Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

The electoral college has never elected a minority President. As the vote by the Electoral College, represents the will of the MAJORITY OF THE STATES, which elects Presidents.

That a majority of people wanted one guy over another is, quite irrelevant. And that is because of the nature of factions, which, by virtue of it's nature, factions are readily manipulated, thus the 'will' of those people, often runs counter to the best interests.

Take Detroit, DC, NYC, California... . Please.

I did ask how people felt, didn't I........

Did you miss the part about how I said I'm on the fence now, after reading more?

But if rude people like you are for it...it just does a disservice to your side.

I got that you're on the fence. I merely pointed out that the EC does not elect minority Presidents. And I then explained why it is that the EC has not, does not and will never do so.

You call it rude... because you are NOT on the fence, you're seeking to use that deceit in a fraudulent attempt to influence your opposition to compromise with you, so that you can re-organize at the newly established front, created by the compromise, so as to continue to push the opposition back from that advanced position.

This is not a particularly effective tactic with Americans. Because we will crush you for it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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????????

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.

As you are an arrogant asshole, I have zero interest in responding to your constant carping. :Your lecture, from PHIL 101 (Hist. of Western Philosophy) isn't proof that you're anything but a dilettante.

 

[Skylar]

So, to defend from the assertion that you're entirely bent around subjectivity, you return to query, 'which religion', indicating that one may or may not serve your interests.

More accurately, I recognize that theist beliefs differ radically based on which religion you're citing, which sect of that religion, and which holy book you claim to be citing and from what era. If religion is 'objective' then how do you account for these wild discrepancies and utterly comic self contradictions between theist beliefs. ...

What wild discrepancies? What religion is it that teaches one to adhere to their base desires? You make these crazy-assed claims, then just drive on out as if there is some truth to them. Which FTR: is ENTIRELY: subjective.

The discrepancy between say......Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Theresa. They both used the Bible as their basis of beliefs. Yet one mutilated, tortured, and killed. While the other fed, clothed and cared for the sick. Wildly different justifications were pulled from the exact same book.

Demonstrating yet again how wildly subjective religious belief is. And of course, the issue of homosexuality. You've run screaming from it with your tail tucked between your legs for half a day because it demonstrates my point yet again.

Do you believe gays should be killed for sodomy? You're up to six hapless, scrambling routs from the same question.

The Bible certainty has something to say on it. But you avoid my question like it were on fire. Homosexuals were executed during the era of the founders, demonstrating tragically that the literal interpretation of your religion has been used before. Do you subscribe to the founder's interpretation, or do you have your own. Either you admit you believe homosexuals should be killed.....or you demonstrate how you can ignore anything you wish, even 'god's word' from your subjective beliefs. As anyone can, and most people do...as religion is inescapably, inevitably and hopelessly subjective.

If there's 'no discrepancy' between the way you interpret the Bible and the way the founders did.....then why do you keep running from the question?

Laughing...enjoy the corner you've painted yourself into.

 

[Skylar]

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why anyone would need religion to be moral. Or why a rejection of religion is a rejection of morality.

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, to defend from the assertion that you're entirely bent around subjectivity, you return to query, 'which religion', indicating that one may or may not serve your interests.

More accurately, I recognize that theist beliefs differ radically based on which religion you're citing, which sect of that religion, and which holy book you claim to be citing and from what era. If religion is 'objective' then how do you account for these wild discrepancies and utterly comic self contradictions between theist beliefs. ...

What wild discrepancies? What religion is it that teaches one to adhere to their base desires? You make these crazy-assed claims, then just drive on out as if there is some truth to them. Which FTR: is ENTIRELY: subjective.

The discrepancy between say......Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Theresa. They both used the Bible as their basis of beliefs. Yet one mutilated, tortured, and killed. While the other fed, clothed and cared for the sick. Wildly different justifications were pulled from the exact same book.

LOL! OH! So Catholicism? You were pointing to the two distinct religions, which you now come to point out is so represented by the singular religion of Catholicism. Got it... . You're truly the Hallmark of contributors.

So... Let us begin.

Two "Religions". One Catholic has taken to setting aside all of her own personal needs, focusing her life upon doing her best to tend to the more desperate needs of others.

The other Catholic is seeing to their own needs, crippling others as a means to acquire and extend the reach of their own personal power?

The former is objective... the latter wholly subjective.

Now take a guess, as to which represents something reasonably associated with God's will?

Which one do ya suppose leads to a sustainable existence, centered upon happiness and the fulfillment of one's life and which do you 'feel' leads to one's destruction?

Go ahead... take a guess.

 

[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.

Of course you are... because as a relativist, having eschewed Objectivity, you are incapable of accepting that your query has already been answered, as the answer does not serve YOUR NEEDS!

To wit: #2278

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and as such are never the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity. Objectivity is the essential element of truth. Truth is the essential element of trust. Truth and trust are essential to a soundly reasoned morality and a soundly reasoned morality is the foundation of Justice.

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 why morality requires religion, in that a human being is confined to a 'body', the nature of which is to sustain: Self. Therefore, its nature is centered upon, solving for, that which satisfies the needs of its self. It is therefore: Self-ish.

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

Sadly, your fulfillment is irrelevant to anyone but (guess who).

Sadly, where your rights are usurped, your means to fulfill your needs are usurped and because of your subjective nature, 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 to a fair degree, 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.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you are... because as a relativist, having eschewed Objectivity, you are incapable of accepting that your query has already been answered, as the answer does not serve YOUR NEEDS!

What objectivity? You can't even get consistent interpretations in the same faith at the same time. Change the time period, and you get wildly different results. Change the sect, and you get even more differences. Change the religion, and you get even more. The wild, disporate, inevitable self contradiction of theism isn't 'objectivity'.

Its the epitome of hopeless subjectivity. Faith, the very basis of religion, is internal. Its belief in the absence of evidence. Its something inside you that only you can perceive. You can't get more subjective.

All of which you know. You know exactly how subjective, how interpretetive, how utterly bendy religious is. How you can arbitrarily ignore any portion you want through 'interpretation', or add any tenet you want by simply emphasizing one passage over another. Grand Inquisitors and suicide bombers did it all the time.

I can even demonstrate it for you: Do you believe gays should be killed for sodomy?

The founders certainly thought so, and did. Pennsylvania actually used passages from Leviticus, word for word, as their law. And they executed any homosexual they caught engaging in sodomy based on their religious beliefs.

Do you share the same belief that gays should be killed for sodomy? If yes, then wow. We'll talk in a minute. If no, then you demonstrate how you can ignore even the very word of 'god' as you understand it if you don't want to do something. And show us yet again how hopelessly subjective theism is.

There really isn't a third option. Which is why you keep running from the question. Because you know I'm right. And every time you avoid that question, you prove it yet again.

 

[Skylar]

And still stalking you, like some cheesy 80s villian in a hockey mask, is your failed argument that morality requires religion. And that rejecting religion is a rejection of morality.

Even you can't make that piece of rhetorical flotsam work. And have utterly abandoned it.

As you should.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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????????

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.

As you are an arrogant asshole, I have zero interest in responding to your constant carping. :Your lecture, from PHIL 101 (Hist. of Western Philosophy) isn't proof that you're anything but a dilettante.

Well... that was fairly pathetic. But such is your nature... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[toxicmedia]

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

The electoral college has never elected a minority President. As the vote by the Electoral College, represents the will of the MAJORITY OF THE STATES, which elects Presidents.

That a majority of people wanted one guy over another is, quite irrelevant. And that is because of the nature of factions, which, by virtue of it's nature, factions are readily manipulated, thus the 'will' of those people, often runs counter to the best interests.

Take Detroit, DC, NYC, California... . Please.

I did ask how people felt, didn't I........

Did you miss the part about how I said I'm on the fence now, after reading more?

But if rude people like you are for it...it just does a disservice to your side.

I got that you're on the fence. I merely pointed out that the EC does not elect minority Presidents. And I then explained why it is that the EC has not, does not and will never do so.

You call it rude... because you are NOT on the fence, you're seeking to use that deceit in a fraudulent attempt to influence your opposition to compromise with you, so that you can re-organize at the newly established front, created by the compromise, so as to continue to push the opposition back from that advanced position.

This is not a particularly effective tactic with Americans. Because we will crush you for it.

You seem paranoid, and acting out as though you've got an inferiority complex.

Have fun.

 

[kaz]

Now....back up your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Show us the polls indicating as much. As you put it, 'back up your crap'. With sources, as you simply can't be trusted.

Right, you disingenuous hack. When you said in the United States where most people could get a legal, interracial marriage the the "majority" of people wanted that to be a crime, and I said you're wrong. It's on me to prove you are wrong. LOL. You are showing clearly what you are.

The one thing we know you won't do is back up your claim. Which you can't, because it's ridiculous.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And still stalking you, like some cheesy 80s villian in a hockey mask, is your failed argument that morality requires religion. And that rejecting religion is a rejection of morality.

Even you can't make that piece of rhetorical flotsam work. And have utterly abandoned it.

As you should.

Yes, and we can no doubt also conclude that you also feel the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, women have a right to murder their pre-born children and the Earth's climate temperature is rising uncontrollably, due to the behavior of mankind, which, in an ironic twist, can be controlled by confiscatory taxation, effectively redistributing the product of labor of those who DO, to those who do NOT!

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

LOL! OH! So Catholicism? You were pointing to the two distinct religions, which you now come to point out is so represented by the singular religion of Catholicism. Got it... . You're truly the Hallmark of contributors.

Unless Catholicism isn't theism, its a valid indictment of your claims of objectivity. As it demonstrates the absurd level of subjectivity in religion. And there are thousands I can choose from, as Theism is my playground. I can pick the human sacrifices to Moloch.....or the Blood God of the Aztec. I can pick the Inquisition or any of the Crusades. I can pick the Salem Witch Trials or 911. Its all theism.

And the wild contradictions, the absurd degree of malleability, the myriad of sects, the mutually exclusive nature of virtually every religion......demonstrates my point.

As do you. Even among Christianity within the US, time results in ever more variability. The founders would execute homosexuals for sodomy if they caught them. But we don't do that anymore. I've asked you half a dozen times if you believe we should execute gays for sodomy. And you run every time I ask. Nor do most Christians advocate execution for sodomy. They've 'interpreted around it'. Cherry picking what they want to do based on what they choose to believe. Ignoring and dismissing whatever they don't like. And emphasizing what they do.

And this is 'objectivity'?

Laughing.....um, no. Its hopelessly subjective. Which is my point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

The electoral college has never elected a minority President. As the vote by the Electoral College, represents the will of the MAJORITY OF THE STATES, which elects Presidents.

That a majority of people wanted one guy over another is, quite irrelevant. And that is because of the nature of factions, which, by virtue of it's nature, factions are readily manipulated, thus the 'will' of those people, often runs counter to the best interests.

Take Detroit, DC, NYC, California... . Please.

I did ask how people felt, didn't I........

Did you miss the part about how I said I'm on the fence now, after reading more?

But if rude people like you are for it...it just does a disservice to your side.

I got that you're on the fence. I merely pointed out that the EC does not elect minority Presidents. And I then explained why it is that the EC has not, does not and will never do so.

You call it rude... because you are NOT on the fence, you're seeking to use that deceit in a fraudulent attempt to influence your opposition to compromise with you, so that you can re-organize at the newly established front, created by the compromise, so as to continue to push the opposition back from that advanced position.

This is not a particularly effective tactic with Americans. Because we will crush you for it.

You seem paranoid, and acting out as though you've got an inferiority complex.

Have fun.

OH! That is too bad.

"BORED!" I would have accepted "bored".

Sadly, "paranoid" has no potential correlation to someone correcting your endless parade of misnomers and myth.

Please come back again... as you do help to offset the boredom and THAT is, after all, the purpose of this here exercise.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

And nothing to back up your "McCarthy went after Lucille Ball" assertion

 

[Skylar]

Now....back up your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Show us the polls indicating as much. As you put it, 'back up your crap'. With sources, as you simply can't be trusted.

Right, you disingenuous hack. When you said in the United States where most people could get a legal, interracial marriage the the "majority" of people wanted that to be a crime, and I said you're wrong. It's on me to prove you are wrong. LOL. You are showing clearly what you are.

The one thing we know you won't do is back up your claim. Which you can't, because it's ridiculous.

Whoa there, champ. What happened to your claims that I didn't say interracial sex...but said interracial marriage? You carefully omitted it from your quote of my post and have utterly abandoned the claim. Why? Because I proved you were a hapless liar with your own post:

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...


Kaz
Post 2151
Hitler Fascism and the right wing Page 216 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You knew you were lying when you made the bullshit claim. Just as you knew you were misrepresenting my position when you claimed I'd argued that Americans want to criminalize interracial sex. I said that the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense.

And you quoted me saying it about half a dozen times. You willfully, consciously, and ineptly attempted to deceive. Not just once. But over and over and over again. If your claims have merit, why do you need to lie?

Laughing.....you were saying about 'disingenuous hacks'?

And of course, back up your claim that the majority of Americans didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex. Back your crap up.

 

[Skylar]

And still stalking you, like some cheesy 80s villian in a hockey mask, is your failed argument that morality requires religion. And that rejecting religion is a rejection of morality.

Even you can't make that piece of rhetorical flotsam work. And have utterly abandoned it.

As you should.

Yes, and we can no doubt also conclude that you also feel the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, women have a right to murder their pre-born children and the Earth's climate temperature is rising uncontrollably, due to the behavior of mankind, which, in an ironic twist, can be controlled by confiscatory taxation, effectively redistributing the product of labor of those who DO, to those who do NOT!

If you think the world if flat, that's your business. I'm interested in you being able to back your claim that the rejection of religion is the rejection of morality. You can't provide a logical or ratoinal reason why this must be so. You simply insist it must be....and then bizarrely declare victory.

If you have no logical or rational basis for your claims, then just say so.

Your most recent concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing....and predictably, the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. Your white flag. You don't need an excuse to run if you have no logical or rational basis for your beliefs. Just run. I'll only laugh a little.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! OH! So Catholicism? You were pointing to the two distinct religions, which you now come to point out is so represented by the singular religion of Catholicism. Got it... . You're truly the Hallmark of contributors.

Unless Catholicism isn't theism, its a valid indictment of your claims of objectivity. As it demonstrates the absurd level of subjectivity in religion. ... .

So where I said that "a human being is confined to a 'body', the nature of which is to sustain: Self. Therefore, its nature is centered upon, solving for, that which satisfies the needs of its self. It is therefore: Self-ish."

A point I made SPECIFICALLY to denote the need for religion to express objective morality because "Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life beyond self; seeking truth beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self."

You need THAT to be the opposite of that?

Wherein the HUMAN BEING is objective and RELIGION is subjective... leading the objective human being toward the service of their own needs.

ROFLMNAO! Well... there's nothing particularly subjective about THAT!

You truly are a case study in abject stupidity.

There is NOTHING in the tenets of Christianity, which so much as CONDONES the taking of a human life, because some jackass needs that life to be taken as a show of their own power, as a means to cow others into following THEM... conceding their freedom and their very lives to THEM. Zero... .

Therefore, we can readily see that such behavior falls from the objective nature of the religion, and INTO the service of their own subjective needs. You're claiming that such is the result of 'interpretation', is absurd, as there is no potential for one to INTERPRET their way through to the anti-thesis of the religion, through the exercise of the principles which define the religion.

It's nonsense. Just as it is nonsense that you would 'conclude' that life is precious, absent the means to define the rarest of elements essential to making it such. Which is how we can know, that you came to no such conclusion... and that your claims to have done so are fraudulent.

(Folks, do ya see how easy this is?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And still stalking you, like some cheesy 80s villian in a hockey mask, is your failed argument that morality requires religion. And that rejecting religion is a rejection of morality.

Even you can't make that piece of rhetorical flotsam work. And have utterly abandoned it.

As you should.

To wit: #2278

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and as such are never the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity. Objectivity is the essential element of truth. Truth is the essential element of trust. Truth and trust are essential to a soundly reasoned morality and a soundly reasoned morality is the foundation of Justice.

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 why morality requires religion, in that a human being is confined to a 'body', the nature of which is to sustain: Self. Therefore, its nature is centered upon, solving for, that which satisfies the needs of its self. It is therefore: Self-ish.

This is born out through your own declaration of your having used YOUR reasoning to come to YOURconclusions, all of which speak to YOUR-Self, which YOU presumably feel, fulfills your personal needs.

Sadly, your fulfillment is irrelevant to anyone but (guess who).

Sadly, where your rights are usurped, your means to fulfill your needs are usurped and because of your subjective nature, 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 to a fair degree, 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.

... I'm interested in you being able to back your claim that the rejection of religion is the rejection of morality. You can't provide a logical or ratoinal reason why this must be so.

To wit: #2278 and #2306

Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and as such are never the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity. Objectivity is the essential element of truth. Truth is the essential element of trust. Truth and trust are essential to a soundly reasoned morality and a soundly reasoned morality is the foundation of Justice.

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 why morality requires religion, in that a human being is confined to a 'body', the nature of which is to sustain: Self. Therefore, its nature is centered upon, solving for, that which satisfies the needs of its self. It is therefore: Self-ish.

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

Sadly, your fulfillment is irrelevant to anyone but (guess who).

Sadly, where your rights are usurped, your means to fulfill your needs are usurped and because of your subjective nature, 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 to a fair degree, 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.