http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/15/donald-trump-charlottesville-press-conference-newt-gingrich-reacts
Reminder: This is the number one watched news station in the world, defending someone for defending Nazism and White Supremacy.
Remind me again, where are the major Regressive Left, Cultural Marxist news outlets defending Antifa? Where is Antifa so ingrained into American society that the highest leader electable in their region is actively supporting their ideology?
Oh, right, the alt-right is once again full of shit and hatred. Surprising.
No surprise. It's Faux News.
I think the over reaction is due to the extreme hatred of anything Trump. The continued outrage that he won the presidency. I underestimated how opposed the left would be of Trump. By the way how did Hillary lose?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 18, 2017, 09:35:05 PM
By the way how did Hillary lose?
Due to an incompetent electoral college that ignored Hillary's popular vote, of course.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 18, 2017, 09:35:05 PMI think the over reaction is due to the extreme hatred of anything Trump.
*plays How Could This Happen To Me on the world's smallest violin*
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 18, 2017, 09:35:05 PM
I think the over reaction is due to the extreme hatred of anything Trump. The continued outrage that he won the presidency. I underestimated how opposed the left would be of Trump. By the way how did Hillary lose?
I would like to crown you the King of the SFA's! That makes you royalty among Amerka's ruling group. You posts show that you will revel in it. (SFA=Stupid Fucking Amerkian)
Quote from: Sorginak on August 18, 2017, 09:39:49 PM
Due to an incompetent electoral college that ignored Hillary's popular vote, of course.
And her incompetent campaign that ignored Wisconsin. Surprised there isn't more ennui against the Cheeseheads.
Current total of registered voters greater than adults in that age group ... +3.5 million ... though not all of them probably voted (double counting of someone in more than one precinct) ... and the dead in Chicago get a regular special dispensation ;-)
Not forgetting the Russian hackers!
@ Drew_2017
See what you have done? Poking a hornet's nest is very unwise.
Repent! Turn or burn.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 18, 2017, 09:35:05 PM
I think the over reaction is due to the extreme hatred of anything Trump.
and the hatred of Trump comes from him being less intelligent than a fourth grader.
Trump won the electoral college because the states committed the crime of making electors vote for the winner of their state. Completely goes against the intention and design of the founders. It was designed specifically to keep idiots like Trump from becoming president.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 18, 2017, 08:37:03 PM
Reminder: This is the number one watched news station in the world
its a sick world...
Reminder: If an individual buys 51% of a corporations shares on the open market, he suddenly has the power to change the CEO, and the whole outlook of the business. So how much do FOX shares cost???
I've seen for decades Republicans denying that they're racists (despite behaving like them), but now I see them openly defending the Nazis. NAZIS!
Hey Republicans: remember when you watched Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Inglourious Basterds, not to mention lighter fare like Indiana Jones, Hogan's Heroes, The Sound of Music, Cabaret, Casablanca, or any of a plethora of WWII movies, like Dam Busters? The Nazis were the BAD GUYS!
QuoteI think the over reaction is due to the extreme hatred of anything Trump. The continued outrage that he won the presidency. I underestimated how opposed the left would be of Trump.
I'll try to put this in simple words, so it can maybe sink in...
You need to go fuck yourself in the ass with a molten pineapple.
1 American was left dead by a terrorist attack committed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. 20-some Americans were left injured in a terrorist attack committed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The president of the United States of America began by blaming the victims of that terrorist attack and refused to even say who committed this act of terror, and only said their name two days later after arm-twisting by his own staff. Then he goes back a day or two later and again blames the victims of a terrorist attack literally committed by fucking Nazis.
It's not the left that is opposed to this... literally everyone around him is jumping ship. CEO's of the Business Advisory Councils resigned left and right until Trump finally just disbanded the group. Moderate Republicans like Corker who avoid conflict have released public statements saying that in very strong terms condemn Trump's response and bigotry. Shit, even the alt-right is turning on him (not because it's the right thing, obviously, but because of the firing of Bannon). This is not a left-vs-right issue, this is an everyone who is against Nazis vs Nazi apologist issue.
I realise starting off with an insulting remark is not the way to win people over, but let's be honest... if Trump said the sky was actually pink instead of blue because of the left is pumping liberal gas into the sky, you, Munch and pr would be here arguing that was probably actually true or that somehow Muslims or "teh feminazis" had brainwashed everyone into thinking it was blue, so I'm not particularly concerned with winning you over.
QuoteBy the way how did Hillary lose?
You are really still salty about your candidate losing the popular vote, even when Hillary fucked up and didn't campaign in swing states?
Need some Preparation-H for this man, ASAP!
QuoteNot forgetting the Russian hackers!
Please, that is so a few months ago. We have moved on buddy, get with the times. We are more concerned now about the actual Russians that explicitly colluded with the Trump campaign, that the Trump campaign admits they met with after lying through their teeth time and time again about it.
QuoteSee what you have done? Poking a hornet's nest is very unwise.
Yeah, I can't honestly think of a time post-WW2 that defending Nazi's was anything other than a hornet's nest. My dad didn't drop bombs for months on his own homeland to eliminate Nazis so that I could sit back and just stay silent when they murder fellow Americans.
When you are fighting this hard to make excuses for Nazis, it's probably time to shut your computer down, get away from the T.V. for awhile, and go live in a cabin in the woods for a few years reflecting on what you have become.
Quote from: pr126 on August 19, 2017, 12:09:34 AM
Not forgetting the Russian hackers!
Someone has already seriously suggested that Putin was using mind-control-beams from satellite, to control the violence in Charlottesville. Dilbert (Scott Adams) has nailed it .. a hysteria bubble (and yes ladies, it is named after you and your characteristic over-emotional behavior).
It isn't just for Canada, now they are proposing that health care workers in California, be imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns with patients ... because it is hate speech. I know what I would be tempted to inject a snowflake with ... and it isn't pronouns.
What we have here is a Leftist version of Dr Strangelove. US? Just say no!
Quote from: fencerider on August 19, 2017, 01:18:01 AM
and the hatred of Trump comes from him being less intelligent than a fourth grader.
Trump won the electoral college because the states committed the crime of making electors vote for the winner of their state. Completely goes against the intention and design of the founders. It was designed specifically to keep idiots like Trump from becoming president.
its a sick world...
Reminder: If an individual buys 51% of a corporations shares on the open market, he suddenly has the power to change the CEO, and the whole outlook of the business. So how much do FOX shares cost???
I denounce you for hate speech! You are offending all the stupid POS out there ... who deserve special political rights and lots of free shit.
Quote from: Atheon on August 19, 2017, 04:42:54 AM
I've seen for decades Republicans denying that they're racists (despite behaving like them), but now I see them openly defending the Nazis. NAZIS!
Hey Republicans: remember when you watched Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Inglourious Basterds, not to mention lighter fare like Indiana Jones, Hogan's Heroes, The Sound of Music, Cabaret, Casablanca, or any of a plethora of WWII movies, like Dam Busters? The Nazis were the BAD GUYS!
I stated during the election, I will vote as a Jew, for Zombie Hitler, before I will vote for you Alinsky POS. And Stalin was a bad guy too.
Of course, since 1972, Republicans are KKK ... the Democrats left them with no choice but to change to the opposite party.
Interesting that no one ever brings up Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Che as a boogie man. They were all mass murderers.
Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Atilla, Muhammad?
Oh sorry not the Prophet, PBUH.
He started a war 622, still in progress and will be until further notice.
Btw, the prophet is responsible for 270 million corpses, ongoing.
No, we only ever mention Hitler. Yes, he was a nasty character, but so were the others.
Favorite saying: “he is literaly Hitlerâ€.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2017, 06:59:57 AM
I stated during the election, I will vote as a Jew, for Zombie Hitler, before I will vote for you Alinsky POS. And Stalin was a bad guy too.
Stalin was a bad guy, every bit as evil as his fellow right-winger Hitler, not to mention those other right-wingers like ISIS, Kim Il Sung, Idi Amin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
But we actually have people out there marching with Nazi banners. There are no Stalinists marching out there in the US.
As for "literally Hitler", I've only ever heard right-wingers say it. I think they just made it up.
QuoteInteresting that no one ever brings up Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Che as a boogie man. They were all mass murderers.
A. Maybe because there aren't Stalinists, Maoist, Potest, Fidelists, Cheists murdering people and having the president of the strongest nation in the world excusing their actions.
B. People mention at least Stalin and Castro all the time, and Mao as well, what the fuck are you on about? I understand maybe you don't hear about Cuba so much in the UK as we do here in the U.S. given the geographic distances of our two countries from Cuba, but his regime was and is still very relevant here, particularly in states like Texas, Florida and New York.
QuoteNo, we only ever mention Hitler. Yes, he was a nasty character, but so were the others.
Who. The fuck. Cares?
We are talking about
Neo-Nazis. Nazis. The people who
supported Hitler. When people who
supported Hitler murder an American citizen, it shouldn't be surprising that we are talking about Hitler.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 - "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under the heaven."
When people have just been murdered by Nazis, the time is to talk about Nazis. It is not time to start blaming the victims. It is not time to say, "But, but... other people are bad too!!!".
I can understand someone with something like severe autism or some other condition that causes them to have trouble understanding social cues and norms struggling with this concept (for perfectly understandable reasons), but for anyone without a medical excuse there is absolutely zero excuse other than you have let hatred and fear consume your heart.
Quote from: Atheon on August 19, 2017, 07:24:03 AM
Stalin was a bad guy, every bit as evil as his fellow right-winger Hitler. But we actually have people out there marching with Nazi banners. There are no Stalinists marching out there in the US.
Three points ...
You are in Taiwan
Escape hole for KMT party
KMT was an ally of Germany, until Hitler dumped them for the more successfully warlike Japanese
So connecting the points, you are post-facto supporting people who supported Hitler. What do you have against the Mainland, who drove that KMT shit out?
And yes, all you Lefties are closet killers ... pacifists support Gandhi not Mao ... and they don't support KMT either.
And you redefine words to suit your ideology (vs the common definitions).
Shiranu - so what camel will you be riding, to your anti-Nazi jihad?
@ Shiranu
You forgot liar and coward. Get with the program
Quote from: pr126 on August 19, 2017, 07:37:09 AM
@ Shiranu
You forgot liar and coward. Get with the program
I think there is a fair amount of "death to anglophones" here. Attila was OK because he didn't speak English. Maybe the Irish, not Putin, are generating all this anglophobia. And yes, Ireland supported the Kaiser and Hitler both.
Quote from: pr126 on August 19, 2017, 07:37:09 AM
@ Shiranu
You forgot liar and coward. Get with the program
Good to see you have given up on pretending to make sense.
QuoteMaybe the Irish, not Putin, are generating all this anglophobia.
Tell that to the thousands of Irish who deserted their homeland to fight and die for their sworn enemy and enslavers against the Nazis (to return home and be called traitors), or the thousands more who left their new homeland of America to be butchered in France and Germany.
Where are all these nazis coming from?
Seems there are more now in the US than in Europe in 1930-45.
I think it is Trump’s fault. The new Hitler. ;)
People with these bigoted and hateful views have been here for years; if you knew how to listen to anyone outside your own bubble, to minorities, to women, to whoever isn't on the alt-right, you would know this is a problem that has existed in the dark underbelly of our society. They just have become more emboldened by a president who tells them, "You're not to blame if you commit violent acts.". They have become more emboldened by a president who said during the campaign, "Commit violence against leftists who oppose me. I'll defend you." They have become more emboldened by a president who put their leading media man as a direct adviser to the strongest job in the world.
If you look at any graph or statistics about hate crime in the United States, you will notice this wonderful trend of the numbers going down and down across the board... until the last year or so, when the numbers spiked.
-The number of hate groups in the U.S. have increased by 17% since 2014, at nearly 1000 recognized hate groups currently operating in some capacity in the States.
-White supremacy, anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT groups make up about 80% of all hate groups in the United states.
-Anti-Muslim hate groups tripled in the last year alone, and began their spike around the time Trump began his anti-Muslim rhetoric.
-Anti-Muslim hate crimes spiked in 2015, dipped a bit, and then have steadily and quickly rising since Trump's campaign and election.
-Anti-African American hate crime, against steadily decreasing for decades, even during Obama's presidency when you had cases like Martin and early BLM protests, have began to increase again over the last year.
We do not know the exact numbers of members, because surprisingly enough people don't often want to actively identify themselves as Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. What we do know however is that 63 million Americans voted for a candidate who time, and time, and time, and time again showed support for these groups, who defended their hateful rhetoric, who engaged in this hateful rhetoric (and other rhetoric such as extremely sexist remarks and mocking the physically and mentally handicapped) himself. We have 63 million Americans who decided that these view points aren't radical enough to warrant not voting for someone.
That is the important, underlying factor. 63 million Americans did more than silently agree with this hateful ideology; they elected someone who espouses it. This is not because they are bad people, or hateful people, or whatever... he weaved a pretty tale, promised them many things, and exploited their fear for his own gain. So this is what I think is most important... just like in Germany, the average German was not a Nazi or supported the Nazis, but they allowed their fear to be manipulated until things got out of control. It's not about how many Nazis were in Germany, or in the United States, but how many people do not get engaged in politics and think the presidency is something you can sit back and not pay attention to and everything will work out.
60% of eligible voters turned up, with 48% of them voting for Hillary. That means about 70% of the population either actively supported a xenophobic, racist, sexist cretin with zero moral integrity and the disposition of a 5 year old to be the leader of the free world or sat by silently while he took office.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
Faux News on BLM riots: Evil Leftist Socialists! They have no excuse!
Faux News on Nazis: It's the Left! They made them do it!
Quote from: Shiranu on August 19, 2017, 07:45:14 AM
Tell that to the thousands of Irish who deserted their homeland to fight and die for their sworn enemy and enslavers against the Nazis (to return home and be called traitors), or the thousands more who left their new homeland of America to be butchered in France and Germany.
Any Irishman, who doesn't think constantly of killing English, who doesn't ally with the enemies of the English ... isn't a leprechaun at all. So, some Irish Canadians, some Irish British, some Irish Anzacs, some Irish Americans were ... confused as to their primary loyalty? That and the Pope in Rome.
But either we accept that the anti-British anti-American forces are part of a general "death to Western Europe" or they are specifically anglo-phobes ... they aren't all ... "death to Eastern Europe" or "death to Russia" ... because their Russian and E German paymasters wouldn't be amused. And yes, Merkel is the Chancellor of E Germany. Soros is a totally evil Hungarian and pseudo-Jew who collaborated with the Nazis.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing." .. so Shiranu volunteers to go back in time and kill "baby Hitler"? There are no good men. But you won't conclude that cynicism, until you have earned it later in life ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 19, 2017, 08:50:31 AM
Faux News on BLM riots: Evil Leftist Socialists! They have no excuse!
Faux News on Nazis: It's the Left! They made them do it!
Death to both parties. FEMA camps for those who support either party after they are made illegal, for being treason against Federalism (Washington and John Adams).
Quote from: Shiranu on August 18, 2017, 08:37:03 PM
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/15/donald-trump-charlottesville-press-conference-newt-gingrich-reacts
Reminder: This is the number one watched news station in the world, defending someone for defending Nazism and White Supremacy.
Remind me again, where are the major Regressive Left, Cultural Marxist news outlets defending Antifa? Where is Antifa so ingrained into American society that the highest leader electable in their region is actively supporting their ideology?
Oh, right, the alt-right is once again full of shit and hatred. Surprising.
I didnt vote for Trump. wish for another person to be president. But I detest the lie about him defending racists.
A person calling out multiple peoples for violence w/o naming a titled organization does not and can not mean support of a single organization.
Instead, focusing on the violence itself and denouncing political violence was and always will be the right course to take.
Otherwise, if not mentioning an organization by name some how equates to support. then there are several news outlets that have ignored and failed to call out antifa or any person who has vandalized, rioted, and stolen. those who are recorded (w/ videos online) of throwing fecies and m80's into crowds. using weapons such as bike locks to attack innocent people.
enemy of my enemy is not a friend.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: pr126 on August 19, 2017, 12:09:34 AM
Not forgetting the Russian hackers!
that hacked emails to preach to the crior, but not the electoral system to cause fraud and false votes?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
And now, something completely different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPXHRX8Q2hs
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 18, 2017, 11:13:57 PM
I would like to crown you the King of the SFA's! That makes you royalty among Amerka's ruling group. You posts show that you will revel in it. (SFA=Stupid Fucking Amerkian)
As I said out of intellectual steam just anger left...reduced to insulting which takes no brains.
Quote from: fencerider on August 19, 2017, 01:18:01 AM
and the hatred of Trump comes from him being less intelligent than a fourth grader.
Trump won the electoral college because the states committed the crime of making electors vote for the winner of their state. Completely goes against the intention and design of the founders. It was designed specifically to keep idiots like Trump from becoming president.
The design of the founders was to prevent the presidency from being decided by a handful of states. Hasn't stopped Dems or Repubs from winning.
QuoteI'll try to put this in simple words, so it can maybe sink in...
You need to go fuck yourself in the ass with a molten pineapple.
I realise starting off with an insulting remark is not the way to win people over, but let's be honest...
Not at all its what I've come to expect from people who claim to be open minded, peace loving reasonable and rational people who love all humans...
Quote1 American was left dead by a terrorist attack committed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. 20-some Americans were left injured in a terrorist attack committed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The president of the United States of America began by blaming the victims of that terrorist attack and refused to even say who committed this act of terror, and only said their name two days later after arm-twisting by his own staff. Then he goes back a day or two later and again blames the victims of a terrorist attack literally committed by fucking Nazis.
Maybe you can focus after drinking so much kool-aid. My comments were in reference to the outrage over Trumps initial comments about the riot that he didn't specifically name Nazi's or White Supremacists. He should have, if he was politically astute he would have but he didn't until later. He is accurate though, there is more than one side to the event.
QuoteYou are really still salty about your candidate losing the popular vote, even when Hillary fucked up and didn't campaign in swing states?
I was as shocked as anyone that Trump won. The presidency is a states sweepstakes. The popular vote is superfluous.
Quote from: randomvim on August 19, 2017, 01:36:33 PM
I didnt vote for Trump. wish for another person to be president. But I detest the lie about him defending racists.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Well, then, you can stop 'detesting' for it is not a lie that he supports and has supported and encouraged racists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 19, 2017, 04:14:25 PM
The design of the founders was to prevent the presidency from being decided by a handful of states. Hasn't stopped Dems or Repubs from winning.
We know what they want to replace the EC with, if they lose the majority vote next time ... Only one state can vote ... California. Anyone in California can vote, even non-US citizens, provided that they are all registered Democrats ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2017, 05:05:29 PM
Well, then, you can stop 'detesting' for it is not a lie that he supports and has supported and encouraged racists.
All true Americans do ... you either hate Whites, hate Blacks, hate Hispanics etc take your damn pick. And George Washington kept slaves so .. nuke Mt Rushmore. In Socialist utopia, comrade ... you are free to think as the party tells you to think, speak or write as the party tells you to speak or write (see Faceplant and Giggie) etc because anything the party doesn't like is hate speech, and we can't have that. I hate R values, I hate D values (but not the misguided people). So arrest me, comrades!
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/10/19/24-types-of-authoritarian/
R and D are both authoritarian, both virtue signal in opposite ways, both are assholes.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2017, 05:05:29 PM
Well, then, you can stop 'detesting' for it is not a lie that he supports and has supported and encouraged racists.
then prove how the president's recent comments against violence is an open invitation for racists like that libral news groups claimed, that so many who already hated trump claim.
back up the claim with evidence.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 19, 2017, 07:05:02 PM
then prove how the president's recent comments against violence is an open invitation for racists like that libral news groups claimed, that so many who already hated trump claim.
back up the claim with evidence.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
I'm not going to take the time, effort or energy to reach back all the way to '27 when his daddy was arrested at a KKK ralley, to all the things he has said and done during his life, nor in the last two years in the political spotlight--read that shit for yourself. And look at the people he has surrounded himself with. He embraces the Alt-right as part of his base. It is very clear whose support he curries and wants. Are you so smitten with the Donald that you buy his daily lies???
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2017, 07:39:40 PM
I'm not going to take the time, effort or energy to reach back all the way to '27 when his daddy was arrested at a KKK ralley, to all the things he has said and done during his life, nor in the last two years in the political spotlight--read that shit for yourself. And look at the people he has surrounded himself with. He embraces the Alt-right as part of his base. It is very clear whose support he curries and wants. Are you so smitten with the Donald that you buy his daily lies???
1. no man is the same as their father. comparing his dad's mistakes and holding that as "proof" that trump must think the same is inadequate.
2. past two years? Im asking about current. the confrence right after that stupid attack in Va. Looking at his words, which did not highlight any organization and condemned all violence which was present that day. how do those words express racism?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 19, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
1. no man is the same as their father. comparing his dad's mistakes and holding that as "proof" that trump must think the same is inadequate.
2. past two years? Im asking about current. the confrence right after that stupid attack in Va. Looking at his words, which did not highlight any organization and condemned all violence which was present that day. how do those words express racism?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
This is what he said on Sat:
"President Trump blamed both sides.
In a statement read before a scheduled bill signing for the Department of Veterans Affairs, he did everything but say “All Lives Matter†to avoid talking about who had perpetrated the violence. And he left plenty of opportunity for people who are inclined to assume that the problem lay with counterprotesters to do just that.
Here is how the president began his statement:
We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.
It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.
What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time.
This is not just a failure to condemn the white nationalists who were responsible for the bulk of the violence and disorder in Charlottesville with the same vehemence that Trump condemns “radical Islamic terrorism†during any attack of any size in the US or abroad. "
There are no 'many sides'. There are two sides. Neo-nazis, KKK, etc. and those protesting what those groups. In fact, there really is only one side--those who protest what those hate groups preach, say and chant. He failed to acknowledge that those groups really have no legit place in our society. If he isn't a full fledged racist, he sure is not against getting their votes.
QuoteI didnt vote for Trump. wish for another person to be president. But I detest the lie about him defending racists.
Oh, right, he didn't defend them. My bad. He has only repeatedly made racist remarks about the African American community as a whole as well as attacks against Obama's "legitimacy" as an American because of his skin colour, been accused of racist business practices, and made excuses for white supremacists after they murdered an American citizen.
Totally different.
QuoteA person calling out multiple peoples for violence w/o naming a titled organization does not and can not mean support of a single organization.
Agreed. The problem is when a person says, "White supremacists, what you did was bad but let's be fair... the other side made you do it." after white supremacists drove a vehicle into a crowd of peaceful protesters murdering one and injuring many more. That isn't calling out multiple people for violence, that is making excuses for a violent side committing violent acts against a passive side.
QuoteInstead, focusing on the violence itself and denouncing political violence was and always will be the right course to take.
Yes! YES! Exactly!
The problem is Trump DIDN'T DO THAT. Instead of focusing on the violence itself, the violence that a white supremacist did in the name of white supremacy, he said that both sides were to blame. Yes, there were bad seeds on the left (my god, Shiranu said waaaaaaaaht?), but that
doesn't fucking matter when a neo-Nazi commits an act of terrorism on innocent peaceful protesters. There is a time and place for anything, and that is the time and place for the president to put his own political agendas and bigotry aside and be the statesman of the American people.
Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the left, right, centre, gay, straight, black, white... the American people. You saw Obama do it, and to be fair you saw Bush Jr. & Sr., Reagan, etc. do it. What Trump did was completely and utterly abnormal and abhorrent to everything the office stands for by both refusing to take a firm stance against the party that committed an act of terror on American soil and instead of being the statesman that brings everyone together... he took a stance of trying to even further divide the American people and make it "us vs them".
QuoteOtherwise, if not mentioning an organization by name some how equates to support.
Again, you are missing the point... it's not just that he didn't condemn the Nazis and white supremacists, which is literally the easiest fucking sentence you can ever utter ("Nazis are bad."), he continuously brooded over it and threw a hissy fit when a written speech was forced to be read... and then two days later went back to blaming the victims.
Not being able to say, "Nazis are terrible human beings and this act of violence by a Nazi is completely and utterly reprehensible", which is in itself fucking horrifying for a president to not be able to say without having his arm twisted by literally the entire United States besides the neo-Nazis, is only part of the problem... it's the fact that he doubled, and then tripled down on blaming the victims.
Quotethen there are several news outlets that have ignored and failed to call out antifa or any person who has vandalized, rioted, and stolen.
There are several reasons for that...
A. Antifa didn't commit an act of domestic terrorism leaving one American dead and several others injured.
B. Antifa is not an organization like the various neo-Nazi groups and KKK Chapters that attended Charlottesville and have marches planned on other American cities as well. Antifa is more "grass-roots" and is not an organization with a set goal but rather an umbrella term for various far-left groups that commit acts of violence against far-right protesters.
C. The Antifa numbers are pathetically small compared to the number of far-right bigots that showed up.
Additionally, major news outlets like CNN and MSNBC have reported Antifa attacks, and both of those are considered "left-wing" by Americans (though in terms of actual left-right politics, they are central at best if not right-wing leaning), so that entire premise is bunk anyways. And the majority of American's believe that both sides are to blame, according to recent surveys, so I'm not sure the media covering them is relevant anyways.
But on the topic of both sides being to blame, lets take a look at the actually numbers shall we?
According to the ADL's Center on Extremism, of the 372 Americans killed by domestic terrorists, 72% (268) of them were killed by right-wing extremists and only 2% (7) were killed by left-wing extremists (none of which were Antifa). So to act like they are in any way, shape, or form relatable is simply a lie. And if you hate lies so much, then I expect to see you retracting the Antifa blame in a post or so.
Quoteenemy of my enemy is not a friend.
Mine either.
QuoteNot at all its what I've come to expect from people who claim to be open minded, peace loving reasonable and rational people who love all humans...
Open minded and peace loving sure... but not open minded to the point my brain falls out. There is a certain line that gets drawn, and when that line involves slamming one's head against a brick wall that is spewing excuses for bigotry and neo-Nazis, sometimes it's healthier to sit back and say, "Wow, that wall is a fucking moron."
Sure, sure... it means I am not a 100% dyed-in-the-wool peaceful little Buddha or Jesus, but that is a cross I suppose I will just have to bear. Saves me a bit of a headache.
QuoteMaybe you can focus after drinking so much kool-aid. My comments were in reference to the outrage over Trumps initial comments about the riot that he didn't specifically name Nazi's or White Supremacists. He should have, if he was politically astute he would have but he didn't until later. He is accurate though, there is more than one side to the event.
Except there is literally fucking not. The only way you can say there are, "two-sides" is if you are saying, "Yes, there were two sides... the Nazi side, and the White supremacist side" or, "The nazi side and literally every other fucking human being that finds Nazi's unacceptable.".
If you want to argue the second one, have at it... but just be prepared for literally everyone who is not a neo-Nazi or white supremacist to call you on it, my special little snowflake.
Quote1. no man is the same as their father. comparing his dad's mistakes and holding that as "proof" that trump must think the same is inadequate.
Except statistically they are. This is not even recent knowledge, that's pretty much common knowledge for basically all of human history that if you are raised a certain way you will behave, statistically speaking, in a similar way to how you were raised.
Trump has shown time and time again that his a racist bigot, and I don't agree Mike CI on one thing... there is no question about it, he is a full-fledged racist. You cannot say, "Mexicans are rapists and criminals, though I am sure some of them are good people...", using a woman grieving over her sons death (who died fighting for the Marines) to take a stab at Muslims, saying that a judge cant fairly judge him because, quote, "He is a Mexican.", who has been sued multiple times by the State for racist business practices against African Americans, who refuses to denounce white supremacists who supported him like basically every other Republican president has... I'm sorry, you just cant argue that he isn't a racist.
His actions have spoken loud and clear for his whole life. The fact that we are even having a debate on, "Is Trump a racist?" or "Are Neo-Nazis and white supremacists REAAAAALY to blame?" is fucking... honestly, there are not words in the English language that can accurately convey just how fucking crazy it is that we have to have this "debate". There should be scientific studies into how the alt-right can get people to shove their head so far up their own asses to start making excuses for Nazis and white supremacists, because they discovered some type of miracle drug or something.
I'll say it one more time in big, black letters to see if I can help it sink in to at least one of yall...
THIS IS NOT A LEFT-VS-RIGHT ISSUE, LITERALLY EVERYONE FROM DEMOCRATS TO REPUBLICANS TO LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE CONDEMNING HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. LITERALLY THE ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO APPROVE OF IT AS A WHOLE ARE THE NEO-NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACISTS, AND THE ALT RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARGUE IN FAVOUR OF IT, JUST REALISE WHO IT IS YOU ARE SIDING WITH, AND DON'T ACT LIKE SUCH A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE CUCK WHEN YOU GET CALLED ON IT.
The charge of racism is like the accusation of committing child abuse once charged guilt is assumed unless proven otherwise. It used to be you could tar and feather someone by calling them a liar but lying is synonymous with being a politician either party.
Trump will be a racist from now on in the minds of most on the left actions and words irrelevant. The left should be careful they may get what they ask; Pence could be more effective getting Trumps agenda through than Trump.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 19, 2017, 09:37:04 PM
Except there is literally fucking not. The only way you can say there are, "two-sides" is if you are saying, "Yes, there were two sides... the Nazi side, and the White supremacist side" or, "The nazi side and literally every other fucking human being that finds Nazi's unacceptable.".
Did those two sides clash and cause the melee? Or was there another group they had a conflict with?
QuoteThe charge of racism is like the accusation of committing child abuse once charged guilt is assumed unless proven otherwise.
Correction: The charge of racism, as directed at Trump, is like the accusation of committing child abuse after being caught on camera beating the living shit out of your two children as well as their mother for the lawls and bragging about it on national T.V. to get child abusers to vote for him and then refusing to condemn an organization that's entire political statement is, "We Will Beat Little Children!".
The difference between our two is kinda subtle, but it's there if you take a closer look at it.
QuoteTrump will be a racist from now on in the minds of most on the left actions and words irrelevant.
Your right, actions and words are irrelevant to one of the many sides, many sides.
Actions like being sued twice by the State Department for racist business practices directed at African American customers are irrelevant.
Actions like refusing to condemn white supremacist groups and renouncing their votes when they state they are voting for him because his views protect their interests when candidates like Bush Jr., Dole, Reagan did without even having those groups show support towards them are irrelevant.
Actions like questioning rather Obama is "really" American because of the colour of his skin are irrelevant.
Statements like, "The Mexicans that are coming over are rapists and criminals, and I'm sure some of them are good people, but the majority..." are irrelevant.
Statements like saying a judge won't treat him fairly because, "He is Mexican.", even though he was born and raised in Indiana and has fought tooth and nail against drug cartels are irrelevant.
Words, the inability to say anything other than, "The Blacks", "The Hispanics", "The Muslims" as if they are a monolithic group are irrelevant.
Words like, "Those Indians don't look like Indians" in reference to Native Americans on a reservation protesting a Trump Casino being built on it are irrelevant.
Actions like believing, to this day, that the Central Park Five (5 people of colour wrongfully accused of rape and murder) are guilty after DNA testing exonerated them are irrelevant.
Words like saying, "Maybe that protester should have been roughed up more.", about a BLM protester being assaulted by a white crowd are irrelevant.
Words like saying that two men who severely beat a Latino man
in his name, were just, "Very passionate, they want this country to be great again. They are very passionate." are irrelevant.
Words like literally every fucking thing he said at the Jewish Republican Convention, from stereotype after stereotype of the "Businessman Jew", are irrelevant.
Actions like sharing a white supremacist meme against Hillary Clinton, again using anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery, a week after the meme first appeared on white supremacist forums, are irrelevant.
Actions like using the token African American at speech after speech to prove, "Hey, look! There's my African American! (<---- his direct words, said several times at several rallies) I'm clearly not racist!" are irrelevant.
Words like saying, "Jeb Bush has to like the Mexicans because he is married to one!" are irrelevant.
Words like saying, "Jeb Bush is crazy. Who cares if he speaks Mexican, this is America!" are irrelevant.
QuoteDid those two sides clash and cause the melee?
Dude, what the actual fuck are you talking about? The melee? You mean the melee of Heather Heyer's head slamming against the car plowing through the crowd?
What the actual fuck?
QuoteOr was there another group they had a conflict with?
NO, THERE WASN'T, YOU ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO DEFEND DOMESTIC TERRORISM FROM WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND NAZIS THROUGH DEFLECTION OF THEIR BLAME.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 19, 2017, 09:37:04 PM
Open minded and peace loving sure... but not open minded to the point my brain falls out. There is a certain line that gets drawn, and when that line involves slamming one's head against a brick wall that is spewing excuses for bigotry and neo-Nazis, sometimes it's healthier to sit back and say, "Wow, that wall is a fucking moron."
Sure, sure... it means I am not a 100% dyed-in-the-wool peaceful little Buddha or Jesus, but that is a cross I suppose I will just have to bear. Saves me a bit of a headache.
Except there is literally fucking not. The only way you can say there are, "two-sides" is if you are saying, "Yes, there were two sides... the Nazi side, and the White supremacist side" or, "The nazi side and literally every other fucking human being that finds Nazi's unacceptable.".
If you want to argue the second one, have at it... but just be prepared for literally everyone who is not a neo-Nazi or white supremacist to call you on it, my special little snowflake.
Except statistically they are. This is not even recent knowledge, that's pretty much common knowledge for basically all of human history that if you are raised a certain way you will behave, statistically speaking, in a similar way to how you were raised.
Trump has shown time and time again that his a racist bigot, and I don't agree Mike CI on one thing... there is no question about it, he is a full-fledged racist. You cannot say, "Mexicans are rapists and criminals, though I am sure some of them are good people...", using a woman grieving over her sons death (who died fighting for the Marines) to take a stab at Muslims, saying that a judge cant fairly judge him because, quote, "He is a Mexican.", who has been sued multiple times by the State for racist business practices against African Americans, who refuses to denounce white supremacists who supported him like basically every other Republican president has... I'm sorry, you just cant argue that he isn't a racist.
His actions have spoken loud and clear for his whole life. The fact that we are even having a debate on, "Is Trump a racist?" or "Are Neo-Nazis and white supremacists REAAAAALY to blame?" is fucking... honestly, there are not words in the English language that can accurately convey just how fucking crazy it is that we have to have this "debate". There should be scientific studies into how the alt-right can get people to shove their head so far up their own asses to start making excuses for Nazis and white supremacists, because they discovered some type of miracle drug or something.
I'll say it one more time in big, black letters to see if I can help it sink in to at least one of yall... THIS IS NOT A LEFT-VS-RIGHT ISSUE, LITERALLY EVERYONE FROM DEMOCRATS TO REPUBLICANS TO LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE CONDEMNING HIM FOR WHAT HE SAID. LITERALLY THE ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO APPROVE OF IT AS A WHOLE ARE THE NEO-NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACISTS, AND THE ALT RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARGUE IN FAVOUR OF IT, JUST REALISE WHO IT IS YOU ARE SIDING WITH, AND DON'T ACT LIKE SUCH A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE CUCK WHEN YOU GET CALLED ON IT.
Shiranu, I do think Trump is a bigot and racist. Have thought so for years.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 19, 2017, 09:49:08 PM
Did those two sides clash and cause the melee? Or was there another group they had a conflict with?
Knowing you are a theist, I should not be surprised you side with the neo-nazis and white supermists. You think they represent a legit 'side'. Just what is it that causes you to be attracted to that 'side'? Are you attracted to their message? So, in this case, the neo-nazis are not a 'side'. The people showing up to protest their being there is the only legit side there is.
Well ... I don't know President Trump, personally. So I actually don't know his real opinion on anything. Though he has said some things, but I don't believe a politician when their mouth is open. I also don't know any KKK folk personally. I also don't know any anti-Fa personally. For all I know, they help little old ladies cross the street. I do see plenty of political ideology masquerading as virtue signaling ... on this forum, but it is what it is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2017, 09:19:28 PM
This is what he said on Sat:
"President Trump blamed both sides.
In a statement read before a scheduled bill signing for the Department of Veterans Affairs, he did everything but say “All Lives Matter†to avoid talking about who had perpetrated the violence. And he left plenty of opportunity for people who are inclined to assume that the problem lay with counterprotesters to do just that.
Here is how the president began his statement:
We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.
It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.
What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time.
This is not just a failure to condemn the white nationalists who were responsible for the bulk of the violence and disorder in Charlottesville with the same vehemence that Trump condemns “radical Islamic terrorism†during any attack of any size in the US or abroad. "
There are no 'many sides'. There are two sides. Neo-nazis, KKK, etc. and those protesting what those groups. In fact, there really is only one side--those who protest what those hate groups preach, say and chant. He failed to acknowledge that those groups really have no legit place in our society. If he isn't a full fledged racist, he sure is not against getting their votes.
1. lets get this straight. there is no "bulk" of violence. the most agressive and damaging attack committed that day was by a nazi: obviously. however there are plenty of videos online that demonstrate the wrong on "both sides."
from throwing balloons of piss and poop ( only "counter protesters" did this) to throwing rocks and bricks - to the slug fest that required two groups to be considered a brawl.
denounce it all... dont name the scum who just murdered someone. thats an on going investigation as well. cant name the one person to blame at that given moment - so look at all the violence instead of some or one part of the violence.
2. so what happens when you name one side vs the other? you ignore violence that still is immoral. violence that didnt need to be present.
if only two groups were stated: nazi vs. antifa. you miss those unassociated with a group who may have still caused harm to another citizen.
3. compare and contrast.
highlighting radical islam is to contrast groups of people that share similar beliefs. if you say "muslims" then you paint a wide brush that steriotypes everyone into one group. that issue is not present here.
it also identifies a single type of terrorist act.
4. no many sides? good number of vids online show such a statement is false. logic dictates there would be and should be many sides as well. not everyone is associated with a political group.
this denial is part of the issue. which allows violence by those who are not "bad guy" but everyone turns into a bad guy when you use your fist instead of intellect due to political differences. really though. no one is better than a nazi if you have to relly on fists or weapon.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Here is what I think is ugly ... if a anti-Fa had run over a KKK with a car ... the response would be different. Some people are more equal than others, and you are judged without trial in the US. All part of .. there are no Americans anymore, just Europeans or other nationalities who happen to be here in the US.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 18, 2017, 08:37:03 PM
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/15/donald-trump-charlottesville-press-conference-newt-gingrich-reacts
Reminder: This is the number one watched news station in the world, defending someone for defending Nazism and White Supremacy.
Remind me again, where are the major Regressive Left, Cultural Marxist news outlets defending Antifa? Where is Antifa so ingrained into American society that the highest leader electable in their region is actively supporting their ideology?
Oh, right, the alt-right is once again full of shit and hatred. Surprising.
Fox news doesn't exist in my life. I don't watch it any more than I watch those fake reality shows and those prison shows and those police shows. I know the difference between real news and fake news.
And, no, the difference isn't between what I agree or disagree with. It is the difference between researched news, fact-checked and showing day/date/time/source, versus unsubstantiated claims spoken only with fervor.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 19, 2017, 09:23:31 PM
Oh, right, he didn't defend them. My bad. He has only repeatedly made racist remarks about the African American community as a whole as well as attacks against Obama's "legitimacy" as an American because of his skin colour, been accused of racist business practices, and made excuses for white supremacists after they murdered an American citizen.
Totally different.
Agreed. The problem is when a person says, "White supremacists, what you did was bad but let's be fair... the other side made you do it." after white supremacists drove a vehicle into a crowd of peaceful protesters murdering one and injuring many more. That isn't calling out multiple people for violence, that is making excuses for a violent side committing violent acts against a passive side.
Yes! YES! Exactly!
The problem is Trump DIDN'T DO THAT. Instead of focusing on the violence itself, the violence that a white supremacist did in the name of white supremacy, he said that both sides were to blame. Yes, there were bad seeds on the left (my god, Shiranu said waaaaaaaaht?), but that doesn't fucking matter when a neo-Nazi commits an act of terrorism on innocent peaceful protesters. There is a time and place for anything, and that is the time and place for the president to put his own political agendas and bigotry aside and be the statesman of the American people.
Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not the left, right, centre, gay, straight, black, white... the American people. You saw Obama do it, and to be fair you saw Bush Jr. & Sr., Reagan, etc. do it. What Trump did was completely and utterly abnormal and abhorrent to everything the office stands for by both refusing to take a firm stance against the party that committed an act of terror on American soil and instead of being the statesman that brings everyone together... he took a stance of trying to even further divide the American people and make it "us vs them".
Again, you are missing the point... it's not just that he didn't condemn the Nazis and white supremacists, which is literally the easiest fucking sentence you can ever utter ("Nazis are bad."), he continuously brooded over it and threw a hissy fit when a written speech was forced to be read... and then two days later went back to blaming the victims.
Not being able to say, "Nazis are terrible human beings and this act of violence by a Nazi is completely and utterly reprehensible", which is in itself fucking horrifying for a president to not be able to say without having his arm twisted by literally the entire United States besides the neo-Nazis, is only part of the problem... it's the fact that he doubled, and then tripled down on blaming the victims.
There are several reasons for that...
A. Antifa didn't commit an act of domestic terrorism leaving one American dead and several others injured.
B. Antifa is not an organization like the various neo-Nazi groups and KKK Chapters that attended Charlottesville and have marches planned on other American cities as well. Antifa is more "grass-roots" and is not an organization with a set goal but rather an umbrella term for various far-left groups that commit acts of violence against far-right protesters.
C. The Antifa numbers are pathetically small compared to the number of far-right bigots that showed up.
Additionally, major news outlets like CNN and MSNBC have reported Antifa attacks, and both of those are considered "left-wing" by Americans (though in terms of actual left-right politics, they are central at best if not right-wing leaning), so that entire premise is bunk anyways. And the majority of American's believe that both sides are to blame, according to recent surveys, so I'm not sure the media covering them is relevant anyways.
But on the topic of both sides being to blame, lets take a look at the actually numbers shall we?
According to the ADL's Center on Extremism, of the 372 Americans killed by domestic terrorists, 72% (268) of them were killed by right-wing extremists and only 2% (7) were killed by left-wing extremists (none of which were Antifa). So to act like they are in any way, shape, or form relatable is simply a lie. And if you hate lies so much, then I expect to see you retracting the Antifa blame in a post or so.
Mine either.
1. repeatedly made racist remarks? what remarks!? ive seen none for the whole year. personally a person's past doesnt need to be their present either. I know of a musician who helped at least 25 kkk members turn on their hateful past. if you wish to put a list up. go ahead, but please leave it to the year to keep it simple. if what you speak of is true, then should be easy.
1b. oh by! the whole stupid remark about obama not being born in us. was brought up by a democrat during the democrat race for presidency ... trump then supported this claim when he was supporting Hillary beyond that, its not even racist to say a person is not born in the US! many spoke about it during arnolds run as governor in california.
2. no where has trump said, "the other side made you do it." I have not heard anyone even consider that except for a nazi on 20/20. again we are looking at words that have already been quoted on this thread. Trump denounced violence on both sides. no where does that imply the meaning or intent for the violence. nor does it consider that any person, including the merderous fool, was "made" to act violent.
3. blaming the victim? no where has trump ever stated that the woman who got hit is at fault! he did not identify her as being violent either.
quote please.
4. a.b.c. all these explainations are excuses. if you dont like nazis then dont make excuses for groups that commit crimes and have attacked people because they are unable to articulate or persuade.
terrorism doesnt need to have someone die in order to be referred to as terrorism. an easy arguement could be made that antifa has done just that. still the issue is not what we consider a violent act to be called. the problem is thinking its okay to result to violence because someone else opposes your political view ( which antifa does). that threatens liberty in a society as well.
point c. doesnt matter either. every group starts small. their actions should still be scruitinized and denounced if violent. (which they are).
5. if america believes both sides are to blame. then blame both sides and dont complain when our president voices the same object just because he is trump. this statement takes away from everything else you just said.
oh but what about stats? you just claimed neo nazi are larger organization than antifa. a new and small group wont have same numbers as compared to
..... all domestic terrorism ever?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 12:40:57 AM
Here is what I think is ugly ... if a anti-Fa had run over a KKK with a car ... the response would be different. Some people are more equal than others, and you are judged without trial in the US. All part of .. there are no Americans anymore, just Europeans or other nationalities who happen to be here in the US.
I absolutely agree with that. If the roles were reversed, Fox News would not be making any excuses for terrorism. But it just so happens that the attacker was on their side, so they want to hide behind excuses to save face. But really, something people on the Right should consider is if Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are on their side, are they on the right side? If I had to choose between SJWs and Nazis, I'll go with the side that isn't responsible for taking millions of innocent lives.
We are being played (http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/08/were-being-played/)
QuoteIt’s well-known that the Communists and “anti-fascists†who hit the streets for events like this one are being organized and directed from a higher level. They’re put on buses, driven to the venue, handed signs and banners, and given an itinerary and general instructions on what to do. Some of them are paid a per-diem for their participation. They act as the foot soldiers â€" and in this case, the cannon fodder â€" for the regional and local affiliates of the Globalist Left. Their directors and manipulators are “community organizers†à la Barack Hussein Obama. The leaders are cynical, hardened acolytes of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to inflicting the maximum possible damage to the cultural infrastructure of the oppressive capitalist patriarchy.
That’s how those Antifa banners and hammer-and-sickle flags ended up marching down Market Street by the library Saturday morning. Violence was not an unfortunate byproduct of the resulting confrontation; it was the intended outcome (see the Z Blog for more).
The police were ordered to stand down and let the Yin and Yang come together to grapple their eternal combat at the entrance to Lee Park. Blood on faces, blood on the streets, blood on the hood of a car â€" that was the preferred outcome.
The chief of police was acting on orders from Michael Signer, the mayor of Charlottesville, who is the sort of lefty you’d expect to be elected mayor of Berkeley East. But the mayor himself was taking his cues from higher up the food chain, beyond even Terry McAuliffe, the current governor of the Commonwealth (and also a former DNC chair and former campaign manager for Bill Clinton).
The Left’s organizers and manipulators got exactly what they wanted on August 12. Immense damage was inflicted on the #UniteTheRight meme-brand. They got a photogenic martyr for the cause. They got an abominable extreme “right-winger†as a villain to be deplored, excoriated, and repudiated from now until the sun turns into a cinder. And they were handed a glorious opportunity to give President Trump yet another poke in the eye.
Yes, last Saturday was a red-letter day for the Left. But what about the Right? What were they doing there? How were they so easily manipulated into doing grave damage to their own cause?
That’s a harder question to answer…
Nowadays it’s difficult simply to describe the process of events, because one is required to denounce and repudiate one ideological faction and affirm the other. Plain, factual, neutrally-worded discussion is generally not permitted. If I don’t explicitly denounce badthink, why, then obviously I must be in favor of it!
When Trump says the two sides are equal in violence and hate, he states a routine false equivalency. The Alt Right supports the statues of Confederates only because they know they can't get statues of Hitler erected. We erect statues to people for what they have done in history that support our national ideals.
Lee did not support our national ideals. One might as well erect a statue to Benedict Arnold (who, BTW, the British sent to India because they didn't trust him...
And most of the Confederacy statues were erected by KKK groups in times of their ascendancy during the 1920s Jim Crow laws and anti Civil Rights efforts. That was hardly Civil War recognition.
Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2017, 01:25:37 AM
We are being played (http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/08/were-being-played/)
You actually believe this conspiracy theory nonsense? A group of leaders with a history of hate came together in one place and united others in their hatred. It's as simple as that.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 01:31:13 AM
You actually believe this conspiracy theory nonsense? A group of leaders with a history of hate came together in one place and united others in their hatred. It's as simple as that.
The fanatic rightists HAVE to think there are equally fanatic leftists to oppose. I'm glad there aren't. It is a lot easier to deal with one insane group than 2.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 01:29:28 AM
When Trump says the two sides are equal in violence and hate, he states a routine false equivalency. The Alt Right supports the statues of Confederates only because they know they can't get statues of Hitler erected. We erect statues to people for what they have done in history that support our national ideals.
Lee did not support our national ideals. One might as well erect a statue to Benedict Arnold (who, BTW, the British sent to India because they didn't trust him...
And most of the Confederacy statues were erected by KKK groups in times of their ascendancy during the 1920s Jim Crow laws and anti Civil Rights efforts. That was hardly Civil War recognition.
1. when trump does this....
why? you just put one sentence with out explaining why or how.
2. a good number of people that argue keeping the statues are not white. whether they are white or not does not mean the vast majority want a statue of hitler. issue here is trying to tell us what someone is thinking with out providing adequate support for such a claim. I disagree with placing this information over all as it doesnt do much for your arguement. to me. appears to be a conspiracy theory and a lame one at that.
3. support our national ideals. you know there is a statue of Lenin in Seattle? but not just the communists restricted actions to a national ideal. nazis too.
consider statues that represent the local community or are presented in a way to limit if not completely takes away some chance for a rukus. not entirely possible but maybe.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
I don’t stand with the nazis / white supremacist. I also don’t stand with the communist.
So where does that leave me?
As far as I could see the riot was between those two groups.
It does look that the whole thing was organised, with malice aforethought to further destabilize society.
That is looking across from Europe. We have enough problems on our own.
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 01:42:58 AM
1. when trump does this....
why? you just put one sentence with out explaining why or how.
2. a good number of people that argue keeping the statues are not white. whether they are white or not does not mean the vast majority want a statue of hitler. issue here is trying to tell us what someone is thinking with out providing adequate support for such a claim. I disagree with placing this information over all as it doesnt do much for your arguement. to me. appears to be a conspiracy theory and a lame one at that.
3. support our national ideals. you know there is a statue of Lenin in Seattle? but not just the communists restricted actions to a national ideal. nazis too.
consider statues that represent the local community or are presented in a way to limit if not completely takes away some chance for a rukus. not entirely possible but maybe.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
1. Where did I say "when Trump does this"?
2. "a good number of people that argue keeping the statues are not white". Really? How many. What source?
3. The Lenin statue in Seattle should be removed too. We are more no Communist than Nazi...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 01:59:40 AM
1. Where did I say "when Trump does this"?
2. "a good number of people that argue keeping the statues are not white". Really? How many. What source?
3. The Lenin statue in Seattle should be removed too. We are more no Communist than Nazi...
We should have a statue to Satan ... the US is evil ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 08:49:40 AM
We should have a statue to Satan ... the US is evil ;-)
Already happened, but the local government chose not to display it along side the Ten Commandments, in a blatant show of favoritism.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/80126de08f5df362516d412a4ae9bba6b23d9518/c=198-114-2175-1600&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/07/24/USATODAY/USATODAY/635733585118497105-AP-Displaced-Demon-Deity-001.jpg)
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 09:29:21 AM
Already happened, but the local government chose not to display it along side the Ten Commandments, in a blatant show of favoritism.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/80126de08f5df362516d412a4ae9bba6b23d9518/c=198-114-2175-1600&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/07/24/USATODAY/USATODAY/635733585118497105-AP-Displaced-Demon-Deity-001.jpg)
How is that person on an atheist form?
QuoteI don’t stand with the nazis / white supremacist.
What ever helps you sleep at night.
At this point, it seems like Trump's Presidency is just a big social experiment to see how far the Right will go to defend Trump before they finally agree that he's crossed the line. My Facebook news feed lately has equal parts frustrating and hilarious. Notice few are actually trying to justify the violence in Charlottesville. Instead, they're trying to distract people with the wrongs of the Democratic Party.
"Few people remember (except everyone who's heard this argument a million times), but the Democrats used to be the ones who defended slavery and opposed minority rights. Trust us, nothing has changed about either party in those 100+ years. The KKK only switched sides because they like tax breaks. It's not because our party is behind the times now and is more attractive to ultra Conservative Christian white nationalists like the KKK and Nazis. The Democrats are the real racists."
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 09:29:21 AM
Already happened, but the local government chose not to display it along side the Ten Commandments, in a blatant show of favoritism.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/80126de08f5df362516d412a4ae9bba6b23d9518/c=198-114-2175-1600&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/07/24/USATODAY/USATODAY/635733585118497105-AP-Displaced-Demon-Deity-001.jpg)
Actually derivative of Babylonian statues. But isn't this immoral cultural appropriation? What will they do next, wear a Lakota war bonnet?
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 12:07:04 PM
Actually derivative of Babylonian statues. But isn't this immoral cultural appropriation? What will they do next, wear a Lakota war bonnet?
Satanists aren't really concerned about whether or not they're offending anyone. They actually revel in offending the weak minded. They're basically atheists who aspire to go against the grain and shake people up. I've actually been considering joining a church of Satan.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 12:12:54 PM
Satanists aren't really concerned about whether or not they're offending anyone. They actually revel in offending the weak minded. They're basically atheists who aspire to go against the grain and shake people up. I've actually been considering joining a church of Satan.
Go for it. Anyone in favor of self indulgence is OK by me. The original Church of Satan by LaVey is anti-Catholic. It is a very particular kind of anti-Christian. Can you levitate, turn your head all the way around, projective vomit pea soup, and say bad words to a Catholic priest?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 19, 2017, 11:23:24 PM
Knowing you are a theist, I should not be surprised you side with the neo-nazis and white supermists. You think they represent a legit 'side'. Just what is it that causes you to be attracted to that 'side'? Are you attracted to their message? So, in this case, the neo-nazis are not a 'side'. The people showing up to protest their being there is the only legit side there is.
Knowing I am a theist...would that be like knowing I'm black its not surprising I like watermelon and chicken? Knowing I'm Irish its not surprising I'm drunk. Knowing I'm Mexican you wouldn't be surprised if I was eating a burrito?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 12:18:45 PM
Knowing I am a theist...would that be like knowing I'm black its not surprising I like watermelon and chicken? Knowing I'm Irish its not surprising I'm drunk. Knowing I'm Mexican you wouldn't be surprised if I was eating a burrito?
Not real Mexican, if you use a flour tortilla. Speaking of that, time for lunch!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 01:59:40 AM
1. Where did I say "when Trump does this"?
2. "a good number of people that argue keeping the statues are not white". Really? How many. What source?
3. The Lenin statue in Seattle should be removed too. We are more no Communist than Nazi...
1. "When Trump says the two sides are equal in violence and hate, he states a routine false equivalency"
I refer to this single sentence.
2. argueing for confederate statues:
https://youtu.be/nHZX48hNczw
https://youtu.be/1Jadmjn3ebs
https://youtu.be/wdsvSA74Tuw
3. seattle. * so you say all statues should be taken down if they dont match a national identity or image. okay. did you also address the problem I presented? rhetorical question
a. identify a national identity
b. consult a community that doesnt match that national identity
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 09:29:21 AM
Already happened, but the local government chose not to display it along side the Ten Commandments, in a blatant show of favoritism.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/80126de08f5df362516d412a4ae9bba6b23d9518/c=198-114-2175-1600&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/07/24/USATODAY/USATODAY/635733585118497105-AP-Displaced-Demon-Deity-001.jpg)
thats complete b.s. a cult should have no place in politics and such a disgusting thing has no place in American history.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 12:49:24 PM
thats complete b.s. a cult should have no place in politics and such a disgusting thing has no place in American history.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
The same goes for religion, and that's the entire point. And FYI, Satanism is not a cult. It's not even a religion. They don't believe in gods and they treat the Devil as a character, not an actual historical entity.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 12:06:06 PM
At this point, it seems like Trump's Presidency is just a big social experiment to see how far the Right will go to defend Trump before they finally agree that he's crossed the line. My Facebook news feed lately has equal parts frustrating and hilarious. Notice few are actually trying to justify the violence in Charlottesville. Instead, they're trying to distract people with the wrongs of the Democratic Party.
"Few people remember (except everyone who's heard this argument a million times), but the Democrats used to be the ones who defended slavery and opposed minority rights. Trust us, nothing has changed about either party in those 100+ years. The KKK only switched sides because they like tax breaks. It's not because our party is behind the times now and is more attractive to ultra Conservative Christian white nationalists like the KKK and Nazis. The Democrats are the real racists."
Even Trump can't cross their line. He could fall short of it though...
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 12:47:14 PM
1. "When Trump says the two sides are equal in violence and hate, he states a routine false equivalency"
I refer to this single sentence.
2. argueing for confederate statues:
https://youtu.be/nHZX48hNczw
https://youtu.be/1Jadmjn3ebs
https://youtu.be/wdsvSA74Tuw
3. seattle. * so you say all statues should be taken down if they dont match a national identity or image. okay. did you also address the problem I presented? rhetorical question
a. identify a national identity
b. consult a community that doesnt match that national identity
This reminds me of the Washington Redskins tempest in a teapot over the name Redskins. 89% of Indians polled either didn't object or recognized it was in honor of Indians. It takes an affluent white guy like Bob Costas to teach the ignorant Indians they are being offended by the owners of the team. After all they're savages too stupid to know when they are being insulted. So a smart white guy like Costas needs to let them know they're being offended.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 12:18:45 PM
Knowing I am a theist...would that be like knowing I'm black its not surprising I like watermelon and chicken? Knowing I'm Irish its not surprising I'm drunk. Knowing I'm Mexican you wouldn't be surprised if I was eating a burrito?
No--as much as you'd like that to be so. Theists==believing in a fiction. You simply listed a stereotype, not a fact. It is a fact that if you are a theist, you must believe in a god/creator; those are fictions. You would rather 'believe' a thing than to do any reasoned thinking.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 12:18:45 PM
Knowing I am a theist...would that be like knowing I'm black its not surprising I like watermelon and chicken? Knowing I'm Irish its not surprising I'm drunk. Knowing I'm Mexican you wouldn't be surprised if I was eating a burrito?
People are born black, people are born in Ireland and Mexico. People are not born Christians. Do not try to equate religion with race and nationality. Mexicans do not have a system of beliefs that they all unite under. Christianity is all about group-think.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 20, 2017, 01:25:04 PM
No--as much as you'd like that to be so. Theists==believing in a fiction. You simply listed a stereotype, not a fact. It is a fact that if you are a theist, you must believe in a god/creator; those are fictions. You would rather 'believe' a thing than to do any reasoned thinking.
Yeah, the anecdotal evidence always exists for any view. Debating here might be the same as hitting myslf with a hammer to prove I can feel pain...
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 20, 2017, 01:25:04 PM
No--as much as you'd like that to be so. Theists==believing in a fiction. You simply listed a stereotype, not a fact. It is a fact that if you are a theist, you must believe in a god/creator; those are fictions. You would rather 'believe' a thing than to do any reasoned thinking.
You wrote...
QuoteKnowing you are a theist, I should not be surprised you side with the neo-nazis and white supermists.
Not a stereotype huh?
You don't know belief in a Creator of the universe is false, you don't know if mechanistic forces alone could or did cause all we observe. You just have strong faith its true. A kind of prejudice and bias in its own right.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 01:33:58 PM
People are born black, people are born in Ireland and Mexico. People are not born Christians. Do not try to equate religion with race and nationality. Mexicans do not have a system of beliefs that they all unite under. Christianity is all about group-think.
Are you sure there isn't a 'Christian' gene that forces them to be Christian like some folks claim to be born gay?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 01:40:46 PM
Are you sure there isn't a 'Christian' gene that forces them to be Christian like some folks claim to be born gay?
Many aspects of people's personalities and behavior, good and bad, have a genetic component. Even the behavior of cheating on a romantic partner appears to have a genetic predisposition. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a gene that predisposed people to religion. As for homosexuality, there's no doubt that it is predetermined by birth. "Some folks" don't say that, researchers in the field of psychology say it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 02:17:25 PM
Many aspects of people's personalities and behavior, good and bad, have a genetic component. Even the behavior of cheating on a romantic partner appears to have a genetic predisposition. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a gene that predisposed people to religion. As for homosexuality, there's no doubt that it is predetermined by birth. "Some folks" don't say that, researchers in the field of psychology say it.
I wonder how many guys explained to their wives (or wives to their husbands) they were born to commit adultery ergo its not their fault? I wonder how many accepted that explanation?
There is a lot of doubt it's predetermined by birth. No problem everyone states their beliefs as incontrovertible fact on this board. I do it now too peer pressure I guess or a state belief as fact gene. Either way its not my fault, I'm not responsible for what I say or do...no one is.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 02:38:49 PM
I wonder how many guys explained to their wives (or wives to their husbands) they were born to commit adultery ergo its not their fault? I wonder how many accepted that explanation?
There is a lot of doubt it's predetermined by birth. No problem everyone states their beliefs as incontrovertible fact on this board. I do it now too peer pressure I guess or a state belief as fact gene. Either way its not my fault, I'm not responsible for what I say or do...no one is.
If we were held responsible, Zeus would have fried all our asses by now, with lightning bolts from Mt Olympus. A friend of mine visited Greece in 2007, climbed Mt Olympus. No gods home that day.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 02:40:40 PM
If we were held responsible, Zeus would have fried all our asses by now, with lightning bolts from Mt Olympus. A friend of mine visited Greece in 2007, climbed Mt Olympus. No gods home that day.
We know those Greek gods are myth. It's just taking the religions created since then a very long time to realize their myths are myths too.
Quote from: Sorginak on August 20, 2017, 02:42:05 PM
We know those Greek gods are myth. It's just taking the religions created since then a very long time to realize their myths are myths too.
The clergy knew all along. But you can't separate people from their means of livelihood easily. On the other hand, unlike most folks here, I don't decry fiction or myth. I only decry not being honest about it. Honest fictions aren't frauds. It is all in how you present it. If we told children the truth at a young age, they would all commit suicide rather than grow up. We can't have that now, can we?
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 02:49:05 PM
If we told children the truth at a young age, they would all commit suicide rather than grow up. We can't have that now, can we?
We lie to them about other things, yet we eventually tell them the truth. Why should the truth that religion is a myth be any more harrowing than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy being myths?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 02:38:49 PM
I wonder how many guys explained to their wives (or wives to their husbands) they were born to commit adultery ergo its not their fault? I wonder how many accepted that explanation?
I'm guessing not very many have used that excuse, for the reasons you mentioned.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 02:38:49 PMThere is a lot of doubt it's predetermined by birth. No problem everyone states their beliefs as incontrovertible fact on this board. I do it now too peer pressure I guess or a state belief as fact gene. Either way its not my fault, I'm not responsible for what I say or do...no one is.
Psychological research is not a belief system.
Until last week I had never even heard of "antifa", so I wonder who and how they pulled off perhaps the greatest and cheapest advertising plug in the history of advertising. Masterful stroke from someone.
Quote from: Sorginak on August 20, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
We lie to them about other things about which we eventually tell them the truth. Why should the truth that religion is a myth be any more harrowing than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy being myths?
The deeper the myth, the greater the disorientation and pain, when you realize the truth. The truth was my dad was Santa Claus ... I caught him when I was 9 ;-)
Unwrapping a political ideology is like pulling a duct tape bandage off quickly, off Sasquatch!
Quote from: aitm on August 20, 2017, 02:57:13 PM
Until last week I had never even heard of "antifa", so I wonder who and how they pulled off perhaps the greatest and cheapest advertising plug in the history of advertising. Masterful stroke from someone.
CIA psyop ... everything in America is pre-planned by sociopathic geniuses.
Quote from: Sorginak on August 20, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
We lie to them about other things, yet we eventually tell them the truth. Why should the truth that religion is a myth be any more harrowing than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy being myths?
Allow them not to have the myths in the first place. No sadness of the surprise. later.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 03:10:16 PM
Allow them not to have the myths in the first place. No sadness of the surprise. later.
You were special. Never any religion at all (and I am including Santa Claus). All words are lies, because no words correspond to reality, they only point inaccurately to reality.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 03:18:31 PM
You were special. Never any religion at all (and I am including Santa Claus). All words are lies, because no words correspond to reality, they only point inaccurately to reality.
Well, no actually. I learned that words meant something, facts meant something. Someone like me is going to get to Mars before someone like you will. And once someone like me is there, will spread. We ARE still different.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 12:59:33 PM
The same goes for religion, and that's the entire point. And FYI, Satanism is not a cult. It's not even a religion. They don't believe in gods and they treat the Devil as a character, not an actual historical entity.
except religion is a large influencing force which has had a great influence on America as a whole. ex: Christianity.
western society is base largely on Christian morale and construct. even the psotions that differ from it is due to Christian presence. hence a thing like 10 Comandments make sense to have at a court house or town council.
they represent earliest influences on American law as well as ideal construct for humanity.
yes. by definition that group is a cult. govt. even recognizes this to be so.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 03:22:39 PM
except religion is a large influencing force which has had a great influence on America as a whole. ex: Christianity.
western society is base largely on Christian morale and construct. even the psotions that differ from it is due to Christian presence. hence a thing like 10 Comandments make sense to have at a court house or town council.
they represent earliest influences on American law as well as ideal construct for humanity.
yes. by definition that group is a cult. govt. even recognizes this to be so.
Satanism and Godism are the same thing.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: aitm on August 20, 2017, 02:57:13 PM
Until last week I had never even heard of "antifa", so I wonder who and how they pulled off perhaps the greatest and cheapest advertising plug in the history of advertising. Masterful stroke from someone.
oh it depresses me so how I did not consider this.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 03:29:29 PM
oh it depresses me so how I did not consider this.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
OK, I'm calling Walmart right awy. New idea...
The Walmartifa! Take THAT Amazon...
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 03:22:39 PMexcept religion is a large influencing force which has had a great influence on America as a whole. ex: Christianity.
western society is base largely on Christian morale and construct. even the psotions that differ from it is due to Christian presence. hence a thing like 10 Comandments make sense to have at a court house or town council.
they represent earliest influences on American law as well as ideal construct for humanity.
America was founded by theists and skeptics, and they wrote the separation of church and state into the Constitution for the exact purpose of preventing the government from endorsing any religious institution, including Christianity. Any Christian monuments on government property are a violation of church and state unless they provide equal opportunity for those of other religious positions to display their own monuments on the same property. That was the point of the Satanist statue, to show the hypocrisy and favoritism in the government. The Ten Commandments on government property are not about freedom of religion. They're about religious oppression and domination.
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 03:22:39 PMyes. by definition that group is a cult. govt. even recognizes this to be so.
The government is not an authority on Satanism, you moron. Satanists are atheists with a structure designed to mock Christianity, particularly the Catholic church. They worship no gods.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 03:22:20 PM
Well, no actually. I learned that words meant something, facts meant something. Someone like me is going to get to Mars before someone like you will. And once someone like me is there, will spread. We ARE still different.
Go to Mars then. Shitty tourist trap. All the souvenirs say "Made in Venus".
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 03:53:37 PM
Go to Mars then. Shitty tourist trap.
Remember that when we are both dead and my neices are Belters and yours arent. LOL! THEN you'll be sorry.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 03:55:24 PM
Remember that when we are both dead and my neices are Belters and yours arent. LOL! THEN you'll be sorry.
Sorry, anyone who goes into a bar and picks a fight, will be a belter, or a chair thrower. You type too fast, I already amended the Mars response. Please re-read.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 03:56:49 PM
Sorry, anyone who goest into a bar and picks a fight, will be a belter, or a chair thrower. You type too fast, I already amended the Mars response. Please re-read.
Read it. What's a "Belter"?
Don't anyone blurt the answer...
Quote from: randomvim on August 20, 2017, 03:22:39 PM
except religion is a large influencing force which has had a great influence on America as a whole. ex: Christianity.
western society is base largely on Christian morale and construct. even the psotions that differ from it is due to Christian presence. hence a thing like 10 Comandments make sense to have at a court house or town council.
they represent earliest influences on American law as well as ideal construct for humanity.
yes. by definition that group is a cult. govt. even recognizes this to be so.
And in this exhibit we see the rare theocracy enabler use special pleading to justify why state courts should have the 10 commandments on display while disallowing other religious monuments. Driven to the margins of civilized society, this species subsists almost entirely on bull excrement. With little ground to stand on, this species is known to shriek and burrow when spotted, emerging again days or weeks later. A victim of changing political norms, this tenacious little species has little future prospects.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Read it. What's a "Belter"?
Don't anyone blurt the answer...
Well ... Beltar was a villain from Battlestar Galactica ;-) I have read some modern Internet comics that talks about asteroid mining. About as likely as Elon Musk will find his sanity.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 04:06:39 PM
Well ... Beltar was a villain from Battlestar Galactica ;-) I have read some modern Internet comics that talks about asteroid mining. About as likely as Elon Musk will find his sanity.
Nope...
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2017, 03:39:51 PM
America was founded by theists and skeptics, and they wrote the separation of church and state into the Constitution for the exact purpose of preventing the government from endorsing any religious institution, including Christianity. Any Christian monuments on government property are a violation of church and state unless they provide equal opportunity for those of other religious positions to display their own monuments on the same property. That was the point of the Satanist statue, to show the hypocrisy and favoritism in the government. The Ten Commandments on government property are not about freedom of religion. They're about religious oppression and domination.
It was founded by white slave owners who by definition must have been white supremacists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are white supremacist documents that must be destroyed along with the statues. In fact we should take down statues of any white person its racist not to.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 04:23:41 PM
It was founded by white slave owners who by definition must have been white supremacists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are white supremacist documents that must be destroyed along with the statues. In fact we should take down statues of any white person its racist not to.
You are unfortunately correct, if we were Puritans. Perhaps we can hire the NORKS to get rid of us, so we can go bother the afterlife instead?
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 04:25:17 PM
You are unfortunately correct, if we were Puritans. Perhaps we can hire the NORKS to get rid of us, so we can go bother the afterlife instead?
OK, The Belters will be the humans who adapt to weightless conditions mining the asteroid Belt... Sci Fi... Long armed and legs like arms quadripedal slim but strong... :)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 04:28:44 PM
OK, The Belters will be the humans who adapt to weightless conditions mining the asteroid Belt... Sci Fi... Long armed and legs like arms quadripedal slim but strong... :)
I read a different version. Think genetic manipulation of apes in space. The other apes are already well built for asteroid mining, but they need more intelligence. Forget I suggested that ... turns out badly.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 04:32:59 PM
I read a different version. Think genetic manipulation of apes in space. The other apes are already well built for asteroid mining, but they need more intelligence. Forget I suggested that ... turns out badly.
Heinlein...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 04:35:28 PM
Heinlein...
That (I didn't read) but yet another has the Belt composed of a Wild West of Libertarian open carry nuts. Pure capitalism with guns and no cops.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 04:38:18 PM
That (I didn't read) but yet another has the Belt composed of a Wild West of Libertarian open carry nuts. Pure capitalism with guns and no cops.
OK, I can't believe it is 4:30 pm and I am just going to bed. Ta-ta...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 04:23:41 PM
It was founded by white slave owners who by definition must have been white supremacists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are white supremacist documents that must be destroyed along with the statues. In fact we should take down statues of any white person its racist not to.
The Declaration of Independence was the basis for ending slavery. "All men are created equal." Not all white men; all men. If I'm not mistaken, John Adams tried to convince Thomas Jefferson to remove that part, but he refused to do so.
And really? You're going to use that slippery slope argument? Benjamin Franklin didn't go to war to protect the institution of slavery. There were no statues erected of him during the Jim Crow times in order to rewrite history and put blacks in their place. Your attempts to justify protecting the disgusting monuments to Confederate leaders are just pitiful.
Are Americans ashamed of their history?
Give it to Winston Smith to dump it down the memory hole.
Along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There, all done.
You are not responsible what your ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
Stop the guilt trip. You are being manipulated.
Quote from: pr126 on August 21, 2017, 01:54:16 AM
Are Americans ashamed of their history?
Give it to Winston Smith to dump it down the memory hole.
Along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There, all done.
You are not responsible what your ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
Stop the guilt trip. You are being manipulated.
Since we are not all ... Mahatma Gandhi ... we are sad, sahib. Can't get good Chicken Marsala in my town. Collectivism means everyone on Earth, thru all time, are responsible if one of your bread recipes doesn't work out ... damn you! Americans are very gullible. We think we are just being nice and friendly. Our laundry soap is new and improved, says so right on the box ;-)
I cannot help thinking that all this unrest among Americans is by design, orchestrated to make them fight like cats in a sack, while persons unknown are rubbing their hands saying “ good, good, let the hate flow through you.
You know, like the Sith lord emperor Soros.
QuoteCan't get good Chicken Marsala in my town.
That would be chicken masala. Marsala (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marsala_wine) is a sweet dessert wine, very aromatic from Sicily.
It can be used in cooking, but not in Indian cooking.
Quote from: pr126 on August 21, 2017, 06:57:45 AM
I cannot help thinking that all this unrest among Americans is by design, orchestrated to make them fight like cats in a sack, while persons unknown are rubbing their hands saying “ good, good, let the hate flow through you.
You know, like the Sith lord emperor Soros.
Well, just in case you have not noticed, Trump thrives on chaos. I think he uses it as a smoke screen. I wonder what strings he is pulling with all of his cabinet leaders. I heard a brief statement of a great land sell off with the Dept. of Interior. But not any details.
As for racialism, that was institutionalized from the start. Which is why it is so very hard to get rid of.
Aha! It's Trump again. I should have guessed. Thanks.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
And in this exhibit we see the rare theocracy enabler use special pleading to justify why state courts should have the 10 commandments on display while disallowing other religious monuments. Driven to the margins of civilized society, this species subsists almost entirely on bull excrement. With little ground to stand on, this species is known to shriek and burrow when spotted, emerging again days or weeks later. A victim of changing political norms, this tenacious little species has little future prospects.
uh no. Im presenting the logic of keeping information and images that already have been in a building for past several decades. Which is same arguement for artifacts and structures that isil has been known to destroy.
as I already stated, I do not disallow "other religions" but express concern when a group that is not listed as a religion. who does not have a historical influence in constructing govt.
an installment that would be same as to require nazi representation right next to jewish delegations.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: pr126 on August 21, 2017, 01:54:16 AM
Are Americans ashamed of their history?
Give it to Winston Smith to dump it down the memory hole.
Along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There, all done.
You are not responsible what your ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
Stop the guilt trip. You are being manipulated.
I'm not ashamed of our history, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Displaying Confederate flags in a museum about the Civil War? That's fine. Displaying the flag in your front lawn? Not fine.
Quote from: randomvim on August 21, 2017, 11:20:35 AMuh no. Im presenting the logic of keeping information and images that already have been in a building for past several decades. Which is same arguement for artifacts and structures that isil has been known to destroy.
as I already stated, I do not disallow "other religions" but express concern when a group that is not listed as a religion. who does not have a historical influence in constructing govt.
an installment that would be same as to require nazi representation right next to jewish delegations.
Logic is a foreign concept to your types. And if you're going to use the government as an authority on what constitutes a legitimate religion vs a cult, they consider Scientology a religion with tax exemption. If you don't know about Scientology, I suggest you look up an interview with someone who managed to escape them. It is very clearly a cult, yet the government does not officially define them as such.
There's some dark sides to American history, kind of tired of hearing that "times were different back then." So people didn't realize a few hundred years ago that owning people as property and beating them was wrong? Riiight.
Quote from: Deidre32 on August 21, 2017, 11:53:06 AM
There's some dark sides to American history, kind of tired of hearing that "times were different back then." So people didn't realize a few hundred years ago that owning people as property and beating them was wrong? Riiight.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. That goes for science as well as morality. The things we take for granted had to be learned. There was a time when people watched two people fight to the death for entertainment, and those people considered themselves to be civilized ones and everyone else to be "barbarians." The generations that come after ours will likely have more moral sense than we do, and there will be a time when we are looked back on through history as barbaric people.
Quote from: pr126 on August 21, 2017, 09:37:01 AM
That would be chicken masala. Marsala (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marsala_wine) is a sweet dessert wine, very aromatic from Sicily.
It can be used in cooking, but not in Indian cooking.
No wonder I can't get good chicken masala ... typos!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 21, 2017, 09:54:51 AM
Well, just in case you have not noticed, Trump thrives on chaos. I think he uses it as a smoke screen. I wonder what strings he is pulling with all of his cabinet leaders. I heard a brief statement of a great land sell off with the Dept. of Interior. But not any details.
As for racialism, that was institutionalized from the start. Which is why it is so very hard to get rid of.
The usual Republican modus operandi is to privatize previously public property. Like Teapot Dome. And the enclosures in Scotland. It is very old, very English.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
Logic is a foreign concept to your types. And if you're going to use the government as an authority on what constitutes a legitimate religion vs a cult, they consider Scientology a religion with tax exemption. If you don't know about Scientology, I suggest you look up an interview with someone who managed to escape them. It is very clearly a cult, yet the government does not officially define them as such.
Scientology infiltrated US government offices, including the FBI ... in the 1970s. They basically told the Feds to back off, or they would take the country down. They are not only a cult, but a 5th column, that the US government is afraid of. Think Falung Gong in China vs the communist party.
Quote from: Deidre32 on August 21, 2017, 11:53:06 AM
There's some dark sides to American history, kind of tired of hearing that "times were different back then." So people didn't realize a few hundred years ago that owning people as property and beating them was wrong? Riiight.
I think they knew. We know today that much of what we virtue signal about ... is criminal and evil too. It is very hard to support human behavior, with a straight face, or without a tear.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
Logic is a foreign concept to your types. And if you're going to use the government as an authority on what constitutes a legitimate religion vs a cult, they consider Scientology a religion with tax exemption. If you don't know about Scientology, I suggest you look up an interview with someone who managed to escape them. It is very clearly a cult, yet the government does not officially define them as such.
1. you dont know me. how I think. etc. asserting some stereotype is a fallacy. you can not begin to tell me how I think.
2. I know of scientology. much like the faith of Aztecs, it is a religion. does it cause damage to those who follow it or others? that answer does not determine what a religion is. Do I like it or agree with it? again a question that should not influence how that sect should be looked at.
But since we are adressing govt. property, what a govt. identifies within a paticular term should be considered.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 20, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
And in this exhibit we see the rare theocracy enabler use special pleading to justify why state courts should have the 10 commandments on display while disallowing other religious monuments. Driven to the margins of civilized society, this species subsists almost entirely on bull excrement. With little ground to stand on, this species is known to shriek and burrow when spotted, emerging again days or weeks later. A victim of changing political norms, this tenacious little species has little future prospects.
I didnt advocate to add any religous document or monument to any govt. building but to maintain an existing image which represents that building's or that community's history.
if you wish to make a post about a person's comment. then make sure you understand their comment.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Sorginak on August 18, 2017, 09:39:49 PM
Due to an incompetent electoral college that ignored Hillary's popular vote, of course.
I think there was more than mere incompetence at work, I think there was a coup - just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Quote from: randomvim on August 21, 2017, 11:20:35 AM
uh no. Im presenting the logic of keeping information and images that already have been in a building for past several decades. Which is same arguement for artifacts and structures that isil has been known to destroy.
And you believe that? Wow.
Also, appeal to tradition. You're really cranking out the fallacies in this hole you're digging.
Quoteas I already stated, I do not disallow "other religions" but express concern when a group that is not listed as a religion
As I recall, you called it a cult. What's the difference between a cult and a religion, btw? (Spoiler: it's mostly a function of size and money/influence)
Quotewho does not have a historical influence in constructing govt.
The church-state equivalent of "first dibs"? And this is logic to you? Wow again.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 21, 2017, 11:20:03 PM
I think there was more than mere incompetence at work, I think there was a coup - just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
American Revolution ... vast Girondin conspiracy. Destroy revolutionaries! The last 300 years have sucked for law and order.
See, when you get down to this, desire to maintain or gain power, means we must become murderers ... because humans won't see the reason of ... self preservation. Give me my MTV, or die, KKK scum! Greed and politics leads to ... annihilation.
Quote from: randomvim on August 21, 2017, 10:39:17 PM1. you dont know me. how I think. etc. asserting some stereotype is a fallacy. you can not begin to tell me how I think.
Doesn't matter. I've had enough experience with people like you to know you operate in a hive mind where facts don't matter, and opinions are fed to you via other Christians who say what you like to hear. You claim logic when logic is nowhere to be found in your posts.
Quote from: randomvim on August 21, 2017, 10:39:17 PM2. I know of scientology. much like the faith of Aztecs, it is a religion. does it cause damage to those who follow it or others? that answer does not determine what a religion is. Do I like it or agree with it? again a question that should not influence how that sect should be looked at.
Define "cult."
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 21, 2017, 11:20:03 PM
I think there was more than mere incompetence at work, I think there was a coup - just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Rut roh, I think he's on to us. Baruch warm up the black helicopters we may have to take some people out.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 04:23:41 PM
It was founded by white slave owners ...
Who used the bible as their foundation for the use of slaves. Let's start with tossing that piece of garbage out, then we can get back to skin color.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 22, 2017, 12:23:32 PM
Rut roh, I think he's on to us. Baruch warm up the black helicopters we may have to take some people out.
All of politics is conspiracy against the citizens ... always has been. True for Washington et al, if you have your eyes open. It matters however, which street gang you belong to. Give the wrong "sign" and they are likely to kill you, if you are in their territory.
Quote from: aitm on August 22, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
Who used the bible as their foundation for the use of slaves. Let's start with tossing that piece of garbage out, then we can get back to skin color.
Always been slaves, always will be. But most slaves can't deal with the reality of it.
Quote from: aitm on August 22, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
Who used the bible as their foundation for the use of slaves. Let's start with tossing that piece of garbage out, then we can get back to skin color.
The abolitionists also used the bible as a foundation to ban slavery...and ultimately to support woman's rights.
^ In short, you can use the Bible to support any position you want. Ergo, it has no intrinsic worth.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 22, 2017, 06:43:57 PM
The abolitionists also used the bible as a foundation to ban slavery...and ultimately to support woman's rights.
Which is simply another demonstration at how empty the babble really is. You can literally prove what you want to--the bible actually does not teach morals or ethics.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 22, 2017, 12:03:01 AM
And you believe that? Wow.
Also, appeal to tradition. You're really cranking out the fallacies in this hole you're digging.
As I recall, you called it a cult. What's the difference between a cult and a religion, btw? (Spoiler: it's mostly a function of size and money/influence)
The church-state equivalent of "first dibs"? And this is logic to you? Wow again.
1. I see you provide no counter. but do you believe isil is not destroying historical artifacts that todays generations could learn from?
otherwise there is no appeal to tradition when I think some things poses not just a historical importance but may present a lesson for todays generation. If you dont believe that, fine. be able to present a proper counter.
3. First dibs has nothing to do with who or how a group of people influenced what. My local community has a rich buddist history and are very involved with govt. activities. Inter- faith activities do well in my community because of such openess and togetherness. we learn from each other.
Again. dibs is not what I spoke of.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2017, 10:04:16 AM
Doesn't matter. I've had enough experience with people like you to know you operate in a hive mind where facts don't matter, and opinions are fed to you via other Christians who say what you like to hear. You claim logic when logic is nowhere to be found in your posts.
Define "cult."
1. "doesnt matter." refraining from fallacy doesnt matter to you but you try to say I have an issue with logic? har har har.
You have had zero experience with anyone like me. Your response suggests it. so move on.
2. define?
small group or groups that have misplaced or excessive admiration for (in comparison to populace) with questionable intent or practice.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 22, 2017, 08:02:20 PM
2. define?
small group or groups that have misplaced or excessive admiration for (in comparison to populace) with questionable intent or practice.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
How does that not make methodists or baptists or any other sect of christanity a cult?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2017, 06:59:44 PM
Which is simply another demonstration at how empty the babble really is. You can literally prove what you want to--the bible actually does not teach morals or ethics.
Yet it seems like those who detest Christians or Jews hold them up to a very high standard of moral and ethical behavior. Everyone knows the golden rule and that Christians subscribe to that belief. Just about everyone is familiar with the Sermon on the MT, a very high call to ethical behavior. Two problems I observe with bible believers is they don't live up to the standard much better than anyone else, yet they often scold others for failing to live by a standard they often fail at.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2017, 11:45:58 AM
I'm not ashamed of our history, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Displaying Confederate flags in a museum about the Civil War? That's fine. Displaying the flag in your front lawn? Not fine.
Displaying Confederate flag on front lawn is also fine. That's private property. I do not care what someone chooses to display on their private property.
Displaying Confederate flag on public property? That's where the problem lies.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 20, 2017, 04:23:41 PM
It was founded by white slave owners who by definition must have been white supremacists. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are white supremacist documents that must be destroyed along with the statues. In fact we should take down statues of any white person its racist not to.
The Founders did not rebel against the United States, and they did not fight a war for the right to own other human beings as property.
When a monument is dedicated to the Founders, it is not celebrating slavery. It is celebrating the birth of a New Nation. That is a profound difference, don't you think?
Furthermore, most of these Confederate monuments were erected during Jim Crow Laws era, as a method of subjugation and oppression against blacks and other minorities. They served as a reminder to freed slaves and their children that they are second class citizens in an era of segregation.
I personally have no problem with Confederate cemeteries or some select Confederate Civil War-era monuments/statues, but all these 20th century monuments need to be moved into Civil War museums. Celebration of slavery in the twenty-first century is an abomination and has no place in our society.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 22, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Yet it seems like those who detest Christians or Jews hold them up to a very high standard of moral and ethical behavior. Everyone knows the golden rule and that Christians subscribe to that belief. Just about everyone is familiar with the Sermon on the MT, a very high call to ethical behavior. Two problems I observe with bible believers is they don't live up to the standard much better than anyone else, yet they often scold others for failing to live by a standard they often fail at.
I don't 'detest' christians or jews. Nor any other theist--well, there may be some notable exceptions. Anyway, I do detest the hierarchy of all organized religions. That is where the thirst for power, wealth and fame come from. One could pull any number of 'morals' from the bible or other sacred writings. And one could pull any number of evil actions, as well. I do agree that the religious can be very hypocritical--seems to go with the territory. The Golden Rule--yeah, I try to use that as a major guide for living my life. But it was not originated by the christian religion, only repeated by it. Apparently it is about as close to being universal as any rule of conduct.
Quote from: randomvim on August 22, 2017, 07:52:54 PM
1. I see you provide no counter. but do you believe isil is not destroying historical artifacts that todays generations could learn from?
Yes. That is exactly my position. /sarcasm
Quoteotherwise there is no appeal to tradition when I think some things poses not just a historical importance but may present a lesson for todays generation.
You argued that the Ten Commandments should be kept at government courthouses because they've "already have been in a building for past several decades". That's textbook argument from tradition. I kinda feel sorry for you that you still don't get that.
Also, do you know that secularists don't actually intend on wiping away all historical record of the Ten Commandments but simply argue that they have no place on government property? Probably not, because if you did you wouldn't equate that to ISIS demolishing historical sites.
Shiranu went on a tirade; most of which I agree with, probably would have been on a different path if I made it...
The 10 Commandments have no place on a government or public school building. They should have never been there. The Christian community has this idea in their heads that freedom of religion means that you can choose any religion that you want as long as it is Christian. They think that their religious rights are being trampled on in recent times and can not comprehend that they were violating the Constitutional rule of separation of church and state all this time. They think that gays and lesbians are getting uppity and pushing an agenda and can not comprehend that the first ammendment right to freedom of religion protected the peoples' right to be gay or lesbian since the beginning of the U.S..
When you ask a Christian to understand that Americans have a right to choose to be a muslim or a Satanist, there is an intellectual leap that has to be made that not all people can make. I think that for some Christians that if the moments comes when they realize that there are religions that don't say anything about LGB and that every American has a right to choose one of those, their brains are gonna fry.
The confederate flag is the symbol of a known act of sedition in which many people died. Flying that flag is not protected by the first ammendment freedom of speech (and if any federal judge is stupid enough to say it is, that judge should be immediately impeached and disbarred for gross incompetence). I have to say that the first time I had to drive OTR into the south I was shocked at how many confederate flags were flying. Every single one of them needs to be confiscated. If you're that unpatriotic maybe you should move to South Africa.
Since it hasn't been mentioned; everyone is talking about the events of Sat and no one has said anything about Fri night; I will. Fri night it was only American Nazis walking on the streets with swaztikas and torches. They were very vocal with the anti-Jewish hate speech. If Mr Trump was acting like a president he should have denounced that event late Fri night, or early in the morning on Sat, long before the time of the incident on Sat. He isn't qualified to be a president. Today was the first time he said anything worth remembering Being president is a whole lot harder than I thought it would be
Those white trailer trash with the Nazi signs are lucky I'm not in the big chair. Such behavior is completely unacceptable in the U.S.. I would do everything in my power to have the citizenship in the U.S. of these American Nazis revoked.
ACLU supports marchers with ugly opinions. Even Nazis marching in Skokie years ago, marching past a synagogue. You non-Jews don't have to "protect" Jews. We know what you are all about. All the rest are un-American, they only support Leftist speech. Most Americans should loose their citizenship and be replaced by hard working Chinese and Mexican people? Some Gentiles felt guilty that they didn't do more to stop anti-Semitism. Being anti-Arab is also anti-Semitic. Virtue signaling.
Do I support Nazis? Do I support KKK? What do you think? But I don't think I will climb in my time machine and kill baby Hitler either. Our time period is what it is. Make it better by you being better. You can't make it better by division, by demonizing an enemy, by getting violent. Yes, ISIS is right from the heart of America. They are copying us ... though not a better nature ... they copy the Nazis and KKK.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2017, 10:37:01 PM
I don't 'detest' christians or jews. Nor any other theist--well, there may be some notable exceptions. Anyway, I do detest the hierarchy of all organized religions. That is where the thirst for power, wealth and fame come from. One could pull any number of 'morals' from the bible or other sacred writings. And one could pull any number of evil actions, as well. I do agree that the religious can be very hypocritical--seems to go with the territory. The Golden Rule--yeah, I try to use that as a major guide for living my life. But it was not originated by the christian religion, only repeated by it. Apparently it is about as close to being universal as any rule of conduct.
However, its easy for people who have no known standard of behavior they subscribe to, to be free of the charge of being a hypocrite. Only they know if they are being hypocritical...
I think that word is used wrong. Suppose I was a down and out alcoholic yet I advised people to not go down the path I've gone. I'd probably be called a hypocrite. But who would know better how bad alcoholism is than one who's life was ruined by it? If I pretended I didn't drink and condemned those who did while in fact drinking then the shoe would fit.
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2017, 06:57:51 AM
You non-Jews don't have to "protect" Jews.
naa the Jews as a part of the story-line is just coincidence. If the American Nazis were waving their swastikas and saying "kill all the Mexicans", my reaction would be the same...
Quote from: fencerider on August 23, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
Shiranu went on a tirade; most of which I agree with, probably would have been on a different path if I made it...
The 10 Commandments have no place on a government or public school building. They should have never been there. The Christian community has this idea in their heads that freedom of religion means that you can choose any religion that you want as long as it is Christian. They think that their religious rights are being trampled on in recent times and can not comprehend that they were violating the Constitutional rule of separation of church and state all this time. They think that gays and lesbians are getting uppity and pushing an agenda and can not comprehend that the first ammendment right to freedom of religion protected the peoples' right to be gay or lesbian since the beginning of the U.S..
My problem with tearing down any ethical or moral code is the secularists don't replace it with anything except a vacuum.
The first four are clearly religious so we can toss those out. Lets consider the others..
Honor your father and mother.
Is this a good ethic? If so how or where is it taught in secularism?
You shall not commit adultery.
I think most spouses would prefer this be the case. The ethic helps keep marriages in tact. Is that taught in secularism?
You shall not commit murder.
I'll assume most secularists abide by this ethic and have no qualms with it.
You shall not steal.
Most secularists would temper this by making exceptions of when it would be okay to steal or am I wrong?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
I don't know anywhere else this is taught but I think it's pretty important.
You shall not covet.
I doubt too many secularists mind this one too much. I think it does increase harmony when people are happy for others good fortune.
The USA for example is clearly more secular the last 50 years. Is it any better? Is it more moral and decent? Are people more or less respectful than 50 years ago? I've asked this before so I don't expect a response.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 23, 2017, 08:43:57 PM
My problem with tearing down any ethical or moral code is the secularists don't replace it with anything except a vacuum.
The first four are clearly religious so we can toss those out. Lets consider the others..
Honor your father and mother.
Is this a good ethic? If so how or where is it taught in secularism?
You shall not commit adultery.
I think most spouses would prefer this be the case. The ethic helps keep marriages in tact. Is that taught in secularism?
You shall not commit murder.
I'll assume most secularists abide by this ethic and have no qualms with it.
You shall not steal.
Most secularists would temper this by making exceptions of when it would be okay to steal or am I wrong?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
I don't know anywhere else this is taught but I think it's pretty important.
You shall not covet.
I doubt too many secularists mind this one too much. I think it does increase harmony when people are happy for others good fortune.
The USA for example is clearly more secular the last 50 years. Is it any better? Is it more moral and decent? Are people more or less respectful than 50 years ago? I've asked this before so I don't expect a response.
Actually, Drew, these are the 10 Commandments:
The Ten Commandments
1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
After giving these commandments, God said...
Exodus 34
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Which of these do you like? And why should they be on public property?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2017, 08:49:55 PM
Actually, Drew, these are the 10 Commandments:
The Ten Commandments
1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
You missed the point of my post, I wasn't arguing in favor of keeping the ten commandments posted in public, I was asking what great moral principals and ethics should they be replaced with. Or do you think children should be raised in a complete moral and ethical vacuum? That is my issue with secularism, it wishes to take down all ethical principals and replace them with nothing. My list is a secular list of ethics...
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Which one of these do you find offensive? To some degree or another those all come under the banner of the golden rule. Is the golden rule taught of in secularism that you know of?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 23, 2017, 10:36:14 PM
You missed the point of my post, I wasn't arguing in favor of keeping the ten commandments posted in public, I was asking what great moral principals and ethics should they be replaced with. Or do you think children should be raised in a complete moral and ethical vacuum? That is my issue with secularism, it wishes to take down all ethical principals and replace them with nothing. My list is a secular list of ethics...
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Which one of these do you find offensive? To some degree or another those all come under the banner of the golden rule. Is the golden rule taught of in secularism that you know of?
No, I got your point. What's wrong with moral things being posted in public. What is 'moral'? Who gets to decide? I would suggest the US has settled on what is legally moral--our law code based on English Common Law and precedent. No religion should be featured--that makes freedom of religion a lie if you feature one.
And you missed my point. What you think of as the 10 Commandments is listed three places. The last one is the set I listed. Your religion can't even figure out what really is moral or what the 10 Commandments are or where they are all listed. That mess has no place repeated on public buildings or on public land. It is a simple rule, really. Practice any religion you want--just keep it off public buildings or land. Simple.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 23, 2017, 10:36:14 PMOr do you think children should be raised in a complete moral and ethical vacuum?? That is my issue with secularism, it wishes to take down all ethical principals and replace them with nothing.
Taking down a religious monument on public property = raising children in "a complete moral and ethical vacuum" ?
:wtff:
Every American violates all of the (one of several version of) the Ten Commandments. Even Jewish Americans. I have yet to see the ground open up and swallow us.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 22, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
How does that not make methodists or baptists or any other sect of christanity a cult?
I do not believe methodists or baptists qualify under provided definition. perhaps at one time their size was not the same, but to consider what another post points out -which anyone can see based on documentation- bapwhats are not organized at the direct action against another group.
They did not develop or fracture with the goal of destroying or targeting a paticular community. Where as the satanists are. that is their goal. Or people who join do so as a farce and, like the athiest spaggetti group, possess no actual religious direction.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 22, 2017, 08:02:20 PM1. "doesnt matter." refraining from fallacy doesnt matter to you but you try to say I have an issue with logic? har har har.
You have had zero experience with anyone like me. Your response suggests it. so move on.
Oh yeah? Tell me, is global warming real or just a hoax? I'm ready to hear what your open mind has to say about this issue.
Quote from: randomvim on August 22, 2017, 08:02:20 PM2. define?
small group or groups that have misplaced or excessive admiration for (in comparison to populace) with questionable intent or practice.
Sounds like religion to me. Seems a "cult" to you is just any religious group you don't like.
Quote from: Sylar on August 22, 2017, 10:19:59 PM
Displaying Confederate flag on front lawn is also fine. That's private property. I do not care what someone chooses to display on their private property.
Displaying Confederate flag on public property? That's where the problem lies.
Good point. I would certainly question the motives of the person who chooses to display symbols of the Confederacy on their private property, but they do have the right to do so (as we have the right to ridicule them). But those same symbols on public property should be donated, sold, or destroyed.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 22, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Yet it seems like those who detest Christians or Jews hold them up to a very high standard of moral and ethical behavior. Everyone knows the golden rule and that Christians subscribe to that belief. Just about everyone is familiar with the Sermon on the MT, a very high call to ethical behavior. Two problems I observe with bible believers is they don't live up to the standard much better than anyone else, yet they often scold others for failing to live by a standard they often fail at.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah. Christians apply the Golden Rule so well. They're not judgmental, overcontrolling, or quick to raise their voice or resort to violence. lol. Not only do Christians not live up to the rule "much better than anyone else," they're worse at it. MUCH worse.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 22, 2017, 10:50:20 PM
Yes. That is exactly my position. /sarcasm
You argued that the Ten Commandments should be kept at government courthouses because they've "already have been in a building for past several decades". That's textbook argument from tradition. I kinda feel sorry for you that you still don't get that.
Also, do you know that secularists don't actually intend on wiping away all historical record of the Ten Commandments but simply argue that they have no place on government property? Probably not, because if you did you wouldn't equate that to ISIS demolishing historical sites.
2. "text book tradition?"
lets consider 10 commandments. they are followed or revered by Jews, Catholics, and JW's. however tradition among these groups are completely different. JW do not describe biblical passages same as Catholics, and Catholics poses a different description to some passages in Torah.
For court house A B C. there can be three different viewpoints on a single image which describe different traditions among them.
A might view an image religiously and therefore hold that image as a center for their actions.
B may view that same image with less endearment but reflect that such an image represents them and their goal in life.
C may see the same image as a rule of thumb for their predecesors but not themselves. looking for clarity in their own lives to adhere to for consistancy in their actions.
All three courthouses view same image differently and poses their own traditions. any number of good or bad may come from each court individually. but each poses a positive outlook on their history rather miss an opportunity to maintain what is still their history.
thus, not an arguement for tradition. as not even italians have gladitorial matches despite having the colliseum.
2. sarcasm. again you miss the point. Im not talking about wiping out all history of. not even isil is destroying history of their own ancestors. however the images and artifacts poses something more than that a word on paper could poses. which is why museums seek out such things to begin with.
no secularlists want to eradicate from public eye. all things that are religious or otherwise they deem unworthy which destroys public perception. such a negative view point will take away historical importance to how we once thought to consider it being something that just happened.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
Oh yeah? Tell me, is global warming real or just a hoax? I'm ready to hear what your open mind has to say about this issue.
Sounds like religion to me. Seems a "cult" to you is just any religious group you don't like.
1. what I believe? truly has nothing to do with topic but fallacy influences arguement. so ill humor you.
global warming is not described well, as it is a moment the earth increases in over all temperature. Is that occuring now? perhaps. my main concern is our affect on the earth which is currently a bad affect regardless to whether or not global warming is occuring.
before global warming was a thing, the atmosphere was thinning. before that, local communities are poisoned with rivers that catch fire due to chemicals in them. all these are bad.
we need to nuture nature or at least come as close to neutral as possible, but not poison it.
2. again. fallacy. you are injecting your own meaning upon the way I think. assuming what i like or dislike along with what influences my decision.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 11:43:02 AM
I do not believe methodists or baptists qualify under provided definition. perhaps at one time their size was not the same, but to consider what another post points out -which anyone can see based on documentation- bapwhats are not organized at the direct action against another group.
They did not develop or fracture with the goal of destroying or targeting a paticular community. Where as the satanists are. that is their goal. Or people who join do so as a farce and, like the athiest spaggetti group, possess no actual religious direction.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
So to determine cluthood on a group, size and intent are important? Anything else?
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2017, 11:52:07 AM
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah. Christians apply the Golden Rule so well. They're not judgmental, overcontrolling, or quick to raise their voice or resort to violence. lol. Not only do Christians not live up to the rule "much better than anyone else," they're worse at it. MUCH worse.
All christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.
otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 12:24:42 PM
So to determine cluthood on a group, size and intent are important? Anything else?
those are the known factors for me. any other that may exist are unknown.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:28:39 PM
those are the known factors for me. any other that may exist are unknown.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
So a group of 10, for example, must always be a cult. But their intent must be bad--who defines what is 'bad'?
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:27:35 PM
All christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.
otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Many of our regulars love scifi. They would be triggered if you wanted to remove monuments to Capt Kirk or Dr Who ;-))
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:14:06 PM
2. "text book tradition?"
lets consider 10 commandments. they are followed or revered by Jews, Catholics, and JW's. however tradition among these groups are completely different. JW do not describe biblical passages same as Catholics, and Catholics poses a different description to some passages in Torah.
For court house A B C. there can be three different viewpoints on a single image which describe different traditions among them.
A might view an image religiously and therefore hold that image as a center for their actions.
B may view that same image with less endearment but reflect that such an image represents them and their goal in life.
C may see the same image as a rule of thumb for their predecesors but not themselves. looking for clarity in their own lives to adhere to for consistancy in their actions.
All three courthouses view same image differently and poses their own traditions. any number of good or bad may come from each court individually. but each poses a positive outlook on their history rather miss an opportunity to maintain what is still their history.
thus, not an arguement for tradition. as not even italians have gladitorial matches despite having the colliseum.
2. sarcasm. again you miss the point. Im not talking about wiping out all history of. not even isil is destroying history of their own ancestors. however the images and artifacts poses something more than that a word on paper could poses. which is why museums seek out such things to begin with.
no secularlists want to eradicate from public eye. all things that are religious or otherwise they deem unworthy which destroys public perception. such a negative view point will take away historical importance to how we once thought to consider it being something that just happened.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Wanted to clarify this argument is in regard to single aspect of public property.
Monuments that were put up by US in efforts to reunite amd honor all soldiers is a tradition I am in favor for.
Religious view point differs and religious monuments do not require same tradition or practice or viewpoint to be maintained.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2017, 12:39:52 PM
Many of our regulars love scifi. They would be triggered if you wanted to remove monuments to Capt Kirk or Dr Who ;-))
I would be as well.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2017, 11:49:22 AM
Good point. I would certainly question the motives of the person who chooses to display symbols of the Confederacy on their private property, but they do have the right to do so (as we have the right to ridicule them). But those same symbols on public property should be donated, sold, or destroyed.
Drop all reference on public property to Democrats past and present, same for Republicans. The I party will triumph!
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:41:58 PM
I would be as well.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
They accept the fictional Union story over the equally fictional Rebel story. It was politics back then, everyone was lying like a dog. Funny how the D party isn't the D party anymore, same with the R party. Same factions, different labels.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
So a group of 10, for example, must always be a cult. But their intent must be bad--who defines what is 'bad'?
I didnt say "bad." action might not need to be "bad" though some could consider an action to being bad.
In consisering Confederate statues. were some put up at purpose to demoralize and destroy a paticular group? if yes. perhaps these were put up by a cult? though size may determine they are not, the people committing such actions considered their acts to be good.
i do wish to also add that if others know or view other factors or wish to describe factors for a cult. please do. i would appriciate it.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2017, 12:45:30 PM
They accept the fictional Union story over the equally fictional Rebel story. It was politics back then, everyone was lying like a dog. Funny how the D party isn't the D party anymore, same with the R party. Same factions, different labels.
I disagree. D party hail FDR and his policies, who not only was a Democrat, but his legacy occured before civil rights, which was led by many republicans.
Issue is that we are looking at this purely as a racist thing. whom ever is racist is on the left side. or right side. but there are racists on both sides and our political platform is not directly influenced by race.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:23:05 PM
1. what I believe? truly has nothing to do with topic but fallacy influences arguement. so ill humor you.
global warming is not described well, as it is a moment the earth increases in over all temperature. Is that occuring now? perhaps. my main concern is our affect on the earth which is currently a bad affect regardless to whether or not global warming is occuring.
before global warming was a thing, the atmosphere was thinning. before that, local communities are poisoned with rivers that catch fire due to chemicals in them. all these are bad.
we need to nuture nature or at least come as close to neutral as possible, but not poison it.
Perhaps you are not as thoroughly assimilated into the Borg as I had thought, even if you are a Trump-supporting believer in a collection of books written thousands of years ago by anonymous authors. I could focus on your answer of "maybe," but if you agree that poisoning the earth is harmful either way, it doesn't really matter.
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:23:05 PM2. again. fallacy. you are injecting your own meaning upon the way I think. assuming what i like or dislike along with what influences my decision.
Your definition is vague and not useful, which is convenient for someone who wants the power to pick and choose which groups are "religions" and which are "cults."
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:52:14 PM
I disagree. D party hail FDR and his policies, who not only was a Democrat, but his legacy occured before civil rights, which was led by many republicans.
Issue is that we are looking at this purely as a racist thing. whom ever is racist is on the left side. or right side. but there are racists on both sides and our political platform is not directly influenced by race.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
I agree that most Americans are racist. Doesn't matter which party. What happened over the prior 400+ years is what it is, it can'b be undone, just because we think we could be better ancestors than our actual ancestors.
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:27:35 PMAll christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.
otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments
If God (the Holy Spirit) really lived within Christians, patterns of behavior within Christians would be better than average, not worse. Christians are one of the biggest reasons I left the religion behind. Even the Dalai Lama famously said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I would argue that Christ wasn't that great either, but Christians sure don't make me want to associate with them.
Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 12:48:58 PM
I didnt say "bad." action might not need to be "bad" though some could consider an action to being bad.
In consisering Confederate statues. were some put up at purpose to demoralize and destroy a paticular group? if yes. perhaps these were put up by a cult? though size may determine they are not, the people committing such actions considered their acts to be good.
i do wish to also add that if others know or view other factors or wish to describe factors for a cult. please do. i would appriciate it.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
What do you think of this definition?
"Cults, generally speaking, are a lot like pornography: you know them when you see them. It would be hard to avoid the label on encountering (as I did, carrying out field work last year) 20 people toiling unpaid on a Christian farming compound in rural Wisconsin â€" people who venerated their leader as the closest thing to God’s representative on Earth. Of course, they argued vehemently that they were not a cult. Ditto for the 2,000-member church I visited outside Nashville, whose parishioners had been convinced by an ostensibly Christian diet programme to sell their houses and move to the ‘one square mile’ of the New Jerusalem promised by their charismatic church leader. Here they could eat â€" and live â€" in accordance with God and their leader’s commands. It’s easy enough, as an outsider, to say, instinctively: yes, this is a cult.
Less easy, though, is identifying why. Knee-jerk reactions make for poor sociology, and delineating what, exactly, makes a cult (as opposed to a ‘proper’ religious movement) often comes down to judgment calls based on perceived legitimacy. Prod that perception of legitimacy, however, and you find value judgments based on age, tradition or ‘respectability’ (that nice middle-class couple down the street, say, as opposed to Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a couch). At the same time, the markers of cultism as applied more theoretically â€" a single charismatic leader, an insular structure, seeming religious ecstasy, a financial burden on members â€" can also be applied to any number of new or burgeoning religious movements that we don’t call cults.
Often (just as with pornography), what we choose to see as a cult tells us as much about ourselves as about what we’re looking at."
Now, on to confederate statues. I think if you look into it, that most of those statues were erected as warnings to the 'colored' population. I don't think they should be destroyed, but moved to museums. That way they can be properly displayed and an historical explanation given to what they did in the war and why the statue was created. Moving these statues off public land will not cause an iota of 'history and culture' to be destroyed. We still have history books.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2017, 12:54:03 PM
Perhaps you are not as thoroughly assimilated into the Borg as I had thought, even if you are a Trump-supporting believer in a collection of books written thousands of years ago by anonymous authors. I could focus on your answer of "maybe," but if you agree that poisoning the earth is harmful either way, it doesn't really matter.
Your definition is vague and not useful, which is convenient for someone who wants the power to pick and choose which groups are "religions" and which are "cults."
2. If the definition is vague. please provide another.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2017, 01:21:22 PM
If God (the Holy Spirit) really lived within Christians, patterns of behavior within Christians would be better than average, not worse. Christians are one of the biggest reasons I left the religion behind. Even the Dalai Lama famously said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I would argue that Christ wasn't that great either, but Christians sure don't make me want to associate with them.
Although Christians are said to have Holy Spirit in them, doctrine still discus possibility of a christian making bad decisions. Most letters in Bible are to people who are in some way need improvements in their life.
But lets move on
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 02:06:53 PM
What do you think of this definition?
"Cults, generally speaking, are a lot like pornography: you know them when you see them. It would be hard to avoid the label on encountering (as I did, carrying out field work last year) 20 people toiling unpaid on a Christian farming compound in rural Wisconsin â€" people who venerated their leader as the closest thing to God’s representative on Earth. Of course, they argued vehemently that they were not a cult. Ditto for the 2,000-member church I visited outside Nashville, whose parishioners had been convinced by an ostensibly Christian diet programme to sell their houses and move to the ‘one square mile’ of the New Jerusalem promised by their charismatic church leader. Here they could eat â€" and live â€" in accordance with God and their leader’s commands. It’s easy enough, as an outsider, to say, instinctively: yes, this is a cult.
Less easy, though, is identifying why. Knee-jerk reactions make for poor sociology, and delineating what, exactly, makes a cult (as opposed to a ‘proper’ religious movement) often comes down to judgment calls based on perceived legitimacy. Prod that perception of legitimacy, however, and you find value judgments based on age, tradition or ‘respectability’ (that nice middle-class couple down the street, say, as opposed to Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a couch). At the same time, the markers of cultism as applied more theoretically â€" a single charismatic leader, an insular structure, seeming religious ecstasy, a financial burden on members â€" can also be applied to any number of new or burgeoning religious movements that we don’t call cults.
Often (just as with pornography), what we choose to see as a cult tells us as much about ourselves as about what we’re looking at."
Now, on to confederate statues. I think if you look into it, that most of those statues were erected as warnings to the 'colored' population. I don't think they should be destroyed, but moved to museums. That way they can be properly displayed and an historical explanation given to what they did in the war and why the statue was created. Moving these statues off public land will not cause an iota of 'history and culture' to be destroyed. We still have history books.
1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.
Was this your goal or perspective?
2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.
would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 05:47:42 PM
1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.
Was this your goal or perspective?
2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.
would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Keep this non-definition in mind and I'll try to find one more succinct.
Yes, there is a difference between reading about alcatraz and going there. One enhances the other and deepens the understanding of the subject. Reading about Robert E. Lee and then seeing his statue does not deepen one's understanding of who and what he was and what he did. Place that statue on a battlefield or a museum and that statue could then help deepen an understanding, for more info can be attached to that statue in in that case.
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 05:47:42 PM
1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.
Was this your goal or perspective?
2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.
would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Puleeze you people ... religion = approved by government, cult = not approved by government.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 06:23:05 PM
Keep this non-definition in mind and I'll try to find one more succinct.
Yes, there is a difference between reading about alcatraz and going there. One enhances the other and deepens the understanding of the subject. Reading about Robert E. Lee and then seeing his statue does not deepen one's understanding of who and what he was and what he did. Place that statue on a battlefield or a museum and that statue could then help deepen an understanding, for more info can be attached to that statue in in that case.
Periods of iconoclasm have recurred in many cultures, over many centuries. There is a whole period of Byzantine history named for it. Presently we are in a long iconoclasm .. starting with the Enlightenment.
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 05:47:42 PM
1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Here is another shot at what a cult is:
"cult
kəlt/Submit
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
"the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood""
Notice that it is very difficult for those who want to define what a cult is to be precise. Synonyms include 'sect' or 'church', for example. So, the Church of Christ sect could be labeled as a cult by some. The Catholic church has been labeled as a cult by some for centuries. The point of the last definition was that a is is so slippery that it is like trying to define what porn is. Both are very much in the eye of the beholder. My cult may be your church or visa versa. Using the word cult is like saying something is beautiful--your beautiful may be ugly to me. When trying to figure out what something is or is not, 'eye of the beholder' is a very important thing to take into account.
Definitions are subjective, they are not objective. One only establishes an official definition thru government force. That in no way validates the government's choice. If subjectivity is wrong, then all definitions fail. Nihilism is achieved.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2017, 01:53:29 PM
Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?
Never actually said that unfortunately, but it's a good and accurate pair of sentences all the same.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 25, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Never actually said that unfortunately, but it's a good and accurate pair of sentences all the same.
That is the problem with misquoting ... but it was in the movie version, which was based on a written bio not by Gandhi. In the movie version, Gandhi is making an off hand remark to the question of a reporter.
Rev. W P King said it in 1926, but even he is paraphrasing while doing a book review, "The Christ of the Indian Road" by Rev. E S Jones. Rev. Jones put words in Gandhi's mouth. It matched Rev. Jones particular agenda regarding the failure of Christian proselytizing in India. But Gandhi did say things anti-Christian, the actual words are in the anthology "Gandhi On Christianity". Gandhi was also callous to the plight of Jews under Hitler. He is dead to me, literally and figuratively. We are so desperate for real heroes ... but they don't exist except in children's stories.
PS ... Snopes has been discredited. It is consistently pro D party. I got this from user comments in Snopes, not from Snopes itself.
And yes, the intent of the paraphrase of the misquote ... is accurate, even if it isn't the result of a police tape recording before tape recorders existed. Not that I would trust the police anyway.
I've seen several definitions for "cult" and they all basically describe the same concepts, and I even think they are accurate descriptions, but there is a rub. Even though some groups like Catholicism or Alcoholics Anonymous meet all the requirements of a cult, the members hold in contempt anyone who would describe them as a cult. So the definers feel obligated to come up with new definitions of a cult that exclude the offended groups through precise changes in the definition's wording. But this requires some fancy footwork, if not outright sleight of hand.
They only way the definitions can work is by defining "cult," and then excluding favored groups by name, for reasons that are nothing short of arbitrary. The definition would have to read: "Cult" A group of people that bla, bla, bla. Except that Catholicism, AA Groups, and the KKK are not cults." This clearly shows, however, that some sort of bias has entered into the definition, and indeed, bias has entered the whole concept of cults, because cults don't like being called cults. In fact, a good cult thrives on the deception of hiding its true motivations and social structure from it's members. If it fails to do that, it can no longer dupe the suckers, and it dies. The cults that don't die tell better stories to their members, and project a more positive image to outsiders. And although they do all the things cults do, they escape the cult status.
Then there's that common humorous definition of " Cult: a deluded group with a small membership." It's actually a good definition in a way, because it astutely recognizes the bias of favoritism involved in how people identify cults. But it never makes it into an actual dictionary because, while the definition is dead on, it's also a satirical swipe at how bad dictionaries are at defining things. Actually, it's a satirical swipe at a whole bunch of silly things that define our culture.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 06:23:05 PM
Keep this non-definition in mind and I'll try to find one more succinct.
Yes, there is a difference between reading about alcatraz and going there. One enhances the other and deepens the understanding of the subject. Reading about Robert E. Lee and then seeing his statue does not deepen one's understanding of who and what he was and what he did. Place that statue on a battlefield or a museum and that statue could then help deepen an understanding, for more info can be attached to that statue in in that case.
Agree. monuments at a battlefield help deepend an understanding for us who are hundreds years from civil war. I'll go as far to include cemeteries and specific parks. All of these monuments are under fire currently. Some cemeterey plaques have been taken away or vandalized. whats next, removal of bodies?
these are the situations I have been against since beginning.
Interesting conversation about memorials:
https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/3b2ps7/does_germany_have_any_memorials_to_war_dead_of/
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 24, 2017, 06:32:26 PM
Here is another shot at what a cult is:
"cult
kəlt/Submit
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
"the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood""
Notice that it is very difficult for those who want to define what a cult is to be precise. Synonyms include 'sect' or 'church', for example. So, the Church of Christ sect could be labeled as a cult by some. The Catholic church has been labeled as a cult by some for centuries. The point of the last definition was that a is is so slippery that it is like trying to define what porn is. Both are very much in the eye of the beholder. My cult may be your church or visa versa. Using the word cult is like saying something is beautiful--your beautiful may be ugly to me. When trying to figure out what something is or is not, 'eye of the beholder' is a very important thing to take into account.
interesting. I used same definition to type mine from a few posts back, but removed "religious" to broaden the description to those who identify as non religious.
the word church refers to a group or body of people, so it would make sense it would be added as synonym since the world cult refers to a body of people. however, synonyms are not exact same definition but similar descriptors that still have potential of not working or being approprite in a given sentence.
look, denomination is a synonym. because it describes a body of people with religious undertone. you could come to same conclusion if used in place of church or cult (group of people) but these words poses different meanings and therefore incite different feelings when heard or read. different understandings.
I do see it is not easy to have a common definition of a cult. first sentence seems to identify all religious groups in the world, but I find no use for the word cult if it describes everything at the same time describing only some things as other sentences suggest. this is why I did not state "bad" and provided example of something that could be universal instead of subjective. anyone can look at a group and say, yeah. they formed to target this other group. they are small and take uncommon maybe dangerous practices"
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 25, 2017, 07:40:55 AM
interesting. I used same definition to type mine from a few posts back, but removed "religious" to broaden the description to those who identify as non religious.
the word church refers to a group or body of people, so it would make sense it would be added as synonym since the world cult refers to a body of people. however, synonyms are not exact same definition but similar descriptors that still have potential of not working or being approprite in a given sentence.
look, denomination is a synonym. because it describes a body of people with religious undertone. you could come to same conclusion if used in place of church or cult (group of people) but these words poses different meanings and therefore incite different feelings when heard or read. different understandings.
I do see it is not easy to have a common definition of a cult. first sentence seems to identify all religious groups in the world, but I find no use for the word cult if it describes everything at the same time describing only some things as other sentences suggest. this is why I did not state "bad" and provided example of something that could be universal instead of subjective. anyone can look at a group and say, yeah. they formed to target this other group. they are small and take uncommon maybe dangerous practices"
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
I view the word 'cult' as a useless word. It is always in the eye of the beholder. If you like a group and what it stands for then it is not a cult. If one is into Scientology, then it is not a cult--but if you dislike Scientology then it is. The same holds for any group.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2017, 01:53:29 PM
Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?
Goddam it, Google...
Quote from: randomvim on August 24, 2017, 04:49:41 PM
2. If the definition is vague. please provide another.
A tool used by psychology experts for defining and diagnosing psychological disorders, the DSM-5, does not use clear-cut definitions because one person with a disorder may have completely different symptoms from another with the same disorder. I think a similar way of defining the word "cult" would be useful. So here's some characteristics of cults that I can think of:
A. Demands full focus of the members, to a degree of unhealthy obsession with the group's goals.
B. Members are made to separate themselves socially and/or physically from friends and family, often to live on a property owned by the organization.
C. Members are thoroughly brainwashed into thinking and behaving according to the religion's doctrine. Disagreement with any aspect of the doctrine is not tolerated.
D. Members may be held against their will at the organization's discretion.
E. Those who want to leave the organization are threatened with extreme punishments. Some may be harrassed by other members if they succeed to get away.
F. Members suffer physical and emotional harm. In extreme cases, members may even be killed or commit suicide at the command of the organization's leadership.
Edit: Forgot a big one:
G. Members are required to give a large sum of money, or sacrifice valuable possessions, to the organization.
I do not consider age, size, or "weirdness" of a group's beliefs to be relevant, because all religions were new at some point. Every religion has beliefs that could have been considered weird when it was getting started. Eating flesh and drinking blood, as Jesus asked believers to do, would definitely be something weird to someone who'd never heard it before.
In religious studies, they have the same confusion. So in academic language, official religions are "cultus", unofficial religions are "cult". Your definition does define "oppressive cult". But official religions can be oppressive too, in fact they always are if they are backed by the State.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 25, 2017, 08:49:28 AM
I view the word 'cult' as a useless word. It is always in the eye of the beholder. If you like a group and what it stands for then it is not a cult. If one is into Scientology, then it is not a cult--but if you dislike Scientology then it is. The same holds for any group.
Since all words are subjective, then isn't all conversation pointless? Without any agreement, with pure subjectivity, communication is impossible, in a society of solipsists. Of course sociopaths can't agree with anyone, but is everyone a sociopath? Maybe all Western people are sociopaths? Peak individualism?
Quote from: Baruch on August 25, 2017, 12:55:55 PM
Since all words are subjective, then isn't all conversation pointless? Without any agreement, with pure subjectivity, communication is impossible, in a society of solipsists. Of course sociopaths can't agree with anyone, but is everyone a sociopath? Maybe all Western people are sociopaths? Peak individualism?
If more conversations were considered as being subjective, maybe more people would define key words prior to, or within that conversation. More would be productive. When anyone uses the word 'cult' I ask what they mean by that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 23, 2017, 10:43:46 PM
No, I got your point. What's wrong with moral things being posted in public. What is 'moral'? Who gets to decide? I would suggest the US has settled on what is legally moral--our law code based on English Common Law and precedent. No religion should be featured--that makes freedom of religion a lie if you feature one.
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
QuoteAnd you missed my point. What you think of as the 10 Commandments is listed three places. The last one is the set I listed. Your religion can't even figure out what really is moral or what the 10 Commandments are or where they are all listed. That mess has no place repeated on public buildings or on public land. It is a simple rule, really. Practice any religion you want--just keep it off public buildings or land. Simple.
I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 25, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.
The golden rule came long before any organized religion--it is not even close to be a christian concept. I found this on the net:
"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040â€"1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664â€"323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.""
The golden rule is not a theist concept. I would suggest it is a survival concept and is evolutionary.
And we have had that creator discussion before.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 25, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.
There are non-theists, anti-theists and just plain atheists. Anti-theists are authoritarian, they would ban any expression of theism, private or public. Non-theists view the theism of other people as a non-issue. Plain atheists would be in-between, mostly opposed to public expression of theism, but allowing private expression of theism.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 21, 2017, 01:47:58 AM
The Declaration of Independence was the basis for ending slavery. "All men are created equal." Not all white men; all men. If I'm not mistaken, John Adams tried to convince Thomas Jefferson to remove that part, but he refused to do so.
And really? You're going to use that slippery slope argument? Benjamin Franklin didn't go to war to protect the institution of slavery. There were no statues erected of him during the Jim Crow times in order to rewrite history and put blacks in their place. Your attempts to justify protecting the disgusting monuments to Confederate leaders are just pitiful.
Agree. Not that slavery was ever right, but Washington and Jefferson didn't fight to continue it. Lee and Jackson and the Confederacy did very explicitly.
Next, hunting down the descendants of the Confederates?
Quote from: pr126 on August 26, 2017, 02:02:08 AM
Next, hunting down the descendants of the Confederates?
Absolutely NOT! The sins of the parents do not fall on the children. Unless they also support the sins, then hang 'em!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 02:15:50 AM
Absolutely NOT! The sins of the parents do not fall on the children. Unless they also support the sins, then hang 'em!
Alas, some do ... but then also apply that to the Damn Yankees. White Sox fans are OK however.
Apropos, sins of the fathers...
Some demand reparations for slavery.
Not many slave holders are in the US today. And even fewer slaves. Why reparations?
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
Alas, some do ... but then also apply that to the Damn Yankees. White Sox fans are OK however.
The Yankees are Damn Yankees 'cause they win, win, win--and the other teams are jealous! The White Sox descended from the Black Sox (and Shoeless Joe was banished forever) and should forever hang their heads in shame!!
Chicago has two professional baseball teams. Over all, the Cubs have established themselves as the most loveable underdogs in baseball. Everyone knows who the Cubs are. The White Sox are generally know as being better than the Cubs, but that's about a "meh" as you can get. Almost, everyone is better than the Cubs. So the White Sox don't get much attention. They are just "The Other Team from Chicago."
For baseball historians, the Cubs was one of the first super teams. The White Sox were playing catchup, but then they were entangled with the 1919 WS fix mess and were labeled the Black Sox. Several players were banned from baseball for life and Shoeless Joe Jackson would have been in the hall of fame, except for his part in the fix.
Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall the White Sox were previously the Black Sox, but that was before even my parent's time. I don't remember anything about a scandal.
Quote from: SGOS on August 26, 2017, 10:34:08 AM
Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall the White Sox were previously the Black Sox, but that was before even my parent's time. I don't remember anything about a scandal.
Not surprising--it happened in 1919.
Quote from: pr126 on August 26, 2017, 08:57:15 AM
Apropos, sins of the fathers...
Some demand reparations for slavery.
Not many slave holders are in the US today. And even fewer slaves. Why reparations?
Socialism plus identity politics. The US can't die soon enough.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 08:58:21 AM
The Yankees are Damn Yankees 'cause they win, win, win--and the other teams are jealous! The White Sox descended from the Black Sox (and Shoeless Joe was banished forever) and should forever hang their heads in shame!!
I believe in Field of Dreams, and I ain't even a baseball fan. There is redemption, but only for ghosts in corn fields ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 10:56:34 AM
I believe in Field of Dreams, and I ain't even a baseball fan. There is redemption, but only for ghosts in corn fields ;-))
Yeah--I believe in the Field of Dreams, too. It's the only 'belief' I have.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 08:48:27 AM
Alas, some do ... but then also apply that to the Damn Yankees. White Sox fans are OK however.
I've always been conflicted about the Yankees. I watch Ken Burns' 'Baseball' frequently, and the Yankees deserved their older fame. But I was also a hopeless Senators fan for years and (thank "god") a Nationals fan now.
We have a chance this year and I would love a Washington/New York World Series... Politics vs Finance, LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 12:46:45 PM
I've always been conflicted about the Yankees. I watch Ken Burns' 'Baseball' frequently, and the Yankees deserved their older fame. But I was also a hopeless Senators fan for years and (thank "god") a Nationals fan now.
We have a chance this year and I would love a Washington/New York World Series... Politics vs Finance, LOL!
As in all things, I'm a bit of an odd-ball when it comes to.................well, just about everything. No different with the Yankees. I first loved them because they were the underdog and overcame huge odds to win out. I began my love of baseball while in Alabama and since I was from Oregon, was labeled a Yankee. Had no idea what that meant, then. So, since the Yanks were in the WS, and lost, I identified with them. The following year they were in the WS again and won, even tho they had been down 1 to 3. I did identify with them--so, even to this day, a win for the Yankees is a defeat for the rebels--a sort of 'fuck you' to Alabama. And who could not love Mantle, Ford and Berra!!! Especially Berra!!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 12:55:01 PM
As in all things, I'm a bit of an odd-ball when it comes to.................well, just about everything. No different with the Yankees. I first loved them because they were the underdog and overcame huge odds to win out. I began my love of baseball while in Alabama and since I was from Oregon, was labeled a Yankee. Had no idea what that meant, then. So, since the Yanks were in the WS, and lost, I identified with them. The following year they were in the WS again and won, even tho they had been down 1 to 3. I did identify with them--so, even to this day, a win for the Yankees is a defeat for the rebels--a sort of 'fuck you' to Alabama. And who could not love Mantle, Ford and Berra!!! Especially Berra!!
I came to love the Yankees in the early 60s when they were losing. So it wasn't that they were winning. But yeah. Berra. "When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
I think a spoon is more useful.
Quote from: pr126 on August 26, 2017, 01:08:53 PM
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
I think a spoon is more useful.
Call it a spork, then. But he didn't say half those things he said...
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 11:35:35 AM
Yeah--I believe in the Field of Dreams, too. It's the only 'belief' I have.
So you annoy corn farmers by wandering their fields? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 02:48:05 PM
So you annoy corn farmers by wandering their fields? ;-)
How did you know?
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 03:19:15 PM
How did you know?
Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 02:48:05 PM
So you annoy corn farmers by wandering their fields? ;-)
I sure wouldn't mess with a farmer's fields. But if a few acres of baseball field yielded more $ per acre than corn, then let the games begin!
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 03:22:46 PM
Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))
Children Of The Corn = raccoons?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 03:37:36 PM
Children Of The Corn = raccoons?
You don't want to know ;-( No, not raccoons.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 03:39:36 PM
You don't want to know ;-( No, not raccoons.
You don't know raccoons in the corn, do you, LOL? They are EVIL!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 25, 2017, 11:23:46 PM
The golden rule came long before any organized religion--it is not even close to be a christian concept. I found this on the net:
"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040â€"1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664â€"323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.""
The golden rule is not a theist concept. I would suggest it is a survival concept and is evolutionary.
I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 26, 2017, 05:20:42 PM
I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?
Oh c'mon... All the biblical rules are (first) copied from older texts and (second) just the rules all tribes developed from the first modern humans 100KYA. Except the stupid stuff about what to bow your head to...
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 03:22:46 PM
Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))
Kids!--promised to keep quiet.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 26, 2017, 05:20:42 PM
I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.
So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?
I've answered that question long ago. Nothing wrong with those suggestions. Not a thing. And I would suggest most societies have developed rules along those lines. And theism is not needed for any of those guidelines to have developed.
The only demand I have upon the Declaration is that it be followed. Unalienable or inalienable does not pertain to god-given, but to something that is part and parcel of being human. And creator does not necessarily mean god or higher power. An aspect of the Declaration of Independence that is seldom thought of--the purpose of the document was to declare the colonies independence from England. The first 1/4 of the declaration was probably not thought of as being the most important part.
Consider this:
In an interview on the History Channel (around July 4th 1999) Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has spent the last 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:
The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc..
That all these religious connections and meanings etc have been added by others later it was never there as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
One of the points made over and over again was that the sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to justify the separation of the colonies from England.
It also points out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution for Virginia) The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and other sources. That such practices were quite common practice at that time period.
It is interesting that the following phrases from the Declaration of Independence:
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
their Creator
Supreme Judge of the World
divine Providence
are cited, referred to, quoted, argued over, while the entire rest of the document is forgotten, known by few, seldom quoted. That which seemed of little importance to those who authored and or debated that document has taken on a huge life of its own since then--while that which they felt was important has been forgotten.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 06:27:20 PM
I've answered that question long ago. Nothing wrong with those suggestions. Not a thing. And I would suggest most societies have developed rules along those lines. And theism is not needed for any of those guidelines to have developed.
The only demand I have upon the Declaration is that it be followed. Unalienable or inalienable does not pertain to god-given, but to something that is part and parcel of being human. And creator does not necessarily mean god or higher power. An aspect of the Declaration of Independence that is seldom thought of--the purpose of the document was to declare the colonies independence from England. The first 1/4 of the declaration was probably not thought of as being the most important part.
Consider this:
In an interview on the History Channel (around July 4th 1999) Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has spent the last 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:
The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc..
That all these religious connections and meanings etc have been added by others later it was never there as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
One of the points made over and over again was that the sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to justify the separation of the colonies from England.
It also points out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution for Virginia) The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and other sources. That such practices were quite common practice at that time period.
It is interesting that the following phrases from the Declaration of Independence:
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
their Creator
Supreme Judge of the World
divine Providence
are cited, referred to, quoted, argued over, while the entire rest of the document is forgotten, known by few, seldom quoted. That which seemed of little importance to those who authored and or debated that document has taken on a huge life of its own since then--while that which they felt was important has been forgotten.
Much of the language of the Declaration Of Independence is reasonably attributed to the style of language at the time. I would be surprised if they HADN'T used religious language. And keep in mind they had a foreign audience, plus it wasn't the legal system they were describing.
Drew - it is very old theology, that there are truths from actual experience, and truths from reasonomg about actual experience, but that there are truths that don't fit either ... those are truths from revelation (either from personal revelation or in an authoritative chain from "an age of faith". I am not sure of that third category, certainly not certain one can assume it. One can have opinions, either from G-d or out of one's ass ... but they are just opinions, not truths. Remember, orthodoxy = correct opinion, not correct truth. Also orthopraxis = correct behavior ... but given the limitations of orthodoxy, any orthopraxis based on revelation ... is marginal, compared to correct behavior based on actual experience or reason from actual experience. The Church only claims orthodoxy, because the Truth is G-d. Islam and Judaism claim orthopraxis. The Epistle of James shoots both down.
See Kant. "A priori" vs "a posteriori" ... but "a priori" is truth based on definition, not reasoning from "a posteriori". Kant would deny truth from authority or revelation however. Any fool can be an authority, or claim to have revelation. The Unabomber for instance.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 06:35:48 PM
Drew - it is very old theology, that there are truths from actual experience, and truths from reasonomg about actual experience, but that there are truths that don't fit either ... those are truths from revelation (either from personal revelation or in an authoritative chain from "an age of faith". I am not sure of that third category, certainly not certain one can assume it. One can have opinions, either from G-d or out of one's ass ... but they are just opinions, not truths. Remember, orthodoxy = correct opinion, not correct truth. Also orthopraxis = correct behavior ... but given the limitations of orthodoxy, any orthopraxis based on revelation ... is marginal, compared to correct behavior based on actual experience or reason from actual experience. The Church only claims orthodoxy, because the Truth is G-d. Islam and Judaism claim orthopraxis. The Epistle of James shoots both down.
See Kant. "A priori" vs "a posteriori" ... but "a priori" is truth based on definition, not reasoning from "a posteriori". Kant would deny truth from authority or revelation however. Any fool can be an authority, or claim to have revelation. The Unabomber for instance.
I knew there was a reason I liked Kant. BTW, can you type "GOD"? I just noticed you seem to avoid it like Islamists avoid picturing Mohhamed...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 07:10:24 PM
I knew there was a reason I liked Kant. BTW, can you type "GOD"? I just noticed you seem to avoid it like Islamists avoid picturing Mohhamed...
Not very observant are we ;-) ... there is god, Gpd and G-d. I can use all three. By god, I mean the conventional kind like Zeus. By God I mean the monotheist kind. But G-d I mean the Jewish kind. The kind the Christians and Muslims don't have.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 07:14:19 PM
Not very observant are we ;-) ... there is god, Gpd and G-d. I can use all three. By god, I mean the conventional kind like Zeus. By Gpd I mean the monotheist kind. But G-d I mean the Jewish kind. The kind the Christians and Muslims don't have.
Yeah, its that "G-d" I have to smile at. Its just "English" man, not even the original language...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 07:25:43 PM
Yeah, its that "G-d" I have to smile at. Its just "English" man, not even the original language...
Orthodox Jews can't even say G-d. They use HaShem "new style" or Adonai "old style". This dates back to the Pharaohs, when you put a cartouche around the name of the Pharaoh to protect it from magic emanating from the other words on the inscription or papyrus.
In Old English, good = god.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 07:29:42 PM
Orthodox Jews can't even say G-d. They use HaShem "new style" or Adonai "old style". This dates back to the Pharaohs, when you put a cartouche around the name of the Pharaoh to protect it from magic emanating from the other words on the inscription or papyrus.
In Old English, good = god.
Gosh, Gee, Golly, and Zounds, far be it for me to use sensitive religious euphamisms.
And on that note, I think I better feed the cats and make myself dinner (2nd time in 3 days man, its a bad habit!"). Til next time......
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 07:36:17 PM
Gosh, Gee, Golly, and Zounds, far be it for me to use sensitive religious euphamisms.
And on that note, I think I better feed the cats and make myself dinner (2nd time in 3 days man, its a bad habit!"). Til next time......
Huzzah, thine spelling smells "euphemisms" of the village cess pit.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 26, 2017, 06:27:20 PM
I've answered that question long ago. Nothing wrong with those suggestions. Not a thing. And I would suggest most societies have developed rules along those lines. And theism is not needed for any of those guidelines to have developed.
I agree theism isn't necessary but the thought humans are special and entitled by birth to such rights is false if we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that didn't intend humans or the universe to exist. We can all just agree with a wink and a nod such rights exist but we know we're just making it up out of thin air. The best fellow humans can do is grant us privileges which can be changed or revoked at any time.
QuoteThe only demand I have upon the Declaration is that it be followed. Unalienable or inalienable does not pertain to god-given, but to something that is part and parcel of being human. And creator does not necessarily mean god or higher power. An aspect of the Declaration of Independence that is seldom thought of--the purpose of the document was to declare the colonies independence from England. The first 1/4 of the declaration was probably not thought of as being the most important part.
You're juxtaposing your belief upon the text. Endowed (still means the same today) is property or rights given by someone in this case at the moment of birth.
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. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,For these rights to be unalienable the author attaches them to their Creator. The government doesn't give us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the government is empowered to secure those rights. There is no dispute about what Jefferson meant. I agree its not intended to be religious, belief in the existence of a Creator is theistic not religious.
Per secularism we are supposed to put on our perukes and understand the universal natural law of John Locke et al. But we are realizing now, how the Enlightenment was complete bullshit, if we have subsequently adopted David Hume as our guiding light. As as skeptic, Hume would have told you the notion of natural law (and natural rights) are bogus. What Jefferson et al was doing, was trying to avoid an immediate dispute over an establishment of religion (each colony had a favorite church). So mentioning a generic God (not G-d) was a way of doing this acceptably in 1776. But those conditions don't apply now. In a skeptical, secular, materialistic age, the whole basis of the American Revolution and the Constitution are .... meaningless. But post-Christian society continues to play Christian dress-up. The whole idea of the US is evaporating as a meme past its sell by date ... same as the Soviet Union was in 1991.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 25, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
A tool used by psychology experts for defining and diagnosing psychological disorders, the DSM-5, does not use clear-cut definitions because one person with a disorder may have completely different symptoms from another with the same disorder. I think a similar way of defining the word "cult" would be useful. So here's some characteristics of cults that I can think of:
A. Demands full focus of the members, to a degree of unhealthy obsession with the group's goals.
B. Members are made to separate themselves socially and/or physically from friends and family, often to live on a property owned by the organization.
C. Members are thoroughly brainwashed into thinking and behaving according to the religion's doctrine. Disagreement with any aspect of the doctrine is not tolerated.
D. Members may be held against their will at the organization's discretion.
E. Those who want to leave the organization are threatened with extreme punishments. Some may be harrassed by other members if they succeed to get away.
F. Members suffer physical and emotional harm. In extreme cases, members may even be killed or commit suicide at the command of the organization's leadership.
Edit: Forgot a big one:
G. Members are required to give a large sum of money, or sacrifice valuable possessions, to the organization.
I do not consider age, size, or "weirdness" of a group's beliefs to be relevant, because all religions were new at some point. Every religion has beliefs that could have been considered weird when it was getting started. Eating flesh and drinking blood, as Jesus asked believers to do, would definitely be something weird to someone who'd never heard it before.
Interesting concept. I like your effort and the descriptions you have.
B and C describes a cult well. many cults I have studied often have locations seperate feom community
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: randomvim on August 28, 2017, 05:14:24 PM
Interesting concept. I like your effort and the descriptions you have.
B and C describes a cult well. many cults I have studied often have locations seperate feom community
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
B and C fit a nunnery or a monastery of several religions--or cults.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
B and C fit a nunnery or a monastery of several religions--or cults.
What if people voluntarily join a group that you disapprove of .. what then? Not saying it is smart ... but if being stupid is against that law, the jails will be very full.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
What if people voluntarily join a group that you disapprove of .. what then? Not saying it is smart ... but if being stupid is against that law, the jails will be very full.
My sole point will be--and is--it is impossible to designate exactly what a cult is. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2017, 05:44:15 PM
My sole point will be--and is--it is impossible to designate exactly what a cult is. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
The only beholder that counts, for cult or terrorist cell, is the government. Similarly peyote usage by Natives.
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2017, 05:48:15 PM
The only beholder that counts, for cult or terrorist cell, is the government. Similarly peyote usage by Natives.
No. The only beholder that counts is me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2017, 05:50:23 PM
No. The only beholder that counts is me.
So you retired from Sesame Street? One year ago, two year ago ...
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2017, 06:00:49 PM
So you retired from Sesame Street? One year ago, two year ago ...
That would be The Count. I haven't retired yet. Yeah Oscar!
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
B and C fit a nunnery or a monastery of several religions--or cults.
That's another funny thing about the DSM. Many disorders share a few of the same symptoms. People with major depressive disorder, for instance, may have hallucinations, just like someone with schizophrenia. You have to look at the bigger picture to determine what disorder best fits the symptoms. There are some groups that may tow the line, but most I think are pretty clear cut.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 28, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
B and C fit a nunnery or a monastery of several religions--or cults.
Call it a difference in experience.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
What if people voluntarily join a group that you disapprove of .. what then? Not saying it is smart ... but if being stupid is against that law, the jails will be very full.
The jails are very full already. But they'd be even more full, I guess.
Quote from: Baruch on August 19, 2017, 06:59:57 AM
I stated during the election, I will vote as a Jew, for Zombie Hitler, before I will vote for you Alinsky POS. And Stalin was a bad guy too.
Of course, since 1972, Republicans are KKK ... the Democrats left them with no choice but to change to the opposite party.
No one forced the Republicans to become anything. There was a time when both parties fought for the center. The Republicans are farther right than the Democrats are left.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 01:36:54 AM
No one forced the Republicans to become anything. There was a time when both parties fought for the center. The Republicans are farther right than the Democrats are left.
D leadership (and Bernie is no D leader) ... are to the right of center too. That is why I will never ever vote for corporate Ds. And the Left ... tools of cointelpro since the 1940s.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 06:50:45 AM
D leadership (and Bernie is no D leader) ... are to the right of center too. That is why I will never ever vote for corporate Ds. And the Left ... tools of cointelpro since the 1940s.
So you actually deny the existence of a thoughtful Left. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 09:51:24 AM
So you actually deny the existence of a thoughtful Left. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
In the US, some may exist in Academia ... if they actually think, and aren't part of MK Ultra. Now can we have thoughts that are Left, and discuss them? Of course, but neither of us is a Leftist, we would be LARPing. After all, your infallible philosophy test shows that incompatible things are real, and that I am an unconscious Marxist ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 10:45:15 AM
In the US, some may exist in Academia ... if they actually think, and aren't part of MK Ultra. Now can we have thoughts that are Left, and discuss them? Of course, but neither of us is a Leftist, we would be LARPing. After all, your infallible philosophy test shows that incompatible things are real, and that I am an unconscious Marxist ;-)
I keep telling you I'm not a Leftist but a Progressive. There is a difference.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 11:34:10 AM
I keep telling you I'm not a Leftist but a Progressive. There is a difference.
Yes ... you want to jump to Star Trek Communism directly, without going thru the dictatorship of the proletariat. Good luck with that Capt Picard.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 09:51:24 AM
So you actually deny the existence of a thoughtful Left. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.
(https://athenae25.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/getusedtodisappointment.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 12:50:17 PM
Yes ... you want to jump to Star Trek Communism directly, without going thru the dictatorship of the proletariat. Good luck with that Capt Picard.
HPMPFFF!
Stand up, tugs down shirt and retreats to the Ready Room...
I suppose that makes you Number One.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2017, 01:33:24 PM
(https://athenae25.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/getusedtodisappointment.jpg)
It's OK, I'm not one of them either.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 02:01:30 PM
Stand up, tugs down shirt
Ha! That's called "the Picard maneuver." I've stumped hard-core trekkies when I ask them about it.
http://uproxx.com/tv/video-supercut-demonstrates-picard-maneuver-from-star-trek-the-next-generation/
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2017, 02:07:32 PM
Ha! That's called "the Picard maneuver." I've stumped hard-core trekkies when I ask them about it.
And it was 5 years before I could even tolerate The New Generation. Or Voyager for that matter. But I grew to love them. DS9 can rot in the archives.
I was annoyed that the tough Klingon kept getting his ass handed to him in the first season! :yell:
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2017, 02:11:56 PM
I was annoyed that the tough Klingon kept getting his ass handed to him in the first season! :yell:
He was being "tolerant".
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 02:01:30 PM
HPMPFFF!
Stand up, tugs down shirt and retreats to the Ready Room...
I suppose that makes you Number One.
I liked you better when you were part of the Borg Collective!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 02:10:20 PM
And it was 5 years before I could even tolerate The New Generation. Or Voyager for that matter. But I grew to love them. DS9 can rot in the archives.
You are just jealous you can't get gay umax from Quark ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 02:13:30 PM
He was being "tolerant".
He was raised by adoptive parents ... Progressives from ... shudder ... Russia.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on August 26, 2017, 09:04:36 PM
I agree theism isn't necessary but the thought humans are special and entitled by birth to such rights is false if we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that didn't intend humans or the universe to exist. We can all just agree with a wink and a nod such rights exist but we know we're just making it up out of thin air. The best fellow humans can do is grant us privileges which can be changed or revoked at any time.
You're juxtaposing your belief upon the text. Endowed (still means the same today) is property or rights given by someone in this case at the moment of birth.
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. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
For these rights to be unalienable the author attaches them to their Creator. The government doesn't give us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the government is empowered to secure those rights. There is no dispute about what Jefferson meant. I agree its not intended to be religious, belief in the existence of a Creator is theistic not religious.
first of not all the founders were Christian... I think there were even a couple of atheists in that lot
but second if we are talking about the Christian god, then very definitely these rights didn't come from god. You dont have a right to life because god can kill you at anytime without any reason. You dont have a right to liberty because god accepts slavery as normal. You don't have a right to pursuit happiness because at all times you must conform with "god's preconceived notion" of proper behavior
Quote from: fencerider on September 01, 2017, 02:46:01 AM
first of not all the founders were Christian... I think there were even a couple of atheists in that lot
but second if we are talking about the Christian god, then very definitely these rights didn't come from god. You dont have a right to life because god can kill you at anytime without any reason. You dont have a right to liberty because god accepts slavery as normal. You don't have a right to pursuit happiness because at all times you must conform with "god's preconceived notion" of proper behavior
The Founders were all heretics and traitors. That is why their ancestors were exiled to N America in the first place. Think Australia, only closer to Canada.
I'm trying to imagine Canadian kangaroos, but its not working ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on September 01, 2017, 11:53:22 PM
I'm trying to imagine Canadian kangaroos, but its not working ;-)
Bouncing polar bears seems ... frightening!
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 08:42:47 PM
I liked you better when you were part of the Borg Collective!
I'm not surprised. I was easier to attack then.
Let's not forget to ban some films too, whilst we at erasing history.
Winston Smith, get busy. So much to do, so little time.
Blazing Saddles must go. The Producers must go, burn the lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOntf5V47Hc
I can't post the link from this computer, but I just saw at Not the Onion that a theater in Memphis has done just that - pulled the "racially insensitive" movie Gone With the Wind. You should be able to google it.
Quote from: pr126 on September 04, 2017, 02:11:57 PM
Let's not forget to ban some films too, whilst we at erasing history.
Winston Smith, get busy. So much to do, so little time.
Blazing Saddles must go. The Producers must go, burn the lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOntf5V47Hc
Marxists are great as critics, but they can't do the synthesis part. Aka ... tradition is thesis, Marxism is anti-thesis, but synthesis never gets created. So think of it as broken dialectical materialism. I think we should just jump to post-progressivism ... and pre-identify all present revolutionary ideologies, as tradition (in some future) and therefore evil ;-)
Their seriously banning gone with the wind. Because of the overly sensitive 'progressives' can't handle historical depictions of the past, its sooooo upsetting.
Hey, can we get stonewall banned next, being reminded that stonewall happened and there was a time gay people had to fight for their rights is to upsetting for me! I need to pretend gay people always had the rights they have today!
Quote from: fencerider on September 01, 2017, 02:46:01 AM
first of not all the founders were Christian... I think there were even a couple of atheists in that lot
but second if we are talking about the Christian god, then very definitely these rights didn't come from god. You dont have a right to life because god can kill you at anytime without any reason. You dont have a right to liberty because god accepts slavery as normal. You don't have a right to pursuit happiness because at all times you must conform with "god's preconceived notion" of proper behavior
You're still confusing theism with religion (or various beliefs). One can believe we owe our existence to a Creator apart from any theological belief. Theism is a philosophical position just as atheism is. Although it took time at some point people realized the notion of slavery was antithetical to the belief all humans are born equal and are special due to the belief the universe was created for the sake of humans.
On what philosophical platform do you get on your high moral horse? From your standpoint humans are the unintended by product of the laws of physics no more special than anything else that was unintentionally caused to exist humans have no right to exist, no right to live, no right to be free, no right to be equal and we live in an amoral universe in which there is no real right and wrong or good and evil.
Not into banning anything. But if I had my arm twisted behind me and forced to pick a movie to ban, it would have to be Birth of A Nation (the first one). Gone With the Wind I would not even think of banning.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 04, 2017, 03:58:09 PM
I can't post the link from this computer, but I just saw at Not the Onion that a theater in Memphis has done just that - pulled the "racially insensitive" movie Gone With the Wind. You should be able to google it.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/29/theatre-in-memphis-pulls-racially-insensitive-gone-with-the-wind
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 04, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
Not into banning anything. But if I had my arm twisted behind me and forced to pick a movie to ban, it would have to be Birth of A Nation (the first one). Gone With the Wind I would not even think of banning.
The first wouldn't be commercially viable anymore (I hope), so banning it wouldn't be necessary or desirable.
I don't think it should be pulled, but I also think the current climate is not an appropriate time to be airing a film that does, at it's core, romanticise slavery. Perhaps giving the audience some historical context before airing the film would be a good compromise, and making sure everyone is aware this is not how the Confederate/Slave-owning South remotely looked.
QuoteTheir seriously banning gone with the wind. Because of the overly sensitive 'progressives' can't handle historical depictions of the past, its sooooo upsetting.
Except it's not a historical depiction, it does fall under the, "Cult of the Lost Cause" train of thought of the South which heavily romanticises and misinterprets the actual reality of African Americans (and even white commoners themselves) of the time. If you want something that more accurately represents the reality of the South, watch, "12 Years a Slave".
It's no more a historical depiction than, "Ben-Hur".
As mentioned above, "Birth of a Nation" is a film that would be arguably banned... and for the most part, very few places will air it anymore. Yet less than 40 years ago it had a place in people's hearts as a "Classic American Masterpiece" like, "Gone With the Wind" does now. Cultures change. People change. And thus art appreciation changes. Do you know how many masterpieces have been lost to time because cultures decided they no longer appreciate that style of art? That is simply the way of the world. The internet gives those who are "outraged" over this truth a medium to cry louder than ever before, but art is like life... it is born, it lives, it dies. Perhaps as society is changing, "Gone With the Wind" has entered it's final days. And that's okay. Throwing a hissy-fit about the inevitability of death, even if it's of art, has never managed to stop death from coming.
Unlike the classic paintings, statues, etc. though... "GWtW" will likely never truly die anyways because of it's digital format, so to be so dramatic about it becomes even more ridiculous when you actually think about it.
Quote
Hey, can we get stonewall banned next, being reminded that stonewall happened and there was a time gay people had to fight for their rights is to upsetting for me! I need to pretend gay people always had the rights they have today!
This is just so blatantly misleading that even you have to have a inkling on why it's so. To compare, "Gone With the Wind" to your supposed depiction of Stonewall, then you need to therefor view Stonewall as this romantic occasion where the police and the gay community were singing Kumbiaya and, sure the gays were being denied rights... but look at how happy they were! They had their own bar, they could sing and dance, and masta-officer even let them do it so long as it didn't get out of hand!
If people viewed Stonewall that way, if there was a legitimately large segment of the population that wanted to return to this way of life because it looked so idyllic, you wouldn't in the very least be concerned about that being a misinterpretation of the LGBT community? You wouldn't be at all concerned that if that segment got their way they regress to the culture that created the actual Stonewall riots in the first place?
Seriously, think about what you are saying for one time in your life before you type.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 04, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
Not into banning anything. But if I had my arm twisted behind me and forced to pick a movie to ban, it would have to be Birth of A Nation (the first one). Gone With the Wind I would not even think of banning.
A large number of people would ban this web site. Is that mere majoritarianism?
A true historical presentation, wouldn't be complementary to the North either, in spite of how much I enjoyed the recent Lincoln. He was actually a corrupt lawyer for the railroads.
Isn't the phrase "corrupt lawyer" a redundancy, just like the phrase "corrupt politician"?
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 05, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
Isn't the phrase "corrupt lawyer" a redundancy, just like the phrase "corrupt politician"?
absolutely!
What's the difference between a dead lawyer or skunk laying in the road?
Skid tracks in front of the skunk.
Actually, there are some good lawyers, that try to help people who have been victimized by corporate greed, having been maimed - or worse - by attempts to profit over any sort of humane consideration.
"Oh, our product kills people? No worry - it's just business."
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 05, 2017, 02:34:49 PM
Actually, there are some good lawyers, that try to help people who have been victimized by corporate greed, having been maimed - or worse - by attempts to profit over any sort of humane consideration.
"Oh, our product kills people? No worry - it's just business."
Marvel even has a lawyer as a super hero.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/d/d4/DaredevilProfile5.png/revision/latest?cb=20150331175511)
'Gone With The Wind' was more a historical romance, and did not glorify slavery much. Personally, I look at it as an understanding of the failure of the Confederacy.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2017, 02:47:11 AM
'Gone With The Wind' was more a historical romance, and did not glorify slavery much. Personally, I look at it as an understanding of the failure of the Confederacy.
But ... but ... 'merica had no history before Massa Obama - Mammy
Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2017, 06:58:54 AM
But ... but ... 'merica had no history before Massa Obama - Mammy
You are clever-wordly, but "Massa Obama" isn't actually very funny. You diminish the right of a free electorate to have chosen a very intelligent and thoughtful biracial man to be their President. One who went out of his way to meet with the leaders of both parties in Congress to try to get things done.
And someone who followed a mildly blithering idiot in office and gave it to a more blithering lunatic. That must have been hard.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2017, 08:55:29 AM
You are clever-wordly, but "Massa Obama" isn't actually very funny. You diminish the right of a free electorate to have chosen a very intelligent and thoughtful biracial man to be their President. One who went out of his way to meet with the leaders of both parties in Congress to try to get things done.
And someone who followed a mildly blithering idiot in office and gave it to a more blithering lunatic. That must have been hard.
What free electorate .. oh Civics101man? The point of Obama wasn't his "biracial" it was his "poseur" and "grifter" nature. But I blame the CIA for creating him in a test tube. Voted for him twice (you so soon forget). I thought Bill Clinton would be great in 1992, because he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with swastika, like George H W. Boy was I wrong that time too ;-( Grifters to the right of me, grifters to the left of me, onward rode the American electorate ...
Congress usually can't get anything done (except Obamacare aka Romneycare aka Heritagecare). It is best if Congress never gets anything done, ever again. And SCOTUS only agrees to unlimited tyranny of the 1%. So don't expect anything from them either. USA is done, dustbin material.
Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2017, 06:58:54 AM
Mammy
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/drawntogether/images/7/76/Minstrelfoxxylove.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20071004225512)
Great Googly Moogly!
Quote from: Munch on September 07, 2017, 06:36:46 PM
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/drawntogether/images/7/76/Minstrelfoxxylove.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20071004225512)
Great Googly Moogly!
Black folks are among the handsomest and most beautiful people I know. Only the White Devil ever made them think different. "Mammy" was one of the maids in the movie "Gone With The Wind" ... which wasn't a pro-Rebel movie, at all. Rhett Butler is the hero, and he calls all the young men, damn fools.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 18, 2017, 08:37:03 PM
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/15/donald-trump-charlottesville-press-conference-newt-gingrich-reacts
Reminder: This is the number one watched news station in the world, defending someone for defending Nazism and White Supremacy.
Remind me again, where are the major Regressive Left, Cultural Marxist news outlets defending Antifa? Where is Antifa so ingrained into American society that the highest leader electable in their region is actively supporting their ideology?
Oh, right, the alt-right is once again full of shit and hatred. Surprising.
I am progressive and I say if there is an Alt-left, throw their asses in jail and lose the key... I do not "circle the wagons" like the republicans do and defend people who are indefensible.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
I am progressive and I say if there is an Alt-left, throw their asses in jail and lose the key... I do not "circle the wagons" like the republicans do and defend people who are indefensible.
Is that before or after the Democrat Hive mind changed their tune about anti-fa? So much like praising the Germany-Soviet Union pact ... until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Then all previous evidence went down the Memory Hole.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 07, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
I am progressive and I say if there is an Alt-left, throw their asses in jail and lose the key...
Alternate facts
Alternative news
Fake news
Real news
Alt right
Alt left
What the fuck is going on with the English language? Does the confusion aided by the meaninglessness of political speak help the situation in any way? Before you could just despise the left or the media or you neighbor and be done with it, but now they are parsing the enemy into gibberish, giving names that mean the opposite of what the parses often are. Real News is actually fake. Fake news means news you don't like, the alternate right is not the right, even if it protests that it is, and alternate facts are still not facts. If the political strategists, and the Department of New Speak have their way, no one will have a clue what they are talking about, but be able to say it with authority, because all this means absolutely nothing, and is therefore beyond criticism.
I think there is already a word to describe the carefully crafted intention of New Speak. It's "bullshit." Not bullshit in the sense that you disagree with it, and not bullshit because it's offensive, although it is, but that it's bullshit because it's just meaningless bullshit intended to hide meaning, ideology, and truth in an Alice in Wonderland environment of insanity. Back in in the 60s and 70s, we used LSD to achieve this state of mind, but we were stupid idealists back then. What we didn't realize was that this state of mind is apparently inherent throughout humanity when it's functioning at its best (which is actually not very good at all). You can literally get "high" on life. Some deep thinkers back then had already come to understand this. We thought they were phony charlatans when they said in an uppity tone, "I don't need drugs. I'm already high on life," but they were really just "alternate" charlatans.
"Alternate" Charlatans. It just hit me. We can make it even more confusing by taking all these words that mean nothing or just the opposite of what they say, and put them in scare quotes. You know "scare" quotes. And sometimes we could just put "random" words in scare quotes, and see what people do with that. Some idiots will nod knowingly as if they are agreeing with something, just like we did back in the 70s when we were high on LSD and someone said something incomprehensible.
Both parties have licked the stamps, and walked out the window on the 10th floor, thinking they can fly ;-(
AltChar is short for your neologism. Must need its own typeface. Can I offer my version of Kekistani? All it is ... is English with an odd typeface, written backwards. It is Bizarro World now.
This is how the MIC crafts the "narrative" now. Once Cronkite went off the reservation in 1968 ... they had to come up with a new way to implement their Matrix. So not Newspeak ... Newandimprovedspeak.
Quote from: SGOS on September 08, 2017, 08:16:27 AM
Alternate facts
Alternative news
Fake news
Real news
Alt right
Alt left
What the fuck is going on with the English language? Does the confusion aided by the meaninglessness of political speak help the situation in any way? Before you could just despise the left or the media or you neighbor and be done with it, but now they are parsing the enemy into gibberish, giving names that mean the opposite of what the parses often are. Real News is actually fake. Fake news means news you don't like, the alternate right is not the right, even if it protests that it is, and alternate facts are still not facts. If the political strategists, and the Department of New Speak have their way, no one will have a clue what they are talking about, but be able to say it with authority, because all this means absolutely nothing, and is therefore beyond criticism.
I think there is already a word to describe the carefully crafted intention of New Speak. It's "bullshit." Not bullshit in the sense that you disagree with it, and not bullshit because it's offensive, although it is, but that it's bullshit because it's just meaningless bullshit intended to hide meaning, ideology, and truth in an Alice in Wonderland environment of insanity. Back in in the 60s and 70s, we used LSD to achieve this state of mind, but we were stupid idealists back then. What we didn't realize was that this state of mind is apparently inherent throughout humanity when it's functioning at its best (which is actually not very good at all). You can literally get "high" on life. Some deep thinkers back then had already come to understand this. We thought they were phony charlatans when they said in an uppity tone, "I don't need drugs. I'm already high on life," but they were really just "alternate" charlatans.
"Alternate" Charlatans. It just hit me. We can make it even more confusing by taking all these words that mean nothing or just the opposite of what they say, and put them in scare quotes. You know "scare" quotes. And sometimes we could just put "random" words in scare quotes, and see what people do with that. Some idiots will nod knowingly as if they are agreeing with something, just like we did back in the 70s when we were high on LSD and someone said something incomprehensible.
"Bullshit" works for me...
you forgot "pool spray". That's the new fangled word for when the White House talks to the press but doesn't take questions.
the difference between a politician and a corrupt politician is that one just won the election and the other lost the re-election ;-)
I heard that if you give some bullshit to a republican and say its from a republican source they will accept it as truth, but if you give the same bullshit to the same person and say it came from a democrat they will automatically say you're lying. same thing happens if you give some bullshit to a democrat
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead lawyer layin in the road? - the skunk is down for good, but the lawyer will rise again
Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 04:53:58 AM
you forgot "pool spray". That's the new fangled word for when the White House talks to the press but doesn't take questions.
the difference between a politician and a corrupt politician is that one just won the election and the other lost the re-election ;-)
I heard that if you give some bullshit to a republican and say its from a republican source they will accept it as truth, but if you give the same bullshit to the same person and say it came from a democrat they will automatically say you're lying. same thing happens if you give some bullshit to a democrat
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead lawyer layin in the road? - the skunk is down for good, but the lawyer will rise again
Or, a scavenger will eat a skunk but not a lawyer. Professional courtesy...
Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 04:53:58 AM
you forgot "pool spray". That's the new fangled word for when the White House talks to the press but doesn't take questions.
the difference between a politician and a corrupt politician is that one just won the election and the other lost the re-election ;-)
I heard that if you give some bullshit to a republican and say its from a republican source they will accept it as truth, but if you give the same bullshit to the same person and say it came from a democrat they will automatically say you're lying. same thing happens if you give some bullshit to a democrat
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead lawyer layin in the road? - the skunk is down for good, but the lawyer will rise again
There must be a government agency that thinks up snappy sayings that describe politics cleverly, so as to distract us from the horror of what is actually happening.
"We have a cleaner that comes to the house once a week."
"Now isn't that lovely, a lady to keep the house nice and tidy."
"No, it's not a lady. It's a guy my husband has on the payroll to clean up loose ends."
"Loose ends? You mean like left over sewing threads, and scraps of material?"
"No, just people tied to chairs that accidently saw what was going on in our house. UPS, pizza delivery, and things like that."
Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2017, 07:44:51 AM
There must be a government agency that thinks up snappy sayings that describe politics cleverly, so as to distract us from the horror of what is actually happening.
"We have a cleaner that comes to the house once a week."
"Now isn't that lovely, a lady to keep the house nice and tidy."
"No, it's not a lady. It's a guy my husband has on the payroll to clean up loose ends."
"Loose ends? You mean like left over sewing threads, and scraps of material?"
"No, just people tied to chairs that accidently saw what was going on in our house. UPS, pizza delivery, and things like that."