Which is worse: Extreme Left or Extreme Right? (money, world, best)

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by TheDusty

Accurate and simple are not opposites. Something can be accurate and kept simple.

There is nothing simple about DNA and it's function. To insinuate simplicity is an inaccurate characterization of a very complex structure.

Randomness can create complexity. Nothing in science suggests otherwise.

Absolutely untrue if one understands the definitions of random and complex in the context of the subject we're discussing. Complexity with purpose, such as the structure of DNA which demonstrates a distinct pattern, and performs specific tasks is the exact opposite of random. Look up the definition of random.

I'm aware of this. To my knowledge, this is not something being hidden and it does not effect either of our arguments

I didn't say hidden ... I said ignored. And it most certainly doe effect the argument directly and dramatically. The entire foundation of evolution theory is based on genetic control, with genetic mutation providing these slow evolutionary changes that result in the diversity of life. If outside environmental variables determine genetic outcomes, and not the genetic code itself, then obviously genetic mutation cannot account for those changes.

How do you know this? As far as I can tell, your only assuming/hoping life can't just exist by random. If you insist it's no religious, then so be it but I haven't the fainted clue what else could make you so convinced life can't simply be a random chance. Either way, nothing in any scientific field has suggested that life requires 'planning' of any sort. There's no reason it couldn't have formed by accident.

You need to expand your awareness about what other scientific fields are studying and finding, such as Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics. These scientific fields are discovering the existence of unexplained forces at work which govern the behavior of particles. There are a numerous observations which point to the presence of intelligent action and awareness, suggesting some form of consciousness involved in this, for which the hard material sciences like biology and evolution do not recognize or address. In short, the construction of all things, both non-living things like rocks, as well as living things are comprised of these particles that behave in a manner that shows conscious intention.

But one need not look to quantum physics to recognize the intention and purpose which is evident in countless examples of life all around you. From the spider, with it's organ to produce it's silk, and the distinct pattern in which the spider constructs it's web is anything but random, right down to the distinct pattern of the ocean tides produced by the gravitational influences of the moon .. and this is true of all life in general across the board.

You don't need religious influences to simply observe the intricate nature of life, just as one can hear the deliberately structured composition of Mozart, as compared to the haphazard sounds of an orchestra simply tuning up.

Yes, but that's not what I was trying to say. They used the observation and evidence from the past to create accurate predictions. The predictions are based upon what has already happened. It's been determined that there is sufficient evidence to uphold Darwin's theory, and we've thus made predictions as to what we can expect to find out about life today. Thus far, no discovery has been made that contradicts evolution.

Again, this is why I find it odd that you keep separating your argument from religion. I can think of no reason aside from a hope that a god of some sort created life with a purpose that you would feel so strongly about this. And once more I say that there is no irrefutable evidence that suggests life couldn't have happened by accident.

You cannot understand how my argument could be based on something other than religion because that is the conditioned response those who have been brainwashed by the propaganda have been programmed to respond. Your thinking is fixated on this false premise that evolution is pure science, which can only be questioned by those choosing religion over science. Yet, I've identified the science based argument which you seem incapable of considering. Go back through our lengthy debate, and notice that each and every time the subject of religion appears, it has been you injecting it ... not me. To you, there are only two choices, faith in science, or faith in religion. Therefore, your opinion is faith based, so you assume mine must also be. That's your error .... my position is based on logic. And it is not logical to look at the infinitely complex structure of a living cell and conclude that it magically assembled itself by random mixing of elements, accidentally. It's a preposterous conclusion that relies on magical thinking, rather than logic.

I'll go back to the Mount Rushmore analogy to illustrate the point again. It shows design with purpose, and while natural rock erosion could create the illusion of figures resembling faces, there are distinct features of that structure which immediately point to it's artificiality, as opposed to random erosion. The same can be said of any number of things one might encounter that either possess such deliberately designed features or don't. Can you honestly look at a wooden flute and mistake it for just a hollow stick of wood with holes on top, or do you immediately recognize it's design with purpose? What about a swiss watch? Are the intricate wheels and gears indicative of deliberate design, or random accident? Religion isn't required here ... just common sense.

You also make the claim that we know of no complex structure that was not 'created' which is entirely false. The workings of an atom are complex and how they can be fused to create entirely new elements and can bind together to create molecules which will bind to other molecules to create larger objects (often that we can physically see, as the others listed are not visible to the naked eye). Stars are complex. Gravity is complex. The universe is seemingly infinitely complex. I'd argue life is a far simpler structure than the entire universe.

Correction ... everything was created, by some means. You simply claim that natural forces created life by random accident. And this is the assumption guiding you .... as you compare the universe to life, suggesting it is more complex, but still not created. Of course, according to science, the big bang created the universe, along with all that life within the universe .... but really ... do you not see the rather distinct similarity between a solar system on the macro scale, and an atom on the micro scale? Both have a nucleus at the center, and orbiting bodies around it. Do you not also see the similarities in clusters of atoms which make up molecules, and clusters of solar systems that make up galaxies? Given that everything is made up of the same stuff, be it a star, a planet, a rock or an insect, these similarities ought to provoke questions which you are obviously not asking.

I'm not a physicist so I can't realistically answer this. But why do elements form? Atoms are fused together within stars and becomes more dense. Heavier things are new substances at the atomic level; this is why Hydrogen is far lighter than iron. The atoms are made up of less 'stuff.' And atoms attract, which is why molecules are formed to create more complex structure.

This is a question of philosophy, not science. And I don't know and neither do you. You might say God, but you'd have no evidence for this.

There you go again with the the "God" thing. Do you not see how your preoccupation with God is effecting your thought process? Your anti-god bias is what shapes your beliefs, just as much as a devout religious person allows God to shape theirs.

Nevertheless, the nature of reality is every bit as much a question of sciences as might be philosophy.

Accumulation of adaption will lead to larger changes.

According to the theory of evolution,, it is the collection of genetic mutations retained through the process of natural selection that accounts for evolution ... not collections of adaptations.

The observation isn't active evolution. The hypothesis of evolution is made first. We then look to whatever we can to see if the hypothesis is accurate. In the case of evolution, it was DNA and fossil records. What we observed was what they hypothesis of evolution predicted, thus it became a theory.

Baloney. The theory of evolution predates the discovery of DNA by over 100 years. The truth is, I seriously doubt Darwin himself would embrace his own theory were he to have intimate knowledge of DNA and the code for which DNA contains.

Humans never lived without blood, but other species did until they evolved. But that wasn't my point. There are different types of hemoglobin genes that were added. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

DNA record has explained this already. We've looked through it and we've been able to pin point when certain things appeared.

There are transitional fossils. They are all over the place. All you'd have to do is google it. Do we have all of them? Of course not? It'd be insane to expect us to find all of them! It's taken us long enough to find the ones we currently have. You also don't seem to understand that not every species is going to be fossilized. Certain conditions are required to become a fossil and they are not always present.

That is totally false. Prior to, and continuing undeterred after the discovery of the Cambrian explosion, these so-called "transitionals" are nothing more than separate life forms which evolution science claims to be transitional based on similarities. That is such a blatantly flawed proposition, because these alleged transitionals were fully functional life forms, and not intermediate forms in the process of changing into a new species, which remain the "missing link". And furthermore, if these intermediates were so abundant, there would be no need to fabricate them, as has happened in the past, such as the proven frauds like Lucy and Piltdown man.

Solid evidence that you really don't understand the theory of evolution.

There are no current apes alive today that we evolved 'from.' The classic question by creationists 'if we evolved from monkey's, why are there still monkeys?' We didn't evolve from them, we evolved with them. We share a common ancestor.

Fine ... then stop teaching our children this hogwash by using that classic evolution pictograph showing the crouched over primate slowly evolving and becoming increasingly upright, becoming a man reading a newspaper.

And yes, Neanderthals coexisted with humans. This is not something that has been hidden either. I'm more than aware they coexisted. Once more, evolution does not mean ancestors can't coexist.

Bull .... more doubletalk. Until irrefutable evidence was discovered proving that neanderthals coexisted with modern homosapians, evolution science insisted that neanderthals were the precursor "intermediate" species that evolved into modern man. And the aforementioned evolution pictograph STILL shows this, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in order to maintain that position, evolution science came up with an explanation for how this coexistence did not refute this evolutionary chain, by offering the "Island Theory".

Clearly, there is a lot of evolution taking place here ... the theory of evolution is constantly changing over time in response to each new piece of evidence that doesn't fit the previous version.

Dogs are basically evolutionary descendants of wolves (through domestication) and yet both currently exist. This is the same thing with humans and Neanderthals. We evolved from a common ancestor (Neanderthals first) and exited at the same time. I believe you are referring to the popular and iconic image of evolution that has a line of apes like creatures, a Neanderthal and a human? This image is widely disdained within the scientific community as it does not accurately depict how evolution actually works. [

Dogs may or may not be descendants of wolves, but that is immaterial, since they are the same species, and possess the capacity for interbreeding. Furthermore, given the process of evolution is about speciation, or one species evolving into another separate species, citing this inner species connections are proof of nothing. This has no relevance to one species evolving into a distinctly different species. Drawing such comparisons provide no particular value or proof of evolution

Thus far, your position seems to be fueled by the idea that life is to complex to be random and that it would have had to have been planned or engineered by an intelligent designer. This sounds an awful lot like religion to me. But if you aren't religious, it doesn't change the fact that there is no reason to suggest life can't exist at random.

The best way I can explain this to you is to use your own false constructs. To you, it is clear, that natural forces explain the existence of life, and that evolution theory defines those natural forces at work. Anything outside of that definition is utomatically "supernatural". But that is only because of your narrow definition of natural forces. Yet, if within the universe there existed an unseen consciousness governing the behavior of particles, and this consciousness could be proven and defined, it would cease to be supernatural. But material science rejects that, because of lack of evidence for the existence of this consciousness. This too is predicated upon the definition of what constitutes "evidence", which is also too narrowly defined by material science. But, as the old saying goes, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Quantum physics have uncovered plenty of evidence showing there must be unseen and undefined forces at work to explain the behavior of particles. Einstein referred to some of this behavior he observed as "spooky action at a distance", and while no one I know would suggest Einstein wasn't a legitimate scientist, we have no scientific definition for "spooky".

Another example of unseen forces for which science doesn't understand fully, is gravity. But science doesn't reject the existence of gravity. So why does material science reject the existence of other unseen forces which might be labeled "consciousness"? Could not consciousness be yet another natural force like gravity? Why would consciousness require a religious foundation, when gravity doesn't?

No one things life appeared out of thin air. The most recent hypothesis that seems valid was that RNA formed (which is unlikely but has been proven to be completely possibly) and there were the right naturally occurring minerals and elements in the water for the RNA to react and basically cause an electron reaction that would jump start respiration and/or photosynthesis. This was tested in a lab, and the results suggest that this is in fact possible. Either way, it didn't just appear.

How has it been proven that RNA could have formed randomly? It's an erroneous claim. RNA is similar to DNA in form and function, while the only proven mechanism for the creation of RNA is from DNA coded instructions. There is no other observed means for RNA creation. RNA also contains genetic instructions, so there are only two options here ... either RNA was designed for the purpose it serves, or it appeared out of thin air, by random mixing of elements.

How is stating we are just animals devaluing human life? We have a higher level of intelligence than all living things and are capable of deep, philosophical thought. I do consider life 'special' in that every living thing, human or otherwise, is alive and that we've all evolved from a common ancestor and that we should therefore treat all living things with proper respect. Life is statistically uncommon among the universe and since we all have to struggle to survive, I love and respect all living things. I am not, however, so insecure or arrogant as to assume humans were created separate and made 'special.' We are not special in that we are clearly better than all living things or have been given some higher purpose. Life is not meaningless, but there is no predetermined meaning. You make your own. If you want to live your life thinking someone else has determined your purpose, by all means, do that. I consider that a waste of perfectly good life though. I'd much rather form my own purpose and I encourage others to do the same.

So, you are suggesting that I view life as unimportant, which is incorrect (as well as a shift from a scientific argument to a philosophical one). I just see no need for a predetermined purpose or any reason that we were made special and this is our special home. If intelligent design is real, this designer is either not intelligent, or has a twisted sense of humor. There are a lot of awfully painful ways for us humans to die, and that's not even including the humans caused ones.

You just did devalue human life, because we tend to place greater value on that which has purpose, and much less value on things with no purpose.

You further devalue life by depicting it as a product so faulty that if a creator was responsible, that creator wasn't very intelligent or had a twisted sense of humor. The underlying insinuation is, you are more intelligent, as you would have created things differently. What an ego!

The truth is, one would first need to understand the purpose before judging the product. And since you believe there is no predetermined purpose for human life, nor even a need for such, what do you base your assessment on? If everything is random, with no purpose, then there is no right or wrong for which to pass judgment. To judge a thing, one must first define it's purpose, and then decide if it served it's purpose or not.

Therein lies the age old mystery ... what is the meaning of life. Why are we here? Humans have been asking that question for a very long time. Evolution says, don't worry about it. There is no purpose or meaning. We're all just accidents of nature. So, do what thou wilt ...

If life has no inherent purpose, it has no inherent value .. no goals to achieve, and no rules to observe, except for those rules established by the only authority that exists ... the one and only true God ... government.

[armory]

Originally Posted by muleskinner

I agree with you...the name used a few years ago to describe the far right was the "American Taliban" and I think that is very true..I have never had a problem with the old time repubs...I didn't agree with them on a few things,but it was on issues revolving around labor mostly...but these Reagan neoCONs and Tbaggers are beyond repair or debate...they are so far out in right field that they don't even know where the dang ball game is being played.

Libs are so lost they never heard of a ballgame. They are more concerned with chasing Skittles, unicorns and rainbows.
When they learn they don't exist they blame it on the right and try to shove invented ones down the collective throat of society and if that doesn't suit them they call us RACISTS, RWNJs and other emotionally charged words because that is the exent of their poor melted minds.
If you don't accept every deviant behavior/lifestyle choice you are deemed, RACIST, BIGOT, SEXIST, NAZI, HOMOPHOBE or other invented category they feel comfortable with.

God help you if you are white, middle-aged or like firearms. You deserve to die at that point.

Most on the extreme left are rich and white as they make the perfect liberals. They love to rebel and raise awareness about that which they ''feel'' we should be aware of. They then wipe their hands of the cause and walk away so others can worry about it.
They did their part...liberalism exists so liberals can feel good about themselves.

Wasn't the OWS crowd a liberal mindfart?

[TheDusty]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

There is nothing simple about DNA and it's function. To insinuate simplicity is an inaccurate characterization of a very complex structure.

And you're comparison of DNA to architectural blueprints was what? Not simple? I make something simple and it's wrong. You do it, and it's fine?

Complexity with purpose, such as the structure of DNA which demonstrates a distinct pattern, and performs specific tasks is the exact opposite of random. Look up the definition of random.

Random can meen unplanned. It does not have to mean chaotic, which is the definition you are using.

If outside environmental variables determine genetic outcomes, and not the genetic code itself, then obviously genetic mutation cannot account for those changes.

The change still occurs at the genetic level, which changes nothing about either of our arguments.

In short, the construction of all things, both non-living things like rocks, as well as living things are comprised of these particles that behave in a manner that shows conscious intention.

The laws of physics appear like 'conscious intention' as well. This does not mean they are.

From the spider, with it's organ to produce it's silk, and the distinct pattern in which the spider constructs it's web is anything but random, right down to the distinct pattern of the ocean tides produced by the gravitational influences of the moon .. and this is true of all life in general across the board.

Something being impressive or beautiful or simply spectacular is not sufficient evidence for some kind of intelligent creator. Also, the spider's web is likely a learned trait, not something that just magically started happening. And the moon's affect on the ocean is explained by gravitational theory and the laws of physics.

You don't need religious influences to simply observe the intricate nature of life, just as one can hear the deliberately structured composition of Mozart, as compared to the haphazard sounds of an orchestra simply tuning up.

I agree, but I fail to see how this proves your point. For me, science is just as awe inspiring as the idea that some man who lives in the sky created everything for some greater purpose. I also don't mind not knowing. Not knowing for me does not require me to fill in the knowledge gap with a creator.


[quote]Your thinking is fixated on this false premise that evolution is pure science, which can only be questioned by those choosing religion over science.[quote]
Not at all true. I welcome people who question everything, including science. I however want scientific questions.

Yet, I've identified the science based argument which you seem incapable of considering.

If I didn't consider it, I wouldn't have responded.

To you, there are only two choices, faith in science, or faith in religion. Therefore, your opinion is faith based, so you assume mine must also be. That's your error .... my position is based on logic. And it is not logical to look at the infinitely complex structure of a living cell and conclude that it magically assembled itself by random mixing of elements, accidentally. It's a preposterous conclusion that relies on magical thinking, rather than logic.

I don't think it magically assembled. It occurred against all odds by completely natural means. Understand that your view of a creator has a basis in magic and unexplained theories as well. Where did this creator come from. Obviously, who ever this is would also be infinitely complex, and as you've stated, complexity must have a creator, therefore our creator also had a creator, as did his/hers/its and so one. By your model, it is impossibly to have a first creator because these creators are infinitely complex. You could argue that a creator has existed eternally, but then this means the complexity does not need a creator, invalidating your entire argument.

Given that everything is made up of the same stuff, be it a star, a planet, a rock or an insect, these similarities ought to provoke questions which you are obviously not asking.

Bit of an assumption, but this is unsuprising. I can't assume but you can, just as I can't simplify but you can.

Yes, they look similar in nature, but that's it. An atom's structure is based on electrical charge while a solar system is based upon gravitational influence.

There you go again with the the "God" thing. Do you not see how your preoccupation with God is effecting your thought process? Your anti-god bias is what shapes your beliefs, just as much as a devout religious person allows God to shape theirs.

I used the word God once in that particular section. The bulk of my post was answer, to the best of my ability, your question about atomic structure. I followed by pointing out the philosophical nature of your question, and said that most who hold your world view equate the answer to God, which is true. Most do. You call it intelligent design, though there is no real difference. Don't get hung up on the word choice.

Nevertheless, the nature of reality is every bit as much a question of sciences as might be philosophy.

Fair enough. I'd have to agree with this.

According to the theory of evolution,, it is the collection of genetic mutations retained through the process of natural selection that accounts for evolution ... not collections of adaptations.

Adaptions are generally the result of mutation.

That is totally false. Prior to, and continuing undeterred after the discovery of the Cambrian explosion, these so-called "transitionals" are nothing more than separate life forms which evolution science claims to be transitional based on similarities. That is such a blatantly flawed proposition, because these alleged transitionals were fully functional life forms, and not intermediate forms in the process of changing into a new species, which remain the "missing link".

It's not just appearance. Where they were found is equally important. If we find transitional fossils that resemble something between ape and human in an area where the earliest humans are known to have existed and determine how much older those remains were, we can conclude what they are.

Until irrefutable evidence was discovered proving that neanderthals coexisted with modern homosapians, evolution science insisted that neanderthals were the precursor "intermediate" species that evolved into modern man. And the aforementioned evolution pictograph STILL shows this, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in order to maintain that position, evolution science came up with an explanation for how this coexistence did not refute this evolutionary chain, by offering the "Island Theory".

Changing the theory with the acquisition of new evidence is part of science. The discovery of Neanderthals and modern humans coexisting was unexpected, but not impossible. Evolution is geographical as well. If people (term will apply to Neanderthals and humans in this context) have a specific need in place A, but not in place B, then the people will be different in place A over time. Thus, it's possible that they would coexist, even close by or in an immediate area.

Clearly, there is a lot of evolution taking place here ... the theory of evolution is constantly changing over time in response to each new piece of evidence that doesn't fit the previous version.

That's why it's a theory and not a law. New evidence can change what we thought we knew. It might mean we are incorrect about something at one point and find the mistake at a later time, but this still is more constructive than sticking our head in the sand and assuming we know everything there is to know.

Dogs may or may not be descendants of wolves, but that is immaterial, since they are the same species, and possess the capacity for interbreeding. Furthermore, given the process of evolution is about speciation, or one species evolving into another separate species, citing this inner species connections are proof of nothing. This has no relevance to one species evolving into a distinctly different species. Drawing such comparisons provide no particular value or proof of evolution

Humans and Neanderthals could breed but are still considered different enough to be different species. It would make sense that as evolution causes to species to become increasingly dissimilar, they would lose breeding capability over a duration of time. It wouldn't be instantaneous. Also, when wolfs and dogs do breed, their puppy is behaviorally different from a dog or wolf puppy.

To you, it is clear, that natural forces explain the existence of life, and that evolution theory defines those natural forces at work. Anything outside of that definition is utomatically "supernatural". But that is only because of your narrow definition of natural forces.

Natural forces are the naturally existing laws that govern nature. I don't know what your definition is, but that's mine and that sounds extremely broad and quite fluid.

Yet, if within the universe there existed an unseen consciousness governing the behavior of particles, and this consciousness could be proven and defined, it would cease to be supernatural. But material science rejects that, because of lack of evidence for the existence of this consciousness. This too is predicated upon the definition of what constitutes "evidence", which is also too narrowly defined by material science. But, as the old saying goes, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Then the absence of Cambrian fossils means...

Evidence is a universal term in science. It is narrow, but it's narrow for a reason. Things need to be heavily scrutinized for it to become universally accepted.

Quantum physics have uncovered plenty of evidence showing there must be unseen and undefined forces at work to explain the behavior of particles. Einstein referred to some of this behavior he observed as "spooky action at a distance", and while no one I know would suggest Einstein wasn't a legitimate scientist, we have no scientific definition for "spooky".

But an as of now unexplained force does not need to be 'supernatural.'

Another example of unseen forces for which science doesn't understand fully, is gravity. But science doesn't reject the existence of gravity. So why does material science reject the existence of other unseen forces which might be labeled "consciousness"? Could not consciousness be yet another natural force like gravity? Why would consciousness require a religious foundation, when gravity doesn't?

Gravity has been explained. The unseen forces you're referring to have not.

How has it been proven that RNA could have formed randomly? It's an erroneous claim. RNA is similar to DNA in form and function, while the only proven mechanism for the creation of RNA is from DNA coded instructions. There is no other observed means for RNA creation. RNA also contains genetic instructions, so there are only two options here ... either RNA was designed for the purpose it serves, or it appeared out of thin air, by random mixing of elements.

It was tested in a lab. They collected the that naturally occurring elements that exist on Earth and put them in a space that was similar to what the Earth would have looked like 3 billion years ago and it was found that RNA can form on it's own.

You just did devalue human life, because we tend to place greater value on that which has purpose, and much less value on things with no purpose.

I view purpose as relative and determined by the individual, not a creator.

You further devalue life by depicting it as a product so faulty that if a creator was responsible, that creator wasn't very intelligent or had a twisted sense of humor. The underlying insinuation is, you are more intelligent, as you would have created things differently. What an ego!

Are you suggesting this creator did his best work? Considering how many people die from things that should be preventable (or, if this creator created EVERYTHING, probably shouldn't exist in the first place), I feel this creator didn't do a great job. Why create us if a group of us can be crippled by bacteria, which we can't even see. Also, why create the harmful bacteria?

The truth is, one would first need to understand the purpose before judging the product. And since you believe there is no predetermined purpose for human life, nor even a need for such, what do you base your assessment on? If everything is random, with no purpose, then there is no right or wrong for which to pass judgment. To judge a thing, one must first define it's purpose, and then decide if it served it's purpose or not.

Once more, I view purpose from the perspective of the individual. This is also how moral assessments can be made. I give my own life purpose by doing things I love, and can assume others do the same. Thus, it is immoral to harm or steal from others as that would interfere with their self determined purpose.

Therein lies the age old mystery ... what is the meaning of life. Why are we here? Humans have been asking that question for a very long time. Evolution says, don't worry about it. There is no purpose or meaning. We're all just accidents of nature. So, do what thou wilt ...

That last bit sounds like propaganda straight from a far right commentator, equating science/secularism with the desire for immorality, which is false. Evolution does not address a purpose. It has no need, and for many, no room, for an intelligent designer. Many, myself included, do not feel one needs to exist for individual purpose to exist.

If life has no inherent purpose, it has no inherent value .. no goals to achieve, and no rules to observe, except for those rules established by the only authority that exists ... the one and only true God ... government.

Weird topic shift, but alright. I don't think science or secularism exist to serve government. In fact, both formed in opposition of government with the enlightenment and birth of liberalism. As I've made clear by now, purpose it determined by the individual, no one else. Not God, not a designer, not a government. I am an individualist. Not a collectivist.

[ghostee]

Well, I'm talking through the way I see my values and the current political context of America where I am and still in a little broader sense, the entire west. America just saw the election of Donald Trump, one of the most unpopular presidents in our times and people are literally comparing to Hitler (when Trump is basically not a radical). I'm more concerned about the context of the status quo in society during the last decades.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Let see...

The "extreme left":
Assault those exercising free speech rights
Confront those that don't agree with them in their homes and in private businesses
Use fear and intimidation against opponents
Divide this nation along racial and social lines
Want to deny civil rights
Destroy public and private property
Block public highways, risking lives
Detest, verbally abuse and physically attack law enforcement
Hold the military in contempt
Think they can steal the earnings of anyone they disagree with
Think they can steal property from those with a differing opinion
Supports violent criminals while demonizing victims
Wants to import violent, uneducated, unskilled individuals from violent cultures
Are declared domestic terrorists
Support international terrorism



The "extreme right":
Would prefer that you not murder babies

[Jowel]

Even if a person has principled opinions that gravitate towards one end of the political spectrum or another, modern issues are so complex that it's better to keep an open mind that someone else might have a different point of view with merit.

I tend to think people who go to one extreme or another are naive at best and mentally unstable at worst.

[TomC23]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Let see...

The "extreme left":
Assault those exercising free speech rights Martin Luther King et al would disagree with you
Confront those that don't agree with them in their homes and in private businesses See above
Use fear and intimidation against opponents See above
Divide this nation along racial and social lines See Charlottesville
Want to deny civil rights See the South circa the 60's
Destroy public and private property See Oklahoma City Bombing
Block public highways, risking lives Never been to a Right Wing Extremist rally have you?
Detest, verbally abuse and physically attack law enforcement See Sovereign Citizens
Hold the military in contempt Extreme Right contemptuously sends Military to unneeded wars
Think they can steal the earnings of anyone they disagree with Have no idea what you are blathering
Think they can steal property from those with a differing opinion See above
Supports violent criminals while demonizing victims See Extreme Right Sandy Hook conspiracy theories
Wants to import violent, uneducated, unskilled individuals from violent cultures You shouldn't talk that way about Mallania's parents
Are declared domestic terrorists Tell that to the victims of the OKC bombing, the Charleston church shooting, and numerous school shootings augmented by Extreme Right Gun Nuts
Support international terrorism Remind me again, which President is Supporting the Saudis and al Queda in Yemen?



The "extreme right":
Would prefer that you not murder babies.

The "extreme left" would prefer you hypocrites would support babies after they are born instead of ignoring them.

[tripleh]

the extreme left is the fascist bunch imo...that represents the biggest thread to America.

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Let see...

The "extreme left":
Assault those exercising free speech rights
Confront those that don't agree with them in their homes and in private businesses
Use fear and intimidation against opponents
Divide this nation along racial and social lines
Want to deny civil rights
Destroy public and private property
Block public highways, risking lives
Detest, verbally abuse and physically attack law enforcement
Hold the military in contempt
Think they can steal the earnings of anyone they disagree with
Think they can steal property from those with a differing opinion
Supports violent criminals while demonizing victims
Wants to import violent, uneducated, unskilled individuals from violent cultures
Are declared domestic terrorists
Support international terrorism



The "extreme right":
Would prefer that you not murder babies

accurate.

[Rocko20]

The extreme left involves a lot of people killing citizens and political opposition (see Communism and Socialism).

[Brave New World]

All political extremnes are equally bad.