Obviously no. But I have many social conservative positions

Well. Crime is prevented by preventing the causes of crime

I do support death penalty but in only very rare circumstance

Yes

I believe environmental factors are more responsible than individual like studies show

I said I don't support extreme punishment

It is but in my case it will only be awarded to like 5 people a year

At max

Extreme and unusual is better

I believe in punitive justice though. But as I said punitive justice with mercy

I don't think.people are moral enough to be justified in killing others like that

If people were moral then it won't be a problem. So if you are yourself sexually moral, you can hang rapists.

Yeah he was totally Right Wing /s

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The Princeton study showing that elites and activists control democracy.

Or rather a) Democracy is a flawed system b) Wealth = Power c) Collectivism > Individualism

The use of pipe bombs, which is the worst way to kill a target shows that it was more of a scare (and/or a false flag).

Why now? None of these people are relevant anymore. There is no reason to target them and not Senators running in races. And there are plenty of reasons to believe it is a false flag. Is it? We don't know for sure. But it very likely is.

Well, Trump talks about a lot of people. There is no commonality between all these people specifically.
And there are plenty of things that offer suspicion.

That does not separate them from other targets the bomber could have chosen. Why did he chose only these? Well, if you look at it, all are close to Hillary Clinton. So, it makes the theory of false flag more likely.

Cory Booker too? And Robert De Niro is part of swamp? The point is that there is no way you can create a set wherein only these people would be members of that set.
Also, there are positive evidence pieces to believe why it may be a false flag.

Such as
a) he used pipe bombs, which can easily explode by friction and none of them exploded while someone carried them
b) Pipe bombs generally use timers, and there is no way he knew what time to set when he dispatched 11-13 of those boxes
c) His personal facebook page contains almost all posts that are political, and there are little personal posts, though it carries his face
d) He somehow knew addresses of all these people
e) It occurred exactly after the Ricin incident

There is no way that it does not blow up when you have it and does when others have it. Do you know how pipe bombs work?

One did in Stockholm bombings

Pipe bombs can be ignited by static friction

Impulsively made so many bombs? I still don't think that is true

Or it could be just a metal detector detecting the pipes?

The difference here is that we don't have any information about anything. FBI says that the bomb worked. The bombs most probably used timers. If he delivered all those boxes himself, what did he set in the timer?

Not even how the bomb worked or what did they use?

The only thing FBI does not tell is what jeopardises the investigation. I am not sure telling what compounds did the pipe bombs contained would do that.

Too many "perhaps"

You are really stretching. There was no way that he thought that these would work.

The bomber most probably did not even follow Donald Trump. He followed mostly liberals on his Twitter. Does that ring a bell of suspicion?

He was active on Twitter but did not follow Trump. If he was a #MAGABomber, why so?

Most likely a false flag. And according to records, he switched party though he was a felon

If that is true, it would make it a 100% false flag

Rural >> Urban

Heikkinen M, Aro H, Lonnqvist J. Recent life events, social support and suicide. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 1994;377:65–72.
Isometsa E, Heikkinen M, Henriksson M, Marttunen M, Aro H, Lonnqvist J. Differences between urban and rural suicides. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997;95:297–305.

That is true, however rural areas have lower suicide rates and lower crime rates. So, if people are not killing themselves, (which means they are at least ok with life), and other people are not killing them, then living in rural areas would be a lot better.
And about them being hostile to outsiders, you may be right here, but who cares. Movement to rural areas is very low anyways.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=812

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20531365

No. I don't agree. The foundation of a nation state is its history. It cannot be its ethnicity otherwise there would be no imperialistoc nation state by definition.

There are very specific single culture dominant regions in a country, for example, Quebec in Canada, Utah in United States. Then there are communities of Asians, Arabs, Hispanics etc. spreading across several counties.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/10/25/court-says-pedophilia-does-not-apply-because-perpetrator-is-a-woman.html

WOKE?😂

Liberalism is Communism Lite

I think Liberalism is a little better because at least you have your head for some time.

Actually no. Liberalism has all ideals of Communism except liberty and even that is debatable

The difference is only of degree

Lol. No. Liberalism's association with liberty is only of practicality

Do you see a distinction between one ideal and most ideals?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,

Lol, liberalism literally had Paris Commune at the center of it. But ignorance is bliss

Paris Commune was amalgamation of liberal and Communist ideal because they are mostly same

No. It isn't. Liberalism from the very beginning advocated for equality of outcome based on gender

So, they pretended that gender differences do not exist?

You are agreeing with me, here. Marx also wanted just equality of opportunity as a main thing. His use of force was only because he thought without revolution, such was impossible

A form of Anarchism was literally his end goal

After Proletariat Revolution was over, because Proletariat would be more in numbers, any form of Anarchism would ensure collective ownership in some sense.
Marx was against government so legal rights do not come into picture

The boss could never rule over workers without police protecting him from getting killed

If workers simply refused to do work, what would the owner do? Kick them out? But what if they refuse to move out?

That was Marx's argument essentially

Spartacus

_Individualism intensifies_

Free speech could be limited to freedom to discuss all ideas. Not a freedom to express anything.

The problem is that even if 99% of people of a group behave in a way, Liberals will still complain about generalisation. 🙄

Wow, Alt Righters taking the bait on poll😂

The poll proves that Alt Righters are idiots. Very smart to vote Yes, just before the mid terms.

> Win online poll
> Lose election
TIME PREFERENCE

In some ways, yes, in some ways, it does not.

You are constructivist?

But why? Constructivism is demonstrably false.

It is not a question of history. It is a question of biology

Marxists make it about history to perform a class analysis.

The claim of constructivism is about inheritance of social traits

What has history to do with it?

Honestly, it is just a word game sociologists play. If you really define Constructivism as adaptability to surroundings, then essentialists do not disagree. You present a dichotomy with essentialism and then give a lighter definition.

Essentialists do not say that humans are not affected by sorroundings

The whole idea of Plato's The Republic was that they are

Yes, and essential being is not full of all properties of humanity

It is mere minimum that makes you a human

Like four wheelers having four wheel does not mean their wind shields do not get scratched

You presented a critique of Essentialism. Have you read what it is?

So, why do you think that Plato did not know that humans in his country did not adapt different lifestyles with changing technology

That actually is just a question of tautology on what "human" means.
You can say that "human" means killing people relentlessly so empathy would be non-human.

It is just a deconstructionists' way of making things more complex than they are

If you believe that Earth is flat, would that make it flat? If you live like Earth is flat, would it make it? The problem is that sociologists examine different epochs and notions in history and claim that human nature has changed when it may just be that our understanding has changed

Why did you jump to existence? You are the one saying that human nature changes and I am asking you to prove that. You implied that it changes because we have had different notions of what it means to be human. But we have had different notions of what is the shape of Earth too

Again, essentiallists do not deny that

Social constructivists claim that human behaviour is acquired, which can be shown to be false by just proving that genetic makeup affects behaviour and passes on generationally

You are jumping the gun. What is your criticism of essentialism? Is it that human nature has changed, or that human nature has not shown to be real?

What is that ideal?

Is that existant?

Which is material

on materialism

Are you an epiphenonmenalist?

You cannot claim that a second order reality is more ideal than first order reality

I don't think you know what "ideal" means. Ideal =/= mental

You seriously are using terms very loosely. Materialists do not believe that ideal is second level reality. They believe that it does not exist.

Well, there might be few exceptions but if we are talking about fringes then it is very hard to use any terms without defining them

The social constructivist can only differ with essentialist if he claims that the ideal human nature changes. But either he does not believe in the existence of ideals or he cannot show that it changes.
We know that social constructivistism is false in the way it is used most often, because we can show that much of behaviour is innate through genetic and biological studies.

However, if the constructivist wants to just claim that humans change, then there is no disagreement with Essentialists as Essenetialists do not deny that