Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Skylar]

[
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."

You can't claim objectivity to theism when theism is so wildly self contradictory and subject to so many subjective processes. Theists have disporate and wildly different beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Meaning that logically, almost all theists that have ever lived had faith in self deluded nonsense. As its impossible for two mutually exclusive beliefs to BOTH be right. And there are thousands of such mutually exclusive beliefs among theists. Perhaps millions. And still only one can be right.

Worse for you, just because logically one CAN be right doesn't mean that one has to be right. Its quite possible that ALL of the theists got it wrong. And none of them have a firm grasp on what God 'really wants'. You've never been able to explain why your particular beliefs are accurate while all the other theists that contradict you are wrong. You simply say it must be so. And your personal opinion isn't objectivity either.

Worse still, even if you're dealing with the same culture, the same language, the same faith, the same religious texts.....theists can arbitrarily discard anything they wish. They can straight up ignore the 'word of god' by interpreting around it. In the Founders era, gays were executed for Sodomy, with religion being cited as the moral justification for such execution. Pennsylvania just transcribed passages from Leviticus word for word for their law on sodomy.

But now? Not so much. You run from the question ever time I ask it, as you know any answer you give me proves me right. As it demonstrates the absurdly subjective nature of theism. Where anything a theist doesn't want to believe they just intepret around. With different intepretations per sect, different laws per religion, different religions in different texts. Almost all contradicting each other in a mishmash of self delusion.

And this you call 'objective'? I don't think 'objectivity' means what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[
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 all simply mean: the opposite of all that?

ROFLMNAO!

Well, there's nothing particularly subjective about THAT!

You can't claim objectivity to theism when theism is so wildly self contradictory and subject to so many subjective processes. Theists have disporate and wildly different beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Meaning that logically, almost all theists that have ever lived had faith in self deluded nonsense. ... [sic]

You ... are an imbecile.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

For the edification of the reader who begins the thread on this page, the following is the position that the above disembodied, thoroughly baseless drivel had hoped to contest:

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.

The 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. Its innate perspective is subjective.

Religion is inherently objective... as it informs the adherent to reach 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.

 

[kaz]

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

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Theism is subject to all of these factors. Theistic beliefs are radically different between religions and between cultures. Between societies. Between different periods in history. Even between individuals within the same culture, religion, society and period. And move around a little bit in time, and you get wildly different interpretations based on subjective belief.

As you demonstrate every time you run from this question: Do you believe gays should be executed for sodomy?

The founders clearly did. Today's Christians overwhelmingly don't. And I can send you running every time I ask you the question because you know it demonstrates my point. Theism is subjective and malluable, subject to culture, history, personal context. And theists can straight up ignore or dimiss any portion of their faith they don't like by interpreting around it.

As most US Christians have by abandoning the position of the founders that sodomy be punished with execution. You're stuck.

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

Obviously not....as the widly different interpretations of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Theresa demonstrate. If religion was objective, they'd have the same standards, the same interpretations. But its not and they don't. And that's within the same general faith. Go outside that faith, and compare 'gods law' between religions and it gets even more comically self contradictory.

The consistency and objectivity you imagine .....simply doesn't exist.

And take the sodomy example again. How do you explain the fantastically different approach of American Christians to homosexuality today....compared to the era of the Founders? Did the Bible change? Nope. The Christians changed....by interpreting around it. They straight up ignored those portions of Leviticus that they didn't want to believe through subjective interpretation.

Demonstrating rather elegantly, by your own standards of theism, that subjectivity doesn't eliminate the capacity for morality. Its entirely possible to be moral without religion, just as its entirely possible to be immoral with it. Religion is simply a vehicle for teaching moral systems. There are many others...including one's own capacity for moral reasoning.

Why then would the rejection of religion be the rejection of morality? There is no reason. I don't need to believe that a cheeseburger is an abomination to recognize that killing is wrong.

 

[Skylar]

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

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Theism is subject to all of these factors.

Absolute NONSENSE.

 

[Skylar]

You ... are an imbecile.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Personal insults and random declarations of victory. Its like a logical fallacy parade.

Laughing....you're stuck, Keyes. I've got you scripting again, repeating yourself word for word while being incapable of addressing any of the truck sized holes in your reasoning. I'll demonstrate for you again....and you'll demonstrate for us how broken your argument is by ignoring it all and repeating the same debunked nonsense.

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.

Theism is subject to all of these factors. Theistic beliefs are radically different between religions and between cultures. Between societies. Between different periods in history. Even between individuals within the same culture, religion, society and period. And move around a little bit in time, and you get wildly different interpretations based on subjective belief.

As you demonstrate every time I send you running from this same simple question....'Do you believe gays should be executed for sodomy'. The 'reader' who is reading the thread from the beginning will easily note each and every rout, every scrambling retreat you've made from that simple question.

Keep running.

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

Obviously not....as the widly different interpretations of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Theresa demonstrate. If religion was objective, they'd have the same standards, the same interpretations. But its not and they don't. And that's within the same general faith. Go outside that faith, and compare 'gods law' between religions and it gets even more comically self contradictory.

The consistency and objectivity you imagine .....simply doesn't exist.

You can't refute these points. You won't even address them. As you have no logical nor rational basis for the claim that religion is 'objective'. And I've demonstrated its hopeless, inevitable, inescapable subjectivity again and again.

And worse.....almost all theistic beliefs are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH a pantheon of Greek Gods AND Jesus. Which means that among the thousands, perhaps millions of different mutually exclusive theistic belief systems.....only one can possibly be right.

And worse still.....there's no particular reason that ANY of them are right. Its quite possible that all theists got it wrong. And that none of them represent the 'will of God' accurately. Which means, at best, almost every theist that has ever lived had faith in self deluded nonsense. And at worst (from your perspective anyway) all of them did. How do you deal with these truck sized holes in your claims? The way you always do;

You ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Your problem...is that you can't make us ignore them. And that's why you fail.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Theism is subject to all of these factors.

Absolute NONSENSE.

Then explain the wild differences in American Christian's approach to homosexuality today compared to the era of the founders. The founders believed the Bible justified the execution of gays for sodomy. Most modern Christians in the US don't.

Explain it.......without any reference to culture, society, history or personal context. Or admit theism is subject to these factors.

 

[Skylar]

And since religion is subject to WILD variability of subjective interpretation, clearly subjectivity doesn't invalidate morality. Why then would religion be necessary for morality? Why would the rejection of religion be a rejection of morality?

Why, for example, must I believe that a cheese burger is an abomination, or that Zeus can change form into a stag to recognize that killing is wrong? It doesn't make the slightest sense. Folks can use their own capacity for moral reasoning to reach the conclusion that killing is wrong without all the mysticism, dietary restrictions and arbitrary jiggery-pokery of religion.

Even stein recognizes that you don't need religion to be moral. Leaving you all by your lonesome on this one.

 

[thanatos144]

Totally derailed thread. It is what the progressive commies do when they are losing the debate

Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

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

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

 

[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

^ 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

Listen, you brainwashed moron LIAR, he inspired and led them into bs. DUH

 

[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

^ 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

Listen, you brainwashed moron LIAR, he inspired and led them into bs. DUH

Dude, do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up. Not even Wry wants to be in the same sinking ship as you.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Yup, pure coincidence. lol. IDIOT

 

[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????????

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.

Yup, pure coincidence. lol. IDIOT

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with the HUAC.

McCarthy's claim was that senior people in the Administration were Communist spies and he vastly underestimated the degree to which Democrats were reporting to Stalin and Mao.

He had NOTHING to do with Blacklisting Hollywood writers or actors

NOTHING

I'll have to say it a few hundred more times but that's because you're a complete fucking imbecile. Even Wry, who I accuse of being an intellectual lightweight realized the error and he's desperately trying to back away.

 

[kaz]

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

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

Got nothing, huh Skylar? So you ready to admit you made it up?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You ... are an imbecile.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Personal insults

My response was neither random, nor was it an insult.

The response spoke specifically to your sub-standard intellectual means, wherein I noted that such was below that which would be expected from that of a small child. You are an imbecile. That is a fact.

That such offends you is to be expected. Sadly, your intellectual deficiencies are your problem.

You most recent concession is hereby duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Theism is subject to all of these factors.

Absolute NONSENSE.

Then explain the wild differences in American Christian's approach to homosexuality today compared to the era of the founders. The founders believed the Bible justified the execution of gays for sodomy. Most modern Christians in the US don't.

Explain it.......without any reference to culture, society, history or personal context. Or admit theism is subject to these factors.

"Theism" is not Religion.

Christianity is a religion. Which does not require the killing of homosexuals. Nature requires that, but only where the goal is the survival of the species, through the maintenance of the viability of that species.

Christians today are having to relearn the lessons that were readily known by the Founders. That the human species, has throughout the ages come to discover that sexual abnormality is a symptom of perverse human reasoning and it will not be long before homosexuals will be again killed where they are discovered. Of course that will be, as it has always been, in the wake of a catastrophic war, which resulted from the collapse of whatever culture that had decayed to the point that its collective reasoning had normalized perverse reasoning.

One does not normalize deviant reasoning and not suffer the consequences intrinsic to such, which come part and parcel with perversion.

There's a reason for these words: Deviant, Perverse, Abnormal. And that reason is NOT that the originators of the words were fundamentalists determined to keep the freaks down.

Now as for me, I wish that the sexually abnormal were normal... I WISH that those who could nto rise above their twisted desires to touch peters and munch the same rug as their own, were just regular folks who want the same thing as everyone else and that they could live along side other people and participate in the community, quietly going about their business... . But you can't.

We saw this with our own eyes, just WEEKS ago, as the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality took to using the color of LAW to FORCE people into servitude, when those people made it clear that they were perfectly fine with accepting the sexually abnormal as people, to allow them to work and live and to treat them as they would treat everyone else, except that they would not participate IN ANY CAPACITY, even where not doing so would come at a financial loss to them, in activity which celebrated the pretense that a man could 'marry a man' or a woman, a women.

So perverse is the reasoning of the sexually abnormal, that they must demand that Abnormal behavior be counted as normal... .

So, our position is no different from the Founders... we're simply ignorant of the information which they fully understood as to the ramifications and consequences of tolerating evil.

It happens... and don't you worry... nature has a cure for it.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

I dont know what you mean by social problem for one, but I suppose that social problems aret "everything" as you said before.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I disagree somewhat on this...despite so called disproportianate influence..."flyover" country still gets little attention from presidential candidates and from the washington establishment. Smaller states could use even more influence, I think they are generally less corrupt than the big staes so it would benefit most americans too.

I'm really exhausted by a lack willingness to discuss the topic, from others, and that's not your fault.

But what I'd like to research more...was why the founders thought the electoral college was needed, then compare those needs with our reality today.

I still have some reading to do though, and after that I'll maybe start a thread focusing on that one question.

I think part of it was just making it easier to organize/count votes. But it also supported state power, power of state legeslatures.
does sound like a good thread to start.

Okay, here are a few arguments I found, both for, and against, the Electoral College.

I started out against it, but I'm now on the fence.

What do you say?

For:

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will

The Electoral College was a compromise adopted by the Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted the President elected directly, while others preferred selection by Congress. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a President who has support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legisature. Since the Founding Fathers thought this would happen often, the Electoral College was the least minimally acceptable to everyone involved.

Other reasons seem less outdated. The Electoral College allowed the 3/5ths compromise to be carried over into the election. The FF thought the American people wouldn't be able to make an intelligent decision

I've also read that the elctoral college is likea sport tournament. That it amounts to winning a number of games rather than one big one. It clarifies the vote, so we dont need nationwide recounts.
I think it could use some reforms. The discrepency between large and small states wasnt so wide at our founding, so perhaps that could be addressed somehow.