Where will inflation stop?

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

I see a lot of hostility in this place in general. Could it be the Satanists are winning?

Well, I guess this proved to be true:

Or is it easier to just dismiss them based on the word "Satan" and their choice of typeface?

Hostility would violate the Satanists' first Tenet:

I

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

However:

VI

People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

So if you think I am being hostile toward you, I apologize.

I will continue to point out bullE36 M3 when I read it.  But I will try to do so in a less hostile manner.

I am sure there are people out there who are concerned about how their tax money is spent who don't like to see other people starve. But Satanists?

All in a thread about supply chain problems?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Imaginary friend are just that, imaginary. If you really wanna bring up religion and hostilities, let's look at all the pedophiles the Christian church protects, Mussolini gifting Vatican City to the pope to look the other way during the holocaust, and all the wars and crusades funded by the church. Or my personal favorite, condoms are anti religious, so you places full of people and AIDS without food or water should keep procreation going to continue the chain of suffering because it's what "God would want". 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

I am sure there are people out there who are concerned about how their tax money is spent who don't like to see other people starve. But Satanists?

All in a thread about supply chain problems?

I respectfully submit that you were the person who introduced the topic of religion (and specifically Satanists) to this thread:
 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Sounds more like a religious argument to me than a legal argument or a rabbit hole argument.

[...]

If you are an atheist or a satanist [...]

Page 47.

Why Satanist and not atheist?

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Why Satanist and not atheist?

Because atheists tend to have a wider variety of personal philosophies and morals.  I have demonstrated my own many times on this forum, and others have demonstrated theirs.  But there is no single "official" atheist creed that covers similar territory to what you were describing.

However, there is at least one organized Satanic Temple whose tenets parallel the Christian creed - that you brought up, remember - in many ways.  Also, your implications about Satanists were dead wrong, and I felt that needed to be pointed out.

I have no idea why you introduced the topic of religion in the first place if you were going to complain about people continuing that part of the discussion.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Those aren't my words. That is a part of a quote I took from a religious website. That does seem accurate though. I have heard those words before or similar ones many times from people who claim to be conservative. I have heard things like this on this very forum.

When you quote something without context, as a statement- those become your words. And I challenge you to find one person- one- on this forum that is okay with anyone dying from lack of insulin or starving to death. I've never met a single person that thought like that. I'm sure if you scoured the internet you would find some whack job that thinks that way, but they would be the extreme minority, like multiple decimal points out. The problem is people try to redefine terms to fit their narrative. $40 a month becomes a death sentence rather than you have $40 less to spend on other stuff. A 200lb. kid is starving because you changed the definition of food. And I get it, it can sound very convincing, absent of fact. But it doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. So what do they do? They label scrutiny bad. You are a bad person if you look behind the curtain, nothing to see here. People are dying and children are starving, how can you be for people dying and children starving!?!

I could probably find words like it in many conservative publications and I could quote them for you here. I own books by conservatives that say the same thing. But it's midnight and I am too tired.

I'm not really sure that you even know what a conservative is. You mislabeled a few of us as Libertarian. Heck, you keep bringing up Ayn Rand, who was staunchly anti-Libertarian. You portray her as some sort of a Libertarian/conservative leader, when she really just advocated some of her own, unique views. She called herself an Objectivist. I've never even heard that term before until I looked it up. Sure there is some crossover, but there is a lot of crossover between conservatives and liberals. We just don't focus on what we already agree on. What you are doing would be like calling all liberals Marxist. It doesn't make any sense outside of your own narrow, uninformed view. 
 

Nobody is attacking you. You aren't a victim. Correcting misinformation, or coaxing you into using critical thinking isn't hostility. It might be a bit blunt at times, but that's only because you have failed to catch on to subtlety.

Tying this back to inflation. Sometimes we get results that we don't like that make life more difficult. Inflation, especially if our wage does not keep pace, is one of them. It helps to understand the processes that are taking place and why before we go hunting for boogeymen. If you try to identify the boogeymen first, you are likely to reach an incorrect conclusion. 

I certainly wasn't expecting some kind of Satanist inquisition...

Nobody expects the Satanist Inquisition!!!!!

I'll admit, I was ignorant of the whole Satanist thing. I fell into the very trap I mentioned above, mistaking "common knowledge" and use of the word in pop culture, believing it meant some sort of devil worship. So I looked it up. The word satan didn't even mean the devil. It meant adversary. If you didn't agree with the church, you were labeled a Satanist- an adversary.  Which had nothing to do with the devil. Later propaganda linked Satanists with the devil, and painted them as devil worshipers. The devil was even given the nickname Satan, which sticks to this day. It has come full circle in some groups- who believed the propaganda and actually became devil worshipers, mistakingly calling themselves Satanists. From my admittedly limited research- it appears that true Satanists are as Duke described above, merely a different brand of religion with values that align closely with most. Now correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty far outside of my element and my research was very limited. But I find the subject fascinating, as a good example of how "common knowledge" could be so wrong, largely due to a misinformation campaign by a rival. I guess I shouldn't be suprised, but I am. 

This thread...Holy berk.

In reply to Appleseed :

I prefer Satanic berk.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Those aren't my words. That is a part of a quote I took from a religious website. That does seem accurate though. I have heard those words before or similar ones many times from people who claim to be conservative. I have heard things like this on this very forum.

When you quote something without context, as a statement- those become your words. And I challenge you to find one person- one- on this forum that is okay with anyone dying from lack of insulin or starving to death. I've never met a single person that thought like that. I'm sure if you scoured the internet you would find some whack job that thinks that way, but they would be the extreme minority, like multiple decimal points out. The problem is people try to redefine terms to fit their narrative. $40 a month becomes a death sentence rather than you have $40 less to spend on other stuff. A 200lb. kid is starving because you changed the definition of food. And I get it, it can sound very convincing, absent of fact. But it doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. So what do they do? They label scrutiny bad. You are a bad person if you look behind the curtain, nothing to see here. People are dying and children are starving, how can you be for people dying and children starving!?!

I could probably find words like it in many conservative publications and I could quote them for you here. I own books by conservatives that say the same thing. But it's midnight and I am too tired.

I'm not really sure that you even know what a conservative is. You mislabeled a few of us as Libertarian. Heck, you keep bringing up Ayn Rand, who was staunchly anti-Libertarian. You portray her as some sort of a Libertarian/conservative leader, when she really just advocated some of her own, unique views. She called herself an Objectivist. I've never even heard that term before until I looked it up. Sure there is some crossover, but there is a lot of crossover between conservatives and liberals. We just don't focus on what we already agree on. What you are doing would be like calling all liberals Marxist. It doesn't make any sense outside of your own narrow, uninformed view. 
 

Nobody is attacking you. You aren't a victim. Correcting misinformation, or coaxing you into using critical thinking isn't hostility. It might be a bit blunt at times, but that's only because you have failed to catch on to subtlety.

Tying this back to inflation. Sometimes we get results that we don't like that make life more difficult. Inflation, especially if our wage does not keep pace, is one of them. It helps to understand the processes that are taking place and why before we go hunting for boogeymen. If you try to identify the boogeymen first, you are likely to reach an incorrect conclusion. 

I apologize for the "see you all in hell if such a place exists" remark. That was a little over the top. And I screwed up by putting the quote in there. It was too much and I didn't attribute it and that was a mistake. I thought it was an appropriate explanation when somebody else here brought up the fact that people were dying because they couldn't afford insulin. That maybe this was a religious issue and not an economic issue. I didn't explain it well.

I am not the one who is suffering from inflation as much as others are. My houses and cars are all paid for. When I blow my autocross budget it's because I spent too much on Amazon. At one point I ended up paying for my mother's insulin when she was still alive. That stuff is expensive. I think compassion is important. Maybe I was too fast on the trigger to determine who has and doesn't have compassion. Again I apologize. You don't have to believe in a religion. It still bothers me when I drive through Dallas and see all the homeless tent cities near where I live. This country didn't used to be like this. Something is wrong here.

I berked up. I admit it and I apologize.

So enlighten me. What is the the difference between a conservative, a libertarian and an objectivist. I thought they were all the same. And I still don't see that anybody in Washington is very conservative. I am trying to reach out here and it is hard as hell.

In a very oversimplified nutshell:

• Conservatives tend to have fairly rigid social ideas that stay very close to the perceived "norm".  Whether that involves religious beliefs, traditional gender roles and family structures, sexual preferences, etc, they tend to resist change and diversity. Historically, Conservatives generally believe that people are responsible for their own livelihood. They used to claim they were for limited government authority and limited government spending, but - IMHO - that has not been true for several decades at least.  It's more a matter of what types of laws and spending they prefer, rather than quantity.  Strong military is often important to conservatives, both offensive and defensive.
• Libertarians tend to believe "that governs best which governs least."  Libertarians strongly believe that the individual is responsible for their own livelihood, and also that the individual should have freedom to live any way they prefer so long as that does not interfere with others' similar right.  "Voluntary association" and "consenting adults" are the primary determinations for whether something is good or bad.  Very limited government power and spending are key points.  Libertarians tend to believe that the primary role of government is to protect the rights of the individual.  There is a common misconception that libertarians are anarchistic, but this is very untrue. Libertarians strongly believe in the rule of law as the primary method of defending individual rights. They just think the law should be limited in scope to that mission.  Libertarians are against government welfare / entitlement programs, preferring that voluntary charities shoulder the bulk of that.  Libertarians are very much against initiating violence in any form, particularly wars outside their own country.  Most have no problem with a strong defensive ability to protect their rights, lives and property, be it their home or their nation. 
• Objectivists believe that there is an objective reality and an objective truth, and deny any form of spirituality or mysticism. Productive work (of any kind, be it simple physical labor, skilled craft, intellectual or professional service, or artistic expression) is expected to be an individual's primary source of not only livelihood but self-satisfaction.  They are strongly against government welfare programs.  In some ways they closely parallel libertarianism - the whole individual rights / freedom / voluntary association thing, the no-offensive-violence bit, as well as limited government. However, Ayn Rand herself, and her more dogmatic followers (like Leonard Peikoff) disapprove of how libertarianism leaves people so free to be lazy bums, stoners, etc. They also disapprove of religion as being purely subjective.  It's not that they think any of that should be illegal; it's just that they don't seem to respect the type of person who would choose that kind of lifestyle.  There is a more accepting form of Objectivism led by David Kelly that incorporates a wider range of individuals who may agree with the basic premise, but might not choose to be such a hard core Type A.

These descriptions are very broad and I am typing on my phone, so forgive me for being so compact in my wording.

I hope this helps shed some light and I invite others to comment or critique my interpretations.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I apologize for the "see you all in hell if such a place exists" remark. That was a little over the top. And I screwed up by putting the quote in there. It was too much and I didn't attribute it and that was a mistake. I thought it was an appropriate explanation when somebody else here brought up the fact that people were dying because they couldn't afford insulin. That maybe this was a religious issue and not an economic issue. I didn't explain it well.

I am not the one who is suffering from inflation as much as others are. My houses and cars are all paid for. When I blow my autocross budget it's because I spent too much on Amazon. At one point I ended up paying for my mother's insulin when she was still alive. That stuff is expensive. I think compassion is important. Maybe I was too fast on the trigger to determine who has and doesn't have compassion. Again I apologize. You don't have to believe in a religion. It still bothers me when I drive through Dallas and see all the homeless tent cities near where I live. This country didn't used to be like this. Something is wrong here.

I berked up. I admit it and I apologize.

So enlighten me. What is the the difference between a conservative, a libertarian and an objectivist. I thought they were all the same. And I still don't see that anybody in Washington is very conservative. I am trying to reach out here and it is hard as hell.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I apologize for being blunt and heavy handed. I enjoy hearing other points of view, and would much prefer an open back and forth dialog vs. shouting each other down. I'll add a bit to Duke's explanation when I get some time. 

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You are conflating two things. What religious people believe they themselves should be doing, and what religious people believe others should be compelled to do (in a legal  or moral situation), specifically on the topic of responsibility.

There are plenty of standards i hold myself to that I dont hold others to, its because it should be a free country and you should be able to live as your beliefs dictate. I hope people are good, but they are legally entitled to not be.

Also you had a mischaracterization in your post. Ive seen plenty of studies that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. If you look take a higher view and look at it by county. Reps leaning counties donate more, and Dem leaning counties donate less, but have higher taxes to try and solve the same problem. So you could make an argument that Dems are the ones that want to make others responsible for their world view (not my mone, other peoples money), while Reps are more likely to take it upon themselves to help and not force others to (my money, not other peoples money). Im referring to this specific issue, both parties love to compel others to do thing in plenty of situations.

I appreciate your trying to explain a comment like one party donates more to charity while another party might accept higher taxes to achieve the same thing.  
     Thinking about it, there may be a great deal of truth to that.  For example  I worry that If I hand out some cash at a intersection that I may be encouraging the sort of behavior that some people will prefer that to working for a paycheck.  
  My late wife used to actually hand out money ( bus passes, cab fare, etc ) for the county. She did that for 40 years.  But before she did she was authorized  by a county Social worker experienced in detecting fraud.  
    In fact 10 cents of every dollar given in welfare was used to prevent and discover fraud. 
   That is the sad truth that such a high percentage went to fraud prevention. 
     A female student on welfare was given a dress allowance. For a nice graduation dress but only after her social worker confirmed that girl was actually graduating. 
       That getting on welfare was tough.  A social worker had to approve and the need has to be real. With no other way.   No assets,  no income, etc.

  My sister tried to get on welfare when her first husband abandoned her and her baby. The car she had ( a real piece of Junk) a television set, ( ditto)  and a few other items put her over the no assets limit.  
       I digress.  I guess I agree with you about about homelessness,  well except during the Great Depression.  Then we called them Hobo's and bums. ( a hobo was someone out of work but looking for a job, while a bum was someone content to just beg and get by anyway possible) 
     That pretty much ended in the 60's when the government started  the war on poverty.  
      What I really fail to understand is why set up tents downtown?   Why not do as the hobo's and bums did following the Great Depression?  Camp out by the river, in the woods, away from civilization. Maybe catch fish for food, hunt for food, get a feeling of self worth back?   Contractors back then would drive out to those encampments and look for day laborers. Maybe that would lead to something real?  
  I understand about mental illness drug addiction, etc.  but again why not  camp out away from metro areas?   

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) 

Not many people are willing to say they where wrong or made a mistake. I do appreciate it, and I apologize if I came off as an shiny happy person. I dont intend to but Ive been told repeatedly that I do. Sorry about that.

Boost_Crazy said:

I'll admit, I was ignorant of the whole Satanist thing. I fell into the very trap I mentioned above, mistaking "common knowledge" and use of the word in pop culture, believing it meant some sort of devil worship. So I looked it up...

My impression of the Satanic Church is that they are world class trolls for moral reasons. They intentionally try to shock and offend with goats and pentagrams and "Hail Satan!" and all that for satire. They intentionally *want* people to look at them and think they're some sort of evil group trying to pervert children, and then surprise them with an actually cogent moral framework and being generally banal.

Most of what they do is to point out religious (primarily Christian) overreach and hypocrisy, especially as it relates to individual liberty and separation of Church and State.

So where you see Christian groups put up statues to the ten commandments, hold public prayer circles in schools, push "religious history" classes that are really just bible study in public schools, or pass out children's coloring books that are Christian indoctrination under the guise of religious liberty - they respond with "If the government does that, it's not allowed to play favorites with religions and has to allow for ALL religious expression. So they lobby for shrines to Bahamut, Satanist literature, and Satanist childrens coloring books covered in goats heads, and horns, and pentagrams and things like that which are designed to shock, offend, and terrify reactionary Christians who don't realize it's all a pantomime.

It's very like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, except taken more seriously and using shock rather than mockery.

I think this is to good effect. Evidence this thread. You were at first "ZOMG!" and then Duke posted their tenets and it's very, "Huh... this is actually quite reasonable." They are libertarian leaning and believe in things like legal recreational drugs and abortion rights as fundamental body autonomy, which are in opposition to many conservative Christian beliefs.

frenchyd said:

I appreciate your trying to explain a comment like one party donates more to charity while another party might accept higher taxes to achieve the same thing.  
     Thinking about it, there may be a great deal of truth to that.  For example  I worry that If I hand out some cash at a intersection that I may be encouraging the sort of behavior that some people will prefer that to working for a paycheck.  

But what constitutes "charity"?

Religious institutions are tax exempt and often classified as charities. If you belong to a religion that regularly tithes, and your church has charity status, then... naturally you will show up as giving to "charity".

Many issue lobbying groups - conservative and liberal - also count as charities. I could give to "charity" to the NAACP or to a Pro-Life organization that both actively lobby for their social causes. Both of those would be "charity donations" but neither one is doing things like feeding the poor, caring for the sick, or housing the homeless.

Churches do often perform such services, but frequently only provide services to members. The LDS Church does a great job of taking care of its members, but I've had a number of gay friends who had to stay closeted until they were adults, so that their family could continue to get financial support from the church.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Those are valid concerns.  Really what is charity?  Sometimes it's as simple as buying a box of disposable diapers.  Or taking someone to a GOODWILL store for winter Jacket.  
 Yes I'm aware of GOODWILL's restrictive policies.  But I don't let perfect  get in the way of helping people. 
    I can say that anyone who survives on Welfare is doing remarkably well.  My monthly grocery bill is more than I'd get from welfare. And we eat mostly modest food that my wife cooks for me.  Rarely (3-4 times a year) do we eat out. Or buy prepared foods.   
     

In reply to frenchyd :

I am not concerned or bothered by people choosing to give their money to these organizations.

I just would not count it as some kind of moral signifier that this group or that group cares more about their community or anything.

Duke listed a bunch of philosophies, but not my core one - I am a pluralist. I don't believe in figuring out which philosophy is "the right one". I believe they are all necessary.

To quote Terry Pratchett...

William: "I'm sure we can all pull together, sir."
Vetinari: "Oh, I do hope not. Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.”

In reply to Beer Baron :

At its core, small-L libertarianism leaves individuals free to pursue their many different individual philosophies - whatever and however many those may be - surrounded by compatible (or challenging) folks of their own choosing.  That's kind of the point.

Satanism originates from a story in the Bible about a fallen angel who attempted a rebellion against God and the established order. He was punished by being cast out from Heaven to below the earth. Some call him Lucifer the Lightgiver. Anton Levay made up a lot crap himself and admitted such. There is also fiction by Dante, John Milton, that series on Netflix about Lucifer and many others.