Oh that, yup I do. So does most everyone else than works for a living only to have their efforts robbed from them to cover those that can not be bothered.Spark wrote:
you know what i mean. a weak, unprincipled and overly "bendable" society.lowing wrote:
flappy wrist society?Spark wrote:
yes look at all those flames, personal attacks and insults i've made in this thread.
you know, for someone who rails against a flappy-wrist society you seem to complain a lot.
Not speaking of this thread alone Spark.
err lowing i think i know what background i come from and what political orientation i have, thank youlowing wrote:
If that were true, you would not be pro-Islam, a religion that is clearly against everything conservatives believe.Uzique wrote:
hahaha who's supposed to be a liberal? you accuse everyone of that
im old-money old-value english conservative. classical political liberalism, as in individualism... yes. american 'liberalism', hell fucking no.
You would also be able to form a consistant argument, rather than try and argue you are right because I am stupid.
however, I have not seen such a post from you as of yet
you are making the fundamental christian-american mistake (one that is uniquely christian-american) of conflating your moral, virtuous compass with your political affiliation and ideologies. i am a conservative politically, economically and socially... that has nothing to do with my moral rationality. just because of my political beliefs and the way i think my country should be run, that has nothing at all to do with my stance on islam or any other religion, creed, race or collective. morality is separate from politics in most countries. im not a bleeding heart liberal. i just dont hate every muslim in the world because a few extremists crashed a plane in a building several years back.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Nor do I .........I hate Islam, a difference that has been thoroughly explained to youUzique wrote:
err lowing i think i know what background i come from and what political orientation i have, thank youlowing wrote:
If that were true, you would not be pro-Islam, a religion that is clearly against everything conservatives believe.Uzique wrote:
hahaha who's supposed to be a liberal? you accuse everyone of that
im old-money old-value english conservative. classical political liberalism, as in individualism... yes. american 'liberalism', hell fucking no.
You would also be able to form a consistant argument, rather than try and argue you are right because I am stupid.
however, I have not seen such a post from you as of yet
you are making the fundamental christian-american mistake (one that is uniquely christian-american) of conflating your moral, virtuous compass with your political affiliation and ideologies. i am a conservative politically, economically and socially... that has nothing to do with my moral rationality. just because of my political beliefs and the way i think my country should be run, that has nothing at all to do with my stance on islam or any other religion, creed, race or collective. morality is separate from politics in most countries. im not a bleeding heart liberal. i just dont hate every muslim in the world because a few extremists crashed a plane in a building several years back.
Since your morality should fall in line with your polical orientation. IE conservative beliefs should define conservative action via politics and law. You are yet again displaying inconsistency. But hey that coupled with insults pretty much defines your existence in this forum, so no big surprise there.
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 10:22:25)
morality shouldnt fall in line with political orientation... if you werent from the inherently puritan founded america then you would understand this. im not inconsistent, just my morality and sense of virtue and the concept of 'right' and 'wrong', 'us' and 'them' is not tied to my political leaning and views on political matters. you cant understand this viewpoint, and it seems insults are the only things that even come close to scratching that impregnable 'rock' of yours. try and see other peoples' perspective even a little, jesus. im telling you my political stance and im explaining why it isnt tied to my morality, from a british background. this isnt inconsistency and intellectual uncertainty, it's just that im from provincial england, you're from backwater hicksville. you're not gonna understand the levels of sophistication that comes with rationality, impartiality and open-mindedness.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you really think insults affects me in the slightest? All it does is prove you uncapable of debating using an argument and defending it.Uzique wrote:
morality shouldnt fall in line with political orientation... if you werent from the inherently puritan founded america then you would understand this. im not inconsistent, just my morality and sense of virtue and the concept of 'right' and 'wrong', 'us' and 'them' is not tied to my political leaning and views on political matters. you cant understand this viewpoint, and it seems insults are the only things that even come close to scratching that impregnable 'rock' of yours. try and see other peoples' perspective even a little, jesus. im telling you my political stance and im explaining why it isnt tied to my morality, from a british background. this isnt inconsistency and intellectual uncertainty, it's just that im from provincial england, you're from backwater hicksville. you're not gonna understand the levels of sophistication that comes with rationality, impartiality and open-mindedness.
As for the rest, bullshit.
If your moral compass points north, then your political leanings, your desired implimentation of laws, should also point north, not south.
I am a conservative, I want laws reflecting that ideology. To be conservative then endorse ideology that makes laws going against those beliefs is inconsistent as well as down right foolish.
jesus... personal MORALS appertaining to islam, religion, sexuality, etc. not LAWS
morals =/= law
the extent to which 'popular' morality should be enforced in law should be ALWAYS debatable, otherwise you live in a society with little freedom
im making a very simple point here and it's completely lost on you
so much for being "uncapable" of debating
morals =/= law
the extent to which 'popular' morality should be enforced in law should be ALWAYS debatable, otherwise you live in a society with little freedom
im making a very simple point here and it's completely lost on you
so much for being "uncapable" of debating
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
We are not speaking of popular morality, only yours. and your desire for certain laws for society should be reflected in your view point.Uzique wrote:
jesus... personal MORALS appertaining to islam, religion, sexuality, etc. not LAWS
morals =/= law
the extent to which 'popular' morality should be enforced in law should be ALWAYS debatable, otherwise you live in a society with little freedom
im making a very simple point here and it's completely lost on you
so much for being "uncapable" of debating
you are saying it is not, this makes you not only inconsistent but quite foolish in your "morality"
What you are telling me, is your morality is not reflected in your desire to see your morality prevail through law.. It is ridiculous.
no, no its not. libertarianism. personal rights. the public and the private. i do not wish to see my morality and my perspective on the world imposed or codified upon other people, or the masses at large. i do not discriminate or take an entire view against 'islam' as a multi-faceted worldwide religion because of the actions of an extremist few. it seems absurd that i have to repeatedly explain this to you in ever more simplified and terse terms. keyword: 'open-mindedness'. as i said, only in america are your personal belief systems so closely affiliated and inseparably tied to your political party and alignment. that sort of single-minded unilateralism doesn't exist in england, or europe as a whole.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
uzi just give up. he'll start picking on words and skew them in a bit, at which point he'll stop answering even direct questions and go off on a tangent.
typical conservative hypocrisy.
typical conservative hypocrisy.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
it just kinda defies belief that he cant even see, or try to understand for a nanosecond, that other people look at the world through a different framework and series of lens/filters to him. to him everything is black and white, and i really dont understand how somebody with such a clear fervor for 'debate', or rather being an argumentative insistent cock, can view the world without gradient. nothing is black/white in reality, but lowing constantly argues about very real issues and topics with such a penchant for absolutism and extreme radicalism. there's just no leeway, haha.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Islams' teachings, and actions taken in its name, go hand in hand period.
Fuck "open-mindedness", regarding Islam, It is a relgion that is not open minded, tolerant or moral. I am not to be bothered to accept, rationalize, justify or understand such teachings, or practices in the name of PC. Nor welcome them into a society that clearly does not hold to the same morality.
If you are a conservative as you claim, you would not be either.
Also, your morality and your political leanings are not relegated only to Islam. I am speaking of every aspect of life. You claim your morality coupled with others of like mindedness should not be reflected in our laws, and that is as stupid as it gets.
Fuck "open-mindedness", regarding Islam, It is a relgion that is not open minded, tolerant or moral. I am not to be bothered to accept, rationalize, justify or understand such teachings, or practices in the name of PC. Nor welcome them into a society that clearly does not hold to the same morality.
If you are a conservative as you claim, you would not be either.
Also, your morality and your political leanings are not relegated only to Islam. I am speaking of every aspect of life. You claim your morality coupled with others of like mindedness should not be reflected in our laws, and that is as stupid as it gets.
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 12:51:08)
Nope I do not do that. I simply hold you to your words. If that is uncomfortable, word your posts better, say what yuo mean, and mean what you say.FatherTed wrote:
uzi just give up. he'll start picking on words and skew them in a bit, at which point he'll stop answering even direct questions and go off on a tangent.
typical conservative hypocrisy.
I know they do, and it is this new found entitled point of view, and accepting of ideals that will set our society backwards instead of forwards that I hold a negative opinion about.Uzique wrote:
it just kinda defies belief that he cant even see, or try to understand for a nanosecond, that other people look at the world through a different framework and series of lens/filters to him. to him everything is black and white, and i really dont understand how somebody with such a clear fervor for 'debate', or rather being an argumentative insistent cock, can view the world without gradient. nothing is black/white in reality, but lowing constantly argues about very real issues and topics with such a penchant for absolutism and extreme radicalism. there's just no leeway, haha.
it's not "as stupid as it gets" though, lowing. the fact that public-sphere morality is so over-involved in politics and law-making is one of the serious political criticisms of democratic america. this is hardly an inconsistency in my logic... look back 200 years and read some tocqueville for christ's sake. my moral personal view on muslims has nothing to do with the public dealings of my state, nor would i wish it to in my choice of political party. it's a blurring and a mixing of principles that should never occur; political ideology and the pragmatics of running a state should not mix with the personal views, actions and beliefs of the individual in their private capacities. that's a fundamental tenet of a proper 'democracy' that claims to promote 'liberty', in my view. because that is the very definition of 'liberty'. simple as. you say "as stupid as it gets" from your puritanical american background, some weird collectivist-community mentality where the distinction and core fundament has been badly lost and/or polarized.lowing wrote:
Walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Islams' teachings, and actions taken in its name go hand in hand period.
Fuck "open-mindedness", regarding Islam, It is a relgion that is not open minded, tolerant or moral. I am not to be bothered to accept, rationalize, justify or understand such teachings, or practices in the name of PC.
If you are a conservative as you claim, you would not be either.
Also, your morality and your political leanings are not relegated only to Islam. I am speaking of every aspect of life. You claim your morality coupled with others of like mindedness should not be reflected in our laws, and that is as stupid as it gets.
religions in themselves may not be 'open-minded' or outward looking institutions, but that doesn't mean i should relegate my own intellectual integrity and ability by being similarly closed-minded in regards to them. i see religions for what they are - and it is my personal moral choice and personal belief that looks upon all forms of religion with disdain - but, and this is what im talking about - i do not believe my state should act in any way to discriminate or incite against a certain religion. islam in my open-minded, honest view is no more narrowminded and antagonistic towards society than any other religious institution... christianity, judaism, scientology... whatever. they're all looking out for themselves at the end of the day and i dont believe PERSONALLY that it is congruous with a coexistent and peaceful multicultural society. however, that is a personal, moralistic DIGRESSION. when it comes to matters of the state, the public sphere, and the collective whole and its 'approach' to a religion such as islam, i think it should be impartial, open-minded, accepting, tolerant and rational. no matter whether you PERSONALLY find 'x' or 'y' religion to exhibit such qualities. rise above and all that. to refer this back to the main topic, i think the articles you listed and the original OP are just examples of bullshit sensationalism, more of an economic cash-in on popular paranoia than an actual representation of a real, tangible and pressing threat. as i said from my first post, there will be no amphibious assault on london. it's bullshit and the only reason it gains any plausibility at all is because ignorant or fearful people have had such a warped mentality since 9/11. puritanical american unilateralism, western media, neocon bush doctrine etc. are things that have only worsened this situation. this is the 'situation' which i talk about when i say your worldview is affected by a series of 'filters' and biases. the one that we here as a people in england do not share.
i really cannot make it any simpler. i havent meticulously chosen my words perfectly, but if you want to twist my meaning through semantics, then that's your prerogative. semantic debates are the domain of the weak-minded; if you want to lower the quality of D&ST any further through such a pedantic pursuit, feel free. you're only fooling yourself with any 'victory' or 'points proven' through such a means.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Nope Israel would seek to continue to expand to the biblically promised borders, taking Gaza, the West Bank and parts of Egyot, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.lowing wrote:
If left alone Israel would stay in peace and seek peaceful commerce with their nieghbors.
Israel was created through terrorism and violence against peoples who had done the jews no harm.
Historically they haven't been all that aggressive, nothing compared with the US.If Israel were destroyed Islamic and Arab nations would simply turn their agression elsewhere.
This is your problem lowing, you seem to think ME violence is solely because arabs and moslems are violent nasty people, when the opposite is the case.
Violence in the ME, which has spilled over into America, is the result of historical Western imperialism and the imposition of Israel on the area.
These people defend themselves just as aggressively as any american would or would expect their govt to, and isn't it americans who say the best defense is offense?
Saying Islam is the problem is just mindlessly parroting Israeli and christian-extremist propaganda without putting any effort into really analysing what is going on.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-24 15:41:21)
Fuck Israel
who just karma'd that post? come on, what's the point in d&st anonymity... i understand it in EE, but here it's nice to build constructive debate and to feed off or oppose one another's opinions! damn karma snipers
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
DesertFox-Uzique wrote:
who just karma'd that post? come on, what's the point in d&st anonymity... i understand it in EE, but here it's nice to build constructive debate and to feed off or oppose one another's opinions! damn karma snipers
Well, I do that. I very, very rarely sign my karma just for the purpose that I don't expect it back as some do.
All I can say is.........bullshit.Uzique wrote:
it's not "as stupid as it gets" though, lowing. the fact that public-sphere morality is so over-involved in politics and law-making is one of the serious political criticisms of democratic america. this is hardly an inconsistency in my logic... look back 200 years and read some tocqueville for christ's sake. my moral personal view on muslims has nothing to do with the public dealings of my state, nor would i wish it to in my choice of political party. it's a blurring and a mixing of principles that should never occur; political ideology and the pragmatics of running a state should not mix with the personal views, actions and beliefs of the individual in their private capacities. that's a fundamental tenet of a proper 'democracy' that claims to promote 'liberty', in my view. because that is the very definition of 'liberty'. simple as. you say "as stupid as it gets" from your puritanical american background, some weird collectivist-community mentality where the distinction and core fundament has been badly lost and/or polarized.lowing wrote:
Walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Islams' teachings, and actions taken in its name go hand in hand period.
Fuck "open-mindedness", regarding Islam, It is a relgion that is not open minded, tolerant or moral. I am not to be bothered to accept, rationalize, justify or understand such teachings, or practices in the name of PC.
If you are a conservative as you claim, you would not be either.
Also, your morality and your political leanings are not relegated only to Islam. I am speaking of every aspect of life. You claim your morality coupled with others of like mindedness should not be reflected in our laws, and that is as stupid as it gets.
religions in themselves may not be 'open-minded' or outward looking institutions, but that doesn't mean i should relegate my own intellectual integrity and ability by being similarly closed-minded in regards to them. i see religions for what they are - and it is my personal moral choice and personal belief that looks upon all forms of religion with disdain - but, and this is what im talking about - i do not believe my state should act in any way to discriminate or incite against a certain religion. islam in my open-minded, honest view is no more narrowminded and antagonistic towards society than any other religious institution... christianity, judaism, scientology... whatever. they're all looking out for themselves at the end of the day and i dont believe PERSONALLY that it is congruous with a coexistent and peaceful multicultural society. however, that is a personal, moralistic DIGRESSION. when it comes to matters of the state, the public sphere, and the collective whole and its 'approach' to a religion such as islam, i think it should be impartial, open-minded, accepting, tolerant and rational. no matter whether you PERSONALLY find 'x' or 'y' religion to exhibit such qualities. rise above and all that. to refer this back to the main topic, i think the articles you listed and the original OP are just examples of bullshit sensationalism, more of an economic cash-in on popular paranoia than an actual representation of a real, tangible and pressing threat. as i said from my first post, there will be no amphibious assault on london. it's bullshit and the only reason it gains any plausibility at all is because ignorant or fearful people have had such a warped mentality since 9/11. puritanical american unilateralism, western media, neocon bush doctrine etc. are things that have only worsened this situation. this is the 'situation' which i talk about when i say your worldview is affected by a series of 'filters' and biases. the one that we here as a people in england do not share.
i really cannot make it any simpler. i havent meticulously chosen my words perfectly; if you want to lower the quality of D&ST any further through such a pedantic pursuit, feel free. you're only fooling yourself with any 'victory' or 'points proven' through such a means.
For a democracy, I have my ideals coupled with like minded ideals as to how better serve society. Liberals have theirs. When the majority leans one way, as in now, entitement, the political pendulum swings to that end. When these like minded fools are booted out of office the pendulum swings the other way and an attempt will be done to repair the damage.
You maintain that you are a conservative, yet feel your views and opinions have no place in society or politics. that is absurd to say the least. Our laws and government are based on those very moral judgements that you do not feel should be imposed on others.
you feel a sense of equality for all Americans yet feel no sense of responsibility for outlawing beating your wife because a religion allows it, and you do not want to impose? You are full of shit. Sorry. Our morality IS how we are governed. 60 years ago our morality allowed us to keep the black population down, as our morality changed so did our laws. Do not tell me individual morality has no place in politics. Individual morality, collectively is what govt. and politics should be about
," but if you want to twist my meaning through semantics, then that's your prerogative. semantic debates are the domain of the weak-minded"
As far as this bullshit^^^^^^^. I find it ironic and funny coming from a person who throws more insults than anything else during debate.
I twist nothing, you say it, I read it, and answer it. If you meant something else, then say something else.
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 16:45:57)
Hmmmmmm we were not in Afghanistan, or Iraq in 2001.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope Israel would seek to continue to expand to the biblically promised borders, taking Gaza, the West Bank and parts of Egyot, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.lowing wrote:
If left alone Israel would stay in peace and seek peaceful commerce with their nieghbors.
Israel was created through terrorism and violence against peoples who had done the jews no harm.Historically they haven't been all that aggressive, nothing compared with the US.If Israel were destroyed Islamic and Arab nations would simply turn their agression elsewhere.
This is your problem lowing, you seem to think ME violence is solely because arabs and moslems are violent nasty people, when the opposite is the case.
Violence in the ME, which has spilled over into America, is the result of historical Western imperialism and the imposition of Israel on the area.
These people defend themselves just as aggressively as any american would or would expect their govt to, and isn't it americans who say the best defense is offense?
Saying Islam is the problem is just mindlessly parroting Israeli and christian-extremist propaganda without putting any effort into really analysing what is going on.
Again, never said Arabs and Muslims are violent nasty people, although they could use some deodorant. I said Islam is a violent and intolerant religion. Of which there is hardly any proof otherwise given its laws and its teachings and actions committed in its name
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 16:53:07)
well lowing that was probably the weakest response i have ever seen in d&st to an actually decent and structured argument
you completely overlooked my primary point, that being that american and british society/life is evidently very different
stop calling the way we think "bullshit"; you are obviously hopelessly bias when it comes to islam and arab culture, and have that endearingly unique american worldview. if my way of thinking and doing things was "bullshit", then i'd be the one annexing arab states and pre-emptively toppling docile dictators.
you completely overlooked my primary point, that being that american and british society/life is evidently very different
stop calling the way we think "bullshit"; you are obviously hopelessly bias when it comes to islam and arab culture, and have that endearingly unique american worldview. if my way of thinking and doing things was "bullshit", then i'd be the one annexing arab states and pre-emptively toppling docile dictators.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you are exactly right, I am biased against intolerance and inequality. IE Islam.Uzique wrote:
well lowing that was probably the weakest response i have ever seen in d&st to an actually decent and structured argument
you completely overlooked my primary point, that being that american and british society/life is evidently very different
stop calling the way we think "bullshit"; you are obviously hopelessly bias when it comes to islam and arab culture, and have that endearingly unique american worldview. if my way of thinking and doing things was "bullshit", then i'd be the one annexing arab states and pre-emptively toppling docile dictators.
Here is a news flash for you, England is in Iraq and Afghanistan right next to us. I know, I dined with them.
As far as being different, yup we are, we are free, you are under surveillance at every step. and guess why? terrorism
not sure how to respond to someone who says they have a moral compass pointing north but feels govt. and laws should point south......Bullshit is the only thing that comes to mind
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 16:51:13)
it's not a north + south thing. i just dont think they should interfere. perhaps sometimes they will align. my point is that it shouldnt be an alignment induced or forced because of an overlapping of private liberty with public sphere politics. very simple political principle im underlining here; in renaissance terms and classical philosophy they'd call it 'democracy'. you should look it up. back when 'liberal' meant something that all democracies required and should aspire to, before it became some gash byword in your puerile petulant american political boxing ring.
also, nothing but "lol" at the assertion that we're surveilled at every step. the patriot act goes far beyond anything that scotland yard has on us.
also, nothing but "lol" at the assertion that we're surveilled at every step. the patriot act goes far beyond anything that scotland yard has on us.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Already gave an example, your moral compass points toward tolrance and equality, yet feel govt. should not "interfere" in someone elses compass pointing toward intolerance and inequality ( IE ISLAM) IN YOUR COUNTRY. Sorry, you are full of shit.Uzique wrote:
it's not a north + south thing. i just dont think they should interfere. perhaps sometimes they will align. my point is that it shouldnt be an alignment induced or forced because of an overlapping of private liberty with public sphere politics. very simple political principle im underlining here; in renaissance terms and classical philosophy they'd call it 'democracy'. you should look it up. back when 'liberal' meant something that all democracies required and should aspire to, before it became some gash byword in your puerile petulant american political boxing ring.
also, nothing but "lol" at the assertion that we're surveilled at every step. the patriot act goes far beyond anything that scotland yard has on us.
the patriot act spies on terrorists, not the public. They new the route the train bombers took 5 minutes after it happened, why? they pulled the tapes. Sorry again, you are more under big brothers looking glass than we are.
I also use the term liberal in the context of the day. I didn't invent it
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-24 17:03:11)
lowing, for fuck's sake, you dense cunt
i am not "full of shit" because i dont think islam points towards intolerance and inequality. that's your, YOUR, bias inference and assumption.
i have a generic disdain for religion but that's as far as the discriminative criticism goes. personally i'd sooner see all religions banned than any specific one. but i dont want my state or the public policies of my nation to dictate such a thing, because it invades the private liberties that every individual is entitled to. there's something scarily dangerous about the prospects of a person such as yourself with such a muddled sense of political philosophy (classically speaking) getting into power. the neocons are basically a contemporary-historical example. frightening shit.
i am not "full of shit" because i dont think islam points towards intolerance and inequality. that's your, YOUR, bias inference and assumption.
i have a generic disdain for religion but that's as far as the discriminative criticism goes. personally i'd sooner see all religions banned than any specific one. but i dont want my state or the public policies of my nation to dictate such a thing, because it invades the private liberties that every individual is entitled to. there's something scarily dangerous about the prospects of a person such as yourself with such a muddled sense of political philosophy (classically speaking) getting into power. the neocons are basically a contemporary-historical example. frightening shit.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/