Michael Hardner

1. I am not talking about a single point of time, but the progress of the legal concept of "pursuit of happiness". I will stand by this: ""The pursuit of happiness"... gave us freedom of religion, pornography and everything in between. " 2. Governing bodies have always been concerned with moral matters and so they're complicit in said evolution. 3. Ok I haven't considered this so I may indeed be wrong on this part. Let me Google "pursuit of happiness" so I can better understand its standing in the American legal foundation and maybe culture generally. Ah, ok, well you seem to have a good point there: " "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase from the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect. Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government." So I probably have to recant my assumption that the progressive march of hedonism is related to some constitutional arguments as I suspected. Culturally, though, the pursuit of hedonism is an American hallmark and only a cold hearted robot who never did a bong hit while dune buggying and listening to Grand Funk Railroad would contest that. My opinion only. 4. Stop complimenting me, it's hurting my case ! The million monkeys at Maple Leaf Web dot com often type out masterpieces, so behold and admire is my advice...

Okay, fair enough.

I have no doubt that Trump was warned of the risks and made his move anyway as was his option.

1. I guess? It is like those things, but not exactly those things. Be objectively measured more easily than " want ". 2. I don't know what the point is. Are you contesting my point? Or agreeing with it? 3. Are you contesting my point? Did you think I was trying to say they had a weak military? I wasn't

Now do banking...

Then they ask for (and get) a fourth... It's hyperbolic for me to say limitless pleasure but it sure is a CRUSH of pleasure compared to the distractions available to the very poor 100 years ago. The west is soft and the world tends to settle imbalances, like a country that can withstand bombings versus a country that cringes at a 50% hike in gasoline prices. Just some thoughts here... 1. Yes, because the former describes activity in life and the latter is kind of impossible. 2. Even want and pain are subjective.

1. And he was right... Again. 2. Ok... 3. What's dubious about it? All of these things.... From the French philosophers, through the American enactment of a state based on individual freedom, to the eventual freedoms that occurred... Occurred... They're pretty well recognized as points on the same curve no? I don't think it's controversial or particularly deep to point that out. 4. Well, there always has been kind of a governing body... Morality develops culturally, and I think Nietzsche talked about that But I'm by no means a scholar of philosophy. Pursuit of happiness as a cornerstone for a nation state is definitely different than what came before, and again, I don't think that's controversial.

1. I think that the God is Dead essay (read it if you haven't) in the Gay Science is on point with that post. Nothing to do with whether there is a God or not... just about what kind of world do we end up with without "God" 2. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.... You know me ❤️ 3. Once my dog barked... but it kind of sounded like "oh no"... and I spent the next 15 minutes trying to get him to talk. That's just how I work... 4. I mean... it's implicit though. "The pursuit of happiness"... gave us freedom of religion, pornography and everything in between. ---- I guess I'll just launch my own thoughts on this so we can continue: Don't you think there is an inherent problem with "the pursuit of happiness" in a world without God ? I am agnostic, with a religious background and so I don't care about peoples' hobbies so much but in a world where all forces are directed to make things easier, sweeter, less challenging, and dumber dumber dumber... can we be surprised where it ends ? I'm pretty sure the Chuds thought Jesus was watching them 100 years ago and so they worked the dustbowl, went to church and got married. But without the opiate of the masses, how do we stop the seven deadly sins ? Especially when so many make money off them ? TO ADD When I posted the list, the Avancode editor changed the closing brackets to sad faces, which makes sense... looks like gargoyles on the roof of Notre Dame or the ghost in the machine maybe)

It completes Nietzsche ... not pseudo-profound but profound. How can humans, who evolved with life-challenging constraints daily, ever hope to cope with limitless pleasure even for the poor ?

@WestCanMan A very long post but I don't see any evidence. You think CBC did this as a hit piece but I'm not so sure. Again, the context of it was they funded a show and they were going to host it on their platform. Doesn't say anything about editorial control. That is your assumption. So practice what you preach and retract your statements until you get evidence. That's what the CBC would do. They would issue a correction. They do that quite regularly.

1. No - you submitted a principle which is a precious thing, and something a true conservative would live by - objectively. So I'm looking at whether you follow what you preach. 2. I guess I didn't understand this properly, I'll give you that: " CBC paying their propagandists to run hidden camera scams on people, gang up on them on camera, and then edit the hell out of all the footage to try to make them look bad. " But they didn't direct the production company to do this, unless you have evidence to back that up. They hosted the series, I think I read, on their platform. 3. Don't watch it then. I myself like listening to all sides, that's why I listened to Rex Murphy when he was on...

Like when you said that the CBC was editing content for a production that they are not in charge of? I'll apologize in advance if I'm wrong about this, but it's already been stated that another production company was was doing all the content and they were hosting the Show on the platform.

Interesting take. I guess he had a white mom, but well... he's black by appearance. I don't agree with the op though. The Obama presidency was the last of the 20th century tradition, which has been anti-populist for the most part since 1952. There's nothing like looking old-fashioned, to tarnish a political party. The Democrats really only have an identity as being anti-trump.

Are you using an archaic racist term here? 🤔

1. I don't think I equated them. This sounds like an anti religion statement, which if true misses my point. 2. Morals are community based mores I think. 3. How much Davey and Goliath they watched too...

That's the thing. Big societal changes will scramble the power ratios that convert ethical thinking to moral thinking. Watch out 😲 There's something to this...

Whose justice would prevail and how? Liberalism seems to assume a moral sphere but doesn't curate it explicitly. So subjugation of some people happens, and there's always some public resistance to addressing this.

I complain that it's kind of played out. I see younger (Millennial or younger) comics that play inside the political changes that happen, and make funny and incisive humour on it without needing to pretend that they bear a moral standard and that's funny. Not that a moral standard ISN'T needed but like I say it's played out. Richard Pryor and George Carliln could moralize a bit but also point out the contradictions in any heavy-handed worldview...

1. No ... WE should do it ... people from this board - the ones I don't have on Ignore 2. That's why we should do it... political thought police. And I'm the chief ...

Wow. I'm surprised how much I liked this post. I want to add my idea, which is that hedonic living is endorsed by every political party in the west as 'pursuit of happiness' My guy is "Ike". I have Eisenhower's book beside me and he gives an impassioned plea for society to reject mass pop culture, which is far more pertinent than the 'military industrial complex' speech, which is quoted frequently. Here's the thing that I predict... in a scant "few" generations, we will see a decline in hedonistic life and a return to values such as family, empathy and security. And it won't come from left- OR right- political parties, it will come from people.

Maybe we could think about both capitalism and its opposite in a wider view, ie. how they have *changed* over the centuries. Capitalism became more socialistic and socialism became most capitalistic. Democracy is thought to be a system that checks the powers of the elites, but it depends on a healthy public sphere. Rather than arguing 'capitalism' vs 'socialism', neither one of which has remained intact since they were framed and documented by Marx, Adam Smith and so on, we could understand that neither of these systems are part of nature and are frameworks to maximize the well-being of the jurisdictions that own them. That might give us a healthy discussion for improving the political economic sphere.

1. It works great as entertainment, I agree. I don't know how we would measure its social utility, or indeed if there's any point in doing so. 2. People want it, that's for sure. 3. I watched one special from jeselnik and did not find it very interesting, so the point is missed on me. 4. I haven't laughed at political comedy, except when delivered by Michael Che and that says more about his talent than the material. I laugh at a lot of his jokes. 5. Well, yes. You have summarized the problem more succinctly than I. 6. Yes and political comedy plays to the camps.

It doesn't really work in the current age though. It's either inflammatory anti-woke, or anti-trump. I don't laugh at any of it. To add: there's too much entertainment and not enough serious thought in the public sphere.

The 'declarative statement' is that someone says this, not that it happened. they don't publish stories with the opposite viewpoint with the same "declarative statement and objectivity" No evidence of human remains found beneath church at Pine Creek Residential School site Seems they do, because they do journalism.

So an Indigenous Comedy show went after some academics and it's streamed on CBC. Ok.... everyone light your hair on fire then. I don't think it's funny but there's nothing outrageous going on. Comedy really seems to tick people off, whether it's Dave Chapelle or Northland Tales. They should all stay away from politics as it's pretty hard to make people laugh that way...