Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2015, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 12:08 AM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 11:33 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 04:46 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  No, actually, authoritarian and totalitarian are semantically different terms. You could look at a dictionary if you want proof of that.


Nah, lib-tards are notoriously weak-willed wimps. There's no way you'd last more than five seconds. It's not like you even have the moral high ground here either, considering that the secularist revolutionaries were the ones to use violence first.


Oops! Looks like I hit a nerve, there.

What hurt? Being outed as a fascist or that fascistic ideology has been assigned to the dustbin (trashcan) of history and that mechanisms are in place to keep it that way.

Your ISIS-like totalitarianism will be resisted ... always.

Yes

Sounds like you're overestimating your own ideology. Hardly anyone would be willing to fight to enforce 'muh secularism' or 'muh equality' anywhere today, unless it's against some technologically inferior, vastly under-equipped country, where they're bound to win. Thousands of people are willing to die for God. The UN and their little enforcers only go after such nations as described. If even one superpower defects from their little 'secular human rights' debacle, then it would all be over.

It's only been around one hundred years, even less than that in some other countries, and even that's seeming to be starting to come to an end. You're not going to be able to control every country forever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 12:12 AM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey Petrov, check this out, you're fine with burning people at the stake to make a point and I'm not - who's got the moral high ground?

Me. Well, that was easy. Also, it's not just 'to make a point'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 12:15 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 12:04 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ...
Thousands of people are willing to die for God.
...

And I'm more than willing to let them. Tongue

(13-03-2015 12:04 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ...
It's only been around one hundred years, even less than that in some other countries, you're not going to be able to control every country forever.

It's not about control. Quite the reverse... it's about freedom.

People have a taste for it. Even the Saudis are taking a liking to it.

The country in which I live is officially muslim but this is largely lip-service / merely tradition.

Knowledge is killing fanaticism.

Why don't you try some of that. You might like it, too.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
13-03-2015, 12:29 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:And I'm more than willing to let them. Tongue

Little shit.

Quote:It's not about control. Quite the reverse... it's about freedom.

If you have to 'enforce' freedom on other countries, then that, by definition, isn't freedom, in fact, if you have to 'enforce' it at all, it isn't freedom. That's okay though, none of the 'freedoms' throughout history have ever actually been true 'freedom', as in, anarchy, as 'freedom' is pretty much just a piece of empty rhetoric, that's meaning changes with the person who's using it. 2000 years ago, it was "freedom" to be allowed to sacrifice your first-born to the Sun god. 1000 years ago, it was 'freedom' for the King not to have too much power over his dukes. In 100-200 years, 'freedom' if it is used by someone, will be used to mean another thing, which, in reality, will be completely different from its actual meaning.

Quote:People have a taste for it. Even the Saudis are taking a liking to it.


The French didn't seem to have a taste for it when the revolutionaries massacred an entire town when they refused to go along with it. Not to mention this is just an ad-populum fallacy anyway. How people feel about it doesn't change whether what you're doing is right or not.

Quote:Knowledge is killing fanaticism.

I'm pretty sure the American Revolutionaries didn't use 'Knowledge' to fight the British. Also, I'm not sure all the blatant lies, which are acknowledged as lies by all serious historians, that the French Revolutionaries spread about the King and his wife to gain support for their cause would be considered 'Knowledge'.

Also, no, knowledge is not killing 'fanaticism'. Rabid revolution spreading in the worst possible way, combined with the major influence that secular, democratic countries have over the rest of the world is what's doing it. If the Soviet Union won the cold war, Marxism would be spreading in the same way secularism is spreading today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 03:59 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 12:29 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:And I'm more than willing to let them. Tongue

Little shit.
...

Am I getting to you?

Soooo sorry.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
13-03-2015, 03:15 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 12:29 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  If you have to 'enforce' freedom on other countries, then that, by definition, isn't freedom, in fact, if you have to 'enforce' it at all, it isn't freedom. That's okay though, none of the 'freedoms' throughout history have ever actually been true 'freedom', as in, anarchy, as 'freedom' is pretty much just a piece of empty rhetoric, that's meaning changes with the person who's using it. 2000 years ago, it was "freedom" to be allowed to sacrifice your first-born to the Sun god. 1000 years ago, it was 'freedom' for the King not to have too much power over his dukes. In 100-200 years, 'freedom' if it is used by someone, will be used to mean another thing, which, in reality, will be completely different from its actual meaning.

And yet... throughout history... people *have* been willing to put their lives on the line for freedom. It's a little intangible sure, but by and large people know what freedom is - it's doing what the fuck you want without some privileged, pampered shithead telling you to. Tempered somewhat by the necessity for all of us to get along.

Edit: and the *reason* those who value freedom have to put their lives on the line for this simple thing is that there's no shortage of twats with force on their side trying to make other people do stuff they don't really want to.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-03-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 12:04 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 11:33 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Oops! Looks like I hit a nerve, there.

What hurt? Being outed as a fascist or that fascistic ideology has been assigned to the dustbin (trashcan) of history and that mechanisms are in place to keep it that way.

Your ISIS-like totalitarianism will be resisted ... always.

Yes

Sounds like you're overestimating your own ideology. Hardly anyone would be willing to fight to enforce 'muh secularism' or 'muh equality' anywhere today, unless it's against some technologically inferior, vastly under-equipped country, where they're bound to win. Thousands of people are willing to die for God. The UN and their little enforcers only go after such nations as described. If even one superpower defects from their little 'secular human rights' debacle, then it would all be over.

It's only been around one hundred years, even less than that in some other countries, and even that's seeming to be starting to come to an end. You're not going to be able to control every country forever.

The first actually secular constitution was ratified in 1787; that's considerably more than 100 years.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
13-03-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 07:44 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 07:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I thought we were talking about whether or not they "saw fit to" 'cause they most certainly "saw fit to" torture and kill his ass.

Well they clearly didn't because, you know, they didn't torture or kill him.

Only because he recanted. They certainly would have tortured and/or killed him had he refused to recant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2015, 09:50 AM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2015 09:54 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 08:44 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 07:44 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Well they clearly didn't because, you know, they didn't torture or kill him.

Only because he recanted. They certainly would have tortured and/or killed him had he refused to recant.

As they did to Giordano Bruno for refusing to surrender his reason to spare his life. "Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-03-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(13-03-2015 03:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 12:29 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  If you have to 'enforce' freedom on other countries, then that, by definition, isn't freedom, in fact, if you have to 'enforce' it at all, it isn't freedom. That's okay though, none of the 'freedoms' throughout history have ever actually been true 'freedom', as in, anarchy, as 'freedom' is pretty much just a piece of empty rhetoric, that's meaning changes with the person who's using it. 2000 years ago, it was "freedom" to be allowed to sacrifice your first-born to the Sun god. 1000 years ago, it was 'freedom' for the King not to have too much power over his dukes. In 100-200 years, 'freedom' if it is used by someone, will be used to mean another thing, which, in reality, will be completely different from its actual meaning.

And yet... throughout history... people *have* been willing to put their lives on the line for freedom. It's a little intangible sure, but by and large people know what freedom is - it's doing what the fuck you want without some privileged, pampered shithead telling you to. Tempered somewhat by the necessity for all of us to get along.

Edit: and the *reason* those who value freedom have to put their lives on the line for this simple thing is that there's no shortage of twats with force on their side trying to make other people do stuff they don't really want to.

Well, at least you explained what freedom actually is: Selfishness. It's the selfish desire to do whatever you want without thinking about anyone else. It's been romanticized a lot, but that's essentially what it is, as you've just explained here. Life is doing a lot of things that you don't want to do. It doesn't really matter whether you want to do them or not, what matters is if they're right or not. Revolutionaries deny this basic reality, which is why they almost always end up destroying themselves, eventually.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: