153 replies to this topic

[medicineman]

Rol82, keep these good posts coming..

Edited by medicineman, 26 September 2010 - 11:32 AM.

[JLL]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

[medicineman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

nothing about the parasitic nature of government and leadership though? im disappointed. the quality of your libertarian polemic is becoming shaky.

Edited by medicineman, 26 September 2010 - 04:06 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Rol82, keep these good posts coming..

Indeed, keep throwing the questions, and when I have the time, I'll compose another quick post.

[niner]

Name calling aside, I actually would like to hear on specific propositions from CuringTheSane on how to fix political systems of the Western world, other than stuff like "leaders should truly represent their nations" and "make education better", might be refreshing when all you hear is the awful liberal left Stone/Moore propaganda .

Stone and Moore are all you hear? Where does one even go to hear them at all? Is Oliver Stone still alive? Or do you mean Sharon and Demi?

[Rational Madman]

Name calling aside, I actually would like to hear on specific propositions from CuringTheSane on how to fix political systems of the Western world, other than stuff like "leaders should truly represent their nations" and "make education better", might be refreshing when all you hear is the awful liberal left Stone/Moore propaganda .

Stone and Moore are all you hear? Where does one even go to hear them at all? Is Oliver Stone still alive? Or do you mean Sharon and Demi?

Sharon and Demi, very heavy thinkers indeed. As for Oliver Stone, I imagine he has come close to a few cocaine induced cardiac arrests, but depressingly, he continues to ceaselessly produce work that marginalizes his earlier exceptionalism.

Edited by Rol82, 27 September 2010 - 07:03 AM.

[Rational Madman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

nothing about the parasitic nature of government and leadership though? im disappointed. the quality of your libertarian polemic is becoming shaky.

Not to mention clinically insane. To paraphrase Nietzsche, mass political movements are for the less exceptional.

[Rational Madman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

So, with your infinite and infallible wisdom, where would your one member country possibly be? I'm sure this would be a modest country without pretensions, right? I should be more sensitive, but I'm tempted to post the DSM-IV defined diagnostic criteria for dissociative disorder, and some research on the relationship between mental illness and political affiliation. I'm trying to be helpful, really, because what I've repeatedly witnessed in the Politics sub-forum is symptomatic of some very pernicious, and pervasive neuropsychiatric disorders. Ridiculing them can be fun, even though I probably shouldn't be hypocritically insensitive, and worsen the state of discourse. But really, where does all of this come from?

Edited by Rol82, 27 September 2010 - 05:15 PM.

[medicineman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

So, with your infinite and infallible wisdom, where would your one member country possibly be? I'm sure this would be a modest country without pretensions, right? I should be more sensitive, but I'm tempted to post the DSM-IV defined diagnostic criteria for dissociative disorder, and some research on the relationship between mental illness and political affiliation. I'm trying to be helpful, really, because what I've repeatedly witnessed in Politics sub-forum is symptomatic of some very pernicious, and pervasive neuropsychiatric disorders. Ridiculing them can be fun, even though I probably shouldn't be hypocritically insensitive, and worsen the state of discourse. But, really, where does all of this come from?

Rol82, you are treading on dangerous waters. At anytime now, expect posts upon posts by Alexlibman (an overzealous right wing fascist) and RighteousReason (same as Alex, except lacking any depth and insight that Alex can be seen as having) along the lines of: the parasitic state, how they have the answers, and how animal abuse elevates our species on the Kardashev scale. Alex might throw a couple of spanners in your wheel by arguing that female genital mutilation is a right reserved for parents to make, and how living in the UAE under tyrants is a great example of laissez-faire prosperity.

[chris w]

Name calling aside, I actually would like to hear on specific propositions from CuringTheSane on how to fix political systems of the Western world, other than stuff like "leaders should truly represent their nations" and "make education better", might be refreshing when all you hear is the awful liberal left Stone/Moore propaganda .

Stone and Moore are all you hear? Where does one even go to hear them at all? Is Oliver Stone still alive? Or do you mean Sharon and Demi?

Sharon and Demi, very heavy thinkers indeed. As for Oliver Stone, I imagine he has come close to a few cocaine induced cardiac arrests, but depressingly, he continues to ceaselessly produce work that marginalizes his earlier exceptionalism.

I watched the new Wall Street few days before, so indeed he must be alive somewhere in order to make crappy movies. But after Castro's recent revelations about comunism not working and Israel's right to exist, he might be in for a golden sniff.

Oh, and Sharon - 154 Intelligence Quotient, so know who you are mocking guys

[Rational Madman]

Name calling aside, I actually would like to hear on specific propositions from CuringTheSane on how to fix political systems of the Western world, other than stuff like "leaders should truly represent their nations" and "make education better", might be refreshing when all you hear is the awful liberal left Stone/Moore propaganda .

Stone and Moore are all you hear? Where does one even go to hear them at all? Is Oliver Stone still alive? Or do you mean Sharon and Demi?

Sharon and Demi, very heavy thinkers indeed. As for Oliver Stone, I imagine he has come close to a few cocaine induced cardiac arrests, but depressingly, he continues to ceaselessly produce work that marginalizes his earlier exceptionalism.

I watched the new Wall Street few days before, so indeed he must be alive somewhere in order to make crappy movies. But after Castro's recent revelations about comunism not working and Israel's right to exist, he might be in for a golden sniff.

Oh, and Sharon - 154 Intelligence Quotient, so know who you are mocking guys

Is there any proof of the 154 number, because I'm personally doubtful. She has, for instance, claimed membership repeatedly in the organization MENSA, but when confronted by the organization's leaders, forced to recant. I just don't buy it, I'm sorry. She's a pathological liar, and was the only member of the Basic Instinct 2 project that came away impressed---which happened to be the worst movie I've seen since The Brown Bunny, even though I couldn't stop laughing during that one "scene" with Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo.

Edited by Rol82, 27 September 2010 - 08:26 PM.

[chris w]

Yeah, probably afterall that is an urban myth started by a manager or someone to match "beautiful" with "smart". BI 2 - definitely a waste of time ( not that part one was so impressing either )

[JLL]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

So, with your infinite and infallible wisdom, where would your one member country possibly be? I'm sure this would be a modest country without pretensions, right? I should be more sensitive, but I'm tempted to post the DSM-IV defined diagnostic criteria for dissociative disorder, and some research on the relationship between mental illness and political affiliation. I'm trying to be helpful, really, because what I've repeatedly witnessed in the Politics sub-forum is symptomatic of some very pernicious, and pervasive neuropsychiatric disorders. Ridiculing them can be fun, even though I probably shouldn't be hypocritically insensitive, and worsen the state of discourse. But really, where does all of this come from?

I don't want a one man country... nor do I consider myself infallible. And I sure as hell don't think the achievements of others residing in the same country as me (i.e. "my fellow countrymen") have anything to do with my self-worth, for better or for worse. I never understood patriotism and nationalism in that sense. I don't think all this qualifies as crazy, but if you do, that's fine by me. I guess I would rather be crazy than sane by your standards, since you seem to be saying that not making your own choices and following others instead is a sign of neuropsychiatric health.

To each their own.

[maxwatt]

Yeah, probably afterall that is an urban myth started by a manager or someone to match "beautiful" with "smart". BI 2 - definitely a waste of time ( not that part one was so impressing either )

I'm dubious about the IQ number because for years Stone claimed her IQ was 148, not 154. The PR angle explains it. Another pretty face and beautiful body, Raquel Welch, or her publicist, claimed an IQ of 164. I suppose if you're that smart, you've figured out you have a better chance of getting rich in Hollywood than in graduate school. Unless you're ugly. What is Madonna's IQ, and why isn't she in graducate school?

[Ben]

Reagan without a doubt.



The guy is a hero to me.

Edited by Ben - Aus, 28 September 2010 - 01:18 PM.

[Rational Madman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

So, with your infinite and infallible wisdom, where would your one member country possibly be? I'm sure this would be a modest country without pretensions, right? I should be more sensitive, but I'm tempted to post the DSM-IV defined diagnostic criteria for dissociative disorder, and some research on the relationship between mental illness and political affiliation. I'm trying to be helpful, really, because what I've repeatedly witnessed in Politics sub-forum is symptomatic of some very pernicious, and pervasive neuropsychiatric disorders. Ridiculing them can be fun, even though I probably shouldn't be hypocritically insensitive, and worsen the state of discourse. But, really, where does all of this come from?

Rol82, you are treading on dangerous waters. At anytime now, expect posts upon posts by Alexlibman (an overzealous right wing fascist) and RighteousReason (same as Alex, except lacking any depth and insight that Alex can be seen as having) along the lines of: the parasitic state, how they have the answers, and how animal abuse elevates our species on the Kardashev scale. Alex might throw a couple of spanners in your wheel by arguing that female genital mutilation is a right reserved for parents to make, and how living in the UAE under tyrants is a great example of laissez-faire prosperity.

Well, they're both certainly puzzling pieces of work that are in dire need of taking a few classes in research methodology. I fear the looming election results this November might make the voices of their kind deafening, though. But, only a temporary nuisance that changes with the fickle public mood. Whatever validation they get in this election cycle will be almost certainly squandered, and demographic changes will ensure that we never have to be inundated with this nonsense ever again. However, there will always be an Alex Libman type on this forum that's resistant to moderation and the weight of evidence.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 04:17 AM.

[niner]

Reagan without a doubt.

The guy is a hero to me.

Interesting historical artifact. Reagan speaks out against... Medicare! Not to mention Social Security. Do you have any idea how loud many of the Tea Partiers would scream if we tried to take away their Medicare and Social Security? The Tea Party is obviously a bunch of socialists. Those who decry a "Government Takeover of Medicine" are about fifty years too late.

[Rational Madman]

No one. I want no one to rule me, except myself.

Anyone who wants to be led by someone is effectively saying they are not fit to rule themselves, which is nothing but a lack of spine and self-respect.

So, with your infinite and infallible wisdom, where would your one member country possibly be? I'm sure this would be a modest country without pretensions, right? I should be more sensitive, but I'm tempted to post the DSM-IV defined diagnostic criteria for dissociative disorder, and some research on the relationship between mental illness and political affiliation. I'm trying to be helpful, really, because what I've repeatedly witnessed in the Politics sub-forum is symptomatic of some very pernicious, and pervasive neuropsychiatric disorders. Ridiculing them can be fun, even though I probably shouldn't be hypocritically insensitive, and worsen the state of discourse. But really, where does all of this come from?

I don't want a one man country... nor do I consider myself infallible. And I sure as hell don't think the achievements of others residing in the same country as me (i.e. "my fellow countrymen") have anything to do with my self-worth, for better or for worse. I never understood patriotism and nationalism in that sense. I don't think all this qualifies as crazy, but if you do, that's fine by me. I guess I would rather be crazy than sane by your standards, since you seem to be saying that not making your own choices and following others instead is a sign of neuropsychiatric health.

To each their own.

So how else would you characterize yourself? Perhaps as having an acute understanding of the weight of evidence? When limited to a facile analysis of their abstract appeal, there's an understandable superficial beauty to your collection of ideas that continues to enchant immature minds, but when the same ideas are subjected to the rigorous requirements for proof, they're stripped of their credibility. This explains their limited appeal among serious academics, which is a tepidness that's not the product of an institutional conspiracy to stifle scholarship---since as I can attest, no such pressure exists when established methods of inquiry are adhered to in academia. While there're an admittedly impressive small group of contrarians (e.g. James Buchanan) that continue to vainly claim that the world is flat, their continued intransigence can be most easily rationalized by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance----which even the most exceptional aren't immune to unfortunately. Anyway, I think I'll come to an abrupt stop, because I don't want to deprive you of the solace that your fantastical notions of governance provide you in place of the more troubling, and superstitious rationalizations of our state of being.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 03:54 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Reagan without a doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQ

The guy is a hero to me.

Yes, his belligerent approach expedited the inevitable demise of a failing ideology, and ensured that its former adherents were subject to a painful landing (a 60% drop in aggregate Russian output for the next decade) that made a permanent relaxation of tensions dependent on the sort of diplomatic genius that was nowhere to be found among policymakers, and paved the way for a schizophrenic oligopoly that needlessly perpetuates the suffering of the historically unlucky Russian people. To be sure, things have temporarily improved, but only because the amount of contraction was unprecedented when Russia's wealth of resources, human capital, and systemic importance to international trade are considered. So, yes, let's all applaud Reagan for incurring unneeded interest payments on our sovereign debt whilst pursuing an extremely dubious cause of an already certain outcome. But, the Soviets were evil, of course, and it was our solemn duty to act as messianic hypocrites. Yeah, right. Rather, the Reagan administration epitomizes the perils of allowing evangelical and absolutist notions infect policymaking. But, I will give him credit for shutting up, and lending support to the Volcker Federal Reserve.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 07:02 AM.

[Ben]

Reagan without a doubt.

The guy is a hero to me.

Yes, his belligerent approach expedited the inevitable demise of a failing ideology, and ensured that its former adherents were subject to a painful landing (a 60% drop in aggregate Russian output for the next decade) that made a permanent relaxation of tensions dependent on the sort of diplomatic genius that was nowhere to be found among policymakers, and paved the way for a schizophrenic oligopoly that needlessly perpetuates the suffering of the historically unlucky Russian people. To be sure, things have temporarily improved, but only because the amount of contraction was unprecedented when Russia's wealth of resources, human capital, and systemic importance to international trade is considered. So, yes, let's all applaud Reagan for incurring unneeded interest payments on our sovereign debt whilst pursuing an extremely dubious cause of an already certain outcome. ... ... Rather, the Reagan administration epitomizes the perils of allowing evangelical and absolutist notions infect policymaking. But, I will give him credit for shutting up, and lending support to the Volcker Federal Reserve.

The quicker the evil empire that was Soviet Russia (it still is an EE these days, albeit a lesser one) ended, the better. Not just for the world, but the people of Russia. Reagan didn't create Soviet Russia and it was not his duty to see that it had a safe landing, but to see that it ended once it threatened America. Furthermore, given the amazing ability of states like Soviet Russia to survive (e.g.: North Korea,) I think it's impossible to call the outcome "inevitable." And even if it was, which given an infinite amount of time is possible, as well as almost any other outcome, who knows how long it would have gone on for? There's no way a theorised inevitability could have justified inaction.

If you want my opinion, there's a cultural sickness of sentimentality in Russia that will not allow democracy and created its two evil regimes.

Reagan to me epitomises why it's good to have a strong believer of Christianity as president. It's a good moral code.

But, the Soviets were evil, of course, and it was our solemn duty to act as messianic hypocrites. Yeah, right.

I don't understand. They weren't evil? How did America act as a messianic hypocrite? How does this kind of metaphor even fit in here?

[Ben]

Reagan without a doubt.

The guy is a hero to me.

Interesting historical artifact. Reagan speaks out against... Medicare! Not to mention Social Security. Do you have any idea how loud many of the Tea Partiers would scream if we tried to take away their Medicare and Social Security? The Tea Party is obviously a bunch of socialists. Those who decry a "Government Takeover of Medicine" are about fifty years too late.

The socialised medicine bit was not his best moment, and it's only one of many thousands. I chose the video at random on youtube and as people are using Reagan now to support an anti-medicare stance, it came up.

[Rational Madman]

Reagan without a doubt.

The guy is a hero to me.

Yes, his belligerent approach expedited the inevitable demise of a failing ideology, and ensured that its former adherents were subject to a painful landing (a 60% drop in aggregate Russian output for the next decade) that made a permanent relaxation of tensions dependent on the sort of diplomatic genius that was nowhere to be found among policymakers, and paved the way for a schizophrenic oligopoly that needlessly perpetuates the suffering of the historically unlucky Russian people. To be sure, things have temporarily improved, but only because the amount of contraction was unprecedented when Russia's wealth of resources, human capital, and systemic importance to international trade is considered. So, yes, let's all applaud Reagan for incurring unneeded interest payments on our sovereign debt whilst pursuing an extremely dubious cause of an already certain outcome. ... ... Rather, the Reagan administration epitomizes the perils of allowing evangelical and absolutist notions infect policymaking. But, I will give him credit for shutting up, and lending support to the Volcker Federal Reserve.

The quicker the evil empire that was Soviet Russia (it still is an EE these days, albeit a lesser one) ended, the better. Not just for the world, but the people of Russia. Reagan didn't create Soviet Russia and it was not his duty to see that it had a safe landing, but to see that it ended once it threatened America. Furthermore, given the amazing ability of states like Soviet Russia to survive (e.g.: North Korea,) I think it's impossible to call the outcome "inevitable." And even if it was, which given an infinite amount of time is possible, as well as almost any other outcome, who knows how long it would have gone on for? There's no way a theorised inevitability could have justified inaction.

If you want my opinion, there's a cultural sickness of sentimentality in Russia that will not allow democracy and created its two evil regimes.

Reagan to me epitomises why it's good to have a strong believer of Christianity as president. It's a good moral code.

But, the Soviets were evil, of course, and it was our solemn duty to act as messianic hypocrites. Yeah, right.

I don't understand. They weren't evil? How did America act as a messianic hypocrite? How does this kind of metaphor even fit in here?

Okay, I don't know where to start, but consider the following first---because the late hour is disinclining me from writing another lengthy reply.

First, what are the correlates of individual happiness used in quantitative studies, and what effect did the collapse of the Soviet Union have on these correlates? Being completely objective, and without selectively citing evidence that supports your position, what was the comparative difference in accepted definitions of individual happiness as applied to the citizens of Russia in each decade from the 50s to 90s---but more germane, the 80s and 90s?

Second, I think you're mistaking evil for the imperative of power competition between states that becomes inevitable with the human condition, and the anarchical structure of the international system---which is characterized by the existence of nearly 200 competing sovereign states, and by the absence of a sovereign supernational government possessing a civil-peace-creating monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Furthermore, how do we objectively quantify evil? And was the post-Stalinist conduct of the Soviet Union and its satellites sufficiently exceptional relative to historical and contemporary precedents to deserve this categorization? What's more important, did publicly condemning the Soviet Union effectively advance our rational goals of modifying its behavior? How, for instance, did the Soviet Union respond to this categorization? Did it become more pliant or accommodating?

Third, what are the costs of coercive diplomacy, and interstate conflict in comparison to other alternatives, like the projection of soft power? Do nation-states flourish after their repeated involvement in interstate wars, or intensified interstate rivalry? If in selected cases, yes, how sustainable is this success without an alteration of behavior?

Fourth, don't you think that the flawed assumptions about the explanatory power of Communism and its ability to deliver superior societal outcomes was most important to determining its sustainability as a competitor to liberal (perhaps social) democracy and capitalism? How do you explain the failure of countries that adopted similar models of governance, and weren't subject to the same treatment or competitive pressures?

Fifth, is the continued survival of North Korea and its mode of governance an exception, or the norm? Does its defiance pose a serious existential threat to our existence or to the normative gains from a battle that we emerged the unquestioned victor? What about other states resisting normative innovations? Do they offer a coherent model that can be emulated or transplanted? Or is authoritarianism their only shared attribute? Further, judging by all measures for quantifying societal outcomes, what's the difference in outcomes between authoritarian societies and those that adhere to the norm?

Sixth, assuming that it's good to have a sanctimonious "Christian" president, how strong is the causal relationship between the religious affiliation of a chief executive, and individual behavior? What about the strength of this relationship where the chief executive is unapologetically religious? Latin America? The Middle East? Eastern Europe? Historical precedents in the West?

Seventh, if the Russians are, by your estimation, qualitatively better off, how do you explain the sentimentality for the Soviet era? Are internal pressures and societal differences sufficient to explaining contemporary Russia? Can you accept the possibility that our conduct contributed in part to its disorderly, traumatic, and still tentative transition? To admit as much would not be equated to surrendering to the wisdom of Soviet Russia, but evidence of a pragmatic mind.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 07:00 AM.

[JLL]

So how else would you characterize yourself? Perhaps as having an acute understanding of the weight of evidence? When limited to a facile analysis of their abstract appeal, there's an understandable superficial beauty to your collection of ideas that continues to enchant immature minds, but when the same ideas are subjected to the rigorous requirements for proof, they're stripped of their credibility. This explains their limited appeal among serious academics, which is a tepidness that's not the product of an institutional conspiracy to stifle scholarship---since as I can attest, no such pressure exists when established methods of inquiry are adhered to in academia. While there're an admittedly impressive small group of contrarians (e.g. James Buchanan) that continue to vainly claim that the world is flat, their continued intransigence can be most easily rationalized by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance----which even the most exceptional aren't immune to unfortunately. Anyway, I think I'll come to an abrupt stop, because I don't want to deprive you of the solace that your fantastical notions of governance provide you in place of the more troubling, and superstitious rationalizations of our state of being.

Evidence of what?

As for the rest of your post... big words, little content. I would characterize myself as an individualist and a voluntarist, btw. But anarcho-capitalist is fine too.

[Rational Madman]

So how else would you characterize yourself? Perhaps as having an acute understanding of the weight of evidence? When limited to a facile analysis of their abstract appeal, there's an understandable superficial beauty to your collection of ideas that continues to enchant immature minds, but when the same ideas are subjected to the rigorous requirements for proof, they're stripped of their credibility. This explains their limited appeal among serious academics, which is a tepidness that's not the product of an institutional conspiracy to stifle scholarship---since as I can attest, no such pressure exists when established methods of inquiry are adhered to in academia. While there're an admittedly impressive small group of contrarians (e.g. James Buchanan) that continue to vainly claim that the world is flat, their continued intransigence can be most easily rationalized by the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance----which even the most exceptional aren't immune to unfortunately. Anyway, I think I'll come to an abrupt stop, because I don't want to deprive you of the solace that your fantastical notions of governance provide you in place of the more troubling, and superstitious rationalizations of our state of being.

Evidence of what?

As for the rest of your post... big words, little content. I would characterize myself as an individualist and a voluntarist, btw. But anarcho-capitalist is fine too.

Evidence of what? How could you possibly be so detached?
Okay, in any case, I've entered into countless polemical exchanges, and consequentially, I have a pretty good understanding about the receptiveness of the target audience, and when it's appropriate to withdraw due to unfavorable conditions. And its my judgment that my views won't possibly prevail on you, because you have the Jacobin sort of mind that renders you impervious to contradictory evidence, and because the stakes are so very low, I'm willing to suffer the reputational cost of granting you a Pyrrhic victory through my refusal to engage. So, take your cause elsewhere, and evangelize to the more susceptible. While not free of contention, different historical views are much easier to reconcile, so I'd like to stick to the tractable thread topic. I mean, you just had to give the name of a historical figure? Why did that have to be so hard, and why can't you at least spare some threads of your ceaseless nonsense? Is some sort of undefined insecurity driving this behavior? Is this the only, and most reliable means of validating your views? Embark on a serious research project for f**k's sake, see if you can get it published, and take that publication as evidence of validation. But seriously, there is something exceedingly desperate and abnormal about people that have the compulsion to take a polarizing set of ideas from forum to forum (as I imagine you and Alex do collaboratively) for the transient delight of provocation and self-validation.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 09:34 AM.

[CuringTheSane]

I'm laboring to understand what exactly his philosophy is, because who in their right mind would place Hugo Chavez in the same group as Adolf Hitler? Or Qadhaffi in the same group as Morales?

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu- national socialist
Muammar al-Gaddafi- socialist
Adolf Hitler- national socialist
Evo Morales- democratic socialist
Hugo Chavez- socialist

Is that easier for you to put into perspective now? If it isn't, then please, by all means, explain why you insist that these leaders have absolutely nothing in common. Is it a game of naivety, or one of disdain and cheap rhetoric that you're playing? I know it's shocking that a person would admire elements from both the far left, and the far right because those who you have called friends throughout your lives, or had any semblance of association, were probably either too afraid to freely express their thoughts out of a coercive fear that they will be ostracized socially, or that they genuinely have no amount or depth of thought concerning political issues other than those that have been forced upon their minds by the society in question.

I must emphasize that the U.S. is not unique in this, however their education system, it's structure, and the entire way it has been manufactured, is wholly different from those in many other parts of the world, in that it does everything it can to avoid the development of critical thinking skills of the student. It's focus is heavily on obedience, memorization and the instant recall of specific facts, like dates, names, and so on. Essentially these elements are secondary to the information underlying those dates, and facts, and this is where American students fail across the board. This changes at a university level, but there the focus is more so on pleasing the teacher by reciting to them what they want to hear. If your views differ, then good luck obtaining a decent grade. Anyway, I would attempt to demonstrate how indoctrinated you are regarding history, and politics by using a simple thought experiment, but given the fact that it would be subject to corruption due to anyone having the ability to easily look the information up on the internet, I will refrain. What I find abhorrent is that not a single person in this thread bothered to acknowledge this threat of controlling, and it appears that if all possible, even prohibiting views that are independent from those commonplace in American society by calling into question the psychological well being of those that refuse to, or even so much as proposition even the slightest degree of inquiry outside of the beliefs that you yourselves adhere to. What goes unnoticed by many is that the fascism of moderates like Rol82 is far more threatening to the individual than these so called fringe elements that the media incessantly feels the urge to broadcast in order to secure their own positions of political and economic dominance within the current hierarchy. It's also no surprise that those who hold these views, that are flogged like an escaped slave in front of a public square, are always those leaning towards the right.

I have no doubt that you could rattle on forever about JFK, or Roosevelt, or Clinton, or any other number of safe topics in American politics, and that is precisely what I do not care to indulge in, because it is about as stimulating and productive as discussing the current celebrity sex scandal on television.

[chris w]

Reagan to me epitomises why it's good to have a strong believer of Christianity as president. It's a good moral code.

Unless you think science is something important. Sorry but to me it's either - or. Stem cells or Jesus. I have more faith in the benefits of the former, so I prefer that those who choose to be under the wings of the latter stay away from office that has the power to decide which scientific research to fund and with a nuclear button in vicinity.

The trouble with religion is that it cannot NOT see the world as a battlefield. Proselitism is what religion requires by definition, tolerance is just a truce. The Volterian "I will fight for your right to be wrong" can never be sincerely accepted on its grounds, because religion cannot accept somebody being wrongful concerning The Highest Truths. If one is to be serious about monotheism then ideally the whole humankind has to be saved from damantion by being encompassed in the sphere of moral hygene in accordance with rules of certain creed. In the most extreme case, even the destruction of life on earth is to be accepted if that's what God's voice tells to do somebody who can hit that red button. An atheist ( or at least a man of mild faith ) can be somewhat predictable in that he probably doesn't want to die himself in qonsequence of his actions, for a true believer death is just a minor nuisance if it's for the higher goal. This is why something like the MAD dillema doesn't wholly apply in the case of Iran's nuclear arms - it takes the will of the single highest ayatollah to decide that time has come to invite Mahdi.

Obviously, some are more like that than others, at different times. A non theist Buddhist president might not be as bad as an Evangelical Christian. But still I'd rather have Richard Dawkins any day.

Edited by chris w, 29 September 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[CuringTheSane]

Unless you think science is something important. Sorry but to me it's either - or. Stem cells or Jesus. I have more faith in the benefits of the former, so I prefer that those who choose to be under the wings of the latter stay away from office that has the power to decide which scientific research to fund and with a nuclear button in vicinity.

This is a false dichotomy, that I have seen being proliferated far too often.

I suggest you and others begin to dispel this ridiculous notion by starting with this particular article.
Iran at forefront of stem cell research.

"Ayatollah Khamenei often cites the Koran's emphasis on preventing human illness and suffering as evidence that stem cell research and Islam are compatible. Limits do exist: Iran's supreme leader has warned Iranian scientists to be careful that producing identical parts of human beings does not lead to producing a human being, as human cloning is not accepted - a policy shared by the Obama administration."

Science and religion are compatible, and although I myself am not religious, I will not insist upon making arguments against it that have little to no basis in reality. It is true that in a historical perspective that religious leaders have hindered the advancement of certain sciences, however this can not be used as an ironclad justification for the discrimination against those whose beliefs are not identical to your own.

Edited by CuringTheSane, 29 September 2010 - 04:39 PM.

[Ben]

Reagan to me epitomises why it's good to have a strong believer of Christianity as president. It's a good moral code.

Unless you think science is something important. Sorry but to me it's either (blah blah blah- chaff)

Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive. I think that those that are against stem cells, for example, are not in the mainstream, or could be considered moderate, but express an extreme interpretation of the religion, the basic core of which is still good, and not lessened due the particular interpretation (or indeed made incompatible with science.)

Oh and dorkins is today's greatest cretin. For some atheists, blind to the irony, he is a prophet, and used extensively in evangelical atheism. And he is a superstar of popular, half educated, internet thought, riding the progressive/liberal/sentimental wave to fortune and fame while people like you are swept enthusiastically up into the swell until you lie there, screaming on your death bed.

Edited by Ben - Aus, 29 September 2010 - 04:49 PM.

[Rational Madman]

I'm laboring to understand what exactly his philosophy is, because who in their right mind would place Hugo Chavez in the same group as Adolf Hitler? Or Qadhaffi in the same group as Morales?

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu- national socialist
Muammar al-Gaddafi- socialist
Adolf Hitler- national socialist
Evo Morales- democratic socialist
Hugo Chavez- socialist

Is that easier for you to put into perspective now? If it isn't, then please, by all means, explain why you insist that these leaders have absolutely nothing in common. Is it a game of naivety, or one of disdain and cheap rhetoric that you're playing? I know it's shocking that a person would admire elements from both the far left, and the far right because those who you have called friends throughout your lives, or had any semblance of association, were probably either too afraid to freely express their thoughts out of a coercive fear that they will be ostracized socially, or that they genuinely have no amount or depth of thought concerning political issues other than those that have been forced upon their minds by the society in question.

I must emphasize that the U.S. is not unique in this, however their education system, it's structure, and the entire way it has been manufactured, is wholly different from those in many other parts of the world, in that it does everything it can to avoid the development of critical thinking skills of the student. It's focus is heavily on obedience, memorization and the instant recall of specific facts, like dates, names, and so on. Essentially these elements are secondary to the information underlying those dates, and facts, and this is where American students fail across the board. This changes at a university level, but there the focus is more so on pleasing the teacher by reciting to them what they want to hear. If your views differ, then good luck obtaining a decent grade. Anyway, I would attempt to demonstrate how indoctrinated you are regarding history, and politics by using a simple thought experiment, but given the fact that it would be subject to corruption due to anyone having the ability to easily look the information up on the internet, I will refrain. What I find abhorrent is that not a single person in this thread bothered to acknowledge this threat of controlling, and it appears that if all possible, even prohibiting views that are independent from those commonplace in American society by calling into question the psychological well being of those that refuse to, or even so much as proposition even the slightest degree of inquiry outside of the beliefs that you yourselves adhere to. What goes unnoticed by many is that the fascism of moderates like Rol82 is far more threatening to the individual than these so called fringe elements that the media incessantly feels the urge to broadcast in order to secure their own positions of political and economic dominance within the current hierarchy. It's also no surprise that those who hold these views, that are flogged like an escaped slave in front of a public square, are always those leaning towards the right.

I have no doubt that you could rattle on forever about JFK, or Roosevelt, or Clinton, or any other number of safe topics in American politics, and that is precisely what I do not care to indulge in, because it is about as stimulating and productive as discussing the current celebrity sex scandal on television.

Okay, so their ostensible commitment to socialism was your reason for the selection of the aforementioned. Well, this added clarity explains a lot, because they were indisputably model socialists, which is a shared commitment that for some reason escaped me. Maybe because there is just so much about their tenures to love, but as you pointed out, their commitment to implementing a socialist system should have been first and foremost in my mind. Well, thanks for clearing that up, because I thought you were just being shockingly facile.

I propose we move onto the next subject of Holocaust revisionism, and let me start by asking the question that I'm sure has been occupying all of our minds. Was the Holocaust simply a fabrication perpetrated by a network of Jewish financiers to cover up Nazi Germany's otherwise benevolent treatment of the Jewish people? I propose that not only was the Holocaust entirely manufactured by the "International Jew," but that all the missing Jews were simply on subsidized holidays. Isn't it already plain that the German government went to great lengths to pay for their transportation, housing, sustenance, and hygiene? I mean, how could you explain the showers? The crematoriums? Just simply community ovens probably. Indeed, any sound mind would conclude that these concentration camps were simply therapeutic spas designed for the welfare of the Jewish people. The Holocaust narrative is utter nonsense I say, and proof of the stranglehold of the "International Jew." Curingthesane, I want to commend you for convincing me to curse my Jewish heritage as a prelude to a pursuit of the greater truths that I'm sure you'll impart to our corrupted minds. Indeed, you couldn't have picked a more pertinent forum to begin your revolution in thought.

For tomorrow's subject, I'll ask thread participants to comment on selected passages from Qadhaffi's The Green Book, and demand an explanation of why the "International Jew" has prevented its circulation. Furthermore, should we regard this publication as a great example of political philosophy, or the greatest example? No deviations or dissent will be tolerated.

Edited by Rol82, 30 September 2010 - 11:35 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Unless you think science is something important. Sorry but to me it's either - or. Stem cells or Jesus. I have more faith in the benefits of the former, so I prefer that those who choose to be under the wings of the latter stay away from office that has the power to decide which scientific research to fund and with a nuclear button in vicinity.

This is a false dichotomy, that I have seen being proliferated far too often.

I suggest you and others begin to dispel this ridiculous notion by starting with this particular article.
Iran at forefront of stem cell research.

"Ayatollah Khamenei often cites the Koran's emphasis on preventing human illness and suffering as evidence that stem cell research and Islam are compatible. Limits do exist: Iran's supreme leader has warned Iranian scientists to be careful that producing identical parts of human beings does not lead to producing a human being, as human cloning is not accepted - a policy shared by the Obama administration."

Science and religion are compatible, and although I myself am not religious, I will not insist upon making arguments against it that have little to no basis in reality. It is true that in a historical perspective that religious leaders have hindered the advancement of certain sciences, however this can not be used as an ironclad justification for the discrimination against those whose beliefs are not identical to your own.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, because this explains so much. In fact, you almost have my sympathy. Wow, a true, and unrepentant child of the "revolution" on Imminst. Is there some sort of congregating place where I and others could watch you and the other cultists in action? I have, as you could imagine, a naturalist curiosity.

Edited by Rol82, 29 September 2010 - 06:33 PM.