Topic: Dear Liberal, Here is why I'm so hostile

[Weisshaupt]

(I do believe I responded to the same comment as Weisshaupt, unless the first name isn't Adam and there are a ton of other Weisshaupt's around.)

Nope. That one is me.

Did you notice the Lefty actually tried to accuse me of Name calling because I used the word Fascist and Selfish in relationship to him, and explained their applicability. . Never at any point did it ever occur to the lefty that those words might actually describe him. Because the words MEAN NOTHING to them. They experience  conversations as nothing but emotion.  Being verbally nice to them just confirms their opinion that you are an object - "stuff" to be used.  How else  can you declare a policy of "live and let live" as an imposition on you, if you don't implicitly see everyone else as tools and objects to be used as you see fit?

Death is too good for them. But you could lock one in a hole. starve  them,  Torture them daily with electric shocks and they will never, ever understand WHY it is happening. There is no way to ever get them to consider their own actions as the possible cause of our opposition or hatred for them, because we are stuff and shouldn't have feelings either way .
 
 

[Libertas]

I think he's in the final stages of verbal nicety.

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

Aren't we all?!

“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Get ready for the stomping.

Molôn Labé!

[RickZ]

Death is too good for them. But you could lock one in a hole. starve  them,  Torture them daily with electric shocks and they will never, ever understand WHY it is happening.

As Solzhenitsyn documented:  Commie apparatchiks were sitting in the Lubyanka cells during the Purges awaiting their fate, all the while bemoaning, "If Comrade Stalin only knew . . . "

We see the same mentality today with the left's 'OMG!  Why has my insurance gone up?' hysteria.  That they can't figure out that their vote created the very problem that they now experience exemplifies the fault of a non-fact based, union-run education system.  With these morons, '1 + 1 = Racism, you Teabaggers' every damn time.

I swear we need a Civics poll test to vote.  Of course the SCOTUS will chime in that the test needs to be dumbed down for affirmative action purposes, defeating the purpose of the test.  But that's our 'Constitutional scholars' on the Court, for ya, deliberately misconstruing social justice for the real thing.

[IronDioPriest]

Weisshaupt, in an addendum to our conversation yesterday, I had a clarifying thought.

I think we're basically parsing semantics. But the truth seems clear to me, and I think it's a distinction beyond semantics.

You say the Leftists view us as inhuman, and the other more specific dehumanizations we've discussed. Fair enough, as a rhetorical characterization of what they do. In effect, it is what they do.

I'm saying they know we're human, and choose to treat us as if we're not for the sake of their ideology. I think that my characterization is more indicative of the true evil of Leftism. They are historically willing to throw humans into mass graves, not because they see their victims as non-human, but because they adhere to an evil ideology that allows them to justify the evil of treating people as if they are not human.

All along the road to the end result of the Leftist ideology, Leftists tell themselves and others lies, supported by the groupthink. A fetus isn't a baby; a conservative woman isn't a woman; a conservative Black isn't a real Black; Bush's wars bad/Obama's wars good. The whole ideology is an ideology of lies.

No sane person could look at Sarah Palin and say she's not a true woman. But saying so is the Leftist's tried and true attack for any of their victim constituencies that reject Leftism. So when Sarah Palin comes along, they wail and gnash their teeth, claiming she's not woman, even though it is obvious that she is. They tell the world, "Sarah Palin isn't a true woman", yet there she is, two breasts, a vagina, beautiful, with a husband, children, a grandchild.

That's why they wail and gnash their teeth. They know it's a lie; they know the lie must be spoken; they know they have moved into dehumanization mode, and they don't give a sh*t, because Leftism first.

They'll make the same justifications when troops open fire on a Tea Party rally. Evil can justify anything to the immoral or amoral mind. Even the moral mind must keep evil at bay.

[Weisshaupt]

I think we're basically parsing semantics. But the truth seems clear to me, and I think it's a distinction beyond semantics.

Yes, I think some term clarification is in order. When I say they view us as inhuman, I am really saying they assign no value to us beyond our use to them at a given moment. They have no respect for our "human" quality.  In their world, there are leftists, and then there is everything else. Yes, they are aware we are human, just like they are aware that there of objects called trees, cars and i-phones. But to have intrinsic value, to be seen as something to be respected and dealt with as an equal, you must be part of the herd.
 

That's why they wail and gnash their teeth. They know it's a lie; they know the lie must be spoken; they know they have moved into dehumanization mode, and they don't give a sh*t, because Leftism first.

I think the correct formation is themselves, their ideas, their wants, their needs, their agenda first justified by leftism... therefore they never get to the point of recognizing you as having human qualities.  Say you have rights, and its like you didn't even speak.  Like a snake  spoke to them and said " "Don't tread on me!"  - they don't understand it at all. Snakes don't talk! So I will ignore it.  Leftism prevents any cognitive process on the subject from coming into  play in the first place.

They justify evil, because they don't (can't won't) recognize the concept as we understand it. To them "evil" is anything that prevents them from obtaining what they desire at he moment.  Its evil to lie only if  that lie hampers them in getting what they want. There are no immoral acts.  Anthony Wiener to this day doesn't think he ever did anything wrong in sending pictures of his pecker out.  The internet is evil because it spread the word about his acts. Others judging him are evil because they are so rude as to mention reality to him. His acts themselves? Meaningless.   But he- he can't be or do evil, because evil is defined by the  leftist to be perpetually OUTSIDE them. It is an external force that prevents them from having what they want. There really isn't any more understanding going on there than that.

I used to wrack my brain trying to figure out how smart people, good friends from childhood, with admittedly good intentions could be so evil - and that is the only way they could be - they simply lack the capacity to recognize evil as we do.  They reject any system in which they can be responsible for what they do. Its really the basic purpose of the ideology and what makes it attractive to them.  The adopt it because they absolve themselves of individual  moral responsibility  -its the govt, the democracy, the herd doing this to you, not me.  It absolves them of even having to consider the morality of it. All they do is justified by the phrase  "Gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz" They don't care because Leftism absolves them of the responsibility of caring.  If the herd doesn't see you as having person hood, of needing respect, then they have no responsibility to acknowledge it. They don't know you are human because they accept the judgement of the herd ( and the herd only)  If the sheep do not see you as one of the sheep you are not one.  There are of course wolves in sheep's clothing, who probably do KNOW- but they are a minority.

[LadyVirginia]

I know this may depart a bit from the main topic here but this is what I began to think about while reading this thread.

As I was reading all this it hit me as to why the liberals seem so enamored with the Muslims.  They basically share the same outlook. This why liberals have such a hard time condemning Muslim behavior. I used to think it was because they are afraid of Muslims but I don’t think that’s really the case.  They, consciously or subconsciously, are drawn to their view. I’m thinking of the dems, political or not, that we see in the media NEVER condemning Muslim behavior. (As for those at the lowest rung of the ladder I think the Muslims who allow or “go along” with or even non-Muslims who convert are probably of the same sort of mind set as Americans who are willing to live off the government.)

I believe Islam was created, not as a religion, but as a means of power over others while allowing those in power to continue their behavior as it suit them without restraint or regard for the consequences. While Muslims point to Allah as the reason for their beliefs, liberals point to the environment or racism or whatever as their reason for their belief system.  From this source or reason of belief follows the same justifications for their behavior. However, they define the source of their power it is ultimately about controlling the power and telling others how to live.

Muslims believe their “religion” is the “original” religion proceeding from God and that Jews and Christians corrupted what God had given them.  The Quran is full of Jewish and Christian references but they are not interpreted the same way.  Allah is the source of all power—he wills good and evil. There is no belief that God is a source of Love and that He allows people to freely accept or reject him. In fact, Allah can decide that some people are condemned and it doesn’t matter what they do, they will always be condemned. It strikes me as almost being like the classical Greek Gods that arbitrarily ruled the universe based on their whims and without regard to the humans’ needs. And clever to wrap a political movement in a religion rather than a political philosophy. You can debate a philosophy but you can’t question someone’s religion.

Islam doesn’t have a body of theological thought in the way we think of it for Christians or Jews because Allah is it. There’s no striving to understand a relationship with Allah as we do with God. They live by laws as defined in their hadith. Their laws tell them what to do. They do not view sin as a turning away from Allah as we do with God.  Rather sin to them is being ignorant of Allah which I think explains their reliance on a vast number of laws to proscribe behavior. Interestingly though, even that isn’t an absolute because a justification is often made by resorting to Mohammad’s behavior.  If he did it, then it’s acceptable even if it seemed to be wrong. (This is how they justify their pedophile behavior—“marrying” 10-year olds for example. Mohammad married a 6-yo and consummated it when she was 9.)

While Muslims to the world present or try to present a consistent code they live by, it breaks down once you begin to question particular aspects of it much like when liberals’ beliefs are analyzed. It may appear that there is one consistent moral code they ascribe to but looking at the Quran and their hadith (Islamic law) it’s obvious that one code exists for a Muslim (which is malleable depending on circumstances) and one for the non-Muslim.  Thus while they like to promote the idea they are peace loving, moral ethical people say for example by condemning murder they actually only condemn the murder of other Muslims (and even then there are exceptions). So the killing of non-Muslims isn’t murder. Liberals condemn the inequality of women or their poor treatment by others except when it comes to abortion or if the woman in question is not a liberal. (One set of rules if you’re in the club, different ones if you’re not. And if you’re in the club the rules are bent so you don’t get kicked out.)

Muslims supposedly are pro-family until it suits them to be otherwise. Many Muslims have more than one wife and the men can easily divorce their “wives” (“I divorce you.”).  Marriage built on love and respect is a foreign concept to them.  It doesn’t exist. They believe in “temporary” marriage in which they marry a “prostitute” or the woman they’re having an affair with long enough to justify their behavior. They were married when it happened so no violation of the law occurred. When they’re done, he divorces the woman. (They justify infidelity as “slaying the infidel within.” There’s no concept of self-control. Islam is full of these self-serving rationalizations.) Liberals deride the concept of marriage also. While Muslims give themselves ways within their belief system to get around marriage and justify their behavior, the liberals seek to impose their views and justify their behavior by imposing it on society as a whole.

The point of these Muslim examples (and there are many, many more) is to show the parallels to liberals’ behavior.  We pull our hair out at the inconsistencies of liberal thought and behavior but it’s no different than the Muslims’.  The liberal is for the birds and no logging but can live with the slaughter of birds by wind turbines. They want to preserve the Earth’s resources only after they get their eco car.

Muslims don’t seem to be too concerned about people who aren’t Jewish or Christian. They consider Jews and Christians to be people of “the Book” who have corrupted what Allah gave them. They seem to reserve their wrath for these “infidels”. I think it’s because they are the two groups that pose the greatest threat to their continued existence as a political force over others. Likewise, liberals hate traditional Jews and Christians because they pose a threat to their continued existence of doing whatever they what.

Islam is no different that Marxism or any other “ism” that seeks to dominate a group of people while allowing others free reign on their behavior and power. That appeals to liberals and that’s why they can’t condemn Muslims.  They recognize kindred spirits.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

This "inability" (really a refusal) to recognize or label "X" as “evil” amounts to man propping himself up as god & a refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.

• If one posits “evil”, then one must necessarily acknowledge “good” (the opposite of evil)
• If one acknowledges that “good” and “evil” exist, one must ascribe to a mechanism/metric for distinguishing between the two: an objective moral law (objective because otherwise it’s completely subjective* & open to interpretation)
• If one acknowledges an Objective Moral Law, one must acknowledge an objective moral law giver (i.e. God).

…but if they embrace that, then the cognitive dissonance noise levels will be too much to handle. So they subjectively* justify that THEY are the true promulgators of

• freedom (read “a control, moderated existence”),
• justice (read “fairness”) and
• compassion (read: “welfare mentality enablement”)

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Solution: get rid of any notion of God, God’s laws or groups that promote same…

…which leaves me & you as prime targets to be reduced to necessary collateral damage (human, but worthless) in the eternal battle of Worldviews.

[Libertas]

So we really are in a battle of good vs evil.

I knew it all along!

[benb61]

So we really are in a battle of good vs evil.

I knew it all along!

I have always considered liberals/progressives evil.

[Pandora]

One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.

[LadyVirginia]

One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.

Yes. There are no consequences to their own actions; someone else is to blame.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

One other item about the 'slim/leftist similarities -- nothing is ever their faults, it's always somebody else oppressing them.

Yes. There are no consequences to their own actions; someone else is to blame.

Literally. They decide who to blame and who to reward. Ravi Zacharias, when he's not making radio broadcasts, meets with heads of state in Islamic countries. He met a few years ago with the head of Hamas, who was touting Islam as a religion. Ravi challenged him on the love & forgiveness aspects that religion should embrace (because of the mounting body count & violence).

His answer to Ravi was "Forgiveness? That's only for those who deserve it!" (and, in his world...guess who decides? Hint: it ain't alla)

[Glock32]

This "inability" (really a refusal) to recognize or label "X" as “evil” amounts to man propping himself up as god & a refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty.

• If one posits “evil”, then one must necessarily acknowledge “good” (the opposite of evil)
• If one acknowledges that “good” and “evil” exist, one must ascribe to a mechanism/metric for distinguishing between the two: an objective moral law (objective because otherwise it’s completely subjective* & open to interpretation)
• If one acknowledges an Objective Moral Law, one must acknowledge an objective moral law giver (i.e. God).

…but if they embrace that, then the cognitive dissonance noise levels will be too much to handle. So they subjectively* justify that THEY are the true promulgators of

• freedom (read “a control, moderated existence”),
• justice (read “fairness”) and
• compassion (read: “welfare mentality enablement”)

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Solution: get rid of any notion of God, God’s laws or groups that promote same…

…which leaves me & you as prime targets to be reduced to necessary collateral damage (human, but worthless) in the eternal battle of Worldviews.

That's the foundational premise of secular humanism: "God is Dead". Beyond Good & Evil. The Genealogy of Morality. To them, "God is Dead" merely means that they have presumed to take that role for themselves, like Prometheus stealing fire. They think they're so clever and cutting edge, when all they're doing is some absurd reenactment of Eve eating the Fruit.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

That's the foundational premise of secular humanism: "God is Dead". Beyond Good & Evil. The Genealogy of Morality. To them, "God is Dead" merely means that they have presumed to take that role for themselves, like Prometheus stealing fire. They think they're so clever and cutting edge, when all they're doing is some absurd reenactment of Eve eating the Fruit.

I sometimes still get that "Man is the measure of all things" line from humanists...

...to which I reply "WHICH man? Hugh Hefner, Mother Theresa, Stalin, Boy George?"

If the starting point was non-moral, non-intelligent, non-rational/reasoning matter (time+slime+chance)...then where oh where did morality come from?

[RickZ]

The irony of the 'god is dead' crowd is that you have to believe in god in the first place for god to die.  Now if you don't believe god exists, that he/she/it is a manifestation of the minds of men trying to explain the mysteries of the natural world, that's another matter.  Or maybe they believe that god is really some extraterrestrial with such awesome powers that the populace was amazed/terrorized at their fiery appearance, coming down through our planet's atmosphere.  If you were to pluck someone from a technological society like today's US, complete with all their electronic gadgets and other tech marvels and placed them down squarely in ancient Athens' agora they, too, would be viewed as gods.  Even a Bic lighter going back in time to the caveman days would be incontrovertible truth of the power of the person with that lighter.  Man, when confronted with things he does not understand, has an imaginative mind with the ability to plug such knowledge holes with a soothing and comfortable belief in a god or gods, monotheism being of relatively recent origin.

Heron of Alexandria was the first person to make technology available for use by the religious priests of his day.  He even invented the coin operated holy water dispenser, it being a mystery to the faithful how a coin inserted into a slot produced a cupful of water, thereby 'proving' the power of the priests.  Nothing like selling a little overpriced water to make some scratch, a 'transformation' which could be viewed as real alchemy.  Until Copernicus was able to prove the earth revolved around the sun, earth was the center of the universe and heretics were killed who disputed that known 'fact'.  As more and more knowledge is revealed through science, some mysteries of the world disappear (lightening, earthquakes, giant fossil bones, planetary orbits, comets, etc.) only to be replaced by other and newer unexplained phenomena (dark matter being just one example).

Religion has always been about power, about control, even about wealth.  Religion has helped order man's societies for millenia, and that's not a bad thing.  Then along came islam, a religion which is the perfect summation of power, control and wealth, along with a 'scriptural' rejection of science itself.

I'm a firm believer in the 'god is a product of man's imagination in order to explain the natural world' theory.  Just because we don't understand things happening in our universe doesn't mean there is a god responsible for them.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Man, when confronted with things he does not understand, has an imaginative mind with the ability to plug such knowledge holes with a soothing and comfortable belief in a god or gods, monotheism being of relatively recent origin.

That’s often referred to as the “God of the Gaps” – referencing the Bible, saying you don’t know how “X” happened,, but trusting that God’s Word is truth. There is also an “Atheism of the Gaps”, the most prominent of which is this: why is there something, or how did we get something from…nothing? How did inert, non-thinking, non-rational, non-reasoning, non-moral chemicals transform into intelligent, rational, moral man? 

I'm a firm believer in the 'god is a product of man's imagination in order to explain the natural world' theory.  Just because we don't understand things happening in our universe doesn't mean there is a god responsible for them.

Atheists & science have no answers either, save this: “We don’t know but we’re, uhm…working on it” which is their “gap” as they’re determined not to allow a divine foot in the door.

Other explanations offered up by normally intelligent men of science:
•   Transpermia: Aliens from another planet seeding earth (talk about "faith"!)
•   Bacteria from a meteor, smashing into earth & evolving from there
•   Lightning strike on a puddle of ooze, igniting the lifecycle/evolutionary process.
•   Gravity as the first cause for the universe; that one by the “brilliant” Stephen Hawking (but where did the gravity come from ??)
•   An explosion of dense matter into everything we see now..often referred to & categorized as a “Singularity”.
•   And, possibly the best: “A replicator arose because a molecule capable of replicating itself arose. Once this happened, replication was an inevitable result of basic chemistry.”
Mmm, hmm…and from whence the, uhm...“replicator”?

More: http://apologeticsworkshop.wordpress.com/going-social/the-nothing/

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton

[IronDioPriest]

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton

That's a darn good quote right there.

[RickZ]

What you're saying, Pablo, is:  Whatever we don't understand about the natural world, god is responsible.  That's a cheap copout to me, and supports my argument about natural world mysteries being attributed to a god or gods.  Man's innate curiosity needs explanations and religious beliefs have provided many 'answers'.  Many wrong, of course, but many answers nonetheless.

[Libertas]

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
--G.K. Chesterton

That's a darn good quote right there.

It is.

And I think I'll have to remember this from Pablo if it ever comes up!

I sometimes still get that "Man is the measure of all things" line from humanists...

...to which I reply "WHICH man? Hugh Hefner, Mother Theresa, Stalin, Boy George?"

 

[Pablo de Fleurs]

What you're saying, Pablo, is:  Whatever we don't understand about the natural world, god is responsible.  That's a cheap copout to me, and supports my argument about natural world mysteries being attributed to a god or gods.  Man's innate curiosity needs explanations and religious beliefs have provided many 'answers'.  Many wrong, of course, but many answers nonetheless.

No Rick. You've misunderstood. I said that doing that is referred to as the "God of the gaps". It IS a cheap cop-out. There are reasons & evidences for the existence of God; logical reasons that work against atheistic answers. Once science starts attempting to explain ANYTHING that is devoid of the scientific process (observable, testable, duplicable) they leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy.

Quick example in logic:

How is this design:


...and this, not?


Explain: 200 words or less: _________________________________