Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
You just attribute everything to God, don't you?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
In the sense that he is the creator and ultimate source of everything, yes. Who do you attribute everything to I wonder?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
Just where are you getting this "understanding" of God from?
From God, what other source would be more trustworthy. He who swears by himself because there is no higher name by which to swear, who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, who's word is like a two edge sword sharp enough to separate the soul from the marrow. There is no one like him and no other to compare to him. His word is truth, he testifies to it. The whole universe was brought into being by his word and holds together by his authority. To him the nations are but a drop in a bucket and yet he has known me and loved me since before the foundation of the world and he has humbled himself, and become a man, lived among us and suffered and died so that all the just punishment my sin deserves may be placed on him and I may be free and enter into the eternal life he is preparing for me. More than this he has defeated death through his resurection becoming the firstborn from among the dead so that I may have confidence that neither life nor death nor angels nor demons nor powers or authorities in heaven or on earth can ever separate me from the love of God. This is the good news, a summary of parts of it anyway, and if I speak with authority then that authority is not my own but is given to me for a purpose, may that purpose be fullfilled. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That appears to be straight from the Christian Bible… I also asked how you would know you're not being fed "corrupt" information.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Your modified statements only hold true because you think there is a god. They do not hold true for me. Here are the problem points:
- "God is what not you think it is, he is. That's even the name he gives himself, 'I am' If you think there is a God then you're right." There is an example of an individual's perception of God.
- "Marriage is an institution invented by God not an abstract concept. It is God's opinion. If God agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has one definition not many. Everyone has their own definitions but they done not carry any authority. God word is law." —assuming that there is a God, or that the person reading it believes that's exactly what God mandates.
You're not arguing from a common point of view. You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're not arguing from a common point of view.
No, why should I if I believe the 'common' point of view to be wrong.
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
No, I'm arguing with the assumption that God exists and that he is as he reveals himself to be. I have stated this many times. It is no more or less provable than the assumption of the athiest that God does not exist but it is a great deal more useful as the consequences of the positive assumption fit all the evidence without distortion or double meaning or contradiction. In order to make your arguments you have to believe that your reality and my reality can be completely contrary and yet co-existant, this is insane by definition as it mandates an irrational universe. No argument on this basis can be valid in logic as it denies itself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong
Whew ok at least I now understand what you were saying. However you are attempting to prove your POV by claiming the dominion of right and wrong. In debate you can't just make claims you must also provide proof. You also claim the intent of our quoted unalienable rights passage, however there is not a shred of evidence that the founders were limiting freedoms to things that weren't wrong. If that was their intention why did they not write it? "Life Liberty and the pursuit of things that are right", see it's not that difficult, I'm sure they could have figured it out. The only fact in evidence is that they did not write ANYTHING OF THE SORT, period. You have no facts to support your argument, period. Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
Not so I showed that the logical consequence of broadening the interpretation of freedoms to the extent you propose would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry, among dozens of others by the other founding fathers. On the reasonable assumption that they were not in such an important document spouting illogical rubbish in contradiction of their own stated beliefs then broadening the intepretation of freedoms to the extent you propose cannot have been their intent, or in fact to any extent beyond 'things that are right' as this amounts to the same thing. That they did not take account of people so morally deprived that they would try to assert a right to do wrong on the basis of this document only goes to show that they lived in a better time than we do, amongst more civilized people and such a though never occured to them. There is my proof by argument based on the well known historical record of the character and statements of the people involved. If that didn't hold sway in a debate it would only be because the jury wasn't up to it or someone had a better argument. The floor is yours.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
modified on Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:46 PM
-
That appears to be straight from the Christian Bible… I also asked how you would know you're not being fed "corrupt" information.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
I know because the Spirit of God that lives in me testifies to the truth of his own words. I cannot expect you to understand this but it remains an experienced fact. Only the Spirit can interpret the Word for only God can interpret God. Unless you have an understanding of theological concepts like salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit these things will likely not make sense to you. I could ask you how do you know you don't like the sensation of poking yourself in the eye with your toe. You just know because not liking pain is part of what we are. Well that's as close as I can get to an analogy. I know becuase the knowledge has become part of what I am.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
Not so I showed that the logical consequence of broadening the interpretation of freedoms to the extent you propose would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry, among dozens of others by the other founding fathers. On the reasonable assumption that they were not in such an important document spouting illogical rubbish in contradiction of their own stated beliefs then broadening the intepretation of freedoms to the extent you propose cannot have been their intent, or in fact to any extent beyond 'things that are right' as this amounts to the same thing. That they did not take account of people so morally deprived that they would try to assert a right to do wrong on the basis of this document only goes to show that they lived in a better time than we do, amongst more civilized people and such a though never occured to them. There is my proof by argument based on the well known historical record of the character and statements of the people involved. If that didn't hold sway in a debate it would only be because the jury wasn't up to it or someone had a better argument. The floor is yours.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
modified on Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:46 PM
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Not so I showed that the logical consequence
You claimed to show logical consequences. However you offered no evidence that your claimed belief was shared by the founding fathers. Your claimed logic is not evidence that proves the intent of the founding fathers. Unless you are claiming that you share a consciousness with them? "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry
No, I don't because the founding fathers did it for me: Patrick Henry sponsored a bill for a general religious assessment in 1784 ... James Madison, the leading opponent of government-supported religion, combined both arguments in his celebrated Memorial and Remonstrance. In the fall of 1785, Madison marshaled sufficient legislative support to administer a decisive defeat to the effort to levy religious taxes. In place of Henry's bill, Madison and his allies passed in January 1786 Thomas Jefferson's famous Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion. link[^]
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Not so I showed that the logical consequence
You claimed to show logical consequences. However you offered no evidence that your claimed belief was shared by the founding fathers. Your claimed logic is not evidence that proves the intent of the founding fathers. Unless you are claiming that you share a consciousness with them? "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry
No, I don't because the founding fathers did it for me: Patrick Henry sponsored a bill for a general religious assessment in 1784 ... James Madison, the leading opponent of government-supported religion, combined both arguments in his celebrated Memorial and Remonstrance. In the fall of 1785, Madison marshaled sufficient legislative support to administer a decisive defeat to the effort to levy religious taxes. In place of Henry's bill, Madison and his allies passed in January 1786 Thomas Jefferson's famous Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion. link[^]
led mike
To complete the details if they're not obvious to you. I showed that extending the interpretation of freedoms or liberty beyond what is right amounted to interpreting the statement as complete license as it then contains no limiting factors whatsoever. It becomes the right to 'do as you will' - the creed of the Devil. Total license is contrary to the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" and also to the principle of having a law and a constitution in the first place. The founding fathers in genral and Patrick Henry in particular would therefore never have signed up to anything they understood as being interpretable as giving total license. Such an interpretation is proved invalid by its contradiction of the stated principles, morals and attitudes of those who wrote the document and by the historical evidence of their belief in such in their lives. I don't share a conciousness with them but I do share an understanding of the difference between freedom and license drawn from the same word of God specifically mentioned in the quote I gave. Patrick Henry was certainly not week on freedom, remember it is he who said "but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" and also "Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Could such a man put his signature to a declaration of universal license?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
To complete the details if they're not obvious to you. I showed that extending the interpretation of freedoms or liberty beyond what is right amounted to interpreting the statement as complete license as it then contains no limiting factors whatsoever. It becomes the right to 'do as you will' - the creed of the Devil. Total license is contrary to the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" and also to the principle of having a law and a constitution in the first place. The founding fathers in genral and Patrick Henry in particular would therefore never have signed up to anything they understood as being interpretable as giving total license. Such an interpretation is proved invalid by its contradiction of the stated principles, morals and attitudes of those who wrote the document and by the historical evidence of their belief in such in their lives. I don't share a conciousness with them but I do share an understanding of the difference between freedom and license drawn from the same word of God specifically mentioned in the quote I gave. Patrick Henry was certainly not week on freedom, remember it is he who said "but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" and also "Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Could such a man put his signature to a declaration of universal license?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as it then contains no limiting factors whatsoever.
garbage. it has built in limitations based on equality which their actual words, not any fabricated extrapolation but their exact words ( so facts ), clearly states.
led mike wrote:
We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
"end" that word describes a limit does it not? So your statement "contains no limiting factors whatsoever" is false, period.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Could such a man put his signature to a declaration of universal license?
As we have cleared up, it is no universal license, so your question is invalid. But yes he did put his signature on what it actually says. Not what you claim to know, and can't prove, what he thought, period. Maybe he thought it should say "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness except for butt fucking" but you can't prove that's what he thought so you're just talking trash, period. One things for sure based on our countries history and the actual statements we have from the founding fathers. In 1776 they were unanimous in their passionate quest for freedom. But it didn't take long for the power to start corrupting. The revolution ended in 1783 and in 1784 Henry was trying to establish a governmental religion. We have been in a battle ever since.
led mike
-
The same way slavery got there, through the oppression of few for the benefit of few. It was wrong then, wrong now, period, end of story. As for citing history, the Roe decision cites common law on abortion and that abortion legislation was relatively modern. Also we already fought one war against isolationist ideals of some Americans. I guess you think you will win this time. Now you can get back to your dreams of the good old days of burning witches, inquisitions and slavery.
led mike
Spoken like a very nice guy. But it does not address the key issue. Were we not then a Jeffersonian society historically, but we are now? Clearly, somethng changed in our understanding of our own founding principles in a way that was not readily evident to the very people who actually wrote them. Is questioning the intellectual history behind those changes something that is not supposed to be done?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
In the sense that he is the creator and ultimate source of everything, yes. Who do you attribute everything to I wonder?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Who do you attribute everything to I wonder?
It's not necessary to attribute everything to something. That's why a supreme god is not necessary for me. You, however, need a god, because your reasoning necessitates that everything be tracable to a single-point origin.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're not arguing from a common point of view.
No, why should I if I believe the 'common' point of view to be wrong.
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
No, I'm arguing with the assumption that God exists and that he is as he reveals himself to be. I have stated this many times. It is no more or less provable than the assumption of the athiest that God does not exist but it is a great deal more useful as the consequences of the positive assumption fit all the evidence without distortion or double meaning or contradiction. In order to make your arguments you have to believe that your reality and my reality can be completely contrary and yet co-existant, this is insane by definition as it mandates an irrational universe. No argument on this basis can be valid in logic as it denies itself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I'm just asking that we argue from a common point, not for you to shed your beliefs. In case you were too busy to notice, the common point of view encompass both our shared views. You can draw yourself a venn diagram if that helps… I doubt our circles will not overlap.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as it then contains no limiting factors whatsoever.
garbage. it has built in limitations based on equality which their actual words, not any fabricated extrapolation but their exact words ( so facts ), clearly states.
led mike wrote:
We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
"end" that word describes a limit does it not? So your statement "contains no limiting factors whatsoever" is false, period.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Could such a man put his signature to a declaration of universal license?
As we have cleared up, it is no universal license, so your question is invalid. But yes he did put his signature on what it actually says. Not what you claim to know, and can't prove, what he thought, period. Maybe he thought it should say "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness except for butt fucking" but you can't prove that's what he thought so you're just talking trash, period. One things for sure based on our countries history and the actual statements we have from the founding fathers. In 1776 they were unanimous in their passionate quest for freedom. But it didn't take long for the power to start corrupting. The revolution ended in 1783 and in 1784 Henry was trying to establish a governmental religion. We have been in a battle ever since.
led mike
led mike wrote:
As we have cleared up, it is no universal license
On that I'm glad we agree.
led mike wrote:
limitations based on equality
A = B. Exactly how does that limit the possible values of either A or B, it does not. I have clearly established a straight forward logical argument based on what we have both agreed and you have said nothing to refute it. You fail most importantly to tackle the issue of whether the authors considered butt f***ing as right or wrong. No doubt this is because you don't see the importance of right and wrong to freedom and liberty whereas they did.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yep and at tens of thousands of which were gay. You think they weren't hoping that that they could become first class citizens?
They already were first class citizens.
Oakman wrote:
lets see, you don't like Indians, Blacks, homosexuals, people to the left of Richard Nixon - how do you feel about Asians?
How about an actual original argument? What have I ever said to imply that I don't like those people? I'm only saying that social problems should be dealt with in a Jeffersonian way, not a fascist way. Are there racist in Jeffersonian society? Of course. But there are also racist facists, Adolph Hitler for example. Neither philosophy has an exclusive appeal to racist sentiments. My problem with your ilk, is that you essentially want to employ the same basic political principles of Hitler to do good things. And no, I'm not calling you a Nazi. Fascism was created so that good people could do good things in a controlled centralized way because the common man simply could not be trusted to do such things in a decentralized way. Jeffersonian principles makes exactly the opposite claim, that good men can best assert themselves if they are not controlled by a centralized authority. That concept is classical, pre-Marxist, liberalism, and I believe in it and that does not make me a racist or a homophobe or anything else.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem with your ilk, is that you essentially want to employ the same basic political principles of Hitler to do good things.
You really are crazy. Hitler's political principles demanded world war, death camps and liebenstraum, but you're not calling anyone a Nazi. Right.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascism was created so that good people could do good things in a controlled centralized way
That's so silly you either invented it yourself, or got it from Goldberg. Hitler was a good man who wanted to do good things? Mussolini? The Klan and the Aryan Nation? I don't think so.
-
Spoken like a very nice guy. But it does not address the key issue. Were we not then a Jeffersonian society historically, but we are now? Clearly, somethng changed in our understanding of our own founding principles in a way that was not readily evident to the very people who actually wrote them. Is questioning the intellectual history behind those changes something that is not supposed to be done?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clearly, somethng changed in our understanding of our own founding principles in a way that was not readily evident to the very people who actually wrote them. Is questioning the intellectual history behind those changes something that is not supposed to be done?
I have no problem with that. But questioning it absent consideration for other things that have changed is a problem. Your view point is that our understanding of the principles is the only thing that has changed and therefore the only thing that should be considered. That's just not representative of reality.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
As we have cleared up, it is no universal license
On that I'm glad we agree.
led mike wrote:
limitations based on equality
A = B. Exactly how does that limit the possible values of either A or B, it does not. I have clearly established a straight forward logical argument based on what we have both agreed and you have said nothing to refute it. You fail most importantly to tackle the issue of whether the authors considered butt f***ing as right or wrong. No doubt this is because you don't see the importance of right and wrong to freedom and liberty whereas they did.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A = B. Exactly how does that limit the possible values of either A or B, it does not.
"values"? Please show me where the founders referred to values in that statement. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You are introducing a concept into the discussion that is completely absent from the original statement. Why do you think that is a valid debate tactic?
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem with your ilk, is that you essentially want to employ the same basic political principles of Hitler to do good things.
You really are crazy. Hitler's political principles demanded world war, death camps and liebenstraum, but you're not calling anyone a Nazi. Right.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascism was created so that good people could do good things in a controlled centralized way
That's so silly you either invented it yourself, or got it from Goldberg. Hitler was a good man who wanted to do good things? Mussolini? The Klan and the Aryan Nation? I don't think so.
You are totally confused about what fascism is. Fascism is simply 'National Socialism'. That is, socialism that rejects the 'internationalist' appeal of classical socialism and communism. Natoinal Socialist believe that all the institutions of a state should be dedicated to the improvement of the social conditions within that state. That are perfectly happy to work with capitalists, manufactureres etc as long as those institutions work in harmony with the stated goals of those who control the state.
oilFactotum wrote:
Hitler's political principles demanded world war, death camps and liebenstraum, but you're not calling anyone a Nazi. Right.
But that is not what made him a fascist. In fact, idealogically, Hitler was whatever was convieniet at the moment. He was really simply a lunatic madman without much in the way of political prniciples at all.
oilFactotum wrote:
Mussolini?
Mussolini was the classic fascist, but he was no racist. The Italian fascist movement was largly controlled by Jews early on. He was a great hero to western liberals from about the time of WWI until the beginning of WWII.
oilFactotum wrote:
The Klan
The klan obviouisly began as a species of Jeffersonian racism. But as our society has become increasingly facsist, they have done so also. That is the real problem lefties such as yourself refuse to acknowledge, that as you make the society more fascist, you drag groups such as the klan along with you.
oilFactotum wrote:
Aryan Nation
I really know nothing about what they believe in, but I suppose they are racist fascists. And, yes, I've largely gotten that from Goldberg. I've spent some time checking out his references, and they seem to hold up. Its a decent book even if not altogether well written. Its also a very important book. The left has gotten away for far too long with trying to hide its own intellectual genealogy. Its very attempt to control the historic debate is simply another example of its very fascist totalitarianism.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clearly, somethng changed in our understanding of our own founding principles in a way that was not readily evident to the very people who actually wrote them. Is questioning the intellectual history behind those changes something that is not supposed to be done?
I have no problem with that. But questioning it absent consideration for other things that have changed is a problem. Your view point is that our understanding of the principles is the only thing that has changed and therefore the only thing that should be considered. That's just not representative of reality.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I have no problem with that. But questioning it absent consideration for other things that have changed is a problem. Your view point is that our understanding of the principles is the only thing that has changed and therefore the only thing that should be considered. That's just not representative of reality.
But, mike, if it changed, than it changed. The question is, what were the intellectual influences that drove that change. Of course other things changed. But there were mechnisms designed into the process that were supposed to deal with such needed changes (amending the constitution to end slavery, for example). For example, if 30 years after fascist in Europe begin demanding 'strictly secular' schools, the US supreme court creates strictly secular schools in the US, is it really such a stretch to consider that their real rational was not some letter written by Thomas Jefferson, but to help institute a European style fascist state here in the US? When your society is clearly evolving in a direction far more similar to those with entirely different intellectual and social history, and changing from what it once was, it would at least seem prudent to be honest about where those intellectual influences are really comeing from and why they are being so energetically defended. I believe absolutely that all of the changes to our society over the 20th century were not some kind of attempt to modernize Jeffersonianism, which could have been modernized in ways purely consistent with its founding principles, but rather to displace it with the fascist principles that became so popular in Europe during the early decades of the last century.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A = B. Exactly how does that limit the possible values of either A or B, it does not.
"values"? Please show me where the founders referred to values in that statement. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You are introducing a concept into the discussion that is completely absent from the original statement. Why do you think that is a valid debate tactic?
led mike
You introduced equality, apparently as something limiting, as a relative measure it isn't. Why do you think that half a sentence taken out of context and repeated many times means anything at all. If you refuse to attempt to actually understand what was intended by what was written in the context of who wrote it, when and why and insist on every word used in a debate being derived by word games from one particular half sentence without reference to it context then you have no idea of a proper debate. You could equally well debate any random sequence of words from a dictionary and your conclusions would just as meaningless. It is one way of avoiding questions of course but not a very good one.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You are totally confused about what fascism is. Fascism is simply 'National Socialism'. That is, socialism that rejects the 'internationalist' appeal of classical socialism and communism. Natoinal Socialist believe that all the institutions of a state should be dedicated to the improvement of the social conditions within that state. That are perfectly happy to work with capitalists, manufactureres etc as long as those institutions work in harmony with the stated goals of those who control the state.
oilFactotum wrote:
Hitler's political principles demanded world war, death camps and liebenstraum, but you're not calling anyone a Nazi. Right.
But that is not what made him a fascist. In fact, idealogically, Hitler was whatever was convieniet at the moment. He was really simply a lunatic madman without much in the way of political prniciples at all.
oilFactotum wrote:
Mussolini?
Mussolini was the classic fascist, but he was no racist. The Italian fascist movement was largly controlled by Jews early on. He was a great hero to western liberals from about the time of WWI until the beginning of WWII.
oilFactotum wrote:
The Klan
The klan obviouisly began as a species of Jeffersonian racism. But as our society has become increasingly facsist, they have done so also. That is the real problem lefties such as yourself refuse to acknowledge, that as you make the society more fascist, you drag groups such as the klan along with you.
oilFactotum wrote:
Aryan Nation
I really know nothing about what they believe in, but I suppose they are racist fascists. And, yes, I've largely gotten that from Goldberg. I've spent some time checking out his references, and they seem to hold up. Its a decent book even if not altogether well written. Its also a very important book. The left has gotten away for far too long with trying to hide its own intellectual genealogy. Its very attempt to control the historic debate is simply another example of its very fascist totalitarianism.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascism is simply 'National Socialism'
No, it's not. You have fallen into the trap of seeing the words and not the actions. Using the word 'socialist' does not make one socialist or leftist. Here's a definition that an actual historian uses: Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, p. 218: Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. and: Paxton's nine "mobilizing passions" of fascism: -- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions; -- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it; -- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external; -- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences; -- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary; -- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny; -- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason; -- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success; -- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle. I find it interesting that your passions match very closely to these nine listed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that is not what made him a fascist.
No, that didn't make him a fascist, rather being a fascist led directly to these actions.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Mussolini ...was no racist.
So?
-
led mike wrote:
I have no problem with that. But questioning it absent consideration for other things that have changed is a problem. Your view point is that our understanding of the principles is the only thing that has changed and therefore the only thing that should be considered. That's just not representative of reality.
But, mike, if it changed, than it changed. The question is, what were the intellectual influences that drove that change. Of course other things changed. But there were mechnisms designed into the process that were supposed to deal with such needed changes (amending the constitution to end slavery, for example). For example, if 30 years after fascist in Europe begin demanding 'strictly secular' schools, the US supreme court creates strictly secular schools in the US, is it really such a stretch to consider that their real rational was not some letter written by Thomas Jefferson, but to help institute a European style fascist state here in the US? When your society is clearly evolving in a direction far more similar to those with entirely different intellectual and social history, and changing from what it once was, it would at least seem prudent to be honest about where those intellectual influences are really comeing from and why they are being so energetically defended. I believe absolutely that all of the changes to our society over the 20th century were not some kind of attempt to modernize Jeffersonianism, which could have been modernized in ways purely consistent with its founding principles, but rather to displace it with the fascist principles that became so popular in Europe during the early decades of the last century.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The question is, what were the intellectual influences that drove that change.
I just don't believe it's anywhere near that simple. What were the intellectual influences that drove emancipation? For one person, such as yourself, they might have great reflection on cultures and politics and philosophy and history and economics. However for another they might just see and/or think about human suffering of enslaved and very simply go, "umm that's just wrong". For the second individual there is no ulterior motive or consideration of things like governmental structures, societal cultures, and economic principles written hundreds of years before, they just don't care because it's just wrong, period.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I believe absolutely that all of the changes to our society over the 20th century were not some kind of attempt to modernize Jeffersonianism, which could have been modernized in ways purely consistent with its founding principles, but rather to displace it with the fascist principles that became so popular in Europe during the early decades of the last century.
That may be the result and even some people, like yourself may think in those terms. However for many more such as myself I really don't care what Jefferson thought in 1790. I can assimilate temporal information like that fact that he was a slave owner and we (well most of us) now understand that was just wrong, therefore nothing he said is unchallengeable. I don't need to be told by the 300 year old writings of some guy that has never seen a JET Liner or an ATM machine if slavery is right or wrong. I don't need to know and consider the differences between fascism and jeffersonianism or federalsim vs republicanism to know that slavery is wrong. Many people don't reflect on the so called principles devised and written about hundreds of years ago. We prefer to search for a modern approach to problem solving that, yes, can take into account historical observations on economics, culture, government, and philosophy, but not the exclusion of the fact that we live in a very Very different world today than they did.
led mike