Leaning

I've an older post where I thought about this once.

More of the here and now though,

I think that the separation of Church and State can also be understood informally.

In the way that unspoken but assumed rules are.

Of course people 'vary in how much they think Church and State should be separated, 'plenty of lawmakers heavily involve Church and State together.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11231-ten-commandments-in-classrooms

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

Well, state government isn't 'Congress.

"In keeping with the lack of an established state religion in the United States, unlike in many European nations at the time, Article Six of the United States Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins that a person could not be denied the office of notary public for not being a believer because it "unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/

But 1961 is a long way from 1776,

And yet seven of the states mentioned in the post have language in their constitutions explicitly prohibiting atheists from holding office. Mississippi’s constitution, for example, states that "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." In Pennsylvania, the eighth state noted in the post, the rule is not as clear cut.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/

Thomas Jefferson was not the 'sole definer of what people wanted of their government, or considered the law to be.

"In contrast to this emphasis on separation, the Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) upheld accommodationism, holding that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and governmental recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.[3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

There are many other examples on Wikipedia,

But I'm just skimming,

At a skim though, it 'looks to me that a state 'can according to the Constitution, have the 10 Amendments in a school,

Or the Satanist 10 Commandments, if they had enough public and government official support.

While I think it's a bit ironic? That Trump is involved,

It's a cool idea for an event.

. . .

Any Democrats reading?

Not meant as a jibe or gotcha,

(Organizers say they invited dozens of Democratic members of Congress and none responded.) 

https://www.sfexaminer.com/trump-will-participate-in-a-marathon-bible-reading/article_050f7e44-01ab-5fa5-be28-6358470d4a5b.html

Hm, but who knows if invites were in good faith, timely, to available people.

. . . Another possibility is people not wanting to associate with Trump or think there should be bigger separation of Church and State.

. . .

Reminds me a bit of that Joe Rogan podcast though, Kamala refusing it.

But maybe I'm making more of this event than it is.

. . .

I wonder how well, or badly, Trumps reading will go.

We have a West Point for soldiers,

Do we have an equivalent for politicians?

. . . Arguably there is a lot one 'ought know, for certain Civil Servant positions, the knowledge one ought have, varying on the position I suppose.

Politician is a wide umbrella perhaps.

Then again. . . Civil Servant, is different from 'Public Servants, looks like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Public_Service_Academy

Looks like bill didn't pass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_service_academies

"There are five U.S. service academies" Military

(Shrug)

Eh, I'm sure there are courses, schools, that cater to the idea.

And. . Most Civil Servant jobs have tests I'd imagine.

. . Politicians though, doesn't I expect. . . But there's hurdles and requirements of some sort anywhere in life. . .

. . . . . . Still, might be nice if politicians 'took such tests, proving some familiarity with history or structure of government.

. . . Question of useless information vs useful though, who decides the standards?

China had that Imperial Exam, but one could argue that was in a different time, when education was more rare perhaps.

Modern era. . . I'm not sure a businessman or a doctor have the qualifications of a politician though.

Nature and Nurture

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/8z/man-is-not-good-by-nature

I wonder if it's a bit of a sailboat and water situation,

If I imagine a sailboat in space, I don't think it's sail would work so well, even if solar powered.

There's something of other about sailboats needing that 'water, something to push against? I forget.

But maybe it's similar to a car being in midair, spinning it's wheels.

Tires need the ground for traction.

. . .

So when someone argues an X is good or evil by nature,

It seems 'difficult to divorce that from Nurture.

I imagine certain natures tend towards 'good in certain Nurtures, certain environments.

But perhaps tend towards 'evil, in certain other 'Nurtures, certain 'other environments.

Nurture then, can only be understood by being combined in some way 'with Nurture.

. . . Course, maybe there are not 'so many different environments, that we could not come to an average.

. . .

Nurture then, can 'nurture stand by itself?

Doesn't feel that way either to me.

Certain processes will work well on certain subjects, but not on others, same problem earlier with Nature I think.

Well, 'if the niche can consolidate, there can be 'plenty of people.

But. . . Nature of the internet you know. Fractures and splinters I mean.

Take video games, when there are 1 or 3 of some game type.

Then you have 'plenty of players.

When you have 100 or 300, then the communities get fractured.

. . .

Course, 'without the internet, I might be unlikely to find a debating community in the town I live in. . . Maybe. (Shrug) If no one had internet, people would be more face to face local with their interests. Maybe there 'would be a small debate club where I live.

I'm doing pretty well.

I agree with you that it's a niche market,

I'm not sure that niches attract more nuts though.

. . . Maybe slightly odd people, of particular interests, rather than normies.

If America had enough robots and drones of quality,

Then boots on the ground could be pretty effective in some conflicts.

In terms of not upsetting the American public, who react strongly to fellow citizen casualties.

Well, for one, Goy might think lowly of the idea.

Two, SatanLucy invited a number of randoms onto Discord, couple of them were a bit trollish, spammed some Nazi propaganda.

"Why dont we just... invite people?" - SatanLucy

Because I feel like I'm bothering people, if I message them about joining DebateCraft.

I know 'I don't like ads.

If someone ever asks me to suggest a debate site, I'd suggest DebateCraft then.

But it rarely comes up in conversation.

Well, I'd imagine that a country able to build and hold their nuclear weapons,

Generally has money for civilian infrastructure, since they had enough to build nukes,

Generally aren't being invaded and having their infrastructure ripped up, since they have nukes.

Oh, I'm enjoying the ride, more rather than less, I'd say.

Recently,

Chocolate was relatively cheap, a bit after Easter.

I saw that Hail Mary space movie, in theaters.

I'm idly thinking out characters for my game/world idea.

I'm still hearing new music I enjoy.

I found a used copy On the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius in a used bookstore.

Weather outside is getting warmer, sunnier.

(1) Passivity and Isolationism

I am doubtful that passivity and isolationism is a viable path for America.

If we don't involve ourselves in the world, then we are accepting 'whatever our rivals decide upon.

If we don't have a finger on the pulse, a arm on the shoulder, a grip on the neck. Then our rivals have the upper hand in any conflict.

In economy, in allies, in military.

I think we saw a chance gamble in Iran, and we took it.

(2) Strife

I think a degree of strife makes a military strong.

I think this limited conflict has been excellent in informing various people in America of technological changes in war.

(3)Mono-Religious States

. . . I do not think Atheism is without Ism. Without values and beliefs.

I lean towards Tribal loyalty.

I think people with certain ideals and beliefs 'ought seek to establish communities of their own, and establish primacy in their zones.

Though. . . You 'do say predominance. . .

Are predominance and state-regulated is the same in a sense?

Without organization, I do not think it is easy for groups to acquire dominance.

It's why I've never thought too highly of Anarchy or Libertarian Towns in America, unless one only cares about themselves and their lifetime.

And organization, basically 'is government.

. . . Without efforts to turn away people of different values,

Without effort to vitalize one's own tribe, I think it is easy to be overtaken by 'other's Isms.

(4) The War

Well, I can't say I 'wanted us to enter the war.

. . . But the world is always turning.

I worry about a future where nukes are 'far more common among 'all countries.

Perhaps the feared nuclear wars never comes from the 1st world, but the third world.

(5) Liberals

(Redacted)

My arguments in short,

(0) The word Value implies a single standard, unlike values

(1) Value is zero, nothing.

(2) A point in every direction, is the same as no point at all.

(3) Meanings are fictions.

NIHILISM My Argument

'Value, is an empty 'spot of 'nothing, a 'zero that can 'ever be filled with 'any integer,

There 'is 'no 'Value.

There are 'values, subjective 'lovely 'lies that we tell ourselves, that we tell the 'world.

Yet there 'is no singular Yard'stick, we each have our own yardsticks. Fabricated, fictional, figurative, imagined, 'pretenses.

Val'ue implies a single standard,

A 'reason to care, 'The 'Truth.

But when people realize that singular 'Truth 'not exist, 'often their morality 'flexes.

When someone says it is 'wrong to 'kill another human, there is a Nihilist somewhere who 'laughs. For that 'value does not exist.

That 'claimer exists, and claimer 'values things, but there is no 'Value.

And when people realize 'that, there is a Nihilist somewhere, who 'despairs.

For within them was an attraction to the idea of the Value existing as a Transcendent, Objective Moral Truth.

But it didn't exist. It doesn't.

There are 'values, pretenses, claims, attractions existing in disharmony and mismeasurement with one another.

Good and Evil exist. . . claims the Moralist.

They are wrong, Lies. . . Are what exist.

We can 'create meaning, claims the Existentialist.

They are wrong, Their 'Meanings too, are 'fictions.

Thin layers of paint upon their eyes to hide the abyss. Green gem spectacles.

Existence 'has no 'Value. Only delusions.

A person will care, because that is human.

But when one human lifts others from poverty,

Eh, heck with it, I find it dull to color code so much, and it's application and appreciation by others is questionable.

. . . I suppose I 'kind of like it.

But I'm only a third of the way through with all I have to say in round 1, and there's going to be 2 more rounds. Do I 'really care enough about it to commit myself to that?

Nah.

I've heard we 'grow AI in a sense, unsure of what they are/are to become.

Suddenly the idea of comparing them to the development of human souls comes to mind.

I'd figure the difference is that Discord is an App, of the sort many people tend to keep perpetually open.

Having to refresh a Webpage, doesn't 'seem that big of an inconvenience to me.

We could just label one of the threads the 'main talk thread.

DebateCraft requiring an Internet Tab, 'could also be a slight inconvenience to people, which again, Discord doesn't have that problem 'so much I 'think. Since it is mostly 'just chatrooms?

But maybe 'slight inconvenience becomes noticeable, when one has to refresh page 20 or 100 times in a conversation.

If— by Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too:

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated don't give way to hating,

    And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same:

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

    And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

    ⁠And never breathe a word about your loss:

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

    To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

    ⁠Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

    If all men count with you, but none too much:

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

    With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

    ⁠And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!

Hm,

WW2 Japan,

I'm not sure I'd say American Leaders morality 'disappeared, when they used fire bombing and nukes,

Invasion would have been costly, maybe more costly, both to us 'and them.

Morality then might have been a weighing of human life costs.

. . Even if death toll would have been mostly just American soldier deaths. . . Morality would not 'disappear, rather, it would be questioning what is most moral, and coming to the conclusion that we weigh our people's lives to a 'degree more than we do outside group.

I'm not well read on what is or isn't considered a war crime.

We fire bombed civilians in 'so 'many places in WW2.

Course we did so to wreck their ability to supply their countries militaries.

Hazy line, civilian and military, bit sad in a way, medieval era they burned village, modern era, armies burn cities.

Well, they burned cities too, I'm just thinking of some British wars,

I read a book recently about the knight William Marshal, it talked about sacking villages a bit.

Still, WW2,

We might have been breaking some laws then. And/Or we might have changed some laws since then.

. . .

From a certain point of view, I get what Iran and it's people might be doing.

Ghandi in India, MLK in America, suffering to receive better rights.

Course on another hand, neither of the above was funding terrorists or shooting missiles like Iran has been doing.

Yeah, America has funded terrorists here and there too. . World is based on power, it's understandable why we might dislike each other a bit. Powers vie for Power.

Iran civilians,

But in another sense, are they then 'becoming combatants by their actions?

Same problem with countries that place mortars on top of hospitals.

Is it brave civilians, or cowardly military, unable to defend their country openly?

. . . Well, a hospital with mortar on top becomes a target either way.

. . Even US military bases often have nearby civilian presence, or are built in a city.

Course, who's to say how 'voluntary the Iranian civilian actions are?

Infants for instance, we don't generally see as legally being able to consent to being a human shield.

I like the like button,

On various sites in general, I think it can be a useful measurement/feedback tool.

Even when people like posts I 'dislike.

I would prefer that we had not entered into this conflict with Iran,

But in terms of function, it is 'potentially fine.

I think a military and country can be made stronger by war,

We engage in a conflict, see our capabilities and our enemies capabilities.

By said conflict we are able to restructure our military to be more efficient.

From what I recall reading,

Many countries and America itself, found the military performance of the Union and the Confederacy embarrassing at the 'start.

But our military capabilities were improved by the conflict.

WW1 and WW2, led to 'great strides in military technology, tactics, and strategy.

There 'is the potential of America overstraining itself in conflict,

But same applies to exercising the body. Same applies for exercising the mind.

. . .

Iran recently killed a bunch of it's civilians for protesting,

At an uneducated glance, it doesn't seem to me that they had what it takes to effect a regime change.

I think it's 'unlikely we will achieve a regime change in the short term,

But America is killing a 'lot of leaders in Iran,

Potential exists for more favorable leaders to America, or infighting that weakens Iran.

Are we 'really going to get 'worse leaders for us in Iran, a country frequently shouting death to America the Great Satan?

(Shrug)

'Maybe, but they've 'already been using proxies, putting bounties on America soldiers before this current conflict.

Maybe change in Iran takes 10 or 20 years, (Shrug)

Took a while for USSR to fall after WW2.

Doesn't mean American efforts such as Berlin Blockade were without use.

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

'Potential downsides exist I admit,

If the draft got reintroduced, if this conflict drags on for years, if China takes Taiwan right now.

. . . But 'some roads, such as China moving for Taiwan, may be inevitable.

So should America be 'inactive or 'proactive?

Let 'others set the board?

(Shrug) Maybe Iran conflict is bad, maybe not.

Too early for me to tell.

I don't 'think so,

I 'think there's a 'lot of different types of Atheists.

I couldn't really guess at how many Atheists, what types, or where they are more or less located across the globe.

Personally though,

"Humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots that sometimes Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die"

Is what 'I suspect in 'my Atheism,

Not saying I'm 'certain of it. . . But (Shrug) it is part of what I live my life by.

If we could find a way that humans could self sufficiently live on the Moon, perhaps in a crater or underground.

Find some way to mine metal, manufacture, grow food, find water.

Might be useful, though doesn't 'seem the place we'd want a 'colony, too low gravity, too difficult to make a living.

No terraforming it in the near future I'd think, best case I'd figure is people living in sealed buildings of some type.

. . . Though, if we could get some type of robot bodies working, maybe we could work remotely from Earth, Drones, decrease a lot of living requirements 'maybe?

Or have the people on the Moon use the drones.

. . If even 'better AI was created, even fewer humans required.

. . . . . .

But I'm not sure what quality of AI we 'can make now or in 100 years.

I suppose the Moon could be useful as an additional backup, in case anything happened to the Earth?

Then after some type of Earth shattering event, have some colony ships from the Moon come down to repopulate the Earth.

. . . Though I'd figure we could survive well enough squirreling people and knowledge somewhere safe on Earth, Moon seems superfluous.

I dislike panhandlers,

I suppose it's the 'suddenness of such interactions,

The loss of my money,

The questionability whether they will ever put the money towards getting out of the hole they are in (If they are in a hole).

I often think of my money in terms of time and effort that it took me to get it,

Such drives me towards conservative spending,

I 'hate having to work for other people.

Sometimes when I buy food, I briefly imagine I am 'literally eating bills or coins.

. . . Is it 'appearances I wonder?

Avoidance of discomfort?

Attempt at 'minor goodness?

Hm, I doubt the last one. I don't generally give to charities. . . But I 'have done financial things for family, and done it gladly enough.

But they are 'family.

It helps me rather, to think of it as paying 2 dollars for X minutes of introspection. For it 'does spark that.

I have been given much by others at times in life.

I have given 'some to others, I don't keep track of the amount.

I paid someone's bus ticket, last time I was on the bus. . . But I had a lot of time to think about it, they were trying to pay the rest on some confusing phone app.

Perhaps it was the talking 'why I paid, it wasn't much, as I took advantage of the fact that another passenger had overpaid in cash, not having exact change for the bus, and the bus not giving change.

But the 'talking back and forth between the passenger and the bus driver was annoying. Paying the small amount made the talking stop.

But I can never tell my motivations, can it not be I had 'some good intentions as well?

But such money was not being 'asked of me, it is something I gave freely.

I dislike panhandlers.

Though I believe I am not a good person.

I do not prepare literature of help programs in the area to give with the change,

I do not inquire of their situation or how I might help.

Sigh, my Mother and eldest brother give to charity.

(Shrug)

. . .

"Don't Give Up" by Eagle-Eye Cherry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziDG8bBqp38

I am doubtful of 'Karma, but I do believe in cause and effect.

Perhaps it is 'good for my personality, character, soul (Poetically speaking) to give 'some. Lackluster motive and pressure or not.

Well, on the happy side of the question, I like to reminisce about past moment sometimes.

There are funny, beautiful, interesting moments in life.

Sometimes useful moments.

I'd settle for an unobtrusive bodycam, or camera/mike on some glasses.

. . .

On a less happy side of things,

I sometimes worry how many abusive moments or people there might be in life.

And whether living without any privacy, in a type of human hivemind, might be better for people.

Also people with mental illness of drug use,

'Recording of events maybe would help convince 'some of them to degrees.

I often think people ought video and audio record their entire lives.

The human brain memories seem too fragile, subject to invention and distortion.

Flaw of course, is that digital and electronic recordings can 'also be edited. . . Hm, to a 'degree, possibly ways around that and safeguards to mitigate tampering.

"techno-globalization"

I don't think globalization is a sustainable model.

In my opinion,

Humans are tribalistic, and 'societies are tribalistic,

Failing to be part of a tribe, leads to disintegration and weakness where X individuals and their descendants are metaphorically eaten by tribes.

. . .

Well, I don't think globalization is a sustainable model for X,

It 'is a sustainable model for Y.

. . .

Theoretically we 'could have a stronger one world government.

But even within such a system there will be tribes, and I prefer a greater degree of loyalty to one's closer tribe.

Just read, The Integral Trees by Larry Niven,

The physical world was interesting, but I didn't like the death, sex, and slavery in the book.

. . . I suppose it's explicit descriptions of such that bother me at times.

Various forms of media, and 'expressions of different forms of media, hit different.

One can read of Ancient Rome, or watch Waterworld (1995),

But the edges are softened, one's eyes are blurred, one only see's 'part of a picture.

. . . Well, I'm sure 'some history books are explicit, but some are more clinical, or not focusing on nasty aspects of existence.

I probably won't debate this in the future, so I'll just toss it here.

Debate about,

Whether schools Language Arts should focus on the Regional and Classical books over modern and foreign books.

Though Classic Foreign books would be acceptable.

ROUND 1

0

I suggest the purpose of schools is often tied to the purpose of a nation.

Solidarity, connection, cooperation.

All three are related, and feed back into each other.

It is valuable in terms of function, that we share similar values.

Schools are generally public, funded by state, funded by the people.

Common understanding and clarity of communication rises by shared perspective and experience.

1

Classics,

A focus upon the Classical, ensures continuity between generations.

Invigorates the heart, stokes flames, to value a nations identity, often it's foundations.

Like a family tree, we branch out to many places, but we trace ourselves back to a common trunk, to a common beginning.

A focus upon classics ensures we take what is of proven value.

People sometimes speak of older eras movies or or older era music being better, but what has occured, is we are but focusing on the best of what was produced in that era.

Time allows that, no recent fads or pop culture absurdities, only that which is proven good.

Regional Origin,

How does one create a sense of loyalty and community?

By 'looking at what is within one's community.

How does one create a sense of autonomy?

By 'looking at what has been within our ancestors hands and actions.

What they did, we can do. We 'ought do, in many cases.

How does one reach across a political aisle?

By knowing what one has in common.

2

Nations are vast in their origins of time, even one so recent as America.

There's enough content to fill what little time school provides.

Mind you, my arguments do not 'prevent recent or foreign books.

But 'does focus on Classical and Regional books.

I imagine a counterargument being that schools should focus on creating a love for reading,

But what matters a love for reading if the people are divided or read trash?

There is a 'limited amount of time in school, let public schools utilize it effectively.

ROUND 2

Hm, I 'could pass on this round, and ideally this becomes a two round debate.

But I think I'll meander a short time some more words.

3

Hm, Tribalism, Globalism, Family, Xenophobia.

America focuses a lot on the 'American identity, focuses a lot on outgroups to whatever ingroup one belongs.

To the detriment I argue, of the local.

Sure it's nice if people get along with the mass, but then what do they become but Capitalism cogs.

'Roots are how a community is developed to it's maximum potential. Not moving here and there about the country for the highest paying job.

If you move, your kids'll move too.

One 'maintains a garden by being territorial. Set in one's ways.

People are less likely to choose short term gain, if said change is being effected where they will live in 50 or more years.

So I say again, Regional Books. Regional Identity, Regional Pride, as a prime focus.

4

Regional books will always be of limited utility and number,

Which is why the Classic books exist, that others can be understood and appreciated, but more importantly that certain schools of thought appropriating the classics for local values can be established and maintained.

One's core values are most important, reading books of other places,

That it's always through a lens one reads outside books.

Comparing and contrasting the foreign with one's core teachings and values.

5

Recently published books are unfamiliar to the parents, they are less likely to have read them themselves.

It offers a chink in the education of their children, that ideas and values opposed by the parents might be 'slipped in under the radar.

Oppose the new, maintain the Classic.

Well, depends on the objective, I suppose.

I 'think America won the Cold War.

"Thing is, it does depend on the Iranian populace revolting against their government. If they can’t do that, this most likely fails." Mag1cman #15

How soon would they need to revolt, for it to be considered a failure or success?

. . .

Consider Germany right after WW2,

We sunk a 'lot of money, into something that wasn't going to have immediate results that we wanted, possibly would never have the results we wanted.

Berlin got conquered in 1945,

The Berlin Wall fell on 9 November 1989.