Read the Fine Print to Know What a Biden Presidency Brings

[Texan6533]

I'm guessing he means in conflict with the Law of Moses.

Not exactly. Christians actually aren’t bound to the civil or ceremonial parts of law of Moses anymore, just the moral laws such as the Ten Commandments.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Not exactly. Christians actually aren’t bound to the civil or ceremonial parts of law of Moses anymore, just the moral laws such as the Ten Commandments.

Thanks for the clarification. lol

 

[Texan6533]

Thanks for the clarification. lol

Just letting you know, no ill will intended

 

[Officer Rick]

Whatever a Biden presidency is

it will be a million times better than the corruption and divisiveness we have seen with Captain Bone Spurs and his year of golfing while the world burns and Americans die

 

[Officer Rick]

Just letting you know, no ill will intended

hey i see you like Walker Texas ranger here a new AV for you
(just kidding)

 

[ultramanhyata]

Just letting you know, no ill will intended

I understand the difference between Judaism and Christianity relative to the Law. But you were talking about "post-modernism". How Christians chose to interpret Mosaic Law has absolutely zero to do with that topic.

Or are you actually saying that any proposed value system that contradicts the Decalogue is a product of "post-modernism"?

 

[Texan6533]

hey i see you like walker here a new AV for you
(just kidding)

Ha! I wanted a Conan O’Brien version where he pulls the random walker clip lever, but I can’t find a good gif....

 

[Officer Rick]

Ha! I wanted a Conan O’Brien version where he pulls the random walker clip lever, but I can’t find a good gif....

this one is nice

too bad chuck is a nutjob evangelical

 

[djacobox372]

Party platforms don't mean crap.

 

[Texan6533]

I understand the difference between Judaism and Christianity relative to the Law. But you were talking about "post-modernism". How Christians chose to interpret Mosaic Law has absolutely zero to do with that topic.

Or are you actually saying that any proposed value system that contradicts the Decalogue is a product of "post-modernism"?

Not necessarily. There are teachings of Christ that are an addition to the old law, he himself said he wasn’t there to disavow it. I do believe that the Bible (Specifically New Testament) sets up a pretty detailed list of behaviors that are for the good of humanity and make it run smoother so that is what I go to for morality. Most moral systems proposed by men afterwards are pretty relative to the times so I don’t adhere to those as much. Hopefully that answers your question?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Trump can't control how much the protesters, rioters and media complain about him.

He definitely can't control himself or lead in any reasonable way

 

[Texan6533]

this one is nice

Oh, I like the bottom one. Might have to look into switching.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

Thank you for the response and a genuine efforts to explain what your thoughts are on post modernism instead of only insulting me. I really do appreciate that.

I know that my MO is to be vicious and rude to right-leaning posters, but that's not because of their political alignment. Its because of their detachment from reality and the inability to reach a common understanding of base level reality, basic definitions of words, and a refusal to engage in substantive conversation. Any poster, no matter how far right, that is actually willing to engage in discourse and bring in context, facts, references and actually engage in a real conversation on the topic at hand, I am willing to put the insults down and enjoin in good-faith conversation.

however, I do understand that post modernism is more or less a lens to look at philosophy

No, its a lens through which you look at everything - history, philosophy, science, the world, government, social relationships. Just as modernism is a lens through which you can view virtually anything. They're overarching umbrella terms.

Although it mainly deals with relativism, skepticism, and an anti enlightenment stance; to say there are no elements of oppressor vs oppressed theory behind a lot of postmodern philosophers is a bit disingenuous.

No, not really. Again - one of the main takeaways from post modern thought is that there are no grand-narratives. Meaning, people that adhere to post-modern thought, don't really believe that history is the story of the oppressed vs the oppressor. Marxists arrive at their conclusions through modernism. That is, they believe, they assert (and are correct) that history is the story of the weak vs the powerful, the elites vs the peasants (oppressed vs oppressor, which is honestly a really dumbed down reductionist way of stating the Marxist position) and they arrive at this conclusion through a complex *material* analysis, of objective reality and history, and they back up their premises and conclusions with scholarship and empirical science. Objectively trying to understand history, economics and social organization using empirical scholarship is modernism down to its very core. Post-modernists, categorically, by their very definition, do not believe that there is an "objective" history, or reality that can be studied and understood, and that it is only a matter of perspective. They would say that Marx trying to wage class warfare and unite workers against the bourgeois (elites/capitalists) is only his perspective and is not the objective reality, because there is no objective reality.

Apparently this is a very divisive idea between many postmodern writings, so in a sense you’re right and wrong at the same time:

“Part of the postmodern answer is that the prevailing discourses in any society reflect the interests and values, broadly speaking, of dominant or elite groups. Postmodernists disagree about the nature of this connection; whereas some apparently endorse the dictum of the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” others are more circumspect. Inspired by the historical research of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, some postmodernists defend the comparatively nuanced view that what counts as knowledge in a given era is always influenced, in complex and subtle ways, by considerations of power.”

I do think think leads to oppressor vs oppressed ideologies if they weren’t already present in postmodern thought.

1) Michel Foucault is just ONE post-modern philosopher and writer. I will grant you that he is probably the most famous and/or most important.
2) Where did you get this quote from? Shouldn't you have posted a source?
3) Foucault's response here does not endorse the Marxist-modernist view of history, economics or social organization. He is doing a rhetorical judo throw and aligning himself with Marx, knowing that's in his best interest to keep being one of the cool kid lefty edge lord philosophers, while also not endorsing Marxism.
4) There is a huge amount to unpack from Michel's statement here and there are no follow up questions or further context to analyze. What does he mean by "influenced"? What does he mean by "complex and subtle ways"? What is his definition of power? You cannot possibly take this one vague statement from one post-modern thinker, in which you really don't know what he's actually saying, and believe that this is proof that post-modernism believes in grand narratives, do you?

Hopefully, I've divulged enough information to you in this post for you to deduce why I don't actually like post-modernism as a worldview. I just happen to think that words matter, and calling something a word that it isn't, is silly and requires correction. Jordan Peterson is famous for having spread this blatantly obvious fallacious way of thinking, and has been shredded on the subject many times and refuses to engage with the people doing the shredding, or respond to their arguments.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

It's cute that you all think Joe is going to win. After the election you can go lock poor old Joe into an old folks home, with a cardboard cut out of the oval office in his room, tell him he won, he won't know the difference.

 

[jx820]

Well, considering the Democrat party’s history of not delivering on promises to black Americans...

I didn't think I'd ever find a point we can agree on, but THIS^.

IDGAF what they put in that platform. Biden will not be looking out for the interests of anyine that isn't a bank or a major political donor. The GOP wont either, but they are much more up front about it.

 

[Texan6533]

I know that my MO is to be vicious and rude to right-leaning posters, but that's not because of their political alignment. Its because of their detachment from reality and the inability to reach a common understanding of base level reality, basic definitions of words, and a refusal to engage in substantive conversation. Any poster, no matter how far right, that is actually willing to engage in discourse and bring in context, facts, references and actually engage in a real conversation on the topic at hand, I am willing to put the insults down and enjoin in good-faith conversation.


No, its a lens through which you look at everything - history, philosophy, science, the world, government, social relationships. Just as modernism is a lens through which you can view virtually anything. They're overarching umbrella terms.


No, not really. Again - one of the main takeaways from post modern thought is that there are no grand-narratives. Meaning, people that adhere to post-modern thought, don't really believe that history is the story of the oppressed vs the oppressor. Marxists arrive at their conclusions through modernism. That is, they believe, they assert (and are correct) that history is the story of the weak vs the powerful, the elites vs the peasants (oppressed vs oppressor, which is honestly a really dumbed down reductionist way of stating the Marxist position) and they arrive at this conclusion through a complex *material* analysis, of objective reality and history, and they back up their premises and conclusions with scholarship and empirical science. Objectively trying to understand history, economics and social organization using empirical scholarship is modernism down to its very core. Post-modernists, categorically, by their very definition, do not believe that there is an "objective" history, or reality that can be studied and understood, and that it is only a matter of perspective. They would say that Marx trying to wage class warfare and unite workers against the bourgeois (elites/capitalists) is only his perspective and is not the objective reality, because there is no objective reality.




“Part of the postmodern answer is that the prevailing discourses in any society reflect the interests and values, broadly speaking, of dominant or elite groups. Postmodernists disagree about the nature of this connection; whereas some apparently endorse the dictum of the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” others are more circumspect. Inspired by the historical research of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, some postmodernists defend the comparatively nuanced view that what counts as knowledge in a given era is always influenced, in complex and subtle ways, by considerations of power.”

I do think think leads to oppressor vs oppressed ideologies if they weren’t already present in postmodern thought.

1) Michel Foucault is just ONE post-modern philosopher and writer. I will grant you that he is probably the most famous and/or most important.
2) Where did you get this quote from? Shouldn't you have posted a source?
3) Foucault's response here does not endorse the Marxist-modernist view of history, economics or social organization. He is doing a rhetorical judo throw and aligning himself with Marx, knowing that's in his best interest to keep being one of the cool kid lefty edge lord philosophers, while also not endorsing Marxism.
4) There is a huge amount to unpack from Michel's statement here and there are no follow up questions or further context to analyze. What does he mean by "influenced"? What does he mean by "complex and subtle ways"? What is his definition of power? You cannot possibly take this one vague statement from one post-modern thinker, in which you really don't know what he's actually saying, and believe that this is proof that post-modernism believes in grand narratives, do you?[/QUOTE]

No, I don’t normally take one example and use it for the whole argument but I do see it as a interesting rabbit hole to go down if one of the more well known post modern philosophers mentions it. I could try to find more, but I don’t think it would change the conversation at all. I’m not trying to be contrarian, I just believe there is something to this (if not exactly the same idea as you have stated). I’m also not above admitting I’m wrong if I’m proven wrong. So I will definitely look into what you have shown me so I can judge it for myself.

I apologize for not quoting, I got it from a Brittanica article about post modern thought, trying to use more credible sources than wiki or some random opinion piece.

again, thank you for showing me some information I didn’t have before, I really do appreciate it.

 

[nostradumbass]

So what is the solution? How do you propose dealing with the wealth inequality?

Well for starters they should probably acknowledge that wealth differences are greater within races than between them. Not sure how some black lawyer or professor or politician's kid getting preferential treatment over his white counterpart to meet quotas does anything to help poor blacks.

Frankly, you'd do more to help poor blacks and whites by flooding poor neighborhoods with police so businesses could operate there without getting robbed and drug dealers and gang members hanging outside.

I also think in general that lowering poverty is far more important than closing any gap.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

No, I don’t normally take one example and use it for the whole argument but I do see it as a interesting rabbit hole to go down if one of the more well known post modern philosophers mentions it. I could try to find more, but I don’t think it would change the conversation at all. I’m not trying to be contrarian, I just believe there is something to this (if not exactly the same idea as you have stated). I’m also not above admitting I’m wrong if I’m proven wrong. So I will definitely look into what you have shown me so I can judge it for myself.

I apologize for not quoting, I got it from a Brittanica article about post modern thought, trying to use more credible sources than wiki or some random opinion piece.

again, thank you for showing me some information I didn’t have before, I really do appreciate it.

If you're working or have the time, listen to/watch the first video I linked in my edit of my last post. Its a more articulate breakdown of why Jordan Peterson is spreading misinformation/misunderstanding about post-modernism. Peterson, I assume, like many people (including myself) was probably your first introduction to post-modernism and that's where the bulk of your understanding comes from (again like myself, until I actually embarked on a good-faith attempt to understand what post-modernism is). So understanding where he's obviously wrong would probably be very helpful for a lot of people.

 

[Texan6533]

No, I don’t normally take one example and use it for the whole argument but I do see it as a interesting rabbit hole to go down if one of the more well known post modern philosophers mentions it. I could try to find more, but I don’t think it would change the conversation at all. I’m not trying to be contrarian, I just believe there is something to this (if not exactly the same idea as you have stated). I’m also not above admitting I’m wrong if I’m proven wrong. So I will definitely look into what you have shown me so I can judge it for myself.

I apologize for not quoting, I got it from a Brittanica article about post modern thought, trying to use more credible sources than wiki or some random opinion piece.

again, thank you for showing me some information I didn’t have before, I really do appreciate it.

If you're working or have the time, listen to/watch the first video I linked in my edit of my last post. Its a more articulate breakdown of why Jordan Peterson is spreading misinformation/misunderstanding about post-modernism. Peterson, I assume, like many people (including myself) was probably your first introduction to post-modernism and that's where the bulk of your understanding comes from (again like myself, until I actually embarked on a good-faith understanding to understand what post-modernism is). So understanding where he's obviously wrong would probably be very helpful for a lot of people.[/QUOTE]


I will do that, thank you for the resources.

 

[shockaholic12]

I expect Joe to mostly fumble the potentially greatest opportunity for real reform in many decades.