re: Trump is signing an EO to bring the Presidential Fitness Test back to public schools

quote:

---

That is not a conservative stance, that is a libertarian stance

---

No, personal responsibility and freedom is a conservative stance. The libertarian often takes that idea to an unreasonable extreme. Which is why you characterized it as such...to imply that it is a radical or extreme stance.

Again—for clarity's sake—let's look at the proposition again.

I said I don't think it's government's job to solve obesity or that they should police what people eat at home. I didn't say that they shouldn't encourage healthy BMI or exercise or anything like that. I've gone on record 2-3 times now in favor of the subject of the thread, as well as the (qualified in context) Obama school lunch initiative. I said what I said, which is what you quoted.

And remember, this came up in the context of me basically saying that I support the government—if they are going to provide food and instruction on physical fitness—doing so responsibly, but that I don't see that the government has any role beyond that.

To characterize that quoted stance as being extreme or radical is to tacitly assert that you DO think it's government's job to solve obesity and that if they have to police what people eat at home to do so, they should.

Which of those stances is the radical, extreme one? Mine or yours?

Remember, in order for the government to solve obesity, there are only a few ways that they could accomplish that initiative.

They could ban or otherwise limit processed food. All of it. No soda, no beer, nothing but water to drink and meat and fruits and vegetables to eat. Maybe you could make homemade bread.

They could require BMI checks at regular intervals and if someone's BMI was too high they could put them in some kind of forced program to lower it. "Sir, I sentence you to 6 months in the county Fat Farm."

They could require proof of people working out five times a week. if someone doesn't, maybe they get deported.

Other than doing things like that, I don't know how they would solve obesity.

And I'm being somewhat facetious, but not much. Anything the government could do to solve it would be very radical.

quote:

---

There's going to be some fat kids crying to some woke parents demanding some safe spaces all across this fruited plain over this one.

---

That's the perfect time to tell those parents to make their fatass offspring put down the XBox controller and take a lap.

Incredible news. They never should've gotten rid of it to begin with.

quote:

---

antithetical to historical conservatism as well as the ideals that America was founded upon

---

horseshite. When America was founded only 6% of the population was allowed to vote. Founders ideals are not everyone voting. Not women voting. Not foreigners hopping the border and voting. That all came after the country was founded. Every year we get further and further from the founders intent, government is expanding, and society is decaying.

Historical conservatism is mistaken on this board routinely for being classic liberalism. Conservatism is Edmund Burke. Maintaining tradition and institutions is conservative. The government should be limited to the size necessary to do that, but protecting tradition and Christendom comes before muh low taxes.

quote:

---

Speaking of which, it's also antithetical to Christian ethics

---

quote:

---

Christianity didn't influence the development of the political/governmental culture in those places like it did in countries that have Christian roots

---

More horseshite. You realize all of Christendom started in monarchical states right? Christianity has faded from society ever since the Christian monarchs were removed in WW1. The democracies that have popped up since are nothing to brag about. Europe went from dominating the world to being irrelevant, but at least figs can marry and hold drag shows for kids right? France has never been the same, religiously, since the French Revolution. shite the Catholic Church operated as a monarchy for a thousand years through the papal state

quote:

---

What you just said is that you do not believe in individual freedom or personal responsibility

---

Individual freedom is not freedom if it comes at the cost of society. I.e someone driving under the influence should be arrested for driving under the influence, not waiting until they kill someone

Our schools can't teach kids to read, write, do math, solve problems, or even respect authority. Do we really need an excuse to let them play more basketball?

Trump will be accused of fat shaming. There are too many overweight youths who need to get outside more and engage in physical activity. Get off your damn phones!

quote:

---

Constitution worship is lame, its a piece of paper at the end of the day.

---

Well, then so is the Bible according to that logic.

Obviously the fact that both are printed on paper has nothing to do with the validity of the ideas that are communicated on that paper.

And you keep not answering the questions designed to compel you to admit that the validity of the Bible is exactly what backs up the validity of the US Constitution. If the ideas of "inalienable rights" didn't come from the Bible, where did they come from?

quote:

---

We have a society that is degenerating socially and swirling the toilet in debt.

---

Yeah, well those Founding Fathers pretty much said that we'd have this form of government for as long as we could keep it. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices.

But yet again, you're appealing to a criticism of democracy rather than addressing your advocacy of authoritarianism.

I don't have a problem with rule by oligarchy. In fact, my argument is that every society of any size that has ever existed for any significant length of time was a rule by oligarchy.

That's part of the reason I have such disdain for populists, who act like every conspiracy theory (true or not) that supposedly reveals a behind the scenes collusion between two or more members of the Ruling Class is something that has never happened before in all of history, when in actuality that's literally all history is. Sometimes the military was the Ruling Class, sometimes it was the clergy, sometimes it was a monarchy/feudal system, sometimes it was appointed leaders, sometimes it was elected leaders, but always there has been a Ruling Class and always the members of that class have conspired in their rule behind the scenes visible to the common citizen.

In fact, you guys who are running around like Chicken Little with your doomsday signs saying "The End Is Near" are ignoring the very obvious fact that we actually have more power to hold the Ruling Class accountable than ever before in history. At least in the West. We live in a society with the least oppression, the least racism, the least exploitation, and the most civil rights with the greatest recourse against the government that has ever existed on this planet. We also have the greatest quality of life standard, and it's not close. Our poor people live better than almost all rich people did 200 years ago.

But according to you populists—on the left and the right, doesn't matter—we have to tear everything down.

The very things we have that make our existence so much better than what came before us are exactly what you advocate doing away with. Freedom and individual protections against government tyranny and oppression.

quote:

---

Natural Law is not as simple as "individual freedom"

---

.

Yet again, either intentionally or not, you miss the point. That was Mussolini who invoked natural law, and only in passing. He was specifically talking about exactly what you started off advocating. That people "left to their own devices" would (at the urging of natural law) pursue selfish temporary pleasures and they couldn't be allowed to do so. They must subordinate their pursuit of happiness to the agenda of the state.

That's what he said, and that's what you said.

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with having a strong state...

---

Said Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao.

Look, since you will not give your definition of "Christian Nationalist" even though this will be the third time I've asked for it, I can only make deductions based on what you have said.

So far you have aligned your viewpoint with every mass-murdering authoritarian dictator of the 20th century, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the name of "a strong state." You have stated that you do not believe in freedom or personal responsibility, and that the state should go so far as to literally dictate what food people can eat in the privacy of their own homes in order to reduce national obesity. You've literally stated that you think that personal freedom is the radical notion, not authoritarian control of people.

Now, you're entitled to have whatever opinions you want. If you think Mussolini was a swell guy, that's fine. That's your prerogative and it can't be objectively proven that you are wrong.

But I think it CAN be objectively shown that what you have advocated so far is antithetical to the entire concept of the United States. I think it can be objectively shown that it is antithetical to Christian ethics. And I think it can be shown objectively that yours is not only a radical viewpoint, but one that historically has always led to violent oppression and lowered quality of life for citizens. From the Soviet union to Stalin's regime to Hitler's SS to the killing fields of Cambodia and the millions of starving Chinese under Mao.

Again, I can't name an authoritarian society that thrived for more than a few years. Can you?