Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Skylar]

Says the record of this discussion, wherein you claimed that one doesn't need to recognize God, or the reasoning central to the understanding that God IS, to be moral; wherein Stein explained that if you claimed morality, your claim would inherently rest within the Judea-Christian understanding, and that is of course, because Judea-Christian understanding, serve reason... and have for thousands of years built the culture around you. A culture which is slowly decaying as people turn from that understanding... .

Stein began from several irrelevant positions. With his basis as a theist being that he's never heard a valid refutation of the cosmological argument. Problem is...the cosmological argument has exactly nothing to do with morality. It requires a first mover. There's nothing that requires that first mover be good, moral, wise, sentient or even singular. That first mover doesn't need to know we exist or care if it did. That first mover could be violently malicious, hateful, destructive and arbitrary or complete inert after its first 'movement'.....and satisfy every portion of the cosmological argument.

Meaning that his basis of theism is irrelevant to his basis of morality. My basis of morality is irrelevant to the basis of theism as well. I don't need a god to tell me what to do. I can use my own moral reasoning to come to moral decisions. I can reject what I recognize as evil....no matter who told me to do it. You can't.

Even Stein's 'informed by the Judeo Christian tradition' argument reduces morality to mere information. With religion being little more than a vehicle for it. Once the information has been delivered, what use is the vehicle? Even the idea that the rejection of religion is the rejection of morality is invalid. It would be akin to declaring that my rejection of the Iphone 6 is a rejection of my parents. As they may want to talk to me one day.

Yet there's many more means of communication than cell phones. There are many more cell phones than the Iphone 6. There are many more Iphones than the Iphone 6. Its merely a vehicle for information. Its the information that is important per Stein's own argument.

And I don't use your religion as the basis of my moral reasoning. I don't need to. Your religious observances, your traditions, your ceremonies, your dietary restrictions, your special clothes, your creation myths, your arbitrary prohibitions (no cotton and leather!) mean nothing to me...as they have nothing to do with morality.

The second irrelevancy is the false veneer of objectivity that many associate with religion. Its nonsense. Religion is profoundly, inescapably, inevitably subjective. You can take the exact same book and come to wildly different conclusions. Torquemada and mother Theresa read essentially the same Bible. One mutilated in the name of god, the other took care of the poor. Its all a matter of emphasis and interpretation...which changes from individual to individual, or over time.

For example: homosexuality. The founders executed gays. It was a common practice among Christians. Do you believe gays should be executed for sodomy? The Bible certainly says so. Millions of Christians interpreted the Bible's call for execution as literal for centuries. Do you subscribe to this same interpretation?

If yes, then wow. We'll discuss that in a minute. If no, then you demonstrate my point. If you can interpret your way around the call for such executions, then you've demonstrated the supreme subjectivity of religious observances. As even the laws, the very word of God can be ignored at your whim. Even if you argue that your interpretation is singularly valid.....then the founders demonstrate my point of the supreme subjectivity of religion as they disagreed with you.

And this is the same faith in the same country separated by barely more than 200 years. Theism spans millennia across the entire globe and different cultures. With the 'laws' and doctrine varying wildly between them and even more wildly over time. With almost all of them explicitly contradicting one another and being mutually exclusive. All of them fervently followed by the faithful, believing their laws, their conception of a higher power, their own 'immutable truths'.

That's not 'objective'. That's the epitome of subjectivity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Freak out, brainwashed dingbat. lol

^ ProgDuppe doesn't know the difference between the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

And a liar too. Very impressive.lol

^ ProgDuppe can't learn

"McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee"

House Un-American Activities Committee - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

Another fatal flaw of your 'undebatable laws of god' is....which god?

Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Baal? An? Christ? One's Buddha nature? According to which sect? Among which religion? In which era?

And which law? Even among Christians there are wildly different beliefs. And that's just a snapshot of today. Look at Christianity across time and its gets even more wildly diverse. Go outside Christianity to Judiasm, or Islam, or Zorastrianism, or Shinto, or Buddhism or Hinduism, and you have several billion more people that believe just as fervently in their gods and their law as you do yours. And they don't agree with you.

If it can't be debated....then what of all the debate? The religious wars? The wildly different interpretations of the same religious texts, with wildly different conceptions of these 'laws'? The wildly different religious texts?

You can't all be right. Your religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH the Greek pantheon of Gods AND Jesus. And it doesn't have to be either. Which means that almost all theists in history would logically HAVE to be wrong. They would HAVE to be self deluded.

What are the odds that in all the sects of all the religion in all the world in the entire expanse of time, that you just happened upon the one true representation of God? That all other beliefs are wrong, all other conceptions of God are wrong, all other laws are wrong.....and that only your beliefs, your god and the laws you follow are right?

Remembering that logically, almost all theists that ever lived would be as deluded as they were wrong on every of the same tenets.....despite believing just as fervently as you do now.

I'd say those are pretty slim odds. Especially when you take into account the very real possibility that none of you got it right. As there is absolutely nothing in the concept of theism that mandates that any religion have the truth. Or an accurate conception of morality.

And you want me to abdicate my own moral reasoning for *theism* which logically must almost always be self deluded nonsense?

Um, no. You can choose to ignore these wild inconsistencies, the almost perfect record of self delusion, the obtuse self contradictions of theism. But you can't make me ignore them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"How we lost 350 consecutive games of Rock, Paper and Scissors to a box of Rocks" -- by FranCoWTF and WryCatcher

 

[bripat9643]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

alwayz with the straw man "liberals think government should control everything", you keep stuffing youll get there someday

That's hardly a "strawman." Can you name one social problem that liberals haven't proposed a government solution for?

 

[bripat9643]

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

HUAC existed before McCarthy, dumbass. McCarthy was a Senator and HUAC is the "HOUSE Unamerican Activities Committee."

 

[francoHFW]

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Freak out, brainwashed dingbat. lol

^ ProgDuppe doesn't know the difference between the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

And a liar too. Very impressive.lol

Tell us how Joe McCarthy ran a House Committee.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you, hater dupe. Liar, this is where you a-holes get violent lol...

 

[Skylar]

I understood what you said just fine, skippy.

Then you intentionally misquoted me. As I didn't say that Americans want to criminalize interracial sex. I said the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense. Which you claim to have understood....yet misrepresented anyway.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to do that. Yet as your about to demonstrate, your claims don't work without such misrepresentations.

Interracial marriage was legal for most Americans in 1967 when the supreme court ruled. You are full of shit when you say the majority wanted it "criminalized."

You just did it again. I said that the majority wanted interracial sex criminalized. Why does your argument rely so heavily on intentionally and willfully lying about my claims? You claimed you understood what I said 'just fine'. Meaning the only possible explanation left for your obtuse, systematic and habitual misquotes is willful deception.

Whether or not people wanted it recognized, the number of people who wanted people arrested for it was in no way a majority.

Says who? Back up your crap.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Freak out, brainwashed dingbat. lol

^ ProgDuppe doesn't know the difference between the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

And a liar too. Very impressive.lol

Tell us how Joe McCarthy ran a House Committee.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you, hater dupe. Liar, this is where you a-holes get violent lol...

How did a US Senator run a Committee in the House of Representative, ProgDuppe?

I'm waiting for that Wyle E Coyote moment when you finally realize you ran off the cliff

 

[francoHFW]

The McCarthyite witch hunt era of HUAC began after he said there were hundreds or thousands of communists in gov't and Hollywood. Nothing ever proved or anyone convicted of crimes, a RW festival of demagoguery. And still at it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The McCarthyite witch hunt era of HUAC began after he said there were hundreds or thousands of communists in gov't and Hollywood. Nothing ever proved or anyone convicted of crimes, a RW festival of demagoguery. And still at it...

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

McCarthy never mentioned Hollywood and was never on the HUAC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did a US Senator run a House Committee?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?
Wrong, you must be stupid to draw that conclusion!
Tell me, Scamp... from where does the word 'Sophist' originate? What was the original work which described such?
Don't know, Early, probably the 5th or 6th Century BC

And just to show ya that I'm fair... I'll give ya a clue. It's not in the dictionary where ya 'learned' that fascists are right-wingers.

Earlier than Socrates, obviously, and if I'm not mistaken the word Sophist is from the Greek, "Learned one". Oh, and BTW Asshole, fuck you.

So you are conceding that you're ignorant of the origins of the word you advanced?

LOL!

COLOR ME: SHOCKED!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FYI: It was Socrates, in his account of: "The Sophist".

History of the name
"The term sophist (Greek sophistes) had earlier applications. It is sometimes said to have meant originally simply “clever” or “skilled man,” but the list of those to whom Greek authors applied the term in its earlier sense makes it probable that it was rather more restricted in meaning. Seers, diviners, and poets predominate, and the earliest Sophists probably were the “sages” in early Greek societies. This would explain the subsequent application of the term to the Seven Wise Men(7th–6th century bce), who typified the highest early practical wisdom, and to pre-Socratic philosophers generally. When Protagoras, in one of Plato’s dialogues (Protagoras) is made to say that, unlike others, he is willing to call himself a Sophist, he is using the term in its new sense of “professional teacher,” but he wishes also to claim continuity with earlier sages as a teacher of wisdom."

Sophist philosophy Encyclopedia Britannica

BTW Keys, You're a complete asshole. Complete 'cause you're arrogant and full of bull shit.

Thank you for that! I can see that you're trying and that's wonderful.

But... I realized that you'd already consulted the oracle of all Progressive knowledge, through your response referencing the origins of the word, doing your best to appear as tho' you were sufficiently familiar with the issue to offer a round guess as to the time frame... (it was truly precious) so I framed my response so as to get you to actually post your pitiful wiki-tation.

You see, Socrates, was an orator. He was also quite illiterate. He did not 'write' anything. But many of his contemporaries were so anchored in his reasoning that a great deal of their writing, centered upon or orbited around, the thinking of Socrates, most of which pre-dated Plato, who was his student.

Now... go educate yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain why morality requires religion. Or why a rejection of religion is a rejection of morality.

Why would I need to believe that cheeseburgers are an abomination in order to recognize that killing is wrong?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What do you mean, "not seeing much"? You will have to be clearer. The United States was the first Constitutional Republic, and has always had an electoral college and senate.

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

Good lord, where is the supposed complexity?

The States are proportionally provided for as electoral constituents. It is "The States" who vote for the President... The State vote is determined by the popular vote within the state.

The basis for such is readily found in Federalist 10. Wherein Publius (Madison) speaks to the intrinsic danger of political factions. Factions are political animals which are supremely malleable, easily manipulated and as such can be used as a means to overwhelm the wisdom inherent in 'the people'.

Factions are subjective, 'the people' objective.

Objectivity lends toward benevolence, beneficence and greater wisdom, while Subjectivity leans toward greed, gluttony and foolishness.

 

[Wry Catcher]

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

 

[Wry Catcher]

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

The more you post, the dumber you appear. Don't try to be glib, you're not smart enough.

Freddo, what did Joe McCarthy do to Lucille Ball?

I have no clue, nor interest. My observation (the more you post, the dumber you appear) was based on the body of your work (the Idiot-Gram), an example being this comment: "That's one of the many Progressive Big LIes about McCarthy".

Fact: McCarthy was a demagogues and a drunk. Fact: McCarthy was censored by his peers in the Senate. Fact: The more you post, the dumber and less than honest you appear. Fact: You're a partisan hack who parrots the extreme conservative talking points, sans any apparent critical thinking.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain why morality requires religion. Or why a rejection of religion is a rejection of morality.

Why would I need to believe that cheeseburgers are an abomination in order to recognize that killing is wrong?

Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life, beyond self; seeking truth, beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self.

This is critical, in that a human being is confined to a 'body', the nature of which is to sustain: Self. Therefore, it's nature is centered upon solving for that which satisfies the needs of it's self. It is therefore: Self-ish.

This is born out through your declaration of your having used YOUR reasoning to come to YOUR conclusions, all of which speak to YOUR-Self, which presumably fulfill your needs.

Sadly, your fulfillment is irrelevant to anyone but (guess who). Where your rights are usurped, your fulfilled needs are usurped and your authority to cast off that usurpation is limited to YOU.

"Hey kids! We don't have to remain slaves anymore, because this woman reasoned, herself, that life is precious and we've no right to kill anyone... ahh... wait... crap. NEVER MIND! We do need to remain slaves... Sorry... go back to toiling endlessly for the benefit of your tyrant."

Not very inspiring is it? That's why no bondage has ever been cast off and no nations have ever been formed around your reasoning.

But it IS the reason that slaves remained slaves and why every nation that has ever collapsed, did so ... if that helps, in any way at all.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

The more you post, the dumber you appear. Don't try to be glib, you're not smart enough.

Freddo, what did Joe McCarthy do to Lucille Ball?

I have no clue, nor interest. My observation (the more you post, the dumber you appear) was based on the body of your work (the Idiot-Gram), an example being this comment: "That's one of the many Progressive Big LIes about McCarthy".

Fact: McCarthy was a demagogues and a drunk. Fact: McCarthy was censored by his peers in the Senate. Fact: The more you post, the dumber and less than honest you appear. Fact: You're a partisan hack who parrots the extreme conservative talking points, sans any apparent critical thinking.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

McCarthy only became a drunk, after the media destroyed him... .

My guess is that, once a guy realizes that he was unable to save his nation from the subversion that HE SAW taking place, the impotence to prevent the impending catastrophe, wherein the greatest nation on earth is being sacked and you're a helpless witness, watching it go down, but unable to stop it... is one of the best reasons ever for drinkin' one's self to death.

I mean if there was ever a 'good reason to drink one's self to death' that has got to be among the best.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not seeing much aout the electoral college and for that matter the senate...within the definition of Constitutional Republic.

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

Good lord, where is the supposed complexity?

The States are proportionally provided for as electoral constituents. It is "The States" who vote for the President... The State vote is determined by the popular vote within the state.

The basis for such is readily found in Federalist 10. Wherein Publius (Madison) speaks to the intrinsic danger of political factions. Factions are political animals which are supremely malleable, easily manipulated and as such can be used as a means to overwhelm the wisdom inherent in 'the people'.

Factions are subjective, 'the people' objective.

Objectivity lends toward benevolence, beneficence and greater wisdom, while Subjectivity leans toward greed, gluttony and foolishness.

Be assured, you will never be quoted in Bartlett's or any book containing thought provoking quotations. Maybe a book. if one is ever published cataloging the most non substantive and mocking posts on forums.