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
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.
-
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[^]
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
-
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization. It is not the foundation.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It is one of the foundations of Western civilization
I'm pretty sure Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite et al think that Mount Olympus deserves the credit for being the religion of the founding fathers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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.
I don't deny there are some people catering to segments of the population for their vote. This could be union workers, white, black, or whatever. Aren't conservitives supposed to be for less government and not more? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Stan Shannon wrote:</div>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</blockquote> Take Homeland Security. I asked my congressman to get me some information on it and he sent me an org chart, and some other stuff. There is something like 25-30 people that are basically management positions to it. This is more government.
-
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
-
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
-
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.
kumpm wrote:
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.
Actually, that isn't true. We live in a constitutional Republic. One of the most important characterisitics of the original design, the defining characteristic in fact, was that those powers not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution belonged to the states and to the people - collectively.
kumpm wrote:
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.
Not true at all. In fact, if the original government had worked the way the current government does, it would have been virtually impossible to change any of the original social 'precedence'.
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.