Stop whining
-
led mike wrote:
- Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Sure, because that would be in response to someone "claiming moral superiority" not someone using the expression, right? But at least you answered and no I don't have any actual quotes so.... unless I find one or more ( I know they exist ) you have a legitimate complaint.
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm at a loss to even know what you're talking about.
sure you are
Red Stateler wrote:
The double standard is both indescribable and enlightening.
apparently being morally superior does not include being honest :rolleyes: Thanks for posting more of of your usual drivel that makes no attempt at answering my question... very honorable of you.
Red Stateler wrote:
Despite your attempts to paint Republicans as hypocritical
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
led mike
led mike wrote:
apparently being morally superior does not include being honest
One excludes the other.
led mike wrote:
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
:laugh: brilliant!
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
led mike wrote:
- Republicans in the Soapbox claiming moral superiority
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Red Stateler wrote:
We're now seeing a reemergence of eugenics (through the manipulation of embryonic life) in the west which atheists find perfectly acceptable through flimsy morals.
Red Stateler wrote:
Secularists have, by rejecting the concept of sin altogether, found themselves wallowing in it since they're unable to distinguish virtue and vice. They lack guidance and simply have no concept of good and evil. The left will continue to refuse to recognize their influence on the decline of western civilization simply because they are unable to recognize what their actions entail.
I know there is much much more but I do not intend to look further for what any reader of the Soapbox knows only too well. While looking I found a thread with you and John Carson a few weeks back that I had missed. It was .... interesting...
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a fundamental disagreement I have with modern political systems in general. That is why I am opposed to the Libertarians. If you have civilization, you have tyranny. It simply cannot be avoided. Even if your civilization only has one law "You cannot spit on the sidewalk" - all those who wish to spit on the sidewalk live in a tyranny, they are being deprived of doing something they wish to do. Laws against murder are tyranny to those who wish to murder, etc. Civilization is about controlling the behavior of people in some way. So your example of what adults do in their bedroom is meaningless. We exert all kinds of control over what people do in their bedrooms. What you want to establish is a standard of "no harm". Well, fine. But some power still has to dictate the definition of an adult, the definition of 'consent', the definition of 'private' the defintion of 'harm'. Some source of authority has to define those things. We don't allow an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in a private bedroom or not. That is a completely arbitrary form of tyranny which cannot be avoided - there has to be a line that we are not allowed to cross. Who are you to tell me that two men having anal sex in their bedroom does me no harm? If I feel harmed, thats my call, and if my community feels the same way, who should have the power to force us to accept your definition of harm?
"If I feel harmed" ... wow ... whatever...
led mi
-
Dont talk to this infadel, One day he will be begging you for a drop of water on his tounge when he is burning in hell! :rolleyes:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have never heard anyone but a leftist use the expression "moral superiority".
Sure, because that would be in response to someone "claiming moral superiority" not someone using the expression, right? But at least you answered and no I don't have any actual quotes so.... unless I find one or more ( I know they exist ) you have a legitimate complaint.
led mike
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Yeah I know... "you feel harmed" by what other people do in the privacy of thier homes. Yeah I know... we have laws about 18 year old and 17 year old. Yes we have an arbitrary line of 18 where we put the "children" and have laws to protect them. I have two questions about that: 1) How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home? 2) Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
led mike
-
Frankly, the left seems far more committed to implementing a moral agenda than the right does. All the right wants is to have an equal voice in defining morality for our society. The left wants an exclusive right to define it. Just consider abortion or gay rights, the conservatives are far more compromising on those issues than the left is. The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
It's a strange quirk of human nature. Those oh-so-nuanced persons who decry/denounce the concept of objective truth (or morality, or ..., etc) tend to be absolutists, especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
-
Yeah I know... "you feel harmed" by what other people do in the privacy of thier homes. Yeah I know... we have laws about 18 year old and 17 year old. Yes we have an arbitrary line of 18 where we put the "children" and have laws to protect them. I have two questions about that: 1) How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home? 2) Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
led mike
led mike wrote:
How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home?
Because that is how the country was intentionally designed to work - social policies in the hands of the people at the local level.
led mike wrote:
Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
Who gets to define "child"?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I just went back to see what he has posted since last night, so I'd know what to vote as spam the next time round, and most of his messages have been removed. :doh:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
David Wulff wrote:
I just went back to see what he has posted since last night, and most of his messages have been removed.
:laugh: Oh, how thoughtful! You just can't get enough. I'll bet you want more goodies. :laugh:
See subject.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
led mike wrote:
How is a law defined to protect children compare with you wanting a law because you feel harmed by what the consenting adult couple 2 blocks down the street are doing in the privacy of their home?
Because that is how the country was intentionally designed to work - social policies in the hands of the people at the local level.
led mike wrote:
Don't you think we have proof beyond a doubt that children need protection from adult predators?
Who gets to define "child"?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
So now we are back to not answering questions? You were the one that made that comparison and now you can't explain it? NO forget "can't" you don't even try, you purposely avoid the questions, just like the whore politicians we all complain about.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The lefties are the true moral absolutists in our society.
It's a strange quirk of human nature. Those oh-so-nuanced persons who decry/denounce the concept of objective truth (or morality, or ..., etc) tend to be absolutists, especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
-
Ilíon wrote:
especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
WTF are you talking about? Stan is always advocating doing exactly that! :omg::wtf: Oh it's ilion.... never mind
led mike
-
Ilíon wrote:
especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
WTF are you talking about? Stan is always advocating doing exactly that! :omg::wtf: Oh it's ilion.... never mind
led mike
-
Ilíon wrote:
especially when they're in a position to force or bully others to bend to their wills.
WTF are you talking about? Stan is always advocating doing exactly that! :omg::wtf: Oh it's ilion.... never mind
led mike
-
See subject.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
David Wulff wrote:
See subject.
Huh? The subject of your post was empty. :confused: Just as its author is. :laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
:confused:
At least you are prepared to admit it now. That is the first step to dealing with any problem.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Ilíon wrote:
:confused:
At least you are prepared to admit it now. That is the first step to dealing with any problem.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk