Jump to content


Photo

Can't Wait For Masking to End...


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#101 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 6 days ago

.
In what way(s) do you think you are anywhere away from the massive left wing wall I think you are plastered against?
 .
I believe the creation story generally, that's true. But that's because it is backed up by more science than you know and give it credit for. Your science is going to shocked when it climbs the biggest mount only to find religious people there already.
 .
Well, that's confusing. Within the confines of about a single day I've heard you say both that you dislike me and now later that you don't hate me. I wish you hadn't muddled your feelings, though. I was happy knowing where you stood on me.


I am socially liberal sure, but I'd argue that any classical small-government republican should be. While I am certainly not a Trump Republican, I am by no means a Sanders (or insert other "radical-left" politician) supporter either. Other than believing the government should let consenting adults live their lives, what views have I expressed that are far-left?

You can justify your anti-science beliefs any way you'd like, I am not interested in debating you on them. However, nearly every scientist, and by scientist I mean people with advanced degrees who work in scientific fields, fully reject Creationism. If you want to hold those beliefs, so be it but it is disingenuous to label yourself otherwise.

There is a different between hate and dislike. I get why you are the way that you are and why someone like Trump appeals to you. Hell, I do not blame you for voting for him, he speaks to a lot of your prejudices.
I like to rub my wenus

#102 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,151 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 6 days ago

...

Edited by GaryLShelton, 6 days ago.

Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#103 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,151 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 5 days ago

I am socially liberal sure, but I'd argue that any classical small-government republican should be.

.
While I will agree with you in your premise above, it's only because you do represent a certain portion of society where, from what I can tell, anything goes in the support of your 'socially liberal' ideas. If a people have that kind of thinking, a kind of thinking that is not naturally bounded by a communal, cultural unity of beliefs (morality) such as what religion provided to the people at the time of our country's birth, then, yes, if the government is 'socially liberal' it will logically save itself a potload of effort to make rules that approximate the bounds that religion gave the people before.

What will be the result of this process? Anarchy? Will the society even survive the change to find out?

The government given to us by the Founding Fathers was, in the words of John Adams, "...meant for a moral people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."

So if you believe that the morality which has historically come from religion is all bad, and you therefore prefer to follow your own religion of being socially liberal, no matter how far away from previous standards that pendulum swing takes you, then according to Adams' definition this government will not work for you. That said, while social liberals are naturally radical, as you are, this country was indeed founded upon a radical idea. The difference, as I see it, is that the American revolution was a radical idea based in the conservative values of life, liberty, and property. And religion was an important glue that held it all together.

What holds your revolution together? If no one in your world believes in religion and the morality that it has given us, what is it that will ever unite them? What bonds do they have? Are those bonds strong enough to unify them for a common defense?

Without any morality how much agreement among people will you even have? For one example, will the majority of even those in agreement with you on socially liberal things will be as insensitive to offensive language as you are? You always find insidious pleasure in wordplay that skates across, around, and straight through norms that you are obviously aware of, just for the effect. You elevate clever above proper...hang any offense it may cause...because the attention that you get from it--that you crave from it--amuses you.

What quibbles will your left have with itself?

While I am certainly not a Trump Republican, I am by no means a Sanders (or insert other "radical-left" politician) supporter either. Other than believing the government should let consenting adults live their lives, what views have I expressed that are far-left?

.
To attempt to separate out your social liberalism from your political views is not possible. They are Siamese twins.

Besides, what leftist views remain past your social liberalism? I would submit that only one is that of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course, fiscal irresponsibility can't be lain solely at the feet of Dems, but aren't they the champions of it? If you disagree with Bernie and his form of socialism, and Trump and his form of conservatism, then that pretty much leaves you voting Libertarian since you're no moderate. And while I would claim attraction to certain of their ideas, I think some of them are just plain nutty. But Libertarians are generally for leaving people to their own devices, sans government interference, and so that sounds like what you are espousing.

Interestingly, perhaps, I've heard it stated a few times that the far left and the far right often meet in surprising places. Maybe it's true. Lonello and I agreed back when that we both liked Ron Paul, and today I will agree with you that the problems of race and discrimination are extremely serious for the country. I just wouldn't equate the same level of seriousness to the matter of sexual orientation.

You can justify your anti-science beliefs any way you'd like, I am not interested in debating you on them.
However, nearly every scientist, and by scientist I mean people with advanced degrees who work in scientific fields, fully reject Creationism.

.
Ah, onto another topic.

Any debate between Evolution and Creation is a debate between two untestable views. Since neither can be tested, neither qualifies as true science. That said, one has to decide which view fits better with the facts that we do know. Evolutionary theory holds to a long, slow progression upward from amoeba to man. But the reality of the catastrophism in the geologic record speaks of a much different story than the Darwinian/Lyellian uniformitarian one.

Evolutionary belief is like a tall tower in a Dr.Seuss story. It's very rickety and will eventually come tumbling down for all to see. While the adherence to it still controls the vast majority of scientists today, that number is dwindling. It's only a matter of time before everyone recognizes the evolution story for the fiction that it is.

There is a different between hate and dislike. I get why you are the way that you are and why someone like Trump appeals to you. Hell, I do not blame you for voting for him, he speaks to a lot of your prejudices.

.
The only difference between 'dislike' and 'hatred' is in degree. Since you have so publicly derided me over the past few years, I think it's reasonable to say your dislike for me has at least risen to hatred at times. And what's this about that loaded word 'prejudices'? Let's clarify one thing. If I have prejudices, so do you. Just because mine (conservative) are different than yours (radical left) doesn't disqualify yours from the same label.
Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#104 Penny Wise

Penny Wise

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 5 days ago

Being "socially liberal" is certainly not "radical left". 

 

Most politic charts will show one's opinion in a 2D grid - with one axis defining social libereralism/authoritarianism, and the other specifying economic attitudes 


  • Don_Homer likes this

#105 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,364 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 4 days ago

Gary, its a sad thing you have polarizing views. The world is not divided in left and right, conservatives and liberals. We all have different individual ideas whether in the left or in the right or in the middle. If everyone would have your black & white mindset you would get another civil war. Luckily you and Astros are too busy with your own verbal war on the forum, and your guns are in the closet. 


  • maxroelofs likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#106 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,217 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 4 days ago

Gary,

 

I wasn't so much involved when you were forced out of the MT and I have to say that I felt sorry for the extreme responses you had to endure, which crossed the line more than once. Some members were really making it a game to troll you as much as possible, I found it difficult to see. 

 

Now though, you are really, really, losing credit. The arguments provided, inhumane responses, personal insults, irrationality and bluntness in your responses are shocking to me. A man of your age should know better. 

 

Please try to take a step back and re-evaluate your arguments. Mostly the way you phrase messages but also how this messages will "land" at the people reading it. 

 

Max

 

 

I will not respond to any later messages, because I feel no need to clarify any further. 


To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#107 R u Mocking Me ?

R u Mocking Me ?

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 4 days ago

Max has stated what most reg. forum members have thought for a while, I feel. The later part of the message maybe. I think this topic jumped into another lane though. " I can't wait for masking to end..." is the heading. I have used these masks when out and about-- they are a bit uncomfortable and I do need to pay attention to my breathing. I am somewhat fortunate not to have to do manual exercise in these masks for sure ! I also have found I am woefully out of shape-huffing and puffing ! I feel that during these extraordinary  times we all must pitch-in . In America most value independence -- that is all too true about the masks. Trump did not institute a mandate on masks from the get for a reason. I believe that he too felt the backlash of forcing folks to wear these would put a further strain on our society. He allowed business to set the tone for this with no entry allowed with out a mask to help guide folks. He further let individual states set up regulations. These types of virus are going to be here to stay, protect yourselves best you can !  B)



#108 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 4 days ago

.
While I will agree with you in your premise above, it's only because you do represent a certain portion of society where, from what I can tell, anything goes in the support of your 'socially liberal' ideas. If a people have that kind of thinking, a kind of thinking that is not naturally bounded by a communal, cultural unity of beliefs (morality) such as what religion provided to the people at the time of our country's birth, then, yes, if the government is 'socially liberal' it will logically save itself a potload of effort to make rules that approximate the bounds that religion gave the people before.
What will be the result of this process? Anarchy? Will the society even survive the change to find out?
The government given to us by the Founding Fathers was, in the words of John Adams, "...meant for a moral people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
So if you believe that the morality which has historically come from religion is all bad, and you therefore prefer to follow your own religion of being socially liberal, no matter how far away from previous standards that pendulum swing takes you, then according to Adams' definition this government will not work for you. That said, while social liberals are naturally radical, as you are, this country was indeed founded upon a radical idea. The difference, as I see it, is that the American revolution was a radical idea based in the conservative values of life, liberty, and property. And religion was an important glue that held it all together.
What holds your revolution together? If no one in your world believes in religion and the morality that it has given us, what is it that will ever unite them? What bonds do they have? Are those bonds strong enough to unify them for a common defense?
Without any morality how much agreement among people will you even have? For one example, will the majority of even those in agreement with you on socially liberal things will be as insensitive to offensive language as you are? You always find insidious pleasure in wordplay that skates across, around, and straight through norms that you are obviously aware of, just for the effect. You elevate clever above proper...hang any offense it may cause...because the attention that you get from it--that you crave from it--amuses you.
What quibbles will your left have with itself?.
To attempt to separate out your social liberalism from your political views is not possible. They are Siamese twins.
Besides, what leftist views remain past your social liberalism? I would submit that only one is that of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course, fiscal irresponsibility can't be lain solely at the feet of Dems, but aren't they the champions of it? If you disagree with Bernie and his form of socialism, and Trump and his form of conservatism, then that pretty much leaves you voting Libertarian since you're no moderate. And while I would claim attraction to certain of their ideas, I think some of them are just plain nutty. But Libertarians are generally for leaving people to their own devices, sans government interference, and so that sounds like what you are espousing.
Interestingly, perhaps, I've heard it stated a few times that the far left and the far right often meet in surprising places. Maybe it's true. Lonello and I agreed back when that we both liked Ron Paul, and today I will agree with you that the problems of race and discrimination are extremely serious for the country. I just wouldn't equate the same level of seriousness to the matter of sexual orientation. .
Ah, onto another topic.
Any debate between Evolution and Creation is a debate between two untestable views. Since neither can be tested, neither qualifies as true science. That said, one has to decide which view fits better with the facts that we do know. Evolutionary theory holds to a long, slow progression upward from amoeba to man. But the reality of the catastrophism in the geologic record speaks of a much different story than the Darwinian/Lyellian uniformitarian one.
Evolutionary belief is like a tall tower in a Dr.Seuss story. It's very rickety and will eventually come tumbling down for all to see. While the adherence to it still controls the vast majority of scientists today, that number is dwindling. It's only a matter of time before everyone recognizes the evolution story for the fiction that it is..
The only difference between 'dislike' and 'hatred' is in degree. Since you have so publicly derided me over the past few years, I think it's reasonable to say your dislike for me has at least risen to hatred at times. And what's this about that loaded word 'prejudices'? Let's clarify one thing. If I have prejudices, so do you. Just because mine (conservative) are different than yours (radical left) doesn't disqualify yours from the same label.

Going to keep this brief.

It is entirely possible to be a moral person without religion. I do not rape and murder people because I have no desire to and those acts are wrong. If a 3,000 year old book is stopping you from doing those things, you are far more messed up than me.

Yes, I am socially liberal. Frankly, I do not care if gay couples wish to marry or adopt kids, if someone wants to identify as a different gender again, why should I care it does not affect me? As a straight, white guy in the United States, I do have advantages that other people do not. Similarly, acknowledging why millions of Americans have objections to statues of Columbus or Confederate Civil War generals is hardly rocket science. Recognizing these things hardly makes me a self-hating SJW.

I would go further than that and say that while I strongly believe in equality for all, the Left often goes about messaging that poorly. Be that cancel culture, telling lower class white people in the Midwest they do not know what it means to struggle, or not acknowledging the damage this summer's riots caused to some communities.

On economic policy, I am in favor of a larger social safety net but do not believe in UBI, a single-payer health care system or government sponsored 4-year education. Programs like social security are horribly run by the government. I generally prefer free market solutions, but there is a role for government when negative externalities like climate change are not handled appropriately by the private sector.

I am not debating you on science points. More scientists are not rejecting evolution, though you can always find some who will. You can hand wave all you want, but you hold many views that are not accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

On your last point, everyone has prejudices. I have my own. However, unlike you, mine are not based on race, sexuality, or gender.

Edited by astros, 3 days ago.

I like to rub my wenus

#109 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,151 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 15 hours ago

It is entirely possible to be a moral person without religion. I do not rape and murder people because I have no desire to and those acts are wrong. If a 3,000 year old book is stopping you from doing those things, you are far more messed up than me.

.
I agree with you that it is possible for people to be moral/good without religion. But that doesn't mean religion is not necessary. It is also possible, when left on their own, that people can end up anywhere on the "nice" spectrum from Mr. Rogers to Hannibal Lecter. So is the role of religion, perhaps, to establish the moral bar and guide the masses? Maybe. As a free thinker you find that distasteful, though it is the very foundation of a society built upon the Christian religion here in the US that gives you the pulpit from which to speak your anti-religious views. It's ironic, but you should at least acknowledge it.
Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users