eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 11 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: You mean that I perceive the fact that you are the single so-called left-leaning person in this thread who was able to say the lady was a loon. It's not some right-wing conditioning I have undergone. Leftists constantly accuse others of racism. Oh well, I guess I'm just not a lefty. Does that make me a righty? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 1 minute ago, eyeball said: Oh well, I guess I'm just not a lefty. Does that make me a righty? Possibly more moderate. I really don't know you well enough. I am not sure if I think most so-called right wingers are even very right-wing. Edited March 23 by CouchPotato Quote
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 9 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Jesus was not a humanist. He was a practicing Jew. To suggest he was humanist is modern revisionism. Sure it is, revisionism usually stems from a modern more critically thought out understanding of reality and human nature. That said I'm pretty sure even Neanderthals knew that how they'd like other people to treat them was an important clue to how they should probably treat them. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 26 minutes ago, eyeball said: Sure it is, revisionism usually stems from a modern more critically thought out understanding of reality and human nature. It's just as often a disingenuous attempt to rewrite history to support a certain view. Quote That said I'm pretty sure even Neanderthals knew that how they'd like other people to treat them was an important clue to how they should probably treat them. So basically even Neanderthals knew it was despicable to falsely accuse others of racism. That's good to know. Doesn't say much for the left. Edited March 23 by CouchPotato Quote
ironstone Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 1 hour ago, robosmith said: Like denigrating the leaders of BLM with the "Marxist" label as if that negates everything they stand for. But the BLM leaders are Marxist. What do they stand for? It's safe to assume they stand for...Marxism. But like most Marxist leaders, they have also become fabulously wealthy along the way. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 9 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Possibly more moderate. I really don't know you well enough. I am not sure if I think most so-called right wingers are even very right-wing. Will they sure seem to like identifying as such. In any case I subscribe to the original usage of the terms right and left - where wealthy entitled powerful people sat to the right of a monarch or center of power and everyone else were to the left. The terms progressive and conservative came later but I've always maintained these were two halves the old left. Even communist dictatorships need to have a right wing of influential powerful people to maintain the rulers hold over everyone. In this sense the right is primarily concerned with the distribution of power. It's obvious why right wingers feel such a need to ingratiate themselves to the ruler but why conservatives feel the need to separate themselves from the great unwashed and ingratiate themselves to the right wing isn't. I had it explained to me that it's because no poor man ever gave them a job. Explained to me by a slumlord I might add who was apparently completely oblivious to the irony. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Will they sure seem to like identifying as such. Maybe. I would argue that people on the left enjoy identifying them this way even more, because they keep referring to relatively moderate conservatives these days as far right. Quote
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 10 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: It's just as often a disingenuous attempt to rewrite history to support a certain view. No doubt but the sheer simplicity of the wisdom behind treating others as you'd like to be treated - to put yourself in another's shoes - is just to starkly ingenious to dismiss as anything other than just as true then as it is today and probably even more so now. We should treat everything the same way - like our planet for example. Would we really like to be under domination? Now wait until some wag pipes up that's exactly what lefties want above all else. LMAO! Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 46 minutes ago, eyeball said: No doubt but the sheer simplicity of the wisdom behind treating others as you'd like to be treated - to put yourself in another's shoes - is just to starkly ingenious to dismiss as anything other than just as true then as it is today and probably even more so now.! No one is arguing this. They just disagree with the left's vision of what it means to do well unto others. Since you brought up Jesus, I would point out that he refused the temptation of temporal power. In one instance, people tried to forcibly make him king and in the temptation in the wilderness he resisted Satan's offer to make him an earthly ruler. Imagine all the good things you could do if you have power, right? So Jesus' teachings about things like how we ought to treat our neighbor are appeals to the individual. No one was forced to follow Him. No one was forced to donate to the disciple's treasury. Compelled charity is not charity at all. The left will point out that Jesus did urge people to pay their tax to Caesar. But that doesn't mean he favored forced redistribution or any particular tax scheme. He favored people being lawful citizens within society and restricting political rebellion unless it comes between a man and his faith in God. During Jesus time it's not as if the Judeans were complaining about marxist redistribution. They were complaining about a very oppressive tax code the Romans had instated. They were taxed on just about everything. They had every reason to complain about it. But Jesus told them to pay it. Not because he agreed with a very oppressive tax code, but because he was not a political revolutionary. Edited March 23 by CouchPotato Quote
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Maybe. I would argue that people on the left enjoy identifying them this way even more, because they keep referring to relatively moderate conservatives these days as far right. The right wing is a direction not a place. There's always a distant horizon beyond the next rise. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: Now wait until some wag pipes up that's exactly what lefties want above all else. LMAO! Well, I don't think most people want that, but I do think that a lot of the leftist ideas will lead us there, even if they are well-intentioned. You know what they say about the road to hell. 1 minute ago, eyeball said: The right wing is a direction not a place. There's always a distant horizon beyond the next rise. The left wing is a direction not a place. There's always a distant horizon beyond the next rise. You see how stupid statements like that are? Edited March 23 by CouchPotato Quote
robosmith Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 48 minutes ago, ironstone said: But the BLM leaders are Marxist. What do they stand for? It's safe to assume they stand for...Marxism. But like most Marxist leaders, they have also become fabulously wealthy along the way. As if that negates EVERYTHING they stand for. see APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACY Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: As if that negates EVERYTHING they stand for. see APPEAL TO EMOTION FALLACY It's so ironic that you are the one continuing to do just that. Quote
robosmith Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 2 hours ago, CouchPotato said: No see that is what you are doing. You are appealing to emotional fallacy. Nope, that's you and your "Marxist" label. You're trying to suggest that "Marxist" discredits every OTHER thing they stand for. 2 hours ago, CouchPotato said: That is why you get roped in by a name like Black Lives Matter and ignore the fact that they are a radical Marxist group. Ignored because it's NOT RELEVANT to black lives mattering. I'm not falling for YOUR ATTEMPT to suggest that "Marxist" discredits the entire group. 2 hours ago, CouchPotato said: One does not have to promote the group Black Lives Matter in order to believe that black lives or all lives are important. Does this really have to be explained to you? I am legitimately curious. I said NOTHING about "promote." I said you denigrate BLM, and YOU DO ATTEMPT THAT. Quote
ironstone Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 4 minutes ago, robosmith said: As if that negates EVERYTHING they stand for. Certainly part of the reason they started the movement was for personal enrichment. They promote falsehoods like police specifically target blacks. They totally ignore deaths from black on black crime. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 1 minute ago, robosmith said: I said NOTHING about "promote." I said you denigrate BLM, and YOU DO ATTEMPT THAT. Oh, ok, fair enough, robosmith, I will change that for you. One can denigrate the group BLM and still believe that black or, more importantly, all lives matter. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. Quote
robosmith Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: It's so ironic that you are the one continuing to do just that. And you can't even explain how I am doing that. OTOH, it is obvious that you merely mention "Marxist" as if that discredits everything ELSE that the group stands for. Marxism has never PRIMARILY been about racism. Quote Marxism, racism and ethnicity. by John Solomos and Les Back Marxism provides a profound analysis of the interrelations of events, putting economics into perspective. However, Marxism as a method in sociological research fails to provide substantial explanation to problems pertaining to race and ethnic relations. Assumptions which can explain economic relationships fail to explain contemporary racism and problems associated with it. Advocates of Marxism face the challenge of showing the relevance of their theoretical and historical views to contemporary forms of race and ethnic relations. Quote
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: Nope, that's you and your "Marxist" label. You're trying to suggest that "Marxist" discredits every OTHER thing they stand for. Well, it's not about discrediting everything they stand for. I mean I really don't know all the personal beliefs of the people in BLM. I mean as a statement on it's own, I agree that black lives matter. But I can agree with that statement while denigrating the group BLM. I mean let's say some guy named James Reginald Penderghast starts a group called The Appreciation for Paraplegic Cleft Lipped Poverty Stricken Bullied Children Society. But then let's also suppose that James Reginald Penderghast is an admitted fascist and that the official manifesto of The Appreciation for Parapelegic Cleft-Lipped Poverty-Stricken Bullied Children Society is full of fascist ideology. Would it be ok to denigrate his group? Quote
Nationalist Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 2 hours ago, robosmith said: I do love that you continually unintentionally reveal your stupidity with your anti-intellectual juvenile declarations. Except I'm right most of the time... And you're wrong most of the time. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: And you can't even explain how I am doing that. Because you give more importance to the name of the group than what it really is. That is what the name is designed to do. Appeal to emotion. Your whole argument is based on emotional fallacy. You say that to denigrate BLM means you don't think black lives matter. Once again, I have to ask. Are you for real? I admit I am completely stumped. 1 Quote
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 1 hour ago, CouchPotato said: So basically even Neanderthals knew it was despicable to falsely accuse others of racism. That's good to know. Doesn't say much for the left. That's not what I said at all. Stop channeling CdnFox. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 1 hour ago, CouchPotato said: Maybe. I would argue that people on the left enjoy identifying them this way even more, because they keep referring to relatively moderate conservatives these days as far right. I suppose but even I'm moderately conservative on some issues. I'm not a right winger though. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CouchPotato Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's not what I said at all. Stop channeling CdnFox. I never said you did, but while we are talking about doing well unto others the left is really no better at this than anyone else. They hurl insults. They accuse people of racism over the most ridiculous things. And most conservatives are of the mind that what the left considers caring is often misguided or sometimes just disingenuous. So invoking Jesus' kindness as some kind of 'gotcha' really doesn't come across as intelligently as it does in your head. Edited March 23 by CouchPotato Quote
Nationalist Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 (edited) 21 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: I never said you did, but while we are talking about doing well unto others the left is really no better at this than anyone else. They hurl insults. They accuse people of racism over the most ridiculous things. And most conservatives are of the mind that what the left considers caring is often misguided or sometimes just disingenuous. So invoking Jesus' kindness as some kind of 'gotcha' really doesn't come across as intelligently as it does in your head. Personally, I think "Jesus" would be indifferent. These illegals get what they deserve. They snuk into the nation illegally. According to Homan, they were all identified gang-bangers. That's "bad people" illegally in your home. Anyone who is opposed to this is, imo, blind and stupid. Who knows, maybe Jesus' dad will forgive them...one day... Edited March 23 by Nationalist Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
eyeball Posted March 23 Report Posted March 23 1 hour ago, CouchPotato said: ...he was not a political revolutionary. Oh yes he was, that's why he was killed and would be singled out for a double tap to the head by similar suspects today. It's as obvious as the day as long he was a lefty ffs. He was an apple that fell about as far from the tree as it gets. 1 hour ago, CouchPotato said: No one is arguing this. They just disagree with the left's vision of what it means to do well unto others. I've seen threads where the question 2+2 triggers a 12 page discussion that it could equal 4 or 22 depending on how you look at. Every word is subject to being smashed apart like an atom and the debris picked over for it's relevance. You do the same thing to the Bible or any issue you like that people argue, fight, kill and die for and putting yourself into the other's shoes is always what the protagonists should be doing first. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
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.