Speaking of the Stalinist angle for a moment. Did Lenin ever speak of mass execution of religious folks, or really any of the extreme death stalin was a fan of. I'm asking seriously (so don't think im trying to be funny or anything) because I don't know much about him, but I figure Lenin and Marx would be better looks at the ideals of communism then Stalin who just blatantly wanted to keep tight control of power no matter the cost.
You tell me bro.
Yet many Nazis were Christians and they advocated Christian means, even perpetuating a Christian agenda against the Jews. They also delved in occultist BS because they were generally ****ed up.But the point is that they are not typical for an areligious government body of people, which was your intent in bringing them up.
Except that 'communism' is not the only secular form of government. You're stance implies that without god in their life, humans will devolve into jackbooted communists, because slippery slope.
If you want to cherry pick, then Aztecs killed millions in religious human sacrifices. OMG I WIN DA DEBATEZ.Let me try something: UR BIAZ IS SHOWING HURR /loldavetechnique.
Religion = faith-based institution which codifies rules for living and is responsible for all sorts of fundamental goodness like homophobia, gender inequality, and burning people who are different from you.
Stalinism and Maoism took a hardline against religion because religion was a threat to their total control, not because again, an absence of religion makes communism. And you accuse me of bias.
Just ignore that both definitions I provided verify my position, and furthermore obfuscate the point.
Cuz you didn't justify or explain your believe or what "makes sense to you", LOL.Maybe if you could articulate it, your reasoning might not be so circular.
Also, you DO realize we had this same sex marriage debate on here maybe a few months ago. How convenient that you ignore that one, instead posting one that puts you in a more favorable light. Not transparent at all🙂
1. Again with the stupid % quotes. Didn't you learn last time?
So be skeptical unless it fits your bias? In that case, simply accept it?LOL @ your healthy dose of skepticism, Dave.
No, they have substance. You're just too dense to realize it.
Burden of proof. If you assert God exists, the onus of proof is on you. I don't have to prove absolutely that he doesn't exist, because I didn't make the assertion.This is really simple. Why do you struggle with this?
Which assertion requires more proof?1. All this can't be luck; it must be directed by a higher power.
2. It is what it is; a random event which is favorable or fortunate.
This is pretty simple, but feel free to crowdsource.
It was simpler and easier to just negate all the nonsense. "PRO LIBERAL PROPAGANDAZ". I love the name-calling. Way to debate, bro.
Just insecure around gays, non-traditional masculine males, anything that appears weak or liberal, Democrats, and people who ask you for answers to your proofs by assertion.
Must be hard typing in the closet, what with your elbows hitting the sides and all.
But let's recap what you've failed to establish:
A. Religion is myth
B. Religion is somehow worse than the absence of religion
Here's what you have established:
A. You are as hardcore liberal as I am conservative.
B. You pick and choose what fits your argument and start nitpicking things that doesn't.
C. When an argument is in doubt, use pictures!
D. Your math is awful.
Why don't we agree to disagree since it doesn't look like this is going anywhere.
The stance of tolerance only went so far under both, but Stalin was worse.
RH, I pose this question to you. Is there a contradiction when I say on a personal level, I do not support same sex marriages but on a public level, I understand not everyone shares my feelings and therefore I don't oppose it?
Also, the whole point was that liberal rhetoric is as flimsy as conservative rhetoric. While I lean conservative, I'm not Tea Party hardcore.
This is pretty cool. Nice pick me up story after I wasted £20 I don't have on the wrong ink cartridges. 🙂
Originally posted by Tzeentch
"As a debate in the Star Wars Vs. Forum grows longer, the probability of image macros being spammed reaches one."
This is a good post.
Originally posted by Nephthys
This is pretty cool. Nice pick me up story after I wasted £20 I don't have on the wrong ink cartridges. 🙂
You are so hapless around technology.
Originally posted by psmith81992
When is the last time I dismissed anything you said? Also where are you getting your percentages? I have not read the article yet I will get it today. If anything I've respected your opinion because while it differs from mine, it lacks bias. I also don't recall the Schroeder thing you'd need to remind me.
Oh no, I didn't mean you dismiss me. Exactly the opposite: You've been a solid debate partner!
It's more like: I think I have pretty typical liberal beliefs. Maybe not extreme ones, but I'm pretty much middle of the pack. So when you say that "liberalism is a mental illness" or call things "liberal propaganda" it seems like that applies to me too. BUT there have been discussions where it seemed like I had some good points.
For example, 3 years ago when we talked about the big bang, I had the last word. And then a few weeks ago, I thought I had a good post about athletes coming out.
I don't want to sound like you have to respond to everything, since we're just sharing the reasons why we believe stuff. (Not doing a slugfest or debate.) But if a liberal can make good points about cosmology or society or economics or whatever, then maybe the philosophy isn't a complete waste of time?
(I have definitely adjusted my opinions about prison sentences after our discussions about the families of victims.)
It's more like: I think I have pretty typical liberal beliefs. Maybe not extreme ones, but I'm pretty much middle of the pack. So when you say that "liberalism is a mental illness" or call things "liberal propaganda" it seems like that applies to me too. BUT there have been discussions where it seemed like I had some good points.
For example, 3 years ago when we talked about the big bang, I had the last word. And then a few weeks ago, I thought I had a good post about athletes coming out.
But if a liberal can make good points about cosmology or society or economics or whatever, then maybe the philosophy isn't a complete waste of time?
(I have definitely adjusted my opinions about prison sentences after our discussions about the families of victims.)
Also feel free to answer my question regarding whether or not there is a contradiction in my stance on same sex marriages.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Why are you going easy on him? That just rewards his behavior.
Instead, I think that DS and I have exchanged a lot of information and ideas over the years. It isn't obvious to me that he's ever interacted (knowingly) with a gay person before, so KMC might be his only chance to dispel some stereotypes. I mean, I'm not that flamboyant, and I'm smart/emotionally stable enough that I can act as at least one counter-example to a lot of those negative stereotypes.
To be honest, the decision to not obstruct marriage equality seems like progress over the way DS might've reacted when I first joined the boards. And on the other stuff, I'm not sure I would consider it a moral victory to argue away someone's faith.
After all, it (religion) seems to be a positive force in DS's life. The knock-on effects of normalizing religious ideas seems like a much weaker argument than that. I'm much more interested in getting a window into the way that the other half views the world, because this is a perspective that I don't have access to.
Spoiler:
Philosophy departments skew liberal, and students in my econ department aren't academically inclined. Math students don't pay attention to the world.
_________________
DS, your response will come in just a second.
One of my good friends in college was a lesbian, and the only gay guys I've interacted with were flaming queens. I'm mildly uncomfortable around those types but I'm ok with that. And yes, my stances have changed over the years. I don't want to say progressive because self proclaimed progressive attribute any kind of change with progression, but I have eased up on many conservative view points. My stance on marriage (effectively neutral), fiscal economics, and the death penalty, will never change.
And while most people are friends with others because it's the same social circle and opinions, I come on here to get the other side's perspective.
On whether there is a contradiction between your personal beliefs and social beliefs, I am not sure what to tell you. First I am going to assume that your disapproval of gay marriage stems from Judaism or other religious reasons.
If there is a contradiction, then it arises only because of the status that you give to Judaic teachings. Specifically, if you thought that Judaism was the only acceptable lifestyle, then it would be a little inconsistent to tolerate any other lifestyle. So the decision to allow same-sex marriage to come into effect would be a failure to protect your own way of life.
But that doesn't seem to be your belief. If Judaism is merely the best (not the sole) acceptable lifestyle then you have no obligation to interfere in anybody else's life at all. Under this conception of the religion, Gentiles are idiots for ignoring the Commandments, but you have no incentive to impose your beliefs on them.
That last point is what I'm going to focus on. You don't have any reason to stop people of the same sex from getting married. This means that the state of affairs [Same-Sex Marriage Allowed] is acceptable to you. Politically, inaction is a vote for the state [Same-Sex Marriage Disallowed], so I'd like to convince you someday that there are reasons to prefer Marriage Equality over its alternative.
While I'd like to convince you to be an active, or at least voting, member of the move towards equality, in the meantime there is no immediate internal philosophical inconsistency with inaction that I can see.
On whether there is a contradiction between your personal beliefs and social beliefs, I am not sure what to tell you. First I am going to assume that your disapproval of gay marriage stems from Judaism or other religious reasons.
If there is a contradiction, then it arises only because of the status that you give to Judaic teachings. Specifically, if you thought that Judaism was the only acceptable lifestyle, then it would be a little inconsistent to tolerate any other lifestyle. So the decision to allow same-sex marriage to come into effect would be a failure to protect your own way of life./quote]But we both know I've never advocated Judaism being the only accepted lifestyle, which is where my societal opinion comes into play.
[quote]But that doesn't seem to be your belief. If Judaism is merely the best (not the sole) acceptable lifestyle then you have no obligation to interfere in anybody else's life at all. Under this conception of the religion, Gentiles are idiots for ignoring the Commandments, but you have no incentive to impose your beliefs on them.
While I'd like to convince you to be an active, or at least voting, member of the move towards equality, in the meantime there is no immediate internal philosophical inconsistency with inaction that I can see.
Well, Judaism yes but I genuinely believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, not because it's written in the torah.
One last thing: I had a date to a fraternity formal this past weekend and so we got all dressed up. It was coincidentally also prom night. At the nice itallian restaurant we went to, someone paid our ticket and we got a note saying "have fun at prom--random strangers"
If that doesn't warm your heart a little bit, then I don't know what will