The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Dr McBeefington3,287 pages

No, I know racism exists. I'm just not using it to the extreme like mr tree planter over there.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
See, this is just a poor justification based on nothing really. Throughout history those 3 crimes were punishable by something. Once again, the ONLY justification would be a political agenda or a skewed version of an ancient text.

It is based on the fact that there is no objective set of morals saying that murder, rape and theft are wrong. You can’t prove to me, that there are.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
My opinion is based on logic. His is based on something that furthers agenda. You seriously scare me with this bullshit. People like you need to stay out of America. But hell, let me take your argument and put it to use against you. I'm going to kill your family and make you watch. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? It's part of my religious beliefs. Or better yet, in case you're using the ridiculously flawed "as long as its not on my turf I don't care logic". I'm going to tie you up and kill your neighbor right in front of me. Or rather not tie you up and just kick your ass and make you watch. Are you going to stop me or are you going to use your ridiculous logic? If you don't try and stop me, you're mentally ill and should be committed.

Predictable, this argument is an old one and completely flawed. Sure, if you feel it is the right thing to do to kill and torture my family, than according to your personal set of morals, you are right. But just because I acknowledge that you believe in something completely different than I do, does not mean I will hesitate to stop you. You think it’s right to kill my family, I don’t think it’s right, so we fight and a conflict is created. I have just summed up human history with that single statement.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except again, those 3 have proven throughout history to be absolutes, and justified only by skewed religious texts or political agendas.

I have already dealt with this, multiple times over now, you lose. I win.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The rest of the world, any sane human being that values life. I love double standards by the far left. When hitler commits mass genocide, it's NOT necessarily wrong. When we use the death penalty to exact justice on a criminal, the dumbshit liberals start bitching.

It seems you have confused me with a liberal. MC is a liberal, Red Nemesis is a liberal. I am most assuredly not a liberal. I believe in a strong centralized state with basic established rights per a social contract, but with limited power in the hands of the people. I imagine that both MC and Red Nemesis would vehemently disagree with me. However, what I believe on such things is a completely different topic.

I personally believe Hitler was wrong, I simply do not believe there is an objective source that states that he is wrong. That you fail to understand this, only serves to show that you clearly have limited knowledge of ethics as a whole.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
As someone who was born in the Soviet Union, who came here in 1990, and whose whole family came from that shithole, I think you need to get your head out of your ass because you have no idea what you're talking about.

It seems you are little out of date with Russian news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm

As it stands, I tire of this. You have shown time and time again, that you are an idiot. You are disgustingly conservative fool that probably jacks off to pictures of Ann Coulter while no one is looking. Arguing with you, has only reinforced my believe that that majority of humans are utter and complete morons.

Here you go, for your entertainment. If you jizz all over your keyboard, it’s not my fault.

Sexy, the world has always, and will always, be in a state of positive change. Aspects of past reality, like imperialism and slavery, have been significantly reduced; monarchy was largely replaced by democracy. During each one of these period of changes, conservatives morons attempted to say that hoping for any change is unrealistic; these values define humanity as a whole. They were royally bitchslapped. Change always lasted; instead of continuously focusing upon the negative aspects of humanity, it's better to focus on the positive ones and how to minimize the negative ones.

Conservatives degenerate to the primal nature of humanity: fear, bigotry, xenophobia, revenge. Liberals attempt to transcend beyond that to create a better functioning world, and conservatives attempt to use the rhetoric of pragmatism in order to paint them as foolish idealists. Guess what? Only foolish idealists brought positive change to the world.

In short, you are a textbook example of how truly miserable an ideology conservatism is. You're a relic of a dying species; clinging to old-fashioned ideals is completely hopeless. Either adapt to the changing times or shut the **** up.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

Conservatives degenerate to the primal nature of humanity: fear, bigotry, xenophobia, revenge. Liberals attempt to transcend beyond that to create a better functioning world, and conservatives attempt to use the rhetoric of pragmatism in order to paint them as foolish idealists. Guess what? Only foolish idealists brought positive change to the world.


Conservatives operate within the boundaries of reality. Liberals have NEVER done such a thing. Hell, this country was founded on modern conservatism.

In short, you are a textbook example of how truly miserable an ideology conservatism is. You're a relic of a dying species; clinging to old-fashioned ideals is completely hopeless. Either adapt to the changing times or shut the **** up. [/B]

And you're an example of how moronic and self hating liberals can be. I don't have to adapt to the change because liberalism is dying out slowly. Either learn to be realistic or shut the **** up. If you don't like it, move to a deserted island and start your own world full of unrealistic expectations. It's hilarious how more and more naive and delusional you're sounding. Conservatives are (insert baseless assertion here), while liberals (insert something positive yet also baseless here).

Originally posted by Autokrat
It is based on the fact that there is no [b]objective set of morals saying that murder, rape and theft are wrong. You can’t prove to me, that there are.

Of course I can. All 3 throughout history have been punishable by something. The only thing all 3 had justifications with would be skewed religious text, or political agendas. You can't prove to me everything is subjective.

Predictable, this argument is an old one and completely flawed. Sure, if you feel it is the right thing to do to kill and torture my family, than according to your personal set of morals, you are right. But just because I acknowledge that you believe in something completely different than I do, does not mean I will hesitate to stop you. You think it’s right to kill my family, I don’t think it’s right, so we fight and a conflict is created. I have just summed up human history with that single statement.

This is where your argument collapses. How the hell could we advance in a society with people like you? And you summed up human history with my point. People will stop you because they believe the taking of human live is wrong. Just because you believe is right doesn't make you right. And what of me killing your neighbor? It's not you or your family so it's not your problem, remember?

I have already dealt with this, multiple times over now, you lose. I win.

Translation: I have no argument so as a clueless person, I will exercise my right of denial.

It seems you have confused me with a liberal. MC is a liberal, Red Nemesis is a liberal. I am most assuredly not a liberal. I believe in a strong centralized state with basic established rights per a social contract, but with limited power in the hands of the people. I imagine that both MC and Red Nemesis would vehemently disagree with me. However, what I believe on such things is a completely different topic.

Except the central belief of a liberal is there's no right and wrong, there's no good and evil, everything is equal, nothing is better than anything else. I don't know if RH believes that, I think you do and as clueless as MC is it's obvious he believes it as well.

I personally believe Hitler was wrong, I simply do not believe there is an objective source that states that he is wrong. That you fail to understand this, only serves to show that you clearly have limited knowledge of ethics as a whole.

That you fail to understand that the whole world was against him, including many Germans, shows how limited your thinking abilities are. Trust me when I tell you you're not smarter for thinking everything is subjective, just less realistic and logical. I understand ethics very much. Now please, start spewing some more nonsense you learned in your philosophy class.

It seems you are little out of date with Russian news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm


Ah, an appeal to the majority. I was waiting for this. Now show me how many of those people that voted were actually alive and kicking during Stalin's reign of terror? I assure you, it wasn't any of relatives of the 22 million he murdered. So it seems you're out of date with common sense.

As it stands, I tire of this. You have shown time and time again, that you are an idiot. You are disgustingly conservative fool that probably jacks off to pictures of Ann Coulter while no one is looking. Arguing with you, has only reinforced my believe that that majority of humans are utter and complete morons.

And you've shown me that liberals are imbeciles that need to die out soon. You lack any kind of common sense and your personal attacks further reinforces my beliefs that philosophy and liberal arts cater to the socially inept and incompetent. You shouldn't really post here as you didn't have an argument to begin with. Crawl back to your other forums and *****, or let the big boys take over, dumbass.

And since you like to consistently embarrass yourself with unintelligible banter and absolutely hilarious personal attacks, I'll leave you with another picture, hoping you don't lose your mind over it.

Where and how is liberalism "dying out?"

Btw, your assertion that conservatives are dying out would make sense if it had any logical basis to it. Since 84 there have been 2 democratic presidents, and I wouldn't even attribute this last one to anything other than Bush's failures and Mccain's terribly ran election. Most of the United States continue to have the death penalty. Most of the United states still ban same sex marriages. No my friend, liberals are on their way out. There's no place for delusional nonsense in this country. I don't speak for just myself on this forum anymore, but you're a very scary person to associate with. I hope you stay in Israel and don't threaten this country with your presence.

Originally posted by Eminence
Where and how is liberalism "dying out?"

I notice how you are staying out of the debates for the past 3 days and ONLY responding to 1 side of the argument. Good job Faunus.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I notice how you are staying out of the debates for the past 3 days and ONLY responding to 1 side of the argument. Good job Faunus.
Does that mean you don't have an answer?

Originally posted by Eminence
Does that mean you don't have an answer?

Ah so when someone asserts conservatism is dying out, you keep your mouth shut. When I assert the opposite, you run in. Your postings have become more and more predictable Faunus. And look at the majority of the country. If liberalism ISNT dying out, it surely isn't increasing and conservatism isn't dying out. Now since you like to rear your head on only one side of the argument, prove to me conservatism is dying out. And while you're predictably going to respond with "I never stated as such", I will respond with the fact that you waited until I made the opposite assertion, to challenge that specific assertion.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Ah so when someone asserts conservatism is dying out, you keep your mouth shut.
The last election should tell you something.

That said, I don't think social conservatism is dying out, simply because I think it's a constant. There are always people trying to hold on to "traditional" values, laws, and systems against the flow of change. There probably always will be.
That isn't necessarily a good thing. You understand that people who think like you are the ones who would have argued vehemently against abolishing slavery, or giving blacks and women the right to vote.

When I assert the opposite, you run in.
You've "asserted the opposite" more times than I care to count with absolutely no backing of any kind. And I didn't "run in," I very simply asked you to tell me where and how liberalism was "dying out."

Don't make claims if you can't back them up.

Your postings have become more and more predictable Faunus.
Then stop whining about them.

And look at the majority of the country.
... The one that voted Barack Obama to the Presidency?

And granted, there are more conservatives in the country than liberals, but no one said conservatism was dead. "Dying" implies an ongoing process, and while I don't think there is ever going to be an America free of conservatives I do believe the numbers are going down.

Now since you like to rear your head on only one side of the argument, prove to me conservatism is dying out.
See the above, then go find where I said that conservatism is dying out.

And while you're predictably going to respond with "I never stated as such",
You're getting good.

I will respond with the fact that you waited until I made the opposite assertion, to challenge that specific assertion.
The opposite of "liberals are dying out" would be "liberals aren't dying out," not "conservatives are dying out." I think MC fully realizes that there will always be conservatives, so I figured his meaning was clear.

I still don't understand why you got this worked up over one question.

Originally posted by Eminence
The last election should tell you something.

I explained the last election and by your logic, the Clinton election should have also told us something.

That said, I don't think social conservatism is dying out, simply because I think it's a constant. There are always people trying to hold on to "traditional" values, laws, and systems against the flow of change. There probably always will be.
That isn't necessarily a good thing. You understand that people who think like you are the ones who would have argued vehemently against abolishing slavery, or giving blacks and women the right to vote.

Absolutely not. There's conservatives, liberals, far left and far right. The far right would have argued against abolishing slavery. You're acting as if we accept one change, we should accept them all.

You've "asserted the opposite" more times than I care to count with absolutely no backing of any kind. And I didn't "run in," I very simply asked you to tell me where and how liberalism was "dying out."

Don't make claims if you can't back them up.


Tell that to the others as well. It has become obvious when you don't actually have an argument, you chime in every once in a while.

Then stop whining about them.

I wasn't aware that whining and "getting a kick over hypocrisy" were of the same breed.

... The one that voted Barack Obama to the Presidency?

The same one that voted Clinton into the country. The same majority that has had 2 democratic presidents since 84.

And granted, there are more conservatives in the country than liberals, but no one said conservatism was dead. "Dying" implies an ongoing process, and while I don't think there is ever going to be an America free of conservatives I do believe the numbers are going down.

Prove it. And MC said conservatism was dying out. Stating "nobody said" shows your lack of reading ability.

See the above, then go find where I said that conservatism is dying out.

You didn't respond to the assertion that conservatism is dying out. You responded to the polar opposite.

The opposite of "liberals are dying out" would be "liberals aren't dying out," not "conservatives are dying out." I think MC fully realizes that there will always be conservatives, so I figured his meaning was clear.

Polar opposite. And he asserted conservatism was dying out and/or becoming a dying breed. I highly doubt you thought that meaning was clear, while the polar opposite wasn't.

I still don't understand why you got this worked up over one question.

Because you respond to one aspect of an argument when you don't have your own, and you don't respond to the complete polar opposite aspect. You're inconsistent.

-36% of Americans (the largest category) are in favor of constantly permitted abortion, according to a 2007 poll.
-39% are in favor of gay marriage, while 47% percent are in favor of civil unions and 46% in favor of adoption rights. Meanwhile, 49% believe homosexuality should be tolerated and viewed as a normal and perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Most now view it as an innate trait that cannot be changed.
-Barack Obama's socio-democratic policies are generally approved by the American public, ranging between 55%-70% depending on the poll.
-Europe is almost completely progressive-liberal in its philosophy, as can be seen towards the vehement amount of support given to Obama's candidacy.
-Historians regularly rank liberals as the best presidents. In the latest (2009) poll, Lincoln, a fighter for equal rights and vehement opponent of slavery was acknowledged as number 1. Meanwhile, FDR, with his progressive social policies and leftist economic views, came at number 3.
-Stem Cell research is largely supported; 56% over 32%.
-Liberalism is for morons? Try again. Not only do statistics prove that people with higher IQ's tend to be atheists, but people with a higher, college-level education tend to be much less conservative.

Liberals are also the second youngest group in the political spectrum, and the youngest among the 'important' parties. The people responsible for bringing the future and creating the ruling generation are dominantly liberal. Conservatives tend to be older.

Now look at the statistics. Over the past several years, as alienation with Bush's conservative policies grew, the American mainstream shifted towards more progressive and liberal opinions. Currently, the only social value that is relatively at a split is gay marriage. The others? Pretty damn well in favor of liberalism.

America was founded upon the idea of "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.". This is a liberal concept. The idea of absolute human rights that cannot be violated no matter the circumstance is a consistent force in liberal arguments, both for humane treatment of our enemies, against war, and even upon welfare ideas. Note; this does not follow the idea of all men are born the same, merely that, regarding their differences, they deserve equal human rights regardless of their origins.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
-36% of Americans (the largest category) are in favor of constantly permitted abortion, according to a 2007 poll.

36%....Majority=
-39% are in favor of gay marriage, while 47% percent are in favor of civil unions and 46% in favor of adoption rights. Meanwhile, 49% believe homosexuality should be tolerated and viewed as a normal and perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Most now view it as an innate trait that cannot be changed.

None of that translates into most.
-Barack Obama's socio-democratic policies are generally approved by the American public, ranging between 55%-70% depending on the poll.

Seeing as how the majority of people voted for Obama because he screamed change, without knowing any of his policies, even one, I doubt that poll is credible. I'll do you one better. The majority of Americans think Obama is going to destroy the economy with his bailouts and stimulus plan. His projected deficit is expected to triple to 9.6.
-Europe is almost completely progressive-liberal in its philosophy, as can be seen towards the vehement amount of support given to Obama's candidacy.

Yet Europe supported Bush when he was voted, the first Bush, and Regan. Explain how it's almost completely progressive-liberal.
-Historians regularly rank liberals as the best presidents. In the latest (2009) poll, Lincoln, a fighter for equal rights and vehement opponent of slavery was acknowledged as number 1. Meanwhile, FDR, with his progressive social policies and leftist economic views, came at number 3.

What the hell kind of poll is this? A historian poll? Wonderful. Btw, Lincoln was a classical liberal, not a modern one.
-Stem Cell research is largely supported; 56% over 32%.

I don't have an issue with this.
-Liberalism is for morons? Try again. Not only do statistics prove that people with higher IQ's tend to be atheists, but people with a higher, college-level education tend to be much less conservative.

That's hilarious where you gather statistics out of your ass. It also proves that on only ONE poll (stem cell research), do you have a majority of liberals winning. Ranking presidents? Hilarious. And as for FDR?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048166/posts

I would just like you claim that the conservatives are the intellectual elite in this country while the liberals get degrees in liberal arts and spew what has been taught to them without any knowledge. And want to talk about majority? Majority of Americans still favor the death penalty. According to your poll, 51% still oppose gay marriages. So what you did was prove my point.

Liberals are also the second youngest group in the political spectrum, and the youngest among the 'important' parties. The people responsible for bringing the future and creating the ruling generation are dominantly liberal. Conservatives tend to be older.

There are a HUGE amount of older liberals. Remember the 60s?

Now look at the statistics. Over the past several years, as alienation with Bush's conservative policies grew, the American mainstream shifted towards more progressive and liberal opinions. Currently, the only social value that is relatively at a split is gay marriage. The others? Pretty damn well in favor of liberalism.

None of your polls show anything of the sort, other than stem cell research.

America was founded upon the idea of "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.". This is a liberal concept. The idea of absolute human rights that cannot be violated no matter the circumstance is a consistent force in liberal arguments, both for humane treatment of our enemies, against war, and even upon welfare ideas. Note; this does not follow the idea of all men are born the same, merely that, regarding their differences, they deserve equal human rights regardless of their origins.

Classical liberalism is what America was founded upon. Classical liberalism mostly resembles modern conservatism, because the left has fallen so far left. It does NOT resemble in any way, modern liberalism.

Since you seem to be clueless, educate yourself.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/05/05/why-conservatives-say-they-are-happier-than-liberals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Since you like polls so much, here's another one.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/

Here's another article from a liberal.
http://www.cassyfiano.com/2008/12/joel-stein-liberals-dont-love-america-the-way-conservatives-do

Btw, let me further prove to you that the typical liberal argument involves double standards and contradictions.

Liberals hold that everything is subjective. Therefore Hitler and Stalin weren't wrong for what they did because there's no rights or wrongs. So you wouldn't have an issue with mass murder as long as it doesn't involve you (stupidity at its finest).

However, when it comes to a state legally executing someone, you lose your shit. Mass murder is ok but state executions are not because as you claim, all life is sacred. So not only are your arguments full of contradictions and double standards, you also, by liberal views, view the death penalty as a universal wrong. Anyways, that's a typical liberal (definitely your) argument which can be destroyed in many ways.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
36%....Majority=

The largest group, not the majority. There are also groups for no abortion, abortion in rape or incest, and stricter abortion. It's split, but the largest percentile goes to generally available abortion.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
None of that translates into most.

'Most' oppose gay marriage; however, out of the many groups ('I don't care', 'I don't know'... it's not divided into two), most speak of tolerance for homosexuals and civil unions.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Seeing as how the majority of people voted for Obama because he screamed change, without knowing any of his policies, even one, I doubt that poll is credible. I'll do you one better. The majority of Americans think Obama is going to destroy the economy with his bailouts and stimulus plan. His projected deficit is expected to triple to 9.6.

The economy was known to be taking a downfall previous to Obama; he can't control it, but he can control the recovery. People who claim the increased financial crisis on Obama at the moment are morons: he had absolutely no control over it.

You're also basing your assumptions on nothing; show me proof that people did not care about Obama's policies. If you cannot, then it must be assumed that most Americans at least know what he is doing and know the consequences of it. Similarly, most support him.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yet Europe supported Bush when he was voted, the first Bush, and Regan. Explain how it's almost completely progressive-liberal.

Because most of its countries are progressive liberal. There is a definitive motion towards liberalism in the world.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What the hell kind of poll is this? A historian poll? Wonderful. Btw, Lincoln was a classical liberal, not a modern one.

A historian poll. And Lincoln was known for redefining liberalism at the time. His anti-slavery policies were decidedly liberal in their nature, considering it was the abolishing of an extremely old principle.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I don't have an issue with this.

Good.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's hilarious where you gather statistics out of your ass. It also proves that on only ONE poll (stem cell research), do you have a majority of liberals winning. Ranking presidents? Hilarious. And as for FDR?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048166/posts

I care far more a poll of educated historians over one blog, don't you?

And FDR's economic leftist policies saved America from the financial crisis and stimulated its wealth into becoming the world's superpower. This cannot be denied.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I would just like you claim that the conservatives are the intellectual elite in this country while the liberals get degrees in liberal arts and spew what has been taught to them without any knowledge. And want to talk about majority? Majority of Americans still favor the death penalty. According to your poll, 51% still oppose gay marriages. So what you did was prove my point.

... I hate to channel you, but this is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Liberals have been proven to be, via statistics, the highest educated, most affluent, and the wealthiest arm in the country. This is not 'highest educated in the arts'. This is highest educated, period. Denying it is arguing with the facts. Conservatives are chiefly in Southern Nations, which are known for their vastly inferior educational standards.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There are a HUGE amount of older liberals. Remember the 60s?

Ah, but the statistics say that liberals are the youngest real political group. Too bad. You can't argue against them.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
None of your polls show anything of the sort, other than stem cell research.

They should relative support for abortion, Obama's policies, gay tolerance and rights (with the exception of marriage), medical stuff... etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Classical liberalism is what America was founded upon. Classical liberalism mostly resembles modern conservatism, because the left has fallen so far left. It does NOT resemble in any way, modern liberalism.

It was founded upon liberalism, period. The differing interpretations of liberalism (modern and classical) simply take the basic statement and create different ideologies out of it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Since you seem to be clueless, educate yourself.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/05/05/why-conservatives-say-they-are-happier-than-liberals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Since you like polls so much, here's another one.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/

Here's another article from a liberal.
http://www.cassyfiano.com/2008/12/joel-stein-liberals-dont-love-america-the-way-conservatives-do

I don't care about blatantly biased conservative viewpoints, in the same manner that I didn't give you countless arguments about why "Liberalism is the force of modernism, while conservatives are stupid, ignorant Bible-thumpers". I gave you unbiased statistics, and they largely favor liberalism.

I did not claim mass murder was okay. However, in the same manner that I won't force Iran to abolish the death penalty, I won't force a country to adhere to my cultural and ethical standards; instead, I will focus them on myself. The death penalty is, for our society, a barbaric method of degenerating into primal urges of hatred and anger; this is my opinion. However, I will attempt to influence it on my society- not on unconsenting others. In short, I look at what is right for me and my interpretation of justice; I do not decide what is right for societies that operate on differing standards.

I think Iran is a barbaric and violent nation, for example, but is it for me to force to consent to my standards? Hardly, not to mention it will not be possible, as Iraq had proven, to democratize a nation without resulting in mass murder, destruction, and further alienation of these people from Western ideals.

If I was to become a presidential candidate, I would be democratically elected, whether it is successfully or unsuccessfully. I will attempt to explain why my ideology is the best and most just, and hopefully have the people agree upon this standard and bring forth my ideal of a positive change. But I will not force my ideals upon an unwilling society.

By the way, I think that, when an international injustice is occurring, like the Darfur Massacre, it is our's- and chiefly the United Nations'- responsibility to intervene in order to protect the weak and reach a compromise for the purpose of balancing the differing ideologies and interests to create a situation that will work for everyone. However, I only advocate usage of genuine (not symbolic or restrained) military force when there is a direct and aggressive threat to our country.

DS, you're a twit.

[Moral relativist] "Good" night? Who are you to decide what sort of night it is or isn't? [/moral relativist]

[Deontologist] It good 'coz I say so! My opinion = Absolute universal fact! Jimmy's parent's were horribly mutilated tonight, but its still a good night becuase I say so! My opinion = Fact! Grrr!

There iz absolute morals becuase I say so! Theese may come from a Gahd, and he iz always right! My opinion = fact so this is true. Har! See wat I didz there! Proof? I need no proof! My opinion = Fact! I base my understanding on nothin else than my opinion and the funny feeelin in my tummy when somthin is bad. This iz alwayz right becavse my opinion = fact.

In my opinion I = Gahd. This is true becuase I am always right so I will use my Jesus powers to melt you cock. Har! Now u iz a WOMAN!!! Tat means you must get married and let your man rape you! He iz the man so haz the right! My opinion = Fact so this is true. Cuz there iz no way that I may be wronger than other people.

Murderin Hitler would be wrong. It would sayve lots of lives but still be wrong. Murder iz always wronge. I base this on no proof or logic and purely on my opinion, which is fact.

Har! I winz! [/Deontologist]

Yeah, Moral relativism is the stupid theory. 😬

(Sorry this took so long, I was busy)

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
'Most' oppose gay marriage; however, out of the many groups ('I don't care', 'I don't know'... it's not divided into two), most speak of tolerance for homosexuals and civil unions.

Except you keep claiming everything is predominantly leaning to the left and I proved you wrong.

The economy was known to be taking a downfall previous to Obama; he can't control it, but he can control the recovery. People who claim the increased financial crisis on Obama at the moment are morons: he had absolutely no control over it.

No, FINANCIERS have views his policies and claimed he was going to destroy this economy, based on their professional opinion. I would take that over stupid liberals who voted for Obama because he was the "anti bush".

You're also basing your assumptions on nothing; show me proof that people did not care about Obama's policies. If you cannot, then it must be assumed that most Americans at least know what he is doing and know the consequences of it. Similarly, most support him.

Wrong. Show me proof that Americans that voted for him knew of his policies, and NOT because he was the anti bush and that Mccain was a Bush clone. See, it goes both ways. Except it's more logical to assume more people know less about fiscal and foreign policies (as examples), than people who actually do.

Because most of its countries are progressive liberal. There is a definitive motion towards liberalism in the world.

You keep saying this. Prove it.

A historian poll. And Lincoln was known for redefining liberalism at the time. His anti-slavery policies were decidedly liberal in their nature, considering it was the abolishing of an extremely old principle.

No. He was a classical liberalist. I support most of his policies as do most conservatives. This doesn't say much for your argument.

I care far more a poll of educated historians over one blog, don't you?

I can give you 10 that show he did far worse for the American economy in the long run.

... I hate to channel you, but this is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

After reading your arguments, this doesn't say much.

Liberals have been proven to be, via statistics, the highest educated, most affluent, and the wealthiest arm in the country. This is not 'highest educated in the arts'. This is highest educated, period. Denying it is arguing with the facts. Conservatives are chiefly in Southern Nations, which are known for their vastly inferior educational standards.

Really? You love to make an argument without any kind of proof, so again, prove it. You sound like a blubbering buffoon spouting off nonsense without any validation. And the most affluent? Prove it? Because as far as I'm concerned, the conservative republicans dominate the wealth of this country, which is why liberals are against higher taxes and for supporting the poor, etc.

Ah, but the statistics say that liberals are the youngest real political group. Too bad. You can't argue against them.

Looks like you can't argue against mine, which state conservatives dominate this country, classical liberalism=modern conservatism, and everything else that pretty much decimates your argument.

They should relative support for abortion, Obama's policies, gay tolerance and rights (with the exception of marriage), medical stuff... etc, etc, etc.

What?

It was founded upon liberalism, period. The differing interpretations of liberalism (modern and classical) simply take the basic statement and create different ideologies out of it.

This shows your continued ignorance for the history of this country. I will say this again, so you could absorb this information. Classical liberalism=modern conservatism. So if we are to play your little word games, I guess by our standards today, our country was founded on conservatism. There, I win again.

I don't care about blatantly biased conservative viewpoints, in the same manner that I didn't give you countless arguments about why "Liberalism is the force of modernism, while conservatives are stupid, ignorant Bible-thumpers". I gave you unbiased statistics, and they largely favor liberalism.

No, they don't because half of your statistics don't show anything like that. I even gave you statistics that suggest the exact opposite.

I did not claim mass murder was okay. However, in the same manner that I won't force Iran to abolish the death penalty, I won't force a country to adhere to my cultural and ethical standards; instead, I will focus them on myself. The death penalty is, for our society, a barbaric method of degenerating into primal urges of hatred and anger; this is my opinion. However, I will attempt to influence it on my society- not on unconsenting others. In short, I look at what is right for me and my interpretation of justice; I do not decide what is right for societies that operate on differing standards.

Hilarious. Which is why I'm glad you'll never join the army, or ever support your country in any way, shape, or form.

I think Iran is a barbaric and violent nation, for example, but is it for me to force to consent to my standards? Hardly, not to mention it will not be possible, as Iraq had proven, to democratize a nation without resulting in mass murder, destruction, and further alienation of these people from Western ideals.

As I've proven, you'll watch me murder your neighbor because it has nothing to do with you and isn't on your property and who are you to tell me I'm wrong. That's your logic.

By the way, I think that, when an international injustice is occurring, like the Darfur Massacre, it is our's- and chiefly the United Nations'- responsibility to intervene in order to protect the weak and reach a compromise for the purpose of balancing the differing ideologies and interests to create a situation that will work for everyone. However, I only advocate usage of genuine (not symbolic or restrained) military force when there is a direct and aggressive threat to our country. [/B]

Double standards, contradictions, picking and choosing. Give me a break. My next question will be "so when does it become YOUR problem?"

... So liberalism isn't dying out. Now that that's cleared up, I think I'm going back to not peeking at ignored posts; I'm saving my brain cells for car crashes and angry minorities.

How in the hell did the battle bar get this heated? I thought this was a social thread with no debating lol.