NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality
-
And here's where you can see what a super web designer he is: http://home.sprintmail.com/~tdhailey/index.htm
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Site needs plug-ins - nope, I'm not installing additional plug-ins just to see *his* website. But from what I can see, its awful. OT CP is so damned slow at the moment. I tried to edit my post before your response but CP just kept me waiting and waiting and I finally gave up. Don't know what Maunder and his team are doing but this site is getting almost unusable. Might be a bloody lot quicker to use pigeon post. :mad: Not only that but my post has vanished. I'm sure I didn't hit the delete key...
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Why does the thought of same sex relationships bother you?
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Hatred is bred from fear, and fear from self realisation of weakness.
You do realize that statement is logically indefensible don't you? Did you actually go to school to learn that or did you read it on a blog somewhere?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Should not we all become tolerant and accepting of people, working in peace and harmony regardless of their orientation/sexuality/sex/gender/colour/beliefs/politics etc.
We have always done that. That is, until someone came along with a new moral imperative that they claimed the moral authority to force upon everyone else.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Or should we continue to be divisive and obedient to book thumping, intolerant, biased, politico/religious bigots?
Thats up to you, Dave. You are the bullying moral bigot in this scenario insisting that your views are better than everyone else's. Marriage has always been pretty much a male-female kind of a deal. Why does that bother you so much?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What would a racist or a homophobe gain by being a conservative?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
- Tolerance is important, without it we become a judgemental, corrupt society, layered by how much of mainstream dogma we approve. 2) It is mine alone, and not logically indefensible. Where do you think hatred comes from? 3)
Stan Shannon wrote:
We have always done that
Er, where were you during the History Lesson? Slavery, has been with us for 1000s's of years. It is even approved of in that bible thing. Antisemitism has been in Europe for 1000's of years too. The first use of the word Holocaust was when the Jews were banished from Britain in the 1300's. South Africa's Apartheid System? yes very tolerant, or do you agree with all these? 4) I did not state my views were more important, merely that I had them and a right to them. I can argue my views logically without resorting to 'Moral Argument' or dogmatic obedience.
------------------------------------ We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop
Dalek Dave wrote:
- Tolerance is important, without it we become a judgemental, corrupt society, layered by how much of mainstream dogma we approve. 2) It is mine alone, and not logically indefensible. Where do you think hatred comes from?
Sorry, Dave, but all you are doing is creating a new moral imperative called 'tolerance' which encompasses exclusively a pre-determined set of behaviors which you think we should be tolerant of. It is no different than any form of judgementatlism baseed upon any other kind of moral imperative. You have achieved nothing. It is simply a new bunch of people telling another bunch of people that they suck. You simply through throw about emotionally charged accusations such as 'hatred' and 'weakness' to make your own moral imperative sound somehow superior to others. Oh, and btw, I think it is laughable for you to claim that the statement is 'yours alone'. Is it a bizarre conincidence that that same statmeent is repeated by every liberal on the planet? Come on, fess up, where did you get it from?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Er, where were you during the History Lesson? Slavery, has been with us for 1000s's of years. It is even approved of in that bible thing. Antisemitism has been in Europe for 1000's of years too. The first use of the word Holocaust was when the Jews were banished from Britain in the 1300's. South Africa's Apartheid System? yes very tolerant, or do you agree with all these?
As long as you have civilization, you are going to have one group of people telling some other group of people how they are going to behave, otherwise your civilization will degrade into anarchy. We have always been tolerant of those things we are told we are supposed to be tolerant of.
Dalek Dave wrote:
- I can argue my views logically without resorting to 'Moral Argument' or dogmatic obedience.
As a matter of fact, you can't. No more so than any other moral absolutist.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:01 AM
-
What would a racist or a homophobe gain by being a conservative?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
The question stands, Jon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Site needs plug-ins - nope, I'm not installing additional plug-ins just to see *his* website. But from what I can see, its awful. OT CP is so damned slow at the moment. I tried to edit my post before your response but CP just kept me waiting and waiting and I finally gave up. Don't know what Maunder and his team are doing but this site is getting almost unusable. Might be a bloody lot quicker to use pigeon post. :mad: Not only that but my post has vanished. I'm sure I didn't hit the delete key...
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But from what I can see, its awful
It is a site any six year-old would be proud of.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Don't know what Maunder and his team are doing but this site is getting almost unusable
It went totally off-line last night (my time) although I guess it came back up in time for Ileitis to spew forth some more trash. I was thinking that maybe Mumbai University handed out take-home midterms yesterday; that would explain the slowness, n'est-ce pas?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Not only that but my post has vanished
You probably know you can edit a message deleted post if you wish
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I assumed from you Constant harping on about this subject it was close to your heart.
Ilion likes a wide stance, that's all. You shouldn't read too much into it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Ilion likes a wide stance
Is that so he can more easily fit his head up his arse?
-
And here's where you can see what a super web designer he is: http://home.sprintmail.com/~tdhailey/index.htm
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I saw a documentary once on a guy that designed gas chambers and electric chairs for the government to execute people with where he went to Germany to prove that the gas chambers never existed. He did this at the request of some skin head organization to prove the Holocaust never happened. Needless to say he wasn't very popular back in the states afterward. I think he moved to Canada. I've met people like that before. I guess you can act logical, but not make it part of your being.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But from what I can see, its awful
It is a site any six year-old would be proud of.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Don't know what Maunder and his team are doing but this site is getting almost unusable
It went totally off-line last night (my time) although I guess it came back up in time for Ileitis to spew forth some more trash. I was thinking that maybe Mumbai University handed out take-home midterms yesterday; that would explain the slowness, n'est-ce pas?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Not only that but my post has vanished
You probably know you can edit a message deleted post if you wish
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It is a site any six year-old would be proud of.
But *he* looks a lot older than 6, unless that's his *mental age* (bet he calls me all sort of names now :laugh: )
Oakman wrote:
You probably know you can edit a message deleted post if you wish
Done that
Oakman wrote:
explain the slowness
I'm tempted to say to some people, here is my GTalk address, chat there. Its bound to be quicker in almost every respect and I've never experienced problems using GTalk unlike MSN Live Messenger.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Why does the thought of same sex relationships bother you?
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Hatred is bred from fear, and fear from self realisation of weakness.
You do realize that statement is logically indefensible don't you? Did you actually go to school to learn that or did you read it on a blog somewhere?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Should not we all become tolerant and accepting of people, working in peace and harmony regardless of their orientation/sexuality/sex/gender/colour/beliefs/politics etc.
We have always done that. That is, until someone came along with a new moral imperative that they claimed the moral authority to force upon everyone else.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Or should we continue to be divisive and obedient to book thumping, intolerant, biased, politico/religious bigots?
Thats up to you, Dave. You are the bullying moral bigot in this scenario insisting that your views are better than everyone else's. Marriage has always been pretty much a male-female kind of a deal. Why does that bother you so much?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The question stands, Jon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists. Then... Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks_n_139725.html[^]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
In the first paragraph of The mysterious forces of civilizations[^] - a challenge ... I've tried to prove the fact that the foundation of all civilizations is religion. So far no one has come to disproof this fact. Indeed, the initial inspiration behind all civilizations in the history of the world is driven from some foundational interpretation of religion. It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations. These historic civilizations all have certain things in common. But would we be as poor as we are most likely to become http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1227848400&en=5a50becfbe5bac73&ei=5087%0A[^]
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
:laugh: Up with Jeebus!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations!!! Without Christianity we would all be leftist, Marxist, fascist, anti-Jeffersonian, homosexual, Muslim, non-racist libertarians!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations
It is the foundation of western civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the fuck's your problem?
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
Because it is the foundation of all civilizations
It is the foundation of western civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization. It is not the foundation.
-
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists. Then... Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks_n_139725.html[^]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
wolfbinary wrote:
Okay so if I understand this right your saying that racists or homophobes can't be conservatives because "Conservatism, by definition, is a political philosophy free of extremism of any kind." and that racists and homophobes are extremists.
Not quite. The point is that conservatism as a political principle does not lend any more power to one belief than it does to another. A racist does not gain anything by being a conservative. There may be plenty of racist conservatives, but being a conservative does not empower those people to implement a racist political agenda. Conservatism seeks to decentralize political power which inherently weakens any group with an agenda which they wish to promote. Those with extremist agendas are naturally going to affiliate themselves with political philosphies predicated upon the centrlization of power into the hands of some kind or ruling elite so that the agenda can be actualized by means of concentrated political power.
wolfbinary wrote:
Explain to me how Republicans such as Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss are conservative when they say things like "The other folks are voting," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/chambliss-the-other-folks\_n\_139725.html\[^\]. Aren't statements like this racists and by your definition extreme and not conservative?
I know absolutely nothing about Chambliss. But no, I don't see how what he is doing is any more extreme or racist than is the other side purposfully trying to get the black vote. How is it any different? There is clearly far more racial pressure in our society for black people to vote for democrats then there is for white people to vote for republicans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
In the first paragraph of The mysterious forces of civilizations[^] - a challenge ... I've tried to prove the fact that the foundation of all civilizations is religion. So far no one has come to disproof this fact. Indeed, the initial inspiration behind all civilizations in the history of the world is driven from some foundational interpretation of religion. It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations. These historic civilizations all have certain things in common. But would we be as poor as we are most likely to become http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/economy/26fed.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1227848400&en=5a50becfbe5bac73&ei=5087%0A[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is undisputable fact and also most fascinating to learn that each major world religions --Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-- has given birth to great civilizations.
But it is as easy to say that each great civilization has given birth to a major religion. Conversion at the point of a sword has long been a revered tradition in the Judeo/Christaic/Muslim world. Certainly if the divine right of kings is one of the foundations of your family's reign, it is helpful to have something divine around to worship. It's interesting that he skips all the major world religions that expected human sacrifice. Huitzilopochtli, for instance, certainly commanded as many followers as Jehovah.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic. Now for social precedence, if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.