In Islam, they view it as heretical that the perfection of God can be defiled by man, and it isn't that much different in Judaism.

When you speak of modern language like "respecting the inherent dignity of every individual", it is a callback to that idea. "Why should people have dignity?" Christianity answers that with: "it is because they are made in God's image".

Not saying that other religions or cultures didn't also find a way to protect the same values, life, liberty and property, but Christianity is pretty unique in getting there from the perspective of individual rights.

 

[konfab]

It's all just based on what's convenient. Charity? That's a private value, don't dare impose it on society. Right to life for a foetus? That's universal, because...reasons. It's hypocritical balderdash.

Charity is the voluntary gift of goods or services to those of less fortunate a station. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give the beggar some alms, you are not being charitable.

If you want to talk about universal values, you can say that stealing from someone, that is taking their property without their consent, is wrong. Which is why taxation is theft, even if you use those taxes to dish out some lovely welfare. So I don't know where the hypocrisy is in this aspect.

You want to talk about hypocrisy, it is saying the right to life only begins when it is convenient for the mother. Or when you have supposedly Christian people advocating for the death penalty, or prolonged international conflict.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Charity is the voluntary gift of goods or services to those of less fortunate a station. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give the beggar some alms, you are not being charitable.

If you want to talk about universal values, you can say that stealing from someone, that is taking their property without their consent, is wrong. Which is why taxation is theft, even if you use those taxes to dish out some lovely welfare. So I don't know where the hypocrisy is in this aspect.

You want to talk about hypocrisy, it is saying the right to life only begins when it is convenient for the mother. Or when you have supposedly Christian people advocating for the death penalty, or prolonged international conflict.

By your own logic, an individual or business that benefits from the nature, structure, infrastructure and other positive externalities of a country and civilized society without contributing to those structures is also theft. So they should pay. Lovely circular arguement you have there.

If you want to be free of oppression you welcome to move to Somalia or Sudan or some place similar and go it on your own. But you don't... hmmm.

Ultimately you are arguing FOR the Tragedy of the Commons, as though humanity has learned nothing these last few thousand years.

Charity is just a way to keep the oppressed oppressed as it does nothing to fix the route cause of why charity is needed in the first place. It is also incredibly unreliable and economically inefficient as possible.

 

[Howdy]

The amount of mental gymnastics Tucker is capable of is astounding.

Mental gymnastics?

But ideology is so sexy from a distance in the safety of your own secure remote sanctuary. Just as long as it does not affect you, you can impose it on people, destroying their sanctuaries.

Actually he's just repeating libtard messaging, joking about it aimed right back at libtards. I'm glad you finally see the mental gymnastics.

 

[konfab]

By your own logic, an individual or business that benefits from the nature, structure, infrastructure and other positive externalities of a country and civilized society without contributing to those structures is also theft. So they should pay. Lovely circular arguement you have there.

You know it is entirely possible for people to build things for their community and share them with members outside said community. To use your logic, I can go and build a water fountain outside your house, and since you are now benefitting from the water fountain, I can make you pay taxes to me.

I can even give you a modern example of it people building stuff for others to benefit from, which are bathroom facilities at filling stations on national roads. You would have to look carefully to find one that charges you for going to the bathroom. But according to your dumb socialist economics point of view, that cannot exist.

If you want to be free of oppression you welcome to move to Somalia or Sudan or some place similar and go it on your own. But you don't... hmmm.

Such an Islamophobe. Why are those countries horrible places to live?

Ultimately you are arguing FOR the Tragedy of the Commons, as though humanity has learned nothing these last few thousand years.

Public property that isn't owned by anyone is the tragedy of the commons. Go ahead and see how people look after public property vs private property.

Charity is just a way to keep the oppressed oppressed as it does nothing to fix the route cause of why charity is needed in the first place. It is also incredibly unreliable and economically inefficient as possible.

Private charity is highly effective because it can be picky who it helps. Who do you think would spend R1m better to help the poor? The Gift of the Givers or the South African government. If the Gift of the Givers stops spending money correctly, their donors will find someone else to give money to. When the South African government spends money incorrectly, they get their guns out and force everyone to pay more. There is no direct feedback mechanism to stop the misspending of government money.

This is why during the KZN floods, the SA state with all the taxpayer money it has was nowhere, but a private charity was there.

Take the tools who burned the jojo tanks that Gift of the Givers provided the community:
https://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-an...4-months-e351b1a8-cefc-44a0-b1ed-bf3349487799

Do you think they would spend any more money on those people who couldn't be bothered to be gracious about the help they receive.

 

[quovadis]

Mental gymnastics?

But ideology is so sexy from a distance in the safety of your own secure remote sanctuary. Just as long as it does not affect you, you can impose it on people, destroying their sanctuaries.

Actually he's just repeating libtard messaging, joking about it aimed right back at libtards. I'm glad you finally see the mental gymnastics.

Drinking the koolaid I see

 

[Howdy]

Drinking the koolaid I see

I drink nobody's koolaid, but some certainly did

 

[quovadis]

I drink nobody's koolaid, but some certainly did

Curious to know. Which presidents deported the most let’s say in the past 2 decades?

 

[Kieppie]

Curious to know. Which presidents deported the most let’s say in the past 2 decades?

Unfortunately it wasn't Trump. One of the top 3 is also ironically the most overrated president in US history.
That said, deporting illegals is actually a good thing, preventing them from entering is even better.

 

[Kieppie]

It's called Martha's Vineyard because of all the whines

 

[Temujin]

It's called Martha's Vineyard because of all the whines

#Istandwithmarthasvineyard

 

[quovadis]

Unfortunately it wasn't Trump. One of the top 3 is also ironically the most overrated president in US history.
That said, deporting illegals is actually a good thing, preventing them from entering is even better.

Well considering the narrative is that the southern border is not secure (pre Trump and post Trump) I guess enforcement is an interesting metric.

 

[Kieppie]

Well considering the narrative is that the southern border is not secure (pre Trump and post Trump) I guess enforcement is an interesting metric.

Not really, especially when all attempts to strengthen the border were hamstrung. Prior to this the US didn't have such a big problem with polarised news. Good luck deporting 12 million illegals, like Clinton did, given how unhinged people have become of late.
Recall all those "racist" border wall articles, nauseatingly inaccurate "kids in cages" articles or all the attacks on ICE as an agency. One attempt to expedite the process, for example, was ironically blocked by none other than the now SCOTUS judge KBJ.
The stay in Mexico was one of the best policies they implemented and should enjoy overwhelming bi-partisan support. Sadly we're not living in a rational world.

The Federal government is still hampering attempts by states to secure their borders own. Yet more failure by the Biden administration on top of his campaign messages being one of the root causes of said border problem.
Non-border states are too far removed from the problem to realise its severity. It's a convenient PR opportunity for Democrats in those states. Until the problem arrives at their doorstep so to speak.