Jump to content

The Immediate Future of Western Civilization


lictor616

Recommended Posts

This is basically a rant, without much substance. He cries out against 'weasel words' yet doesn't tell the truth himself about the UN resolution against defamation of religion.

I cut it off at 4 minutes when he started railing on about unconstitutional provisions suggested by the US. He's not being forthright. He keeps pointing out that the US is supporting an unconstitutional proposal without explaining what it is.

This is mostly an emotional appeal without much else to offer - which is why it's on video. The best ideas can come across in text, and don't need somebody whipping up your emotions. It's just more hyperbole and the same kind of alarmism we hear over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically a rant, without much substance. He cries out against 'weasel words' yet doesn't tell the truth himself about the UN resolution against defamation of religion.

I cut it off at 4 minutes when he started railing on about unconstitutional provisions suggested by the US. He's not being forthright. He keeps pointing out that the US is supporting an unconstitutional proposal without explaining what it is.

This is mostly an emotional appeal without much else to offer - which is why it's on video. The best ideas can come across in text, and don't need somebody whipping up your emotions. It's just more hyperbole and the same kind of alarmism we hear over and over again.

what he said of the PROTECTION OF RELIGION afforded by the UN resolution was precisely accurate... i'm curious do how did he misread it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what he said of the PROTECTION OF RELIGION afforded by the UN resolution was precisely accurate... i'm curious do how did he misread it?

Church and State are the same damned thing! The UN is really saying the protection of state ..of their authority as a unified gangsterous body..very clever apporach - Protecting "religion" - such bullshit - None of them believe in goodness or God _ If the UN was godly or good..we would have seen evidence of it by now. We have seen none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snippet:

"Speaking your mind is seen as virtually anti-social because some opportunistic crybaby is sure to take offense and throw a tantrum, and that might threaten community cohesion."

Thanks for that.

Community cohesion? Is that like "it takes a village to raise a child?" No wonder the kids don't respect authority..they have no idea who their real parents are...just a mini - rant..thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically a rant, without much substance. He cries out against 'weasel words' yet doesn't tell the truth himself about the UN resolution against defamation of religion.

I cut it off at 4 minutes when he started railing on about unconstitutional provisions suggested by the US. He's not being forthright. He keeps pointing out that the US is supporting an unconstitutional proposal without explaining what it is.

This is mostly an emotional appeal without much else to offer - which is why it's on video. The best ideas can come across in text, and don't need somebody whipping up your emotions. It's just more hyperbole and the same kind of alarmism we hear over and over again.

Pat Condell is a hero of free speech and extremely popular. The death threats against him are legendary which tells me he's on track.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

As his website says....

Hi, I'm Pat Condell. I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended. Cheers.

http://www.patcondell.net/

I find it very amusing that a fellow with a BLOG claims Pat's 'rants' are of no value unlike the printed word.

:lol::lol:

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course...this is in response to Ireland adopting anti-blasphemy laws and the Obama endorsing the UN resolution along with Egypt in regards to these laws. I think the point being that it would be illegal under the 1st Amendment to try such a thing INSIDE the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoP

Written blogs and forums separate the ideas from the theatre and oratory that accompanies the spoken word, allowing us to evaluate the reason in the ideas.

We're going to have to disagree on this one. I'd point to things like Churchill's speeches or Roosevelt's Fireside Chats and such good examples of ideas coming across just fine in oratory. Either way, no matter if Lictor posted it...which could blow a few folks' bias fuses...Pat Condell is immensely popular and often makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both examples are designed to appeal to man's emotion. There is a place for that, but I would submit that oratory isn't good for introducing ideas and analysis. Debate can be good for dialectic and exploration, but a lot of the ideals of American Democracy were worked out in print.

as marxism is designed to appeal to the inferior's resentment of his betters... marxism is an appeal to maliable people. Communism is 100% hot air and emotionally based... yet you have no problem embracing it as your religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoP

So are you against whay Pat Condell says? Did you stop listening because Lictor posted it?

It is as I posted. I didn't find a lot of substance there, and certainly nothing new. I watched about half of it, and found it to be a rehash of what I've read before, but with the over-the-top emotional appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lictor

marxism is designed to appeal to the inferior's resentment of his betters... marxism is an appeal to maliable people. Communism is 100% hot air and emotionally based... yet you have no problem embracing it as your religion.

This is just plain wrong. Marx has a philosophy behind what he wrote, which is why academics are attracted to Marxism, in my opinion.

I embrace it as my opinion ?

What in blazes are you talking about ? That's wrong too - you don't know me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoP

It is as I posted. I didn't find a lot of substance there, and certainly nothing new. I watched about half of it, and found it to be a rehash of what I've read before, but with the over-the-top emotional appeal.

I see...so if he wrote it down, it would have value to you. Excellent. As long as you realize that is merely your single opinion rather than the "colective voice of reason" that some claim to speak for. To each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grey sickly utlitarianism awaits the west in the future. With technology and moral neutralty what else can be in store? I don't see a Utopian heaven about to arise - but only the incrimental establishment of a hell...unless we become beautiful and being to enrich our lives with thoughts of beauty and personal independence - but that take courage and the west is cowardly. So off we go into the future...getting more stupid by the moment as we pat our selves on the back for having mini-tech in our hand - what fools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey this video is pretty good. Kind of reminds me of that wry and dry Brit humour I have grow to love over the years. Like On the Buses. Anyone remember On the Buses? They had a few cranks that would go off now and then too. Fun times.

However, I neither got any immediacy to the future of western civilization, rational freedoms nor powerful assaults by leftist elements. All this video was some Brit cranking away on YouTube. There are a million of those for every political stripe you can imagine. And some you can't.

Ah well. It doesn't play very well in re-runs and, sadly, neither does On the Buses anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey this video is pretty good. Kind of reminds me of that wry and dry Brit humour I have grow to love over the years. Like On the Buses. Anyone remember On the Buses? They had a few cranks that would go off now and then too. Fun times.

However, I neither got any immediacy to the future of western civilization, rational freedoms nor powerful assaults by leftist elements. All this video was some Brit cranking away on YouTube. There are a million of those for every political stripe you can imagine. And some you can't.

Ah well. It doesn't play very well in re-runs and, sadly, neither does On the Buses anymore.

Pat Condell is a British stand-up comedian. He is also in the top 10 @ YouTube for subscriptions which spells 'popular' no matter how you spin it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...