Moral relativism is for yellowbellies. Why don't you address the problem of Jewish Settlers in the West Bank instead?
(See what I did there? I said the opposite of what I think so that you would talk about something interesting. It isn't really a lie because it gets me what I want, even though I didn't tell the truth.)
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No politics today. NOTHING!Okay, okay, Jewish nationalists who live in the land that belongs to a differing nations are fascist, fundamentalist Nazis who deserve to rot in prison.
That's what I love about liberals. Their logic is so skewed that I have to believe they're joking.
... I wasn't exactly serious, but I wasn't joking either. Now with complete seriousness; these fascists only brew the tension and the hatred between the Palestinians and the Israelis, by clinging on to false ideals of how things are 'supposed to be' or how they 'used to be', nevermind that these standards apply to a world that existed 2,000 years ago. They fail to respect the Palestinians' absolute right for existing in a land that operates according to their desires and their ideals. For doing so, they deserve to sit in jail for a damned long time.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
... I wasn't exactly serious, but I wasn't joking either. Now with complete seriousness; these fascists only brew the tension and the hatred between the Palestinians and the Israelis, by clinging on to false ideals of how things are 'supposed to be' or how they 'used to be', nevermind that these standards apply to a world that existed 2,000 years ago. They fail to respect the Palestinians' absolute right for existing in a land that operates according to their desires and their ideals. For doing so, they deserve to sit in jail for a damned long time.
And this land belonged to the Jews long before it belonged to the Palestinians. I don't agree with kicking Palestinians out of Israel and having them live among us, but I completely agree with taking the fight to Hamas. Now since you like to blame everyone but the party responsible, or rather view the world upside down, you're going to blame the underdog, which in this case is the Palestinians. Sixty years ago I have no doubt you would have rooted for the Jews. And the ideals aren't false just because you say they are.
Funny thing, I see conservatism in a similar manner to they way you see liberalism. I see conservatism as a philosophy that is based on fear, ignorance, religious purism, greed, and a lack of any concept of compassion; you see liberalism as a 'quasi-intellectual' philosophy that is oriented around no concept of personal responsibility, justice, or respect for tradition.
It's just interesting to see the way each side of the political spectrum perceives the other.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Funny thing, I see conservatism in a similar manner to they way you see liberalism. I see conservatism as a philosophy that is based on fear, ignorance, religious purism, greed, and a lack of any concept of compassion; you see liberalism as a 'quasi-intellectual' philosophy that is oriented around no concept of personal responsibility, justice, or respect for tradition.It's just interesting to see the way each side of the political spectrum perceives the other.
I see conservatism as realistic. I see liberalism as a pseudointellectual "what if" utopian idea based on nothing except dreams. People are not inherently good. Responsibility is placed on the individual. Not the other way around, etc.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I see conservatism as realistic. I see liberalism as a pseudointellectual "what if" utopian idea based on nothing except dreams. People are not inherently good. Responsibility is placed on the individual. Not the other way around, etc.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."- Martin Luther King Jr., monumental civil/human rights activist, uberliberal.
Our desires are, fundamentally, all dreams until they come into pass. Liberalism is founded upon idealism and hopes; hopes that we can transform into reality through years of perseverance and newly grown enlightenment. Only through these ideals can be bring forth change and progress. History has repeatedly prove that dreams can undergo the metamorphosis and become reality; hell, in King's days, it wasn't considered realistic for a black man to speak his political mind (much less argue for civil rights). But only through idealism, hope, and extensive 'dreams' did they ignore the concept of immediate realism (nevermind that the things considered to be 'realistic' often really aren't) and strive towards a better future and existence. Eventually, it paid off.
... and I still can't figure out why conservatives consider themselves 'realistic', when a great deal of their political positions are based on religious faith, which is, by definition, not realistic.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonConservatism's plethora of definitions does not require religious conservatism in order to be identified as "conservative." It's economic basis is classically mercantile yet modernity has it pegged as free-market. It's cultural side is focused towards tradition and maintenance of what works (not always mind you). Ironically enough, a generally cultural-liberal would view such ties when applied to religious ideals as "fanatical" or erroneously "fascist," despite religious tolerance typically being a part of their mandate.
... and I still can't figure out why conservatives consider themselves 'realistic', when a great deal of their political positions are based on religious faith, which is, by definition, not realistic.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
"I have a [B]dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."- Martin Luther King Jr., monumental civil/human rights activist, uberliberal.
Our desires are, fundamentally, all dreams until they come into pass. Liberalism is founded upon idealism and hopes; hopes that we can transform into reality through years of perseverance and newly grown enlightenment. Only through these ideals can be bring forth change and progress. History has repeatedly prove that dreams can undergo the metamorphosis and become reality; hell, in King's days, it wasn't considered realistic for a black man to speak his political mind (much less argue for civil rights). But only through idealism, hope, and extensive 'dreams' did they ignore the concept of immediate realism (nevermind that the things considered to be 'realistic' often really aren't) and strive towards a better future and existence. Eventually, it paid off.
... and I still can't figure out why conservatives consider themselves 'realistic', when a great deal of their political positions are based on religious faith, which is, by definition, not realistic. [/B]
And liberals consistently saying religion is not realistic doesn't make it so. What's not realistic is thinking humans are inherently good, or that the universe (something, was made out of nothing.