Believe Only What We Feel?

[ClayBarham]

How many times have you heard people say, “Out of sight, out of mind?” They also say, “Seeing is believing.” Both imply the same thing. There is no noise in a forest when a tree falls, if no one is there to hear it. The same line of thought is that people, who do not see or understand what I see and understand, will dismiss and criticize me instead of trying to find out if something is there. It is a means of blocking debate and discussion. If they do not see it, it must not exist.

On the other hand, some say, “Out of mind, out of sight.” They also say, “Believing is seeing.” If you have tunnel vision, accept only that which you believe or feel is true, then that is what you will see. Beliefs and feelings are confirmed because the mind simply removes contradictions. People see what they want to see, what belief says is correct, reflecting their feelings of reality. We shape our own reality by what we believe. We express it as truth. In short, we cannot see it if we cannot believe it. Much in our world is invisible, because our minds and our eyes limit our vision to suit our feelings and beliefs. Man’s view of the earth was limited long ago. It resulted in a flat earth belief. Punishment was the reward of those who thought otherwise. Pasteur saw microscopic organisms others could not see. Who could believe it? Individuals who had vision to see beyond the limited reality felt by others, invented, created and built, inviting condemnation by the ignorant around them. From these painful steps, the world grew.

This is the reason for education. Education is to open our minds to greater possibilities and broaden our view. Education means what we believe and what we see are results of what others have discovered. Educating the child and adults, meant looking at ideas and views existing beyond limited beliefs and feelings. In political science, we were once limited to the accepted and established beliefs of society. Rigidly protected, the restrictive Old World views resisted all challenges. Those accepted beliefs and views limited the world to a few elite ruling the many non-elite. It could be no other way. To offer up a challenge to those established, well-accepted notions would cost one his life.

Napoleon Hill said, “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe it can achieve.” In America, that belief set the New World on a course of rapid growth and prosperity. Americans conceived of things unthinkable in the Old World. They believed they could achieve what they dreamed. Legitimate self-interests spurred on growth, prosperity and greater possibilities. Americans proved prosperity could only be possible with freedom, not with tyranny. In spite of what they proved, many today, such as the Democrats, believe only benevolent tyranny can provide for what they see as the more important community interests.

The limitations imposed on us now, reflect the conflict between legitimate self-interest and the interests of community. The American Democrats, and all the Old World systems, claim that community interests, no matter who defines them, are more important than individual citizens living within the community. For almost 400 years, Americans, believed and acted as if each individual free to pursue his or her own interests, talents, skills and aspirations, would prosper. Prosperity from freedom resulted for them, their families and communities. The whole process was bottom-up, from the smallest community, to the states and the nation as a whole. Nothing worthwhile ever came from the top-down. Government never contributed anything, except when it prevented injustice, to the prosperity of America. That result was never in the beliefs and view of any Old World system, as none of them ever achieved an American level of success.

Uneducated compassion will always side with the communal, however, and less with the individual. Uneducated feelings will blur perception of positive differences, and that is what is happening today. The education establishment has become like the Muslim madrassa, indoctrinating children into limiting beliefs. American education today reflects community, which has no center, no mind, or heart with which it can define its interests, other than shared, uneducated compassion. This is why the Democrats appeal to the mob mentality, beliefs and feelings, to take what others have made and rip it apart out of envy, greed, anger and depression. Democrats plan to rebuild America on that foundation of more easily managed uneducated compassion than reason.

[PatrickHenry]

Again with the "Democrats"...What horsesh*t.

And collectivism has its legitimate purposes, Clay, though you are too blind to see them.

I like having a fire department that will come and extinguish my neighbor's house before it sets mine afire...

I like having a justice system where I can get a restraining order against my daughter's harassing ex-boyfriend, so I don't have to go break his arms myself...

I like having a monetary system that has an official stamp of approval, so I can engage in commerce without having to barter for items I may not need.

I like having a system of oversight that will remove children from abusive homes and find them shelter until their parents can get some help.

I am pleased that there is a system of border control, regardless that it is poorly enforced just now.

I believe that collective military defense is important in a dangerous world where armies of millions could conceivably invade and occupy.

Collectivism is not all bad and only fools argue that it is...

[Elrathin]

And another post of Clay that starts out with something profound and ends with slamming Dems and/or liberals. Typical and kinda sad that his posts are so predictable now.

[ClayBarham]

Patrick Henry, how come you believe in the same things I believe in, yet you claim it is collectivism and what I see is a free Republic? What I see as the efforts of free men and women, you claim is the result of a leader's efforts? I am sorry, but I do not comprehend your line of thinking. Please enlighten me. Thanks

[PatrickHenry]

What do you have against the Fire Department?

[Elrathin]

Each and every time Clay brings up self-interests as being his priority I only have to bring up the fact that he is only for CONSERVATIVE self-interests. For example gay marriage he sides with community interests. So basically this post can be filed away with all the other BS claims he has made.

[Buck Laser]

And another post of Clay that starts out with something profound and ends with slamming Dems and/or liberals. Typical and kinda sad that his posts are so predictable now.

I'm sorry, El: I don't think Clay has ever started with a "profound" concept. He is, as several have sad, a one-trick pony. It's like the old axiom that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to look like a nail. Several of us have pointed out ad nauseam the fundamental errors in his assumptions about how the American character came to be what it is. I've known others like him--apparently sane, but functioning within a very limited framework that requires espousing a set of beliefs not held by anyone else.

I'd guess that Clay believes the entire world is out of step but him...What are you gonna do with that attitude?

[ClayBarham]

Ah shucks. I bet you say that about all conservatives, the both of us who post here. There is nothing I could say that would be profound to you on the left, right?

[ViolaLee]

I believe that I feel that Clay is nothing but a partisan Democrat basher.

[ClayBarham]

Just goes to show, you either don't read my stuff or don't understand it. I am a partisan basher against those who would impose a dictatorship on me, no matter what party label. I do not care how benevolent, democratic or republican the ruler is, I want nothing to do with it, so I bash it. If Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were running as Democrats, I'd be right there at every turn. The particular party is no more worth supporting than a particular Chevy or Buick or whatever wagon we are riding on. Where it is taking us is more important. I don't expect you to understand that, however, since you are committed to a position opposite my own.

[underdawg]

From what I have read from all of Clay's bombastic posts, they appear like that of a politician, lots of big flowery talk lacking in substance and full of hot air used only to poke cheap pot shots at democrats.

[Deadshot]

Clay if you were not so blatantly anti-Democrat or had examples of you really giving it to the Republicans, I might be able to swallow the shit your selling.

But time and time again it's the Liberals and Democrats who are destroying America.

As I do consistently and constantly here on DF, let me please take this time to remind you that it has been the GOP,i.e. the representatives of the Conservative/Republicans, who had the control of the Government from 2000-2006. The Dems have only been in office for 10 months, not 72 months!

So the housing market, our economy's slide, the weakening dollar, not to mention the high gas prices, War in Iraq and our falling world wide image are the result of the policies and efforts, or lack there of (did I forget to mention Katrina?) of the GOP!

You wanna lay blame and point the finger of who's fault this or that is? Take a look at the party in charge for 6 out of the last 7 years! In the last 82 months the GOP has been in charge for 72 of them.

Clay show some logic and I'll follow, keep up this partisan bullshit, and I won't.

[PatrickHenry]

What's wrong with having a justice system, police, courts, punishment by society?

Instead of individualistic retribution?

[Pookie]

One question for you, Clay:
Why is it that you think it's always Democrats and liberals who are always wrong and not Republicans and conservatives?
Perhaps it is not the point that we should always listen to you; perhaps you are missing many good points by closing your mind to those of us on the other side of the aisle.
Might be something to think about, and you could even incorporate different ideas into your posts.
Just an idea. Hope you can answer my question.
Purrs,

[ClayBarham]

Pookie, if you are really interested in what I have been saying, not the accusations of some hardheads, do what I suggested for Ticbeast following his post. Simly look at the short numbered paragraphs on my site, www.ClaysAmerica.com, and then tell me what you think. I am familiar with what we call liberal (not classical liberalism) which is the oldest, most experienced social governing philosophy in the world, as well as the unique American system, what we call, today, conservative. I have always sought to find the core differences, and I believe I have. It is what I write about in my posts and my books. I show where one side believes in one side, and the other in the other, and some are quick to assign meanings not shown because they disagree with my findings. I expect more will disagree than agree, because what I support is the newest, most radical and revolutionary system, that formed in America almost 400 years ago. I just keep on plodding forth telling it as I see it. I must admit, I go no further in debating anyone whose sole purpose is to sling mud and have tirade of temper, as it is a waste of time....and by not engaging, they say I cannot prove my case.

[I Like Beer]

Each and every time Clay brings up self-interests as being his priority I only have to bring up the fact that he is only for CONSERVATIVE self-interests. For example gay marriage he sides with community interests. So basically this post can be filed away with all the other BS claims he has made.


QFT (quoted for truth).[hr]
From what I have read from all of Clay's bombastic posts, they appear like that of a politician, lots of big flowery talk lacking in substance and full of hot air used only to poke cheap pot shots at democrats.


He also defines liberals using the worst kinds of stereotypes (so that his description is no longer an accurate reflection of liberals) and then proceeds to attack that perverted image. I guess it makes him feel good about himself?

He sets up a false dichotomy. "There are only two sides and one side is good and the other is bad" - which is the false dichotomy. He then proceeds to 'prove' liberals are bad using, as I said, stereotypes and misrepresentation to show that conservatism is the proper way.

Point out how his philosophy is flawed (as PH has done in this thread) and the posts are ignored. He takes flight and comes back another day with another set of inane posts.

Welcome to my ignore list! You're the only person who hasn't been banned to make it on there.

[PatrickHenry]

Clay, you don't think that nations should call forth their young men to defend their society? In armies, I mean?

What's wrong with collective self-defense? The invader is likely to be coming in overwhelming force...Should we all go on as usual until twenty guns are pointed pointed at our families and no one is around to help?

[crimzonsol]

What's wrong with collective self-defense? The invader is likely to be coming in overwhelming force...Should we all go on as usual until twenty guns are pointed pointed at our families and no one is around to help?

Ironic considering its source....

[ClayBarham]

Have nothing against people signing up to defend their neighborhood or nation. It makes sense to do so. I object to the use of the word community everytime we talk about some segment of society. There's the gay community, the black community, the latino community, the lesbian community, all as a group highlighting common interests, some of which may not be common to them all. Keep in mind that interests are personal, individual, not communal, unless those in the community follow the lead of someone who claims to be the spokesman, such as Jesse Jackson speaking for all African people just happening to live in America. As for me, I'd rather hear what each has as interests as Americans of African origin. However, he who speaks for the rest must control the thoughts of all of them, and the interests are that people recognize his powers and support them since he speaks for them. There are interests we should all be sharing, such as being law-abiding, breathing clean air, feeling welcome by those around us, rather than fearing them. It is our personal interests that drives our behavior, and our interests should include being kind and courteous. The community term belongs to those who would dictate where and how we live, so they manage better.

[PatrickHenry]

I am sensing a breakthrough here.

Collective self-defense is worthwhile, Clay? Good to have your acknowledgement!

And I think that most of us will agree that, just as every creature will defend itself, every nation has the same right to self-defense.

So all collective efforts are not counterproductive, huh?

How about a justice system, to keep honest those who would violate another person's interests in favor of their own?

[ClayBarham]

You are suggesting I believe a football team really only consists of one player, never that they combine and use their individual talents as a team. I believe people magnify or amplify their individual efforts and productivity, at work or war, when they act together. I have no objection to community efforts, only when the community becomes more important and eclipses the individual as is the case with communal societies, as socialists and monarchists would have it. The family is a basic community, and essential to a nation. In the family, there is instructional leadership within the parents, and student-followers with the children, until they take what they learn and go form their own family communities. Again, it is when the entire community, which cannot think for itself, but reflects the accepted leader's views, as if IT TAKES A VILLAGE, and makes itself superior to individuals that I have a problem. Willingly sinking one's identity into a purposeful group is fine with conservatives, but it is an identity that should easily be taken back when the group changes directions for which the individual disagrees.

[moses2792796]

The nuclear family is a recent revision of the extended family, which is a corruption of the tribe, people are naturally pack animals, which means compromise for the good of the group.

[Elrathin]

I have no objection to community efforts, only when the community becomes more important and eclipses the individual as is the case with communal societies


And now we see the true Clay, when he believes in Community efforts as long as he believes in them. So much for the "Self Interests" eh? LOL Sorry Clay your remarks are quite hypocritical and have been noted as such.

Again Clay, Gay Marriage is a "Self Interest" that you side with the community on. You are NOT for self-interests, but you are ONLY for self-interests that go along with conservative values.

Remember this folks.

[moses2792796]

Actually Elrathin you seemed to completely misinterpret what you quoted, I've noticed you seem to do this alot, it definately seems like a delibarate strawman. If you're not going to argue against the point Clay actually made then don't bother posting.

And enough with that gay marriage bullcrap, every American has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex of their choice, therefore, every individual has equal rights. Gay marriage is to do with couple's rights. which is entirely different.

[ClayBarham]

And, they have a right to a multiple person orgy, so long as no one is forced into it, but if they all decided to have a gang marriage, they can do that as well. But, why should the "community" be required to recognize it as a gang-bang civil union with all the legal trappings of a legal man-woman marriage ordinarily destined to reproduce and raise children? This is society's way of trying to guide the family process of rearing good children, not more gang-bangers. This is where we see the negative side of self-interest against the positive side of community interests represented by a core family. I do not think it contributes to the development of a positive society, but more of wild, drunken, beasts winning the title of society. But,then, morality is a limiting thing and tends to follow religious rules, and better the life of beasts than religious limitations..

[Elrathin]

If you're not going to argue against the point Clay actually made then don't bother posting.

My quote was dead on acurate, if you don't like it don't read it and move on. I could care less what YOU think of it. Half the stuff you post is incoherent babble.


And enough with that gay marriage bullcrap, every American has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex of their choice, therefore, every individual has equal rights. Gay marriage is to do with couple's rights. which is entirely different.


Yes and the same argument was used for those FOR banning interracial marriage as well. They could always marry someone of the same race so what's the problem with that. Again, if you can't debate what I write, then don't bother posting.[hr]
his is where we see the negative side of self-interest against the positive side of community interests represented by a core family.

I have seen several gay families raise straight children just fine. In fact I have seen more screwed up straight families than screwed up gay families.


I do not think it contributes to the development of a positive society, but more of wild, drunken, beasts winning the title of society. But,then, morality is a limiting thing and tends to follow religious rules, and better the life of beasts than religious limitations..


If that were the case then no children raised by gay families would be active and productive members of society. That is not the case.

Again you are not FULLY for individual rights, only what you deem acceptable.

[moses2792796]

If you're not going to argue against the point Clay actually made then don't bother posting.

My quote was dead on acurate, if you don't like it don't read it and move on. I could care less what YOU think of it. Half the stuff you post is incoherent babble.


And enough with that gay marriage bullcrap, every American has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex of their choice, therefore, every individual has equal rights. Gay marriage is to do with couple's rights. which is entirely different.


Yes and the same argument was used for those FOR banning interracial marriage as well. They could always marry someone of the same race so what's the problem with that. Again, if you can't debate what I write, then don't bother posting.[hr]
his is where we see the negative side of self-interest against the positive side of community interests represented by a core family.

I have seen several gay families raise straight children just fine. In fact I have seen more screwed up straight families than screwed up gay families.


I do not think it contributes to the development of a positive society, but more of wild, drunken, beasts winning the title of society. But,then, morality is a limiting thing and tends to follow religious rules, and better the life of beasts than religious limitations..


If that were the case then no children raised by gay families would be active and productive members of society. That is not the case.

Again you are not FULLY for individual rights, only what you deem acceptable.





If you think my posts are incoherent it's probably because you haven't taken the time to understand and let the ideas sink in, rather you respond with your immediate emotional response and consequently come off as rather rude and irritating.

I offered a perfectly valid argument why gay marriage should not be allowed, I definately debated what you wrote, I don't see what your problem is. As far as interacial marriage goes, if a country decides that they wish to preserve diversity within communities I see no problem with that.

The main problem with gay people raising children is that the children are forced to undergo severe social pressure from peers and from their parents. Children are not responsible for advocating gay rights and it is unfair to put them in a position where they will have to do so.

Again gay marriage is not to do with INDIVIDUAL'S rights.

[Elrathin]

If you think my posts are incoherent it's probably because you haven't taken the time to understand and let the ideas sink in, rather you respond with your immediate emotional response and consequently come off as rather rude and irritating.

Funny I think the same way of you in regards to my posts.


I offered a perfectly valid argument why gay marriage should not be allowed, I definately debated what you wrote, I don't see what your problem is. As far as interacial marriage goes, if a country decides that they wish to preserve diversity within communities I see no problem with that.

Yep you gave a religous view, which we as a nation in America are not a theocracy.


The main problem with gay people raising children is that the children are forced to undergo severe social pressure from peers and from their parents. Children are not responsible for advocating gay rights and it is unfair to put them in a position where they will have to do so.

Funny I have watched 4 sets of gay parents raise children and the children not only turn out straight but productive members of society. What have you seen?


Again gay marriage is not to do with INDIVIDUAL'S rights.


Yep it does. The fact you can't see that means you have religion blinding you. Much like those that thought interracial marriage should be banned had prejudice blinding them.

simple fact that escapes you, we are not a theocracy. And worst case scenario, we have our kingdom on earth, you have yours in Heaven Butt out.

[moses2792796]

When have I ever shown that I did not understand your posts, their meaning is generally obvious.

What I gave was not a religious argument, you said that individuals rights are inequal, I said they aren't because every individual can marry someone of the opposite sex, no exceptions.

I was just giving my opinion on the problem with gay people raising children, not saying that children with gay parents will turn out to be pedophiles.

I am not strictly religious, it's funny to see that as soon as I disagree with you, you pidgeonhole me into the people you are used to arguing against, which I am certainly not. The only argument you have so far come up with is the irrelevant comparison to interacial marriage, which was only meant to appeal to a modern biased view of what race really means.

Why do you always feel the need tyo bring up the issue of homosexuality, hasn't it been dicussed enough elsewhere?

[Elrathin]

What I gave was not a religious argument, you said that individuals rights are inequal, I said they aren't because every individual can marry someone of the opposite sex, no exceptions.

And that was the same lines along which people thought of interracial marriage that people could still marry people of the SAME race. The only difference is now the excuse you give is it is equal because people can marry the opposite sex. Both inexcusable reasons.


I was just giving my opinion on the problem with gay people raising children, not saying that children with gay parents will turn out to be pedophiles.

And your opinion was incorrect. Gay people have raise children to not only be striaght but productive members of society. You were wrong there in your generalizations as well.


The only argument you have so far come up with is the irrelevant comparison to interacial marriage, which was only meant to appeal to a modern biased view of what race really means.

And you have yet to come up with one valid reason why Gay Marriage should be illegal.


Why do you always feel the need tyo bring up the issue of homosexuality, hasn't it been dicussed enough elsewhere?


why do you feel the need to denounce it?

[moses2792796]

I have no problem with a law against interracial marriage, provided it is done on a local basis, if a community wishes to preserve their diversity, that is up to them. I have no problem with not legalising gay marriage simply because I see no reason to alter a tradition for the sake of people being able to have tax benefits. If I had my way, localisation would allow for gay marriage in certain areas but not others, that way people who wished to live in traditional communities would be able to do so, and gay people could get married as well. They'll eventually all die of AIDS anyway...joking joking :)

I never said that it would have a directly negative impact on the child, but I think a child has the right to growing up in a traditional household. Then again, they probably won't get that from straight parents either so there is not much point stopping it now.

I have never actually said I am anti-gay, you just interpret it that way because I am not pro-gay like you are. You are very much taking the 'if you're not with me you're against me' stance here, and it isn't constructive.

[Elrathin]

I have no problem with a law against interracial marriage, provided it is done on a local basis, if a community wishes to preserve their diversity, that is up to them.

Well then at least your consistant I don't believe in that way and if someone living in America (The Land of the free) wants to do that, they can move elsewhere if they want to make it a law, it is not our way. I have no problem with someone (like my neighbor) who believes something is wrong or incorrect. I only believe that there should not be a law based solely on that such as gay marriage being illegal.


I never said that it would have a directly negative impact on the child, but I think a child has the right to growing up in a traditional household. Then again, they probably won't get that from straight parents either so there is not much point stopping it now.

you implied that it would be a negative impact. It is not, therefore you are wrong. The child deserves to grow up in the environment that the parents choose. Aferall, we are a nation that it is LEGAL for a familiy to raise their children to hate gays, blacks, and jews, so why not make it legal for gays to raise children?


I have never actually said I am anti-gay, you just interpret it that way because I am not pro-gay like you are. You are very much taking the 'if you're not with me you're against me' stance here, and it isn't constructive.


I never claimed you were homophobic or anti-gay. Please show me where I claimed you were anti-gay. I said there are those that believe homosexuality is a sin is all and that I believe that is incorrect since we are not a theocracy.

[moses2792796]

It's not so much that gay marriage is ILLEGAL as that it's just not a legal ceremony, I see no reason to change the legislation as marriage doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

I definately think that in many cases, a child would suffer from having gay parents, in a traditional society this would not even be thought of. The main problem is that most straight parents these days will not provide a healthy environment for their children anyway, so be anti-gay parents is probably pointless unless one is going to denounce any parents who decrease their children's chance of real growth. Unfortunately most of them do it unknowingly.

You said I denounced gays, which I don't think I did. I am not against certain rights being granted to gays for religious/moral reasons, it's a shame that this is all you see in religion, because the modern moral form of religion is an empty shell without the spiritual core of traditional religion. I am against granting gays any rights they wish because it undermines certain traidional ceremonies for reasons that are purely individualistic/materialistic. I do not consider the issue of homosexuality to be politically or morally important, it simply comes under a wider umbrella of my ideological system and people seem to like talking about it.

[Elrathin]

You said I denounced gays, which I don't think I did.

I don't see anywhere I said that and if it was it was in regards to gay marriage, so please show me where I said that.


I am against granting gays any rights they wish because it undermines certain traidional ceremonies for reasons that are purely individualistic/materialistic.

Marriage in this country is nothing but materialistic. That was changed a long time ago. Tax credit for married couples, etc. It has ALREADY changed to materialistic.

How is two gay people getting married going to affect YOUR marriage? It isn't. Your tradition and your ceremonies should not be legislated by the state.


I do not consider the issue of homosexuality to be politically or morally important, it simply comes under a wider umbrella of my ideological system and people seem to like talking about it.


Well, it probably isn't an issue for you because your rights to marry the one you love are not being denied by the state. The state shouldn't even be involved in this.

[ClayBarham]

I see nothing wrong with two gay guys shacking up together, or two gay women, or two straight either kind, or come-and-go male-female relationships, but not when children are involved. Each gender child should be able to learn by observing what a male parent is and does and what a female parent is and does. I think kids have a right to it. But, I do not like to see kids denied a complete male-female family. Even a single parent, for whatever reason single, is a denial of one of the parenting models, even if they really don't know what exactly to do, as long as they show them care and love. Of course, many kids in a single parent family often have grandparents as models to fill the void. When we arrived on this planet, we were equipped to be male or female, there were no compromise choices. The choice was made for us and we should live up to that choice and not choose to change it....adjusting is a lot easier. Most gays I have seen, meaning those who advertise it, are working hard to justify the choice they made, not what they were born with. When you work hard to justify your choices, it tells me you are still not sure it was the right choice.

[Elrathin]

Even a single parent, for whatever reason single, is a denial of one of the parenting models, even if they really don't know what exactly to do, as long as they show them care and love.

What is soo different about a single parent and two gay people raising a child? Like I said before I have seen several cases where a gay couple have SUCCESSFULLY raised a child (and by that I mean the child is a productive member of society). What have you seen to justify your choice? OR are you just guessing it would be bad?

In fact I would say I have seen far more screwed up kids personally from regular families (A mother and a father in a home) than from gay couples.


When you work hard to justify your choices, it tells me you are still not sure it was the right choice.


You sure work hard here to justify your choice as a conservative, so I guess you're right about that statement.

[AnnEsthesia]

Considering that most gay folk come from heterosexual traditional families... why would the anti-gay rights people feel that those families are any better?

[moses2792796]

You said I denounced gays, which I don't think I did.

I don't see anywhere I said that and if it was it was in regards to gay marriage, so please show me where I said that.


OK no way am I letting that go



Why do you always feel the need tyo bring up the issue of homosexuality, hasn't it been dicussed enough elsewhere?


why do you feel the need to denounce it?