Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
Sadly they don't.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 12:00 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am backed into no corner.
I do not choose to engage you because you are careless with facts. There is no point in engaging a careless libertard such as you.

Choose not to engage?! You've responded to my posts hundreds of times. And each time I keep challenging you to name one policy, and you keep resorting to name calling. If you weren't backed into a corner, then why waste the time making hundreds of posts calling me names--just list the policy and we'd be done with this argument and stop wasting each other's time?

And, yes, I'm cocky with you because I already know you're never going to name one policy we disagree on that doesn't involve you using force because it doesn't exist. Even if I taunt you like this:

Chas, if you state the policy that proves me wrong, I promise to make one final post where I acknowledge that you were right all along, and I'm an idiot and a loser who can't compete with your sheer genius. Heck, I can even throw in money. And offer my first born child. And both my kidneys. It's a completely safe bet because I know how you guys think. If someone has something you want, use force and take it. If someone does something you don't like, use force and make them stop. It's in our DNA that you use force & violence to solve any problem that comes your way, and you've made it crystal clear you will never resist that primal instinct.

You continue to utterly miss the point. I post to correct your errors of fact, nothing more.

There are so many responses because you make so many errors. Drinking Beverage

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
28-12-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 12:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Chas: Name a policy we disagree on that doesn't involve you using force.

No. I am not going to have a discussion with someone who plays fast and loose with the facts.
You are a True Believer™ and incapable of nuance or subtlety, seeing everything in absolute terms.

You have been corrected many times yet you persist in repeating untruths.

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
28-12-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 12:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Chas: Name a policy we disagree on that doesn't involve you using force.

No. I am not going to have a discussion with someone who plays fast and loose with the facts.
You are a True Believer™ and incapable of nuance or subtlety, seeing everything in absolute terms.

You have been corrected many times yet you persist in repeating untruths.

This fact has not gone unnoticed.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
28-12-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are a True Believer™ and incapable of nuance or subtlety, seeing everything in absolute terms.

That's actually true. Classic liberalism is based on the concept of putting aside emotion and superstition and analyzing every situation scientifically, using logic and reason, to reach a just conclusion. This must be done 'behind a veil of ignorance', meaning you apply the formula to determine the right course of action whether it benefits you or not. This in complete contrast to non-libertarians where what's right is what benefits you. And, yes, by applying a scientific method, we usually come up with clear answers where non-libertarians see gray, and vice-versa.

Case in point, during the 2012 presidential debates, arguably the most homophobic candidate was the right-wing Christian conservative Ron Paul. See how he responded to a trick gay advance in the movie "Bruno". Or how his campaign adviser said he refused to use the bathroom in the home of his biggest financial donor, the gay atheist Peter Thiele, because Paul was grossed out by gay germs.

And the most pro-gay rights was arguably Obama, who voiced support of gay marriage back in the 90's, when he said he had many gay friends.

But look at what happened in the Iowa straw poll. Ron Paul was expected to win by a large margin, but he committed political suicide just before the poll when all GOP candidates were called on to voice their support for defining marriage as hetero. All the GOP did it. And even Obama did it. The one and only candidate who refused, and told a shocked group of Christian conservatives he would veto any such law, was none other than the most homophobic candidate, Ron Paul. Because everybody else took the position that suited their political career (like Obama who pretended to be homophobic since the polls in 2012 showed it most politically advantage), or which suited their personal beliefs (like Santorum). Only the sole libertarian candidate said he would apply a formula behind a veil of ignorance and accept the result, even if it's political suicide and contrary to his personal beliefs. To Obama et al, it was a gray area, and once polls showed the majority of his base supported gay marriage, Obama instantly switched sides.

Yes, you're right. Because of our scientific approach we see things as black & white whereas others see shades of gray, which ambiguity they use to justify taking whatever position suits their interest on any given day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 11:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are a True Believer™ and incapable of nuance or subtlety, seeing everything in absolute terms.

That's actually true. Classic liberalism is based on the concept of putting aside emotion and superstition and analyzing every situation scientifically, using logic and reason, to reach a just conclusion. This must be done 'behind a veil of ignorance', meaning you apply the formula to determine the right course of action whether it benefits you or not. This in complete contrast to non-libertarians where what's right is what benefits you. And, yes, by applying a scientific method, we usually come up with clear answers where non-libertarians see gray, and vice-versa.

Case in point, during the 2012 presidential debates, arguably the most homophobic candidate was the right-wing Christian conservative Ron Paul. See how he responded to a trick gay advance in the movie "Bruno". Or how his campaign adviser said he refused to use the bathroom in the home of his biggest financial donor, the gay atheist Peter Thiele, because Paul was grossed out by gay germs.

And the most pro-gay rights was arguably Obama, who voiced support of gay marriage back in the 90's, when he said he had many gay friends.

But look at what happened in the Iowa straw poll. Ron Paul was expected to win by a large margin, but he committed political suicide just before the poll when all GOP candidates were called on to voice their support for defining marriage as hetero. All the GOP did it. And even Obama did it. The one and only candidate who refused, and told a shocked group of Christian conservatives he would veto any such law, was none other than the most homophobic candidate, Ron Paul. Because everybody else took the position that suited their political career (like Obama who pretended to be homophobic since the polls in 2012 showed it most politically advantage), or which suited their personal beliefs (like Santorum). Only the sole libertarian candidate said he would apply a formula behind a veil of ignorance and accept the result, even if it's political suicide and contrary to his personal beliefs. To Obama et al, it was a gray area, and once polls showed the majority of his base supported gay marriage, Obama instantly switched sides.

Yes, you're right. Because of our scientific approach we see things as black & white whereas others see shades of gray, which ambiguity they use to justify taking whatever position suits their interest on any given day.

I have read this three times and it is non comprehensible. You seem to interchange liberalism with libertarianism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 11:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(28-12-2015 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are a True Believer™ and incapable of nuance or subtlety, seeing everything in absolute terms.

That's actually true. Classic liberalism is based on the concept of putting aside emotion and superstition and analyzing every situation scientifically, using logic and reason, to reach a just conclusion. This must be done 'behind a veil of ignorance', meaning you apply the formula to determine the right course of action whether it benefits you or not. This in complete contrast to non-libertarians where what's right is what benefits you. And, yes, by applying a scientific method, we usually come up with clear answers where non-libertarians see gray, and vice-versa.

Case in point, during the 2012 presidential debates, arguably the most homophobic candidate was the right-wing Christian conservative Ron Paul. See how he responded to a trick gay advance in the movie "Bruno". Or how his campaign adviser said he refused to use the bathroom in the home of his biggest financial donor, the gay atheist Peter Thiele, because Paul was grossed out by gay germs.

And the most pro-gay rights was arguably Obama, who voiced support of gay marriage back in the 90's, when he said he had many gay friends.

But look at what happened in the Iowa straw poll. Ron Paul was expected to win by a large margin, but he committed political suicide just before the poll when all GOP candidates were called on to voice their support for defining marriage as hetero. All the GOP did it. And even Obama did it. The one and only candidate who refused, and told a shocked group of Christian conservatives he would veto any such law, was none other than the most homophobic candidate, Ron Paul. Because everybody else took the position that suited their political career (like Obama who pretended to be homophobic since the polls in 2012 showed it most politically advantage), or which suited their personal beliefs (like Santorum). Only the sole libertarian candidate said he would apply a formula behind a veil of ignorance and accept the result, even if it's political suicide and contrary to his personal beliefs. To Obama et al, it was a gray area, and once polls showed the majority of his base supported gay marriage, Obama instantly switched sides.

Yes, you're right. Because of our scientific approach we see things as black & white whereas others see shades of gray, which ambiguity they use to justify taking whatever position suits their interest on any given day.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't know what 'scientific' means, and that you are an absolutist lacking the ability to see complexity.

The scientific method requires open-mindedness and all results are provisional, not black and white.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-12-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 11:30 AM)DerFish Wrote:  I have read this three times and it is non comprehensible. You seem to interchange liberalism with libertarianism.

It's because people calling themselves liberals today hijacked the word to mean the opposite. Originally it means giving people the freedom to choose, from the latin "liber". And was explicitly used to contrast the prior definition of the state as an entity which takes away individual liberty by forcing people to do things against their will. ie: the role of the state is to defend minorities against the will of the majority, to block the use of force rather than initiate it.

The problem is that liberalism was so wildly successful, the old statists started hijacking the word to refer to the old system which liberalism was intended to get away from. So now the same word means 2 totally opposite things. So most "classic liberal" call themselves "libertarian", while statists call themselves "liberal". The same group who hijacked the word "liberal" similarly hijacked other classic liberal terms, like "pro-choice" and "social contract", to mean the exact opposite of their intended definition. Yes it makes for a confusing debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 12:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  [
The problem is that liberalism was so wildly successful, the old statists started hijacking the word to refer to the old system which liberalism was intended to get away from. So now the same word means 2 totally opposite things. So most "classic liberal" call themselves "libertarian", while statists call themselves "liberal". The same group who hijacked the word "liberal" similarly hijacked other classic liberal terms, like "pro-choice" and "social contract", to mean the exact opposite of their intended definition. Yes it makes for a confusing debate.
Rolleyes

Laugh out load

Hijacking words! There was a word heist, everybody!

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Liberalism is bad word for Christians... REALLY?
(28-12-2015 02:30 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I cannot think of one nation that survived as libertarian. Am I missing something?

Silly, Banjo. Two men enter, one man leaves.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: