Study: Youth see Christians as judgmental, anti-gay

Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.

“The second part of that was indeed an accusation”

I’m speaking not only of accusations, but of statements and “questions” that clearly rest upon a denigrating assumption.

“but then you gave me reason to make it.”

Not the least.

“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.”

Don’t forget the lessons of history and of experience. Also, you’re still implying that I—and those like me—don’t admit of the possibility of error in the way every rational human must. By the way, there’s no need to put “left” in quotation marks. We know who you are.

“This may *seem* arrogance to those on the “left”, but it is in fact a confident assertion of what is, after all, only true.”

The word “only” is patronizing, as is customary when a leftist pretends to objectivity. Otherwise, that’s fairly accurate.

“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.”

No, those statements are justified by observation of the thinking and behavior of leftists. I suppose it might be theoretically possible to hold those views without being “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc., but the fact is that they hold those views *and* are “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc. about it.

You know, now that I think of it, the only ways to hold those views without being “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc. are to be completely unthinking or utterly evil. You choose.

“By definition, with any particular issue, only one can actually be true. Other positions, to varying degrees, must therefore be false.”

Leftists just love to congratulate themselves on their ability to “deal with subtleties,” and see “shades of gray” and “nuance.” Like most forms of self-congratulation, this is founded on self-deception.

One good way to deceive someone regarding a simple issue is to convince him that it is actually complex. Then you can launch a blizzard of sophistry that will take in some people.

We see and deal with subtleties and ambiguities where they exist, while rejecting those that are manufactured for the purpose of deception.

“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”.

All that means is that some people are mistaken. What’s your point?

“You yourself have said that you were once a “leftist”, but you have been working UP from that over the last few years.”

Since 1973, actually. Satan is puissant. Extremely. One doesn’t usually recover overnight.

“then logically all these people, who would be defined as the “right”

They are to the right of the left, but hardly the homogeneous mass that the left imagines.

“would have different definitions of what constitutes a “leftist” based on their relative progress.”

They would have different *opinions* regarding the definition. The last decent democrat, Sen. Daniel Moynihan, said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Neither is everyone entitled to his own definition. Where our definitions differ from the correct definitions, we are wrong.

“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”?

That’s about the size of it. As a matter of fact, the left—or, more correctly, the evil intelligence that created and animates the left—takes great pains to ensure that leftists do not do so.

In “The Closing of the American Mind” (another book you should read) Bloom describes three forms of slavery. The third type entails the slave himself being his own jailer, as in Orwell’s “1984.” This is what leftist mills (public schools and universities) strive for. They teach the young, “All decent people believe this; if anyone tries to offer a different opinion, he is evil, bereft of compassion, etc. etc. and must not be listened to. Hoot him down, do him violence if you can get away with it, or just walk away, but never, never, never accord him the dignity of listening. Be especially careful not to listen when he tells you that you have been lied to. He is the liar. Don’t listen. Don’t listen. Don’t listen.”

“Sorry about that.”

Isn’t it amazing how many ways there are to say “f*ck you” in English? What a versatile language.

“I’m speaking not only of accusations, but of statements and “questions” that clearly rest upon a denigrating assumption.”

They are clearly like that if you choose to interpret them like that.

“Don’t forget the lessons of history and of experience.”

Well, I wasnt pretending that I could clearly delineate everything you believe in one simple statement. I accept history and experience have a part to play too.

“Also, you’re still implying that I—and those like me—don’t admit of the possibility of error in the way every rational human must.”

Sorry, I wasnt trying to give that impression. Consider the statement suitably modified.

“By the way, there’s no need to put “left” in quotation marks. We know who you are.”

You dont know me at all, and it is insulting for you to think you do. Bssides, I put “left” in quotation marks because I dont know exactly what your definition of that is, and it may not tie in with mine.

“The word “only” is patronizing, as is customary when a leftist pretends to objectivity. Otherwise, that’s fairly accurate.”

I could interpret the word “pretend” there to be patronising too, with rather more cause. Actually, I didn’t mean “only” in that sense, but in the sense of being “unique”. Consider the word “only” removed with my apologies if it disturbs you.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say therefore that you
are justified by virtue of the same careful study you have made of the issues concerned AND observation of the thinking and behavior of “leftists”.

“We see and deal with subtleties and ambiguities where they exist, while rejecting those that are manufactured for the purpose of deception.”

I think thats too harsh, (or not harsh enough in another sense). If these things are manufactured it is more for the purpose of self-deception. The deceiving of others is a side-effect.
On the other hand, I agree that nothing so strengthens a lie than a little truth mixed into it.

“All that means is that some people are mistaken. What’s your point?”

I’m coming to it.

“Since 1973, actually. Satan is puissant. Extremely. One doesn’t usually recover overnight.”

Agreed.

“They are to the right of the left, but hardly the homogeneous mass that the left imagines.”

Of course not. I hope I was implying otherwise.

“Where our definitions differ from the correct definitions, we are wrong.”

Ah, but what are the correct definitions? That is what everyone is trying to find out (if they have even an ounce of morality about them, anyway). If you have been growing away from the “left” over the past 24 years, then presumably your opinions have altered, because growth implies change. During the course of this time, has your definition of what a “leftist” is altered at all? I would suspect so, because you know more now than you did 24 years ago, or 12 years ago (or even last month). If that is the case, would you concede the possibility that it might change again in the future, as your understanding further grows and develops?

“Isn’t it amazing how many ways there are to say “f*ck you” in English? What a versatile language.”

Ah now that really is a patronising assumption on your part.

“They are clearly like that if you choose to interpret them like that.”

They are clearly like that as a matter of objective reality.

How does a person come to the point that he thinks he can get over on people like that?

“You dont know me at all, and it is insulting for you to think you do.”

It’s silly for you to imagine that people can’t read you. Besides, what in the world is insulting in people thinking that your statements (and their necessary premises and implications) reveal a good deal about you? Are you so brilliant, so superior, that we lowly mud-crawlers insult you in even imagining that we could comprehend the least vestige of your majesty?

“Besides, I put “left” in quotation marks because I dont know exactly what your definition of that is, and it may not tie in with mine.”

Yes, I’ve been suspecting that yours is wrong.

“I could interpret the word “pretend” there to be patronising too, with rather more cause.”

No, it’s not patronizing. It’s downright derogatory—to leftists. Are you saying you’re a leftist?

“Perhaps it would be more accurate to say therefore that you are justified by virtue of the same careful study you have made of the issues concerned AND observation of the thinking and behavior of “leftists”.

It’s not a question of justification, but of what is true and what is not.

“If these things are manufactured it is more for the purpose of self-deception. The deceiving of others is a side-effect.”

That’s too kind. Oh, it’s true of many leftists, I agree, but many more are quite happy to engage in the worst forms of dishonesty if it furthers their cause.

“Ah, but what are the correct definitions?”

The correct definitions are forged by reality, independently of any person’s opinion.

“During the course of this time, has your definition of what a “leftist” is altered at all?”

My understanding of the definition of a leftist has come closer to the reality.

“If that is the case, would you concede the possibility that it might change again in the future, as your understanding further grows and develops?

As Charles Caleb Colon wrote, “He that is good, will infallibly become better, and he that is bad, will as certainly become worse; for vice, virtue and time are three things that never stand still.” I can hope that my understanding will continue to develop in the right direction, but it will not reverse itself unless I go senile and then fall in with a 20-something hottie, like Goldwater.

“Ah now that really is a patronising assumption on your part.”

Even if I were mistaken about your comment being an indirect way of saying “f*ck you” to me, which I don’t think I am, saying so would not be patronizing. Dictionary.

“They are clearly like that as a matter of objective reality.”

I don’t believe so.

“How does a person come to the point that he thinks he can get over on people like that?”

Words escape me as to how you can accuse people of “implying” you are “close minded”, bigoted etc (see start of this discussion), then come out with lines like that, and then have the temerity to not claim you are doing the same.

“It’s silly for you to imagine that people can’t read you.”

It is. Thats why I dont believe that.

“Besides, what in the world is insulting in people thinking that your statements (and their necessary premises and implications) reveal a good deal about you?”

Nothing at all. And the reverse holds true. Which is why when you do make close-minded statements and unsubstantiated claims you get called on it.

“Are you so brilliant, so superior, that we lowly mud-crawlers insult you in even imagining that we could comprehend the least vestige of your majesty?”

No, the insult is in thinking you know exactly who and what I am and believe based on just a few messages on an internet board, most of which, frankly, I consider have been grossly and consistently misinterpreted.

“Yes, I’ve been suspecting that yours is wrong.”

For this *particular* issue i.e. why I put quotes round “left”, which of our definitions is correct is quite immaterial. The point is that they are different.

“No, it’s not patronizing. It’s downright derogatory”

Curiously that doesn’t make me feel much better.

“Are you saying you’re a leftist?”

No you’re saying that, and making it quite clear you regard such people as the lowest of the low. I just think of myself as a very small part of God’s handiwork.

“That’s too kind. Oh, it’s true of many leftists, I agree, but many more are quite happy to engage in the worst forms of dishonesty if it furthers their cause.”

Maybe I am too good for this world (or too naive) but my experience is that very few people consciously think of themselves as being evil or even dishonest. By a process of self-deception and compartmentalisation they convince themselves they are actually the “good guys” with a mission and a purpose; and that someone or something else are the “baddies”, who need to be confounded or crushed at all costs. Once someone gets into that mode of thinking, they are one step away from believing the ends justify the means. And once that is accepted, they will do almost anything in the name of “the cause” or “the greater good”. Adolf Hitler caused the deaths of millions and attempted genocide, but he would have looked at you with steady eyes and tell you he did it for the glory of God.

“The correct definitions are forged by reality, independently of any person’s opinion.”

I understand that, but what are those definitions?

“My understanding of the definition of a leftist has come closer to the reality.”

OK, so you concede your understanding has altered over the course of time (not surprisingly) and you also imply, by saying “closer to the reality” that you consider your understanding is still incomplete. I presume that is because you accept the idea of the inherent frailties of being Human. Would that be a fair assessment?

“I can hope that my understanding will continue to develop in the right direction, but it will not reverse itself unless I go senile and then fall in with a 20-something hottie, like Goldwater.”

I was asking whether you thought it could change as a result of movement in the direction you are going now. I wasn’t suggesting that it would or might reverse.

“Even if I were mistaken about your comment being an indirect way of saying “f*ck you” to me, which I don’t think I am, saying so would not be patronizing. Dictionary.”

You were mistaken. When I say sorry, I mean sorry. A little terse this time I admit, but it was the end of the comment and I was tired.
Patronising means condescending in my book. Interpreting someone elses statements consistently in the most negative way possible, and in opposition to the plain meaning of the words, is extremely condescending, as by pushing them down you naturally assume a position of (false) moral superiority. This is ironic, as it is the very same thing you have been accusing me of doing! Even though I dispute a lot of that, I have conceded some wrongdoing. So I would appreciate acceptance of an apology.

And I don’t like swearing on internet boards anyway. The “*” in the middle of the word is a feeble fop to courtesy. It is still quite clear what is meant so as far as I am concerned it is as bad as using the word itself.

“I don’t believe so.”

Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.

“Words escape me as to how you can accuse people of “implying” you are “close minded”, bigoted etc (see start of this discussion), then come out with lines like that, and then have the temerity to not claim you are doing the same.”

That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry.

Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.

“Which is why when you do make close-minded statements and unsubstantiated claims you get called on it.”

Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.

“No, the insult is in thinking you know exactly who and what I am and believe based on just a few messages on an internet board”

Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.

“most of which, frankly, I consider have been grossly and consistently misinterpreted.”

As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.”

“No you’re saying that (you’re a leftist)”

I haven’t come right out and said it. You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.

“and making it quite clear you regard such people as the lowest of the low.”

The only thing lower than Satan’s minions is Satan.

“I just think of myself as a very small part of God’s handiwork.”

Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.

“very few people consciously think of themselves as being evil or even dishonest.”

Of course they don’t. Even the most evil, dishonest people don’t.

“By a process of self-deception and compartmentalisation they convince themselves they are actually the “good guys” with a mission and a purpose”

Yes, and that leads such leftists to believe that they are justified in committing any act of deception. In the worst cases, such as Che Guevara and Hillary Clinton, it even leads them to believe that they are justified in committing murder.

“Once someone gets into that mode of thinking, they are one step away from believing the ends justify the means.”

That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means. The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.

“Adolf Hitler caused the deaths of millions and attempted genocide, but he would have looked at you with steady eyes and tell you he did it for the glory of God.”

Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.

Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.

By the way, Hitler and his National Socialists were the darlings of the left, right up until the day he invaded the USSR. During the space of less than a day he went from “proof that socialism works” to an evil right-winger. If convincing people that he doesn’t exist was Satan’s greatest feat, convincing them that Hitler was a right-winger is a close second.

“I understand that, but what are those definitions?”

Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?

“I presume that is because you accept the idea of the inherent frailties of being Human.”

Of course.

“Interpreting someone elses statements consistently in the most negative way possible”

Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.

“and in opposition to the plain meaning of the words”

Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.

“as by pushing them down you naturally assume a position of (false) moral superiority.”

No, one assumes a position of understanding what is being said. I know you very much wish to turn my statements back on me, but you’re going to have to provide some examples and evidence to do that.

“I have conceded some wrongdoing. So I would appreciate acceptance of an apology.”

All right, I accept it.

“And I don’t like swearing on internet boards anyway.”

You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.

“so as far as I am concerned it is as bad as using the word itself.”

You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.

“Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.”

I dont find your assertions persuasive.

“That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry. Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.”

Oh, well that’s alright then. (sarcasm).

“Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.”

And when I say I haven’t made any, I say that you are assuming.

“Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.”

But not everything that I think.

“As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.””

Well ding a ling a ling then.

“I haven’t come right out and said it.”

No you haven’t. Exactly. Which makes the accusation of “fancy footwork” you subsequently make ironic in extremis.

“You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.”

If by fancy footwork you mean an unwillingness to get put into the neat little box labelled “leftist” you have stashed in your mind, then guilty as charged.

“Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.”

And ditto for yourself.

“That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means.”

Example?

“The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.”

Agree 100% with that.

“Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.”

Assumption yet again.

“Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.”

From Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf” (my struggle).

“Thus did I now believe that I must act in the sense of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work”.

and later:

“I have and always will consider myself a Catholic.”

Of course, the Christianity Hitler believed in wasnt in any way what Christianity is really like (or at least should be really like) Hitler had become the kind of person to whom everyone and everything is an object and a tool to be used or discarded. A true definition of evil.

“Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?”

I’m asking you to set forth one of them.

“Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.”

Eck-tuwally, you do. You persist in doing it even when the alternate is presented and explained, and even when an apology for confusion is offered.

“Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.”

And it is at least equally likely that statements are communicating exactly what the plain meaning of the words are. Occam’s razor. If there is a possibility of two meanings to someones statement, then surely the sensible thing is to ask for clarification.

“You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.”

And you know what I hate even worse than that? The proud donning of a mantle of authority, based solely on an (unsubstantiated) access to an advanced knowledge and wisdom unavailable to ordinary peons, and then the use of that position to denigrate, insult and rubbish everyone who even tentatively dares to even whisper a suggestion of an opinion that could be construed as mildly differing.

“You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.”

And thus the proposition is tarnished by association, and with someone best known for another issue. I just dont like swearing. And I especially don’t like it being falsely ascribed to me.

“I dont find your assertions persuasive.”

Too bad. You should.

“Oh, well that’s alright then. (sarcasm).”

It’s all right if one holds that truth is a defense against the charge of slander.

“And when I say I haven’t made any, I say that you are assuming.”

That would only make sense if I had accused you of that which you have implied of me.

“But not everything that I think.”

So?

“No you haven’t. Exactly. Which makes the accusation of “fancy footwork” you subsequently make ironic in extremis.”

1. It’s not an accusation; it’s an observation.
2. “In extremis” does not mean “extremely.” It means “at the point of death” or “in grave or extreme circumstances,” as when two ships have arrived at the last moment in which a collision could be avoided.

“If by fancy footwork you mean an unwillingness to get put into the neat little box labelled “leftist” you have stashed in your mind, then guilty as charged.”

No, I mean the statements you have made to avoid being labeled a leftist. It’s funny, you know…many leftists share your desire not to be labeled as leftists, but we conservatives don’t mind our label at all.

“Example?”

The end of deterring murder justifies the death penalty, when applied justly through the rule of law.

“Assumption yet again.”

You seem to have a real problem with the definitions of common words.

If I go outside and see the sun in the sky, and on that basis state, “The sun is up,” I am not making an assumption. I am reporting an observation.

“From Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf”…and later”

And, of course, every word of Mein Kampf is to be regarded as Gospel truth from the pen of a man never known to lie, right? It would be foolish to regard his actions and later statements as better indicators of his actual beliefs, wouldn’t it?

“Hitler had become the kind of person to whom everyone and everything is an object and a tool to be used or discarded.”

Hitler was used and discarded by Satan. He was little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.

“I’m asking you to set forth one of them.”

Good grief. I have to leave the house in 25 minutes to go to Confession and take one of my kids to work. Maybe when I get back.

“Eck-tuwally, you do. You persist in doing it even when the alternate is presented and explained, and even when an apology for confusion is offered.”

I persist when experience tells me I’m being snowed. As for the latter, I accepted your apology.

“And it is at least equally likely that statements are communicating exactly what the plain meaning of the words are.”

Sorry, that statement is false. One cannot calculate the probability across multiple cases involving multiple speakers. One can only calculate the rough probabilities for a specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context.

“Occam’s razor.”

Doesn’t apply in every case. See paragraph directly above.

“If there is a possibility of two meanings to someones statement, then surely the sensible thing is to ask for clarification.”

That, too, depends on the specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context. If one is speaking with a leftist, asking for clarification merely gives him another opportunity to lie.

“And you know what I hate even worse than that? The proud donning of a mantle of authority, based solely on an (unsubstantiated) access to an advanced knowledge and wisdom unavailable to ordinary peons, and then the use of that position to denigrate, insult and rubbish everyone who even tentatively dares to even whisper a suggestion of an opinion that could be construed as mildly differing.”

Yes, that’s the typical reaction of a leftist to a confident conservative. Let’s look at a couple of problems with it.

The false perception of “pride” stems from the leftist’s indignation that anyone dares disagree with the left. The “advanced knowledge and wisdom” (which previous generations called “common sense”) is available to all, but the leftist refuses to think about it in any meaningful way, because he has been taught to reject it as “reactionary,” “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” etc. And finally, the positions of the left differ not “mildly,” but radically. Those who hold the positions of the left well deserve to be denigrated, insulted, and rubbished, and worse. They are the enemies of humanity, of the good, and of God Himself.

Oh, burning them at the stake might be a tad much, but I would definitely have them branded on the cheek and refused the right to vote.

“And thus the proposition is tarnished by association, and with someone best known for another issue.”

Didn’t you know that two could play at that game? Did you think conservatives were too stupid for that?

“I just dont like swearing.”

Apparently, you like to lay your insults between the lines, with plenty of room for plausible deniability.

“And I especially don’t like it being falsely ascribed to me.”

Nobody ascribed any swearing to you.

“Too bad. You should.”

Well, I understand more now about what you are getting at, and the theory of how and why you think like you do. Unfortunately, although the process hangs together nicely, the arguments it espouses require evidence to convince rather than a bald assertion of proof based on superior study or wit. I mean, what you are basically saying is “I am right because I have studied and reflected and taken good advice on (whichever subject it is), and on the actions and characters of those in opposition, and I therefore deduce such and such a position (contrary to theres) to be the true one”. Now that is perfectly logical, but its the same argument I would get off a card carrying Marxist (albeit with very different conclusions I grant you). However, I am not despondant. If you are right, then I will naturally be drawn to the correct answers as I seek, ponder and explore issues, providing of course, that I do so honestly and with discernment. And, as you say, there are lots of folk on this board who can help there.

“That would only make sense if I had accused you of that which you have implied of me.”

That is disingenous.

“1. It’s not an accusation; it’s an observation.”

A false observation is just as damaging and hurtful as a false accusation. In this context they are virtually indistinguishable, except the perpetrator thinks an “observation” enables him to wriggle out of any accusation of impropriety.

“2. “In extremis” does not mean “extremely.” It means “at the point of death” or “in grave or extreme circumstances,” as when two ships have arrived at the last moment in which a collision could be avoided.”

Poetic licence. After all, you understood what I meant by it, because you were able to give me a dictionary definition.

“No, I mean the statements you have made to avoid being labeled a leftist. It’s funny, you know…many leftists share your desire not to be labeled as leftists, but we conservatives don’t mind our label at all.”

I made A statement to say I dont like labels, but I don’t make statements to “avoid” being labeled. I make statements I think are true and for that reason only.

“The end of deterring murder justifies the death penalty, when applied justly through the rule of law.”

OK. Good example, and sound logic. But...
If it were possible to deter murder without the death penalty, would it still be justified then?

“You seem to have a real problem with the definitions of common words.”

Nope, just in the way you are using them.

“If I go outside and see the sun in the sky, and on that basis state, “The sun is up,” I am not making an assumption. I am reporting an observation.”

If you come back into the room and see me win a game of chess, and on that basis state “Vanders9 won by cheating”, is that an observation? No it’s an assumption. There are several possible explanations of why I won the game, the most likely being my skill at chess. The difference between the two examples is that in one the observation is irrefutable, but the other requires an interpretation of an observation. And that is what you are doing.

“And, of course, every word of Mein Kampf is to be regarded as Gospel truth from the pen of a man never known to lie, right? It would be foolish to regard his actions and later statements as better indicators of his actual beliefs, wouldn’t it?”

Thoroughly immaterial. The point at issue is not whether Hitler was a liar, as you well know. The issue was whether he sought to justify himself. I stated that he wouuld have looked you straight in the eye and told you that he was doing God’s work. You stated he would never have said that in connection with Christianity, and I responded with a direct quote that conclusively proved that he did.

“Hitler was used and discarded by Satan. He was little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.”

I’m not so sure about “dummy”. If he was a mere mouthpiece that absolves him of moral responsibility.

“Good grief. I have to leave the house in 25 minutes to go to Confession and take one of my kids to work. Maybe when I get back.”

Ok. I understand the effort required in doing that, and I appreciate the time you would take.

“I persist when experience tells me I’m being snowed. As for the latter, I accepted your apology.”

I apologise if I “snow” you too. And true, you did accept that apology.

“Sorry, that statement is false. One cannot calculate the probability across multiple cases involving multiple speakers. One can only calculate the rough probabilities for a specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context.”

True enough I suppose.

Doesn’t apply in every case. See paragraph directly above.

I guess it depends on whether you assume folk tell the truth until proven otherwise, or tell lies until proven otherwise :)

“That, too, depends on the specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context. If one is speaking with a leftist, asking for clarification merely gives him another opportunity to lie.”

I personally always like to give someone a chance.

“Yes, that’s the typical reaction of a leftist to a confident conservative. Let’s look at a couple of problems with it.”

A typical reaction, eh? I was always rather afraid of becoming a case-study rather than a person.

“The false perception of “pride” stems from the leftist’s indignation that anyone dares disagree with the left.”

Or it could be upon observation of prideful traits.

“The “advanced knowledge and wisdom” (which previous generations called “common sense”) is available to all,”

Excuse me? You stated earlier that you had been working on removing yourself from leftism for 2+ decades, and that I had “better get busy” because there were “a hundred books” I needed to read.

“but the leftist refuses to think about it in any meaningful way, because he has been taught to reject it as “reactionary,” “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” etc.”

I’m thinking about it now aren’t I?

“And finally, the positions of the left differ not “mildly,” but radically. Those who hold the positions of the left well deserve to be denigrated, insulted, and rubbished, and worse. They are the enemies of humanity, of the good, and of God Himself.”

Oh, burning them at the stake might be a tad much, but I would definitely have them branded on the cheek and refused the right to vote.”

Personally I’d rather convert them. Remember each and every one is made in God’s image.

“Didn’t you know that two could play at that game?”

yep.

“Did you think conservatives were too stupid for that?

Nope, but I hoped we’d be better than that.

“Apparently, you like to lay your insults between the lines, with plenty of room for plausible deniability.”

Or alternately, I’m making a simple statement of fact, in which the sensitised can see all manner of insults.

“Nobody ascribed any swearing to you.”

Yes you did. Reread the statement.

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.