Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nope. You said that the majority of people supported Obama's policies before he got elected. What you're doing now is contradicting yourself for the millionth time, and deflecting your stupidity on me. Furthermore, appealing to the majority is a fallacy. I would never do the same, even when a republican is president because most people are ignorant and unintelligent. Or rather, more people are unintelligent than not.
Then how can a democracy possibly function if people are mostly morons? If that is correct, then their choice is extremely unlikely to be the 'correct' one.
I also believe that society, as a whole, is a panicky and impulsive 'creature', but the individuals themselves are generally intelligent or at least capable of comprehending what is good for them better than anyone else.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Give you an answer based on your question or concede? I don't have to concede anything. I've given you articles that state classical liberalism is modern conservatism. You ignoring to read them because you don't want to or facts disagree with you, isn't my problem. And your last resorts before conceding are hilarious. "It's not in there so it doesn't exist". All of a sudden you take everything literally. G-d isn't mentioned in the constitution either, but I can list you 100+ cases that include G-d in the ruling.
Ah, but while 'separation of Church and State' isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution, there are numerous implications of it. It certainly does not advocate Christianity (Thomas Jefferson had some harsh sentiments about organized religion, for example).
I am going to need you to show me the exact quotes in the constitution that relate to capitalism, free market, and other conservative values.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm pro choice, anti most abortions.
So you're in favor of heavily regulated abortions?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Stop contradicting yourself. You said that most(if not all) of the policies are leaning towards the left. I said gay marriage is not. So you turn around and include civil unions and tolerance into your argument because I already defeated your points.
Gay marriage is the only value in which the general public shows a conservative point of view. And even so, the majority polled as being heavily in favor of civil unions and tolerance of homosexuality as a perfectly natural lifestyle.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which are irrelevant because he has yet to do anything, and he's been in power for under 2 months. Does your continued ignorance bother you at all? Or is self awareness not a priority for you?
So why are you clinging to the ideas of the 'economists' when there cannot be an objective evaluation of Obama yet?
However, as it stands, the American public- and even more so the international one- advocate liberal concepts, as headed by Obama. This is simply to show that the world is moving more and more towards modern liberalism and away from Bush's uber conservatism.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
IF you understood the differences between them you wouldn't spout your "liberalism is liberalism" and "It was founded by liberalism" rhetoric. Do you want me to copy you passages from these sites you allegedly visited?
Sure. Show me passages that favor capitalism and societal religious intervention.
The constitution advocates the idea of every human being having inalienable rights due to his mere nature as a human; upon this concept, several ideologies are built, primarily modern conservatism and liberalism.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nobody said the constitution is infallible. But doesn't excuse the fact that I (and most Americans) believe in universal rights and wrongs.
Ah, but now you're back to the 'what the majority believe is right' mentality, aren't you?
The fact is that, as it stands, the opinion of the majority is far from law and is a constant variable. It is not a valid argument: I showed statistics not to prove why liberalism is better than conservatism, but rather debunk the myth that liberalism is 'dying out' and instead show the world's constant progress into that philosophy.
The constitution is a fallible document, written by single men's interpretation of the concept of rights and ideals. I completely agree with this concept and think that is it the most important part of my ideology; however, there is no absolute law proving the existence of these rights, regardless of what the majority believe.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The bible or us. Throughout history, the 3 crimes i've listed have all been punishable. Throughout history, the only justifications for them have been skewed interpretations of religion or political agendas.
1. Back the Bible again, aren't we? The Bible cannot be proven or logically substantiated to be anything more than the delusional (or I'll be more idealistic: 'philosophical'😉 ramblings of several men over 3000 years ago. It is written on a subjective principle, and faith in it is subjective. Before you say that the Bible created the concepts of 'do not murder' and such, you must understand that countless ancient societies survived and prospered without having anything to do with monotheism or Biblical laws.
2. How do you define 'skewed interpretations'? Religious texts are heavily ambiguous in nature, and interpretation is an individualistic thing. There cannot be a 'correct interpretation'. Even scholars who study it are still, fundamentally, human beings prone to making error and hardly an objective source. The majority's opinion is completely irrelevant: there is no 'correct' interpretation of religious text or the 'word of God'.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And natural rights include the right to live. Innocent people have the right to live. The fact that America has always intervened against these injustices shows you that there apparently ARE universal rights and wrongs.
...
The fact that America intervened does make it right, not to mention that there was always an alternative political motive other than mere humanism. America never acted in a way that is not in its national interests.
Now, it is clear that innocent people's rights are being destroyed and are being acted to in an unfair manner that is extremely against their interests, but can we genuinely take the ideal and support it over people who simply do not conform to our moralistic standards? The finest international force is one that compromises between moralities and creates a situation that is good for both, instead of blatantly enforcing one side and mongering war, hatred, and further destruction.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is completely moronic, seeing as how Hitler was well on his way to exterminating the Jewish population. Again, your logic is based on illusions, not on history, or mankind. All you do is preach "peace, peace, peace", failing to understand humans and their history.
Did you forget that we were initially offered to accept the Jewish populace, and refused that idea? By doing so, we validated Hitler's beliefs that the Jews are perceived as the parasites of the world; if we had agreed to that idea, we could have prevented the Holocaust from coming into play and managed to reach an effective reconciliation between the interests of the Jews and the Nazi party.
It might not have been economically efficient, but we would have been capable of saving countless lives- both Jewish and German- in one strike. By subsequently moving towards diplomacy and only restrained interventionism when Germany invaded Poland, we would have been capable of halting WWII's progress.
And Germany's aggressive policies, pre-Holocaust and WWI, were not countered in any way by the world. Not diplomatically or economically, either, only for the sake of making a profit. That is simply wrong and we had the ability to get past it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And the most objective arbiter says taking innocent lives is wrong. So we acted. Point proven.
Taking innocent lives is wrong, but do we prevent the taking of innocent lives by taking even more innocent lives and violating the rights of even the people we perceive as 'evil'?
See things objectively for once. See all moralities and all interests and attempt to balance them, in order to foster world peace and cooperation.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, you justify it however you see fit if it helps you sleep at night. We intervened because mass genocide is wrong, among other reasons.
Mass genocide is wrong to that party that is being violated, and according to our cultural standards. It is not wrong to the violating party. No one is necessarily right, wrong, good, evil; but simply letting it go on without doing anything enables the weak, who must be protected, to be crushed and is only advocating the interests of one morality and point of view over the other.
I can assume. Most people born to liberals are liberals themselves, not to mention that the liberal in question is a highly important political figure.
Again, 'twisted' being a point of view, bla bla bla.
Murder, rape, and theft is illegalized not because it is immoral, but because it is completely ignoring the interests of the innocent party and is necessary in order to create a functioning society.
Holocaust, for example? Now, let's say that, hypothetically, the Germans would have managed to destroy the world's Jewish population; I'd put it at around 10 million or so. However, the world did nothing to it and instead managed to balance their's and the German's interests, preventing WWII from coming into play.
In WWII, about 60 million people died. Imagine if so many of these could be saved?
Note: I believe the above scenario of letting the Jews be massacred is repulsive and flat-out wrong, but just to show that the numbers do not necessarily favor your ideas. Just don't take my above suggestions as a 'good' one, because I don't think it is.
Our arrogance and traditionalism prevented us from ever genuinely attempted to create suitable international relationships, even with leaders or countries we believe are ultimately evil.
Bullshit. This is simply bullshit. Not only is it only based on a hypothesis and far from realistic, it only takes a very narrow view of the world and there are peaceful alternatives (that have never been explored) to mass murder and war.
I understand the need for aggression, but it must be heavily restrained and mainly socioeconomic in nature. Full out war and colonization will lead to further hatred, genocide, alienation, and the creation of more international terrorism.
Instead of exploring differing alternatives?
And I don't believe in utilitarianism. Instead of constantly taking the easy and militaristic road, we look at things deeper than what works and such; we maintain our humanity, even if this results in the further loss of deaths. Losing ourselves and reverting to primal nature is an expense that should never be payed, even if it is the choice between destruction and survival, in my opinion.
You sound like a conservative caricature, what with your constant babbling about 'justice'. Here's the thing: justice is a subjective thing. Someone that violates our principles of ethics and morals is not necessarily evil, nor should we force our ideal of justice upon him; instead, we must learn to live with it and create infinitely more effective compromises between multiple interests.
Hardly so. This study claims Jews are simply born smarter; this is a matter of nature. This is also called 'racism' and is reminiscent of someone saying black people are naturally dumber.
However, you cannot be born an atheist. All I did was show that people who are born with greater intelligence, regardless of their race and such, and pursue Academics, simply tend to choose the road of atheism over religion. If you cannot comprehend the difference between these two things, you're an idiot.
You have consistently followed a 'what the majority believe (regarding moral absolutes) must be true' line of thought. Your opinions contradict the majority of American opinion: thus, by your own logic, you are wrong.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Then how can a democracy possibly function if people are mostly morons? If that is correct, then their choice is extremely unlikely to be the 'correct' one.
I also believe that society, as a whole, is a panicky and impulsive 'creature', but the individuals themselves are generally intelligent or at least capable of comprehending what is good for them better than anyone else.
Ah, but while 'separation of Church and State' isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution, there are numerous implications of it. It certainly does not advocate Christianity (Thomas Jefferson had some harsh sentiments about organized religion, for example).
I am going to need you to show me the exact quotes in the constitution that relate to capitalism, free market, and other conservative values.
So you're in favor of heavily regulated abortions?
Gay marriage is the only value in which the general public shows a conservative point of view. And even so, the majority polled as being heavily in favor of civil unions and tolerance of homosexuality as a perfectly natural lifestyle.
So why are you clinging to the ideas of the 'economists' when there cannot be an objective evaluation of Obama yet?
However, as it stands, the American public- and even more so the international one- advocate liberal concepts, as headed by Obama. This is simply to show that the world is moving more and more towards modern liberalism and away from Bush's uber conservatism.
Sure. Show me passages that favor capitalism and societal religious intervention.
The constitution advocates the idea of every human being having inalienable rights due to his mere nature as a human; upon this concept, several ideologies are built, primarily modern conservatism and liberalism.
Ah, but now you're back to the 'what the majority believe is right' mentality, aren't you?
The fact is that, as it stands, the opinion of the majority is far from law and is a constant variable. It is not a valid argument: I showed statistics not to prove why liberalism is better than conservatism, but rather debunk the myth that liberalism is 'dying out' and instead show the world's constant progress into that philosophy.
The constitution is a fallible document, written by single men's interpretation of the concept of rights and ideals. I completely agree with this concept and think that is it the most important part of my ideology; however, there is no absolute law proving the existence of these rights, regardless of what the majority believe.
1. Back the Bible again, aren't we? The Bible cannot be proven or logically substantiated to be anything more than the delusional (or I'll be more idealistic: 'philosophical'😉 ramblings of several men over 3000 years ago. It is written on a subjective principle, and faith in it is subjective. Before you say that the Bible created the concepts of 'do not murder' and such, you must understand that countless ancient societies survived and prospered without having anything to do with monotheism or Biblical laws.
2. How do you define 'skewed interpretations'? Religious texts are heavily ambiguous in nature, and interpretation is an individualistic thing. There cannot be a 'correct interpretation'. Even scholars who study it are still, fundamentally, human beings prone to making error and hardly an objective source. The majority's opinion is completely irrelevant: there is no 'correct' interpretation of religious text or the 'word of God'.
...
The fact that America intervened does make it right, not to mention that there was always an alternative political motive other than mere humanism. America never acted in a way that is not in its national interests.
Now, it is clear that innocent people's rights are being destroyed and are being acted to in an unfair manner that is extremely against their interests, but can we genuinely take the ideal and support it over people who simply do not conform to our moralistic standards? The finest international force is one that compromises between moralities and creates a situation that is good for both, instead of blatantly enforcing one side and mongering war, hatred, and further destruction.
Did you forget that we were initially offered to accept the Jewish populace, and refused that idea? By doing so, we validated Hitler's beliefs that the Jews are perceived as the parasites of the world; if we had agreed to that idea, we could have prevented the Holocaust from coming into play and managed to reach an effective reconciliation between the interests of the Jews and the Nazi party.
It might not have been economically efficient, but we would have been capable of saving countless lives- both Jewish and German- in one strike. By subsequently moving towards diplomacy and only restrained interventionism when Germany invaded Poland, we would have been capable of halting WWII's progress.
And Germany's aggressive policies, pre-Holocaust and WWI, were not countered in any way by the world. Not diplomatically or economically, either, only for the sake of making a profit. That is simply wrong and we had the ability to get past it.
Taking innocent lives is wrong, but do we prevent the taking of innocent lives by taking even more innocent lives and violating the rights of even the people we perceive as 'evil'?
See things objectively for once. See all moralities and all interests and attempt to balance them, in order to foster world peace and cooperation. [/B]
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Mass genocide is wrong to that party that is being violated, and according to our cultural standards. It is not wrong to the violating party. No one is necessarily right, wrong, good, evil; but simply letting it go on without doing anything enables the weak, who must be protected, to be crushed and is only advocating the interests of one morality and point of view over the other.
I can assume. Most people born to liberals are liberals themselves, not to mention that the liberal in question is a highly important political figure.Again, 'twisted' being a point of view, bla bla bla.
Murder, rape, and theft is illegalized not because it is immoral, but because it is completely ignoring the interests of the innocent party and is necessary in order to create a functioning society.
Holocaust, for example? Now, let's say that, hypothetically, the Germans would have managed to destroy the world's Jewish population; I'd put it at around 10 million or so. However, the world did nothing to it and instead managed to balance their's and the German's interests, preventing WWII from coming into play.
In WWII, about 60 million people died. Imagine if so many of these could be saved?
Our arrogance and traditionalism prevented us from ever genuinely attempted to create suitable international relationships, even with leaders or countries we believe are ultimately evil.
Bullshit. This is simply bullshit. Not only is it only based on a hypothesis and far from realistic, it only takes a very narrow view of the world and there are peaceful alternatives (that have never been explored) to mass murder and war.
And I don't believe in utilitarianism. Instead of constantly taking the easy and militaristic road, we look at things deeper than what works and such; we maintain our humanity, even if this results in the further loss of deaths. Losing ourselves and reverting to primal nature is an expense that should never be payed, even if it is the choice between destruction and survival, in my opinion.
You sound like a conservative caricature, what with your constant babbling about 'justice'. Here's the thing: justice is a subjective thing. Someone that violates our principles of ethics and morals is not necessarily evil, nor should we force our ideal of justice upon him; instead, we must learn to live with it and create infinitely more effective compromises between multiple interests.
Hardly so. This study claims Jews are simply born smarter; this is a matter of nature. This is also called 'racism' and is reminiscent of someone saying black people are naturally dumber.
However, you cannot be born an atheist. All I did was show that people who are born with greater intelligence, regardless of their race and such, and pursue Academics, simply tend to choose the road of atheism over religion. If you cannot comprehend the difference between these two things, you're an idiot.
You have consistently followed a 'what the majority believe (regarding moral absolutes) must be true' line of thought. Your opinions contradict the majority of American opinion: thus, by your own logic, you are wrong.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Then how can a democracy possibly function if people are mostly morons? If that is correct, then their choice is extremely unlikely to be the 'correct' one.
actually we were never supposed to be the democracy we are now. WE were supposed to be a constitutional republic, in which the ruling factor is the law, not the will of the people. For instance: socialistic aspects of our society would have been considered illegal and unconstitutional two hundred years ago, but now we have changed into a people rule, where as long as over 50% decide on something, it happens, meaning the masses can decide to do something illegal or just incredibly stupid.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Then how can a democracy possibly function if people are mostly morons? If that is correct, then their choice is extremely unlikely to be the 'correct' one.
Democracy functions, because the majority of people are idiots. The people select the politician who was able to manipulate them the best, the one who was the better one with words. People are stupid, they are dumb mammals who are easily captured by a simple phrase. In this way, Democracy allows only the most intelligent and crafty of politicians to win. The ones who can most easily manipulate the moronic masses of fools.
Obama is one of the best wordsmiths I have ever seen, a master of ethos and pathos. This is why he is in office right now, because he knows how to play the crowd. Not that this bothers me, I think its absolutely hilarious to see him manipulate all these retarded people.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Never played 1-2. 3 was alright. I'm going back and forth between 5 and Empire: Total War. Awesome RTS/Map game.
Two was 100 times better than three IMO. Mhm I'm a Halo fan myself still playing Halo Wars, then i'll finish my current graphics design project sell it and buy either E:TW or CoD 5 considering at the moment.