< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 67 ·
|May-20-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga--All the actions of the liberal flow from this idea, this belief that they are working for <justice>.>|
So is there something wrong with working for <justice>?>
Well, first of all, thanks <BP> for your rejoinder <Try not to be a perfect idiot, would you?>. I am trying to be nice, so I didn't want to say something like that.
Now, about the question - I never condemned working for justice!
In the USA we have a document, The Constitution of The United States of America.
This is our ideal of justice.
Now, as an homage to Ozzy Osbourne, I am going to say the problem occurs when folks are "going off the rails of the crazy train", and trying to change our nation without the guidelines of our Constitution.
When you ignore the Constitution, and give the decision-making about what is justice to a particular group, then you end up with the "You can pee next to me" demographic of my Democratic Party.
So the very clever and wise founding fathers gave us a code of laws and rights. With a process for changing that code, which is neither onerous nor easy. The purpose is to prevent the SJWs from hijacking true justice for their own means.
Part of the vociferous objections to Hillary and Obama that I see coming from the Political Right are rooted in the idea that, hey you can't just decide what is just. We have a process here. Stick to it!
I have a 2nd Amendment, that protects my right to keep and bear arms. So if you want to take that away, face the gauntlet of the procedure our founding fathers put in place (specifically to protect us from your attempts to end-around that gauntlet!). This is just one example.
|May-20-17|| ||Big Pawn: <thegoodanarchist: < Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga--All the actions of the liberal flow from this idea, this belief that they are working for <justice>.>
So is there something wrong with working for <justice>?>|
Well, first of all, thanks <BP> for your rejoinder <Try not to be a perfect idiot, would you?>. I am trying to be nice, so I didn't want to say something like that>
That perfect idiot comment was directed to gsm.
|May-20-17|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--If you were trying to elect a president who was well versed in the intricacies of the US Constitution, you may have picked the wrong person. He is still adjusting to the reality that there are three branches to the government.|
|May-20-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < Big Pawn:
That perfect idiot comment was directed to gsm.>
I understood that. :)
|May-20-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--If you were trying to elect a president who was well versed in the intricacies of the US Constitution, you may have picked the wrong person.>|
Uh, <GSM>, I voted for Hillary. Care to adjust your thinking?
|May-20-17|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--You complain about liberals all the time, and when you wax poetic about the Constitution, you choose to bring up the second amendment. Why did you vote for Clinton?|
|May-20-17|| ||Big Pawn: <regor Samsa Mendel: <BP>--if you think that <liberal humanist hedonistic values> are such a bad thing, why do you shower so much praise on a multiply-divorced-man who brags about grabbing women by their genitalia?>|
You gotta do better than that gsm. Your comment doesn't rise to the level of warranting a serious reply. Flushing turds down the toilet is only fun for so long and no more.
Ask an interesting question that requires insight to understand and answer.
|May-20-17|| ||Big Pawn: <tga>, I read your response and found it interesting. I know that many libs are duped by the thinking you described, but I believe the root cause of liberalism is much deeper than that for a variety of reasons. The "fighting for the little guy" narrative is a coverup for their real agenda. It gets some people to go along but it's a sham. Social justice isn't about justice either, but some are duped into believing the lie. |
<: Well, I haven't watched the facebook video of the former KGB spy, but I did think on a question you asked a week or two ago, in Rogoff.>
I'm very interested to read your response to that very interesting video clip.
|May-21-17|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <BP--Flushing turds down the toilet is only fun for so long and no more.> You prefer to elevate them to the presidency.|
<Justice = eradicating leftism in America>
How's this for a slogan: "The liberals are our misfortune."
Of course, it sounds better in the original German.
|May-21-17|| ||Boomie: <How's this for a slogan: "The liberals are our misfortune.">|
As the anti-Jesse Jackson would put it: "If it's brown, flush it down."
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--You complain about liberals all the time>|
Uh, you really have me confused with someone else.
<morfishine> or <diceman> or <TheFocus> or <Bobsterman3000> maybe. *They* complain about "liberals" all the time. <diceman> calls me a liberal.
I posted my thoughts on liberalism in this forum <in response to a question I was asked>.
I consider myself a blend of Progressive and Libertarian, to be quite frank about it.
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <The "fighting for the little guy" narrative is a coverup for their real agenda.>|
<BP> I thought you were talking about your average liberal on the street. I think most of them sincerely believe that their liberalism evolves from a desire for "fairness".
If you are talking about the leadership, then I would say their raison d'Ítre is control of society.
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>... Why did you vote for Clinton?>|
For the first time in my life it was a tough decision. In the end, it was a combination of the crotch-grabbing, and his dismissive attitude about AGW.
When non-scientists assume they are qualified to not only make judgements on highly-technical scientific topics, but to be derisive of experts in the field, I don't trust them in national leadership positions which require good decisions on said subjects.
|May-21-17|| ||diceman: <thegoodanarchist:
<diceman> calls me a liberal.>
Exhibit A: <I voted for Hillary.>
<I consider myself a blend of Progressive and Libertarian, to be quite frank about it.>
A "better" liberal.
(shame the libertarian guy doesn't show up on election day)
<Gregor Samsa Mendel: <tga>--You complain about liberals all the time>
Yes, things can get confusing when someone uses a different water to kool-aid ratio vs. yours.
|May-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: <tga: I consider myself a blend of Progressive and Libertarian, to be quite frank about it.>|
It's hard to identify someone as a progressive if they reject the whole feminism thing. It's also hard to identify someone as progressive when they reject the "racial double standard". Also, it's hard to identify someone as a progressive when they do not accept the limitations on speech (say, frank and honest discussion about Muslims, black on black crime, immigration based on culture and being selective) that political correctness imposes on them.
Maybe progressive is the wrong term?
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < diceman: <thegoodanarchist:|
A "better" liberal.
(shame the libertarian guy doesn't show up on election day)>
That was funny!
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <tga: I consider myself a blend of Progressive and Libertarian, to be quite frank about it.>|
Maybe progressive is the wrong term?>
Well, I guess it depends on you definition of progress - lool! (I love to throw in a "lool" every now and again, as an homage to the endearingly wacky posts of <UNF>)
Double standards strike me as very unamerican, so having one set of rules for white men to follow, and a less restrictive set for everyone else (as an example) is just as oppressive as a caste system in India or a Royals/Commoners system in monarchies.
It is unfortunate that the word progressive got co-opted to mean the kind of policies that retard the improvement of society. It is rather binary thinking, if you ask me, and I don't think opportunity has to be a zero sum game, where White men need to be victimized to achieve "justice".
I also view adaptation to new problems to be fundamental to progress. How can one call himself a progressive if, for example, he doesn't want to take on the side effects of growth in clean energy alternatives, one of which is the loss of economic opportunity for coal miners?
This adaptation to new problems includes the Islamic terrorism problem. I didn't have a problem with Islam when they were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But they started exporting terrorism in the early 1990s, and I consider it a failure of the political left to adapt to the new situation.
I also think the political right has tried to adapt to Islamic terrorism, but has done a poor job, until Donald Trump came along and said we need to ban Muslims from entering the US until we find out what the Hell is going on.
In fact, I think Donald Trump is the most progressive politician on the national stage (aside from the AGW topic), although I certainly expect derision for this statement from people like <AI> or <JLS>
|May-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: <(I love to throw in a "lool" every now and again, as an homage to the endearingly wacky posts of <UNF>)>|
Yes, <unf> is a good old boy!
|May-21-17|| ||Big Pawn: <tga: In fact, I think Donald Trump is the most progressive politician on the national stage (aside from the AGW topic), although I certainly expect derision for this statement from people like <AI> or <JLS>>|
Indeed, but there is certainly an equivocation of the word progressive happening in that case.
Liberals don't like being called liberals or leftists, so the try to hide behind the euphemistic "progressive" because, after all, who can be against progress?
I think that everyone knows that progressives are liberals that don't want to be called liberals, but they take all of their "sit down and shut up when black people and women are talking!" liberal ideas with them.
You are treating the word "progressive" in a literal sense.
Given that progressives identify with the three points above that I say mark you out as "not a progressive", I think there is a more apt description of your position than progressive mixed with libertarian.
Personally, I would find this rather interesting if I were in your shoes. It's cause, I think, to rethink the appropriate label.
That's kind of cool.
By the way, I can see why you identify half way as a libertarian. That seems rather apparent to me, but the progressive identity seems not to be the best fit.
Perhaps a populist-libertarian?
|May-21-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <BP> - Good point! |
And I will take the opportunity to rethink my label.
|May-21-17|| ||Archives: <Big Pawn> ... who are your favorite theologians? What stream of Christianity do your subscribe to?|
|May-22-17|| ||Big Pawn: Hi <Archives>, nice that you dropped in. My favorites are probably Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, CS Lewis, William Lane Craig, Bahnsen, John MacArthur, Normal Geisler, John Wesley - those are the ones that come to mind right away. Of course, the apostle Paul needs to be added too. I think they are all very interesting in one way or another. |
As far as which denomination I fit into, I'm not sure really. I must be some kind of protestant but I have a different way of looking at things. When discussing doctrine, I raise questions among my Christian interlocutors that they don't like, that they brush off, that they swat down with Church or denominational dogma, and so I find myself someplace unfamiliar and strange.
I was brought up in a First Baptist Church, and I tend to be oriented in that direction more or less, but I read the bible critically and I'm suspicious about Christian Church Dogma, no longer accepting certain things at face value, but rather thinking for myself, or rather, waiting or receiving (perhaps) revelation a bit at a time.
Who are your favorite theologians and what denomination do you most closely fall into?
|May-22-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <My favorites are probably Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, CS Lewis, William Lane Craig, Bahnsen, John MacArthur, Normal Geisler, John Wesley - those are the ones that come to mind right away. Of course, the apostle Paul needs to be added too.>|
have you read Bishop John Shelby Spong's writings?
|May-22-17|| ||Big Pawn: <have you read Bishop John Shelby Spong's writings?>|
I've listened to him but haven't read his work. He kind of reminds me of John Dominic Crossan, who is also very left on the resurrection. To me, he is an oxymoron in himself. He's a bishop but he's not a theist! Talk about left, wow!
He considers the gospels to a a midrash rather than historical/biographical in terms of style and how they are interpreted, which gives him the leeway he needs to speak anything he wants into them.
Like Crossan, whom I've discussed at some length with <optimal play>, I think Spong is, fundamentally, a naturalist. He assumes naturalism first and then works from there, interpreting Christianity, theism and philosophy (metaphysics in particular) in terms of naturalism, which makes no sense at all to me.
|May-23-17|| ||optimal play: <Big Pawn> I recall discussing John Dominic Crossan with you previously, and John Shelby Spong with a couple of people here, but perhaps not with yourself.|
Spong is definitely a theist and believes in the Resurrection of Christ, but not a literal bodily resurrection.
<He considers the gospels to be a midrash rather than historical/biographical in terms of style and how they are interpreted, which gives him the leeway he needs to speak anything he wants into them.> You're right about that!
Although I find his writing thought-provoking, he often jumps to unwarranted conclusions and sometimes I even suspect him of purposely proposing controversial theories just to attract publicity.
Nevertheless, he does provide some very interesting insight into biblical context and midrashic interpretation.
I would also add that Crossan and Spong are very different scripture scholars despite having some similar views on biblical interpretation.
I'm not sure if you could strictly call them naturalists since they both believe in Christ's Resurrection, which I think a naturalist would reject, although their concept of Resurrection is spiritual rather than physical.
Anyway, your list of favourite theologians looks interesting although I'm not familiar with a couple of them.
I'll have a look at them and perhaps offer a comment.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 67 ·
Daily puzzles, news, and more!