Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals like this Marxist academic believe that worrying about our own first is being selfish. They don't even believe in American exceptionalism. Saying God bless America is wrong in their eyes, they are all about political correctness, so it should be "God bless the entire world."
I have debated so many of these Marxist, Big Government, Liberal group think drones, they are master regurgitators but most have very little substance.
Don't believe in American exceptionalism!? BLASPHEMY! Why, we're like... number 28 in mathematical education and 25th in science! We've made it to number 3 for the first time ever on the HDI, though that's only because we tanked the Icelandic economy because we have a complete disregard for our economic policies' effects on the global finanical system. And, of course, we're exceptional in our racism, misogyny (well below the global average of women and minorities in Congress - that's right, the GLOBAL AVERAGE). And hell, we are so great because we've an enormous country full of resources that we rightfully committed mass genocide for!!! We're so damn great.
Countries, states, nations, what-have-you are human constructions that have no natural basis. Accidents of history led to the Westphalian state becoming the paradigmatic actor in international politics, thanks to the wonderful era of colonialism that certainly benefitted everybody (who matters!!!). There are a myriad of other ways to organize people politically, the state is just one and it is a relatively new (and complex, ambiguous, ever-changing) institutional arrangement in terms of the history of politics not existing until the mid-17th century in Europe and not becoming the sole 'proper' form of organization for international affairs until after WWII. I'm an Atheist, God doesn't bless anything because he doesn't exist (and if he does, he is a cruel and evil god for the sins he has allowed to befall most of humanity while a small minority of us in the worlds wealthy countries spend enough in a week on **** we don't need that, if combined, could bring virtually everyone out of poverty.
But damnit, I'm sure it is that poor 4 year old African girls fault that her clitoris is being excised for cultural reasons in Sudan and that poor 9 year old boy is definitely to blame for the civil war wrecking havoc in South Sudan because, ya know, he's trying to get his 4 siblings and 10 other kids out of harms way since all of their parents got murdered in front of them.
GO AMERICA, YOU COMPLETELY ARBITRARY HUMAN CONSTRUCTION THAT CONSERVATIVES HATE DUE TO THEIR CONFEDERALISM BUT FEIGN PATRIOTISM IN WHILE LIBERALS DENY PATRIOTISM AS A NATIONALISTIC DEVICE OF BIG GOVERNMENT AND INSTEAD SEEK TO USE GOVERNMENT FOR THE EVIL, UNCHRISTIAN PURPOSE OF BETTERING THE LIVES OF EVERYONE!!!!!!
If you want to talk ethics, why is it okay for you to use the violence of government to make people adhere to your values?
Somalia? The DRC? CAR? West New Guinea? Kashmir?
It isn't my values I seek to impose, it is an intellectual recognition that modern states are a completely arbitrary construction of humanity invented by Europeans, codified in the three treaties known together as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and imposed across the world via colonialism. The point is the arbitrary nature of our borders and the necessary inequalities that result from it - unnatural and inhumane, furthermore - damaging in the sense that it creates an us vs. them mentality that can lead to, say, an arms race that results in nuclear proliferation, proxy wars (such as those fought in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Central Asia), and a general sense of xenophobia which provides a community-wide value of self as better than the rest rather than self as part of the rest. Nothing about modern conservatism is Christian, which would amuse me if the implications weren't so... honestly, evil. What is truly ironic is that American liberalism (i.e. conservatism as understood anywhere outside the US) far better embodies the ethics codified in the New Testament than does American conservatism, which favors cherry-picked passages of the Old Testament (while even more ironically including many anti-Jewish groups) and largely ignores the issues presented in the new testament while totally ignoring the ethical questions and possible answers posed by it.
It isn't my values I seek to impose, it is an intellectual recognition that modern states are a completely arbitrary construction of humanity invented by Europeans, codified in the three treaties known together as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and imposed across the world via colonialism. The point is the arbitrary nature of our borders and the necessary inequalities that result from it - unnatural and inhumane, furthermore - damaging in the sense that it creates an us vs. them mentality that can lead to, say, an arms race that results in nuclear proliferation, proxy wars (such as those fought in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Central Asia), and a general sense of xenophobia which provides a community-wide value of self as better than the rest rather than self as part of the rest. Nothing about modern conservatism is Christian, which would amuse me if the implications weren't so... honestly, evil. What is truly ironic is that American liberalism (i.e. conservatism as understood anywhere outside the US) far better embodies the ethics codified in the New Testament than does American conservatism, which favors cherry-picked passages of the Old Testament (while even more ironically including many anti-Jewish groups) and largely ignores the issues presented in the new testament while totally ignoring the ethical questions and possible answers posed by it.
The new testament is about a loving god whereas the old is about a god of fear. Neither one is credible though.
The new testament is about a loving god whereas the old is about a god of fear. Neither one is credible though.
Agreed, as I said I'm an atheist. However, the God of Love found in the New Testament could at least be used for good among the fundamentalist Christian community that exerts substantial power over GOP politics. Instead, cherry-picked passages from the Old Testament are used to demonize enemies while inconvenient passages are simply never quoted or attributed to 'changing times' (whereas changing times never seems to justify what they are against). Ultimately, we are dealing with a substantial proportion of Americans failed by the education system which was too underdeveloped and open to subnational administrative control and who are steeped in IDEOLOGIES of hate that are justified through a very selective interpretation of a version of the Bible which is a translation of another interpretation based off another translation. Can we expect any logic or reason from those who buy into this mystic, pre-scientific crap or should we recognize that Christianity is now an archaic belief system used to explain a mysterious reality before the discovery of the scientific method allowed us to explore actual causation?
My morality isn't derived from a SELECTIVE reading of a book that is 2000+ years old, it comes from empathy and a deep-seated interest in improving the human condition. The selfishness of right-wing Christians betrays their own religion as a justification for impoverishment and wealth.
It isn't my values I seek to impose, it is an intellectual recognition that modern states are a completely arbitrary construction of humanity invented by Europeans, codified in the three treaties known together as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and imposed across the world via colonialism. The point is the arbitrary nature of our borders and the necessary inequalities that result from it - unnatural and inhumane, furthermore - damaging in the sense that it creates an us vs. them mentality that can lead to, say, an arms race that results in nuclear proliferation, proxy wars (such as those fought in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Central Asia), and a general sense of xenophobia which provides a community-wide value of self as better than the rest rather than self as part of the rest. Nothing about modern conservatism is Christian, which would amuse me if the implications weren't so... honestly, evil. What is truly ironic is that American liberalism (i.e. conservatism as understood anywhere outside the US) far better embodies the ethics codified in the New Testament than does American conservatism, which favors cherry-picked passages of the Old Testament (while even more ironically including many anti-Jewish groups) and largely ignores the issues presented in the new testament while totally ignoring the ethical questions and possible answers posed by it.
I agree with you on states being arbitrary lines, and that we're all just human. Borders do create an "us vs. them" mentality, and I oppose that. I agree on your Christianity points as well, but I think it confuses the issue. The main argument here is the power of the state. Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism. Yes, conservatives can hold contradicting beliefs, but I think your main point is that we should use the state for the good of humanity, correct?
I believe that government, defined as the person or group with the right to initiate force in a geographical area (arbitrarily drawn ), is evil by definition. The only thing government adds to society is force/violence...if it's voluntary and people can choose to disobey it, it isn't government. My issue with your post lies in the solution. Using the violence of the state is the opposite of a moral solution, IMO. It's like a student saying "we need to all work together to raise the class average" and instead of proposing that everyone help each other voluntarily, encourage each other, study together, tutor someone who needs help...their solution is to have the teacher average out the grades to create equality and fairness.
That analogy isn't even as bad as advocating government solutions because no violence is involved. Anyone who wants government solutions is really saying "there is no possible way that this can be done peacefully, so I want to FORCE everyone to do it at gunpoint." That is why I find it interesting that you are concerned with morality. I think people are trained not to see the violence of the state and to give it a free pass, even when it goes against their own morals.
I'm a Liberal. I was a mechanic for well over a decade. Worked my way through college. Now I'm working my way up in a fortune 500 company- doing highly technical work on products that cost more money than I'll see in a lifetime. I've never been on unemployment, welfare, or anything remotely like that.
By contrast, I know Republicans (Tea Partiers at that) who have built their entire CAREER on public schools, social security, farm subsidies, etc.
Please find information sources other than Talk Radio and FauxNews.
Liberals - real liberals that is - don`t attack others on a personal level the way you have simply because their ideology differs from their own.
In years gone by, liberals were known as hippies.
They were free thinkers, genuinely open to new ideas and respectful of others.
The difference between hippies and present day statists who try to pass themselves off as liberals, or even libertarians, is that true liberals don`t see empowering the state as the optimal solution to any problem.
In this, they are of a conservative or libertarian ideology and share with evangelicals the commitment to care for others in real and meaningful ways whether the state gets involved or not.
Many of the decades past former free thinkers, having lost their way over the years, became liberals in name only, wannabe libertarians and quasi-conservatives.
When I see negative comments aimed at tax payers that are as far removed from reality as yours, I know I`m dealing with a statist who sees anyone or any group opposed to further empowerment of the state over the individual as an enemy.
Liberals - real liberals that is - don`t attack others on a personal level the way you have simply because their ideology differs from their own.
In years gone by, liberals were known as hippies.
They were free thinkers, genuinely open to new ideas and respectful of others.
The difference between hippies and present day statists who try to pass themselves off as liberals, or even libertarians, is that true liberals don`t see empowering the state as the optimal solution to any problem.
In this, they are of a conservative or libertarian ideology and share with evangelicals the commitment to care for others in real and meaningful ways whether the state gets involved or not.
Many of the decades past former free thinkers, having lost their way over the years, became liberals in name only, wannabe libertarians and quasi-conservatives.
When I see negative comments aimed at tax payers that are as far removed from reality as yours, I know I`m dealing with a statist who sees anyone or any group opposed to further empowerment of the state over the individual as an enemy.
I didn't see this person attack anybody on a personal level.
By the way, I personally know quite a few liberals. Every single one is educated and gainfully employed. I can NOT say even remotely the same thing about all the conservatives I know.
Well, I'm sure that settles it.
No more information need be considered.
Last edited by dechatelet; 02-13-2015 at 01:26 AM..
LMAO! Did you just parrot your professor? You know he professes the ills of capitalism with pulling down a solid six figure salary then pats you on the bottom and sends you out for one of those great Obama burger flipping jobs right? Oh, and that huge student loan bill you have? He's enjoying spending it 😂😂
I have to ask, just what is so bad about paying our teachers money? I can promise you he doesn't make a high 6 figures, but if somebody has demonstrated advanced knowledge on a topic and is willing to pass that onto others, why is that not valuable ... even in a non-capitalistic society?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), is evil by definition. The only thing government adds to society is force/violence...if it's voluntary and people can choose to disobey it, it isn't government. My issue with your post lies in the solution. Using the violence of the state is the opposite of a moral solution, IMO. It's like a student saying "we need to all work together to raise the class average" and instead of proposing that everyone help each other voluntarily, encourage each other, study together, tutor someone who needs help...their solution is to have the teacher average out the grades to create equality and fairness.