[quote=“Vay”][quote=“TC”]Yes, I did read the article. It is a well written piece with clear examples and sourcing given to support its premise.
Its somewhat refreshing to see a piece delving in facts rather than innuendo and bs. I did not listen to the YouTube piece. Not really interested in that critique.[/quote]
Yeah, finally. This is what I’d suspected all along. Personally, I think it’s always useful to hear/read viewpoints that disagree with one’s own. But that’s just me. Since you seem to like images, here’s one for you:
Get my point?
[quote]Nor did I click on the other bit.
Instead of making disparaging remarks about me…why not offer something like a comment on your post?
Or is that not in your context?[/quote]
Well, I did make a small comment on it. I said that people who associate the name of Christ with violence or persecution against homosexuals suck. I also laughed at the notion that Obama’s merely calling himself a Christian is taken as an instance of “bashing” Christianity. Democrats and liberals, apparently, aren’t allowed to be Christian anymore - even though Christianity used to be a major progressive force in American politics (with a HEAVY emphasis on the “used to”).
Moreover, if you feel I mis-represented you, my apologies - but 1 sarcastic quip and an irrelevant image file really do not contribute anything positive to the discussion. If you feel that Christians really do get “bashed” in society to somewhat of the extent that homosexuals do (which would mean that in many instances they actually get their heads “bashed” in, LITERALLY) then you ought to say that and give us some evidence. OR post a controversial article and let us all discuss it - which is the tack I usually take!
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercise in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
[/quote]
It seems to me that claiming that liberals are hung up on fairness and actually try to respect other points of view while simultaneously reducing modern conservatism to little more than an attempt to find superior moral justification for selfishness leaves as much to be desired as Fox News claim that it’s fair and balanced.
In my stereotypical viewpoint, conservatives have viewpoints and don’t question them, whereas liberals question everything. I know it’s an oversimplification and doesn’t apply to everyone, especially spook, but I believe it to be accurate in general.
I’d agree with that on social conservatism. But liberals don’t tend to question the efficacy of the state controlling health and education, even though far more fundamental human needs like food and water are supplied very cheaply by the market - and futhermore, where the government does intervene in such things (as in subsidizing farmers) the effect is to make consumers pay more than they need to. It’s a rather large liberal blind spot.
In my stereotypical viewpoint, conservatives have viewpoints and don’t question them, whereas liberals question everything. I know it’s an oversimplification and doesn’t apply to everyone, especially spook, but I believe it to be accurate in general.[/quote]
Absolutely not. Conservatives have strong viewpoints because they have questioned and entertained all other alternatives, and thought through them, with the result that they confidently choose and embrace the best. Liberals merely question everything they’ve been indoctrinated to question. I see little ability among them to question any matter ndependently, let alone analyze anything on the strength of their own powers of ratiocination (or rather lack thereof).
In my stereotypical viewpoint, conservatives have viewpoints and don’t question them, whereas liberals question everything. I know it’s an oversimplification and doesn’t apply to everyone, especially spook, but I believe it to be accurate in general.[/quote]
Absolutely not. Conservatives have strong viewpoints because they have questioned and entertained all other alternatives, and thought through them, with the result that they confidently choose and embrace the best. Liberals merely question everything they’ve been indoctrinated to question. I see little ability among them to question any matter ndependently, let alone analyze anything on the strength of their own powers of ratiocination (or rather lack thereof).[/quote]
Well I’ll be shagged side-ways! There really is a word like that! And who says you never learn anything new on the flob?
[quote]ra⋅ti⋅oc⋅i⋅na⋅tion
[rash-ee-os-uh-ney-shuhn, -oh-suh-, rat-ee-]
–noun
the process of logical reasoning.
Origin:
1520–30; < L ratiōcinātiōn- (s. of ratiōcinātiō), equiv. to ratiōcināt(us) (see ratiocinate ) + -iōn- -ion[/quote]
Absolutely not. Liberals have strong viewpoints because they have questioned and entertained all other alternatives, and thought through them, with the result that they confidently choose and embrace the best. Conservatives merely question everything they’ve been indoctrinated to question. I see little ability among them to question any matter independently, let alone analyze anything on the strength of their own powers of ratiocination (or rather lack thereof).
Absolutely not. Liberals have strong viewpoints because they have questioned and entertained all other alternatives, and thought through them, with the result that they confidently choose and embrace the best. Conservatives merely question everything they’ve been indoctrinated to question. I see little ability among them to question any matter independently, let alone analyze anything on the strength of their own powers of ratiocination (or rather lack thereof).
(See, I can make unsupported assertions, too.)[/quote]
You didn’t (nor couldn’t) make any assertions or arguments. You can only repeat and parrot others’ (either in admiration or in scoffing), thus supporting my former point brilliantly. Liberals may mock original points of view or take them up unthinkingly, but rarely form their own.
Absolutely not. Liberals have strong viewpoints because they have questioned and entertained all other alternatives, and thought through them, with the result that they confidently choose and embrace the best. Conservatives merely question everything they’ve been indoctrinated to question. I see little ability among them to question any matter independently, let alone analyze anything on the strength of their own powers of ratiocination (or rather lack thereof).
(See, I can make unsupported assertions, too.)[/quote]
You didn’t (nor couldn’t) make any assertions or arguments. You can only repeat and parrot others’ (either in admiration or in scoffing), thus supporting my former point brilliantly. Liberals may mock original points of view or take them up unthinkingly, but rarely form their own.[/quote]
You guys are talking about Liberals and Conservatives in the US sense, right? i.e. In US politics? Because I don’t see much similiarity between what I see here and how I understand the concepts…
Could someone expand on it some more. I always thought Republicans = conservatives, Democrats = Liberals, but from what I’m reading here that doesn’t seem to fit. Also, how does this fit in with things like the religious right (conservatives?) etc?
Republicans = conservatives, Democrats = Liberals
Yes, that is true for US politics. Maybe you’re confused by the Republicans claiming that Bush is not a conservative.
I think that anyone who pretends to be able to judge themselves objectively is a fool. The reason is because we’re all observing ourselves from the least objective viewpoint possible – from the inside looking out.
Paradoxically, the best source of objective information about who we are is our adversaries because they not only have an objective viewpoint but they don’t share our blind spots or have any reason to varnish the truth. They’re not infallible of course because they have plenty of reason to twist the truth. They’re the best source there is though if you listen carefully to what they say and, particularly, to their moments of silence when they can’t bring themselves to say something about you.
[quote]Oh no, a piece of ritualized cannibalism can no longer be consumed.
No great loss. You’d probably get Kreutzfel-jesus disease (Mad catholic disease) if you ate it.[/quote]
People like you are the reason why bigots like this have power.[/quote]
Proving the point of my post, Mortimer Snerd avoids addressing the behaviours of the rabidly religious.
Your sour grapes have turned into a fine whine, Mortimer.
I don’t have to. I’ve already condemned such behaviour many times on this forum. I condemn it no matter who’s responsible, the rabidly religious such as them, or the rabidly atheist such as yourself. Neither of you can exist without the other. If it weren’t for people like you, people like them wouldn’t have any influence whatever. But you reinforce all their stereotypes by faithfully heeding them.
This doesn’t prove your point at all.
This isn’t about sour grapes, it’s about you being a carbon copy of what you despise.
Whatever the merits of Sleepyhead’s comments, as far as I can see religious people don’t have influence because of people like him. I put the burden on you to support such a statement.
I also don’t see him attacking this groups silly assertions as representing some sort of equality. “Bashing” to them seems to consist mostly of a lack of respect for their symbols. They have a right to respect them as they wish, and to have the freedom to do so, but demanding the respect of society for them is WELL beyond what should be expected in a free society. The only instance of “bashing”–which I can only see as outright physical violence or intimidation of some sort–is seemingly a case of political violence. Their list is presumptuous and deserving of ridicule.
I didn’t say that religious people have influence because of people like him. I said that this kind of religious people have influence because of people like him. Bigots always use stereotypes of their enemies. But the extent to which that stereotype is convincing is dependent on the extent to which real life examples can be found which meet the stereotype. In order to fuel the flames of the faithful, it’s necessary to point to actual individuals who look like your stereotype.
The likes of Dawkins and Hitchens have plenty of useful ammunition in the form of the average American Fundamentalist Christian. ‘Look’, they say, ‘see those people? That’s what Christians believe, that’s what Christians are like, proves everything we’ve been saying about how ignorant, bigoted, hate filled, simple minded, and dangerous religious people are’. And they have influence on others, because there’s evidence that their stereotype has a basis in real fact, so sympathetic readers think ‘Wow, that’s what religious people are like’, which is confirmation bias in the case of many people, and useful grist to their propaganda mill.
In the same way, the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sleepyhead, provide the average American Fundamentalist Christian (and others of their ilk), with useful ammunition with which to reinforce their stereotype of atheists. ‘Look’, they say, ‘see those people? They hate religious people, they take any opportunity to ridicule our beliefs, they think religious people are all ignorant, bigoted, hate filled, simple minded, and dangerous. They don’t even want us to have the vote, and they would like laws to be passed forbidding us to teach our faith to our own children. That’s what atheists are like, they want to purge the world of every form of religious belief and they have no interest in any form of spirituality, and they’ll do it by force if necessary’. And they have influence on others, because there’s evidence that their stereotype has a basis in real fact, so sympathetic readers think ‘Wow, that’s what atheists are like’, which is confirmation bias in the case of many people, and useful grist to their propaganda mill.
Have you wondered why less than 50% of Americans would vote for an atheist president, all other factors being equal? It’s because unlike being black, or being homosexual, being an atheist in political power is seen as a direct threat to these people’s personal beliefs and way of life. Why is that? It’s partly because they’re influenced by sympathetic peers who depict atheism as a threat to their personal beliefs and way of life, and it’s partly also because they’re influenced by the many atheists who specifically and deliberately depict atheism as a threat to their personal beliefs and way of life. These atheists actually explicitly market atheism aggressively as a threat to religious people. So it’s hardly surprising that religious people respond negatively to atheism as a result. This isn’t akin to racism, this is a matter of deliberately making a specific group of the population feel threatened, and then wondering why they don’t vote for you.
‘We just can’t understand it’, American atheists say, ‘We run the Blasphemy Challenge to systematically and publicly ridicule their beliefs, we produce movies like Zeitgeist and The God Who Wasn’t There, we write books like The God Delusion, and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything with excellent chapters like ‘Religion kills’, ‘The Nightmare Of The Old Testament’, and ‘The “New” Testament Exceeds The Evil Of The “Old” One’, we say that religions are hostile to treating diseases, we refer to teaching religion to children as ‘child abuse’, we call religion a ‘mind virus’ and refer to religious people as ‘infected’, we teach that religion has systematically prevented the advance of every scientific field known to man, we teach that religion is a threat to mental health and psychological stability, and then after all this when we ask them to vote us into power they say no! It’s inexplicable except on the basis that they’re simply unreasonably bigoted against us for some completely unfathomable reason!’
I mean, really.
Nor do I. He’s using it as a vehicle to ridicule all religious people, not simply these weirdos, and in that regard his post is as much an expression of bigotry as theirs.
I certainly agree. Unfortunately the manner in which their beliefs are treated with disrespect frequently reinforces their negative beliefs about atheism and atheists, and enables them to keep selling their caricature of atheism with convincing evidence.
And who says you never learn anything new on the flob?