Poor Dick Cheney
-
you wrote: "Yes, as long as he keeps his unspeakably immoralities in the closet who are we to care? Now, thats what I call social progress!" You're the only one I've seen that describes Cheney as "unspeakably immoral" in regards to his relationship with his daughter. So you find it terrible that he would be criticized if he were to call his daughter a faggot in public? And you think that any criticism for this remark would be completely unwarrented? you said: "Tell that to George Allen or Rush Limbaugh or me for that matter. All branded with the scarlet 'R'." This cult of victimology that some of you consertives go on about is just pathetic!
oilFactotum wrote:
victimology
The study of victims? :confused: Don't you mean "victimization"?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There is nothing unexpected about the current generation's disregard for morality. Rather, it is symbolic of our society's decline.
What is fascinating is that if you go back and read historical literature, the right has claimed that society is in the midst of unprecedented moral decline for about as long as they've existed.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
What is fascinating is that if you go back and read historical literature, the right has claimed that society is in the midst of unprecedented moral decline for about as long as they've existed.
The "right" hasn't existed throughout history. Rather, I think you're referring to moral authorities (like various churches) pointing out moral failings, which have existed throughout history. What we have on our hands is relatively (but not completely) historically unique. It's not about actual individual moral failings (as that's expected and will endure through any civilization), but rather the movement to accept moral failings as virtue...To redefine wrong to be right...To prevent those moral authorities from asserting immorality.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
In fact, you don't know that he doesn't chastise her in private.
Yes, as long as he keeps his unspeakably immoralities in the closet who are we to care? Now, thats what I call social progress!
oilFactotum wrote:
I'm sure Cheney is quaking in his boots at the prospect
As am I.
oilFactotum wrote:
No more scarlet letters, no more burning at the stake - what a sorry state of affairs.
Tell that to George Allen or Rush Limbaugh or me for that matter. All branded with the scarlet 'R'.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Tell that to George Allen
You aren't from VA by chance, are you Stan? It was a shame he lost the election ... Webb is an arrogant prick ... :(
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
for fear of being publically attacked for having 'immoral' thoughts
Why worry about immoral thoughts? Cheney is guilty of overt immoral actions by robbing the public coffers blind to reward his friends and eventually line his own pockets.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
Why worry about immoral thoughts? Cheney is guilty of overt immoral actions by robbing the public coffers blind to reward his friends and eventually line his own pockets.
That is just the definition of "politician".
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Christian Graus wrote:
What is fascinating is that if you go back and read historical literature, the right has claimed that society is in the midst of unprecedented moral decline for about as long as they've existed.
The "right" hasn't existed throughout history. Rather, I think you're referring to moral authorities (like various churches) pointing out moral failings, which have existed throughout history. What we have on our hands is relatively (but not completely) historically unique. It's not about actual individual moral failings (as that's expected and will endure through any civilization), but rather the movement to accept moral failings as virtue...To redefine wrong to be right...To prevent those moral authorities from asserting immorality.
Red Stateler wrote:
What we have on our hands is relatively (but not completely) historically unique.
Yeah, they say that, too.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
oilFactotum wrote:
'Conservative calls Mary Cheney's pregnancy "unconscionable." ' :laugh:
Children out of wedlock are funny! teeheehee!!!
Red Stateler wrote:
Children out of wedlock are funny! teeheehee!!!
Careful, you are treading on thin ice with this line of discussion ...
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What we have on our hands is relatively (but not completely) historically unique.
Yeah, they say that, too.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
Way to ignore the flaws in your statement. :rolleyes:
-
you wrote: "Yes, as long as he keeps his unspeakably immoralities in the closet who are we to care? Now, thats what I call social progress!" You're the only one I've seen that describes Cheney as "unspeakably immoral" in regards to his relationship with his daughter. So you find it terrible that he would be criticized if he were to call his daughter a faggot in public? And you think that any criticism for this remark would be completely unwarrented? you said: "Tell that to George Allen or Rush Limbaugh or me for that matter. All branded with the scarlet 'R'." This cult of victimology that some of you consertives go on about is just pathetic!
oilFactotum wrote:
So you find it terrible that he would be criticized if he were to call his daughter a faggot in public? And you think that any criticism for this remark would be completely unwarrented?
It is a simple issue, but I'm not surprised you fail to appreciate it. We live in a society in which some forms of expression are socially unacceptable and are surpressed by institutionalized authoritarianism. If you wish to believe that a society that condemns and ostracizes those who express moral revulsion at homosexuality is an improvement over one that formally did the same to homosexuality itself, thats your right. I believe it represents the same basic social phenomenon. It is merely a different, more pervasive, focused and well organized moral authority than we have had in the past.
oilFactotum wrote:
This cult of victimology that some of you consertives go on about is just pathetic!
How sanctimonious of you.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Wow, that is so relativistic. You really must be one of those "leftists" you always go on about.
I know you won't get it, because you've demonstrated a complete lack of mental capacity to do so, but I'm a glutton for pain... My statement did not endorse the hypocritical and ill-thought-out position on "tolerance" held by the left. Rather, I was pointing out the fact that its an inherently hypocritical position which you have adopted without actually thinking it through. It also wasn't "relativistic" as it didn't assume that our respective positions on "tolerance" were both correct. Rather, it just pointed out the fact that your position is hypocritical.
Wow, you held out for two entire posts before descending into childish insults. You should be so proud!
Red Stateler wrote:
which you have adopted
What position have I adopted? Ah, yes "the hypocritical and ill-thought-out position on "tolerance" held by the left" Whatever that is.:rolleyes:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
So you find it terrible that he would be criticized if he were to call his daughter a faggot in public? And you think that any criticism for this remark would be completely unwarrented?
It is a simple issue, but I'm not surprised you fail to appreciate it. We live in a society in which some forms of expression are socially unacceptable and are surpressed by institutionalized authoritarianism. If you wish to believe that a society that condemns and ostracizes those who express moral revulsion at homosexuality is an improvement over one that formally did the same to homosexuality itself, thats your right. I believe it represents the same basic social phenomenon. It is merely a different, more pervasive, focused and well organized moral authority than we have had in the past.
oilFactotum wrote:
This cult of victimology that some of you consertives go on about is just pathetic!
How sanctimonious of you.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
you wish to believe that a society that condemns and ostracizes those who express moral revulsion at homosexuality is an improvement over one that formally did the same to homosexuality itself
Oh, right. I forgot about all those crimes against gay-bashers. How they get fired from their job, kicked out of the military, beaten by cops and the like.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How sanctimonious of you.
:laugh:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Tell that to George Allen
You aren't from VA by chance, are you Stan? It was a shame he lost the election ... Webb is an arrogant prick ... :(
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Zac Howland wrote:
You aren't from VA by chance, are you Stan?
Never been there. But George Allen was a good man whoes political career was destroyed by a new age secular priesthood. I wish I could have voted for him.
Zac Howland wrote:
Webb is an arrogant prick
Maybe. But I actually like Webb. I find myself hoping that the dems might have poisoned their own agenda by recruiting conservatives like him into their party. I don't think a civil war between this new crop of conservative democrats and the radical leftists who are in charge of the party is entirely possible down the road. It might well turn out to be a godsend for the conservative movement.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Zac Howland wrote:
You aren't from VA by chance, are you Stan?
Never been there. But George Allen was a good man whoes political career was destroyed by a new age secular priesthood. I wish I could have voted for him.
Zac Howland wrote:
Webb is an arrogant prick
Maybe. But I actually like Webb. I find myself hoping that the dems might have poisoned their own agenda by recruiting conservatives like him into their party. I don't think a civil war between this new crop of conservative democrats and the radical leftists who are in charge of the party is entirely possible down the road. It might well turn out to be a godsend for the conservative movement.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But George Allen was a good man
I wouldn't go THAT far. He was the better of the two politicians running in this election ... lets just stick with that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Maybe. But I actually like Webb.
Webb's attitude is the major problem I have with him. He is a guy with slightly above average intelligence who thinks he is smarter than anyone else, and takes extra effort to try to show that. He also has some interesting views on social areas that I'm not too fond of ... but at least he is conservative when it comes to financial issues. That was the only area of this election that was win-win on.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
The right generally supports the death penalty for those who deprive others of life as the preferred method of justice for taking life (while the left opposes "punishment" for taking life and endorses "rehabilitation"). The left unwaiveringly supports the death of innocent babies. The end.
Death is death. The phrase was 'you can't kill 'em' and you made a point about the leftists. But righties also promote death with the death penalty. I'm sure they are not equal in your little mind but death is death. I find it funny that many of the 'religious right' endorse the death penalty when G-d was pretty clear about that 'thou shalt not kill' bit.
____________________________________________________ If at first you don't succeed, skydiving might not be for you.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
In fact, you don't know that he doesn't chastise her in private.
Yes, as long as he keeps his unspeakably immoralities in the closet who are we to care? Now, thats what I call social progress!
oilFactotum wrote:
I'm sure Cheney is quaking in his boots at the prospect
As am I.
oilFactotum wrote:
No more scarlet letters, no more burning at the stake - what a sorry state of affairs.
Tell that to George Allen or Rush Limbaugh or me for that matter. All branded with the scarlet 'R'.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All branded with the scarlet 'R'.
What, Republican?
"Oh, I must've did somebody some good. I think I did. So I gave her the gun and I shot her!" - Led Zeppelin - In My Time of Dying
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Why worry about immoral thoughts? Cheney is guilty of overt immoral actions by robbing the public coffers blind to reward his friends and eventually line his own pockets.
That is just the definition of "politician".
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It's such a shame that he's not allowed to use his antiquated religious dogma to reject and condemn his own daughter
It is indeed. We have never endured a more strictly enforced moral imperative in this society. When a father cannot chastise his own daughter for a lifestyle that he undoubtedly disapproves of for fear of being publically attacked for having 'immoral' thoughts there is no doubt our society is in extreme trouble.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When a father cannot chastise his own daughter for a lifestyle that he undoubtedly disapproves of for fear of being publically attacked for having 'immoral' thoughts there is no doubt our society is in extreme trouble.
Perhaps is just none of his fucking business
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
Just criticizing his position as intolerant which, frankly, is the very definition of intolerance.
Red Stateler wrote:
Just criticizing his position as intolerant which, frankly, is the very definition of intolerance.
So by that definition, you're the most intollerant person in the Soapbox.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When a father cannot chastise his own daughter for a lifestyle that he undoubtedly disapproves of for fear of being publically attacked for having 'immoral' thoughts there is no doubt our society is in extreme trouble.
Perhaps is just none of his fucking business
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps is just none of his f****ing business
How very secular-progressive of you.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
you wish to believe that a society that condemns and ostracizes those who express moral revulsion at homosexuality is an improvement over one that formally did the same to homosexuality itself
Oh, right. I forgot about all those crimes against gay-bashers. How they get fired from their job, kicked out of the military, beaten by cops and the like.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How sanctimonious of you.
:laugh:
oilFactotum wrote:
Oh, right. I forgot about all those crimes against gay-bashers. How they get fired from their job, kicked out of the military, beaten by cops and the like.
Again, if that is your belief, I have no problem with it. But it still represents a moral world view, and one that has become so pervasive and well established that even a vice president of the US dare not defy it. If you are comfortable with that particular flavor of moral authoritarianism than I guess you've come to the right place.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Oh, right. I forgot about all those crimes against gay-bashers. How they get fired from their job, kicked out of the military, beaten by cops and the like.
Again, if that is your belief, I have no problem with it. But it still represents a moral world view, and one that has become so pervasive and well established that even a vice president of the US dare not defy it. If you are comfortable with that particular flavor of moral authoritarianism than I guess you've come to the right place.
A virtual fence for the virtual borders of a virtual nation.
What moral authoritarianism? It's not against the law to call someone a faggot. There is no equivalence between being shamed for calling someone a faggot and being murdered because you are gay. So, I am quite comfortable with that. You seem think that freedom means you can exclude anyone from society that you don't like. That's not mine, and I don't mind that we don't have it that way.