"parody"
"category"
"parody"
"category"
Anon wrote:
sdfgfdsf wrote:Yeah, just look at the total chaos in the steets in Oslo and Goteborg, pure apocalypse!!!
From Oslo...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/sweden_rape_1.jpgShe got beat up like this because she wasn't a muslim.
Muslims arent secular progressives as far as i know.
Anon wrote:
sdfgfdsf wrote:Yeah, just look at the total chaos in the steets in Oslo and Goteborg, pure apocalypse!!!
From Oslo...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/sweden_rape_1.jpgShe got beat up like this because she wasn't a muslim.
And for every beating/killing by intolerant muslims you can find one by intolerant christians/jews/etc.
Brutality happens not because muslims or christians or jews or any other specific religion is uniquely intolerant, it happens because most fundamentalists of ANY religion are intolerant. Religion is a curse.
Still, I think the OP is a troll, in multiple senses of the term.
Honestly, anyone who has been conscious for the last seven years and thinks "secular progressives" are our biggest problem just isn't paying attention or cannot process information.
The use of the term indicates the OP is just an O'Reilly fanboy anyway, so...consider the source.
sdfgfdsf wrote:
Anon wrote:From Oslo...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/sweden_rape_1.jpgShe got beat up like this because she wasn't a muslim.
Muslims arent secular progressives as far as i know.
Yes, but S-P policies have allowed them to take over.
The phrase "secular progressives" is a derisive umbrella term, which appears pretty much exclusively in Bill O's Culture Warrior, and to most people doesn't mean all that much. (For laughs I actually read about 1/2 of this book in a bookstore while my wife was shopping.) If you actually want to debate, which I'm sure you don't, why don't you try being a little more specific with your terminology?
I think the primary function of the whole "culture war" rhetoric is to get us to imagine that we as a culture are divided against each other because it distracts from the fact that most of us are getting screwed over by profiteering corperations. One thing that I've learned talking to people on both the "right" and "left" is that we tend to agree on a number of issues. A friend of mine who is a staunch Republican has gone about a year now without health insurance, and he is beginning to deviate from the party line. As the economy worsens, partially due to the massive profit-taking of the oil companies, people are going to recognize that a lot of their anger is misdirected.
This is true; Muslim fundamentalists are by definition not secular progressives because they tend to belive that religion should play a central role in society. Once again inproper terminology obscures the possibility of debate. (Sigh.) Maybe cable news shows are really the entities responsible for the degregation of civil society.
In order for rational critical debate really to exist a person must agree to be persuaded by a better arguement. It strikes me that this is precisely what doesn't happen on cable news shows such as Crossfire and the Bill'O Factor. When was the last time you heard Bill'O say, "you know that's a good point. I hadn't considered that some people work full time jobs and still can't afford health insurance and food for their families."
"Yes, but S-P policies have allowed them to take over."
No, it is religious exceptionalism that has allowed them to take over. By forcing us to intellectually tolerate ridiculous religious views ofa ny stripe and demonizing secularism, although there is no evidence for any religious view, the religious right has made it so we have to extend absurd freedom from criticism to any religious views. Religious claims all rely on intellectual relativism to get a hearing. Since no Christian has any good reasons for beliving what they believe yet still insist their uniquely Christian beliefs deserve special consieration, we have to extend that consideration to every religious belief.
The antedote to Islam is not Christianity - it is evidence-based and reality-based secularism. It is precisely he lack of standing up for secularism that has led to this sad state where any of us defer automatically to religion.
No Country for Old Men wrote:
The phrase "secular progressives" is a derisive umbrella term, which appears pretty much exclusively in Bill O's Culture Warrior, and to most people doesn't mean all that much. (For laughs I actually read about 1/2 of this book in a bookstore while my wife was shopping.) If you actually want to debate, which I'm sure you don't, why don't you try being a little more specific with your terminology?
I think the primary function of the whole "culture war" rhetoric is to get us to imagine that we as a culture are divided against each other because it distracts from the fact that most of us are getting screwed over by profiteering corperations. One thing that I've learned talking to people on both the "right" and "left" is that we tend to agree on a number of issues. A friend of mine who is a staunch Republican has gone about a year now without health insurance, and he is beginning to deviate from the party line. As the economy worsens, partially due to the massive profit-taking of the oil companies, people are going to recognize that a lot of their anger is misdirected.
You started well with your first paragraph w/Define, Debate, etc. It sounded like you wanted to discuss facts. You showed your True Colors in the 2nd and lost credibility when you used the generic 'evil' corporations argument.
I never used the word "evil." I said "profiteering," which is true. Corperations are not evil; they are profit-extracting institutions completely indifferent to ethics or morality. They do a lot of good for society by providing jobs and services that people need, but this is incidental to their primary function, which is to make as much profit as possible. If GM realized that they could increase their profits by 15% by doing away with every single American job that they provide, do you think they would hesitate to do so? If we want stability in our society we need our government (a collection of civic rather than a capitalist institutions) to provide services such as basic health care, and the majority of people agree with me.
My own sense is that individuals in our society tend to pay more than their fair share of taxes, but corperations do not pay nearly enough, considering the massive impact that they have on our infrastructure.
By the way, the one thing that I tend to agree with Bill O' on is the fact that Christian expression has been marginalized in our country in recent years. Freedom of religious expression should certainly be protected along with other modes of discourse. It's intested to see Christian rock bands seizing upon genres such as punk in order to express their feelings of marginalization by society.
No Country for Old Men wrote:
I never used the word "evil." I said "profiteering," which is true. Corperations are not evil; they are profit-extracting institutions completely indifferent to ethics or morality. They do a lot of good for society by providing jobs and services that people need, but this is incidental to their primary function, which is to make as much profit as possible. If GM realized that they could increase their profits by 15% by doing away with every single American job that they provide, do you think they would hesitate to do so? If we want stability in our society we need our government (a collection of civic rather than a capitalist institutions) to provide services such as basic health care, and the majority of people agree with me.
My own sense is that individuals in our society tend to pay more than their fair share of taxes, but corperations do not pay nearly enough, considering the massive impact that they have on our infrastructure.
By the way, the one thing that I tend to agree with Bill O' on is the fact that Christian expression has been marginalized in our country in recent years. Freedom of religious expression should certainly be protected along with other modes of discourse. It's intested to see Christian rock bands seizing upon genres such as punk in order to express their feelings of marginalization by society.
Correct: You did not use the term 'evil'.
"If we want stability in our society we need our government (a collection of civic rather than a capitalist institutions) to provide services such as basic health care, and the majority of people agree with me."
WE don't NEED our government to provide healthcare. SOME WANT our gov't to provide basic health care.
The majority argument will never work.
*Corporations
Show me where I used the term "evil." Evil is a moral/ethical term and ethics and morality unfortunately belong to a completely different discourse.
This is true. We really don't need health care at all, and many do not have it. I went over a year without it and I'm still here. However, it's problematic that this is even an issue in one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of capital and other resources.
Actually the majority arguement will work: if our representatives no longer represent our views and concerns, we will elect new ones who do.
No Country for Old Men wrote:
Show me where I used the term "evil." Evil is a moral/ethical term and ethics and morality unfortunately belong to a completely different discourse.
This is true. We really don't need health care at all, and many do not have it. I went over a year without it and I'm still here. However, it's problematic that this is even an issue in one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of capital and other resources.
Actually the majority arguement will work: if our representatives no longer represent our views and concerns, we will elect new ones who do.
You are correct, you never used the term evil.
Agreed, health is a problem. The answer, I believe, is not providing fiancial support for unhealthy lifestyles, but by incentives for healthy lifestyles.
Majority - Then why don't we have state provided health care now?
No Country for Old Men wrote:
Show me where I used the term "evil." Evil is a moral/ethical term and ethics and morality unfortunately belong to a completely different discourse.
This is true. We really don't need health care at all, and many do not have it. I went over a year without it and I'm still here. However, it's problematic that this is even an issue in one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of capital and other resources.
Actually the majority arguement will work: if our representatives no longer represent our views and concerns, we will elect new ones who do.
You are correct, you never used the term evil.
Agreed, health is a problem. The answer, I believe, is not providing fiancial support for unhealthy lifestyles, but by incentives for healthy lifestyles.
Majority - Then why don't we have state provided health care now? Also, the majority of us want a free beach house (actually close to 100%) why don't we have those?
Let the working man keep some of the money the govt always feels it has a right to take. Then we can all choose and pay for the health care we desire. There is nothing in the consttution about the govt providing free health care nor should there be.
