Questions for those who don't believe in God

[rtwngAvngr]

"Science and logic are racism" blah blah. "The primitive societies were smarter" blahblahblah

 

[jAZ]

Don't worry about it.

What's "it"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What's "it"?

Our excessive intelligence destroying us. Fuhgedaboutit. I know you lefties seek a return to the dark ages with a new left wing oligarchy. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[jAZ]

Our excessive intelligence destroying us. Fuhgedaboutit. I know you lefties seek a return to the dark ages with a new left wing oligarchy. It ain't gonna happen.

What are you talking about? Stop making things up that I didn't say so that you can attack the opposite end of the spectrum.

Or is this one of "those" boards?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What are you talking about? Stop making things up that I didn't say so that you can attack the opposite end of the spectrum.

Or is this one of "those" boards?

I'm talking about lefties rejecting logic and critical thought, preferring anti-white, anti-christian, anti-male, anti-capitalist, anti-american dogma instead. I'm also referencing the INTERNATIONALISM espoused by said kooks, and the new ruling class you/they envision..... yourselves/themselves.

 

[jAZ]

I'm talking about lefties rejecting logic and critical thought, preferring anti-white, anti-christian, anti-male, anti-capitalist, anti-american dogma instead. I'm also referencing the INTERNATIONALISM espoused by said kooks, and the new ruling class you/they envision..... yourselves/themselves.

Ok, but why do you feel the need to talk about a whole bunch of things that no one here (me) has said 1 thing about, and avoid any discussion about the issues already raised?

What's the point?

You seem more concerned with other discussion and other issues... I guess I'd recommending jumping in on some other thread.

This one has a point already.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ok, but why do you feel the need to talk about a whole bunch of things that no one here (me) has said 1 thing about, and avoid any discussion about the issues already raised?

What's the point?

You seem more concerned with other discussion and other issues... I guess I'd recommending jumping in on some other thread.

This one has a point already.

We were talking about the role of rationality and logic. You were interested before. I just brought the issue to a broader context. Grow up or get lost.

 

[jAZ]

We were talking about the role of rationality and logic. You were interested before.

I was just adding a layer of context and example to clarify what I thought another poster was saying (that there are natural consequences/risks that come with expanded cognition).

I made NO judgement as that such evolved cognition is a bad thing (as you tried to suggest). I have no interest in going back to a "dark ages", to suggest that I do is a complete total lie.

On a side note, I find it funny to suggest that a return to barbarian dark ages and away from intellectualism is somehow liberalism. Afterall, it is the conservative ideology of "survival of the fitest" taken to it's (il)logical extreme that says is in fact very barbaric. The liberal ideology of "visualize world peace" also taken to it's (il)logical extreme is a purely theoretical, purely cognitive endeavor. It's the prototypical "pussified" liberal that want's to "over analyze" every thing. It's the prototyical "hyper-testosteroned" conservative that wants to "destroy the beast". I'm not saying these sterotypes are accurate in any given situation or person, but I thinks its a riot that somehow you are trying to brand liberals as being anti-intellectual or wanting to go back to a more barbaric "dark ages".

I just brought the issue to a broader context. Grow up or get lost.

I don't think I'd call demonizing characterizations "a broader context". I'd call it an axe to grind.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Grow up?

I was just adding a layer of context and example to clarify what I thought another poster was saying (that there are natural consequences/risks that come with expanded cognition).

I made NO judgement as that such evolved cognition is a bad thing (as you tried to suggest). I have no interest in going back to a "dark ages", to suggest that I do is a complete total lie.

On a side note, I find it funny to suggest that a return to barbarian dark ages and away from intellectualism is somehow liberalism. Afterall, it is the conservative ideology of "survival of the fitest" taken to it's (il)logical extreme that says is in fact very barbaric. The liberal ideology of "visualize world peace" also taken to it's (il)logical extreme is a purely theoretical, purely cognitive endeavor. It's the prototypical "pussified" liberal that want's to "over analyze" every thing. It's the prototyical "hyper-testosteroned" conservative that wants to "destroy the beast". I'm not saying these sterotypes are accurate in any given situation or person, but I thinks its a riot that somehow you are trying to brand liberals as being anti-intellectual or wanting to go back to a more barbaric "dark ages".

I don't think I'd call demonizing characterizations "a broader context". I'd call it an axe to grind.

Oh, but libs are anti-intellectual. They substitute Political Correctness for rational thought. They refuse to see the ACTUAL effects of their policies, preferring instead to evaluate all their endeavors on the purity of their intent, which is usually either anti-christian, anti-male, anti-capitalist, and anti-american, in the final analysis.

 

[MissileMan]

What are you talking about? Stop making things up that I didn't say so that you can attack the opposite end of the spectrum.

Or is this one of "those" boards?

It's not one of "those" boards, but he's definitely one of "those" posters....just ignore the simp!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's not one of "those" boards, but he's definitely one of "those" posters....just ignore the simp!

Do you need a beatin' too, son?

 

[jAZ]

Oh, but libs are anti-intellectual. They substitute Political Correctness for rational thought. They refuse to see the ACTUAL effects of their policies, preferring instead to evaluate all their endeavors on the purity of their intent, which is usually either anti-christian, anti-male, anti-capitalist, and anti-american, in the final analysis.

I see why you feel that way, but I think you are missing a major point here.

Being "politically correct" isn't an emotional response, but an example of liberalism being "over analytical". It's really a cognitive response to other people's emotional over-reactions.

The idea is that people and animals both react emotionally to certain stimuli. Such a response is often destructive (jealous rage leading to murder, religous rage leading to terrorism, whatever). One cognitive response to such an environment is to determine a set of "rules" that if followed, will minimize the occurance of such emotionally destructive interactions. That's what you call being politically correct.

 

[jAZ]

Do you need a beatin' too, son?

Talk about "dark ages" mentality...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I see why you feel that way, but I think you are missing a major point here.

Being "politically correct" isn't an emotional response, but an example of liberalism being "over analytical". It's really a cognitive response to other people's emotional over-reactions.

The idea is that people and animals both react emotionally to certain stimuli. Such a response is often destructive (jealous rage leading to murder, religous rage leading to terrorism, whatever). One cognitive response to such an environment is to determine a set of "rules" that if followed, will minimize the occurance of such emotionally destructive interactions. That's what you call being politically correct.

No. Political correctness consists of casting certain ideas as off limits for debate. It's a way of hiding the truth with nice sounding slogans. It's also a way of presenting certain preconceived value judgements as reasoning.

 

[jAZ]

No. Political correctness consists of casting certain ideas as off limits for debate. It's a way of hiding the truth with nice sounding slogans. It's also a way of presenting certain preconceived value judgements as reasoning.

You are correct that it can (and sometimes does) have that effect, but that's NOT the purpose. Don't confuse the two.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Talk about "dark ages" mentality...

Let's talk about it. The dark ages were charaterized by elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed, like libs seek to do.

 

[MissileMan]

It's also a way of presenting certain preconceived value judgements as reasoning.

That sounds like a perfect definition of religion if I've ever heard one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You are correct that it can (and sometimes does) have that effect, but that's NOT the purpose. Don't confuse the two.

Do you realize how perfectly you made my point about libs seeking to substitute purity of intention for the reality of implementation and outcome? Are you kidding with this? You need to come on the road with me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That sounds like a perfect definition of religion if I've ever heard one.

But the values are good values, and children haven't developed the brain capacity to understand the reasoning behind not just doing what they want, or giving into to petty envy. All propagandists know you gotta get em young.

 

[jAZ]

Do you realize how perfectly you made my point about libs seeking to substitute purity of intention for the reality of implementation and outcome? Are you kidding with this? You need to come on the road with me.

Did you notice I didn't disagree with that point?

I agree with the notion that there is a idealism/practicality gap that exists between the logical extreme of liberalism and the logical extreme of conservativism.

YYou'd be well served to stop trying to tell me what I think, and just read what I write. You might not be so bogged down in these bogus assertions you seem to be prone to making.