Catholicism is a lie

[Burlyman]

Martin Luther was right (sort of). Cat-licks do so many things that are contrary to the Bible and Jesus' gospel, so the true Christianity is some kind of Protestant Christianity but there's a lot of confusion about denominations because of knuckleheads like Martin Luther. XD Thoughts?

[Isaac]

Dude, did you hear that WWE wrestling isn't real? Let's get all the straw man style attacks going so we can punch down and feel smart at the same time.

[Top Gun]

Imagine sitting there typing this out and thinking it's worth hitting Submit for.

[LightWolf]

Imagine sitting there typing this out and not realizing attacking a religion is going to strike a nerve.

[vision]

Thoughts?

Yeah, give it up and get into reality.

[Burlyman]

Imagine, people thinking I'm unaware of what they just said.

Christianity IS reality.

[Isaac]

Imagine if space aliens found the ruins of the long extinct human race and the only surviving document was this thread.

[Burlyman]

Space aliens don't exist.
God wouldn't let the human race become extinct.
Bubbalou was right about you.

[Flatlander]

Imagine if space aliens found the ruins of the long extinct human race and the only surviving document was this thread.

That reminds me of an interesting thought experiment. Imagine if all of human civilization collapsed and over many thousands of years, all prior human knowledge was completely lost and obliterated. Everything from architecture to zoology, including science and religion, completely gone. Then, over time, eventually human civilization grows and returns, gradually re-creating that lost knowledge from scratch - medicine, the scientific method, mathematics, etc., would all be rediscovered and become part of humanity's knowledge base. Sure, some details might be different - pi might be called something else, but it would still have the same numerical value. Could the same be said for religions? Would the exact same religions and their holy books be re-created from nothing? Or instead, would there be completely new and different religions, unrelated from those long-lost religions that have so many adherents today?

[Isaac]

...Sure, some details might be different - pi might be called something else, but it would still have the same numerical value. Could the same be said for religions? Would the exact same religions and their holy books be re-created from nothing? Or instead, would there be completely new and different religions, unrelated from those long-lost religions that have so many adherents today?

There are knowns: Things we know for a fact would return. Solving for those are the easiest part of this question.

Here are some knowns:

1. Children calling their parents: "Mama" "Baba"/"Papa" . These are "the easiest vocalizations for a human to make are open-mouth vowel sounds. Babies can make vowel sounds (cries) from day one." [source]

2. Base 10 math would be dominate because we have 10 fingers. "In the Ali language (Central Africa), for example, "five" and "ten" are respectively moro and mbouna: moro is actually the word for "hand" and mbouna is a contraction of moro ("five") and bouna, meaning "two" (thus "ten"="two hands")." [source] Sexadecimal (base 6) and the inclusion of zero would come into play as accounting and architecture becomes more mathematical.

3. Written language would be born through accounting records. Here are the phases as I understand them (Each phase being about a thousand years apart). Phase 1: Simply draw how many assets are owed in a trade. " " = You owe me three octopus! Phase 2: The pictures can written in an order to convey an idea. " " = Octopus is light! Phase 3: Pictorial writing becomes more refined as the pictures become more of a code, even though they're clearly still recognizable drawings of tangibles. The language might become phonetic at this stage. " " = Octopus is smart! Phase 4: As people need to write more, drawings become simplified and become more phonetic, which can have multiple phases.

4. The calendar might end with the cold season and begin in the spring. We won't know how many months, but it's safe to assume a year could take 365 days to complete. Even the Mayans who had 20 months on their civil calendar was still made up of 365 days. [source]

5. The sun and the stars would probably be the cause of another Jesus-like story in a religion. He may not be named Jesus but there might be a popular religion that's born around the end of the calendar year ( 25th December on our calendar) that's born of a virgin who has 12 disciples that later has a sacrificial death and is resurrection on the third day.

I'm sure there are lots of other knowns, like the fact farming, boats, and animal domestication would come into play, but this post is already very long,

[Burlyman]

Imagine if space aliens found the ruins of the long extinct human race and the only surviving document was this thread.

That reminds me of an interesting thought experiment. Imagine if all of human civilization collapsed and over many thousands of years, all prior human knowledge was completely lost and obliterated. Everything from architecture to zoology, including science and religion, completely gone. Then, over time, eventually human civilization grows and returns, gradually re-creating that lost knowledge from scratch - medicine, the scientific method, mathematics, etc., would all be rediscovered and become part of humanity's knowledge base. Sure, some details might be different - pi might be called something else, but it would still have the same numerical value. Could the same be said for religions? Would the exact same religions and their holy books be re-created from nothing? Or instead, would there be completely new and different religions, unrelated from those long-lost religions that have so many adherents today?

This is what happened during the flood.

[Jeff250]

Clothing seems a given. Government seems inevitable. Would a week be 7 days?

2. Base 10 math would be dominate because we have 10 fingers. "In the Ali language (Central Africa), for example, "five" and "ten" are respectively moro and mbouna: moro is actually the word for "hand" and mbouna is a contraction of moro ("five") and bouna, meaning "two" (thus "ten"="two hands")." [source] Sexadecimal (base 6) and the inclusion of zero would come into play as accounting and architecture becomes more mathematical.

What's interesting is also all of the horrible hacks we've implemented on top of decimal on account of its chief deficiency -- 10 has very few factors. For instance, it isn't divisible by 3 or 4. Seconds and minutes are base 60 simply because of how many factors 60 is divisible by (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.). This allows us to divide an hour into quarters, thirds, fifths, etc. Feet are base 12 for similar reasons. In a future humanity I don't think units would evolve to be the exactly the same as English units because units aren't even the same across cultures currently. Although now that the concept of fractions is so commonplace, we just say use metric, abandon the hacks, make everything base 10, and use fractions if you want to divide by 3 or 4, although time units such as minutes and seconds are an interesting holdout.

[Jeff250]

Martin Luther was right (sort of). Cat-licks do so many things that are contrary to the Bible and Jesus' gospel, so the true Christianity is some kind of Protestant Christianity but there's a lot of confusion about denominations because of knuckleheads like Martin Luther. XD Thoughts?

Trying to determine which mainstream Christian denomination is closest to the New Testament is a skinniest-kid-in-fat-camp kind of question.

[TheWhat]

Haha. There’ll be NO fat shaming but if you want to take a few whacks at the Pope by all means.

I was baptized catholic and I can tell you that they have the WORST funerals - it’s like: cry, cry, cry looking at an embalmed statue. Ok, let’s eat! How about them Vikings? They really need to shore up the O-line if they want to beat them Packers.

I always say: “I love Jesus but his followers are a bunch of freaks.”

[TigerRaptor]

I always say: “I love Jesus but his followers are a bunch of freaks.”

Like the religious anti maskers that clam wearing a mask is apart of a satanic agenda. I've bumped heads with a few of them and the level of stupidity they spew makes Flat Earthers sound like scientists.

[Tunnelcat]

Anti-Maskers are only one type of person. Self-centered, self-serving, conceited, stupid jerks who love their freedom at the expense of other's freedoms and LIVES and don't understand WHY we all need to wear masks until our country is mostly vaccinated. The masks don't protect you from the virus, they're supposed protect others from getting it from YOU. It's no skin off your damn noses to wear one! These people are all about themselves, numero uno, eff everyone else. Plus, there have been 2 unintended positive consequences around wearing masks since we all started doing it. The flu season really never appeared last year and a LOT people's seasonal allergies have been mitigated for the most part.

[Tunnelcat]

Speaking of religions, how about the medical religion. I'd like FlightRN2go's reaction to this website. It stinks of antivaxxer propaganda under the guise of legitimate medical opinion.

https://www.primarydoctor.org/covidvaccine

[Burlyman]

The earth is flat. Sorry about your globe, bro.

I don't think of denominations when I think of real Christianity, I think several of them get it mostly right, and it's more of an individual thing.

Haha. There’ll be NO fat shaming but if you want to take a few whacks at the Pope by all means.

I was baptized catholic and I can tell you that they have the WORST funerals - it’s like: cry, cry, cry looking at an embalmed statue. Ok, let’s eat! How about them Vikings? They really need to shore up the O-line if they want to beat them Packers.

I always say: “I love Jesus but his followers are a bunch of freaks.”

Hey, Jesus loves his followers, and they believe in what he believes in, unless you believe in a different Jesus. :/ See what I mean about Catholics? They have a high turnover rate too

[Kilarin]

unless you believe in a different Jesus. :/ See what I mean about Catholics?

It's the same Jesus. They just believe some different things about Him.
I am very much protestant. But part of being protestant is that I believe salvation is based upon having a saving relationship with Christ.
And I believe that, even though I disagree with them on important points of doctrine, many Catholics have a saving relationship with Christ.

[Jeff250]

[...]

Hey long time no see! How you been?!

[Kilarin]

Busy, Busy, Busy. My wrist won't let me play Descent anymore, and I let work and other things get in the way of keeping up with the Descentbb. Got to thinking about it yesterday, realized I missed it, and came back to see what was going on!

[Jeff250]

Busy, Busy, Busy. My wrist won't let me play Descent anymore, and I let work and other things get in the way of keeping up with the Descentbb. Got to thinking about it yesterday, realized I missed it, and came back to see what was going on!

Yeah aging has been a drag, and to think I'm still somewhat young by most standards. Things have changed a lot around here since you were last active. I do miss our debates... are you still a staunch Libertarian?

[Kilarin]

I do miss our debates... are you still a staunch Libertarian?

I miss the debates as well!

I've never been a very good Libertarian.
Good Libertarians believe we should privatize roads and police. I think that is pure nuts.
I stand by the principle that we are all generally better off when the government just leaves us alone.
BUT, I fully acknowledge there are cases where that just can not be applied. Capitalism, for example.
I'm not a Socialist. I think the economy runs better with as little government intervention as possible
BUT, laissez faire capitalism self destructs. You can't have capitalism without free and open competition. And you can't have free and open competition when huge corporations control all of the means of distribution or production. We have totally destroyed our capitalism by allowing these enormous companies to exist in the first place, and then by declaring them too big to fail and bailing them out when they make stupid mistakes. Its the absolute worst combination of capitalism and socialism.
I'm also not a very good Libertarian when it comes to health care. I still don't count as a Socialist because I think Socialized medicine is a mistake and that it increases the involvement of the government in our lives in an absolutely terrifying way. BUT, I'm a bad Libertarian because I recognize that our current healthcare/insurance system is so absolutely, completely, and utterly broken that we might be better off with Socialized medicine then with the huge pile of stinking fewmets we call a healthcare system now.
Libertarian is probably the closest to my political beliefs, but I don't think the Libertarians will claim me.

[Jeff250]

I'm also not a very good Libertarian when it comes to health care. I still don't count as a Socialist because I think Socialized medicine is a mistake and that it increases the involvement of the government in our lives in an absolutely terrifying way. BUT, I'm a bad Libertarian because I recognize that our current healthcare/insurance system is so absolutely, completely, and utterly broken that we might be better off with Socialized medicine then with the huge pile of stinking fewmets we call a healthcare system now.
Libertarian is probably the closest to my political beliefs, but I don't think the Libertarians will claim me.

I definitely don't identify as Libertarian (I'm unaffiliated with any party), but they have received my vote in a couple of presidential elections for taking strong stances in favor of marijuana legalization (something the Democratic Party only recently supported despite overwhelming support from both conservative and liberal voters) and legalizing gay marriage (something the Supreme Court had to finally fix because our legislators are failures). Plus I just so despise the American two party system.

A few years ago I moved to Canada, and resultingly I now have a little experience with both the USA's and Canada's healthcare systems. I agree with you that the American system is broken. In these sorts of discussions comparing healthcare systems a lot of the same arguments are tossed around, but one of the arguments that deserves more scrutiny is that the American system somehow gives you more freedom, as I don't think that really matches with my experience. Fortunately I always had health insurance living in the USA, because that's the easiest way to not have access to healthcare, by not being able to afford it. But another way my access was constricted was by the provider networks. Not only did they limit which doctors I could see, they added another layer of friction, confusion, and anxiety onto a process that already has enough of all three. I understand what someone means when they say that you have freedom in the American system, but that freedom exists only in a very academic sense. Conversely, in Canada (or, at least, Ontario), my experience has been different. I can see any doctor I want, for free (although for a specialist, I would still need a referral).

The Canadian system has some downsides as well of course. Without having the data, I suspect that the wait times are longer in Canada for certain health services, especially outside of large cities (although I believe that access to healthcare is becoming increasingly unavailable outside of American urban areas as well). Wait times for MRIs are something that Canadians like to complain about, for instance. However, I think that there is a certain cognitive bias at work too. A close family member in the USA was in line for a *year* to see a rheumatologist. If that had been in Canada, that would be considered an indictment against socialized medicine. But if the wait time is long in the USA, it isn't considered an indictment against that system. It's just the way things are.

The Canadian system has its own gatekeeping, and, unlike, the UK's NHS, the Canadian system is a one-tier system, meaning that for services provided by the system you can only get them from the system (without going to another country). The Canadian system also suffers, although through no fault of its own, from the country's smaller population -- fewer people means fewer experts.

I might not have gotten this all right -- this is just from my own casual observation and personal experience -- but I do think that the Canadian system is, as a whole, better than the American one. I think that one of the challenges in overhauling systems is that, even if the system you're switching to is on average an improvement, there will still be people who end up losing as a result of that change. Obama made his now infamous promise concerning Obamacare, that if you like your insurance plan you will get to keep it. What of course he should have promised is that nothing in Obamacare compels insurance companies to drop you from your plan, but of course the insurance companies, with or without Obamacare, can drop you whenever they want. Either way, some people did end up losing their plans as a result of Obamacare, even if it improved access to healthcare as a whole.

I asked a close family member why she doesn't like Obamacare, and her answer surprised me. She told me that, as a result of Obamacare being passed, her favorite doctor was making less money and as a result retired early. At first it seemed so silly to me, because here was this doctor who was so materialistic, practicing healthcare for the money, not to heal people, and so he retires early when he can't draw as high of a paycheck as he used to. But in the end it doesn't matter, because he was someone's favorite doctor, and as a result of Obamacare being passed, someone lost their favorite doctor, which is an unfavorable outcome.

If we want to overhaul the American system again, whether it is to make it more like the Canadian one or that of some other system, I think we need to spend more time making sure that people don't fall through the cracks. If you're the one who loses your favorite plan or your favorite doctor or something else, it's platitudinous to be assured that at least the system as a whole has improved, even if it has, if you've personally lost. I think that that's the challenge, making sure that no one falls through the cracks and to minimize the number of people who end up losing as a result of any change.

So as you can imagine, I don't see eye-to-eye with the Libertarians on healthcare either, but that's not even why I couldn't vote for them in 2020. The reason why I couldn't vote for them in 2020 was because I was so disgusted by their policy on mask wearing, which was to let businesses choose whether their customers should wear masks and then let the free market decide which businesses are right (whatever that means). Nevermind the fact that, according to Libertarian orthodoxy (or so I thought), curtailing transmissible disease is a legitimate role of government, let's for the sake of argument grant them that they should have the right to not wear masks. I still don't care. Even if you have that right, why not at minor inconvenience to yourself wear something to protect the health and lives of your family, friends, colleagues, and compatriots? Why is the right not to do that so important and so worth dwelling on and so worth obsessing over? What is wrong with their hearts?

[vision]

Thanks for that insightful read. I share a lot of the same opinions on Libertarianism, health care, and their strange response to the pandemic.

[Krom]

I think I can cite an example of how American healthcare is broken, and it has practically nothing to do with doctors or nurses:

So a friend of mine works in the IT department for a hospital system, there was a project to upgrade a bunch of the computers mechanical hard disks to solid state drives. So they go through their approval process and get a quote from their contracted vendor to obtain 12 SSDs.
The vendor sends them 12 off the shelf Western Digital Blue SATA SSDs in Western Digital OEM packaging: $64.99 on Amazon, $64.00 on Newegg.

The cost was $6000 for the 12 drives, or $500 per drive. The justification was because it included "support for migration to the drives" which means my friend could have called them for "support" as he was migrating the computers to the drives himself (an incredibly simple process which took approximately 10 minutes per computer and had no problems). What makes it even worse is my friend has spoken with their "support" before and they were so incompetent it wasn't even funny. They were obviously only working there because of personal connections and an absence of consequences for failure (thanks to vendor lock-in contracts, which also only exist because of personal connections with someone higher up at the hospital).

Once you investigate and look deeper than the doctors and nurses you will find the system is so incredibly corrupt it will make you lose faith in humanity.

[Vander]

Libertarians can be pretty weird.

[Tunnelcat]

I think I can cite an example of how American healthcare is broken, and it has practically nothing to do with doctors or nurses:

So a friend of mine works in the IT department for a hospital system, there was a project to upgrade a bunch of the computers mechanical hard disks to solid state drives. So they go through their approval process and get a quote from their contracted vendor to obtain 12 SSDs.
The vendor sends them 12 off the shelf Western Digital Blue SATA SSDs in Western Digital OEM packaging: $64.99 on Amazon, $64.00 on Newegg.

The cost was $6000 for the 12 drives, or $500 per drive. The justification was because it included "support for migration to the drives" which means my friend could have called them for "support" as he was migrating the computers to the drives himself (an incredibly simple process which took approximately 10 minutes per computer and had no problems). What makes it even worse is my friend has spoken with their "support" before and they were so incompetent it wasn't even funny. They were obviously only working there because of personal connections and an absence of consequences for failure (thanks to vendor lock-in contracts, which also only exist because of personal connections with someone higher up at the hospital).

Once you investigate and look deeper than the doctors and nurses you will find the system is so incredibly corrupt it will make you lose faith in humanity.

Along those lines, nearly every empty large commercial building vacated by some business or another in the last decade has been taken over by companies dealing with health and health insurance in my town. I mean, CH2M Hill owned a large building not too far from my home. When they moved their operations to Colorado, guess who took over that entire large building? Samaritan Health. The WHOLE damn building, a lot of it dealing with just insurance! Guess who's moving into many of the new commercial buildings? Businesses dealing with health care or health care providers. Who's pretty much subsidizing the national TV news through advertising? Pharmaceutical Companies and their expensive drugs. Our healthcare system is like a giant metastasizing wallet tumor that people seem too afraid to destroy for some unknown reason. I just went on Medicare. My monthly premiums went from $902 a month to $273 a month and I got more coverage options in the switch. Something is definitely wrong here.

Hey Jeff250, you and Kilarin (nice to hear from you again) veered off into healthcare, so you get to split this topic.

[Kilarin]

Libertarians can be pretty weird.

Seriously. Like I said, I STILL stand by the idea that the less the government interferes in our lives, the better off we all are. The Libertarians embrace that principle better than any of the other parties. But then they take it to absolutely insane and wacko extremes.
Can you IMAGINE the nightmare that privatized roads would be?
A rich White Supremacists buys up all the roads that lead into a neighborhood, city, county, or even a state, and then refuses to let anyone with dark colored skin drive into their area.
Similarly, Walmart could buy up all the major roads into a state, then just refuse to allow Target, Kroger, Costco, or any other competitors trucks to come through with product. Once they've driven out all the competition, they could then drive up prices to whatever they want. The locals would not have any other options for where to buy.
A bunch of radical Evangelicals don't like the fact that there is a Mosque in town? Take up an offering and buy the road that the Mosque is on, then refuse to let anyone through on Friday.
Don't want people in a certain district to be able to vote? Get control of the roads they would have to drive on to get to a polling place...
The list could go on and on and NONE of it is anything but pure nightmare material.

I don't like government, and I think it needs to be kept as small as possible. But the only thing worse than government, is no government. There are some things a government must control and protect if you are going to have true freedom in a society.

Hey Jeff250, you and Kilarin (nice to hear from you again) veered off into healthcare, so you get to split this topic.

Guilty as charged. I've always found it easy to wander off topic. And nice to be back!

. The reason why I couldn't vote for them in 2020 was because I was so disgusted by their policy on mask wearing, which was to let businesses choose whether their customers should wear masks and then let the free market decide which businesses are right (whatever that means). Nevermind the fact that, according to Libertarian orthodoxy (or so I thought), curtailing transmissible disease is a legitimate role of government, let's for the sake of argument grant them that they should have the right to not wear masks. I still don't care. Even if you have that right, why not at minor inconvenience to yourself wear something to protect the health and lives of your family, friends, colleagues, and compatriots? Why is the right not to do that so important and so worth dwelling on and so worth obsessing over? What is wrong with their hearts?

I completely agree. Especially when so much of the violent anti-mask and anti-social distancing rhetoric was coming from Christians.
We Christians have been telling people that we love them, we care about them, and we want to help them.
Along comes the pandemic, and all we had to do to help, to SAVE LIVES, was wear a mask and social distance. And that was just too much to do. I... Have no words. An enormous amount of damage has been done to the cause of Christ in the last few years, but especially in 2020.

I voted Democrat for the first time in my life this election. I disagree with President Biden on just about every single political issue. But the importance of removing that mad man from office was just more important than any of that.

After Jan 6th, really after the republican party refused to impeach or even stop supporting Trump after Jan 6th, I have become a single issue voter. I will vote for whomever has the best chance of keeping any Republican out of office. If that is a Democrat, I'll vote for them. If it's a communist, I'll vote for them. The Republicans have ceased to be a political party and have become instead a dangerous, traitorous, cult that is an existential threat to the United States. Actually, to the world. Virtually any alternative is better.

Sorry if I sound a bit extreme, but I FEEL extreme. I feel betrayed by the very people who I thought were at least closer to my own points of view.

[vision]

Seriously. Like I said, I STILL stand by the idea that the less the government interferes in our lives, the better off we all are. The Libertarians embrace that principle better than any of the other parties. But then they take it to absolutely insane and wacko extremes.
...
I voted Democrat for the first time in my life this election. I disagree with President Biden on just about every single political issue. But the importance of removing that mad man from office was just more important than any of that.

After Jan 6th, really after the republican party refused to impeach or even stop supporting Trump after Jan 6th, I have become a single issue voter. I will vote for whomever has the best chance of keeping any Republican out of office. If that is a Democrat, I'll vote for them. If it's a communist, I'll vote for them. The Republicans have ceased to be a political party and have become instead a dangerous, traitorous, cult that is an existential threat to the United States. Actually, to the world. Virtually any alternative is better.

Wow, I feel exactly the same. 2020 was the first time I voted Democrat for president and I'll probably vote against Republicans for the rest of my life, which is such a weird feeling because I grew up in a conservative Catholic, "Republican" environment and was a registered Republican up until 2013. So much damage has been done. Now whenever answer questions about my political view I'm stuck with this long-winded response that starts with "I lean Libertarian, but..."

[Krom]

Libertarians can be pretty weird.

Seriously. Like I said, I STILL stand by the idea that the less the government interferes in our lives, the better off we all are. The Libertarians embrace that principle better than any of the other parties. But then they take it to absolutely insane and wacko extremes.
Can you IMAGINE the nightmare that privatized roads would be?
A rich White Supremacists buys up all the roads that lead into a neighborhood, city, county, or even a state, and then refuses to let anyone with dark colored skin drive into their area.
Similarly, Walmart could buy up all the major roads into a state, then just refuse to allow Target, Kroger, Costco, or any other competitors trucks to come through with product. Once they've driven out all the competition, they could then drive up prices to whatever they want. The locals would not have any other options for where to buy.
A bunch of radical Evangelicals don't like the fact that there is a Mosque in town? Take up an offering and buy the road that the Mosque is on, then refuse to let anyone through on Friday.
Don't want people in a certain district to be able to vote? Get control of the roads they would have to drive on to get to a polling place...
The list could go on and on and NONE of it is anything but pure nightmare material.

I don't like government, and I think it needs to be kept as small as possible. But the only thing worse than government, is no government. There are some things a government must control and protect if you are going to have true freedom in a society.

You know the funny thing about this whole hypothetical privatized roads idea? That is more or less exactly how cable TV works and how cable and phone companies want to make the internet work. This is what Ajit Pai spent most of his term as the chairman of the FCC paving the way for. This exact scenario actually exists in the US today and many on both sides of congress regularly try to tell us it is a good thing (because cable and phone companies write huge checks).

As for voting for one party or the other, I've voted for both parties in the past and have split my ticket both ways in the past before too. But I currently cannot in good conscience vote for basically any conservative candidate, it isn't just because of their horrible pandemic responses, it is because a huge portion of their policies are actively malicious and destructive to society, culture, government, and basically everything we stand for. Of course you would think it is always better to keep government out of our lives, you've been voting republican/conservative for most of your life because they share your beliefs, so when they are elected they diligently make the government every bit as terrible as they always claimed it was. The government involvement in your life being horrible is a direct result of putting people in charge of it who have been deliberately making it horrible over and over and over again.

[Kilarin]

You know the funny thing about this whole hypothetical privatized roads idea? That is more or less exactly how cable TV works and how cable and phone companies want to make the internet work. This is what Ajit Pai spent most of his term as the chairman of the FCC paving the way for. This exact scenario actually exists in the US today and many on both sides of congress regularly try to tell us it is a good thing (because cable and phone companies write huge checks).

I agree with you 100%. "Citizens United" was one of the worst things to ever happen to our government.

Of course you would think it is always better to keep government out of our lives, you've been voting republican/conservative for most of your life because they share your beliefs, so when they are elected they diligently make the government every bit as terrible as they always claimed it was. The government involvement in your life being horrible is a direct result of putting people in charge of it who have been deliberately making it horrible over and over and over again.

I don't disagree with you about the Republicans making the government horrible. I just think the Democrats have been doing the same thing.

I don't think I've every really voted "conservative"

The only time I ever came even close to voting Republican was when Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican. (Ron Paul's response to the pandemic has cured me of any interest in ever supporting him again)
I feel VERY strongly about Religious Liberty. And when I say Religious Liberty, I don't mean what the typical modern Evangelical means. They interpret "Religious Liberty" as having their own religion supported by the government. Kinda exactly the opposite of what it means. I believe that just so long as your religion does not infringe on the rights of any others, the government should stay out of religion.
Since the topic is Catholics, I'm a Protestant. Very Protestant. I believe praying to images and Saints is idolatry. A sin. One of the big 10. So this is very important to me. And yet, I would be willing to put my life on the line fighting for the rights of a Catholic to pray to images and Saints as they believe is right. The only way to defend MY right to believe and behave as I think right, is to ACTIVELY defend the rights of those I disagree with to do the same.

It really is possible to believe that government should be kept small, and believe that that ALSO means government should not be handing out corporate welfare or attempting to legislate religion or abusing the rights of minorities. You can believe government should be kept as small as possible, and believe there are MANY important functions (like public roads) that fit within "as possible"

The problem with the government is they don't do anything really well, and ALL government assistance comes with a price. Again, that doesn't mean there aren't necessary forms of government assistance. But, for example, look at the way the government has handled the Native American population. Native Americans living on reservations are some of the poorest people in our country. And there is a whole branch of government that works to KEEP them that way, because if the Native American's weren't poor anymore, then all of those government officials wouldn't have jobs.

Social welfare isn't inherently bad. Sometimes welfare can really help people. But the government LIKES having people dependent upon it. And when we are working on programs to "feed the children", we need to keep that in mind. Otherwise, the government will do what it naturally does, keep growing, keep grabbing more power, and making certain the people dependent upon it STAY dependent upon it.

So, if I sat down and discussed things with conservatives. There are a LOT of things I would agree with them upon. I will probably come closer to agreeing with the average conservative than the average liberal on issues of the importance of religion, what is moral and what is immoral behavior, etc. I would agree with the conservatives that we must be careful with spending the government money on social welfare projects. But I would DISAGREE with them, strongly, about whether the government should be spending money on corporate welfare. And I would disagree with them, again STRONGLY, about legislating religion, immigration, and, perhaps saddest of all, race. And I've disagreed with them on all these topics since I was in my 20's. And that was a long time ago.

[Vander]

I don't like government, and I think it needs to be kept as small as possible. But the only thing worse than government, is no government. There are some things a government must control and protect if you are going to have true freedom in a society.

I think government should be however big it needs to be to provide the services we decide it makes sense for it to provide.

In my experience, libertarianism is fine as a set of principles to use as a point of reference when examining solutions to a problem, but as an over-arching ideology distilled and put into governing practice, it's mostly a scam to transfer power from the public to the private. It's the power that "interferes in our lives," not necessarily who holds it. With public power, you at least have some nominal say in the power.

[Jeff250]

I voted Democrat for the first time in my life this election. I disagree with President Biden on just about every single political issue. But the importance of removing that mad man from office was just more important than any of that.

After Jan 6th, really after the republican party refused to impeach or even stop supporting Trump after Jan 6th, I have become a single issue voter. I will vote for whomever has the best chance of keeping any Republican out of office. If that is a Democrat, I'll vote for them. If it's a communist, I'll vote for them. The Republicans have ceased to be a political party and have become instead a dangerous, traitorous, cult that is an existential threat to the United States. Actually, to the world. Virtually any alternative is better.

Sorry if I sound a bit extreme, but I FEEL extreme. I feel betrayed by the very people who I thought were at least closer to my own points of view.

You call this approach "single issue voting", but I don't think that that's the potentially problematic part. If there's a value that you hold dearly, such as that leaders should not foment insurrection, then it seems fine to not vote for anyone who might support or facilitate insurrection. The problematic part to me seems that you are willing to vote for Democrats or Communists, even if there are other candidates that better represent your values, including your values concerning insurrection, if those Democrats or Communists are polling better. Thus in your approach to voting you are also engaging in strategic voting.

We've debated the value of strategic voting before here. I think the question reduces to an ancient inquiry, one of whether (or when do) the ends justify the means. Barring some resolution to that question, we will likely never reach consensus on the value of strategic voting.

Some things do strike me as problematic about strategic voting though. Many criticize Trump supporters for supporting him no matter what he says or does. By strategically voting, by voting for whichever non-Republican candidate is polling the highest, no matter who they are, you are effectively doing the same thing, thus, in some capacity, becoming that which you despise.

If you support strategic voting, would you also support crossover voting and party raiding? In other words, maybe we should all register as Republicans and vote in their primaries, since that will give us twice the opportunities to vote against insurrectionists?

In general I think that voting and consequentialism make for strange bedfellows. Voting itself can be hardly justified under consequentialism, as any one vote is astronomically unlikely to ever make a difference in a large election, and so one could better maximize consequences by giving a small amount of change to charity on that Tuesday instead of showing up to the polls. Voting is better justified from first principles, as an obligation performed by democratic citizens out of a sense of duty. Who you vote for is no different. You vote for the best candidate because of your democratic obligation, not because of the infinitesimally small chance voting for someone will change anything.

Finally, if you vote your conscience, you can always find immediate contentment. If you strategically vote, you'll win some and you'll lose some. However, by always voting for the best candidate and not tying the value of your vote to its consequences, you will always find satisfaction in doing the right thing even if your vote didn't change the outcome of the election.

[Kilarin]

you are also engaging in strategic voting.

I don't really disagree.
My entire voting life, I have always argued that it was more important to vote for the party that actually comes closer to your own point of view than a "compromise" candidate. When people who are really Libertarians vote for Republicans, just because they are afraid of the Democrats. And when people who are really Socialists are Green Party for Democrat, just because they are afraid of the Republicans. The end result is that the main two parties KNOW that they already have those peoples votes, and so they can really ignore their wishes and make policies that will pull in the people who they think are undecided. Voting "strategically" often results in the party moving further AWAY from your own points of view.

But, unless it changes drastically (and unexpectedly), the Republican party has becomes such a huge threat that I'm not certain ANYTHING else is as important as keeping them out of power. It's not a matter of dealing with a political party that I disagree with. Those have been in power my entire life. It's a matter of dealing with a dangerous cult of insurrectionists.

I mostly agree with you. Most of my life I would have been loudly cheering "Huzzah!" for your points. But this... It's different from any "political" situation I've ever dealt with in my life. And it really seems like the absolute top priority has to be trying to keep that dangerous cult, and the people who are using and co-operating with that cult, out of power as much as possible.

[vision]

We've debated the value of strategic voting before here.

These are good points, but I also feel like we are in exceptional circumstances. I'm happy to vote for Republicans again once some kind of party reform is evident. Heck, I was rooting for John Kasich in 2016. When the Republican Party stops referring to Mitt Romney as a RINO, we'll talk.

[Jeff250]

We've debated the value of strategic voting before here.

These are good points, but I also feel like we are in exceptional circumstances. I'm happy to vote for Republicans again once some kind of party reform is evident. Heck, I was rooting for John Kasich in 2016. When the Republican Party stops referring to Mitt Romney as a RINO, we'll talk.

I was rooting for Kasich too!

Just to clarify my point, I'm not suggesting anyone vote for Republicans, especially if they are still defending insurrection and you are opposed to it (hopefully everyone here is), because in that case Republicans would be far from the best at representing your values. My nudge is more to vote for parties who may better represent your values than whichever party is currently polling the best against the Republicans.

[Vander]

We've debated the value of strategic voting before here. I think the question reduces to an ancient inquiry, one of whether (or when do) the ends justify the means. Barring some resolution to that question, we will likely never reach consensus on the value of strategic voting.

Some things do strike me as problematic about strategic voting though. Many criticize Trump supporters for supporting him no matter what he says or does. By strategically voting, by voting for whichever non-Republican candidate is polling the highest, no matter who they are, you are effectively doing the same thing, thus, in some capacity, becoming that which you despise.

The problem I have with this view is that it asserts that voting *for* something is always morally superior to voting *against* something. I don't think they're morally all that different. Is Yes morally superior to No? I mean, is "no, not that. literally anything else but that" somehow an immoral choice in and of itself? Or do you need to include the moral relevance of the subject before judging?

Finding contentment in voting your conscience is an outcome. Getting a more accurate representation of voter will by everyone voting their conscience is an outcome. Fascism is an outcome.

[Jeff250]

The problem I have with this view is that it asserts that voting *for* something is always morally superior to voting *against* something. I don't think they're morally all that different. Is Yes morally superior to No? I mean, is "no, not that. literally anything else but that" somehow an immoral choice in and of itself? Or do you need to include the moral relevance of the subject before judging?

I believe that on first principles we have a democratic duty to vote for the best candidate. It's true that I'm somewhat "asserting" this, but no more than any ethical argument will eventually reduce to some assertion. However, I'm hoping to appeal to your intuition and that you at least recognize this as a commonly held norm, even if you don't personally believe in it or even if you believe that there are exceptions to it. It's what they probably taught you in school, for instance.

As for your proposal, I don't know what you exactly mean by "voting *against* something" and "literally anything else but that." If I take this literally, then by voting for the candidate that best represents you, you won't be voting for the one that you want to vote against. I suspect this isn't what you mean though and that you mean something like voting for "whichever other candidate is polling the highest."

You haven't made any argument for your position yet, but arguments that I typically see advocating for this position appeal to consequentialism, and in my previous post I made a case for why such consequentialist arguments in this context are self-defeating and for how the survival of the institution of voting itself depends on voters acting out of a sense of duty as opposed to their actions' consequences.

[Krom]

The argument that voting for the candidate that most aligns with your values would normally be a good idea, if one of the major parties guaranteed to get more votes than whatever candidate you actually align closest to was not currently being taken over by a fascist death cult.

In 2016 a lot of people didn't like Trump, also a lot of people didn't like Hillary, so a bunch of them either didn't vote at all or voted for a third party candidate and as a result the objectively worst candidate won the office without even taking the popular vote. But it was especially bad because a lot of the reasons people didn't like Hillary were complete fabrications made up by her opposition. And they haven't stopped, a significant portion of them continue to make up bull★■◆● arguments like insisting Biden/Harris are puppets being controlled by Hillary.