Good observation. It's very easy To see. tRump is so pro- money he neglects to pay contractors he hires at times. ?That's a true wanker!

@OwlInASack I had a CBR1000F for a couple of years. Great bike and put lots of miles on it.

Well tRump is a wanker so it's kind of hard to ignore his actions. ?

@SukiSue do you talk about Trump in bed while having sex? Pretty sure you don't. There is time and place for everything. Like many, I'm came here seeking similar mind set yet whay ive found is decisive political submit. So for the love of fuck, stop talking about Trump all the time.

@IdenIzzat of course I do! You believe me, right? Even talk in my sleep about him.

@SukiSue oh dear, this is a severe case . Watch less TV my child.

@IdenIzzat well in my defense, tRump is a wanker... ?

@Bierbasstard and unfortunately, not much else. ? Because tRump is a wanker. He inspires them.

@Bierbasstard true, it's both side. Keep in mind, I didn't grow up in here so I don't have preconceived notions. I observed and as far as I can see it's the left that's going crazy. It's really irritating what's going on in this country. You guys need to fix it. All great empires fall from within and I hate to see this happening here.

Hey. I’m unemployed and proud of it.

Of course, I’m also retired.

Use big words, much, do ya? Is it because if you spoke intelligibly your "ideas" would make no sense, or because your are compensating for shortness elsewhere?

@AnneWimsey I'm pretty sure he was using english.. if those were "big words" may I suggest Google? LOL

@AnneWimsey Writing and speaking are different means of communication. I haven't spoken at all. Whether what I wrote was intelligible is directly related to comprehension. Try to avoid the simple interpretation that what I mean by comprehension is limited to language. Sometimes, as I suspect in your case, language is very effective and evidenced by your suggestion that my "ideas" would make no sense if expressed with intelligible language.

Since you believe that a change in language from unintelligible (by your description) to intelligible would result in 'making no sense' it can be reasoned that you understood the language as written but still had difficulty following the ideas. Whether the struggle and apparent discomfort were conceptual, political or both doesn't matter. It isn't big words but big ideas, perhaps new ideas causing discomfort. Not to worry, just take your time to contemplate. Baby steps... Functional thinking isn't easy to begin with. It's comparable to a new language. It takes time and practice to become fluent; to see and understand.

@hippydog I am trying to point out his entire first paragraph makes no sense at all, just a bunch o' words. Because I do understand English, do not use it to blow BS.

@AnneWimsey I understood it quite well. Yes, some unbelievers are just as fanatical about their politics and non-belief as the religious are about theirs. There's no doubt about that. But it is uncomfortable to see it in ourselves, and more so to admit it. For me with Trump it's hard not to complain as I see him handing these religious fanatics a lot of political rein. And when they instill their brand of religious belief into political policy it's hard not to become concerned. Plus the fact that he is so un-diplomatic, and rude as hell it's hard to just ignore that and go about your day when you feel your freedoms, rights, and democracy fading away with a whim. Trump and his administration are complete bullshit and we should raise our voices often and loudly. And I will not give two shits to those that whine about it.

@AnneWimsey Perhaps a couple of others' skills at conveying ideas can be of assistance. Maybe you've seen them before. DaVinci had three categories for people: "Those who see; those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see." Then there's the one credited to Neitzche, really 'nailing it':

@Silver1wun Neitzche said "nailing it"????????!!!!
Okaaaaayyyyyyyy....

@AnneWimsey, @Veteran229 I see non-belief, as you described it Vet, being the ideal and we agree on that. We differ in the 'critical thinking part' being required, in that, as I tried to point out, thinking often isn't related to the motivation. Choosing to reject theologies and gods can be rooted in emotion or even mental laziness. Some reject religion just because they don't like it. That's cool. It's a free country. Others sort of become infatuated with ideas or doctrines of others that include dismissal of gods as nonsense and offer packaged, intellectual alternatives. (read new doctrines) That's o.k. too just like placing 'faith' in religious gurus, adopting somebody else's ideas and doctrines still happens.

As a functional comparison to the faithful, those captivated by erroneous new horizons will lash out at detractors of their 'isms' often as viciously as theological fundamentalists. It is demonstrated in physical terms that captives come to IDENTIFY PERSONALLY with those holding them captive. In that context it's called Stockholm Syndrome. In the functionally identical state of mental captivity, we observe the same kinds of behavior from captives of theological death cults. They take criticisms of their captors personally and for the same reasons.

Apply the principle to adopted political cults and the process repeats. Differences between them are great to those perceiving only what is on the surface. But dynamics are the same.

I like to compare native or critical thinking and abdication of it by adopting 'isms' to the difference between performing a song with melody and lyrics composed by others and singing one's own composition. The former is adoption and the latter 'birthing and fostering'. All too many find a feeling of security in blindly adopting doctrinal codes of belief, even within what is called disbelief.

@AnneWimsey " I am trying to point out his entire first paragraph makes no sense at all, just a bunch o' words. "..
.. > fair enough.
I would paraphrase it as .. agnostics become fanatical just like religious people but with politics.
I don't agree with his opinion. But I can kinda see where he is coming from.

@AnneWimsey I think the pot shot you took at him by insinuating that he was coming up short somewhere was beyond the pale. As in not cool.

I don't agree with what he wrote but I did understand it and further, see absolutely no reason to go where you did

@Lucy_Fehr awww, the Word Police show up, again. How cute of you to rush to his defense, i'm sure he appreciates your implication that he is unable to speak for himself, (with much bigger words than you use, proving my point Perfectly, so thanks)

@AnneWimsey I'm guessing I pissed you off somewhere judging by your use of the word again.. I hardly rushed to his defense since I get on here once a day if I'm lucky. Had you not tagged me, I wouldn't even be back in this thread

They have remedies for butthurt at the pharmacy.

@Lucy_Fehr what a charming person you are, and just brim-full of ASSumptions, too. You should change your name to "Mommy" since you want to care for butts.

@AnneWimsey I am well known and liked for my charm; I am just surprised that you agree- thanks!

Just because I noticed your butthurt doesn't mean I desired to care for it. Quite the opposite in fact

Quite a ‘dust-up’! Sorry I missed some of it while it was going on. By trying to explain how little the world changes for former ‘believers’ because they still cling to their other gods; as with the anti-Trump mania, Annie seemed to have been touched, perhaps ‘rubbed’ by it. Rather than respond to the idea, she chose to lower the conversation to a more comfortable intellectual level by criticizing the messenger; that being language. Her prehensile attempt at subtlety with an anatomical reference served to further distract from the idea and cut it down to her size. (speaking of size) I chose to ignore it and keep the response about the idea.

From a 1901 autobiography by Charles Stewart:

"His thoughts and conversation were always on a high level, and I recollect a saying of his, which not only greatly impressed me at the time, but which I have ever since cherished as a test of the mental calibre of friends and acquaintances. Buckle said, in his dogmatic way: “Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”

It is in this kind of light that anatomical insinuations; being even less than the first category is disclosed. Acknowledgement of juvenilities dignifies and includes; thereby distracting from focus.

I'm not arrogant or ungrateful for Lucy_Fehr's perceptive criticism. On the contrary, I appreciated her annoyance at the banal distraction. Agreement is neither necessary nor expected for understanding in perspective comparisons. We ‘put them out there’ precisely because others will respond with comparisons of how their ideas, not their genitalia, differ, so all participants and observers can advance personal understanding. That one understands the other is the goal. It’s like the saying ‘what has been seen cannot be unseen’. Once understood, an idea is like a written word to a literate person. You can’t look at it without reading it. Perspectives stay with us, filed away as tools for personal ‘vision’, influencing everything we see and therefore in some way affect our thinking about what is seen.

This is an aspect of what I mean about individual thought formation vs. adopted doctrinal sets of ideas from others. The strength of it is in being able to EXPLAIN exactly why a view is held without having to consult a catechism or ‘talking points’ from pastoral overseers.

Hey, thanks to all of you trying to answer the posted poll/question with ideas.