TexasCHLforum.com

Depraved versus deprived --a way of categorizing conflict that helps frame liberal opposition to self-defense.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/12 ... rived.html

From the posting:

Under class warfare morality, there are two types of criminals. The depraved and the deprived. The depraved are well off. The deprived are not. When the former commit a crime, it is because they are depraved. When the latter commit a crime, it is because they are deprived. And being deprived, they bear no responsibility for what they do.

Thanks for posting that. I was very impressed reading that article and I am NOT easily impressed when it comes to this sort of stuff. I read a lot. I like the theory that things that cannot be explained in a simple way are probably bull or at least covered in it. That isn't to say that something might not be complicated in actuality, but it should be explainable in a simple manner. Just like lies are often more complicated than the truth. And this article felt the right way in that regard.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I like the theory that things that cannot be explained in a simple way are probably bull or at least covered in it.

That's a great line.
I'm going to try to remember it and use it somewhere.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I like the theory that things that cannot be explained in a simple way are probably bull or at least covered in it. That isn't to say that something might not be complicated in actuality, but it should be explainable in a simple manner. Just like lies are often more complicated than the truth. And this article felt the right way in that regard.

Unfortunately, this is the heart of the liberal strategies (indeed, any political/demagogue strategy). They tell people that a person expounding a concept that cannot be easily understood is probably a con trying to hide something. Then they use "bumper sticker mentality" to tell people the "truth." Thus, "Depraved or Deprived."

Life isn't simple, nor is it static. (Oops, was that a bumper sticker?)

This is a really good article. I wonder how a liberal would respond

The inherent complexity of a 52-card deck of playing cards can be approached SIMPLY - ONE CARD AT A TIME - from the top of the deck. Each card reveals one layer of a 52 layer SIMPLE truth - or 1/52nd of that particular truth. This is vertical complexity. If the same deck of cards is scattered across the table - horizontal complexity replaces the vertical complexity. It can be said that the deck has been "shuffled" . The SIMPLE order has been lost in a confused array of horizontal complexity. The same 52 cards are on the table - but the simple TRUTH discernable within the vertical complexity is now obscured. The art of deception often employs horizontal complexity to obscure simple truths. Vertical complexity when approached ONE LAYER AT A TIME - is NOT COMPLICATED - and does not obscure SIMPLE truth. It is possible for any truth - and EVERY ISSUE - to be presented within a verticle complexity framework regardless of the number of layers involved. Whenever an argument is presented within a horizontal complexity framework - my " Bull-Bell" clangs.

PATHFINDER wrote:The inherent complexity of a 52-card deck of playing cards can be approached SIMPLY - ONE CARD AT A TIME - from the top of the deck. Each card reveals one layer of a 52 layer SIMPLE truth - or 1/52nd of that particular truth. This is vertical complexity. If the same deck of cards is scattered across the table - horizontal complexity replaces the vertical complexity. It can be said that the deck has been "shuffled" . The SIMPLE order has been lost in a confused array of horizontal complexity. The same 52 cards are on the table - but the simple TRUTH discernable within the vertical complexity is now obscured. The art of deception often employs horizontal complexity to obscure simple truths. Vertical complexity when approached ONE LAYER AT A TIME - is NOT COMPLICATED - and does not obscure SIMPLE truth. It is possible for any truth - and EVERY ISSUE - to be presented within a verticle complexity framework regardless of the number of layers involved. Whenever an argument is presented within a horizontal complexity framework - my " Bull-Bell" clangs.

This is called "analysis." Teaching of this technique in public schools to non-scientists stopped many, many years ago.

they bear no responsibility for what they do.

IMO, the failure to accept responsibility for individual decision and action is the foundation for most "liberal" thought.

That, and a completely distorted view of human character...

Whenever I hear the mantra - " This is a very complicated issue. It can't be addressed with simplistic approaches" - I know it's time to relocate "up-wind" from the source.

"......the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, HOWEVER in recognition of the great truth that no right is absolute, WE THE PEOPLE really intend that the foresaid right shall not be infringed upon ...UNLESS the federal or state governments decide in their respective wisdoms that WE THE PEOPLE should not be entrusted with such a right - in which case it will cease to be a natural right, and will be subject to whatever police powers those governments deem appropriate and necessary to ensure that peace and order are maintained. "