A Behavioral Choice is Not a Race

[The Rabbi]

How old are you? First off, there is no "JUdeo-Christian ethical system."

There is no Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought? LOL! Really?

There might be a Christian ethical system.

Might be? LOL!



With respect to the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian construct of free will and the preeminence of the Creator over the State as conceived by the Lockean tradition of natural law there most certainly is a tradition of self-determination and free-association predicated on the sanctity of human life, unbridgeable rights and the notion that the family of nature is the first principle of private property.



I already did. Superior in this case means actual, real, true, genuine. All other systems of thought are pretenders, delusions, the stuff of depravity and tyranny.



Reexamine that statement. It makes no sense. Family ties are critical to only some societies, and in those societies Islam is the best formula?

Hmm? Why do Islamic societies typically sport statist regimes, wherein first allegiance is not to the family at all, but to the state?



Uh-huh. And the Chinese have always tended to avail themselves to a self-denying allegiance to the state.



Oh?

There have been few tyrants greater than Hitler, an absolute product of Western enlightenment, and Stalin. So was Mao, but he was greatly influenced by Marx/Engels.

Indeed, a product of Continental European thought, rejected by the Anglo-American tradition of free will and individual liberty. Collectivistic. Statist. Akin to that of Eastern thought.

You are way behind the debate here.

There is no debate. I'm right. You're delusional.

I must be dealing with a college freshman. No one else could be equally sure and equally wrong.

John Locke does not represent western Christian thought. He certainly does not represent "Judeo-Christian" thought (whatever that is.) He is a product of the Enlightenment,and only one of many such thinkers.

"Superior" does not mean "actual", "real" or "true" in any definition. Superior must be in respect to something. You have failed to define what western society is superior in respect to.

I'd suggest brushing up on your knowledge of Islamic societies. Your ignorance leads you to say stupid things.
So Hitler y'sh was not representative of Anglo-Western thought. Brilliant. So you are maintaining that not Western European thought, but Anglo-Western European thought is superior (to what, we don't know). that tends to cut out Descartes, Rousseau, and Kant from the canon.
You have failed to state a coherent thesis, much less defend it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I must be dealing with a college freshman. No one else could be equally sure and equally wrong.

I'm going to isolate your bits of gibberish.

Watch your step. You're dealing with an experienced scholar. I know the historical events and ideas of Western culture. My surety is based on years of careful thought and real-life experience, you know, like that of John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and many other "freshmen" operating under the impression of surety. LOL!

 

[The Rabbi]

I must be dealing with a college freshman. No one else could be equally sure and equally wrong.

I'm going to isolate your bits of gibberish.

Watch your step. You're dealing with an experienced scholar. I know the historical events and ideas of Western culture. My surety is based on years of careful thought and real-life experience, you know, like that of John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and many other "freshmen" operating under the impression of surety. LOL!

ROFLMAO!!!
I'm not dealing with anyone because you are a blabbering ignoramus of galactic pretensions.
On to iggy you go, kiddoo.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

John Locke does not represent western Christian thought. He certainly does not represent "Judeo-Christian" thought (whatever that is.) He is a product of the Enlightenment, and only one of many such thinkers.

Uh-huh. And you have no idea what I'm talking about, Professor. LOL!

John Locke extrapolated his political theory of natural law in the Two Treatises of Government from the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, i.e., the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian construct of free will and the preeminence of the Creator over the State; these entail the self-determination and free-association of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism predicated on (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) unbridgeable rights and (3) the notion that the family of nature is the first principle of private property, you know, as in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Superior" does not mean "actual", "real" or "true" in any definition. Superior must be in respect to something. You have failed to define what western society is superior in respect to.

Just so.

I did not define Superior as literally meaning actual, real or genuine. I defined the Lockean political system of thought in accordance with the Socratic method as being superior to all other competing political systems of thought, as one that is true with respect to ultimate reality.

So Hitler y'sh was not representative of Anglo-Western thought. Brilliant. So you are maintaining that not Western European thought, but Anglo-Western European thought is superior (to what, we don't know). that tends to cut out Descartes, Rousseau, and Kant from the canon.

I wrote "the Anglo-American tradition of free will and individual liberty", not "Anglo-Western" (indeed, whatever that is, as the correct term for what you're alluding to is at best "Anglo-Saxon" ) or the typically collectivistic political thought of Continental Europe. Fascism, for example, is diametrically opposed to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, you imbecile. We fought a war over that!

In any event, I'm strictly talking about political theory. I happen to admire Cartesian metaphysics and epistemology insofar as it is tempered by a synthesis with Lockean empiricism.

You're pushing the limits of civilty by incesantly changing the nature of my observations and their context. You're a know nothing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

ROFLMAO!!!
I'm not dealing with anyone because you are a blabbering ignoramus of galactic pretensions.
On to iggy you go, kiddoo.

Yeah, right. You're a know-nothing, full of bluster and insult . . . but no substance whatsoever.

You just got busted and you know it.

"Anglo-Western"?

Now run away, little boy, and don't try it again.

More on this here: LINK