… Modern Christianity, however, is a far different creature from modern Islam. Every religion is, to a greater or lesser extent, a balance between reason and faith in its teachings and day to day practices. The great fault of modern Islam is not its having missed the sexual or industrial revolutions, but having missed the epistemological revolution of the thirteenth century. The Islamic world seems medieval in its attitudes and outlook because it is medieval, or more accurately early medieval, in its thinking.
[…]
What separates the citizen of a liberal democracy and his medieval ancestor, and the Cario slum dweller, is how they go about solving the bigger problems of life. How do I decide something is true in ethics, politics or science? The dictum of the Thomists was “Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu.” (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses). Evidence and rational thought are the ideal of modern life, even of post modern life. It is an ideal we fall short of but the alternative is the life of the modern medievalists. The Islamists and so many of the actual “moderate” Muslims – moderate in the sense they occupy the intellectual middle ground between liberal democracy and theocracy – act upon faith. What that means in practice is not living according to the teachings of an ancient holy book, but the interpretations of the holy book.
If one’s interpretations are based on reason, on an attempt to rationally analyze the text and compare and contrast with the evidence of one’s senses, one admits that religious teachings are a matter of debate and even disagreement. If one’s interpretations are based solely on faith, not merely faith in accepting a certain set of assumptions as true, but faith in applying those principles as well, how does one debate with others? I say this is the truth. Why? Because it is. What are your reasons? There are not reasons, only faith. The only way to resolve the conflict is to follow or fight. For a modern Christian faith extends as far as accepting certain assumptions as true without evidence, their application and mitigation with empirical evidence is done – or at least striven to be done – by reason.
It’s sympatico.
It’s not by accident that so much of what is offered as debate by the modern left on the critical issues facing our times sounds less like reasoned argument than it does “Silence infidel!“
(I have more to say about this here)
anon – read vitruvius. Also, might I suggest that you obtain a better understanding of the difference between and the relation of the ‘particular’ to the ‘universal’. Please understand that the two are not and should never be, identical. Therefore, your claim that there ought to be an ‘actual manifestation’ of this ‘idea’ is an invalid claim.
The universal or ‘idea’ is a ‘general’, an abstract description of commonalities which are expressed within diverse particulars, most of whom share most but not all of the attributes of the Universal. Again, the universal and the particular can never be identical. You are suggesting that they ought to be. No.
Therefore, criticizing the ‘ideal’ is far more fruitful than criticizing individual people, because the argument is based around the concepts of ‘leftism’ that these people have. Not the individual people themselves.
volik – you are not providing an argument but a polemic. Your assertions about ‘oil’, global warming, rejection of science, etc, are just your opinions. No evidence, no reasons, no analysis. Polemics are best enjoyed as private rants because when they are spoken, they become, well, silly and trivial.
Fight on Volik!
These people love to hate and want to kill.
They cant even comprehend forgivness,empathy,descenecy And love for fellow human beings.
FFFUUCCCKKK RRELLIGION HUMANS ARE HUMANS
THE SAME HOPES AND DREAMS AS ANY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET
PPPPPPPEEEEEAAAAAACCCCCCEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Yes, it is indeed to laugh to read these big government,interventionist, tax and spend “conservatives” with their Puritan/Taliban proclivities prattle on about their “principles” while casting aspersions on those outside of their groupthink.
It must be Sunday as it seems the trolls are off their meds for the weekend.
Oh no, ET
Unlike the piss-poor excuse for ‘reasoning’ found in this site’s attempted conflation of leftism with Islam (geez, just typing that makes me think of what a frothing-mouthed rant that piece of idiocy was), what I related here were not opinions but facts.
Fact: 100 Nobel Prize winners and esteemed scientists say that global warming is an actuality.
(As opposed to the brainiacs here who post a picture of snow & say “It ain’t so!”)
Fact: Wolfowitz, an architect of the war, said Iraq is about oil. Greenspan said it’s about oil.
Fact: homophobia and misogyny are a big part of the Rightist worldview, as seen in Bush, Harper, Limbaugh, McCain, Coulter (see quotes above.)
sidenote: it’s notable how many of these characteristics corrolate with the 12 warning signs of fascism – notably the homophobia and the insistence on rigid gender roles.
Fact: A big attraction of this site – and of the ‘ideology’ of you true believers – is that you come here to express the racism that those damned lib’rul politically correct people have made unacceptable in mainstream discourse!
Put these all together and you have a pretty good picture of an intolerant fanatic theocracy bent on denying science and reason – not for their ‘god’ but for their abusive corporate daddy figures.
In other words: take a look in the mirror, dupes!
Sites don’t attempt conflation, some people do.
May we have the next contestant please?
Well, you got me there, Vitruvius –
With one shot of your Pedant Ray you demolished my whole post.
I take it you didn’t/couldn’t object to anything else I said?
Noel,
You said “Trouble is, Village Voice, the total depravity of man in Reformed theology pushes him so far into the dirt, the mire, the hopelessness of anything non-Reformed, that he too becomes a puppet — his God, a Puppeteer greater than which is inconceivable — even Allah.”
Not true. Because you disagree or misunderstand the message, you make the mistake of shooting the messenger, in this case Reformed theology. Reformed theology does not push man into the dirt or hopelessness. Through the fall of Adam, man has done it to himself. Reformed theology simply points out what is biblically true concerning the fallen, totally depraved nature of unregenerate man.
In order to understand this great biblical truth, one must first set his ego to one side and come down off the pedestal of human reason, and be willing to humbly accept what Almighty God has revealed in his written revelation, the Holy Bible.
First, God created man good and in His own image.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 1 vs26.
But man, who was placed in such a position of high honour, understood it not. “Man that is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that perish.” Psalm 49 vs20.
Consequently man listened to the message of the devil and transgressed against what God had commanded. By doing so, man subjected himself to death and the curse.
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou has hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou are, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Genesis 3 vs17-19
This totally depraved, fallen nature of the first man, Adam, was passed on to all of his descendents since that time.
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5 vs12.
Moreover by his transgression, Adam made himself liable to physical and spiritual death (which is separation from God). “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Genesis 2:17
When man fell, he became wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.” Ephesians 4:18 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17 vs9.
Because God has ordered human life by the principle of representation, Adam’s descendents derive their nature from Adam. Since Adam’s first sin was committed while he was on probation and was representative of the whole human race, the fallen nature was passed to all of his descendents as a previous verse proves.
(Romans 5:12)
The only remedy for this fallen condition (and just damnation) is to receive salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3 vs3.
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
So it is not hopeless and there is forgiveness and salvation, but it is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. see Ephesians 2 vs8. Gospel of John, Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, etc.
The Curious Affinity Of The Left For Islamism:
This is due to the Right’s Golden Rule, which is quite simply, those that have the gold make the rules. The Right is the big money that tries (and mostly succeeds) to run world, and the useful idiot followers who believe that being right-wing is about individualism, freedom and democracy. They are brainwashed into thinking that everything that is pure and noble about humanity is essentially right wing, but everything evil and totalitarian are symptomatic of the Left.
A perfect example of this, found here on SDA, is the campaign to label left-winger Tommy Douglas as “Canada’s Greatest Eugenicist”, even though Saskatchewan never practiced eugenics under his leadership. Right-wing led Alberta did have a eugenics program, but that is ignored.
Another example is trying to label Nazism as left-wing, since in the minds of right-wingers there can be nothing bad that is right-wing. “National Socialist” equals “socialist” equals left-wing. Using that logic, the German Democratic Republic was really democratic.
The Left has no love for the idiosincrasies or idiocies of Islam. They speak up for Islam simply because they feel that Islamic countries are not getting a fair shake from the corporatists that control the West. Likewise, they don’t hate the Jews, they feel that Israel treats the Palestinians badly.
The Left is about creating social equality, something that completely contrary to the Right’s Golden Rule.
No, volik, your rant remains a rant. No facts.
Global warming? Do you mean AGW? That is not fact but speculation. No, there aren’t 100 Nobel Laureates with expertise in climate science. Indeed, there aren’t any. There are even more scientists opposed to the idea of AGW than are in favour of it. Did you know that?
The ‘100 Nobel signatories weren’t saying that they agreed with AGW; their primary concerns were the proliferation of weapons.
Climate change, volik, is fact; and solar and other natural causes of climate change, both cooling and warming, are facts. AGW is speculation based on computer models. Not facts.
No, the Iraq War is not and never was about oil. You don’t need to go to war to ensure oil supplies. Iraq is hardly the only or prime source of oil and, remember, all the ME oil nations have to sell that commodity. That’s all they have. So, there’s no need to go to war.
The Iraq War was about the vital need to stop the spread of Islamic fascism by transforming the tribal sociopolitical system of the ME into a civic model, to empower and develop a middle class. This will demolish Islamic fascism in the ME. And that is exactly what is happening. The ME is changing; there is a growing middle class, they are realizing that they have to educate their people; they have to enter the global economy; they have to move out of tribalism. It’s slow but it’s happening.
No, your assertion that ‘homophobia’ and ‘misogyny’ are ‘rightist’ world views is pure nonsense. Your list of names is a list of names. None of the individuals are ‘homophobic’ or ‘misogynists’. Assertions, volik, aren’t proof.
The pop culture list of ’12 warning signs of fascism’ is pure nonsense. I suggest you read up on fascism – try R. Paxton ‘The Anatomy of Fascism’. You’ll see that real fascist regimes don’t have those attributes.
By the way, to use your ‘homophobia’ and ‘rigid gender roles’ – that means that Islam is, according to you, fascist.
I don’t know what you are talking about with your ‘racism’.
Yes, the Islamic Middle East, eg, in Iran and Saudi Arabia, are indeed run as a theocracy; they certainly reject science and reason and are focused around their tribal control of oil. So, what’s your point?
Blows trailing smoke off barrel of Pedant Ray.
No, lberia, fascism is ‘left’.
The reason is because the ‘left’ ideology is collectivist and utopian, and fascism is collectivist and utopian. It rejects the activities, rights and reasoning of the individual, as does leftism. Fascism, as does the left, relies on emotional bonding rather than reason.
Certainly, fascism hated communism, not only because this was another utopian ideology in competition, but because the utopian source of communism is in the future, while the utopian source of fascism is in the past.
The ‘right’, which brought us such documents as the American Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta – focuses on the freedom, rights and equality of the individual. I bet you’ve never read the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it….”
This is a document of the right, not the left. It focuses all power in the individual. Not the government. Leftism focuses all power on the Government, which assumes control of all thought processes and actions of the indivdual.
There is nothing wrong with corporations, lberia. Do you seriously think that the industrial technology can operate within the local small business? Industrial technology requires massive funding to develop new technologies. Do you think a corner store built your computer? Do you think the local factory employing ten people can fund the research for a new cancer drug? What always astonishes me about those who support the ‘left’ is their irrational ignorance of and hatred of corporations. The fact that everything, and I mean everything, they use is based on the technological innovation and capacities of corporate capacities – seems beyond their thinking capacity. The fact that corporations are composed of thousands of individuals supporting these long term agendas – seems beyond their thinking capacity.
The fact that it takes a lot of money and years of work to develop new products, seems beyond their thinking capacity. The fact that corporations have enabled and brought massive benefits to the poor fo the world, seems beyond their thinking capacity.
lberia – oh, so that is why the left supports Islamic fascism; because they feel the Islamic countries are not getting ‘ a fair shake’. Could you provide some facts about this? My understanding is that the ME oil countries are rolling in money from oil – oil that they themselves didn’t develop the technological capacity to extract or process; they have to hire the West’s corporate and technological expertise to do that. The fact that the tribal elite enrich themselves and their myriad relatives with yachts and private planes..rather than developing a middle class, is their fault. So- provide some FACTS, lberia.
Oh, and explain why the left supports Islamic fascism. Do you know what causes Islamic fascism? Hmmm?
The left isn’t about social equality but the opposite. It creates a two-tiered social infrastructure: the bosses who are the Philospher-Kings..and the peasants who are told what to think and do.
Hey volik
Fact: lefties like you are mental retards who have absolutely no idea of what is happening in the real world. I can’t wait until the islamists take over – you and your kind will be the first to lose their heads to a scimitar.
And lberia
lefties are definitely not about equality. You and the rest of the mental midgets are about control. The appeal of equality of outcome (as opposed to the rational proposition of equality of opportunity) is what leftists peddle to the masses as a way of acquiring and keeping power. After all, why work if the guys you elect will keep you in ciggies and beer even if you sit on your fat asses at home. Guess what – lefties are fascists after all….. it’s all about power, and you are too dumb to realize it.
volik – you throw out a lot of stuff here and think you can get a pass on statements like this: “Fact: 100 Nobel Prize winners and esteemed scientists say that global warming is an actuality.”
Well, here’s the problem, you’ve got no factual link to support that statement. Nobel prize winners in any field other than an earth science don’t count as squat regarding GW and the “esteemed scientists” need to be in a field relevant too.
And: “Fact: homophobia and misogyny are a big part of the Rightist worldview” Prove it. Oh, and, Bush nor McCain have never made a homophobic statement for starters. Try finding one.
Your hyperbole is getting very boring. You don’t have any facts on most of the stuff you spew and I’ll be there to call you on that. Oh, and trotting out the racist smear isn’t going to work out well for you either.
“The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one’s breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry “caste.” In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either “poverty” or “consumerism.” In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry “alienation.” In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry “oppression.” In a society of boundless private charity, they cry “avarice.” In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the “exploitation” of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry “injustice.” In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like “liberty” in quotation marks when these refer to the West.”
— Alan Charles Kors
“For the past century the world has got steadily better for most people. You do not believe that? I am not surprised. You are fed such a strong diet of news about how bad things are that it must be hard to believe they were once worse. But choose any statistic you like and it will show that the lot of even the poorest is better today than it was in 1903. […] All this has been achieved primarily by that most hated of tricks, the technical fix. By invention, not legislation.”
— Matt Ridley
Golly, ET –
The 100 Nobel Laureates who identified Global Warming as one of the greatest dangers to face humankind weren’t “agreeing” with it, huh? They just consider it one of the greatest dangers to face humankind, that’s all! I’ll try to remember that.
Gee, ET, the Iraq War’s not about oil, huh? I’ll hafta tell Paul Wolfowitz that. Y’see, he said it was, but then again he’s just one of the architects of the war, and you…you’re ET!
Gosh, ET, the Iraq War’s about creating a middle class in the middle East, huh? You’ll have to tell George Bush that…y’see, he kinda initiated it and he seemed to think it was about WMD…then he thought it was about a Road Map somewhere…don’t recall him mentionin’ no middle class…
But then he’s only George Bush – and you’re ET!
The process is slow but happening, ET? Leaving aside that the political crisis is nowhere near stabilized and 20-some people were killed today, I can see why you’d say that. I’m sure those people who died were well on the way to middle class-dom!
In fact, given your dedication to the cause I presume you’re WI-FIing from Iraq now!
That’s right, McCain and Limbaugh aren’t misogynists. They merely make misogynist statements. Bush and Harper aren’t homophobes. They merely commit homophobic political acts.
Imagine a world, ET, where one was labelled a misogynist or a homophobe merely for saying and doing migoynistic and homophobic things! Outrageous!
Yes, ET, if Islam like Christanity, were to be judged merely on its aspects which insisted on rigid gender roles and homophobia, it would indeed be called fascist.
Golly, ET, you don’t think that calling David Suzuki a ‘nip’, or saying all Native people ar ‘lazy and useless;, or saying all black people should go back to Africa – all of which was recently done on comments in this site – you don’t think any of that’s racist?
We’ll just have to come up with a new definition of ‘racism’ then! After all, ET can’t be wrong!
My point is that in fact it’s you and your pals here who can empirically be shown to have rejected reason and science and are focussed around the tribal/corporatist control of oil.
It’s kind of like: Bush’s cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family – ‘Bandar Bush’ and the rest – GWB holding hands with the king of a country where a woman who’s gang-raped is punished by being lashed to death…
You know, ET? Kinda like that…
Penny –
‘Google’ is your friend.
(I know it involves all that nasty readin’. but honest – it’s your friend).
The racist smear? Your pals have smeared themselves. check out the quotes I’ve selected above.
Cheers.
Google is your friend.
Google is a corporation.
Ergo, some corporations are your friends.
Oh, Caveman
Thanks so much for the “mental retard” slur. I knew it was coming, since it’s so popular in these parts – the lips twist, the head shoots forward, and it comes out in a burst of saliva everytime.
Honestly: thanks. I really do regard it as a tribute coming from your kind. I regard it the same way I would a compliment from someone I respected and thought was, you know, intelligent…and senitent, and stuff.
But Caveman, you might find it troubling that when you say you can’t wait for the Islamists to take over you’re kind of strengthening my argument that you guys have a bit more in common with them than anyone else…
I guess in that case I owe you a double thanks!
You say, Volik, that “I regard it the same way I would a compliment from someone I respected and thought was, you know, intelligent, and senitent, and stuff.” Well, I payed you just such a compliment at 11:24 above. Do you have any comment on that?
volik – the 100 nobel laureates were, none of them, climatologists. Moreover, their concerns about global warming didn’t define its causes. Their concerns about ‘a weaponized world’ also didn’t define causes.
What’s your point? Nothing in those brief paragraphs says anything about causality, about solutions. Nothing. What’s your polemic about?
If you read the speeches of Bush, you’ll find his frequent references to enabling the development of a democracy and empowering the people there to take charge of their own govt and economy. The fact that you don’t understand the role of democracy and the role of a middle class – that’s your problem.
Did you know that it took the West about 400 years to move from a tribal to a civic mode of governance and the development of a middle class?
The examples you gave of ‘name-calling’ aren’t examples of racism.
Because you come here and rant, without facts, doesn’t mean that all people who post here just rant, without facts.
Could you provide some facts about ‘homophobic’ political acts of Bush and Harper? I think you’d better define ‘homophobic’ as well. Also, provide the facts about McCain’s misogyny etc.
The fact that you assert that we/I have rejected reason and science doesn’t make it a valid assertion. Your assertion doesn’t make any sense. you state that this rejection of reason and science can be empirically shown’. Really? Provide proof.
You have to provide an argument for your assertions. You have a habit of ‘ranting’, which is to make assertions without evidence or reasoning.
By the way, tribalism is not the same as corporatism, so, you are incorrect to link them. Equally, you are incorrect to set up reason/empiricism in contrast to tribalism/corporatism. That simply makes no sense.
Again, rants are not facts. You don’t provide facts. Rants are not reasoned arguments; you don’t provide a reasoned argument. Ad hominem attacks aren’t arguments.
ET and Caveman:
Thanks for affirming my characterization of right-wingers. ;>)
Oh hey, let me help, L. Beria: your characterization is wrong.
As wrong as some other people’s characterization of left wingers.
If you’d like to buy a clue, I’ve got ’em two for a dollar.
ET
The point is that 100 Nobel Laureates identified Global Warming as a danger.
You and your pals don’t. So you consider yourselves more intelligent than 100 Nobel Laureates. Cool.
But for the rest of us: you guys are medieval deniers of science.
ET, Bush didn’t talk of the creation of a middle class in the Mideast. Those are your words. And in the run-up to the war no-one mentioned a process of 400 years.
I’m talking about facts here. You’re pussy-footing around with ‘interpretations’ and word games.
The incidences of racism I cited on this site are not ‘name-calling’. They are racist comments. People can really see that you’re lying when you deny that.
Bush tried to write a gay marriage ban into the Constitution. That’s homophobic. Harper promised his vote on gay marriage in order to exploit homophobia for votes. That’s homophobic.
McCain’s repulsive smearing of a 13 year old girl and his grinning acceptance of his political opponent being labelled a “bitch” are misogynistic acts.
In any case, it’s laughably absurd that you regurgitate the old “you’re ranting,provide facts” when all I’ve done is provide facts.
It is you who dances around, trying to nullify reality (using your long practice as Global Warming denier) to the point where you contend that someone calling David Suzuki a ‘nip’ isn’t evidence of racism – it’s just ‘name-calling’.
Yes, it’s name-calling. Racist name-calling.
You can reply with the same ol’ song and dance, but you’re really just giving evidence of more of the same: a sad sack turning a blind eye to racism specifically because it *is* racism and the mainspring of his ‘ideology’ – the passion which all his rhetoric seeks to justify.
Likewise: your mindless parroting of corporate-constructed, reason-denying negations of science at the behest of the corporate big brother which rules you. I understand. You want to be on the side of the big boys because you think they’ll take care of you. You’re scared.
You think all those foreigners and those fancy pants environmentalists are going to take everything away from you, don’t you? But all the big wealthy corporations will save you!
You’re fanatic in your allegiance to them.
Maybe you even think anyone who’s not fanatic, who doesn’t deny reason and science like you in their service is a “leftard”…or maybe even …an “Infidel!”
Volik, you keep repeating the same talking points over and over again, just like an Islamist who prattles off memorized koran verses.
You ought to know that one definition of insanity holds that it is “constantly repeating the same action, while hoping for a different outcome.”
The LEFT:
Sees its programmes [tho, there’s only one programme, really] fail, over and over again. It makes them very, very mad — filled with impotent rage. It wants revenge.
When you are immature and emotionally stunted and the world reflects back an assessment of you which is dramatically lower than your own self-assessent, you get very, very mad. You want revenge!
What you want then is the destruction of the world’s mirror that taunts you so. You want to recreate the world anew into something that speaks kindly to you. — that says you’re swell, top of the heap.
ISLAM: The muslims are the best, Islam is the final religion, Mohammed is the seal of the prophets. But, alas! Allah! this is nowhere in evidence in the real world. Islamic culture and society is in decay everywhere you look, and you can’t deny it. The world’s mirror reflects back a unflattering humiliating image. This must be the fault of others. This makes you very, very mad. You want to subjugate or kill these insulting others, bring all into the House of Islam, re-create the mirror of the world that says that Muslims are the best — top of the heap – as Allah says.
gordinkneehill:
And yet I don’t align myself with proven racists, as you do.
me no dhimmi
You put so much work into trying to prove the Left are the enemy. Much like Kate, the owner of this site.
What does it all accomplish? Why the obsession? What’s your problem?
Really. It’s an unhealthy way to think – an unhealthy way to spend your time.
Like Kate suckering that guy with the concentraion camp tattoos. It’s not just immature – it’s disturbed.
It simply isn’t the way mature, reasonable people act.
Again, ET, what is leftism?
You’re skirting the issue quite remarkably. I donot have the time to retort to each of your assertions, many of which would give Bill Clinton a run for his money. You re smooth in your delivery, but the substance doesnt hold.
It seems to me that you would define only a pure liberatarian as right wing.
I see you have declared fascism to be left-wing too.
This is all terribly amusing. I assume nationalism is by definition left wing, since it too aims to build a utopia built on an ideal. Anybody who is a nationalist and who expects citizens of his nation to conform to the values of his nation, is, therefore, a leftist. Individual rights are at the fore, right? That explains the whole speaking Spanish in America outrage. Everyone must speak english in America – so claim the right, errr, left wingers.
Are Republicans left wing?
Is the Catholic Church left wing?
Is the patriot act a left wing act?
Who in the world is right wing? Well, apart from you.
By the by, the right wing (or left wing, depending on, well, you) believes that he who can put in the effort deserves to profit from it, and he who doesnt, deserves to be at the bottom of the proverbial food chain. One would, I assume, admit that the fitter are more likely to do well than the not-so-fit. Hence, survival of the fittest and right wing ideology. The left are more inclined on levelling the playing field between the two. As they are when they stand up to defend muslims who, as you will notice, really dont have the physical presence or political representation to do it themself in the west.
If I were you, I would reconsider defining Right and Left in a more realistic manner. There is more to the right wing than liberatarianism. Or else, those evil republicans, with their emphasis on Americanism and ‘being American’, are actually leftists in disguise.
Smooth writing and fancy terms only take you so far.
Penny- I suggest new reading glasses. You will notice that it was ET who brought hunting bands into the equation, and that I made the point you are making.
Caveman – “The appeal of equality of outcome (as opposed to the rational proposition of equality of opportunity) is what leftists peddle to the masses as a way of acquiring and keeping power.”
The leftist appeal of equality of outcome can be based on the rational proposition of equality of opportunity.
Perhaps you should read the work of John Rawls on this matter. Equality of opportunity is a major concern of the left – universal education (as opposed to an education for only those who can afford it) is an example of this.
Your language (“mental midgets”) and approach in your arguments puts you in a fascinating category. For a person of at least average mentality (or are you a mental master), your capacity for self-expression is remarkably poor. I should however offer my sincerest kudos on your ability to engage in pointless name-calling, even if you are not as creative as one would expect from someone of average mental capabilities.
it has been my observation that things are rarely as complex as we humans like to make them. good and evil are just that. all discussion of who, what, when, why etc. are just constructs. we constantly come up with theories to explain that which really does not need explanation. islam is evil, communism is evil.
“islam is evil, communism is evil.”
And what are you?
volik – so what if 100 laureates identified global warming as a danger? None of them were in the field of climate science. What about all the scientists who oppose AGW? You choose to ignore them? Yes, I certainly do reject AGW; it’s scientifically unverified – and I accept science, not polemics.
Your example of Bush and Harper opposing same-sex marriage isn’t an example of ‘homophobia’. A phobia, by the way, is an irrational fear. An approval or disapproval of same sex marriage has nothing to do with any love for/fear of homosexuality.
Marriage is a socioeconomic construct. A state may very well decide that this state of existence (marriage) ought to be confined only to a man/woman arrangement, because by definition, such an arrangement deals with the next generation.
Using your ‘thinking process’, anyone who disapproves of X, is ‘phobic’ against it. So, all religions, according to you, would be ‘homophobic’. And, anyone who rejected marriage between a man and a child would be ‘phobic’ against children? What about marriage between a man and his pet dog? Animalphobic?
Equally, your example of McCain is trivial.
Ranting, volik, is not an Argument.
Here’s another comparison between socialism and Islamism:
Zero innovation, poverty, economic collapse and death.
Still, not one rational argument supported by facts from any leftist.
Why am I not surprised.
However, morningstar’s meltdown had to take the cake. I don’t think I’ve seen that many capital letters and screamers in a post for a long time.
ET, I would have loved to have sat in on your class. Your quiet, patient, fact filled logic backed up by real history and events to underline your common sense is a delight to read. That there are so many brilliant posters on this site that aren’t too far behind you are causing me to spend too much time here but I do enjoy it.
I laugh at the sputtering of lberia, volik and its short form, sput. Luckly for them they are typing as it would be difficult to listen with their fingers in their ears, stamping their feet, yelling “I’m not listening, na,na,na!” as they rant on.
Someone noted here that i just present the same argument/facts over and over.
That’s because the responders here keep saying”you’re ranting – you’re not presenting any facts”
Oh, I know – they’re just trying to wait out the clock: they’re ‘declaring victory’ wihout basis – and their posts are notably free of facts – or any points whatever, except to say “just because the entre scientific community thinks global Warming is real doen’t mean it isn’t!” “Just because someone on this site said Natives are lazy and useless doen’t mean they’re racist!”
But the abusive language found on this site — and the racism — has made me realize you’re all terribly unhappy people.
You gather here where a sad, sick, untalented woman uses the holocaust as a cheap laugh to throw her feces at one of her ‘enemies’.
She spends hours posting and linking to articles talking about how the Left are like Islamic terrorists, or putting down black people, or Native people…
What a sad, sorry way to spend one’s life!
And all you bottom-feeders come here to lap up the hate.
Oh, but when someone points out that you’re racists you haven’t even got the guts to own up to it!
At least on real white supremicist sites they happily take credit for their racism.
That’s the ONLY thing that separates you guys from them – the fact that you guys are (mostly) too cowardly to state it outright.
But make no mistake – that’s why you come here: the allure of hate and racism. It makes your mouth water and lets you feel – if only for a minute – that you’re part of something, and things are the way they’re supposed to be – with all those awful foreigners in their place at last.
You were all horribly abused as children, weren’t you? Daddy, who called you all “Stupid” and “retard” wasn’t particularly nice, was he?
I understand. but for Christ’s sake, get some therapy. You’re just making fools of yourselves.
Shall we start up an online therapy session here? Anyone want to volunteer to go first?
Surely you people don’t want to live the rest of your lives this way!
Volik,
On an earlier post, I asserted and gave evidence to support the fact that it is you who is the racist and a bigot writ large.
You never responded to this.
It can be stated as fact, then, in lack of any factual counter argument, that you are as charged.
But just to be fair to a small-minded wretch like yourself, I’ll open it up again:
I am going to state a fact based opinion – the Islamic ideology is foundationally violent, racist and misogynistic as proven in the trilogy (Quran, aHadith and Sira). This is especially proven by Mohammad’s life example and sayings (the so-called prophet that all Muslims are commanded to emulate). This foundationally violent ideology is also political, having its holy writ institutionalized into law.
Regardless of various sects in Islam and the differences between ‘moderate’ Muslims and Islamists, they all share exactly the same texts – Uthman’s Quran, the aHadith and Sira.
Now, do you have a fact based counter argument to this statement?
If not, whether you’re ignorant of the ideology, texts and resulting history or otherwise, I can safely assume from your comments and charges against others that you support this ideology and its commands and rewards for genocide of non-Muslims, racism, misogyny, pedophilia, rape, bigotry, slavery and piracy.
I can also safely assume that you are in favour of the horrors served on Muslims first and particularly Muslim females based on this ideology.
Therefore, I can assume that you are a racist and bigoted monster. And your charges against others on this blog are moot.
“ET, I would have loved to have sat in on your class.”
A teacher, is he? How appropriate. A university academic no doubt, given the flowery language, the “logical” pursuit of theoretical ideas that are vague enough to manipulate as explanations for some realities, not to mention the most amazing definition of leftism that has turned even the most ardent right wing republican into a left winger for believing in the “collectivist” idea that underpins the nation-state.
Sounds about as Ivory tower as they come.
ET is just another one of those right-wingers who thinks that anything she says is true simply because she says it is.
Daisy –
After I’ve whipped your ass so soundly on the other thread it’s awe-inspiring to see you shamble back for more, dazed and stumbling like a punch drunk fighter, blood pouring out of every orifice.
You say I am a supporter of Islamic ideology. I’m not. I’m a Christian.
My view is that of the majority. I condemn those who use the words of Islam to justify violence and hatefulness. Just as I condemn those who use the words of Christianity to justify violence.
There’s violence, misogyny, and much else in the Bible. It has been used to justify horrendous acts. Just as Islam has been used to justify horrendous acts.
If you believe that Islam is especially irredeemably violent and horrific you have a duty.
Your duty is to make everyone aware of this and to work ceaselessly to ban Islam and its practicioners from Canada.
But you’re not doing this: you’re only playing word games trying pathetically to win an argument with me on this right-wing racists’ site.
Therefore, you are not sincere in what you’re saying.
And Daisy? The charges of racism against the people on this site can never be moot, because that’s really all that you all are:
A bunch of ineffectual losers who come here to feel like you’re ‘something’ simply by the virtue that you can revel in your hate for black people, ‘leftards’, Muslims, and Native people.
How impressive.
“My view is that of the majority. ” ….
Uhuh…..even if that were true or relevant …..it proves …What?
Your behaviour and your arguments serve to provide a perfect example of the points being made about poverty of intellect and absence of value in the parts of society referred to as the left … you a Christian?
UNited Church?
Post modern Church of England?
You are out of your league and not intelligent enough to know it.
Said volik, acme of all that is tolerant: “My view is that of the majority. Silence, infidel!”
You guys just keep right on proving the point, day after day after day. Thanks, eh?
Witness ET trying desperately to give value to his criticism of a narrow stereotypical ‘idea’. The proportion of people that might even come close to meeting that ideal as strictly as you require are so ridiculously small that it’s a wonder you even claim to be saying anything at all.
This reminds me of a time that I recall you started pulling out all manner of esoteric terms vaguely related to evolution and self-organizing complex systems, making it clear that you’ve read a few books from Chapters on the Santa Fe Institute, but that you probably haven’t the faintest association with any technical mathematical or physical formulism. In that case, I agreed with what you said – as vague and ambiguous as it was. It would not survive 30 seconds of rigorous examination by people in the field. In this case, the same criticism applies.
If you want to say something of value, and assuming you want to actually criticize the actions of people that actually exist or at least the beliefs of people that actually exist, you have to have some representation of what they do or believe. You have a laughable idea that applies to almost no one. Your criticism is pointless, outside of an intellectual exercise.
Gee, Phantom
I was engaging in a debate, not calling for anyone’s silence.
Oh, right. You weren’t offering that comment sincerely. It was merely a ‘cover’ for the fact that one of your ‘believer’ pals just had his ass handed to him again.
Carry on.
Hey OMMAG
Let’s pick a couple of points out of my post and try to make it look like you have a valid argument, okay?
Don’t try to answer the main thrust of what I’m saying (because you’re not capable). Just ask some dumb questions about my religious affiliations.
And append a sentence at the end saying how dumb I am and don’t even know it.
That’ll really show me!
I really know what brainiacs you guys are from the way you call your opponents ‘stupid’ all the time.
‘Cause that’s what really smart people do. Call other people ‘stupid’ all the time.
volik, “debate” with you seems to consist mostly of people like myself saying “Hey, lookit the f-ed up thing that guy did!” and you shrieking “racist! bigot! hater!!!”
It pretty much translates to “silence infidel” within sloppy tolerances. Because you know, if a guy is some kid of hate filled racist then he should shut up and get his mind right. Accent on the shut up part.
Which gets tiresome, y’know? Tedious. Boring, even.
I think it would be a kick if you could -demonstrate- to Irwin Daisy the ways in which his statements are unreasonable. As in, not reasoned, illogical, incorrect, or inconsistent. He’s a big boy, he can take it.
Dig deeper, volik. Use the brain instead of the colon.
geez, Phantom
I’ve answered all of Daisy’s points. I’ve said I’m not an Islam supporter; I’ve said that if he considers Islam to be dangerous as he says he should be working determinedly to ban it from Canada – and for that matter the world – rather than bickering with me.
As for your tortured logic that I’m calling for his silence – I’m engaging him in debate. How does that ‘silence’ him?
The way you guys keep asking me to repeat the same stuff over and over again, it’s almost like you’re stu–
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Carry on.
“Gee, Phantom
I was engaging in a debate, not calling for anyone’s silence.”
Volik,
Since you continually prove that you have the mind of a hamster, I’ll be gentle and afford you one last chance to debate. You know, where you have to state a point and support it with something called facts and evidence?
From the last post:
But just to be fair to a small-minded wretch like yourself, I’ll open it up again:
I am going to state a fact based opinion – the Islamic ideology is foundationally violent, racist and misogynistic as proven in the trilogy (Quran, aHadith and Sira). This is especially proven by Mohammad’s life example and sayings (the so-called prophet that all Muslims are commanded to emulate). This foundationally violent ideology is also political, having its holy writ institutionalized into law.
Regardless of various sects in Islam and the differences between ‘moderate’ Muslims and Islamists, they all share exactly the same texts – Uthman’s Quran, the aHadith and Sira.
Now, do you have a fact based counter argument to this statement?
If not, whether you’re ignorant of the ideology, texts and resulting history or otherwise, I can safely assume from your comments and charges against others that you support this ideology and its commands and rewards for genocide of non-Muslims, racism, misogyny, pedophilia, rape, bigotry, slavery and piracy.
I can also safely assume that you are in favour of the horrors served on Muslims first and particularly Muslim females based on this ideology.
Therefore, I can assume that you are a racist and bigoted monster. And your charges against others on this blog are moot.
————–
As an addendum, and although equivalence is an irrelevant deflection, in other words a false premise in a debate, I’ll afford you your chance to explain. Please prove by showing evidence that the NT and Christ’s life example are foundationally violent and an impetus for violence, as you claim.
Oh Daisy
Take your standard childish right-wing insults to my intelligence and cram them up your behind.
You’ve been trying to peddle your sub-mental tortured conflation with me and Islam across 2 threads now and I’ve answered you: no, I don’t suport Islam.
Do you? If not, then work to ban Islam from Canada, since you consider it to be inevitably a dangerous thing.
Put up or shut up, Daisy. Be a man and live up to your own words, or blast off.
——————–
Does ‘Christianity’ only include the NT and Christ’s words? News to me!
volik said: “geez, Phantom I’ve answered all of Daisy’s points.”
Is that what you call it? Looks to me like you pretty much ignored his argument and went straight to the name calling part. Different standards at your school?