@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I think you're fighting a losing battle here Okie. I know what you're suggesting, but our more liberal friends will never accept or even allow a discussion of it. I think some probably even mean well, but they seem to be unable to focus on or grasp a principle and discuss that at face value. They seem incapable of or at least unwilling to consider any form of abstract thought.
They will continue to insist on discussing vague historical principles apart from the concept or bring in unrelated interpretations or obfusicate with illustrations intended to negate any concept that they can't understand or that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions.
I find the subject you've introduced here interesting and instructive. But I also think it is sufficiently complicated in scope and concept that you are unlikely to find enough people here who understand it or want to understand it enough to discuss it at face value. The sheer complexity of it provides too many directions for the discussion to take.
Wow. Amazing how only Okie and a few others here are capable of understanding abstract ideas or principles at all. The rest of us are stuck in mundane things like facts and historical record.
If only we could liberate our minds, to understand points and concepts which are
not supported by facts and history, then we could get somewhere! Somewhere, like, revising history to paint your political opponent's philosophy as the most repressive and destructive force known to mankind in the last hundred years - and, to square the circle, we would then liberate our minds to the point where we actually believed
the bullshit we're slinging!
I could change my name to Cyclo Goldberg, write a book, and live off of Wingnut welfare for the rest of my life. Actually, it doesn't sound all that bad...
Cycloptichorn