MATT DRUDGE Goes Off on Twitter Rampage It s the Night of the Republican Suicide

[JoshuaZ]

So you conclude a priori that if the Creator doesn't agree with you the problem is with the Creator and not you? How would you feel about people with moral systems different from your own making the same statement?

I didn't say the problem was with the Creator... I simply said that I would not agree with the Creator and that I would prefer to spend the rest of Eternity in Hell than in the presence of that Creator. I do not acknowledge the validity of any moral system other than my own. Never have and never will.

And how you feel about other people taking that same response? Maybe it is worth considering that actually trying to figure out the correct answers to moral questions is tough, and reasonable people can disagree about them?

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Anathema]

And how you feel about other people taking that same response? Maybe it is worth considering that actually trying to figure out the correct answers to moral questions is tough, and reasonable people can disagree about them?

So long as they don't expect me to agree with them, that's fine. I'm not here to change their minds either.

Morality is the easiest thing in the world to figure out so far as I'm concerned. The problem is that people keep adding improper variables like emotion and desire to the equation which make the answer come out wrong.

 

[kaz]

I'm looking for the roll call vote, but I can't seem to find it.

I didn't see which Republicans didn't vote, but I did see this.

"Every Republican who voted voted to advance fast-track. Democrats were split.

Democrats who backed advancing the bill included Michael Bennet of Colorado, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Chris Coons of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Warner of Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon."

Senate Votes to Advance Fast-Track Trade Bill

All of the conservative Democrats - I'm so shocked!

Conservative Democrat is an oxymoron

That's because you're a far rightwing radical Republican.

Well, 1/3, I am radical. Wow, Republican is the worst word you know, isn't it? That's classic, you are an intellectual eight year old. Damned teacher gave you homework, she's a Republican. Hitler? Republican. Your mom for making you clean your room? Republican. The worst word you know, that's funny

 

[kaz]

Bam, your new avatar! Perfect

 

[JoshuaZ]

And how you feel about other people taking that same response? Maybe it is worth considering that actually trying to figure out the correct answers to moral questions is tough, and reasonable people can disagree about them?

So long as they don't expect me to agree with them, that's fine. I'm not here to change their minds either.

Morality is the easiest thing in the world to figure out so far as I'm concerned. The problem is that people keep adding improper variables like emotion and desire to the equation which make the answer come out wrong.

So almost every human has managed to disagree on morality and you've got it correct?

I'm curious. Suppose you die and you find yourself in front of your creator, and your creator says "So, Anathema, I've got this very long list of things you are wrong about. I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to understand why you are wrong with say 10,000 years of careful thinking. Or if you really are convinced you are correct, since apparently you said you'd prefer eternity in hell rather than being by your creator if your creator is wrong, you can go jump in this burning pit right here, never to come out." What would you do?

 

[Anathema]

So almost every human has managed to disagree on morality and you've got it correct?

I'm curious. Suppose you die and you find yourself in front of your creator, and your creator says "So, Anathema, I've got this very long list of things you are wrong about. I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to understand why you are wrong with say 10,000 years of careful thinking. Or if you really are convinced you are correct, since apparently you said you'd prefer eternity in hell rather than being by your creator if your creator is wrong, you can go jump in this burning pit right here, never to come out." What would you do?

JUMP!!!!!

 

[JoshuaZ]

So almost every human has managed to disagree on morality and you've got it correct?

I'm curious. Suppose you die and you find yourself in front of your creator, and your creator says "So, Anathema, I've got this very long list of things you are wrong about. I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to understand why you are wrong with say 10,000 years of careful thinking. Or if you really are convinced you are correct, since apparently you said you'd prefer eternity in hell rather than being by your creator if your creator is wrong, you can go jump in this burning pit right here, never to come out." What would you do?

JUMP!!!!!

Fascinating. Can you explain your reasoning?

 

[Anathema]

Fascinating. Can you explain your reasoning?

Let's call it personal experience. I've seen so much that I feel is wrong in this world that if it's right I don't want to live in that sort of world...... on this side of eternity or the othrr.

 

[JoshuaZ]

From the standpoint of Anthropology it would seem cultural but I don't have a Jewish background and it hasn't come up as what I already know is a myth, so I'd have to do my due diligent research. That's what I do rather than assuming the meme "everybody else" is walking around with has any basis in fact.

But no, back to honor killing, they're not intertwined; they're if anything mutually antagonistic. Islam (and other religions) tried to control the already-existing practice by proscribing it. More to the point, I'll just go straight back to this -- if you asked an honor killer who happens to be Muslim (Sikh, Hindu, Christian, atheist, whatever) to cite where their religion mandates or suggests it, they would come up blank. Because you can't cite what does not exist.

And no, I can't accept "an old fashioned book" that for the purpose of this thread, also does not exist. Ipse dixit is worth just that.

Here's the thing though: things can be a combination of culture and religion. I used an example from Judaism so it wouldn't have the same degree of emotional baggage, but outside the context of Christianity, the line between religion and culture is often very blurry.

And it shouldn't be at all surprising that people can't cite where there religious justification for something is in a text, but that's an incredibly poor reason to conclude that something isn't religious.

Not at all, in fact it's the perfect reason. Otherwise we're going, "I know it doesn't say that but I thought it did". Well it doesn't. Period. So the person who thought that --- was wrong. It's literally that simple.

"When the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Missing the point. Should one consider a belief not religious because they cannot point to a specific scriptural passage backing up that belief. That makes sense if one has a religion like certain forms of Christianity (especially some of the Protestant forms), but many other religions don't work that way. For example, in Judaism, different families have slightly different traditions when and how to where Tefilin. There's no ability to point to scripture for any of them. But it would be very strange to claim that makes the belief not religious in nature.

It also isn't useful to use religious leaders trying to control something as evidence that the thing in question isn't religious.

It's called linear time. If the year is 650 CE and your team is designing a new religion to market to the masses ---- why would you specifically prohibit a practice that didn't yet exist??

Again, this question doesn't appreciate how blurry the line between culture and religion is. Let's look at the Bible. There's a fair bit of evidence that circumcision existed as a practice prior to the Israelites mandating it as a religious obligation. Does it predating the religion in question make it cultural rather than religious? Similarly, many of the practices in the Bible dealing with animal sacrifice apparently earlier practices. But that doesn't make it not religious. Religions do not arise in vacuums and they don't generally exist in vacuums.

Religions are certainly not cultural monoliths -- that's part of my point. It's why you won't find a Moroccan doing an honor killing whereas you will find a Pakistani. Yet they're both Muslim. Obviously not a common cause. Then there's the Hindus and Sikhs just south of them.... unrelated religiously but quite related geographically and culturally. Think about it.

Complete agreement but not really relevant. A Sunni and Shiite can have different religious practices. That doesn't make those practices not religious in anture.

It makes no point at all. I've never heard of your "well known scholar", I haven't even been given any of his content here, even without documentation, and for that matter I only have your word that the book -- and its author -- exist at all. As I said the bar is just a wee bit higher than that.

My apologies, I thought she was a well known scholar in this context. See her Wikipedia biography (which now that I look at it isn't in the best shape but gives a pretty good summary of who she is).

Here's the bottom line, to put it into a single thought: an "honor killer" who is also a Muslim doesn't commit he's act because he's Muslim, but rather in spite of it. His religion and his culture guided him two different mutually-exclusive ways, and he chose to go with culture over religion. Just as, say, a Catholic might use artificial birth control.

And that single thought is *wrong*. It is obvious why we'd love to think that's the case: it might be easier to change culture than religion, and we feel much less comfortable attacking a religious belief. Moreover, as a piece of rhetoric it is very helpful if we don't want the West to appear to be at war with Islam. But it completely fails to appreciate how complicated the interplay between religion and culture is here. If you want to argue that honor killing is more on the culture end than the religion end, that would be a possible argument. But to claim that they are separate is already to deeply fail at understanding not only Islam but many non-Christian religions.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Weeeeeeeee!

Sweeping NEW powers!

Yes. Lolberals love them some sweeping new powers unconstrained by checks and balances --

as long as they are the ones getting that "power."

It was the Republicans who gave him this power.

Why is that?

Possibly because the current leadershit of the GOP is a miserable clusterfuck of Statism.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Fascinating. Can you explain your reasoning?

Let's call it personal experience. I've seen so much that I feel is wrong in this world that if it's right I don't want to live in that sort of world...... on this side of eternity or the othrr.

And you'd take that view even though your creator is willing to tell you that you'll understand you are mistaken if you spend time on it?

I'm curious, do you have any ability to admit you are wrong whatsoever? Do you ever find you need to say oops?

 

[Pogo]

From the standpoint of Anthropology it would seem cultural but I don't have a Jewish background and it hasn't come up as what I already know is a myth, so I'd have to do my due diligent research. That's what I do rather than assuming the meme "everybody else" is walking around with has any basis in fact.

But no, back to honor killing, they're not intertwined; they're if anything mutually antagonistic. Islam (and other religions) tried to control the already-existing practice by proscribing it. More to the point, I'll just go straight back to this -- if you asked an honor killer who happens to be Muslim (Sikh, Hindu, Christian, atheist, whatever) to cite where their religion mandates or suggests it, they would come up blank. Because you can't cite what does not exist.

And no, I can't accept "an old fashioned book" that for the purpose of this thread, also does not exist. Ipse dixit is worth just that.

Here's the thing though: things can be a combination of culture and religion. I used an example from Judaism so it wouldn't have the same degree of emotional baggage, but outside the context of Christianity, the line between religion and culture is often very blurry.

And it shouldn't be at all surprising that people can't cite where there religious justification for something is in a text, but that's an incredibly poor reason to conclude that something isn't religious.

Not at all, in fact it's the perfect reason. Otherwise we're going, "I know it doesn't say that but I thought it did". Well it doesn't. Period. So the person who thought that --- was wrong. It's literally that simple.

"When the known facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Missing the point. Should one consider a belief not religious because they cannot point to a specific scriptural passage backing up that belief. That makes sense if one has a religion like certain forms of Christianity (especially some of the Protestant forms), but many other religions don't work that way. For example, in Judaism, different families have slightly different traditions when and how to where Tefilin. There's no ability to point to scripture for any of them. But it would be very strange to claim that makes the belief not religious in nature.

Of course there are individual variations on ritual (as well as regional/geographic). But that still isn't the point.

The point still is, a ritual or act either serves some religious purpose.... or it does not. When we erect and decorate a Christmas tree or send the kids on an Easter egg hunt, while those activities may be tangentially related to religion (albeit by association only) --- they serve no purpose in the religion itself. And neither does "honor killing".

Not a perfect analogy, in that Christianism doesn't prohibit Christmas trees or Easter egg hunts. But since Islam does prohibit honor killing, you could easier make the case that Easter eggs are a Christian thing, than you could make the case that honor killing has something to do with Islam.

It also isn't useful to use religious leaders trying to control something as evidence that the thing in question isn't religious.

It's called linear time. If the year is 650 CE and your team is designing a new religion to market to the masses ---- why would you specifically prohibit a practice that didn't yet exist??

Again, this question doesn't appreciate how blurry the line between culture and religion is. Let's look at the Bible. There's a fair bit of evidence that circumcision existed as a practice prior to the Israelites mandating it as a religious obligation. Does it predating the religion in question make it cultural rather than religious?

YES. Great example, like the female genital mutilation. Ancient cultural practices long predating the religion.

Similarly, many of the practices in the Bible dealing with animal sacrifice apparently earlier practices. But that doesn't make it not religious. Religions do not arise in vacuums and they don't generally exist in vacuums.

On the contrary, if you and I started a religion tomorrow, we would have to take into account all of the currently-existing cultural traditions and either incorporate them or if they're destructive, banish them. My religion for example might make watching television a sin; but I could hardly come up with such a rule if this was 100 years ago and TV didn't exist.

Religions are certainly not cultural monoliths -- that's part of my point. It's why you won't find a Moroccan doing an honor killing whereas you will find a Pakistani. Yet they're both Muslim. Obviously not a common cause. Then there's the Hindus and Sikhs just south of them.... unrelated religiously but quite related geographically and culturally. Think about it.

Complete agreement but not really relevant. A Sunni and Shiite can have different religious practices. That doesn't make those practices not religious in anture.

That doesn't -- but the fact that there's nothing in (in this case) Islam that prescribes 'honor killing' while the Qur'an does on the contrary specifically prohibit it -- means it's not part of the religion. It cannot be more clear.

Here's the bottom line, to put it into a single thought: an "honor killer" who is also a Muslim doesn't commit he's act because he's Muslim, but rather in spite of it. His religion and his culture guided him two different mutually-exclusive ways, and he chose to go with culture over religion. Just as, say, a Catholic might use artificial birth control.

And that single thought is *wrong*. It is obvious why we'd love to think that's the case: it might be easier to change culture than religion, and we feel much less comfortable attacking a religious belief. Moreover, as a piece of rhetoric it is very helpful if we don't want the West to appear to be at war with Islam. But it completely fails to appreciate how complicated the interplay between religion and culture is here. If you want to argue that honor killing is more on the culture end than the religion end, that would be a possible argument. But to claim that they are separate is already to deeply fail at understanding not only Islam but many non-Christian religions.

They ARE separate. They have nothing to do with each other. If you walked into a baseball stadium in this country and took a poll you'd prolly find most of them are Christian; that doesn't make one the derivtion of the other. What you have here is a cum hoc fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Especially when direct evidence to the contrary is already in abundance.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. How did Matt Drudge become powerful enough to "control the opposition"? It's a shame that the radical progressives are so afraid of Matt Drudge that the post it in the political forum. Small minds in the prog movement conveniently forget that the republican party won the biggest mid term landslide in modern political history barely six months ago.

 

[Pogo]

You almost gotta laugh. How did Matt Drudge become powerful enough to "control the opposition"? It's a shame that the radical progressives are so afraid of Matt Drudge that the post it in the political forum. Small minds in the prog movement conveniently forget that the republican party won the biggest mid term landslide in modern political history barely six months ago.

Uh -- no it didn't.
Historically the party holding the WH loses ground in EVERY mid-term election. The hot news item would have been if the Republicans lost ground.

You want a mid-term landslide, go check 1934. FDR's first mid-term, with the country trying to get out of the Depression. That was the first time a mid-term ever went for the party in the WH, and one of only three times it's ever happened at all.

 

[Borillar]

There hasn't been an opposition to Obama his entire tenure. There's only been an illusion of one. He's gotten everything he wanted. And that was only achieved by the Republican 'Leadership' fully cooperating.

The awful Trade Deal, Iran Deal, and Patriot Act will be pushed through by the supposed Republican 'Opposition.' Bet on that. There is no Opposition. Time for Republicans to finally get that.

If any liberal can name one thing that RINOS didn't give Obama, let's hear it.

Respect, courtesy, and decency.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You almost gotta laugh. How did Matt Drudge become powerful enough to "control the opposition"? It's a shame that the radical progressives are so afraid of Matt Drudge that the post it in the political forum. Small minds in the prog movement conveniently forget that the republican party won the biggest mid term landslide in modern political history barely six months ago.

I don't believe you've read the OP

 

[Anathema]

And you'd take that view even though your creator is willing to tell you that you'll understand you are mistaken if you spend time on it?

Nope. Not interested. I'm more than willing to take the lumps (eternal as they may be) for my way of looking at things; but if the other way of looking at things is the "Right" way, then I have no interest in being Right ever again.

I'm curious, do you have any ability to admit you are wrong whatsoever? Do you ever find you need to say oops[/URL]?

Nope. Not really. Never have and never will.

 

[JoshuaZ]

And you'd take that view even though your creator is willing to tell you that you'll understand you are mistaken if you spend time on it?

Nope. Not interested. I'm more than willing to take the lumps (eternal as they may be) for my way of looking at things; but if the other way of looking at things is the "Right" way, then I have no interest in being Right ever again.

I'm curious, do you have any ability to admit you are wrong whatsoever? Do you ever find you need to say oops[/URL]?

Nope. Not really. Never have and never will.

Do you see that as a problem in others? If so, why should you not expect it to be a problem in yourself?