Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
Post: #1  Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject: The Mainstream, or Fundamentalist Left |
  |
|
|
There seems to be a prevailing thought that exists today that those who support the radical views of the left are vastly superior in intelligence and intellect than those who support the conservative right. Knowledge gained in the pursuit of higher education is considered to be irrefutable and unquestionable. Traditional or conservative ideology is viewed as just ignorant remnants of the antiquated and irrelavent past. It is assumed that this ideology is adhered to only by the uneducated and ignorant masses.
Education is of course, a highly valuable commodity. New thought is both necessary and inevitable, but simply dismissing old thought without realistic, scholarly justification is establishing a dangerous course. Unless one demonstrates a willingness to consider all arguments from all points of view, and is willing to consider the preponderance of evidence that currently exists, one will soon become a new member of the new, old school of thought. Those who obtain higher education but fail to become independent thinkers do not have anything of substance to offer current or future generations. Those who would choose to disregard the ethics and morality of the past where there is no scientific or political support, in favor of a more permissive, liberal stance that exists without concern for dire future ramifications and social consequences, are putting future generations in great peril of the destruction of the soul as well as of society at large.
With science and political factions on their side, the radical left has totally abandoned God in favor of a godless society which has been replaced by a scientific and political social elitism that demands adherence from dissenters not only in law, but in spirit. There has been a social movement towards the extreme left by those who have shunned the rigidity and unwaivering stubbornness of the extreme right due to the extreme rights’ refusal to question anything of traditional and historical significance; regardless of its’ current moral implications and usefulness. This same group is now retreating from the radical extreme left after having been met with the same amount of resistance, disdain and intolerance that has traditionally been expected from those of the extreme right. It is no longer enough to indicate a mere willingness to show tolerance, but rather acceptance of the radical views of leftist thinking is mandated and coerced. Rather than hearing cries of protests from God fearing Christians and moralists who base their beliefs in the old teachings and old ways of the old world, they are hearing the hysterical rantings and ravings of pseudo-intellectuals who support the radical views of the new, empowered left based on their idolatry and worship of the chief proponents of that societal segment. In reality this new left is merely uttering the words of the new age scientists and politicians who want to control them and enslave them to their authoritarian, worldly view. These authoritarians do not want to remove God, they wish to replace Him.
Ask any pro-lifer why they feel they have the right to remove and destroy a living human being who is safely residing in the womb in which it has been created, and they will say it is the right of the woman to decide the fate of the unborn. It is her right because it is her body. No argument will be made for the rights of the unborn because it has been wisely ordained by law that the mother’s rights must take precedence over the rights of the unborn. Never mind that the arrogant, narrow minded, self- proclaiming demigods of the courts have had the audacity to decide they are now both the lawmakers and the interpreters of the law. It is deemed to be only natural that the rights of animals are given greater protection than the rights of the unborn. After all, we have evolved from the animals, and we are no better.
Ask a Darwinist why he refuses to consider the possibility that an Intelligent Designer is behind the creation of man, and he will indignantly reply that this indisputable theory is supported by the all knowing, infallible scientist. The scientist has proclaimed God is no longer necessary. The Darwinist will expound on the fact that the teachings of Darwinism, and the rejection of Creationism, has been righteously ordained by the all knowing, infallible political powers that be. Any scientist who dares to attack the mainstream scientist who adheres to the 150 year old ravings of an angry man who needed a means to elevate himself above the ordinary masses while at the same time removing the superior Deity who ruled over him, is a Bible thumping Neanderthal. That the attacks against Darwinism are based on new discoveries and advances made in both fields of science and anthropology rather than dogmatic views of the Bible is not really the issue. How dare anyone take the power and authority away from science in favor of a view which purports that we just don’t have nearly enough scientific evidence to theorize how life began. How dare they allude to the fact that life appears to have benefitted from the workings of an Intelligent Designer.
Ask anyone who supports the rights of gays why, instead of showing our willingness to respect the rights of an individual without supporting the philosophy, it is now expected that we not only tolerate, but openly embrace and accept an open display of affection and the sexual practices of those who commit acts which once were considered crimes against nature. You will be met with both ridicule and disdain for refusing to relinquish your useless beliefs and ridiculous sense of morality.
I know my views are politically incorrect and will be highly offensive to the mainstream left. I realize there are many who will say that I am close minded and ignorant for daring to oppose their immoral, godless views on life which are supported by the immoral, godless scientists and politico factions. It does not matter since I have never felt offended when an idiot calls me an idiot. At least I still have the ability to reason and think for myself. I am a creature of God, and I possess a God given free will. This is true independence and empowerment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjkeeley
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 616
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
There is a lot of hyperbole in this post and a lot of generalising. I get where you are coming from, but I think you need to focus on specifics, rather than getting worked up over the supposed antics of some sort of caricature of the cultural left.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Those who would choose to disregard the ethics and morality of the past where there is no scientific or political support, in favor of a more permissive, liberal stance that exists without concern for dire future ramifications and social consequences, are putting future generations in great peril of the destruction of the soul as well as of society at large. |
What specifically about liberal permissiveness is putting future generations at risk? Permissiveness of what exactly?
| JPhillips wrote: |
| It is no longer enough to indicate a mere willingness to show tolerance, but rather acceptance of the radical views of leftist thinking is mandated and coerced. |
Could you please give an example?
| JPhillips wrote: |
| ...new age scientists... |
What does this mean? Scientists in combi vans wearing tie-die shirts?
| JPhillips wrote: |
Ask a Darwinist why he refuses to consider the possibility that an Intelligent Designer is behind the creation of man, and he will indignantly reply that this indisputable theory is supported by the all knowing, infallible scientist. The scientist has proclaimed God is no longer necessary. The Darwinist will expound on the fact that the teachings of Darwinism, and the rejection of Creationism, has been righteously ordained by the all knowing, infallible political powers that be. |
This part is a straw-man argument par excellence. I tip my hat to you, sir.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Ask anyone who supports the rights of gays why, instead of showing our willingness to respect the rights of an individual without supporting the philosophy, it is now expected that we not only tolerate, but openly embrace and accept an open display of affection and the sexual practices of those who commit acts which once were considered crimes against nature. You will be met with both ridicule and disdain for refusing to relinquish your useless beliefs and ridiculous sense of morality. |
I know the theme of this post is about trying to show how unreasonable leftist indignation is, but this part doesn't seem that ridiculous to me. Of course you're going to get ridiculed if you cling to the idea that homosexuality is a crime against nature. It's an untenable position. It only ever held sway because in the past, when prejudice was deeply ingrained, it was difficult to bring attention to how ridiculous people's prejudice really was. Now, thankfully, such dissent isn't suppressed. How is homosexuality a crime against nature? It occurs in nature (ergo, natural). It harms nobody (ergo, not a crime). Why is there still a problem with it? The left isn't turning morality on its head to suggest that something which has no moral consequences ought to be permitted and accepted. That's just common sense. Prejudice isn't wrong because it's old fashioned, it's wrong because it doesn't make sense.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| I realize there are many who will say that I am close minded and ignorant for daring to oppose their immoral, godless views on life which are supported by the immoral, godless scientists and politico factions. |
Not because you oppose them, but I do think you are close-minded for arguing against a vague caricature of the left, rather than against specific claims and giving reasons to support your views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanabe
Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 2014
Location: EVERYWHERE
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
This really should be in the politics section, that aside.
Hyperbole is my favorite!
The problem is not that the old ways are wrong, but so few understand them with the depth required to remain logically or reasonably competitive. If you speak to a high priest and a scientist about an issue they could both be considered experts in; or simply on questions of life, they would both have very useful/practical things to say.
The difference between the new(left) and the old(right) is that the new has cataloged and made procedure out of their beliefs and made their facts available in a communicable fashion. Where as the old has been doing what it has been doing for eons, appoint authority figures and force people to listen out of respect for authority and not teach people to think for them self.(this is why authority can be considered a fallacy).
| JPhillips wrote: |
Unless one demonstrates a willingness to consider all arguments from all points of view, and is willing to consider the preponderance of evidence that currently exists, one will soon become a new member of the new, old school of thought.
|
That is something individuals on both sides do. The intelligent ones do listen.
No one has abandoned god just the name they call him we all have faith in something.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Rather than hearing cries of protests from God fearing Christians and moralists who base their beliefs in the old teachings and old ways of the old world, they are hearing the hysterical rantings and ravings of pseudo-intellectuals who support the radical views of the new, empowered left based on their idolatry and worship of the chief proponents of that societal segment. |
I want you to reread the above and realize that there are fanatics on both sides, for at root, similar reasons.
On the issue of the unborn. Having a legal right to do something does not make it right morally. Most women I know would be greatly saddened by killing their child, but recognize that for better or worse there is more to being alive today than biological readiness. It is a fact we are not in the old world, if the old ways wish to remain they must adapt.
It's a bit like insisting to use a boat to travel to another continent when there is the ability to use a plane. Vise versa refusing to use boats all together because there are planes.
Anyone who calls them self a "Darwinist" is safe to call a fanatic. Science does not attempt to eliminate god, but explain what he may or may not have created, it is the epitome of open mindedness in its ideal state. You can't blame science for the acts of fanatics. That is like blaming religion for the Holocaust or terrorism.
As for the rights of people, that are gay, this is such a trivial matter, it's about peoples personal choice. If there was not resistance against it; it would hardly be noticed at all. Here is my take, homosexuals can not reproduce, but can care for children greatly. This means that they will adopt...(unless they are rich and pay to have- and this only works for females presently, to have their "dna mixed" I don't know the name for the process but two females can have a kid with their dna)...and adoption increases the quality of life. Now you can't say because they are gay that it is better than living as an orphan, there is nothing natural or loving about being raised by a bureaucracy. If there is truly a right/respect to life then homosexual parents should be irrelevant (what if a lesbian couple was raped then what, make their children orphans). Again reduces population in the long term and give children a good home, solves two major problems.
Political correctness is not correct.
The root of the problem you have identified, it is that many people do not think for them selves. Difference is not the enemy.
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Those who would choose to disregard the ethics and morality of the past where there is no scientific or political support, in favor of a more permissive, liberal stance that exists without concern for dire future ramifications and social consequences, are putting future generations in great peril of the destruction of the soul as well as of society at large. |
#1
I cut out this bit because I do so agree.Too many people are too apathetic for us to get us out of the trouble we are in, and even the poor futures for our descendents dont seem to make a difference to the apathetic ones. Politicians, even the less selfish ones, are over concerned with vote-catching. We have been wasting ourselves in over consumption of natural resources
despite the lessons of the past that natural resources are finite.I say 'wasting ourselves' because the phrase has undertones of wasting souls. I am glad that at long last many main-stream churches have understood that green morality is too important not to be given a prominent place within the core values of Christianity.
But there are many people for whom this message of responsibility for the environment, let alone responsibility towards other people has never penetrated their consciousnesses. Today I am especially aware that Union Carbide has never cleaned the land and waters around Bhopal where people still suffer and die because some rich people thought it was okay to disregard responsibility to fellow men, women and children where local people were poor slum dwellers. Twenty five years later the ruins of the factory, even the faulty storage tank, still stand as for twenty five years they have stood, just a bit dustier. The surrounding waters are still poisoning generations of local people.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: Re: The Mainstream, or Fundamentalist Left |
|
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
| It does not matter since I have never felt offended when an idiot calls me an idiot. |
That's it, JP! Then since wisemen know they are idiots, you then call that idiot wise which makes you also wise and proves that the real idioicy is the Idiocy of Hatred for idiots!
Which is the key problem on the left as adopted from the right: Hating those with whom they disagree!
All the left and the evolutionists and etc did was switch their sexual-preference or belief-preference without changing their attitude of Hate which they learned from the right and religionists and etc.
So we have to love them and be patient with both sides to teach them to love selves as right and left, creationist and evolutionist, as etc and non-etc.
Then they will like you:
| JPhillips wrote: |
....have the ability to reason and think for ..... |
themselves!
Thanx for the post! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reflected_light
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 196
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:16 pm Post subject: Tunnel Vision |
|
|
|
Phillips, why so bitter?
I can tell you one thing, many leftists practice religion and believe in god.
You are attacking a generalized and propogated form of leftism.
And your 'god given free will' is the greatest exploitation of all. What a farce.
You are a rat, running through mazes for treats just like the rest of us, you're just too dumb to see it. 
Phillips, we are all the same, when I call you an idiot I am calling myself an idiot too.
You should keep an open mind and find the good in the entire spectrum because the answer does not reside just in one spot, if it did we would have found it already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1559
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If a certain belief is "mainstream" and very commonly accepted, isn't it centrist not "radical" or leftist? Isn't a 'mainstream radical' an oxymoron?
I also disagree with the apparent claim that left-wing people are more prone than right-wing people to be close-minded, biased or insulting towards people who disagree with them. There are many close-minded people from both sides of the left-right political spectrum who are refuse to debate their views choosing to instead use name-calling, mockery and ad hominem arguments. There are also relatively open-minded and polite people from both sides who are willing to listen to the arguments made by those who disagree with them and respectfully debate their own beliefs, not just assume they are right about everything.
Most importantly, most people are politically independent or centrist. Neither the far right nor the far left are mainstream.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #8 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Mainstream, or Fundamentalist Left |
|
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
| There seems to be a prevailing thought that exists today that those who support the radical views of the left are vastly superior in intelligence and intellect than those who support the conservative right. |
Statistically, this does seem to be true, but only by standards of intelligence which we have a way to measure statistically in the first place. Also, it depends pretty heavily on what you're measuring to be "left" and "right." For example, statistically, someone with your political positions is more likely to be below the opponent position holders in intelligence, whereas someone with whitetrshsoldier's political positions is more likely to be above the opponent position holders (i.e. communists) in intelligence. (Source)
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Knowledge gained in the pursuit of higher education is considered to be irrefutable and unquestionable. |
I don't know anything that I consider to be irrefutable, unquestionable, and yet also taught to me in school. In fact the very definition of "learning" implies, to me, that the object of it is refutable and questionable.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| simply dismissing old thought without realistic, scholarly justification is establishing a dangerous course. |
Only hippies (and only some of them) throw out ideas just because they're old. Good, general science classes proceed historically; showing why this old theory still holds up, why this theory needs modification, etc. It isn't just that the old theory is old, it's about evidence.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Those who would choose to disregard the ethics and morality of the past where there is no scientific or political support, in favor of a more permissive, liberal stance that exists without concern for dire future ramifications and social consequences, are putting future generations in great peril of the destruction of the soul as well as of society at large. |
This sentence hurts me in a number of ways, but I think most of these have already been addressed.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| With science and political factions on their side, |
Science is not allied with the political left.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| It is no longer enough to indicate a mere willingness to show tolerance, but rather acceptance of the radical views of leftist thinking is mandated and coerced. |
Impossible. I have argued that you should accept, for example, the equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality. This is a reasoned, ethical stance; I cannot coerce you to accept it, but that doesn't stop me from believing that you ought to. Allowing homosexual marriage does not mandate that you accept the equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality; the equality of races is written into law, but we do not hunt down racist clubs for persecution either.
| JPgillips wrote: |
| In reality this new left is merely uttering the words of the new age scientists and politicians who want to control them and enslave them to their authoritarian, worldly view. These authoritarians do not want to remove God, they wish to replace Him. |
lol. I don't know anyone like this.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Ask any pro-lifer [pro-choicer]... No argument will be made for the rights of the unborn because it has been wisely ordained by law that the mother’s rights must take precedence over the rights of the unborn. |
I always make my argument on the basis of ethics, not of current law. Hence your generalization is false.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Ask a Darwinist why he refuses to consider the possibility that an Intelligent Designer is behind the creation of man, and he will indignantly reply that this indisputable theory is supported by the all knowing, infallible scientist. |
******** on two counts: You call me a Darwinist, but I openly and frequently consider the possibility of ID. I also do not refer only to the popularity of my views; I refer to the evidence for my views. Hence your generalization is false.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| The scientist has proclaimed God is no longer necessary. |
********. There are plenty of theist scientists, including myself. I am amazed that I can personally be the exception to all of the above generalizations. Perhaps you should choose your stereotypes better.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| Ask anyone who supports the rights of gays why, instead of showing our willingness to respect the rights of an individual without supporting the philosophy, it is now expected that we not only tolerate, but openly embrace and accept an open display of affection and the sexual practices of those who commit acts which once were considered crimes against nature. |
Yes, God forbid that some philosophies might be wrong! No one should be able to question anybody else; that's the true nature of tolerance! [/sarcasm]
| JPhillips wrote: |
| You will be met with both ridicule and disdain for refusing to relinquish your useless beliefs and ridiculous sense of morality. |
So what, you're upset that people in the world disagree with you? If you met a racist person, would you or would you not challenge their beliefs by argument? If you met a person who believed the world was flat, same question. What about a person who believed they had the right to steal whatever they wanted? Etc.
| JPhillips wrote: |
| I realize there are many who will say that I am close minded and ignorant for daring to oppose their immoral... |
No, you are not closed-minded for daring to oppose anything; you would be closed-minded for refusing to think about other people's ideas on level ground with your own. You would be closed-minded for believing that anyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy to sequester your freedom. You would be closed-minded for believing that the evidence does not need to be considered, since your beliefs must be right. That just follows from what closed-mindedness is; you aren't closed-minded if you don't meet any of those parameters.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #9 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: The Mainstream, or Fundamentalist Left |
|
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
There seems to be a prevailing thought that exists today that those who support the radical views of the left are vastly superior in intelligence and intellect than those who support the conservative right. Knowledge gained in the pursuit of higher education is considered to be irrefutable and unquestionable. Traditional or conservative ideology is viewed as just ignorant remnants of the antiquated and irrelavent past. It is assumed that this ideology is adhered to only by the uneducated and ignorant masses.
Education is of course, a highly valuable commodity. New thought is both necessary and inevitable, but simply dismissing old thought without realistic, scholarly justification is establishing a dangerous course. Unless one demonstrates a willingness to consider all arguments from all points of view, and is willing to consider the preponderance of evidence that currently exists, one will soon become a new member of the new, old school of thought. Those who obtain higher education but fail to become independent thinkers do not have anything of substance to offer current or future generations. Those who would choose to disregard the ethics and morality of the past where there is no scientific or political support, in favor of a more permissive, liberal stance that exists without concern for dire future ramifications and social consequences, are putting future generations in great peril of the destruction of the soul as well as of society at large.
With science and political factions on their side, the radical left has totally abandoned God in favor of a godless society which has been replaced by a scientific and political social elitism that demands adherence from dissenters not only in law, but in spirit. There has been a social movement towards the extreme left by those who have shunned the rigidity and unwaivering stubbornness of the extreme right due to the extreme rights’ refusal to question anything of traditional and historical significance; regardless of its’ current moral implications and usefulness. This same group is now retreating from the radical extreme left after having been met with the same amount of resistance, disdain and intolerance that has traditionally been expected from those of the extreme right. It is no longer enough to indicate a mere willingness to show tolerance, but rather acceptance of the radical views of leftist thinking is mandated and coerced. Rather than hearing cries of protests from God fearing Christians and moralists who base their beliefs in the old teachings and old ways of the old world, they are hearing the hysterical rantings and ravings of pseudo-intellectuals who support the radical views of the new, empowered left based on their idolatry and worship of the chief proponents of that societal segment. In reality this new left is merely uttering the words of the new age scientists and politicians who want to control them and enslave them to their authoritarian, worldly view. These authoritarians do not want to remove God, they wish to replace Him.
Ask any pro-lifer why they feel they have the right to remove and destroy a living human being who is safely residing in the womb in which it has been created, and they will say it is the right of the woman to decide the fate of the unborn. It is her right because it is her body. No argument will be made for the rights of the unborn because it has been wisely ordained by law that the mother’s rights must take precedence over the rights of the unborn. Never mind that the arrogant, narrow minded, self- proclaiming demigods of the courts have had the audacity to decide they are now both the lawmakers and the interpreters of the law. It is deemed to be only natural that the rights of animals are given greater protection than the rights of the unborn. After all, we have evolved from the animals, and we are no better.
Ask a Darwinist why he refuses to consider the possibility that an Intelligent Designer is behind the creation of man, and he will indignantly reply that this indisputable theory is supported by the all knowing, infallible scientist. The scientist has proclaimed God is no longer necessary. The Darwinist will expound on the fact that the teachings of Darwinism, and the rejection of Creationism, has been righteously ordained by the all knowing, infallible political powers that be. Any scientist who dares to attack the mainstream scientist who adheres to the 150 year old ravings of an angry man who needed a means to elevate himself above the ordinary masses while at the same time removing the superior Deity who ruled over him, is a Bible thumping Neanderthal. That the attacks against Darwinism are based on new discoveries and advances made in both fields of science and anthropology rather than dogmatic views of the Bible is not really the issue. How dare anyone take the power and authority away from science in favor of a view which purports that we just don’t have nearly enough scientific evidence to theorize how life began. How dare they allude to the fact that life appears to have benefitted from the workings of an Intelligent Designer.
Ask anyone who supports the rights of gays why, instead of showing our willingness to respect the rights of an individual without supporting the philosophy, it is now expected that we not only tolerate, but openly embrace and accept an open display of affection and the sexual practices of those who commit acts which once were considered crimes against nature. You will be met with both ridicule and disdain for refusing to relinquish your useless beliefs and ridiculous sense of morality.
I know my views are politically incorrect and will be highly offensive to the mainstream left. I realize there are many who will say that I am close minded and ignorant for daring to oppose their immoral, godless views on life which are supported by the immoral, godless scientists and politico factions. It does not matter since I have never felt offended when an idiot calls me an idiot. At least I still have the ability to reason and think for myself. I am a creature of God, and I possess a God given free will. This is true independence and empowerment. |
You are right but you can see that resistance is strong.
It was always said that science is above corruption which is why this incomplete concept of evolution is so readily accepted.
Now with climategate, it is obvious that science is corrupt. No matter how much the elite huff and puff, this whole business of man made global warming is a sham for the purpose of redistribution of wealth and increased governmental control.
The emperor is naked regardless of how much his imaginry clothes are worshipped.
Why must there always be heavy naked emperors rather then naked gorgeous goddesses? No justice! But at least if you're willing to point out the emperors shortcomings so to speak it is at least partial compensation regardless of the growls. 
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #10 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:45 am Post subject: Fundamentalist Left |
|
|
|
Superiorr
Can't stand Beck, or Rush, or Bush. I lean more to the left politically.
Read all my other posts before you form an opinion of me.
I get heat from both the left and the right. That is the price you pay for being an independent thinker.
Alun
I never said I would oppose gay marriage. I have repeatedly said do what you want to do as long as you aren't hurting anybody else; just don't try to force your beliefs on me. I don't want homosexuals kissing in public. I do not want drug addicts shooting heroin in public. This violates my right.
I cannot believe you still insist homosexuality is normal. I could right pages upon pages of scientific evidence to show it is not. I am not wasting time on people who have already made up their mind.
Scott
Mainstream left was meant to imply the majority of the left.
Do you believe in the following principles?
The right to have abortion on demand
Republicans are all stupid and ignorant
The right to do drugs
The right to engage in prostitution
Homosexuals are just as normal as straight people
Darwinism is scientific fact
Religion is the root of all evil
There is no God and to believe in one is silly
Smart people are better than stupid people
Science will eventually answer every question known to man as there is nothing that exists outside the physical realm.
If all or most of these things describe you, then you are a mainstream leftist. You have all ready made up your mind that you are right. You have already made up your mind that you are smarter than anybody who disagrees with you on anything. You now just want to force it on us ignorant folk. It is no use trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I will no longer try.
Last edited by JPhillips on Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #11 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Fundamentalist Left |
|
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
| I never said I would oppose gay marriage. I have repeatedly said do what you want to do as long as you aren't hurting anybody else; just don't try to force your beliefs on me. I don't want homosexuals kissing in public. I do not want drug addicts shooting heroin in public. This violates my right. |
Do you have a problem if heterosexuals kiss in public? If not, why does it make a difference whether 'normal' people kiss or unusual people kiss? Do you have a right not to be disgusted?
| JPhillips wrote: |
| I cannot believe you still insist homosexuality is normal. |
What does "normal" mean, and why is it relevant? If you mean "statistically most common" then I agree, homosexuality is not normal. But then normalcy also has nothing to do with what people should be able to do in public. Should we frown on people for eating a burrito upside-down while playing checkers?
| JPhillips wrote: |
Mainstream left was meant to imply the majority of the left.
Do you believe in the following principles?
The right to have abortion on demand
Republicans are all stupid and ignorant
The right to do drugs
The right to engage in prostitution
Homosexuals are just as normal as straight people
Darwinism is scientific fact
Religion is the root of all evil
There is no God and to believe in one is silly
Smart people are better than stupid people
Science will eventually answer every question known to man as there is nothing that exists outside the physical realm.
If all or most of these things describe you, then you are a mainstream leftist. You have all ready made up your mind that you are right. You have already made up your mind that you are smarter than anybody who disagrees with you on anything. You now just want to force it on us ignorant folk. It is no use trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I will no longer try. |
This is ********. "Left" refers to a stance about policy regarding the economy--there is no way that the majority of leftists adhere to all of those ideas. Are you trying to say that the majority of politicians who align themselves with the left are either lying or in the minority?
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1559
|
| Post: #12 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The right to have abortion on demand
Republicans are all stupid and ignorant
The right to do drugs
The right to engage in prostitution
Homosexuals are just as normal as straight people
Darwinism is scientific fact
Religion is the root of all evil
There is no God and to believe in one is silly
Smart people are better than stupid people
Science will eventually answer every question known to man as there is nothing that exists outside the physical realm.
If all or most of these things describe you, then you are a mainstream leftist. |
Do you have any evidence that each of those statements is believed by the majority of leftists--such as a scientific poll?
I bet the majority of leftists do not think that "Republicans are all stupid and ignorant." I bet the majority of leftists do not think that "Science will eventually answer every question know to man." Nor would the vast majority of leftists think that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, assuming 'normal' is used in the sense that what is 9 times as common is more normal.
Your claim that the majority of leftists think "there is no God and to believe in one is silly," is patently false at least in the USA where 78% of democrats believe in god.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #13 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: Left |
|
|
|
Scott
I was not thinking of Democrats per se'. I vote Democrat sometimes and Republican sometimes, depending on the person. Right now, politically, I have to say I lean more towards the Democrat Party than Republican. I hold to the Christian view that the ones of us in position to do so, should help those who are less fortunate and unable to provide for themselves. I have written posts on my political beliefs.
Maybe I am over-reacting to all the hate I see on-line, on the news, and in my personal experiences. I see it from both sides of the spectrum. Maybe I am wrong about the number of people who adhere to those beliefs. I actually hope so.
The basis for all my arguments, when broken down to the core, is that we should act like Christians (in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the Church) even if we are not Christians in faith.
I was also saying that intelligence is vastly over-rated. God is concerned only with how we treat each other. Intelligent people who harm others are more offensive to me than those who cause harm due to ignorance and fear.
Some numbers that are encouraging.
78 percent of liberals believe in God
15 percent of population believe in Darwinism
On Abortion Issue:
| Quote: |
Just 40 percent took one of three pro-abortion positions and only 8 percent agreed with Barack Obama's position that abortions should be allowed any time during pregnancy for any reason.
Another 8 percent believed abortions should be allowed any time during the first 6 months of pregnancy and 24 percent say they should be allowed only in the first trimester.
The results showed the terms pro-life and "pro-choice" are confusing to a large percentage of Americans. Even though the survey found 60 percent of respondents took a pro-life position against all or most abortions, 50 percent of Americans called themselves "pro-choice" while 44 percent said they were pro-life.
In fact, the Marist poll found 5 percent of people who self-identified as "pro-choice" said abortions should never be permitted, 3 percent said only to save the life of the mother and 20 percent said only in cases of the life of the mother, rape or incest.
In other words, 28 percent of Americans who call themselves "pro-choice" actually take a pro-life position opposing 98 percent or more abortions.
The poll also revealed that only 15% of those describing themselves as "pro-choice" favored unrestricted abortion throughout a pregnancy as another 71 percent said they favored more abortion limits. |
Numbers not given for liberals vs. conservative on abortion issue.
It appears I made some stupid comments, at least as far as the numbers of atheists and Darwinists are concerned. Also it appears that there are a few people making a lot of noise and who ridicule God and who believe in Darwinism that do not have a huge support of backers according to numbers.
As to my allusion that liberals think they are smarter than conservatives, no numbers there but found an interesting article:
| Quote: |
Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives
Posted on Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12:29 PM by lbryce
What if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues? Who are smarter, liberals or conservatives? This is the kind of question that could spark fierce and endless debates between political opponents, but what if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?
Though few partisans on either side are likely to admit it, most people at one time or another have suspected that their political opponents are dim bulbs. Sometimes these sentiments get aired publicly, and both the Left and the Right have been guilty of leveling the “you’re stupid” accusation. Last summer, for example, conservative activists pushed the view that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then a nominee, is an intellectual lightweight who lacks the brainpower to be an effective justice.
But questioning the IQ of opponents is a specialty of liberals. When John Stuart Mill labeled British Conservatives “the Stupid Party” in the 19th century, he apparently started a long-term trend. Ronald Reagan, after all, was an “amiable dunce,” according to Clark Clifford and other Democrats. And when Vice President Dan Quayle told a 12-year-old student in a spelling bee that potato had an “e” at the end of it, Democrats milked the incident for all it was worth and then some. They even had the same student lead the Pledge of Allegiance at their 1992 convention.
Conclusion To reiterate, people who subscribe to non-traditional ideas probably have above-average intellects, but that does not mean other smart people will like those ideas. This is a point often lost on liberals who work in universities or in the news media. They observe, usually correctly, that friends and acquaintances in their social circle are smarter than the average (and likely more conservative) people they encounter on the street. But too many elites see this correlation between smartness and liberalism as somehow a validation of their political views. They seem unaware that the wider world features plenty of intelligent people who are not professors or movie critics or government bureaucrats. Even among the nation’s smartest people, liberal elites could easily be in the minority politically, but different social circles keep them insulated from finding that out. The result is a convenient but damaging political meme that circulates among some people on the Left—the belief that their opponents simply can’t understand what makes for good policy.
|
Overall, I tend to agree I have been overly cynical and should rethink some of this. I owe a lot of people an apology. However, this begs the question. If in spite of years of being subjected to teachings of Darwinism only 15 percent believe, why is it still being taught? I suppose the left I am talking about is the left that controls Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1559
|
| Post: #14 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Are you sure you are not confusing Darwinism with evolution?
[JPhillips, though I am off-topic to say this, your last post was particularly open-minded and, beyond that, self-critical to a degree that all of the rest of us can admire and aspire towards regardless of what side of any debate we fall. With that type of attitude, you have put me to shame at least. ]
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #15 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: Evolution |
|
|
|
Scott
You are right. They are not the same thing, are they?
So I googled again and found the following:
| Quote: |
VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM
God created humans in present form
51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
15%
|
Thanks for pointing that out.
As for your off topic remarks, thanks. However, I let my ego over-ride my intellect and I said hurtful things. Therefore, I deserve criticism, and certainly not praise. Obviously it is in my own best interests to apologize rather than to have others think I am that shallow, or that I feel no shame for saying hurtful things. Thanks again for your kind words, but I don't deserve admiration for apologizing when there is plenty of justification for others to expect am apology from me. Hopefully I will learn to step away from the situation and "cool off" before hitting the submit button, and avoid embarrassing myself in the future.
Self reflection can be painful, but sometimes pain is necessary for personal growth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
