Let's overthrow all the corrupt African governments and let the Church run things

[SubtleDagger]

Actually I probably didn't invent it, but it wouldn't hurt to popularize it. It applies Marx's materialism and amorality to the social sphere.

It's also a ridiculous and completely fallable analogy.
Yeah but the problem is my views have been challenged but not proven wrong. In fact, most everyone has conceded that homosexuality is sexually deviant.
Yes, but no one else is proposing they be segregated to their own country.
See now that makes me guess that you've never read the Bible, because if you did, you'd realize that's not part of the new covenant, and what you are saying is just as bad as the Islamophobes who claim that Mohammad told his followers to murder all non believers.
So you don't believe in anything in the Old Testament? Genesis for example? Or are you just randomly selective?
You know what I'm talking about, don't conflate the issue. Choosing the eye color, etc. of your children is bad and it's positively Hitleresque what some are trying to push toward.
And yet exiling people who deviate from normalcy is in no way fascist.

[Hababi]

Communism is a broadly economic ideology, not social.


It's like Darwinism and social darwinism.

[Egggo]

Actually I know a lot of social commie's :eek: :o We don't discuss politics :p

I'm really having trouble believing this.

You know what I'm talking about, don't conflate the issue. Choosing the eye color, etc. of your children is bad and it's positively Hitleresque what some are trying to push toward.

Please, oh, please stop pretending you know anything about science.

That kind of genetic engineering is only talked about in fundie newspapers by guys who realized there's a lot more money to be had with their third rate science degrees by preaching to a fundie choir.

Sweet Vishnu, my genetic biology professors are rolling in their graves and they aren't even DEAD YET >:[

[Steerpike]

You know what I'm talking about, don't conflate the issue. Choosing the eye color, etc. of your children is bad and it's positively Hitleresque what some are trying to push toward.

That doesn't quite work. People liking their kids to be blonde is usually a purely superficial thing. Hitler wanted Aryans because he believed it was a manifestation of genetic superiority.

Kind of like how you're Christian babble isn't cosmetic, it's just annoying.

[Jude]

You know what I'm talking about, don't conflate the issue. Choosing the eye color, etc. of your children is bad and it's positively Hitleresque what some are trying to push toward.
I agree but how can you back this up?

And how can you possibly say that "the west" is Christian in anything but name? It was built on greed, rabid competition, exploitation and oppression.

[Iskandar]

It's like Darwinism and social darwinism.
Noho it's really not at all.

Marx say: Workers plight bad; workers need revolt seize power win big time.

That's an economic issue. It has to do with labour and the workforce.

[SubtleDagger]

It's like Darwinism and social darwinism.
No it's not, because Darwinism has little to do with economics.

[Steerpike]

Please, oh, please stop pretending you know anything about science.

Christians dont' need to know science! They've got the Church to make sht up for them.

Yes, friends, it's new and improved Jesus-freaks! Now with 50% more bullsh[size=2]it and fag-removing power.

[Egggo]

I'm going to sleep. Have fun with the fundie pinata, guys!

[Hababi]

Yes it is.


What if it's used to take a third world country, build up its economy and infrastructure, establish democracy, and then allowed to disappear as that society then flourishes? That would be good.


So you don't believe in anything in the Old Testament? Genesis for example? Or are you just randomly selective?


Genesis is a book of history. There's books of history and there's law books. And there's books of poetry. The law books established the old covenant, which was replaced by Jesus' covenant.

And you ignored my point about the comparison to Islamophobia. If anyone came in and said comparable stuff about Islam as you and others say about Christianity, they'd rightfully be called an Islamophobe. That makes you a Christophobe.


Yes, but no one else is proposing they be segregated to their own country.


I'm half joking with homotopia, you know? :p

But, giving individual states greater autonomy and allowing Massachustes to keep gay marriage and other states to explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman is probably a good idea, for the interest of the entire country.


Because democracy is a terrible terrible invention

Social liberalism is.


Only be restoring the draft, which the Administration knew was a political impossibility.


Pull troops from Germany, Japan, etc. the manpower was available.

[Hababi]

I agree but how can you back this up?


Dude I'm steeped in talking about homosexuality and Christianity, and you expect me to shift into genetic engineering? Come on, man! :p

Start a thread about it. Then maybe this beast will die and something else can be discussed ;)


It was built on greed, rabid competition, exploitation and oppression.


I don't know what west you're talking about but America was built on freedom and opportunity.

[Iskandar]

Social liberalism is.
Why is it so wrong to be progressive? Abolishing slavery was "social liberalism," now wasn't it.
America was built on freedom and opportunity.
It was a bunch of bougies who didn't want to pay taxes and you know it

[SubtleDagger]

Genesis is a book of history. There's books of history and there's law books. And there's books of poetry. The law books established the old covenant, which was replaced by Jesus' covenant.
So you're randomly selective, thanks.
And you ignored my point about the comparison to Islamophobia. If anyone came in and said comparable stuff about Islam as you and others say about Christianity, they'd rightfully be called an Islamophobe. That makes you a Christophobe.
That's because I really don't care, it's obvious I don't like pretty much all Christians and throwing a "-phobe" accusation at me isn't really going to distress me much.
I'm half joking with homotopia, you know? :p
Politics, News and World Issues
For serious discussion only

You really are obviously trolling if you are making radical hokey comments to incite people's anger.

[Hababi]

Abolishing slavery was "social liberalism," now wasn't it.


No, quite the opposite: it was Christianity in action. I'll repeat what I said earlier: your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, raped his slaves and considered slavery to be the natural order.

[Steerpike]

Genesis is a book of history.

If by "history" you mean "fairy tales," then I'll buy that.

[SubtleDagger]

If by "history" you mean "fairy tales," then I'll buy that.
The fact that he believes Genesis yet throws out most of Deuteronomy is obvious hypocrisy so his whole argument is flawed anyway.

[Iskandar]

No, quite the opposite: it was Christianity in action. I'll repeat what I said earlier: your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, raped his slaves and considered slavery to be the natural order.
Thomas Jefferson is not my f'ing hero so stfu

Slavery was ended by BOTH religious factors (such as the Quakers who refused to support it) and secular factors (progressive, SOCIALLY LIBERAL Northerners).

[Steerpike]

No, quite the opposite: it was Christianity in action. I'll repeat what I said earlier: your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, raped his slaves and considered slavery to be the natural order.

And Mother Theresa wanted other people to suffer in poverty, sickness, and hunger to that she could sympathize with Jesus. What's your point?

[Hababi]

It was a bunch of bougies who didn't want to pay taxes and you know it


A bunch of tax cheats who set up a land of freedom and opportunity :p


That's because I really don't care, it's obvious I don't like pretty much all Christians and throwing a "-phobe" accusation at me isn't really going to distress me much.


Ok, you don't care that you're a bigot against Christians.

Take it this way: What would you say if someone said:

If people listened to the Koran, they'd all be chopping peoples heads off. The Koran condones murdering the infidel.

You'd probably say that person was an Islamophobe. And you'd be right. Well here's the problem: What you're saying is just as bad, only it's about Christianity, so no one cares. But in reality, it's no different than people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who spread lies and distortions and bigotry against Islam.


So you're randomly selective, thanks.


I suggest you read the Bible before trying to discuss it.

[Steerpike]

Take it this way: What would you say if someone said:

If people listened to the Koran, they'd all be chopping peoples heads off. The Koran condones murdering the infidel.

I would say, "And the Bible says you should beat your kid to death for talking back to you. What's your point?"

[SubtleDagger]

Ok, you don't care that you're a bigot against Christians.

Take it this way: What would you say if someone said:

If people listened to the Koran, they'd all be chopping peoples heads off. The Koran condones murdering the infidel.

You'd probably say that person was an Islamophobe. And you'd be right. Well here's the problem: What you're saying is just as bad, only it's about Christianity, so no one cares. But in reality, it's no different than people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who spread lies and distortions and bigotry against Islam.
No, not really, I'm simply asking you why you're being selective about what you believe God wants. I'm not really bagging all Christians right now so much as asking you about your own hypocrisy.
I suggest you read the Bible before trying to discuss it.
I have, thanks.

/yawn

[Iskandar]

A bunch of tax cheats who set up a land of freedom and opportunity :p
Buzzwords for capitalism.

[Steerpike]

I suggest you read the Bible before trying to discuss it.

The characters are 1-dimensional, the plot is non-existent, and the writing is awkward and clunky. I'd rather pick up "Anansi Boys" instead.

[Hababi]

I would say, "And the Bible says you should beat your kid to death for talking back to you. What's your point?"


Both are bigoted, ignorant statements. The fact is that people have a lot more leeway here to be bigoted and hateful against Christianity than Islam, which is mainly my decision--I think that Islamophobia is currently more prevelant in mainstream society, and is realized more strongly and directly. So, if someone came around saying such things about Islam, they'd at least get warned, probably. But I might start enforcing the same thing with Christianity. Christophobia is no more acceptable than Islamophobia.

[Smokey D]

What if it's used to take a third world country, build up its economy and infrastructure, establish democracy, and then allowed to disappear as that society then flourishes? That would be good.

One party enforcing their will on another through the inability of the latter to defend themselves is always evil.


Social liberalism is.

Freedom. Horrible freedom!



Pull troops from Germany, Japan, etc. the manpower was available.

Similarly political impossibilities that the Administration refuses to carry out completely.

[Iskandar]

Christophobia is no more acceptable than Islamophobia.
Hey the Greek language says you can't tack affixes onto -"phobia" arbitrarily in the hopes of coining a new word.

:)

[Hababi]

I have, thanks.

/yawn


Read it again. If you can't differentiate a history book from a law book, or the new covenant from the old one, then you didn't get a good reading the first time around.


No, not really, I'm simply asking you why you're being selective about what you believe God wants. I'm not really bagging all Christians right now so much as asking you about your own hypocrisy.


Yes, you are bagging on Christianity, and you and others are making blatantly bigoted, anti Christian remarks.

[SubtleDagger]

All I really want to know is why you have no difficulty believing God wants you to hate homosexuals and yet discount him wanting you to stone your family to death for minor annoyances.

I shouldn't really have to read the whole thing again to figure out your stance for you. Or be incredibly nice to your religion for that matter. I'm asking relatively simple questions. : |

[Hababi]

Hey the Greek language says you can't tack affixes onto -"phobia" arbitrarily in the hopes of coining a new word.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophobia

It's an appropriate, if gramatically unsound, neologism.


Freedom. Horrible freedom!


No, anarchy.


One party enforcing their will on another through the inability of the latter to defend themselves is always evil.


If that will is good and noble, it can not be evil.

[Hababi]

yet discount him wanting you to stone your family to death for minor annoyances.


He doesn't and claiming that He does is ignorant and Christophobic. It's as bad as saying that Allah wants you to kill infidels.

[Iskandar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChristophobiaIt's an appropriate, if gramatically unsound, neologism.
Now that I meditate on it, "Christos" was originally a Greek word so that makes sense etymologically. "Islamophobia" does not, however. Arbitrarily merging roots of Greek and Arabic makes little sense since the two are not related in anyway way, not even belonging to the same family.

[Hababi]

Arbitrarily merging roots of Greek and Arabic makes little sense since the two are not related in anyway way, not even belonging to the same family.


A lot of contemporary speech and writing doesn't make sense ;)

IE:
"How are you doing?"
"Good. You?"
"Good."

[SubtleDagger]

He doesn't and claiming that He does is ignorant and Christophobic. It's as bad as saying that Allah wants you to kill infidels.
So I guess Deuteronomy 22:22-24 as well as a bit of Psalms were thrown in by Satan?

EDIT: Of course, the main passage I'm speaking of is Deut 21:18-21 and 13:6-10

[Steerpike]

Both are bigoted, ignorant statements. The fact is that people have a lot more leeway here to be bigoted and hateful against Christianity than Islam, which is mainly my decision--I think that Islamophobia is currently more prevelant in mainstream society, and is realized more strongly and directly. So, if someone came around saying such things about Islam, they'd at least get warned, probably. But I might start enforcing the same thing with Christianity. Christophobia is no more acceptable than Islamophobia.

But I'm not afraid of Christians. I just don't like the stupid ones.

I may not be a Satanist, but I do agree with Anton LaVey about one thing: the cardinal sin one can commit against any human being is stupidity. And unfortunately, some of my Christian friends have to tolerate being in the same church as a bunch of wankers who think that in order to be a good Christian, you can't be an educated adult.

[Hababi]

So I guess Deuteronomy 22:22-24 as well as a bit of Psalms were thrown in by Satan?

It's the difference of old and new covenants. In the old covenant, there had to be sacrifice for sin. Jesus took the place of that sacrifice, sacrificing Himself for all of mankind and taking us out of that covenant.

[Smokey D]

No, anarchy.


Go read Locke or Mill.

If that will is good and noble, it can not be evil.

It can if it enforces itself on another party that can't defend itself. Sometimes it can be less evil than allowing events to play out by themselves, but general, unqualified colonialism is terrible.


But I'm glad we've discerned where you're political loyalties lie, ie, somewhere back in the Middle Ages.

[SubtleDagger]

It's the difference of old and new covenants. In the old covenant, there had to be sacrifice for sin. Jesus took the place of that sacrifice, sacrificing Himself for all of mankind and taking us out of that covenant.
And thusly, you have no reason to peresecute homosexuals for their sins according to the Bible, just as you have none to persecute your family.

[Hababi]

It can if it enforces itself on another party that can't defend itself. Sometimes it can be less evil than allowing events to play out by themselves, but general, unqualified colonialism is terrible.

Well there we go, you're accepting that colonialism can in some circumstances, if carried out morally, be the better alternative. Obviously it has a terrible history and is responsible for the lion's share of problems in Africa today, but if I was there now, I'd love for first world countries to come in and fix what they wrecked in years past. It's much better than the current alternative.

[Hababi]

And thusly, you have no reason to peresecute homosexuals for their sins according to the Bible, just as you have none to persecute your family.


No one is talking about stoning homosexuals. And homosexuality is condemned in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Specifically singled out as being an abomination.

[Steerpike]

No one is talking about stoning homosexuals. And homosexuality is condemned in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Specifically singled out as being an abomination.

But those are part of the old covenant that Jesus made obsolete.

[Egggo]

Take it this way: What would you say if someone said:

If people listened to the Koran, they'd all be chopping peoples heads off. The Koran condones murdering the infidel.

You'd probably say that person was an Islamophobe. And you'd be right. Well here's the problem: What you're saying is just as bad, only it's about Christianity, so no one cares. But in reality, it's no different than people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who spread lies and distortions and bigotry against Islam.

Hating stupid fundies is hating stupid fundies. It doesn't matter what scripture or prophet they subscribe to. Stop trying to distort the issue.

To use your own (dumbass) words, equating Islamophobia with the "Christophobia" or whatever you call it is insulting to every non-fundie Muslim out there.

I bet you have never even met a Muslim in your whole sheltered life either :lol:

[SubtleDagger]

No one is talking about stoning homosexuals. And homosexuality is condemned in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Specifically singled out as being an abomination.
Would you throw out all the sins mentioned in the ten commandments just as easily as you throw out the ones mentioned elsewhere in Deuteronomy and Leviticus?

[Egggo]

I don't know what would be better for Steve here: Letting him borrow my copy of Identity and Violence, or hitting him in the head with it.

[Iskandar]

A lot of contemporary speech and writing doesn't make sense ;)

IE:
"How are you doing?"
"Good. You?"
"Good."
Those niceties are idiomatic. :p

[Hababi]

I don't know what would be better for Steve here: Letting him borrow my copy of Identity and Violence, or hitting him in the head with it.


I can think of something else you can do with the book.


Would you throw out all the sins mentioned in the ten commandments just as easily as you throw out the ones mentioned elsewhere in Deuteronomy and Leviticus?


The 10 Commandments are general principles for all people, whereas the microscopic laws of Deutoronomy and Numbers were specifically part of that covenant, then.

[Egggo]

I can think of something else you can do with the book.

I've already read it...?

Stop thinking dirty! I knew you weren't hijacked when you made that famous post.

You need to seriously stop being so rampantly sexually deviant all the time, man.

[SubtleDagger]

The 10 Commandments are general principles for all people, whereas the microscopic laws of Deutoronomy and Numbers were specifically part of that covenant, then.
That doesn't make sense. Why is the Decalogue considered more prevalent than say, Deuteronomy 22:11?

I don't see how the Decalogue was not specifically part of the old covenant.

[Hababi]

Why is the Decalogue considered more prevalent than say, Deuteronomy 22:11?

Principally because Jesus directly reiterated most all of them in recorded words :p

[Egggo]

Principally because Jesus directly reiterated most all of them in recorded words :p

Most of them?

This Jesus fellow sounds pretty selective himself.

[SubtleDagger]

Principally because Jesus directly reiterated most all of them in recorded words :p
So because Jesus didn't reiterate all of Deuteronomy it is discounted? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense, a sin is a sin is a sin.

[Reaganista]

jesus kinda disregarded the ten commandments and rephrased them as two

jesus also made it pretty clear that just about anything anybody ever does is a sin

[Hababi]

This Jesus fellow sounds pretty selective himself.


Him being the Son of God he gets to select what's in His covenant and what isn't :p

[Smokey D]

Well there we go, you're accepting that colonialism can in some circumstances, if carried out morally, be the better alternative. Obviously it has a terrible history and is responsible for the lion's share of problems in Africa today, but if I was there now, I'd love for first world countries to come in and fix what they wrecked in years past. It's much better than the current alternative.

The only reason foreign intervention can ever be justified is if inaction would result in a horribly worse result. That is, intervening in Rwanda would have been justified because too do otherwise resulted in the deaths of 1 million people. This is not a carte blanche for colonialism, and need not be undertaken as a colonial action, since it does not involve the exploitation of resources, both human and natural, in the interests of the metropole.

It is similar to the way the state may justly intervene to prevent or punish a murder, but not enforce its own version of morality in every sphere of public life.

I too would like to see humanitarian, not colonial actions carried out by the First World, but not to the extent where Africa is removed of its autonomy.

[Hababi]

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense, a sin is a sin is a sin.


Says who?


I too would like to see humanitarian, not colonial actions carried out by the First World, but not to the extent where Africa is removed of its autonomy.


They have no autonomy now, for the most part. Being ruled by a strongman isn't autonomy, it's tyranny.

[SubtleDagger]

Says who?

I don't see why Jesus should have to mention each and every sin mentioned in the Old Testament for it to still apply. That just doesn't really make sense.

/shrug

[Smokey D]

They have no autonomy now, for the most part. Being ruled by a strongman isn't autonomy, it's tyranny.


Being ruled by Prince-Bishops appointed by the Vatican isn't autonomy -- it's 1467.

[Hababi]

I don't see why Jesus should have to mention each and every sin mentioned in the Old Testament for it to still apply. That just doesn't really make sense.


Well in part you're confusing law and punishment. Not only did He change the punishment, taking it on Himself, but also some of the laws weren't carried over. No, He doesn't have to mention everything; His apostles covered a lot of ground, too. And, sometimes, it's up to the individual to observe whether that action is Christ like, going off the general stated philosophy and guidelines He laid forth. Shellfish consumption isn't un Christlike.

[Hababi]

Being ruled by Prince-Bishops appointed by the Vatican isn't autonomy -- it's 1467.


But what you said about autonomy doesn't really apply, as any imperial force would not be taking away autonomy from the people. That autonomy has already been taken away from them, it would only be laying the ground work for that autonomy for being restored to them.

[SubtleDagger]

Honestly, I would not aspire to be like Jesus given Revelations 2:22-23 and similar verses.

[Smokey D]

Given the equal difficulty in restoring individual autonomy to the vast majority of Africans, how about we fantiscise about doing it through democracy (legitimate government) as opposed to theocracy (always illegitmate government)?

You're argument pretty much reads like a justification for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but with pretty head gear and fancy clothes.

[Reaganista]

both of you stop trying to equate colonialism with humanitarian intervention you're going to ruin my planet.

[Smokey D]

This is not a carte blanche for colonialism, and need not be undertaken as a colonial action, since it does not involve the exploitation of resources, both human and natural, in the interests of the metropole.

I too would like to see humanitarian, not colonial actions carried out by the First World

Yeah, um, what?

[Iskandar]

You're argument pretty much reads like a justification for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but with pretty head gear and fancy clothes.
Err what does workers having control over their own labour have to do with theocracy in Africa?

[Reaganista]

and need not be undertaken as a colonial action
I would like

your language wasn't anywhere strong enough and you never expressed that these two things are polar opposites

[Smokey D]

Err what does workers having control over their own labour have to do with theocracy in Africa?

Because he's arguing for a force to assume dictatorial powers so that an end result of personal autonomy might be achieved.

your language wasn't anywhere strong enough and you never expressed that these two things are polar opposites

Fine. It would not be a colonial action, unless resources were employed in the interests of the metropole. And I would like humanitarian actions carried out throught Africa, but they must not be framed in White Man's Burden or mission civilatrise.

[Atomic Rain]

Both are bigoted, ignorant statements. The fact is that people have a lot more leeway here to be bigoted and hateful against Christianity than Islam, which is mainly my decision--I think that Islamophobia is currently more prevelant in mainstream society, and is realized more strongly and directly. So, if someone came around saying such things about Islam, they'd at least get warned, probably. But I might start enforcing the same thing with Christianity. Christophobia is no more acceptable than Islamophobia.

If a muslim came into this forum with similar ideals they'd get the same kind of reaction.

I'm openly a "funamentalist religion"aphobe. And you're a pantophobe, because it seems everything that's not a happy catholic family shouldn't be allowed, since it's not best for your vision of mankind.

[neal_672]

BDR, it amazes me how you have the guts to accuse anyone of bigotry considering the levels of it which you have so far shown in this thread. If we're Christophobes (which i'm not) then you're most definitely a homophobe; like i said earlier if you weren't a Christian you'd still be a homophobe because you seem to simply be afraid of them for being omgz "deviant". I still don't think you've grasped the word "deviant", it means different. Not bad.

[Steerpike]

Well in part you're confusing law and punishment. Not only did He change the punishment, taking it on Himself, but also some of the laws weren't carried over. No, He doesn't have to mention everything; His apostles covered a lot of ground, too. And, sometimes, it's up to the individual to observe whether that action is Christ like, going off the general stated philosophy and guidelines He laid forth. Shellfish consumption isn't un Christlike.

So the apostles did a lot of editorializing, and we all get to pick and choose which Jesus-isms we can follow?

So we still have to not kill people, but we can choose to no longer be kosher?

[Jude]

I don't know what west you're talking about but America was built on freedom and opportunity.
Uh if you mean freedom to genocide Indians and take their land and opportunity to exploit the working class here and elsewhere for our benefit then yeah.

[Smokey D]

No, America was constructed on Enlightenment ideas concerning freedom. To deny that is stupid.

That doesn't mean that freedom was justly granted to everyone or anything.

[rekcarcuoykcuf]

That doesn't mean that freedom was justly granted to everyone or anything. nice.

i rekon,

religions exist in competition with one another. to even propose that one should be granted prevalence over another in a very religiously diverse region is obsene.

and, a religious establishment is not obliged to to account for diversity. see above. see the many posts about secular democracy.

[Reaganista]

Because he's arguing for a force to assume dictatorial powers so that an end result of personal autonomy might be achieved.

why is the dictatorship of the bourgeois better than dictatorship of the proletarian

[Iskandar]

Because he's arguing for a force to assume dictatorial powers so that an end result of personal autonomy might be achieved.
Err the "dictatorship" of the proletariat is not a dictatorship in the sense of power invested solely in one person or a few. It's the majority of people (workers) having control over their superiors.

[Reaganista]

I object to superiors

[Smokey D]

Err the "dictatorship" of the proletariat is not a dictatorship in the sense of power invested solely in one person or a few. It's the majority of people (workers) having control over their superiors.

Oh right, kinda like one force assuming dictatorial powers to achieve an end result of equal personal autonomy.

I know what the Dictatorship is, and I know that any tyranny, even when its carried out by the majority, is wrong.

A Church run theocracy would be even worse because it wouldn't even be the majority.

[Jude]

No, America was constructed on Enlightenment ideas concerning freedom. To deny that is stupid.

That doesn't mean that freedom was justly granted to everyone or anything.
I would consider American inspired by those ideas, but built on greed, etc. as listed above.

[Smokey D]

The American legal-social structure is one of enlightenment principles of democracy, freedom from tyranny and inalienable rights. This has not always been successfully implemented, obviously, but to say the United States is wholly and deliberately exploitative is ridiculous and at odds with the self evident fact that it's one of the freest countries in the world.

[Jude]

The American legal-social structure is one of enlightenment principles of democracy, freedom from tyranny and inalienable rights. This has not always been successfully implemented, obviously, but to say the United States is wholly and deliberately exploitative is ridiculous and at odds with the self evident fact that it's one of the freest countries in the world.
Well the US would never have become anything like it is without those enlightenment ideas...but it also would never have become anything like it is without all the oppression, genocide, exploitation, murder and racism either. Both are as much a part of it as mom and apple pie, as they say.

[Smokey D]

In the same way that any society has quite sickening history -- this is not an invitation to disregard the good things that America, or any other society, has done. We must simply learn from the bad, so as not to do it again, and use the good, so as to do it better in the future.

[Iskandar]

Oh right, kinda like one force assuming dictatorial powers to achieve an end result of equal personal autonomy.

I know what the Dictatorship is, and I know that any tyranny, even when its carried out by the majority, is wrong.

A Church run theocracy would be even worse because it wouldn't even be the majority.
Alright, I hear you and actually agree.

I still don't think the dictatorship of the proletariat is quite the same as a governmental dictator, but oh well. I'm not even a communist, so I don't care to argue the point and I doubt you do either. :)

[Hababi]

Given the equal difficulty in restoring individual autonomy to the vast majority of Africans, how about we fantiscise about doing it through democracy (legitimate government) as opposed to theocracy (always illegitmate government)?


Unfortinately, it seems western democracies have little interest in doing so.



So the apostles did a lot of editorializing, and we all get to pick and choose which Jesus-isms we can follow?


They didn't do any editorializing, they only spread Christ's teachings.



Uh if you mean freedom to genocide Indians and take their land and opportunity to exploit the working class here and elsewhere for our benefit then yeah.


There was no "Indian genocide" and Smokey D addressed the rest of that.


but it also would never have become anything like it is without all the oppression, genocide, exploitation, murder and racism either.


Once again, there was no "genocide" in America's history. That's just PC propaganda. Same goes with "murder." America always has offered the greatest opportunity for success, for those who wish to try.

[Steerpike]

They didn't do any editorializing, they only spread Christ's teachings.

The burden of proof is on you for that one. I'm skeptical. You have to convince me that the apostles were not in fact spin doctors. You have to convince me that Jesus hated fags.

And thus far, all you've put forward is a lot of **** that you just want me to take on faith. Well, that's not good enough. I need evidence. Not conjecture.

Once again, there was no "genocide" in America's history. That's just PC propaganda. Same goes with "murder." America always has offered the greatest opportunity for success, for those who wish to try.

Except if you're not white prior to the government designing affirmative action and the welfare system as we know it today to appease the reparations movement.

[Hababi]

The burden of proof is on you for that one. I'm skeptical. You have to convince me that the apostles were not in fact spin doctors. You have to convince me that Jesus hated fags.


I don't have to convince you of anything :p If you don't like Christianity, that's your decision. But those are its teachings, from the Apostles who were comissioned by Christ to spread His teachings. Your position is silly, as it could be used to justify not believing anything you don't like that Jesus or His apostles said. "Yeah the apostles just inserted that part about adultery being wrong. It's fine!"


Except if you're not white prior to the government designing affirmative action and the welfare system as we know it today to appease the reparations movement.


Affirmative action and welfare had nothing to do with non whites moving up the social ladder. In fact, welfare is more a hindrance than a positive.

[Reaganista]

Once again, there was no "genocide" in America's history. That's just PC propaganda.


yeah but the definition of genocide was designed in a way to suit the soviet union.

and even then I think forced relocations of an ethnic group qualify under the 48 convention

Same goes with "murder."
slavery is murder

[Hababi]

and even then I think forced relocations of an ethnic group qualify under the 48 convention


Which is silly, if that is the case. When people use the term genocide, they mean organized, systematic slaughter. They mean the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian one, etc. And, absolutely nothing America ever did falls under that category.

[Amit]

Which is silly, if that is the case. When people use the term genocide, they mean organized, systematic slaughter. They mean the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian one, etc. And, absolutely nothing America ever did falls under that category.

okay i get it now

things that do not agree with zero's point of view are automatically dismissed as silly

it all makes sense now

[Smokey D]

Unfortinately, it seems western democracies have little interest in doing so.

But you imagine they're more likely to install a Church-run theocracy despite universal professions of separation of Church and State throughout the West?

[Reaganista]

Which is silly, if that is the case. When people use the term genocide, they mean organized, systematic slaughter.
actually rounding up everyone of an ethnic group and making them do something that you know is gonna kill a bunch of them is an organized, systematic slaughter

[Hababi]

But you imagine they're more likely to install a Church-run theocracy despite universal professions of separation of Church and State throughout the West?


No. I just like the idea :p

[Amit]

there's that smiley again >:[

[Steerpike]

I don't have to convince you of anything :p If you don't like Christianity, that's your decision. But those are its teachings, from the Apostles who were comissioned by Christ to spread His teachings. Your position is silly, as it could be used to justify not believing anything you don't like that Jesus or His apostles said. "Yeah the apostles just inserted that part about adultery being wrong. It's fine!"

Yes, you do have to convince me. Unlike you, I don't use the Bible as a moral compass. Therefore, if you're going to, you have to convince me why I should trust anything you say when you take it on faith from an over-glorified compilation of fairy tales.

Affirmative action and welfare had nothing to do with non whites moving up the social ladder. In fact, welfare is more a hindrance than a positive.

Never said it worked.

But are you going to go into the Warhol Museum and tell the people there that the law enforcement officials turning their backs on the lynchings in the early 20th century showcase in that exhibit was a hoax?

Are you going to tell us that the Trail of Tears was a-okay and the Indians didn't mind?

I don't want apologies. But I don't want people to forget about the mistakes of the past either. The government in past generations made some horrifyingly stupid decisions that created a lot of gratuitous pain, suffering, and death. That is not something you're supposed to toss aside next to the old Sunday comics of Cathy and Family Circus.

[Hababi]

Unlike you, I don't use the Bible as a moral compass.


I didn't base any of my arguments about why homosexuality is bad on the Bible.


But are you going to go into the Warhol Museum and tell the people there that the law enforcement officials turning their backs on the lynchings in the early 20th century showcase in that exhibit was a hoax?


Of course lynchings happened. It wasn't genocide, though.


Are you going to tell us that the Trail of Tears was a-okay and the Indians didn't mind?


There's no evidence to say the government intentioned any deaths on that. What you had was beauracratic incompetence, not intentional murder.

[Steerpike]

I didn't base any of my arguments about why homosexuality is bad on the Bible.

Yet, clearly, the subtext was you scrounging up whatever biased resource you could find quoting out of date statistics and studies that backed your opinion which you more than likely first arrived at through the Bible.

There's no evidence to say the government intentioned any deaths on that. What you had was beauracratic incompetence, not intentional murder.

So they weren't racist monsters. They were just racist morons. And that's supposed to be an improvement? They segregate a whole race onto a shitty piece of land and chalk up all the death and sicknesses that resulted to their own incompetence. ****...

[Reaganista]

There's no evidence to say the government intentioned any deaths on that.
um negligence counts as genocide

how do you think Mao's casualty count gets so high?

[Hababi]

Yet, clearly, the subtext was you scrounging up whatever biased resource you could find quoting out of date statistics and studies that backed your opinion which you more than likely first arrived at through the Bible.


They're not out of date, they just contradict your viewpoint so you choose to ignore them.


They segregate a whole race onto a ****ty piece of land and chalk up all the death and sicknesses that resulted to their own incompetence.


Sickness played a part in it, too. There's no issue with saying they were bigoted and that they were incompetent, but claiming that they committed genocide is hyperbole.


how do you think Mao's casualty count gets so high?

Mao intended for them to die. The US government didn't.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I have one pretty simple thing to say.

Has anybody here ever seen the ceiling inside the Vatican?



...



I'm asking because it's made of solid gold. Whose gold, you ask? Conquered peoples' gold, of course! Every time the Church took over some land, they'd pillage it and send whatever was of value back to Rome to add to the Church's wealth. Christianity's most sacred buildings are almost entirely made up of reused stolen materials - and that's what happens when you leave the Church in charge of anything.

Good idea in theory, maybe, but it wouldn't work. The Church isn't looking out for the good of its constituents any more than your average corrupt semi-dictator.

[Steerpike]

They're not out of date, they just contradict your viewpoint so you choose to ignore them.

You quoted studies from 1995. I refuse to use any source in my own arguments when it comes to on-going studies that is older than a few years. 11 years is more than a few.

11 years = out of date whether or not the numbers agree with me.

Mao intended for them to die. The US government didn't.

That's debatable. One could easily say they knew the action was dangerous and possibly life-threatening, but they didn't care.

[Reaganista]

Mao intended for them to die. The US government didn't.
here's where you prove that

good luck, seeing as 'so what if they starve?' and 'so what if they die of exhaustion?' are functionally indentical thoughts

[Hababi]

You quoted studies from 1995. I refuse to use any source in my own arguments when it comes to on-going studies that is older than a few years. 11 years is more than a few.

11 years = out of date whether or not the numbers agree with me.


Actually no. The studies that led to Brown vs Topeka Board of Education are more than 50 years old. o no theyre out dated and wrong segregation was good lets resegregate!

[Steerpike]

Actually no. The studies that led to Brown vs Topeka Board of Education are more than 50 years old. o no theyre out dated and wrong segregation was good lets resegregate!

If you don't understand the point I'm making, don't pretend to.

[Hababi]

here's where you prove that

good luck, seeing as 'so what if they starve?' and 'so what if they die of exhaustion?' are functionally indentical thoughts


If the US government intended on letting them starve, they wouldn't have set up food rations. That the rations were insufficient was a result of the technology of the times, or rather, lack thereof.

[Hababi]

If you don't understand the point I'm making, don't pretend to.


Your point, apparently, is that anything not within the past 5 years is automatically invalid. So, that must mean the research leading to Brown vs Topeka is now invalid. Let's cast doubt upon it and assume it's wrong!

[Steerpike]

If the US government intended on letting them starve, they wouldn't have set up food rations. That the rations were insufficient was a result of the technology of the times, or rather, lack thereof.

One could argue it was just a pretense.

[Reaganista]

If the US government intended on letting them starve, they wouldn't have set up food rations. That the rations were insufficient was a result of the technology of the times, or rather, lack thereof.
Mao was the one who let them starve

[Steerpike]

Your point, apparently, is that anything not within the past 5 years is automatically invalid. So, that must mean the research leading to Brown vs Topeka is now invalid. Let's cast doubt upon it and assume it's wrong!

That's the reasoning of someone who doesn't understand science.

[Hababi]

That's the reasoning of someone who doesn't understand science.


No, yours is the reasoning of someone who will simply reject anything that disagrees with their point of view. It's willful ignorance.

[Steerpike]

No, yours is the reasoning of someone who will simply reject anything that disagrees with their point of view. It's willful ignorance.

You're hardly in a position to level that accusation at me.