Posted on 10/12/2007 2:59:51 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
Ahh...yes!
Much better to have NO values, NO sense of right or wrong, and promote highschool homosexual groups, so the teachers don’t run out of victims to prey on!
/sarc
“The implication of both is a dismissal of the person’s opinion because of moral or personal shortcomings”
No it’s not. Not even remotely.
BTW, you *are* a liberal or leftist, aren’t you?
Regarding the original topic, this is what I thought were the most important thoughts expressed or alluded to:
1) It is not by accident that the results of the "study" reflect the anti-christian biases and prejudices of the Marxist College Professoriate.
2) The methodology of the "study" is highly skewed/suspect.
3) There is a militant atheist movmement in America, waging all out war against Christianity. Our Universities and even lower public schools have been hijacked and turned into indoctrination and propaganda centers for the Atheist worldview. In this war, the homosexual lobby provides the Shock Troops against the Church.
4) The War Aims of the Atheists and the Homosexuals is nothing short of the total eradication of Christianity. These aims are pursued by driving God from the Public Square and from Public Discourse, by the Slander and Defamation of Christian religious belief, by the promotion of atheism and homosexuality in the schools, to undo the religious influence of parents. Not content with the current state of propagandizing, initiatives are afoot to crush the Home Schooling Movement and to place children in government run day care at ever earlier ages, to further minimize/negate parental and religious instruction.
Further, homosexuality and the sexualization of children in the public schools is being aggressively pursued at ever younger ages. Witness the distribution of birth control pills to 11 year olds, and discussion of homosexuality to 1st graders.
5) The default treatment and attitude of atheists and homosexuals towards Christians these days are characterized by overt hostility and contempt. Look at any debate or discussion where atheists or homosexuals are involved with Christians over Christian religious beliefs: The atheists and the homosexuals start right out of the box with anger, hatred, and contempt dripping from every word they utter. There is no attempt at respect or understanding, no thought given to peaceful co-existence or accomodation. Uniformly, where the atheist/homosexuals have political power to wield, they use that power to ban and suppress Christian expression. Theirs is an absolute intolerance to all things God.
In a few years, to be “anti-gay” will be similar to being “white-power” now."
With respect, I think that you are painting with too broad a brush. People's feelings about homosexuality, even in the generation now in their teens and twenties, is divided. It is another marker in the growing Culture War in this country, where public sentiment on the issue is polarizing and growing further apart. But there are definitely two sides.
Consider, too, that it was once thought that abortion would gradually become to be accepted as generations lived their whole lives in a Post Roe v Wade world. In fact, acceptance of abortion has actually decreased with the younger generation. Explanations vary. Certainly it is not for lack of the Liberal Academy not bludgeoning their charges with Pro-Abortion propaganda. But Liberals are aborting themselves out of future generations, while conservatives are having a greater share of the next generation (a.k.a. the "Roe Effect"). Perhaps, too, that having had the freedom to exercise abortion rights, young women have experienced first hand the emotional damage it wreaks upon the lives of those who engage in it. The march of medical technology has certainly put the lie to the Left's attempt to dehumanize the unborn. The color 3-D Sonogram has probably done more to turn people off to abortion than anything else.
If someone gives an opinion on some topic, is that opinion invalid because its wrong, or because it is what is regarded as “leftist” (whatever that means)?
I know it *should* be because it is wrong, but honestly now, often it isn’t.
If someone holds some opinions that are commonly regarded as “left wing” and others that are commonly regarded as “right wing”, does that make that person “his own man” or unprincipled?
Answer me that first.
Just another term that the left is succeeding in redefining.
Where it used to mean someone who condemns others for behavior he condones in himself, it now means anyone who in any way fails — even once — to live up to the most rigorous interpretation of the Christian moral code.
No room for human weakness; no room for error; no room for repentance. Stumble once, and you become one more piece of proof that all Christians are hypocrites.
I am grateful that policians lose their jobs over this. Too bad Vitter and Gay Guy from Idaho don’t leave their jobs as they are a disgrace. Now if they want forgiveness ok, but that does not mean that they get to keep their jobs or it should not mean that in the Republican Party.
“I am grateful that policians lose their jobs over this.”
I, too, but this post was discussing the proper definition of hypocrisy.
“If someone gives an opinion on some topic, is that opinion invalid because its wrong, or because it is what is regarded as “leftist” (whatever that means)?”
There you go again. That’s what you’ve been accusing me of all along. By the way, there’s no problem with the definition of “leftist.”
“I know it *should* be because it is wrong, but honestly now, often it isn’t.”
Leftists do what you accuse me of, true, which is why leftists want to think conservatives are like that, too. However, they’re not.
We know precisely why leftist positions are wrong, having examined them with an honesty of which leftists are incapable.
“If someone holds some opinions that are commonly regarded as “left wing” and others that are commonly regarded as “right wing”, does that make that person “his own man” or unprincipled?” Answer me that first.”
What a waste of time. It makes him neither.
As I explained before, the Aristotelian model, with the ideal located in the center and positions becoming increasingly odious with their distance from the center, is completely invalid. The spectrum runs from Satan on the left to God on the right. To be in the center is just to be half wrong.
Your poor, confused, conflicted, contradiction-ridden individual with some leftist opinions and some correct opinions could be moving in either direction. If he is moving toward the left, he is in great peril. If he is moving toward the right, he is in less, and may yet be saved.
In neither case is he “his own man.” He’s just partially right and partially wrong. And in neither case do we know whether he is unprincipled or not, solely on that basis.
Good point. Did we ever find out what every one was thinking on the matter? Did we come to a consensus?
A couple of people seemed to get it, but I don’t think there was a consensus.
Thing is, you’re not a hypocrite if you try and fail to live up to your standards; you’re not even a hypocrite if you don’t try to live up to standards you tout. You’re only a hypocrite if you criticize others for failing to live up to standards that you tout but don’t even try to live up to.
“There you go again. That’s what you’ve been accusing me of all along. By the way, there’s no problem with the definition of “leftist.””
You’re very sensitive aren’t you? I’m not accusing you of anything - that was not an assertion but a rhetorical question. The point I’m trying to make is that the rights and wrongs of an issue should be judged on their own merits, not on whether they are “leftist”, “conservative”, “neocon”, “fascist”, “racist” or whatever. Those are just labels people apply to demonise people and to save having to think too much. That is why I am highly dubious about your assertion that there is no problem with the definition of “leftist”. Oh, I’m sure you have no problem with it, but I doubt you’ll get an absolute consensus even from paid up members of this site.
“Leftists do what you accuse me of, true, which is why leftists want to think conservatives are like that, too. However, they’re not.”
Oh yes they are. I’ll grant you those on the “left” do it more, (and worse), but nobody this side of glory is entirely free of the habit of dehumanising people.
“What a waste of time.”
You really think so? That is very interesting.
“As I explained before, the Aristotelian model, with the ideal located in the center and positions becoming increasingly odious with their distance from the center, is completely invalid.
I dont think you did explain it before, not that it matters. I agree wholeheartedly, in the realm of the spiritual at least.
“The spectrum runs from Satan on the left to God on the right. To be in the center is just to be half wrong. Your poor, confused, conflicted, contradiction-ridden individual with some leftist opinions and some correct opinions could be moving in either direction. If he is moving toward the left, he is in great peril. If he is moving toward the right, he is in less, and may yet be saved.”
Ah, now I see! You are equating the struggle for people’s souls in the realm of the spiritual, with the struggle for their minds (and souls too I suppose) in an earthly political struggle. You believe that conservatives are on the side of God, and their stances on all issues are therefore in accord with the will of God. In contrast the liberals, muslims, leftists and so on are in league with Satan, or at the least are his unwitting dupes, and their stances are in accord with his lies. Is that right? I don’t want to misrepresent you on this because it is very important.
“And in neither case do we know whether he is unprincipled or not, solely on that basis.”
True. Bad choice of words on my part.
I think you are bang on right with that.
Christ’s first sermon:
Matthew 4:17 - “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Preach Christ crucified, preach the gospel to save the lost. One needs to know what they’re being saved FROM in order to appreciate what they’re being saved TO.
All the basketball games, craft fairs, clothing drives, car washes, and ‘being nice’ won’t save a single person. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” The Holy Spirit alone is what saves, and is delivered by the preaching of the Word through God’s grace alone. (Hence, no one “truly seeks” - Romans 3)
To the other posters who speak of hypocricy in the church:
If one finds hypocrisy in his church, then his response is to expose the works of darkness (Eph 5 - which, guess what? Requires making judgements), not cut n’ run to be a Lone Wolf Christian. Scripture is rife with descriptions of believers worshipping corporately, and there is no scriptural evidence to support the Solitary ‘Me and My Bible Only’ Christian.
One who thinks they can ‘worship God in my own way’ and foresake the fellowship of believers is ignoring a lot of the OT, and most of the NT.
“You’re very sensitive aren’t you? I’m not accusing you of anything”
Don’t come the innocent with me, mate. Your own words show exactly what you’re accusing me of: “Those are just labels people apply to demonise people and to save having to think too much.”
You are accusing me of doing just that, and have been throughout. However, I don’t use labels to save having to think too much, but because I have thought much and discovered that the labels I use are accurate and useful.
While your comment is accurate regarding labels that fall from the lips of a dishonest man—such as, for instance, any leftist—this accusation is far more often a tool in the hands of the unscrupulous, who wish to avoid consideration of facts and issues by discrediting their opposition, painting them as thoughtless, ignorant people who sling around labels instead of thinking.
“That is why I am highly dubious about your assertion that there is no problem with the definition of “leftist”. Oh, I’m sure you have no problem with it, but I doubt you’ll get an absolute consensus even from paid up members of this site.”
An absolute consensus is not required. Besides, there are people at many stages of the journey Up from Liberalism on this site.
“Oh yes they are.”
I defy you to offer an example. (Of course, you’ll offer something that doesn’t support your point, I’ll explain why it doesn’t, you’ll refuse to understand, and then we’ll loop till one of us becomes nauseous.)
“nobody this side of glory is entirely free of the habit of dehumanising people.”
Habit? What kind of people do you associate with?
“I don’t want to misrepresent you”
You can’t help yourself. You are incapable of according my positions or my intellect enough respect to avoid it.
“Ah, now I see! You are equating...Is that right?”
That is the sort of comic-book distortion one comes to expect from the left. Frankly, I despair of the stamina I would need to deal with all the problems in that incredibly insulting little passage. I really don’t know whether to be offended, or just baffled by the notion that you could possibly be serious. The arrogance needed to imagine that I…that people like me…are that shallow, that unschooled, that intellectually retarded…it’s just beyond human comprehension.
You need to come to grips with something: people to your right are not your inferiors. Not in terms of education, intelligence, wisdom, reasoning ability, compassion, or any other desirable quality. Until you do, talking with you is just fencing with no official to call the touches.
“Don’t come the innocent with me, mate. Your own words show exactly what you’re accusing me of: “Those are just labels people apply to demonise people and to save having to think too much.”
Only if you insist on applying them to yourself. I was asking a rhetorical question to get my point across. At no time did I accuse you personally of anything. Its all in your own mind.
“You are accusing me of doing just that, and have been throughout. However, I don’t use labels to save having to think too much, but because I have thought much and discovered that the labels I use are accurate and useful.”
And yet, the labels applied to you by others (or at least the ones you think are being applied) are completely innacurate and have no basis in fact at all. You know this to be true because you have thought much on them, and discovered it is so. Can you not see how arrogant that is? You accuse me of thinking you narrow-minded, bigoted etc, but you have no problems in ascribing those viewpoints to other people yourself.
“While your comment is accurate regarding labels that fall from the lips of a dishonest man—such as, for instance, any leftist—this accusation is far more often a tool in the hands of the unscrupulous, who wish to avoid consideration of facts and issues by discrediting their opposition, painting them as thoughtless, ignorant people who sling around labels instead of thinking.”
Are you therefore, accusing me of attempting to discredit the opposition, painting them as thoughtless and ignorant? Im using your reasoning here - taking it personally.
“(Of course, you’ll offer something that doesn’t support your point, I’ll explain why it doesn’t, you’ll refuse to understand, and then we’ll loop till one of us becomes nauseous.)”
And you have the gall to accuse me of being insulting and of jumping to conclusions about other people’s opinions and mindset...
“An absolute consensus is not required. Besides, there are people at many stages of the journey Up from Liberalism on this site.”
In other words, no there isn’t a consensus. The reasons why not are perfectly valid, I agree, but that is really immaterial. There is no consensus and there cant be.
“Habit? What kind of people do you associate with?”
Human beings. You know, the ones with the fallen nature.
“You can’t help yourself. You are incapable of according my positions or my intellect enough respect to avoid it.”
And yet again, you have the gall to accuse me of being insulting and of jumping to conclusions about other people’s opinions and mindset...
“That is the sort of comic-book distortion one comes to expect from the left. Frankly, I despair of the stamina I would need to deal with all the problems in that incredibly insulting little passage. I really don’t know whether to be offended, or just baffled by the notion that you could possibly be serious. The arrogance needed to imagine that I…that people like me…are that shallow, that unschooled, that intellectually retarded…it’s just beyond human comprehension.”
Oh get off your high horse! Your own arrogance is nothing to write home about! What I put forward there was my understanding of your stance, based upon your last statement. I don’t pretend its 100% accurate. How could I? I even said as much, and gave you the opportunity to correct me, but oh no, instead of clarification I get a mass diatribe accusing me of every sin under the sun. Heres an idea. Instead of accusing me of prejudice, arrogance, close mindedness etc, etc, ad bloody infinitum, why don’t you stick to the issue being discussed, tell me what you actually believe if I have got it wrong, and correct me? Oh no I forgot - you can’t do that can you, because you “despair of the stamina” needed, and anyway I am “incapable of according your positions or your intellect enough respect”. Well, there’s a convenient little sidestep. Guess Ill have to continue blundering through life without the benefit of your perfect opinions (this is sarcasm, incidentally. I dont usually explain that because most people can pick it up, but Im not taking any chances here)
To get back to the original point of this thread, it seems Youth have indeed got more insight than is generally thought.
“At no time did I accuse you personally of anything. Its all in your own mind.”
Buncombe. I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night.
“And yet, the labels applied to you by others (or at least the ones you think are being applied) are completely innacurate and have no basis in fact at all.”
Now you’re starting to get it. The world is not symmetrical. The left is evil and wrong, the right aspires toward the good and is often right.
“Can you not see how arrogant that is?”
I can see how it would appear to be so to you. When you are able to discern the difference between arrogance and the confident assertion of carefully considered opinion, repeatedly validated by experience and congruence with the opinions of the best minds in history, you’ll know that you are moving significantly toward the right, in both senses of the word.
“You accuse me of thinking you narrow-minded, bigoted etc, but you have no problems in ascribing those viewpoints to other people yourself.”
You just insist on that chimerical symmetry. Some people actually are “narrow-minded, bigoted etc,” while others are less so. Some, indeed, are not in the least narrow-minded or bigoted. The key difference is in being right. Is the accusation warranted? Yours are not.
“Are you therefore, accusing me of attempting to discredit the opposition, painting them as thoughtless and ignorant?
Of course I am. I was trying to be civil about it, but that’s what you’ve been doing since our exchange began.
“Im using your reasoning here - taking it personally.”
You still don’t get it.
“There is no consensus and there cant be.”
That there is no consensus hardly indicates that there is no correct definition. Truth is not subject to popular vote.
“Human beings. You know, the ones with the fallen nature.”
The human beings I associate with do not have the “habit” of dehumanizing people.
“And yet again, you have the gall to accuse me of being insulting and of jumping to conclusions about other people’s opinions and mindset...”
Yes. Well, when you think about it, it’s not even a matter of jumping to conclusions about individuals. It’s about an assumption that all people to the right of X are a certain way.
“Oh get off your high horse! Your own arrogance is nothing to write home about!”
Considering that I harbor none, you are quite correct. You know how older people, particularly parents, can see through children? (Aha, that’s his “I’m lying” face, etc.) Conservatives can see through people to the left of them in the same way. That is extremely galling to teenagers and leftists.
“What I put forward there was my understanding of your stance”
If you were able to see it from the conservative side, you wouldn’t want to admit that.
“I even…gave you the opportunity to correct me”
I was just too tired.
“why don’t you stick to the issue being discussed, tell me what you actually believe if I have got it wrong, and correct me?”
When I was 20, I discovered the sport of fencing. The very first time I saw a highly skilled fencing master giving a lesson to an equally skilled fencer, I experienced a cosmic “click,” and from that instant devoted great effort to the sport. However, I had no talent. When I tried to take a lesson from that fencing master, he stopped in the middle, threw up his hands, and took me over to this little gray-headed granny lady. I can’t do anything with this, he told her. See if you can.
Well, 11 years later I had won a couple of divisional championships, a sectional championship, and a silver medal (team) at the national championships. But that was after countless hours of hard work and an ocean of heartbreak.
You haven’t even had your “click” yet. When you actually perceive yourself as on the road Up from Liberalism, ask me anything.
“I dont usually explain that because most people can pick it up, but Im not taking any chances here”
Every time you claim something isn’t true, you turn around and prove it is. The first thing you have to get over is the assumption that people to the right of you are in some way inferior to you.
“it seems Youth have indeed got more insight than is generally thought.”
No, it doesn’t.
“At no time did I accuse you personally of anything. Its all in your own mind.”
Buncombe. I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night.”
I didnt, honestly.
“Now you’re starting to get it. The world is not symmetrical. The left is evil and wrong, the right aspires toward the good and is often right.”
Ah, now I begin to see. OK. That’s registered.
“When you are able to discern the difference between arrogance and the confident assertion of carefully considered opinion, repeatedly validated by experience and congruence with the opinions of the best minds in history, you’ll know that you are moving significantly toward the right, in both senses of the word.”
I see.
“You just insist on that chimerical symmetry.”
Well, that’s because its true.
“Some people actually are “narrow-minded, bigoted etc,” while others are less so. Some, indeed, are not in the least narrow-minded or bigoted. The key difference is in being right.”
Agreed.
“Is the accusation warranted?”
Err, yes.
“That there is no consensus hardly indicates that there is no correct definition. Truth is not subject to popular vote.”
But you are the one who insisted there was a consensus!
“Yes. Well, when you think about it, it’s not even a matter of jumping to conclusions about individuals. It’s about an assumption that all people to the right of X are a certain way.”
But you are assuming that all people to the left of X are a certain way! How is that different? Because you have considered it carefully and know that the right is right and the left is wrong?
“Every time you claim something isn’t true, you turn around and prove it is. The first thing you have to get over is the assumption that people to the right of you are in some way inferior to you.”
I’m not claiming or assuming anything, in spite of your assertions. I’m just asking a question. I want to know.
“I didnt, honestly (accuse you personally of anything)…Err, yes (the accusation is warranted)”
Would that be the accusation you haven’t been making? Many of the “questions” you’ve asked have been of the “have you stopped beating your wife yet” variety. In a discussion like this, they take the form of, “But that’s because you’re an ignorant bigot, isn’t it?”
“Well, that’s because it (that chimerical symmetry) is true.”
It is a Satanic deception.
“Agreed (that some people are not in the least narrow-minded or bigoted.).”
However, you are deceived as to whether those people are on the right or left.
“But you are the one who insisted there was a consensus!”
Not at all. I said that there was no problem with a definition for “leftist.” That in no way implies a consensus.
“But you are assuming that all people to the left of X are a certain way! How is that different? Because you have considered it carefully and know that the right is right and the left is wrong?”
When you carefully consider something and observe its characteristics, you are no longer assuming. There’s that asymmetry again. You are assuming; I am not.
“I’m not claiming or assuming anything, in spite of your assertions.”
Yes, you are. Your comments positively reek of the left’s assumption of superiority.
“I’m just asking a question. I want to know.”
You better get busy. You have a hundred or so books to read before you ask.
Start with von Hayek. Then, for fun, segue to Twain’s “Joan of Arc.” Then to everything by Thomas Sowell. People here will provide enough recommendations for years.
“Would that be the accusation you haven’t been making? Many of the “questions” you’ve asked have been of the “have you stopped beating your wife yet” variety. In a discussion like this, they take the form of, “But that’s because you’re an ignorant bigot, isn’t it?””
The second part of that was indeed an accusation, but then you gave me reason to make it. As for the rest, well I’m sorry if I give you that impression, but honestly I was just trying to solicit clarification on the rationale behind your statements. If you insist on thinking them as personal attacks, I can only say they are considerably less pointed than the allegations I have been subjected to.
““Well, that’s because it (that chimerical symmetry) is true.””
OK let me make one last attempt to see if I have got this right. When someone to the “left” of you accuses you of, or implies you are, ignorant, close-minded, bigoted etc etc, then that is unjustified because you, and those of a conservative nature have studied the issues very carefully, taking the advice of intelligent people of proven wisdom and perspicacity, and your views are therefore founded on a solid rock of truth. This may *seem* arrogance to those on the “left”, but it is in fact a confident assertion of what is, after all, only true. Conversely, when you (or conservatives generally) accuse the “left” of being close-minded, bigoted, illogical, child-like (not in a good sense) and so on, these statements are justified, by virtue of the same careful study you have made of the issues concerned. By definition, with any particular issue, only one can actually be true. Other positions, to varying degrees, must therefore be false.
Is that a fair summation?
“Not at all. I said that there was no problem with a definition for “leftist.” That in no way implies a consensus.”
If there is no consensus as to what actually constitutes a “leftist”, then by definition what some people regard as being “left” is not exactly the same as what other people regard as being “left”. You yourself have said that you were once a “leftist”, but you have been working UP from that over the last few years. Presumably that is an ongoing process, and presumably also therefore there are other people around that are not so far along that journey as you are, and possibly others who are further along. If that is so, then logically all these people, who would be defined as the “right”, would have different definitions of what constitutes a “leftist” based on their relative progress.
“When you carefully consider something and observe its characteristics, you are no longer assuming. There’s that asymmetry again. You are assuming; I am not.”
So you are saying that the assymetry extends to the fact that those on the left are incapable of carefully considering something and observing, because if they did, they would begin the journey to the “right”?
“Yes, you are. Your comments positively reek of the left’s assumption of superiority.”
Sorry about that.
How judgemental and anti-Christian of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.